A local shop has these, rechambered to 308 for $125. I have a feeling I know already.....but does anyone have any experience with these as a cast boolit plinker?
For some reason I have always been intrigued by these ugly things.
Printable View
A local shop has these, rechambered to 308 for $125. I have a feeling I know already.....but does anyone have any experience with these as a cast boolit plinker?
For some reason I have always been intrigued by these ugly things.
Converted by Century Arms I think. A lot of problems. Some consider them unsafe to shoot. The original 7.5 French has a considerably lower pressure.
Sent from my DROID Pro using Tapatalk 2
Buy you a Mosin, cheaper and safer, the Monkies at Century didn't get them right. Had 49/56 in 7.5 French and it was great, a friend had one in .308 it was a disaster wouldn't feed right or eject right, would pull the heads off the cases ect.
Pretty much what I thought. I'll avoid this like the plague. Seems Like Century has a lot of these kinds of issues.
Thanks for saving me $125 and a lot of headaches!
Stay with the 7.5x54, when loaded correctly it is no slouch and comparable to the .7.62x51 (.308) as to velocities, pressures and accuracy.
I can’t remember where, but have read the 7.5x54 pressure rating in the Mas 1936 is almost on par with .308. Which makes sense, as to Mas 1936 action strength, for a variant of the rifle chambered in 7.62x51 (.308) is still the standard sniper rifle for French military and police.
IIRC the French sniper rifle uses an action made on the same design as the MAS36 but these are not conversions, instead they are purpose built and to a higher quality. Sort of like the difference between an L42 rifle and the Enfield Enforcer, the Enforcer being purpose built of carefully tested components rather than rebarreled .303 WW2 actions as most L42 rifles had been.
The older bolt actions converted to 7.62 NATO were intended for use with the NATO intenational standardized 7.62 Infantry Ball cartridges, which were limited to a 48,000 CUP average working pressure, same as the U S M80 Ball cartridge.
The proof test pressures for 7.62 NATO milspec rifles was much lower than that of the modern .308 SAAMI proof testing pressures. And some long range 7.62 and .308 cartridges generate much higher pressures than the converted rifles had been expected to digest on a regular basis.
IIRC, in France sporterized (no military calibers allowed for civilians) Mas 1936 rifles have been rebarreled and chambered for some rather high pressure cartridges. Think I have read the .260 Remington was one.
A broad line of sporting rifles were built on the MAS 36 action mostly in calibers no longer considered as being military cartridges, though many of those chamberings had been military cartridges only few years earlier. 7.5 Swiss, 7X57 Mauser, and several other former military rounds and numerous dedicated sporting cartridges like the 7X54 Fournier which is the French 7.5 necked down to 7mm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hang Fire
Some of those rifles were very basic sporters, while a few I've seen images of were elegant rifles with engraving and fine carving and checkering on finely made aftermarket stocks.
I'm not sure but the company that made these may have used newly built actions for their top of the line rifles, made on the same machinery as the military rifle but with the best post WW2 steels and no production pressures to speak of, much as the Sniper rifles were made.
The action may be rebarreled for more intense cartridges, but it depends on the qualities of the individual rifle whether it holds up well over extended use with these cartridges.
The .260 Remington has a SAAMI upper limit of 60,000 PSI, they don't list a CUP equivalent.
For any and all questions/information on the Mas 1936 rifle can be found here. Forum: French Firearms Board: http://forums.gunboards.com/forumdis...Firearms-Board
Some of the members are French and they are very knowledgeable.
Re; Multigunner.
I posed some questions over on the French Board forum, and got answers.
"Was the metallurgy for the receiver steel changed over time ? ... NO
Was the early manufacture less precise as to fit than later mfg ? ... NO
Some of these weapons were chambered for the 7x54mm Fournier, 7x57mm, 8x60mm, 10.75x68mm in which the two latter calibers had integral muzzle brakes on them so they could handle exceptional pressures.
Patrick "
http://forums.gunboards.com/showthre...80#post2213080
It makes a decent shooting/hunting gun in 7.5 as the peep sight is better than most leaf sights for quick target acquisition, and the compact length makes it easy to handle in a tree stand, etc. My only negative comment is the lack of a safety.
Don't know about the 10.75 but the 8X60 is not a particularly hot cartridge (405 MPa =58,700 psi) lower max allowable pressure than the .308 , more along the lines of the 8mm-06 wildcat.Quote:
8x60mm, 10.75x68mm in which the two latter calibers had integral muzzle brakes on them so they could handle exceptional pressures.
Patrick "
Heres some load data on the 8X60 that I found posted here on CastBoolits
I expect that due to the date of the information that the pressure figures are in Copper Units of Pressure rather than PSI by tranducer.
Factory ammo is a hair hotter at 2700 FPS with circa 180 gr bullets.Quote:
From: Stoeger's Catalog and Handbook, 1939
Ballistics of German DWM Cartridges - 1935
8x60 117A - Soft-nosed round head - 226 gr - 2280 fps - 44082 psi
299A - Soft-nosed round head - 196 gr - 2444 fps - 44082 psi
354B - Soft-nosed pointed - 154 gr - 2920 fps - 51192 psi
343C - Soft-nosed flat head - 198 gr - 2454 fps - 44082 psi
473A - Strong jacket rd. head - 196 gr - 2418 fps - 45504 psi
463A - Strong jacket Torpedo - 185 gr - 2510 fps / 2589 fps - 44082 psi / 46926 psi
463K - Strong jacket Torpedo - 185 gr - 2510 fps / 2589 fps - 44082 psi / 46926 psi
463HS - Strong jacket Torpedo - 185 gr - 2510 fps / 2589 fps - 44082 psi / 46926 psi
Muzzle brakes don't have any effect on chamber pressures.
Edited to add
I could not find the max allowable pressure of the 10.75X68 but ballistics charts show this cartridge was not a barn burner, closer to a hot .45-70 load or a light starter load for the .458.
PS
While the only MAS 36 rifles, including one of the minimally sporterized versions, were a bit beat up or showed signs of a roughly done overhaul, none showed any great care in fit or finish.
The only top of the line factory sporters I've seen images of looked to have been very nicely put together.
I had thought that the French F series sniper rifles were built on surplus milspec actions, but when I memtioned this a collector of French rifles linked me up with a site that explained that the sniper rifles were not built on surplus actions, but rather new purpose built actions from a subcontractor that had supplied actions or components and still had the machinery.
Also while sporters often bear MAS markings on some components they also sometimes bear markings of a civilian manufacturer on receiver or barrel.
While metalurgy had reached a high level of expertise in the pre WW2 years, there were advances made during and post war. Simply having less in the way of production pressures can greatly improve a product compared to pressures in the run up to a War that everyone except Neville Chamberlain saw coming.
As it was not that many MAS 36 rifles were completed in time to arm French troops.
I'm not saying a MAS 36 action will break down after a few rounds of hot ammo,thats is ammo exceeding the rather modest demands of cartridges the rifle was normally chambered for, but rather that assuming that the action is suited to max pressure .308 or 7.62 Long range heavy Ball loads could result in excessive premature wear.
The complaints of mediocre to abysmal accuracy of MAS 36 rifles converted to .308 have to have a common denominator. I suspect it comes from using ammo not well suited to the action.
I'd hate to invest in a quality .308 barrel then find the loads I was using were causing set back and throwing shots wild due to action body flex.
Another PS
While looking up Paul Mauser patents I found a rifle action he had designed in the 1880's that was the spitting image of the MAS 36.
There are a number of historians who would disagree with that statement about war coming. And they would include Adolph Hitler among those who did not foresee war with France and England. Stalin's Soviet Union was a rather different story. Hitler wrote about "Drang noch Ost"in Mein Kampf, and history shows Germanic expansion to have consistently been to the East. There are lots of indicators which point to a lack of desire for a war with the West, or a desire to conquer "the world", including statements about not needing a large Navy, not having any long range aircraft in the Luftwaffe (or strategic bombers), etc. These historians believe Chamberlain blundered into war with his decision to go to war over Poland - which made no sense as Britain could not defend Poland (which, by the way, was a military dictatorship at the time) and had no interests in Eastern Europe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Multigunner;1775935[INDENT
I'm not going to write a lengthy paper on the issue. It is easy to believe war was inevitable after the war starts. As for Hitler wanting a war his armed forces were neither designed, nor prepared, for - why just chalk it up to his being a megalomaniac. A megalomaniac who had gotten everything he wanted without firing a shot up to the point of Poland. And everything he had wanted, with the exception of his home country of Austria and the Rhineland occupation (which was already German territory), was to the East. Chamberlain put backbone into the Colonels running Poland, who believed the Brits would save them when they refused to negotiate on a road and train crossing of the "Polish Corridor" (to provide access to East Prussia) and return of Danzig to Germany. The records show Hitler willing to leave the rest of the corridor to Poland, give them commercial rights and they would still have their new seaport at Gdynia. Hitler wanted the Poles to ally with him, against their historic enemy the Russians. With Chamberlain's guarantee in their pocket (for what it was worth - nothing) they refused to negotiate. So Hitler did a deal with Stalin immediately before taking Poland. Poland was consigned to a brutal occupation by the Nazis and then 50 years of Soviet rule.
None of this is to excuse Hitler from being the despot he was. I'm only taking issue with the idea that everyone but Chamberlain saw war between Germany and the West coming. But the victors usually write the history and it takes a while (if ever) before anyone questions it.
Ed
Multigunner: The complaints of mediocre to abysmal accuracy of MAS 36 rifles converted to .308 have to have a common denominator. I suspect it comes from using ammo not well suited to the action."
The .308 conversion faults can be summed up with three letters, "CIA" and they have a well earned name for Screw up's.
Hold out for an original I picked this 1953 French MAS36 in original 7.5 French off of a member on another board. I had been looking for one of these to nearly complete my WWII bolt action collection. Although not WWII production I decided to go with this example as it was in very good, unfired condition. I like the carbine length and very easy to use sights. I put 40 7.5X54 Privi rounds through her yesterday and was pleased. A solid 3" grouping at 50 yards using 10 rounds. I really want to try her with cast boolits. I will probably start out using a Lyman 308334, 188grn over 17 grns of 2400. Same load I started out with on my K31.
France had been preparing for the German invasion almost since the end of WW1. Why else would they have built the Magninot line?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed in North Texas
While most of what would later become the Allies were busy trying to avoid getting dragged into what would be WW2, they all knew it was coming. They also knew that Hitler had built up an extremely effective air force, and seen it's baptism of fire in Spain.
Not knowing is not the same as burying your head in the sand, as too many felt compelled to do.
the civilians calibers for the mas 36 were made by an gunsmith Mr FOURNIER ,but in very small
quantity perhaps less than 500 often the barel is an hammerli brand.
no mas 36 were chambred for 308 in arsenal .
the sniper rifle is the FR f1 in 7.5 and the FRf2 made in arsenal with new items
be careful many french rifles, pistols come from africa with an lot of wear .
here due the legislation many mas 36 in the 90 have the barrel change to 7/08 the range pressure is in same
level than 308.
hope i can help
Hi MG,You do mean"since the end of WW1" don,t you.Misinformation is as bad as "not knowing" isn,t it? Cheers,Mike.LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by Multigunner
Quote:
Originally Posted by dabsond
Looks to me like a standard refurb for LT storage, of which they look new. My 1945 came in the mummy wrap looking exactly the same.
Like me, you knew what he meant. If I wanted to be picky too, would point out you should have double spaced after your first sentence, oh wait.Quote:
Originally Posted by hardy
While ugly and in some ways crude, the MAS 36 has massive locking lugs (albeit in the rear) and an overly engineered overly strong receiver ring fully enclosing the case; as well as the beefiest extractor I know of. No WAY you are going to kill one with 308 or even a light magnum.
Their main thing in terms of a detriment is, no windage adjustment.
The MAS 36 had interchangable apertures with the windage zero drilled off center when correction was required.
If you look closely at one of the off center inserts it will marked with a value for elevation and french for right and left.
The front sight is soft soldered in the dovetail. No big deal to apply a little heat and drift sight in direction desired for correction.
An aside, but. If the Mas 1936 is shooting high at 100 yards, (as is all too often the case for milsurps) it is easily corrected by placing a shim between aperture leaf and slide. A shim of desired thickness will depress the aperture as required.
To better understand, set sight on lowest setting, then press down on aperture, it will go down considerably farther.
I agree as to action strength, but have found there is no reasoning for such with some people.Quote:
Originally Posted by jonk
The problem, if any is not with cartridges loaded to the original quite reasonable specifications. I warned against the present crop of .308 long range match cartridges, such as those that prompted the British NRA to insist on re-proofing of rifles converted to 7.62.Quote:
Originally Posted by jonk
With these the average working pressure is not far from the maximum allowable pressure for the .308.
Another thing that has become commonplace is the belief that the "light Magnum" is a higher than normal pressure .308. If you read the literature associated with the Light Magnum you'll see that the entire selling point is based on increased velocity at the same or even lower average working pressure as the more common .308 loads. They acheived this with blended propellents and charges compressed by specialized machinery at the factory. A "don't try this at home" sort of operation.
I'd feel more confident about the MAS36 receiver if it did not have that huge thumb cut out for clip loading, which greatly reduces the strength of the receiver, basically eliminating the rigidity of the sidewall as a factor altogether.
When ever you combine a high pressure cartridge with a rear locking action, you will have action body flex, to a greater or lesser extent. The British reduced action body flex of the No.4 compared to the No.1 by designing the No.4 action body with a high and thick left hand receiver wall. The No.4 action body also has far less metal removed to accomodate the thumb during charging of the magazine.
They made these changes for very good reasons.
I would not mind having an MAS36 properly converted to .308, but would avoid the higher pressure loads that I mentioned. Those loads can be hard on any rifle, and certainly would be hard on a rifle not designed for those pressure ranges.
Did it really take that long to teach every French troop to say "I surrender" in German?Quote:
Originally Posted by Multigunner
The original 7.5 is larger at the head than .308. The difference is about the same as that of the 7.7 Japanese vs 30-06 head size. Hatcher warned that the 7.7 to 30-06 conversion wasn't too safe in the event of a failed casehead. It could be Century is setting the barrels back before rechambering to eliminate this, they'd have to set it back because the body is longer on the 7.5 and the .308 wouldn't properly headspace. If they aren't setting them back, the jump a bullet would have to make before getting into the throat would be increased as the 7.5x54 is a longer cartridge. This could be the reason for the lack of accuracy in the .308 converted rifles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 0verkill
Same old tired French jokes only displays one’s ignorance. Over 100,000 dead and 200,000 wounded French soldiers in the May, 10th-June, 17th battle for France. Hardly sounds like cowards to me
In WW1, those Germans you refer to, crapped their pants and ran screaming in fear when French soldiers with bayonets got into their trenches and decimated them. The French were highly trained with and renown for their use of the bayonet.
A little study of French military history will show the French Soldiers were anything but cowards. The ordinary poilu in the great war was brave to a fault.
In Mexico stands a monument built by the Mexicans in tribute to the bravery of the French at the Battle of Camaron. Facing 2,000 Mexican troops, there were 62 French soldiers and 3 officers. With most dead, no ammunition and excepting for two, the remainder died fighting to the end in a bayonet charge. Every year at Camaron, the Mexicans hold a ceremony in honor of the brave men who died there.
IIRC, there were 8,500 Americans, and 10,800 French soldiers at the battle of Yorktown, and it was the offshore French naval fleet which had defeated the British fleet preventing English reinforcements for Cornwallis.
Isn't the French Foreign Legion composed of the likes of the "Dirty Dozen", each looking for some kind of "protection" from an undisclosed something/group/country? ... felix
Quote:
Originally Posted by felix
Some, but not all, French “Foreign” Legion troops of the ranks as the name implies, are foreign, some are avoiding certain things, others are not. About 60% of its members are foreign volunteers who, upon joining, swear an oath of allegiance to the legion, but not to France
All FFL officers are French, and they alone decide what course of action will be taken at any given time.
Fully understood as such, HF. Who are they really working for, eventually paid by, etc. Is it always a military objective? ... felix
IMO, the best way to describe the FFL is, they are expendable. Always put into action in colonial g_d forsaken places &c, if they get wiped out, C'est la vie.
It is the French government who is pays the FFL and dictates where they will go to do what. The FFL has been fighting in Afghanistan for the past few years.
Think France for the USA being a nation rather than a colony, without them the revolution would have failed.
That is the standard interpretation of history since May, 1945. Some historians have questioned the interpretation, bringing facts (which probably were not available for some period of time after the war) forward which tend to indicate the standard interpretation might not be correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Multigunner
As for France, yes they were very much concerned with Germany - with reason. They insisted, at the Versailles conference, on taking Alsace-Lorraine back (lost in the Franco-Prussian War) and occupying the Rhineland for a period of 30 years. They viewed the Rhineland occupation as a buffer zone, militarized by their troops so if fighting broke out, it would be in Germany. The Brits convinced the French to pull their troops from the Rhineland early. It is possible that the Brits were suffering from guilt after continuing the blockade of Germany (i.e. preventing primarily food from entering Germany), causing significant starvation, for over a year after the Armistice. English senior officers requested lifting the blockade because the sight of children dead from starvation was bad for British occupation troop morale.
Anyway, one good compilation of these alternate views of events (footnoted, etc.) is "Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War", Buchanan.
OH, and the book also covers WW I and the Treaty of Versailles, somewhat indispensable to understanding later events. Also not the standard high school history content for that (or even my undergrad European Hist classes).
Ed