Landships II

28juni14 · Hero

French Berthier

Pat · Commander in Chief

That's another excellent image, many thanks for sharing it. Now where is that 1/72 model of it...?�

kieffer · Commander in Chief

an elegant and light (3kg) weapon. Actually one of my favourites.
The weapon has almost the look and feel of an airgun, that small and light.
I made a painting of it.

Pat · Commander in Chief

Nice! Someone from Lessines said about this "Ceci nest pas un fusil" I believe

kieffer · Commander in Chief

you've got me there! Vous etes un connaisseur monsieur, chapeau!

Rectalgia · Legend

Never mind Kieffer - here is the page on the carbine at http://www.armeetpassion.com/mousmle1892.html, a site I had not seen before. Through that http://armesetpassion.free.fr with many downloadable manuals and pamphlets but only a few WW1 types, including a (slow-loading) PDF of the (March 1918 - April 1921 edition) instruction manual for this one - http://manuelsarmes.free.fr/mousqueton90et92.pdf.

So, it was fitted with a saddle-ring. I didn't know that before.

-- Edited by Rectalgia on Friday 4th of February 2011 04:23:16 AM

kieffer · Commander in Chief

I think that ring comes from a cavalry practise, having the carbine hooked on a shoulder belt. The artillery type had a different attachment, the belt on the side of the butt instead underneath.
Colors varied I think, from almost black stocks to light wood. Barrels were browned.
Taking the weapon apart needs a little trick and some force. In order to get the spring out you need a coin that fits in the slot, visible at the end of the bolt. Sometimes considered as a safety catch, which it isn't, it just keeps the spring into the bolt.
And you need a piece of wood to press the spring to an extent all can be popped out.
The bolt is in two pieces, the lugs and extractor in the first part.
The weapon is considered as rather poor, and not suited at all for gaming or sport.
The Lebel 1886 had a carbine version too, but I think that one was taken into production in 1935. With a 3shot tubular magazine.

regards, Kieffer

28juni14 · Hero

.... another MG team....,� and again that little carbine.

Ironsides · Legend

Another site with this gun here

http://armesfrancaises.free.fr/mousq%20Mle%201892.html

Im not convinced the original pic is pre war looks later too me....

Cheers wink

-- Edited by Ironsides on Monday 7th of February 2011 09:49:37 AM

ALVF · Major

Hello,

I want to know why the "Mousqueton mod�le 1892" is a "rather poor" weapon?
I fired this gun in my youth (45 years ago!) and it was an accurate and good weapon but it was a "Man only" rifle because his recoil was "terrific" for young soldiers!
For sporting shooting and hunting, it was a "crude" weapon but a french hunter and "coureur de brousse" used only this gun in Tchad in Africa in 1910-1930 years and killed several HUNDREDS of elephants with "one shot" shooting.A crime against wild life but a recognition of the accuracy of the "Mousqueton"!
Yours sincerely,
Guy Fran�ois.

28juni14 · Hero

I would agree, Guy.��It is much sought after today by�collectors.
�I do recall an unflattering�story about the rifle version and those� examples manufactured for the French by Remington of the USA.� All of those examples were rejected because of poor metallurgy.

Rectalgia · Legend

ALVF wrote:

...it was an accurate and good weapon but it was a "Man only" rifle because his recoil was "terrific" for young soldiers! ...

Indeed the mousqueton/carbine version in any calibre will always have a "sharper" kick since the lighter weapon recoils at a higher velocity than does the heavier "rifle" version. Yet the 8x50R Lebel and M1892 mousqueton is a combination that is not all that bad in this regard.

The recoil velocity of the 6.6 pound mousqueton would be around 12.86 ft/sec whereas for the 8 pound rifle it would be reduced to 11.63 ft/sec - appreciably less but hardly enough difference for the mousqueton to induce incurable flinching which might otherwise explain any unhappiness with the weapon.

Spare a thought for users of the 577/450 Martini-Henry carbine with its 20.71 ft/sec recoil velocity. Even the rifle (used in the Zulu wars) produced 16.40 ft/sec. Flinching would definitely be a factor in the case of the carbine. 20.71 ft/sec is the same velocity produced by the weapon falling 6.7 feet, if one can "picture" that. Alternatively, if fired straight down it would tend to leap 6.7 feet in the air under recoil!

Another problem with carbines is that sometimes the cartridge just does not suit the reduced barrel length. That is a function of many factors, case capacity and shape, powder volume and burning rate perhaps being the main ones. The British No 5 Mk I "jungle carbine" in .303 calibre was notorious for its "wandering zero" which probably expresses this effect. No amount of "mechanical" tinkering ever seemed to cure it.

Perhaps some loads in 8mm Lebel similarly did not suit the shorter barrels? It will be interesting to know more about the alleged deficiencies of the mousqueton mod�le 1892 I think.

kieffer · Commander in Chief

something about recoil:
there are a few factors causing recoil:
initial explosion and the setting of the bullet in motion
the thrust that accelerates the bullet with the weight of the powder gas
the effect of the gas emerging the barrel.
recoil velocity can be accurately measured by a dynamometer, but it's computable too with some math.
Therefore you need:
weight of the powder charge multiplied with a factor
weight of the bullet
velocity.
With these figures, some multiplying, adding and dividing you get the recoil velocity.
Which is not the same as recoil energy, that's where it's all about.
To calculate that, you need to square the velocity, multiply that with the weight of the rifle and divide that by twice the acceleration of gravity.
Now about the alleged deficiencies of the Mousqueton...
As much as I like this weapon, gunsmiths reports are not that flattering on behalf of French military rifles from ww1 till 1940. But to be fair, accuracy is a relative thing.
Military use is much different than sporting, marksman shooting, and hunting on large or small game. Of course a good marksman will achieve fine results, proving the weapon can be accurate. But still, this weapon is considered not suited for sporting.
Well, it's after all a military carbine, intended for other use.
General opinion is that the French 8mm Lebel cartridge was far ahead of its time.
Happy with that, they just stuck too long with it. Modern and good as it was, the rimmed shell was not fitted or handy for repeating rifles, neither in tubular nor clip magazines. The tubular magazine was slow in loading, clips were peculiar(the rim).
All rifles don't stand much pressure, up to 38.000 psi. No safety, no device for scope or peep sight.
The Mousquetons ladder visor is 'rather' primitive. The two-piece bolt has a tendency to get loose unless you tighten the screw that hard near the risk of ruining the thread. Finish is not that good, like the MAS36 the bolt� has a tendency too waggle, though that might be better in relatively new rifles. The barrel is hold in the stock by two metal bands, these just hold in place by a miniscule springed snap. For an accurate shooter there's one prime factor: barrel and stock must be tight fit. And I think the carbine was too light for an 8mm cartridge. There's something about the ratio between the weight of the stock and the barrel/receiver etc. The stock has almost no weight.
Does that mean that I think it's a bad weapon? No, and probably most other military rifles of that time won't be much better. But it's not an outstanding gun I think.
But, as said before, I like the looks, as it's an elegant design.
As for mr. Guy, I have no doubts at all about his personal experience with the rifle, nor about his expertise, au contraire I just admire, and envy, both!

regards, Kieffer

-- Edited by kieffer on Tuesday 8th of February 2011 09:52:36 AM

-- Edited by kieffer on Tuesday 8th of February 2011 09:53:42 AM

Rectalgia · Legend

kieffer wrote:
...
With these figures, some multiplying, adding and dividing you get the recoil velocity.
Which is not the same as recoil energy, that's where it's all about. ...

Energy ... logically yes but it is the recoil VELOCITY that one "feels" (sharp or soft).� The expression of the equivalent distance fallen to produce that velocity is not much used in ballistics but perhaps gives a better/more easily visualised appreciation of the energy than the ft-lbs or Joules expressions can do.� That would be 788 mm for the mousqueton and 644 mm for the rifle.� Of course that is exactly the same distance the weapon would leap into the air if fired downwards without restraint - which is perhaps another way to come to grips with the recoil forces involved.

A handy calculator can be found at http://www.handloads.com/calc/recoil.asp. Converting recoil velocity (ft/s) to the equivalent drop distance (ft) is a matter of squaring the veolcity and dividing by 2g (=64, near enough).

�

kieffer · Commander in Chief

Rectalgia wrote:

�
Converting recoil velocity (ft/s) to the equivalent drop distance (ft) is a matter of squaring the veolcity and dividing by 2g (=64, near enough).

the figure doesn't always tell the truth as gas operated weapons produce a counterthrust that takes away a portion of the recoil and the design of stock and butt is a factor too.
recoil energy is: velocity squared, multiplied by the weight of the gun and divided by twice the acceleration of gravity, that is 64.4. Of course I am wrong by stating your quoted line tells the same but I dare to say it anyway! Shoot,
Kieffer
�

�

Rectalgia · Legend

kieffer wrote:
...the figure doesn't always tell the truth as gas operated weapons produce a counterthrust that takes away a portion of the recoil and the design of stock and butt is a factor too. ...

And the "powder factor" which comes into calculating the recoil impulse is sort of empirical anyway, etc. etc. None of that needs to be considered in the discussion so far.

kieffer wrote:
...recoil energy is: velocity squared, multiplied by the weight of the gun and divided by twice the acceleration of gravity, that is 64.4. Of course I am wrong by stating your quoted line tells the same but I dare to say it anyway! Shoot,

...Energy and the "equivalent drop" differ by the weight of the firearm, one is ft-lbs the other is ft and it really is that simple. My point is - which can you more easily get a feel for - 17 ft-lbs of free recoil energy or the 3 kg (6.6 lb) mousqueton falling 788 mm (2 ft 7 inches) on to your toe?

That mildly beaten-up toe is the reasonably objective measure of the recoil energy of that arm in terms you can (maybe) "feel". Certainly "17 ft-lbs" conveys no similar intrinsic understanding of the scale of recoil to me. As you say (and so does that link I posted) the subjective experience may/will be different and it may/will be different also for different people.

kieffer · Commander in Chief

withdrawn, I made some silly joke. I'll be back later with some more serious remarks, well, serious...

�

-- Edited by kieffer on Wednesday 9th of February 2011 09:16:58 AM

-- Edited by kieffer on Wednesday 9th of February 2011 09:18:47 AM