FM24/29

[lebel]

I have looked through this section and notice that one of the best LMG's (lets face it the BAR needed to be finished correctly) is not being discussed.

This is the point where I would like to post some pictures, but that will have to wait until the winter I have no access to my example as it is currently on loan to a museum.

Anyone else here own one ?

[woodsy]

I have just had good study of my 24/29 and am struggling to find a good comment to make on it! It is ergonomically awkward, the side folding bipod is difficult to employ rapidly (but faster than the BAR M1918A2), and it still has the fixed barrel.

The ultimate upgrade of the BAR is the FN Model D with its quick-change barrel, quick take-down, good bipod, adjustable gas system, and quality manufacture.

[lebel]

Jun 18, 2009 21:19:57 GMT 1 woodsy said:

I have just had good study of my 24/29 and am struggling to find a good comment to make on it! It is ergonomically awkward, the side folding bipod is difficult to employ rapidly (but faster than the BAR M1918A2), and it still has the fixed barrel.

The ultimate upgrade of the BAR is the FN Model D with its quick-change barrel, quick take-down, good bipod, adjustable gas system, and quality manufacture.

Horses for courses and depends upon what you expect the be getting.

You need to bare in mind so basic facts.

The operating cycle of the field deployed gun is massively restricted to that of the 'H' version

The bi-pod set up allows for maximised storage/AFV mounting and the use of the gun in the field upon the bi-pod is very much a secondary application (look at photographs from the period and you seldum see the gun mounted as such)

The double trigger offers the ulimate in controled and safe fire selection (apply the logic of making a fire selection change in the heat of battle compared to that of the Bren, no danger of accidently applying the gun into 'safe')

Ultimately the Belgian D still has the mag located on the underside of the gun, so for any reqired quick changes in battle you are at a dis-advantage.

And would you automatically de-ride a gun purely over having a fixed barrel? The Lewis has after all a fixed barrel.

[woodsy]

Some of the points you make are valid, particularly the under-mounted magazine. Selectors are seldom used in combat situations, normally being set to full-auto and ready to go. I would question the wisdom of having an LMG that is designed predominately for vehicle use. It negates the principal reason for an LMG (ie. one man portability). The fixed barrel in a fire-fight where volume of fire is critical is a pure liability! it will go well until it burns itself out, then the gun is useless until it can be rebarreled by an armourer. This was a problem with the BAR as well. I guess the 24/29 served the French well enough as it saw a reasonably long service life, but then so have a lot of other French weapons, none of which would win any prizes in ergonomics, quality of manufacture, or all-round outstanding performance. My gun was recovered from the VC who probably got it at Dien Bien Phu.

[woodsy]

I forgot to add that while Lewis did not have a quick-change barrel per se, the barrel could be changed in the field by the gunner in about 10 minutes. Spare barrels were kept by all units for the purpose. The M24/29 would require the services of an armourer and a mobile workshop at least.

[lebel]

Jun 19, 2009 10:45:05 GMT 1 woodsy said:

Some of the points you make are valid, particularly the under-mounted magazine. Selectors are seldom used in combat situations, normally being set to full-auto and ready to go. I would question the wisdom of having an LMG that is designed predominately for vehicle use. It negates the principal reason for an LMG (ie. one man portability). The fixed barrel in a fire-fight where volume of fire is critical is a pure liability! it will go well until it burns itself out, then the gun is useless until it can be rebarreled by an armourer. This was a problem with the BAR as well. I guess the 24/29 served the French well enough as it saw a reasonably long service life, but then so have a lot of other French weapons, none of which would win any prizes in ergonomics, quality of manufacture, or all-round outstanding performance. My gun was recovered from the VC who probably got it at Dien Bien Phu.

I think you have mised my point here over the AFV. The bi-pod purely allows for ease of installation, not as a main stay for the gun.

Most period photographs show the gun used in combination with the sling for firing while on the move. when circustance allows then in combination with the mono-pod the gun offers a stable fire platform in many ways (though not in all) equal to that of tripod based LMG's, but with out the extra equipment (ie tripod) to have to carry into the field.

As regards the removal of the barrel, this indeed may compromise the gun, though there are plenty of other examples out there where this applies. (10 minutes to change the Lewis barrel enters into purely academic benifits, if required to be done as stated while under fire)

The FM24/29 along with the MAS36 offered the first true non-compromised designs within French guns, plus given the FM24/29 and its various off shoots had a 1000rpm rate prior to any restrictions, I still rate this as one of the best LMGs