What-if : Chauchat converted to 7,62x54R

[Solsys]

Recently I have been thinking how Finland, back in the 30's, could have prepared better for the Winter War. The exercise is not to do it in hindsight, but with the logic of the times.

In this context, I decided to create this post and see what you fellows think about it.

1.Links
2.General idea
3.Technical considerations

1. Links
Some links about the subject, for those interested.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chauchat

Chauchat and Finland (5000 weapons & 10 million 8mm rounds aquired in haste during Winter War, too late to see action)
http://www.jaegerplatoon.net/LMG2.htm


Merits and defects of the weapon
http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=76137

Schematics of how the weapon works
http://armesfrancaises.free.fr/FM Chauchat.html


2. General idea

in 1939, when Winter War started, the Finnish army did not have enough of everything. Regarding LMGs, they developped their own model (7,62 mm Lahti-Saloranta M/26 ), but it took time, it was expensive and therefore limited numbers could be bought. It also had some shortcomings.

How then to compensate for the great lack of LMGs in this context ? Finns developped the submachinegun as a tactical replacement, which makes sense given the finnish terrain (dense woods). Still, it wasn't an equivalent.

In the late 20's and in the 30's, Chauchat LMGs could have been purchased at very low prices (perhaps even at scrap value) and would have filled the LMG gap. (In hindsight : they would aquire 5,000 of them eventually anyway...)

To streamline logistics, it would have needed to be converted to the finnish standard ammunition of the time : 7,62x54R. See more on this below.

I consider the Chauchat to have been a somewhat acceptable weapon at the time. It had been extensively used in WW1 and performed acceptably (if not well) outside of trenches. Although more of an automatic rifle than a LMG, it would have bridged the gap.


3.Technical considerations

The .30-06 version of the Chauchat had been very bad, due to shoddy manufacturing and wrong specifications.

This could have been a good study for finnish engineers on what not to do. I guess these american weapons would also have been very cheap to get for Finns. As a side note, I wonder if the best time of purchase would have been prior to the 1929 crisis or after.

Here is a question I have : have weapons in .30-06 been converted to 7,62x54R before ? I guess the barrel would have to be reamed (from .308 to .311) and the bottom of the barrel (on the chamber side) shortened.

This would have been a very economical way to get the project started.

For french weapons, the 16-round magazines would have to be dismanteld (to retrieve the spring) and smelted into new ones. New magazines wouldn't have any of these silly side holes and would be sturdier (flimsy magazines were a majot cause of the Chauchat's malfunctions)
Same for the barrel, they would have to be switched with new ones in 7,62x54R and smelted.

How does this sound to you from a technical perspective ?

 

[ball3006]

The Chauchat was a major POS. The gun was a complete failure in the Great War. Why would someone use it 20 years later in weather conditions much worse than what was experienced in France? The Finns are smarter than that.....chris3

 

[Solsys]

Well they may have been smarter, nevertheless they did take 5,000 of them, with 10 million rounds of 8x50R Lebel with it, and say "thank you" on top of that. Finland ended up taking everything it could get.

My take is the following : if it's the way it is going to end, you might as well anticipate and make the best of it, like :
- converting it to your standard ammo
- having large numbers of it before the war starts, and not when it's nearly over
- having crews trained for it, and know how to use it for the best effect.

 

[Gunnerboy]

its not a bad idea, but id rather kill a commie and take his machine gun than risk my life useing an expensive paper weight.

 

[4v50 Gary]

R&D will be required to adapt the ChauChat to a different caliber. The U.S. messed it up. Could Finland afford the R&D and resources to make the ChauChat a reliable weapon? The Finns would be better off starting with the Lewis gun. At least that worked in the trench and in the air.

 

[JFrame]

I recall reading an NRA article about the Chauchat. Okay -- I would have preferred a different machine gun as a front-line soldier -- but having said that, the MG in 8mm configuration evidently acquitted itself reasonably well relative to the technology of the time (in spite of its silly failings, notably the exposed magazine).

It seems that, as noted in the OP, it was when the U.S. military pressured the French government to come out with a version in .30-06 (a chambering for which the design may have been ill-suited to begin with) that the real horror stories about the MG began.


.

 

[hso]

Solsys,

My concern would be that the problems it experienced in the muddy trenches would have been duplicated with the snow and ice of the Winter/Continuation wars.

The Lewis or Bergman MB15 might have been more reliable and would have been available as WWI surplus.

 

[Solsys]

its not a bad idea, but id rather kill a commie and take his machine gun than risk my life useing an expensive paper weight.

Yes, indeed it was how the Finns operated with most of the equipmeny they didn't like. The M/27 Degtjarev became their "de facto" standard LMG in WW2.

It just helps to start with more weapons to kill commies.

Thank you all for your replies.

One question still open is : how feasible would it be to re-chamber and ream a .30-06 barrel to a 7,62x54R caliber ?

I know a lot of Mosin-Nagant have had the reverse operation, but how about this one ? Any ideas ?

 

[Tommygunn]

The Chauchat was a major POS. The gun was a complete failure in the Great War. Why would someone use it 20 years later in weather conditions much worse than what was experienced in France? The Finns are smarter than that.....chris3

This has been what I understood as well.
But, I did hear someone managed to convert one into a pretty acceptable coffee grinder during WW1.
I will leave it to others to determine how valuable a Chauchat coffee grinder was in winning WW1.......

 

[Ian]

There even were Lewis guns made in 7.62x54R for Russia. Not many, but the R&D was already done. The Madsen would have also been an option - I'm not sure if they were made in 54R, but there were in plenty of other big rimmed cartridges, so it shouldn't be too had to convert to 54R.

Either of those would have been a lot better option than a Chauchat.

 

[Shadow 7D]

WHY
the SO-SO
the Sho-Shat

few other guns have as many BAD names,
I talked to historians and even a WWI era (he joined/stayed in the interwar era) veteran (and yes that's showing my age) when I was on museum detail.

To say that it was less than well received, is putting it mildly, too many died from a weapon that failed to do what it should.

 

[Gunnerboy]

to rechamber from 30-06 to 7.62x54r would require taking the barrel off cutting it down a little and then rechambering in order to compensate for the extra lenth the 06 has and you could shoot the .311 out of a .308 bore, ruger allowed it in there mini 30s and also some finn nagants were .308 bore and they shot .311 bullets so the rechambering is possible ive seen 308 versions of mosin nagants it would just be a pain to do.

 

[TenMillimaster]

The finn's produced their own ammunition for their nagants, and designated it the 7.62x53r. It was of bullet diameter .309. Finnish soldiers were apparently instructed to fire domestic ammunition out of their Mosins whenever possible, but that the larger russian x54R was acceptable.
Since .30 Caliber is of .308, I believe that for a .30 caliber chauchat to be converted for finnish use, only a rechamber would be necessary. Pressures would be safe(r) since .30 cal is higher pressure than x54r and x53r.

 

[devildog66]

The Marines had to give up their Lewis MG for the Chauchat; what a racket the Frogs ran on that one! Given that there were many MG types available such as the Lewis or one of the Maxim types I think the Chauchat would have proven itself as another disaster for another war.

 

[Shadow 7D]

They (army ordinance)
considered the US weapons so superior to anything the Continentals had (esp the Browning Automatic Rifle) they chose that POS to keep the technical edge over the Central Powers

 

[Solsys]

to rechamber from 30-06 to 7.62x54r would require taking the barrel off cutting it down a little and then rechambering in order to compensate for the extra lenth the 06 has and you could shoot the .311 out of a .308 bore, ruger allowed it in there mini 30s and also some finn nagants were .308 bore and they shot .311 bullets so the rechambering is possible ive seen 308 versions of mosin nagants it would just be a pain to do.

Thank you Gunnerboy and TenMillimaster for your precise answers ! That was exactly what I wanted to know. I didn't know about the Finnish ammunition specifications, I'll have to take a look on why they decided to do this.

Your answers got me thinking for a while, because there was something amiss, and now I found it :

If you look at these schematics :

(EDIT : I just read the rules about reposting images - I'll provide the link instead)
http://armesfrancaises.free.fr/FM chauchat-dessin long recul1-WEB.jpg

you can see that the exhaust gasses have to bounce back in order to begin the whole cycle. A shorter barrel, even by a few millimeters (in the case of .30-06 to 7,62x54R, it amounts to 9mm !), could mean a degraded cycling or perhaps worse.

So a likely outcome would be that the barrel would either have to be prolonged (an inacceptable cost for the viability of the project) or smelted and replaced by a new one to specification.

Interesting aspect. I knew it would be interesting to ask theses questions here !

 

[Kaeto]

Another problem with the Chauchat was that numerous parts would not fit from one weapon to another. And then of course there was the action having moving parts within fractions of an inch of the users face.

 

[Solsys]

Sorry to resurrect this thread, it prevents me from explaining everything again from the start.

The question I have is : what reparations can a nation undertake to the weapons it has in its possession without having a licence for that weapon ?

I imagine that, for instance with Lewis LMG, Finland could have manufactured replacement barrels - or would it already require a licence for that ?

What if a part in the mechanism is known to be frail and has to be replaced frequently : does a country still need a licence to do so ?

Again, thank you in advance for any information on that aspect.

 

[mortablunt]

The Chauchat would probably have been put to better use as trench stakes.

 

[desidog]

You should look at the history of the 1903 - it runs on a parallel course.

The 1903's action design was ripped off from the Mauser 98, to the extent that it was blatant patent infringement. However, since Mauser was a German company, and the US entered the War...

Another note on the information posted above; the rims of the 30'06 and the x54R are different diameters, so a new bolt-face would be required as well, along with new extractor, ejector, etc.

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

W.H.B. Smith compared the Chauchat to the Sten, he said the Chauchat manufacturer had no experience manufacturing firearms and he thought it had been rushed into production too quickly. Also it seems to be that it was John Browning and then John Garand who solved the problems in using a full power rifle cartridge in a fairly lightweight-below 20 pounds-firearm. The Tokarev M1938 and M1940 did not hold up that well in service. Even the Brits weren't that enthused about the Sten-the "Stench Gun" or "Plumber's Special" they called it.

 

[AethelstanAegen]

I think the real point is, why would they bother? As other have mentioned the Chauchat was a POS. The reason they acquired said weapons is so that they had something better than a rock to throw at the Soviets. Any redesign of the Chauchat to accept 7.62x54r would have taken away factory space and materials from production of Finnish produced LMGs all worlds better than the Chauchat.

As a theoretical exercise, I'm sure it could be done but the Finns clearly didn't have the time and materials to waste polishing a turd.