French adopt semi-auto rifle/automatic rifle weapon system pre-WW1

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date
If we presume a pre 1915 origin of a French semi-automatic rifle design one runs into the then prevailing expectation that an infantry rifle has to reach out to long distances. This demands a heavy charge and heavy bullet. The lightest OTL being the Italian 6.5x52. Thus was pretty well taken as a given requirement across the world, in the absence of large numbers of machine guns and an appreciation of this being the role of the heavy machine gun not yet being common.

The result is that a French WW1 semi-automatic rifle will have to use a full power cartridge which adds to the stresses of period metallurgy and design. This is then compounded by the 8mm Lebel being a horrible design for anything other than manual loading. A cobbled together in a hurry grossly tapered and necked down rimmed .45 Gras black powder cartridge designed to go into a modified paper cartridge Chassepot of the 1860's.

If one can get the French army to increase it's numbers of 8mm machine guns and release the rifle from the long distance task then one could have them decide that this is the time (pre war) to get a modern rimless round and download it to practical conscript rifle ranges. Not quite an 'intermediate' round as IOTL perhaps but maybe a lesser Italian size. Perhaps a 6x50. The chosen method of action is immaterial but this would be within the metallurgy of the day even if the end result would be heavier than we would make today. Also the tactical concept change would go with a shortening of the barrel to a carbine length.

However, given the actual thinking of the day, I cannot see them going for anything less than a Lebel equivalent but in semi-automatic form. The sheer numbers of rifles needed militate against a change from 8mm Lebel when you consider what they dredged up to make up the numbers IOTL. It would need a POD well before WW1 to see the numbers and manufacturing capacity and ammunition stocks allowing anything other than 8mm Lebel to be the standard.
 
Well...they didn't put their great ideas into production at the time they were necessary. The OP rifle system was replaced with a high powered 7mm weapon system that was also then not put into production in 1914:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meunier_rifle

The French basically abandoned the above development for not being long range enough.
Not exactly, they tooled up to actually produce 5,000 rifles a month in 1914 but cancelled production for the same reason the Pattern 13 was cancelled, logistics and introducing a new system that it was presumed would disrupt logistics and not make a significant impact before the war was over (which was expected to be by winter 1914). By 1916 they revisited that decision in light of the long war that had actually happened and made 2000 of a carbine version (the folly of making the original rifle long enough for firing in 2 ranks being recognized by this time) for sharpshooters, which were good, but their specialized ammunition was a logistical pain. It was probably the most advanced rifle in the world until at least the mid-1920's though- designed from the outset as a shoulder-fired semiautomatic weapon, it would have been effective had it been introduced in large numbers, even with its original antiquated long length, no night sights, and 5-round fixed magazine without the 10- or 15-round extensions.

I'm still eagerly awaiting the day when C&Rsenal finally gets their hands on one of them so that they can make an episode on it- since the weapon is allegedly partially derived from the Remington Model 8, but apparently suitable for field service, I am very interested in the mechanism of this gun, since it must be a considerable simplification and improvement in general to make a rifle as complex as the Model 8 suitable for field service. Having intensely studied the mechanism of the gun, I think I know how the general design works now, and if I'm right then I am very impressed with the clever design of the gun, but I want to see the C&Rsenal video on it so I can finally confirm how the gun works.
 

Deleted member 1487

Every major power and many minor ones, Mexico being a prime example, knew that semi- or fully-automatic rifles were the future. The problem was not the availability of designs, it was that the technology, specifically metallurgy, was not up to the challenge of delivering a reliable and affordable military rifle until the late 1920s. All the small parts, springs, operating rods, cartridge cases, etc., keep failing under the stresses of military use. This explains why machine guns, even light machine guns such as the Lewis & Madsen, were so much heavier than rifles. The extra mass of the parts could handle the stress and the design tolerances were not required to be as fine as those required for an automatic rifle. Issues with metallurgy crop up across all industries pre-WW1 with the Titanic being the most glaring example of this. The availability of reliable ammunition also restricted adoption of semi- and fully- automatic rifles in a military context, as most operating systems require ammunition of a consistent quality. Smokeless powders pre-WW1 were still relatively new and wartime production demands resulted in poor quality control for quite some time into the war. This issue still occurs from time to time, with the early M16s falling foul of this when troops were issued ammunition with a different powder load to what the rifle was designed for, and ARs use a direct impingement gas system, similar to the one you advocate for French adoption in 1905.
First of all the example Ian used about metallurgy was the flaws in US manufacturing in 1905 or so, not European in 1914 or beyond. Machine gun designs were of a heavy a design as they were due to the expected need to fire continuously thousands of rounds, something no semi-auto rifle would be expected to do.
What metallurgy problems were there with the Titanic? And along that thought process, what does passenger ship hull plate metal have to due with gun metal?
In terms of smokeless powder, they were not that new as of 1914 and once again the Europeans were largely ahead of the Americans and even the Brits, the Germans especially, as they basically invented the modern chemical industry, having introduced the first in 1866. The French introduced the first modern military powder in 1884, 40 years before WW1 started. In world war time quality can degrade, but a simple gas system should be able to handle variability in ammo pressure; the problem is that some of the designs chosen in WW1 for semi-auto rifles suffered from less than simple designs, like the long recoil systems.

Also there are enormous differences in the AR expanding gas system with a rotating bolt compared to the French (or Swedish Ljungman) DI tilting bolt system, which made the latter much cleaning and less prone to jamming:

As for the automatic rifles that entered front-line service during the war, those had the benefit of war-time experience in trench warfare conditions and were driven by a need to increase firepower to break the deadlock. As such, compromises were accepted that would not have been pre-war, including those surrounding metallurgy. The Fusil Automatique Modèle 1917 and BAR are examples of these compromises, with the reliability of the FAM 1917 being a noted concern and the BAR weighing almost, if not quite, as much as a light machine gun. Note that even Britain had adopted the Farquhar-Hill Rifle by 1918 for general service, although the war ended before any significant numbers could be produced, despite the rifle being developed by 1911. Prior to this, it had only served as an aircraft weapon.

I also agree that by the 1930s it is politics and financial consideration that prevented the wider adoption of SLRs. This is because the tech had finally caught up with design. If this can be fixed prior to 1900, along with ammunition quality, then you could indeed have an SLR adopted by a major power earlier than OTL.
The FAM 1917's issues were with vulnerability to mud, a problem with the Chauchat as well. The BAR was quite reliable however and the weight was due to having to accommodate the heavy recoil of the .30-06 in automatic. A semi-auto rifle could handle it fine, as the M1 demonstrated.

The F-H was massively redesigned repeatedly from 1908 on. It was probably good to go prior to 1918, but the British being especially conservative on the innovation front kept it back until nearly the end of the war.

Inherent conservatism and expectation that the future of small arms was in magnum rounds created problems for the adoption of an SLR pre-WW1 (not to mention some preference for complexity in their prototype SLRs) and once that shook out during WW1 by the end multiple worthwhile SLR designs were either fielded or were close to adoption on all sides.

I mean even the Italians had a design in 1900!
Gun Jesus even thinks it was viable.
https://www.forgottenweapons.com/early-semiauto-rifles/cei-rigotti/
 
Smokeless powders pre-WW1 were still relatively new and wartime production demands resulted in poor quality control for quite some time into the war.

and not even wartime.

US Smokeless didn't really come of age till from the series of powders from DuPont in 1909, and perfected with the IMR series after the War. Before DuPont's Pyro DG, that added stabilizers and graphite, high energy singlebase propellant caused a lot of erosion, was too hot burning, causing the failure of the 6mm Lee and others that used Ballistite, that was preetty much Cordite MkI
Earlier rounds, like the 30-40, used the 'W.A.' doublebase powder, bulky and lower energy(35% nitroglycerin vs 58%), but ran cooler and was stable in velocity, batch to batch

Part of the 'Trust-Busting' of 1912, DuPont had to sell off it's doublebase business, and that became Hercules Powder, and some other, and redeveloped the 'MR' powder from the Pyro formula
 

Deleted member 1487

and not even wartime.

US Smokeless didn't really come of age till from the series of powders from DuPont in 1909, and perfected with the IMR series after the War. Before DuPont's Pyro DG, that added stabilizers and graphite, high energy singlebase propellant caused a lot of erosion, was too hot burning, causing the failure of the 6mm Lee and others that used Ballistite, that was preetty much Cordite MkI
Earlier rounds, like the 30-40, used the 'W.A.' doublebase powder, bulky and lower energy(35% nitroglycerin vs 58%), but ran cooler and was stable in velocity, batch to batch

Part of the 'Trust-Busting' of 1912, DuPont had to sell off it's doublebase business, and that became Hercules Powder, and some other, and redeveloped the 'MR' powder from the Pyro formula
Be that as it may, the US army was not well funded from the 1880s-1916 because the navy was meant to the be the primary arm of defense, which did not rely heavily on small arms. The continental Europeans were well ahead in that department given the primacy of the army on the continent and far greater funding. Even in WW2 the US army noted German small arms powders were cleaner burning than their own, which made them quite a bit harder to spot.
 
What metallurgy problems were there with the Titanic? And along that thought process, what does passenger ship hull plate metal have to due with gun metal?

The steel used became brittle when cold so the plates shattered instead of tearing, making the hole far larger than it might have been if it had been made with steel alloys that were available in later years. It is an example of design being ahead of the capabilities of the materials being used. This is also a factor in weapons manufacture. The barrel and bolt may be perfectly capable of withstanding the stress of firing semi- or fully-automatic, but the fiddly-bits such as op-rods, springs, etc. were not necessarily up to it. This leads, in part, to the reliability issues many early automatic rifles experienced. And Europe had just as many issues in regards to metallurgy as the US, even Germany. The most common method to build in the reliability factor necessary was to bulk up the parts, resulting in heavy designs like the BAR, which was as heavy as some light machine guns. And yes, machine guns were intended to fire many rounds, but they were also made of heavy parts designed to survive the process of automatic fire, as was the BAR. And as for the M-1, it wasn't designed until the late 1920s, after metallurgy had caught up with small arms design.

Again, the main issue is building an automatic rifle for the military is that it must be both affordable and reliable enough to survive military service. Both of these categories are essential for military procurement contracts, especially if you plan on fielding armies consisting of massed conscripts. An expensive, complex rifle does not meet this need, despite the existence of pre-war designs.

Solve the issues with metallurgy prior to 1900 and all of the automatic rifle designs of the early 1900s become a lot more practicable.
 
As OT trivia: the WW2 allied arctic convoys found that the riveted British ships had no metallurgy problems with the cold. However, the welded US ships suffered from plate cracking adjacent to the welds due to the differential expansion and contraction of the welds and parent metal. The riveted plates never got beyond a red heat in the process so the parent metal was unaffected.
 
As OT trivia: the WW2 allied arctic convoys found that the riveted British ships had no metallurgy problems with the cold. However, the welded US ships suffered from plate cracking adjacent to the welds due to the differential expansion and contraction of the welds and parent metal. The riveted plates never got beyond a red heat in the process so the parent metal was unaffected.

That's one of the reason rivetted ships didn't suffer from cracking. Cracks will form in any steel but in a rivetted ship micro cracks form but as soon as the crack reached a rivet hole or the edge of a plate it stopped growing. In a welded ship which was stiffer cracks could grow through the weld. Liberty ships were known to break in half of they were loaded incorrectly, iirc all the main holds had to be fully loaded before heavy cargo could be loaded in the tween deck holds.
 
Top