Opinion on French rifles

French rifles, to me, seem to be very nicely made of excellent materials. Sometimes I question the design or even the sanity of the French General Staff, but the weapons themselves are as well-produced as anyone else's. As to shooting, I would think the MAS action should be accurate but, quite frankly, I really don't see how ANYthing can keep up with a really good Ross. As to the "superaccurate" sniping rifle, if I recall correctly, the standard is about 1.5 MOA. That is 3 times what I am getting out of an early Mark III Ross.... with iron sights.

As to the French running away and/or not fighting, I would remind people of a position in the Great War called The Pimple. Three hundred thousand Frenchmen died trying to take it. Then it was the turn of the British and when they got tired of trying to take it, the job was turned over to Julian Byng, his right-hand man Arthur Currie and the Canadian Corps. You might look it up on a map some time. We call it Vimy Ridge.
.
 
in the early 90's, I acquired a brandnew MAS 36/51 in the wrap it was $110.00. The waxed wrap was a great fire starter.

The rifle is awkward. no question... and quite heavy, but well built.

the action is far from being as smooth as a Mauser or Enfield, or even a Mosin Nagant.

really nothing special about this rifle, therefore got rid of it.

BTW you can make ammo with 6.5x55 Swedish brass, necksized in a 308 die and topped with a 308 bullet.
 
Last edited:
smellie said:
French rifles, to me, seem to be very nicely made of excellent materials. Sometimes I question the design or even the sanity of the French General Staff, but the weapons themselves are as well-produced as anyone else's. As to shooting, I would think the MAS action should be accurate but, quite frankly, I really don't see how ANYthing can keep up with a really good Ross. As to the "superaccurate" sniping rifle, if I recall correctly, the standard is about 1.5 MOA. That is 3 times what I am getting out of an early Mark III Ross.... with iron sights.

As to the French running away and/or not fighting, I would remind people of a position in the Great War called The Pimple. Three hundred thousand Frenchmen died trying to take it. Then it was the turn of the British and when they got tired of trying to take it, the job was turned over to Julian Byng, his right-hand man Arthur Currie and the Canadian Corps. You might look it up on a map some time. We call it Vimy Ridge.
.
Click to expand...

Not trying to question the courage of the French Army in WW1 but they weren't carrying MAS rifles then. I was referring to their less than stellar performance in WW2. After WW2 France was given a say and influence out of all proportion to their contribution towards victory over the Nazis. A seat on the brand new 5 member UN Security Council? Canada was more deserving than France. During the 1960's, Charles de Gaulle demanded the removal of all US military personnel from France. Secretary of State Dean Rusk replied,"Does that include those that are buried here as well?" Charlie had no reply.
 
Mike, I sort of thought your comment was tongue in cheek.
At the beginning or WWII, the French army had a similar problem that most allied countries armies had. Lack of firearms and ammunition. Many reserve units went to the front without firearms and if they did have them, they had no ammunition for them. The world was just coming out of the Great Depression and governments weren't spending money on replenishing military supplies as they ran out. France was no different from any of the rest. Many French troops died or surrendered without firing a shot. Mainly because they didn't have anything to shoot with.

I once talked to an old German soldier that was involved in the initial invasion of France. He told me that they captured thousands of men and hundreds of weapons. They just didn't have enough to go around or that they could get to in a hurry. They were completely caught off guard. Their armor that had been praised so much in WWI had been allowed to languish into disrepair and wasn't upgraded. Their air force was woefully outdated. Very similar to the rest of the allies. The Maginot Line was bypassed and became a trap for those inside.

Very similar things happened to their soldiers in WWI. The Poilu were notoriously poorly equipped, under fed and in short supply in all of their regiments. The French governments have always had an aversion to sustaining an army of any size. It was one of the main reasons they pulled out of NATO. Not the only one of course but the straw that broke the camel's back. They also had a huge problem with their office cadre. But that's another issue all together and not just limited to France.

Well maintained French equipment, is usually of decent quality. It is also usually ergonomically friendly. The Mas 49, is well balanced, accurate, in line with the 7.62x51 and light to boot. Because of it's shooter friendly design, recoil is managable for shooters of small stature. I shot one that had been converted to 7.62x51 and it was a dream compared to the M14 or FN SLR.
 
I hava a MAS 36. The bolt does not match, the forend and buttstock are loose and it has definetly seen some hard use. Despite the wear, it can easily shoot 1.5-2" groups with the original sights and my handloads using Remington 180gr bullets and Graf brass. It's a fun rifle to shoot.
 
I also have a MAS 36. Rifle is in very good condition with excellant bore. Aperture in back site is drilled off center making zeroing a problem.Haven't had it to the range in years. Shoots cast bullets rather well. Cases made from 6.5x55. I think it deserves a day out in the spring as I know I have at least a part box of cast loads in the ammo locker.
 
I gotta say, French rifles have their own style, years ago I didn't spend much time looking or thinking about them, but in the last while I have come to appreciate them a little more. Am sure this will somehow coalesce into a purchase at some point :rolleyes:
 
bearhunter said:
Mike, I sort of thought your comment was tongue in cheek.
At the beginning or WWII, the French army had a similar problem that most allied countries armies had. Lack of firearms and ammunition. Many reserve units went to the front without firearms and if they did have them, they had no ammunition for them. The world was just coming out of the Great Depression and governments weren't spending money on replenishing military supplies as they ran out. France was no different from any of the rest. Many French troops died or surrendered without firing a shot. Mainly because they didn't have anything to shoot with.

I once talked to an old German soldier that was involved in the initial invasion of France. He told me that they captured thousands of men and hundreds of weapons. They just didn't have enough to go around or that they could get to in a hurry. They were completely caught off guard. Their armor that had been praised so much in WWI had been allowed to languish into disrepair and wasn't upgraded. Their air force was woefully outdated. Very similar to the rest of the allies. The Maginot Line was bypassed and became a trap for those inside.

Very similar things happened to their soldiers in WWI. The Poilu were notoriously poorly equipped, under fed and in short supply in all of their regiments. The French governments have always had an aversion to sustaining an army of any size. It was one of the main reasons they pulled out of NATO. Not the only one of course but the straw that broke the camel's back. They also had a huge problem with their office cadre. But that's another issue all together and not just limited to France.

Well maintained French equipment, is usually of decent quality. It is also usually ergonomically friendly. The Mas 49, is well balanced, accurate, in line with the 7.62x51 and light to boot. Because of it's shooter friendly design, recoil is managable for shooters of small stature. I shot one that had been converted to 7.62x51 and it was a dream compared to the M14 or FN SLR.
Click to expand...

The French army opposed the German invasion in WW2 with 104 divisions, some very fine, some of spotty quality. Their tanks at the time were superior to the German tanks possessing better armour and much larger main guns indicated by the fact that early on the Germans used captured French tanks in their own unit. However German armour was massed to support assaults while French tanks were scattered throughout units so widely as to have no effect in battle. Most of the French soldiers were not lacking in courage but their officers for the most part were terrible and as a result morale was low and a complete collapse of resistance was the result. The French had complete command over all Allied forces during the Battle for France due to the fact that the British only fielded 13 divisions in France. As in WW1 planned counter-attacks by French and British units often went off with French units not even leaving the start line and British units attacking unsupported.
French aircraft and pilots were comparable in quality to German but the Luftwaffe's bombing of French airfields had a large effect on the outcome of the conflict in the air.
After Gamelin was sacked as CIC of Allied forces for failing to stop the German onslaught, Weygand was appointed. His first order of business on assuming command was," a good night's sleep". At that point German units were somewhat overextended and tired and a large counterattack could have cut the German spearhead off. After this missed opportunity the outcome was inevitable and Churchill was enraged at French defeatism after a visit to Allied headquarters. The Germans were not supermen and during the invasion German units were sometimes stopped cold by British and French units and even pushed back on a local scale.
The French sueing for a separate armistice was rightly seen as a betrayal of their allies, the British and quickly degenerated into a massive French collaboration with the German invaders.
So No, I don't think French military performance in the opening months of WW2 is worthy of any sort of praise despite a whitewash of events by Mssr. de Gaulle and company.
 
Alfonso said:
Hi,

What is your opinion, comments on the French MAS rifle. The one I am looking at was built in 1936. I have a great WWII military collection but have very little to no knowledge of these rifles. Thanks
Click to expand...

I'm all for Bilingual, and Multi-lingual Rifles, I collect by the Language and by the Country when it comes to Rifles!
 
albayo said:
I have a number of French rifles, three MAS rifles one 36 and two MAS36-51s. One of the MAS36-51s is chambered for 30-284.
I like the Mas rifles as they are compact, and are modular.

The only thing I really dislike about the French rifles is the lack of a safety.
Click to expand...

These were made in a period when, if you chambered a round, it was for shooting at an enemy immediately.
The French military brass didn't even issue ammo to the troops unless there was a "real and imminent possibility of battle"... made for some very disarmed and helpless soldiers when s...t hit the fan a bit too early! :eek:
That's what happens when you let crass bureaucrats have their way.
PP.
 
I have a MAS 36/51 and enjoy shooting it, using privi ammo. I have fired the 49/56 and really enjoyed it, just wish I could find one.

As for the French Army... not so much the regulars, but I have respect for the FFL in particular 2e REP. Check their exploits in Kolwezi.
 
bearhunter said:
mw, you're lucky i'm not of french ethnicity. You really need to take a good look at historical facts before making such a statement, hopefully it's tongue in cheek.

French rifles can be awkward. The mas 36s i've seen have mostly been mismatched and quite worn. Some were converted to 7.62x51. These were rumored to have been done by century arms. There is another rumor that they were a stop gap rifle built by the french and there were very few of them.

When they can be found in decent condition, they are works of art. The metalurgy is good and the finish on the really decent ones will rival any of the early mausers. The mas 36, has been condemned as being awkward by a lot of people but with a little practise, especially in the prone position that forward slanted bolt really shows some brilliance.
The good ole boys in the us maligned any rifle with rear locking lugs and two piece stocks. To much for them to get their heads around i guess. The mas36 came under a lot of criticism because of this. The bolt is massive and very rigid. All of the french bolt action rifles i have, shoot very well, with handloads and milsurp ammo. Milsurp ammo is almost impossible to find. I don't know what the french did with it all. It never has been plentiful, even way back when.

Just do the normal due diligence that you would normally do with any milsurp rifle. If it doesn't meet your standards, don't buy it. Just remember, they aren't the most common milsurp around.
Click to expand...

lol
 
Honestly, the history of the fighting units using the rifles actually matters to me. It's one of the main reasons I bought a Tavor, even if it did just start getting used.... As for the French rifles... their history, as an earlier poster did say, is one of "never fired, dropped once".

Personally, I've fired a few and even though they weren't disappointing, I'd still go straight across for a plate of Freedom Fries. Even without mayo.

;)
 
Mike Webb said:
The French army opposed the German invasion in WW2 with 104 divisions, some very fine, some of spotty quality. Their tanks at the time were superior to the German tanks possessing better armour and much larger main guns indicated by the fact that early on the Germans used captured French tanks in their own unit. However German armour was massed to support assaults while French tanks were scattered throughout units so widely as to have no effect in battle. Most of the French soldiers were not lacking in courage but their officers for the most part were terrible and as a result morale was low and a complete collapse of resistance was the result. The French had complete command over all Allied forces during the Battle for France due to the fact that the British only fielded 13 divisions in France. As in WW1 planned counter-attacks by French and British units often went off with French units not even leaving the start line and British units attacking unsupported.
French aircraft and pilots were comparable in quality to German but the Luftwaffe's bombing of French airfields had a large effect on the outcome of the conflict in the air.
After Gamelin was sacked as CIC of Allied forces for failing to stop the German onslaught, Weygand was appointed. His first order of business on assuming command was," a good night's sleep". At that point German units were somewhat overextended and tired and a large counterattack could have cut the German spearhead off. After this missed opportunity the outcome was inevitable and Churchill was enraged at French defeatism after a visit to Allied headquarters. The Germans were not supermen and during the invasion German units were sometimes stopped cold by British and French units and even pushed back on a local scale.
The French sueing for a separate armistice was rightly seen as a betrayal of their allies, the British and quickly degenerated into a massive French collaboration with the German invaders.
So No, I don't think French military performance in the opening months of WW2 is worthy of any sort of praise despite a whitewash of events by Mssr. de Gaulle and company.
Click to expand...

France bled herself white in WWI, what Napoleon hadn't already bled out of her that is. Her human capital was exhausted, as was the British. The Germans mostly sat on the defensive in WWI and didn't suffer the same casualties proportionate to their population.

The French like the Char B mounted a 75mm in the hull, but it was practically useless compared to the 75mm in the PzkwIV's turret. The French turrets were so small the tank commander had to act as gunner IIRC, unlike the German tanks.

The captured French tanks were used for second-line duties by the Germans. Later the turrets were mostly removed and used in fixed fortifications.

Her idiotic generals destroyed the French Army in WWI by their suicidal tactics. By 1917 the army was in mutiny, and it remained fragile for the rest of WWI. The soldiers felt their lives were being thrown away by stupid leaders, which they were, and so often refused to attack.

By 1940 the county was bitterly divided and demoralized. No one wanted to suffer WWI again. Most of the British steeled themselves to the task however reluctantly, most of the French did not.

A population only contains so many brave and selfless individuals. When you kill off the best, all you are left with is the rest, and they shape the society from there on out.
 
Last edited:
RRCo. said:
France bled herself white in WWI, what Napoleon hadn't already bled out of her that is. Her human capital was exhausted, as was the British. The Germans mostly sat on the defensive in WWI and didn't suffer the same casualties proportionate to their population.

The French like the Char B mounted a 75mm in the hull, but it was practically useless compared to the 75mm in the PzkwIV's turret. The French turrets were so small the tank commander had to act as gunner IIRC, unlike the German tanks.

The captured French tanks were used for second-line duties by the Germans. Later the turrets were mostly removed and used in fixed fortifications.
Click to expand...

French tank commanders were gunner, and loader as well. 1 Man turrets are bad, they also employed their armour poorly. However, even the light Hotchkiss tanks had superior armour to most german tanks, and even the 75mm on the Panzer IV was only a 24 caliber barrel, and meant for close support work. As a result, the high velocity 47mm on the SOMUA S-35 and Char B1 could really work them over.

Also, only the platoon commander had a radio, so the other members of the tank platoon used signal flags.
 
MatthewMarchand said:
French tank commanders were gunner, and loader as well. 1 Man turrets are bad, they also employed their armour poorly. However, even the light Hotchkiss tanks had superior armour to most german tanks, and even the 75mm on the Panzer IV was only a 24 caliber barrel, and meant for close support work. As a result, the high velocity 47mm on the SOMUA S-35 and Char B1 could really work them over.

Also, only the platoon commander had a radio, so the other members of the tank platoon used signal flags.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'd forgotten the Souma! And as you say, doctrines were all wrong, as they were in the British Army. The cavalry clique was still running that show, as they did all through WWI.

The Germans and the Russians listened to the British inventors of armoured warfare; hardly anyone else did.
 
*crash* said:
I have a MAS 36/51 and enjoy shooting it, using privi ammo. I have fired the 49/56 and really enjoyed it, just wish I could find one.

As for the French Army... not so much the regulars, but I have respect for the FFL in particular 2e REP. Check their exploits in Kolwezi.
Click to expand...

The former C.R.A.P. ? ;)
 
smellie said:
.... We call it Vimy Ridge.
.
Click to expand...

It always amazes me that everyone in Canada (thanks to the late Pierre Berton) knows about Vimy Ridge but no-one knows about Canada's Hundred Days. I saw a reference to it when I was a boy but had no idea what it was about until a few years ago.

Who won WWI? I know it's an exaggeration, but ....
 
@Kveldulf: there is a good case to be made for this idea. Have you seen the book? Came out about 1919 or 1920, IIRC. I have a copy around somewhere. Fascinating reading.
.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom