Explain how the chauchant is a bad gun. Pro tip, you can't.

>>31481763
Poorly produced, no parts matched, open magazine.

OP, we both know you can't lift it.

It's French and that makes it gay

File: This_7824a9_5703098.jpg (14KB, 255x255px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 255x255px

>>31481763
>shit accuracy
>uncontrollable
>poorly made
>unreliable
>breaks easily
>overheats easily
>barrel cant be changed
>sights are pee pee

>>31481763
Flimsy magazines with open sides.
Long-recoil for a full-auto shoulderfired weapon.
Some of the manufacturers weren't so good.
Action could bind up once it got hot enough and the metal expanded enough, making it completely unusable until it cools down enough to let the bolt and barrel go.

It could work reasonably for suppressing fire if used by multiple two man teams, though the .30-06 version had horrid headspacing issues to the point that the Americans chose to not field it.

>>31481763
Since the quality control issues of the factories that made it aren't relevant to a question of design, the drawbacks of the Chauchat were poorly designed magazines that were easily damaged and allowed ingress of foreign material and the long recoil action caused stoppages if the gun overheated from being fired continuously.

It is, however, by no means a bad gun.

>>31481882
No no, the GUN, not the Russian space program.

>>31481939
I'd say it's kind of a poor gun, but better than not having that automatic weapon when you need one.

https://youtu.be/0p-EiCT8w2I?t=838

>>31482003
skip to 15:00 to see why it's a shit weapon