Reminder that the Chauchat wasn't actually a bad gun, it

Everyone knows this. The Chauchat being bad is a pleb-tier meme.
I want to see more videos of RSC 1917s. Ian made me aroused with his explorations

>france surrenders

>>34479329
But the magazine issues were never fully rectified or distributed until the war was all but over so it remains a poor gun and always will in the scope of its usage and service history.

Any other defence of it is pure conjecture and autistic theorizing.

>>34479329

Also had a problem with overheating after only a hundred rounds fired continuously that'll stop the function of the weapon until it's cooled off. Luckily the weapon never saw desert use.

>>34479366

It wasn't ever intended to be for sustained automatic fire.

File: qktPd2x[1].jpg (211KB, 750x1334px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 750x1334px

>>34479329
If I pick one up, what can I do to increase the rate of fire?

>>34479370

Agreed, it was really more of a semi-auto rifle that had full-auto capability but honestly, that's pretty dumb cause it was intended to be used as a light machine gun by the French.

>>34479361
Mate. You are forgetting that hundreds of thousands of the fuckers were stamped out and sent to the front. They didn't have to compete with an MG08 or other machine guns, because they were fielded in much wider numbers and allowed the French to beef up their firepower by a lot. They were good guns for their purpose

>>34479449
>Autism
>Conjecture

>>34479361
>But the magazine issues were never fully rectified
The magazine issues were mostly overblown.
Especially when you compare with other MGs in service at the time.
Like the Maxims that used cloth ammo bands that would cause stoppages when wet or muddy, or the fact that somehow everyone forgets that the Lewis' mags were open on the underside, or that many other mg's used flimsy metal strips as an excuse for mags.

For its intended role and overall practicality and weight-class, I'd only put the Madsen as a much better gun, but by and large it was unavailable and the Chauchat was pretty much the next best thing.

>>34479587
Seems like history is too difficult for you, boy.

>>34479615
History is easy due to sources.

Making up fantasy BS probably based on battlefield 1 and passing it off as history is an entirely different matter.

No chauchats were manufactured in the US.

>>34479634

>Claims to have sources
>Doesn't list any sources

>>34479329
>Reminder that the Chauchat wasn't actually a bad gun
It still kind of is, even if it's reputation is greatly exaggerated, the magazines were flimsy and let in crud, and the recoil was awkward to say the least.

>>34479782
Correct, there were just 8mm ones converted to .30-06 in a way that didn't work.