{"id":4472,"date":"2016-11-02T20:40:29","date_gmt":"2016-11-02T19:40:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/gunsmithdesigner.com\/?p=4472"},"modified":"2026-10-17T23:54:22","modified_gmt":"2026-10-17T22:54:22","slug":"the-rifle-mle-1866-chassepot-2-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/gunsmithdesigner.com\/index.php\/2016\/11\/02\/the-rifle-mle-1866-chassepot-2-2\/","title":{"rendered":"The rifle mle 1866 Chassepot 2\/2"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Through the transcription of an article tinged with a hint of optimism published in 1869, we saw the early adoption of the new standard-issue French rifle: the Chassepot Model 1866.<\/p>\n

A weapon firing so many cartridges that the enemy would be quickly torn to pieces in the event of a conflict,’ according to the pre-war article (referring to the war of 1870).<\/p>\n

The first article is available here : The rifle mle 1866 Chassepot 1\/2<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

What is the situation in 1873 ? What can be deduced throught the study of more recent texts ? Is there \u00e0 connection with more contemporary events ?<\/p>\n

The adoption of the Chassepot Mle 1866 rifle<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/h2>\n
\n
\n

In 1865, while the permanent commission of Versailles had chosen a muzzle-loading rifle to replace the standart-issue rifle, Emperor Napoleon III expressed the wish to adopt a breech-loading rifle. Indeed, Prussia’s recent victories forced a more modern choice. This state had adopted a breech-loading rifle decades earlier (1840) : the Dreyse rifle.\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Under Swiss influence, the trend of the area learned toward a reduction in caliber. The goal was a weapon with a coliber between 10 and 15 mm in order to achieve a flatter trajectory and allow firing at greater distances, which was less feasible with a 17 or 18 mm projctile. The aim was thus to heavily impact, or even defeat, the ennemy before hand-to-hand combat.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\"Table<\/p>\n

\n
\n

It is a period of rapid technical developments, and many directions exist. However, selection tests are carried out using a rifle that is retrograde but still deeply rooted in people’s minds: the percussion rifle. The latter ultimately represents a benchmark of old weaponry and an old way of waging war. On the other hand, no metallic cartridge weapon is present in the ranks; it is too early for France.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Ultimately, the commission is tasked with ruling on three weapons: the Chassepot rifle, the Chassepot rifle modified by Mr. Plumerel, and a muzzle-loading rifle. The Chassepot rifle was adopted.<\/p>\n

The creator of the Mle 1866 rifle is the author of three patents: the rubber obturator, the bolt action mechanism derived from the Prussian Dreyse, and the cartridge. The ballistic characteristics of the barrel and the bullet (bullet length\/caliber, bullet weight\/powder charge, shape and pitch of the rifling\/influence of the projectile’s rotation) were defined based on studies by various contributors and commissions, and then applied to the Chassepot mechanism.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

On February 14, 1866, an order for 1,500 weapons was placed with the Ch\u00e2tellerault manufacture.<\/p>\n

In June 1866, 400 rifles were received. They would be sent to the Ch\u00e2lons camp to be tested by the Imperial Guard (see the first article on the Chassepot rifle).<\/p>\n

On July 3, 1866, the manufactures of St. \u00c9tienne and Puteaux were created. The objective was the manufacturing of 150,000 weapons per year and 1,800 machine tools intended for the factories<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n

The Mle 1866 rifle is a resolutely modern weapon for its time. Terribly well-made, it demanded a significant effort from the nation. Then comes the time for the first trials, followed by the trial by fire. The single criterion of the individual firearm is not enough to predict the victor of upcoming battles.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Has the idyllic framework described by the first article evolved? What about the best weapon in Europe? Are Mr. Chassepot’s patents adapted to a weapon of war quickly built before a major conflict? Or to a target rifle? Will the time between the delivery of the rifles and the start of the war be sufficient to remedy the various technical problems ?<\/p>\n

\n

The Weapon’s Defects<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/h2>\n

Gas blowback<\/strong> toward the shooter’s face (synonymous with a lack of gas seal) was the reason for the delayed adoption and proliferation of breech-loading weapons. Mr. Chassepot used a material that was recent for the era\u2014a rubber washer\u2014to achieve this seal, which, as a side benefit, reduced the weapon’s recoil. The part deteriorated in various ways: it cracked, melted and blocked the needle channel, or lost its elasticity. The blowback increased progressively as the washer lost its diameter while melting. The soldier carried a replacement part in his cartridge pouch. The use of this material was a bold choice; to this day, very few firearms have used rubber for this function, and the Chassepot may be the only one.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

As seen above, the seal was more or less effective toward the outside. The same applied to the inside. Gases resulting from powder combustion travel anywhere they encounter no resistance. Consequently, they blew back into the bolt through the firing pin needle channel. This resulted in annealing (softening) the striker spring, leading to weak strikes or even spring breakage. In some cases, it was possible to cock the hammer (the striker) by slamming the buttplate on the ground. Combustion gases also heavily fouled the inside of the bolt.<\/p>\n

Fouling did not only affect the inside of the bolt, but the chamber as well. Debris and shooting residue<\/strong> remained inside, preventing the chambering of subsequent rounds.\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The needle’s diameter was 1.5 mm. Doubling the diameter to 3 mm would provide four times the strength, according to a study from that era.<\/p>\n

\n

Forcefully closing the bolt could cause an accidental discharge of a cartridge. This slamming action occurred due to the absence of a locking cam<\/strong>\/inclined closing ramp on the receiver. The presence of this machining helps the shooter progressively push the ammunition into the chamber while locking the bolt. The vast majority of modern bolt-action weapons feature this ramp, providing unparalleled smoothness.<\/p>\n

\n

The weapon’s polished white finish<\/strong>, besides being highly visible from afar, required significant maintenance to prevent corrosion.<\/p>\n

Despite the speech by Mr. Thiers, President of the Republic, on June 8, 1872 :<\/p>\n

\n

\u00ab\u00a0In the opinion of military men, the Chassepot rifle was the best weapon in use among armies. The Chassepot rifle is recognized as excellent, except for its cartridge, which every European country is seeking to improve…\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n

\n

While it is necessary to keep in mind the industrial context of the era, as well as the speed with which the weapon was manufactured and distributed, it still seems that several criticisms can be leveled against the Chassepot rifle’s design, contrary to the previous article.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

\"Table<\/p>\n

The Chassepot Rifle Cartridge<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/h2>\n<\/div>\n

As previously stated, three principles competed during this period of small arms history: muzzle-loading, paper (combustible) cartridge, and metallic cartridge. Although proposed by the Versailles commission, muzzle-loading was deemed obsolete, swept away by the consequences of the Battle of Sadowa.<\/p>\n

The combustible cartridge thus found itself in competition with the metallic cartridge. Although certain observers of the era preferred the latter, which were said to be of better quality even when sourced from abroad, its drawbacks received a larger platform. The flaws of the metallic cartridge at the time were :<\/p>\n

\n