Pre-war MAS 36

[boltaction]

I took a chance at an i-collector auction recently and bid on a MAS 36. The photos online were low quality but the position of the serial number and the profile of the front sight and band made it seem like it would be an early one. Description didn't state matching and I didn't hear back from the auctioneer. The rifle arrived and it turns out to be a matching (except bayonet) Mai 1939 G series production piece with all early features. I never thought I would run into one that hadn't been refurbed or monkeyed with. Not sure where it spent its time but if it could talk I would think it would have a story or two to tell. Sorry for the poor quality of the overall photos--will try to get some tomorrow in natural light, but the detailed photos are ok

Attachment 78400Attachment 78413Attachment 78406Attachment 78402Attachment 78401Attachment 78407Attachment 78408Attachment 78411Attachment 78410Attachment 78412Attachment 78403Attachment 78404Attachment 78405Attachment 78409.

Ed

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[muffett.2008]

Looks nice.

[mrclark303]

I have never owned one, (should do, cheap enough) but have shot these on numerous occasions over the years, interesting rifles, yours looks to be in exceptional condition, good catch!

[boltaction]

They seem to be slowly increasing in price but are still an undervalued and somewhat ignored rifle, which kind of goes for French weapons in general for whatever reason. I suppose it is because they were not on general issue with any units except the French and are therefore not part of British/Canadian/American folklore? Also haven't been in any big Hollywood productions. I expect they are more valued and sought after in Europe?

I am a Ross and early Lee Enfield person at heart, but I find the French weapons very interesting (and more affordable these days!). The MAS 36 has been called a masterpiece of engineering for a battle rifle and I can see why--light, simple, sturdy, easy to handle....pretty much all you could ask for from a bolt action service rifle

Ed

[Aragorn243]

Except it doesn't have a safety.

[Eaglelord17]

I really don't understand the lack of interest in French firearms, as mentioned they are fantastic in terms of quality and price. Definitely a very nice example.

The safety issue could be debated. Personally I see it as a design feature as I don't like safeties (especially ones on bolt actions as they are usually a pain to use) and would rather just keep the chamber empty and cycle a round in. Same concept as a TT-33.

[boltaction]

I'm not really sure how big an issue the lack of a safety really is. I have heard that complaint before but agree with Eaglelord that safeties are a pain. I haven't served in the military so don't know but how often is a service weapon REALLY carried chamber loaded with the safety on? In our firearms safety courses as student and instructor we were taught to never use one, never rely on one. How many of us ever use one carrying a rifle hunting for instance? I never do.

I guess I could see the attraction of carrying a rifle with a round in the chamber and the safety on for that really quick "flip it off and shoot", and that might apply now-a-days with sensibly designed safeties, but most of the safeties on the early bolt action rifles are neither fast nor handy. The Mauser for instance--by the time you reach up and flip that damned "flag" over you could have just cycled the bolt. A safety could allow you to carry a full magazine plus an extra round in the chamber so that might be an advantage?

I expect the French thinking was that it would reduce accidents (particularly in the hands of less experienced or educated troops) to have them just carry the rifle chamber empty--that way no one has a loaded gun, no one forgets in the heat of a surprise attack to flip the safety off, etc.

Ed

[Aragorn243]

Are you guys serious? You don't use a safety while hunting. No hunter ed course I've ever heard of tells you to not use one, nor does any military instructor I've ever heard and I was one myself for many years. It's there for a reason and it's required under US law for a reason. Do you 100% rely on them, NO, you still point the weapon in a safe direction, you still keep your finger off the trigger until ready to fire and you don't take the safety off until the target is identified. EVERY person I know uses the safety while hunting, they can't get a hunting license without going through the course that requires this.

A service weapon when anyone is on patrol is going to be locked and loaded 100% of the time. If you are ambushed, chambering that round is seconds you might otherwise need, not to mention thinking about having to do it. If you come upon an enemy patrol before they see you, chambering a round just announced your presence to them eliminating the element of surprise. Try shooting a deer that is looking at you and you have to chamber a round. They sometimes react to the click of the safety but at least with that, you're ready to fire in the instant before they take off.

The French thinking was simply put, very, VERY outdated. They were very slow to evolve from the OIC's instructing the men to fire and were still in the old load and fire type drill instruction. They failed to modify their weapons accordingly when every other nation on the planet had done so.

This thread sounds similar to the argument for not wearing seatbelts.

[Eaglelord17]

No I don't use a safety, I also don't keep a round in the chamber. France didn't either, and it was how they trained there troops. It worked for them the vast majority of the time. The Soviets also didn't use a safety on the TT-33, again it wasn't felt as though it was needed, but no one ever complains about how the TT-33 was a poor design due to a lack of a safety.

With the military training they are big on the safety, but it is safer just to have a empty chamber. I know people who have had NDs because they thought the safety was on, it is impossible to have a ND on a empty chamber. Safeties have also come a long way from what they were in the 30's.

As mentioned on patrol even if you had a bolt action with a safety generally speaking it takes as long to disengage the safety on most old bolt actions as it does chamber a round.

[boltaction]

Are you guys serious? You don't use a safety while hunting. No hunter ed course I've ever heard of tells you to not use one, nor does any military instructor I've ever heard and I was one myself for many years. It's there for a reason and it's required under US law for a reason. Do you 100% rely on them, NO, you still point the weapon in a safe direction, you still keep your finger off the trigger until ready to fire and you don't take the safety off until the target is identified. EVERY person I know uses the safety while hunting, they can't get a hunting license without going through the course that requires this.

A service weapon when anyone is on patrol is going to be locked and loaded 100% of the time. If you are ambushed, chambering that round is seconds you might otherwise need, not to mention thinking about having to do it. If you come upon an enemy patrol before they see you, chambering a round just announced your presence to them eliminating the element of surprise. Try shooting a deer that is looking at you and you have to chamber a round. They sometimes react to the click of the safety but at least with that, you're ready to fire in the instant before they take off.

The French thinking was simply put, very, VERY outdated. They were very slow to evolve from the OIC's instructing the men to fire and were still in the old load and fire type drill instruction. They failed to modify their weapons accordingly when every other nation on the planet had done so.

This thread sounds similar to the argument for not wearing seatbelts.

My goodness! Someone got up on the wrong side of the bed! Yes, I am serious. On the occasions when I have hunted, I carry the rifle chamber EMPTY. Having owned a gunstore in the past, I can't tell you the number of stories I heard about people getting shot or nearly getting shot because of issues with safeties, usually on other people's rifles. As a wise retired RCMP officer once told me, "always remember that half the people you meet are below average" and I have yet to see that disproved on the hunting field. In the hands of a sensible, sober, intelligent well trained person, a safety is perfectly fine to use but there is a REASON our hunter education classes taught us to use the safety but really never to use them--it was stressed that it was better to carry the rifle chamber empty. This is especially true in the bush where branches can snag, etc. Yes, firearms are required by law to have a safety catch, just like hairdryers are required to have a warning not to use them in the bath-tub, toasters have a warning on them that they are hot, etc etc etc. Now, if you're in a tree stand or well positioned on a deer trail, under cover, waiting, a safety is fine.

Totally fail to see the connection with wearing seatbelts..... At the end of the day, everyone has their opinion and their habits and most can rarely be changed.

Cheers

Ed