MAS 36 in 308?

[jonk]

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.

[EDG]

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.

[Hang Fire]

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.

[Hang Fire]

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.

I agree as to action strength, but have found there is no reasoning for such with some people.

[Multigunner]

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 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.
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.

[0verkill]

France had been preparing for the German invasion almost since the end of WW1. Why else would they have built the Magninot line?
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.

Did it really take that long to teach every French troop to say "I surrender" in German?

[madsenshooter]

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.

[Hang Fire]

Did it really take that long to teach every French troop to say "I surrender" in German?

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.

[felix]

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

[Hang Fire]

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

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.

[felix]

Fully understood as such, HF. Who are they really working for, eventually paid by, etc. Is it always a military objective? ... felix

[Hang Fire]

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.

[Freightman]

Think France for the USA being a nation rather than a colony, without them the revolution would have failed.

[Ed in North Texas]

France had been preparing for the German invasion almost since the end of WW1. Why else would they have built the Magninot line?
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.

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.

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