Model 1907/15 Berthier: The WW1 Standard Infantry Rifle
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 23 июл 2017
- Get the shirt here: shop.bbtv.com/collections/for...
/ forgottenweapons
When World War One broke out in 1914, France mobilized millions of men into military service - and it became abundantly clear that a lot of new rifles would need to be manufactured. The 1886 Lebel was no longer in production and was a slow rifle to make in any case - but the 1907 Colonial Berthier was being produced already, and was a more efficient design as well. By late 1914, plans were underway to drastically increase Berthier rifle production.
A few changes were made to the 1907 pattern, mainly changing the front end to accept the standard 1886 Lebel bayonet ("Rosalie"). After the first 80,000 had been made, the bolt handle was also changed from the bent carbine style to a heavier duty straight type. With these changes made, the Modele 07/15 was ready for mass adoption by the infantry, where it would serve side by side with the Lebel.
The primary manufacturer of 07/15 rifles was the St. Etienne arsenal, which build between 1.0 and 1.2 million of them by the spring of 1917. The Chatellerault arsenal produced another 436,000, and the Delauney Belleville automobile factory retooled its workshops to make rifles, producing another 170,000 of them. The Remington company in the US also took a contract to make 250,000 Berthier rifles, but was unable to meet the terms of the contract. Remington had taken on more wartime production work than it could handle, and failed to meet French quality and scheduling requirements. In August of 1916 that contract was cancelled, with just 9,440 rifles sent to France for use. The remaining 5,000-10,000 that had been made by Remington were sold on the commercial market in the US.
By 1916, it was clear that the 3-round capacity of the Berthier was a very real disadvantage (both tactically and psychologically) to the German Mauser rifles, and an upgrade program was put underway. This would ultimately become the 1916 pattern and would go into production in 1917.
"they were focusing on production of carbines, so their production of long guns was shorter."
That's some classic stuff there.
Ian, you can say it, Remington had issues with everything being metric.
one poor intern engineer with a french-english dictionary, a fistful of slide rules, and a gallon of coffee
The issue of metric/imperial industrial production was a big thing about the British FAL production, I'm not making fun of it, just saying we all know that's the reason the French Army insisted on getting compatible rifles and why Remington had issues with making compatible rifles.
That's also a good argument against staying with Imperial measurements in heavy industries.
The Russians had the same issue when they copied the B-29 Superfortress, and they couldn't make 1/4" aluminum for the exterior fuselage.
Dumbfuckistan at it again
Murika sill habin trouble wid metric .nuf problem wid feels.
Many comments on the perceived inappropriate length of WWI rifles for trench warfare. Well, first of all, remember the war started with conventional offensives. It is only when offensives were stopped that the armies started to dig in. A situation that was always considered temporary, so much so that on the French side, soldiers were discouraged to equip and arrange their tranches too much, since conventional warfare was supposed to resume as soon as the front would be broken, and they had to keep that in mind (much less so on the German side). Now, long rifles were the military standard of the time, and for good reasons. Long barrels meant for maximum muzzle velocity and range, a feature their long distance rear sight settings were here to make use of. The concept was long distance volley fire, which would provide suppressive fire to hinder enemy manoeuvre, just about the same way we now use heavy machine guns.
The worst mistake a historian can make is to look at the past with the eyes of the present. No, these guys were not silly. They just had no idea they would get stuck in trench warfare for so long.
The Swiss Gunsmith They were silly because they considered it to be temporary, in some cases years and millions of lives later. Oh, the last hundred offensives have done nothing? I'm sure the next one will work! That is ridiculous and nonsensical, one might even say insane considering that you're paying for every defeat in the lives of people, if nothing else destroying the military and economic might of your nation. They were silly because they were in many cases playing at war based on ideals rather than looking at what the statistics bear out. Long distance marksmanship as well as volley sights were definitely used and occasionally useful, but those do not preclude a shorter standard weapon which is going to be more useful in mobile warfare anyway. It's not looking at it with modern eyes, it's looking at it with some modicum of sense. Ffs.
Before the Great War, and since you could say you had "rifles" -- call it 1860 to 1915 (because the Great War didn't _start_ with a continuous front!) 90% of casualties are caused by rifle fire. Immense effort goes into optimizing rifles for open-field war of maneuver[1] and there you're doing two things. You're in a range contest with your infantry opposition (if your troops are better trained and get hits at 500 metres and the other fellow needs to be at 300 metres, you win; see "Boer War", a very recent influence when the Great War breaks out) and you must be able to stand off cavalry, which is tricky, because being in a dense formation is _not_ what you want against other infantry. The long rifle and the long bayonet worked in Napoleonic times and keep working in all the wars between then and the now of 1915; you _might_ be able to do it with volume of fire now that you've got repeating rifles generally issued but let's not take any rash chances. And when it comes to that range contest with the opposing infantry, long barrels are more range which is just what you want.
Then the Great War happens and there's two new things on the earth. Thing one -- 10% mobilization backed by industrial economies that can keep those armies in the field. There's a continuous front from Switzerland to the sea. You can't flank; no war of maneuver. There's never been an extensive continuous front before and nobody has the least idea how to assault layers of trenches with massive depth and effectively infinite flanks; the experience is with sieges, where you're fighting whatever can be crammed into a city, not an entire army group with intact rail transport in its rear. It breaks three entire centuries of tactics since Gustavus Adolphus invented combined arms with horse, guns, and foot as complementary branches of a fielded military force. It takes several years to figure out what to do even on the part of those who were being smart about it. That's partially because of thing two; artillery with effective explosive fillers. All of a sudden, a massive proportion of casualties are due to artillery, not rifles. Fully-mobilized industrial economies can make a astonishing amount of artillery and artillery ammunition and it's a sudden awkward ramp from the initial, 76mm is our standard gun, field force to "we have 12" naval guns serving as corps-level artillery because we're in a range contest here, too". Anything you can see, the guns can grind up, and you've got observation balloons and aircraft so the guns can see a long way. This is completely new in the world. Nobody had really been expecting it. (Even the technophile navies were just starting to shift to director fire control, for example.)
So the two things you know in 1916 are that one, rifles aren't a decisive arm[3] right now, and two, you have no real idea what might be effective. You're in a condition of logistical overstrain trying to make enough rolling stock, aircraft engines, artillery barrels, artillery shells, and small arms cartridges because you never expected the war to last this long -- it couldn't, Imperial Germany is cut off from their sources of nitrates, they should be out of ammo and farm fertilizers by now! [2] -- and you didn't expect just how much ammo machine guns were going to require, either. Getting inventive with rifles under those circumstances is not to be expected; the problem is to make sure you have enough in the field, because you sure didn't expected sustained 10% mobilization, either. (which means you've got food issues, clothing issues, and general economic problems and threatened social collapse; it's not far off to point out that the Great War destroyed the system of government of every major combatant.)
[1] post-Boer war P14/Service Rifle No. 3 (Ian has a video!) doesn't quite make it into British service; the improved cartridges don't quite make it into French service, either.
[2] Haeber-Tropsch artificial nitrogen fixation, instead of getting nitrates by mining bird guano. Went from lab toy to massive production very, very fast. Didn't keep the RN blockade from working eventually, but it sure did keep anybody from being home by Christmas.
[3] rifles have never been a decisive arm since, either.
Graydon Saunders And generally you are correct with a few modifying factors. A few things: longer barrels don't mean a greater range using smokeless powder, and as shown with modern firearms actually create a number of problems with accuracy at greater ranges. A greater maximum effective range, but full size rifle cartridges already have ranges beyond even the extremely optimistic iron sights of the time (those designed for direct fire, as with volley fire you just need it to be within lethal range not effective range).
Range beyond a few hundred meters only matters for rifles when they aren't outranged by artillery anyway, so I'd say aside from specialists, short carbines would be fine. The smart thing with rifles was to just produce as many of the easiest to make carbines you have and drop the long rifles as standard where possible, as well as to refocus production like seemingly the french did. Save money and time, make a more convenient gun. Because the long rifles are inappropriate as a standard issue longarm if you aren't engaging in long distance rifle duels (a silly thing to do in the first place if there is artillery avaliable; even at the time just slap volley sights on shorter rifles and be done with it by being able to treat every unit as light artillery, then don't bother). Cavalry? Just shoot them ffs.
Small arms haven't been a decisive arm since due to the proliferation of decent armament and a lack of many major changes since (can't think of any examples of pure bolt action armies going up against those with assault rifles), as well as a lack of similar wars because why put men in danger when you can just shell them or drop a bomb especially in what are mostly bush wars or wars of production? But if someone comes out with something truly revolutionary, there's a possibility.
A lot of this seems to be the confluence of established military tradition as well as the assumptions therein, and the reality of the time which disagreed with it. But that is the entire nature of that war, a war of misconceptions and entrenched thought as well as men. Most who could do something seemed to assume that nothing could change and that the way they saw the world was correct; when confronted, they were slow to adapt and therefore afterwards the changes destroyed them. They did not look to what was happening as well as the statistics and draw conclusions off of it, they looked at what they thought was going on and drew circular conclusions off of that. It's not that they didn't look forward, but when the time came they refused reality. "They didn't expect" or "couldn't adapt" is the mainstay of your comment, and that's the whole point. They were not flexible, and even years after it was proven conclusively to not work out were actively destroying their countries by killing millions of their countrymen. The rifles are just one example of it. That is idiocy.
Excellent overview of a vast bubject. Thank you.
farmerboy916 You can't expect anybody in 1916 to know what we know now, though. (No computing machinery! Rather limited mechanical calculators. Statistics is very, very slow and painful when you're tabulating things by hand. Not enough high speed anything, no ability to do the fluid dynamics math; look at meplat sometime, it was "well, hell, that matters" and a massive exercise in empiricism.) And they quite sincerely associated longer barrels with more range because they knew you got more muzzle velocity from a longer barrel. (There was a big and ongoing effort to make longer, in calibers, artillery tubes for just that reason.) The mental-model switch to recognizing that you are after effective range instead of maximum range still hasn't entirely happened today. At the time? _Three hundred years_ of horse, guns, and foot. Two whole generations of march tables and marksmanship as *the* way to win. Just a decade previously, it had taken a ridiculous investment of money and manpower for the British Empire to beat the Boers in south Africa because the Boers had had better effective rifle range. Ten years later, quite suddenly, no. Not like that.
You can't just stop; the other side's objectives include destroying you, at least politically. (Imperial Germany's war aims were territorial, not political. The customs of the time made it very hard to recover territory the other side was standing on. From the French perspective, this has to be fought to a decision or they don't get important parts of their country back; there might not be a France afterward.) You quite literally don't know what to do, or how to do it. And whatever you try, you can't lose.
Both individual people and social organizations have a limited ability to change. (For a really easy example, watch the generational and class components of how smartphones are viewed socially today.)
And _everything_ had to change, because while the mythology of the Western Front is one of pointless stalemate, what actually happened was a whole bunch of almost losing. It came close to a battlefield decision several times, in both directions, and it was obvious by 1915 that it was a fight for survival. (for "being on the losing side was expected to result in complete destruction of the losing political system" values of survival, not "general nuclear exchange" values of survival.) It was decided by logistics and social collapse in the end, but little tiny amounts either way could have led to a decisive battlefield result. (You can argue that the Imperial German social collapse was a result of their battlefield defeats, rather than a cause, too. It was all interconnected.) Everyone was aware of "we almost lost", aware of the degree of social strain, and aware that they were destroying their cultural norms to not lose in ways they didn't understand. (Women's suffrage comes in post-Great War in large part because you can't keep making "weaker sex" arguments after women have run the picric acid shell filling production lines. It's just not possible without a complete disdain for facts.) The social machinery and literal physical machinery aren't there; someone has to build it, right now, without be sure what works. (Hitler's War avoids shell shortages -- a massive ongoing concern all through the Great War -- by having having automated factories ready to go. The Great War solution involved teaching a whole bunch of women how to use a lathe. The capacity for the automation was built later, in response; it doesn't exist in 1916.)
So, sure, is it more optimal to have a shorter, lighter, handier long arm during the Great War? Absolutely. Is this important enough to get to the top of the priority production queue when you never expected to need gas masks? No. Not even close. You're going to keep making what you were making because that's the cheapest way to get enough rifles and you suddenly need all this other unexpected stuff. (One of the "unexpected stuff" things is a completely different banking system, and thus economy. Can't run a war of sustained national mobilization on the gold standard...) This is all stuff that never happened to the US, as well; the United States is pretty much unique out of "First World" countries in not having been defined as a modern country by what happened to it during the Great War. It can make it difficult to apply an American perspective.
loving this series of french rifles, thank you gun jesus
Exophis Praise the Lord!
MrPete8680 ...Cordite Be Thy Name! 💥🔫
gun jesus lmao
"Remington had to price them pretty cheap"... some things never change.
The Bertier 1892 gives me an aneurysm in verdun because of the clip size.
You know so much about french standard infantry rifles, you should write a book
Good news!
OUTSTANDING Ian...many if us have little understanding of these older
french rifles outside of pictures and a few poorly written articles so this
series is GREATLY appreciated, I did not know the Berthier started as
a carbine for example....
Hey Ian, if the French army archives are like the navy archives, it's not sure they are classified any more, maybe they are just not made public so maybe you have to physically go to the archives to get a peak in them. A friend of mine mentioned how for the naval archives you had to set a date to look into old documents, maybe you could ask themif that is the case (as I doubt that they'd put that kind of data under unlimited secrecy)
So... Berthier vs Lebel shoot off on Inrange??
I think the berthier was more accurate
Ian would have to perform a miracle , turning 30-06 into 8 m.m. Lebel... With a wave of his hand...
@@achillebelanger989 Not true... PPU makes to spec new production 8mm Lebel ammo for around $1 a shot or less.
@@GrySgtBubba also balle N surplus is still occasionally available
@@anthonyhayes1267 not useful in older berthiers though
Great vid Ian. I've been waiting on some solid info on this RAC 1907-15 I've had on the wall. I appreciate the video. Ordered my 'Only Dropped Once' T yesterday.
I watched an old episode of the 1960's TV series "Combat!" In the episode there was a boy about 12 or 13 who wanted to fight the "Bosch" because his parents had been killed. Lo and behold, he had a Berthier!!! It was either one of these or one of the Post-War 7.5 models because it lacked the magazine extension of the M-16 pattern. I suspect the later but how cool was that. In the end the lad did get to use his Berthier, breaking his heart as war often does. It was a good episode. The GI's didn't want him around but he kept popping up and he knew the area very well and in the end, was part of the climactic battle with his Berthier.
Hello Ian! Congratulations for the channel. It's a very impresing archive. I was looking for Labelle rifle videos on your channel since you are a French rifle appassionate, but didn't find any. Hope you will do it. Wish you the best!
Wish I were getting paid before the 28th, would have liked to get one of those shirts.
Thanks for this series. I really have been enjoying the ones you have been doing on various rifles. One on Lee's rifles or the Mauser brother's rifles would be fun too.
Very informative.
I really appreciate Ian's world building of the time. It really helps with context. Gun Jesus knows!
Awesome chanel! I will stay here for longer
Cool video as usual and an awesome shirt.keep up the good work,from a french subscriber.peace
Recently ran into a Remington contract version for the first time at a local gun store. Knew Ian would have a video on it, and it helped explain why it was in terrific shape.
Gun Jesus has blessed us with another "Saint Berthier" video.
MrPete8680 Its beginning to be a curse. No offence Ian!
Great video. Can't wait for the M-16 episode.
Note: A lot of these rifles went to Hollywood after the War for World War 1 and French foreign legion movies. John Wayne held one and Gary Cooper bought an M- 16 for his personal deer gun. See old photo of his gun rack.
Hi everybody .. Another perfect video from Ian. I'm using a Berthier 07/15 at the range, and it's a gun i appreciate very much (perhaps because i'm french ..)
Yes .. The trigger is very "military style", the gun is heavy, but the sight is very comfortable.
When you feed the clip with ammo, be careful not to let the rims overlap !! (Well explain by Ian in his video)
In France, the Lebel is now a collectible object (you just had to be 18 years old .. no paper.. no records)
Unfortunately, the Berthier is classified as hunting rifle !! ( too modern for the reloading !! French administration !! )
( .. And don't forget that few years ago, these rifles were considered as war weapons in France !! I never see a terrorist with such a "Fishing Rod" ..)
Note: the 8mm "Lebel" cartridge as the same rim than the Gras cartridge.. So.. Some Gras 1874 were converted in 8mm "Lebel" (signle shot)
the same for the Remington Rolling block rifle (with an ejector in place of the extractor .. And it works well: tested by me and a friend)
Just a point: Continsouza made Berthiers too (private factory in France).
And .. Happy new year to everyone !!
Thanks Ian.
Love the vids, Ian. Will you be doing a separate video on the various French bayonets from this era?
So good watching again
Le Jésus des Flingues frappe à nouveau !
In response to the interrupter explanation, the rim of the 8mm Lebel cartridge was also tapered which helped to prevent rim lock. So it was actually triple tapered in design that would help with rim lock.
That is a beautiful rifle.
Don't know if FW is going to cover this, there is important ammunition info for these rifles, a mistake I nearly made using the wrong ammunition.
Extract en.wikipedia.org
Balle D am ammunition was in near-universal service during World War I (1914-1918) in all Lebel caliber weapons. Somewhat later, Balle D am ammunition was followed in 1932 by "Balle N" ammunition which featured a lead-cored, cupro-nickel-over-steel-jacketed, spitzer boat-tail bullet weighing 15.0 g (232 grains). It was held into a case which had a slightly larger neck diameter than the older Balle D am ammunition. Balle N was heavier than Balle D am and had been designed to improve the long-range performance of the Hotchkiss machine gun. Converting most Lebel caliber rifles and carbines to the "N" ammunition was carried out during the 1930s. "Balle T" tracer and "Balle P" armor-piercing rounds were also produced, along with blank and reduced charge ammunition.
Balle N ammo should never be fired from any Lebel or Berthier rifle unless it has had the chamber reamed to accept the larger neck of the N cartridge. Such weapons are stamped N on top of the barrel, just in front of the receiver and behind the rear sight. Balle N ammo is identifiable by the fact that the bullet, while pointed like the solid brass Balle D, is lead-cored and jacketed with soft steel.
I found one of these near a former Luftwaffe nightfighter airfield. very little of the rifle remains (the barell,chamber and bolt are the last solid items) It is curious that the example I found still held the 3 shot enbloc clip.
Can you do a video on that rifle you found?
Ian, I love the Berthiers. I would love to start getting ahold of some. What would be my best bet on a reference book for these? Thanks - Jacob S.
Nice shirt. Artois is well worth a visit, the wine is one of a kind.
My grandpa, born around 1909, had a Remington Berthier. He said he took 40 deer with it. It had a horrible trigger pull, was cut shorter, shortened stock, and turned-down bolt. My cousin has it, but wish I had it.
Hi,
I recently inherited my great Uncle’s Marine infantry gun. It is a 1907 15. It has St. Etenne on it. I did watch you video on these rifles and found it interesting. Is there any differences with my model? Did they use a standard 8 mm cartridge? I would like to get ammo and do not know where it can be purchased.
Any chance we'll see that shirt design available on a print or poster? I'm not big on graphic tees but I love it.
Where can I find that WWII rifles poster behind you? Yet another 10/10 video, keep it up!
That came form C&Rsenal.
Ian, any chance you could do a head to head between the Berthier and the Lebel sort of like you did between the Mauser and the Enfield at the range that one time? I'd be very interested to see which comes out on top.
I love my 07/15. 8 Lebel is very accuracy. A basketball everytime at 200yds.
Great reports! One last arsenal of sorts was Continsouza, making receivers, with final assembly at MAS & MAC. Were these numbers considered part of the latter assembly? And do you know how many Continsouza were made? or another French secret? My Mde 1907/15 is marked Continsouza, but so is an M16 carbine... both w 5x round magazines, wide front sights, & the post war "N" bullet modifications. Thanks
Do you have one of those shirts with an SMLE Enfield on it?
I have one that was a "battlefield recovery".
Great series, love it! When is a Belgian series coming ;) ?
I agree! A lot of thing to say about the belgian wonderful armory history.
It might have been because of the viewing angle, but to me it looked like the stacking rod on the colonial pattern Berthier was some sort of a sling loop rather than a rod. I wish we got a view of it from a different angle to really see it's full shape.
at 8:35 ... information about production of these rifles [100 years ago!] is still considered a military state secret ... That sounds so very, very French.
There are reasons for that. Certain French Arsenal men sent over specifications made to be purposely deceiving. They did NOT want a U.S. Firm to make their weapons...at ALL. Especially not as good ...or better and faster! We had problems with the Imperial Russian Inspector too! My Father was born in 1908. He grew up in War Production Mills and Factories. My Grandfather Managed them and was a Strike Fixer. Remington was one of the Plants that my Family was involved in. Also the United Cartridge Company. Some of Remington's Berthier Rifles made it to France. They WERE accepted ( for Colonial French Troop's use. Engineering/ Pioneer Companies.) Our African American National Guard Troops from N.Y., Pennsylvania and Connecticut were lent to the French. They received USED French Colonial Uniforms and gear...and Remington Berthier Rifles rejected for Regular French Army use. Long after the World War ended, the French sent battlefield relic Remington rifles back to the United States. The are known as Ossuary Rifles. A suggestion to Franco-Phone Gun Jesus... An Ossuary Rifle show.
Hi! Does anyone know what this ring/hook thingy on the bayonet quillons is? Thanks in advance
Ian, did the French ever implement one of those Trench contraptions where the rifle is secured in a mount at roughly grade level, the trigger actuated by a cord from a soldier standing safely below, in the trench, and sizing up his target via a makeshift periscope?
Could the indents be the result of the mechanism that secured the rifle in the apparatus?
Pendant la guerre des tranchée qui était nouveau il on fait des essais de plusieurs système même les plus fou fusil avec périscope
Fusil a tirer dans les coins plusieurs fusil semi automatique
Beaucoup d'expérience on était faite les fusil semi automatique était bien réussi pas,assez résistant a la boue problème surtout de la munition a bourrelet avec des enrayage sinon qui fonctionnais bien
It looks like the bolt is also a bit shorter on the 1907/15 than on the Colonial, you can see it at 13:50. Is that a trick of the camera or did you forget that part?
The French military obviously preferred the Berthier though they should have introduced the 5 shot clip/magazine from the start. Oh well. It's easier to figure out what you should have done looking backwards rather than forwards.
Ian, original 3 rounders or repro (AVB?) And if you have both, do you notice a difference? All mine are repros. Also surprised to not see a Remington bayonet too.
My great-grandfather brought back one of those bayonets from France (he was part of the American Expeditionary forces).
I love my Berthier 1892 M16 with 5 Shot Magazin.
Very nice. I must have foegotten that Remington produced these. Too bad it didn't work out. I have a Remington M1917 (Enfield) with a low 3 digit serial number 😁. They apparently got those guns right. It's a great rifle. Those old style bayonets kill me. U could lop 8" off the thing and still have a substantial blade. How much do u really need with an already somewhat long rifle? I'll have to keep my eyes open. A few of the shops i frequent sometimes have interesting old rifles- and we can still have them here in Kalifornia. Great video as always. Thank you
Think of it as a spear, if another soldier and yourself are going at each other, would you rather have the short spear or the longer one, who is going to hit the other first?
Hello Ian did they ever have transient model of berthier between the 07-15 and M16?
Gun Jesus, love this guy
I work the night shift I get back to our work camp way up in Northern Canada and before bed I get my Gun history knowledge fix ....thanks Gun Jesus
one of my 3 shot berthier from st etienne is from 1917. identical in every way except the receiver says MLE M16. can you explain please ?
Hey Ian,
Why did they switch from a curved to a straight bolt handle? Was it for ease of production?
Probably ease of manufacturing. Simpler and quicker to produce a straight bolt.
A straight bolt also gives better leverage to open the bolt if it's dirty or jammed and for extracting sticky cartridges (If all else fails you can literally kick it). In the quagmire of the trenches that was probably preferred over not having it poke you in the kidneys when you marched with it on your back. Toughen up, Pierre!
Weird question... how were guns cleaned pre 1900? Did they sell bore cleaner and patches? Did you use the ram rod and clean from the end of the barrel instead of the breech? Just wondering
The cleaning rod when unit is at rest. In the field they used a string cleaning device with a short brass rod (lavoir à ficelle=> string cleaner) and calibrated patches
Responding to all these comments about how the French couldn't possibly foresee trench warfare and the need for shorter rifles:
How come everybody else did? The British and the Americans adopted the SMLE and the Springfield '03 around the same time(spurred on by their respective experiences in The Boer War and The Spanish-American War/Phillipine Conquest). The Germans developed their Mauser 98AZ carbine by 1908. Even the Spanish began marketing their Modello 1912 short Mauser.
But the only short rifles the French produced were the Berthier Indochinese Colonial 1902 models. And those were just for short starured Asian troops! Twelve years later when the call for new rifles came, they went for the long Berthier 1907(which French troops called the Fishing Pole)not the short rifle! You would think that the French would have at least seen the economy of producing rifles with barrels 6" shorter than the previous models?
No wonder the Doughboys believed the French saw the rifle as a spear that occasionally shoots!
Fun fact - this is the third "American" rifle of World War One. African-American infantry regiments (4 or so I know about, maybe there were more) were assigned to French divisions because (short version) American generals knew that African-Americans could not fight and French generals knew they could. (Several bloody battles vindicated the French opinion.) So they got three-shot 1907/15 Berthiers, plus French (Adrian?) helmets and gas masks. (Nope, we didn't even give them helmets)
There were complaints about the French helmets but none I can find about the rifles. Long of barrel and short of magazine, but our boys won hard battles with these rifles.
I wonder why Remington had a hard time with the Berthier plans. Everything in French and in metric I assume?
great vidya thumb up
if you have to pick a modern straightpull Hunting Rifle witch would it be? The Blaser R8, Merkel Helix or Browning Maral, or something i have forget? they have all different system so why is one superior in your opinion?
It's kinda insane that the Americans went into the war with a shotgun with double the capacity of this rifle
The round receiver Mosin Nagant looks cosmetically similar to that Berthier from the barrel shank to the back of the receiver.
Form follows function - Both use rimmed cartridges.
Hi,
What about Continsouza as private contractor? Was it only for M16?
I don't understand the Remington's issues for building tooling, is it possible to have a quick view of those problems?
About pronunciation of "Tulle", don't say the E at the end you'll tell it properly.
And thank you again for your very hight quality videos. Carry on! Sacrebleu :D
I have a 1916 dated 1907/15 but with all the 1916 bits (mag, handgaurd, screw for the dust cover) is it a m16 transitional model, updated post war, test rifle?
Most like a postwar rebuild.
I have a question Ian. Did the French issue 8mm Label for this Berthier already in that clip the way the US later issued 30-06 for the M1 Garand? Or did soldiers have to load them from loose ammo?
Ammo was issued both in clips for the Berthiers and also in loose packets for the Lebel.
Between the Lebel vs 1907/15...I'd rather take the Lebel. Having essentially 10rnds vs 3 in combat makes me feel a bit safer Lol Given the Lebel's awkward loading, you can just top it off every few rounds to mitigate its prolonged loading process and sorta keep those unused rounds as backup in case things get real harsh and there's just no time to top off. With the 1907/15...you're just completely stuck with 3rnds no matter what. And when everyone else has also got bolt-actions, but with 5rnd'ers...that makes me feel outmatched.
I recently purchased a Remington 1907-15 in very dirty condition. It also has a bayonet and bayonet metal sheath. I noticed that the bayonet you show has a curved quillion I believe it's called. Mine has no quillion at all. Was that the way Remington made them? Is this correct to my rifle? I really enjoy your videos. Keep up the good work.
The quillon was deleted during the war, around 1916. The handles were also made of different materials. If I recall correctly, the Remington ones were made without the quillon but with the nickel-silver (also known as German silver and maillechort, it has no actual silver in it) handles.
that straight bolt handle looks like a Mosin one
A little story, during the war, the Berthier as been given the nickname "Fishing Rod" due to it's shape and length.
I'm quite sure the nickname "Fishing rod" ("Canne à pêche") first applied to the Lebel, not the Berthier.
First applied, yup. But the berthier got it too. Both were extremely long with the bayonet fixed.
So I missed the coolest tshirt offer ever by 6 years. Bummer.
They didn't serialise them until they were issued? What if there was a issue where the 1000th - 2000th bolts were not up to spec for eg?
They No, they were not serialised until they were accepted. The inspector would accept an unserialised gun, THEN the gun would be serialised AND THEN shipped and issued.
Finally, something a Forgotten Weapons video that I own!
The bayonet, not the rifle.
How long did it take for the French to realize the 2 foot long bayonet was kinda impractical in a trench?
nick fletcher About as long as every other nation that thought 30" barrels and saber length bayonets were a good idea. It wasn't until about 1917 that most nations started really recognizing and adopting shorter rifles and regular fighting knife sized bayonets as better options in the trench.
It's practical enough during the assault (or defending) stage on a trench, and afterwards nothing nothing but a pistol or revolver was really practical. Bayonets as a whole turned out pretty stupid in WWI though, because nobody formed up lines and marched at each other anymore (which is where a long bayonet makes all the difference). If you're jumping into a trench and don't have a pistol, a shovel is a better tool than any long knife...
In the first year or two of WW1, cavalry was still a serious threat to the infantry - or at least had been envisaged as a threat in open warfare. Thus a long reach with the rifle and bayonet had been a prerequisite for the infantry arm.
The other reason was, of course, that that the infantry still needed a long reach with the bayonet if the opposing infantry had such a weapon.
They also had no real way of anticipating the new style of trench warfare ten or twenty years in advance, which is when they had to design, develop and manufacture their principle arms.
I'm fully aware of the trench bayonet I'm saying that it's kinda funny for a 4 foot long rifle in a close quarters battle that a 2 foot long bayonet is kinda useless unless your using it as a pick for hand to hand fighting and even then it's impractical. And even then your not really gonna need one if you have an entrenching tool or some club to fight them off with.
nick fletcher but it was so useful for cooking goose over a slow fire...
It sounds like Remington had issues similar to today. my my how history repeats itself.
is that a bayonet or just a small sword
were there any _Nihon_ on the french military board
Did they stop making the 07-15 by the end of the war? I just bought one from RTI and i forgot to ask them for a ww1 dated one.
But fortunately i think theyre most ww1 or older cuz france started making the model 1916s and converted most of the 07-15s to 5 shot configuration. The rti ones ive seen have early dates and theyre all 3 shot ones so thats a good sign. Also the n marked ones were converted in 1916 so they are at least that old
I wish you had removed the sheath of the bayonnette...
Seems soo strange to me they never considered to incorporate a larger ammo clip capicity in that new Berthier version.
Duco Maritiem Just wait for the M16 variant/modification. I think that will answer your question.
Yessir. M-16 will answer all your prayers....... almost
Look up the Berthier 1916 variant
I don't get why they would go with a straight bolt handle. I don't imagine it would improve leverage and it definitely is slower and awkwarder to manipulate.
I would imagine it has to do with how the previous rifles had the straight bolts. Might not want to change the training or the guns being based off their single shot blackpowder bolt action!
I was just wondering, but is there a blanket term for firearms that have a manual action between each shot? This includes bolt actions, lever actions, and pump actions?
Stephen Weiler Repeater/Repeating rifle or pistol.
Repetition firearms would be that term, I think
Stephen Weiler Manually operated, or repeating firearms, all I can think of.
Why would they go from a bent bolt to a straight? In most countries it went the other way?
Easier to make
There goes Remington screwing up again 😂
I find it interesting that the French didn't use magazine cut-offs (like the British), considering the low capacity of their Berthiers.
Anyone got a lead on why? I'd be interested to hear.
Not really suited to a clip-feeder.
Ah, yes. You're obviously right. I feel a little silly now :P
Thanks for the reply at any rate.
Hey Ian, quick question!
Do you game, at all? There's a particular videogame, Verdun, that I think you'd appreciate, and I was wondering if you'd played it, or seen any gameplay.
I've never heard you mention videogaming, but you seem to like poking fun at stuff like the "tactical" obsession of so many casual shooters and wannabe "operator" types, so I figured you'd get a chuckle out of games like Call of Duty... But Verdun's definitely different.
Just wondering :)
Interesting. Why is mine in .303 British with Calvary swing swivels.
Hey Ian, I have a Remington berthier I just picked up recently. Is it safe to shoot Balle D in it, or no?
What is the hook looking thing on the bayonett for ?
munkSWE88 I'd assume it to prevent an opponent bayonet sliding down the underside of the rifle towards you, at the start of the war all nations were drilling soldiers on a type of bayonet fighting that just never happened on the field it's the reason they have such ridiculously long bayonets on the early guns it was thought the extra reach would be an advantage
To catch a blade if you're using the bayonet without the rifle. Or when fending off a sabre strike, only to then push forward afterwards - with the bayonet on your rifle, you have a longer reach over the sabre (especially when the other guy sits on a horse). Remember that WWI was drastically different from basically any war fought before, so many old ideas were proven to be complete nonsense when applied to this extremely different environment.
Why did they want the bolt handle sticking straight out the side? Sure, the straight down and overly lengthened seems silly too, but the fix isn't to go back to poking straight out the side.
I got one with a nicely carved sporterized stock. It just needs a screw (not sure which it would be called) and possible a barrel band with sling attachment.
tfw you buy the T shirt but it still hasn't arrived.
An obvious flaw seems to be the lack of an upper handguard.....bayonet work and a hot exposed rifle barrel don't really go together...
berthier vs lebel shoot off when?
I've got a Continsouza manufacture Berthier...
the problems for Remington to built properly this guns is not a surpise: in WW2 the main aircraft canon from the alliees was the french 20mm Hispano Suiza, selected by the brits because was the best of this times and they built it without problems* despite use the imperial mesurement system... but later, to increase the production, did the US built themself 20mm Hispano Suiza canon and the first of them work very badly (jamming), because to reduce the costs did the US engineers modify some details : later, with perfect respect from blue prints no problems...
*the original 20mm canon was built to fit in the famous Hispano Suiza y12 "moteur canon" (canon engine) who fire trough the propeller shaft, use in the Morane 406 and the Dewoitine D520 (and later, with impovements, the Yakovlev 1 and 3), so in the heat from the engine, loading was pneumatic and work perfect... but the brits need it to install in the wings, and they fall on icing problems from the pneumatic system: this was the main modification on the brit Hispano canon version...
Is $400 bucks a good deal on one?
Us Canadians also give praise to the mighty & wise gun jesus. Thank you. And were also sorry....
You forgot another manufacturer: "Établissement Continsouza"
Hence your title; "Forgotten Weapons", right?
Continsouza only manufactured receivers, not actual guns. Their receivers were sent to the main state arsenals for assembly into complete rifles.