Development
After the end of World War I, the French army sought to replace the problematic Fusil-mitrailleur mle 1915 machine gun (better known as the Chauchat). French commanders considered standardizing on the American M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR), but eventually required the development of a locally built weapon. MAS (an abbreviation of Manufacture d'Armes de St. Etienne - one of several government-owned arms factories in France) proposed a direct derivative of the BAR, but the Manufacture d'Armes de Châtellerault (MAC) won the bid with its weapon, which was partly based on the BAR action. It had been formulated and designed by a Lt Col Reibel.
The FM mle 24 entered limited production and operational use, but numerous problems with the new 7.5mm ammunition type appeared. In particular, 8mm Mauser ammunition which was in use with captured rifles used by auxiliaries in Morocco during the Rif War, could be chambered and fired with disastrous results. This situation led to the development of a slightly shorter 7.5x54mm type, which was retained in 1929 as the standard calibre for all future rifles and light machine guns in French service. The accordingly modified fusil-mitrailleur modèle 1924 modifié 1929 (FM 24/29) was eventually mass-manufactured (187,000), beginning in 1930, until the older FM Mle 1916 (Chauchat) could be entirely phased out of service.
The new fusil-mitrailleur modèle 1924 (automatic rifle, model of 1924) featured a bipod, an in-line stock, a pistol grip, a top-mounted 25-round magazine and a bolt hold-open after the magazine's last round had been fired. Protection of all the openings against mud and dust was excellent. The cyclic rate was 450 rounds per minute. In general,this new weapon was accurate and highly reliable but the barrel was fixed, as in the Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR), and could not be quickly changed as in the British Bren gun.
Read more about this topic: FM 24/29 Light Machine Gun
Famous quotes containing the word development:
“I’ve always been impressed by the different paths babies take in their physical development on the way to walking. It’s rare to see a behavior that starts out with such wide natural variation, yet becomes so uniform after only a few months.”
—Lawrence Kutner (20th century)
“Dissonance between family and school, therefore, is not only inevitable in a changing society; it also helps to make children more malleable and responsive to a changing world. By the same token, one could say that absolute homogeneity between family and school would reflect a static, authoritarian society and discourage creative, adaptive development in children.”
—Sara Lawrence Lightfoot (20th century)
“Somehow we have been taught to believe that the experiences of girls and women are not important in the study and understanding of human behavior. If we know men, then we know all of humankind. These prevalent cultural attitudes totally deny the uniqueness of the female experience, limiting the development of girls and women and depriving a needy world of the gifts, talents, and resources our daughters have to offer.”
—Jeanne Elium (20th century)