After World War One the French military created a plan to replace basically all of its small arms, including the array of handguns it had in use. The trials to adopt a single new replacement ultimately took nearly 15 years and actually resulted in two new pistols being chosen. One of these was the MAS Mle 1935S, and its roots go back to a model developed by MAS in 1925. This was a simply blowback design in 7.62x20mm (7.65 French Long) with an external hammer, single action trigger, and cartridge counting mechanism built into the frame. After testing in 1925, MAS made a number of revision to improve the gun, and this example is one of the Mle 1925M pistols that resulted.
Many thanks to the IRCGN (Institut de Recherche Criminelle de la Gendarmerie Nationale) for allowing me access to film this very rare prototype for you!
“After World War One the French military created a plan to replace basically all of its small arms, including the array of handguns it had in use.(…)”
So apparently they recognized advantage of having high-capacity (by standards of 1920s) magazine, yet they elected to implement it with unusually long single-column magazine (and grip) rather than staggered, like in Savage Model 1907, which they did use during said war. What might be reason for that?
Perceptions of or actual experience of reliability issues with double-stack magazines?
Trying to understand the logic of military procurement decisions can be insanity-inducing. The things that are asked for or which are specified as requirements rarely have real-world rational explanations, and the few that do are often simultaneously arbitrary and contradictory.
Back then, the only double-stack pistol magazine in common use was the Savage Model 1907’s ten-round. I doubt anyone in France knew about the experimental Nambu Type A 15-shot.
There were a few Eibar-made .32 ACP pistols with higher-capacity magazines used during the Great War, but they all had long single-column types. The Ruby Model 1914 with a 9-shot magazine was typical.
In short, the single-column magazine was pretty much what everybody thought an automatic pistol magazine should be. Predictably, it was John Moses Browning who said, “There’s a more sensible way to do that”.
clear ether
eon
I was under the impression that the double-stack magazine was one of Dieudonné Saive’s contributions to the design…
There was only one single-column magazine HP prototype AFAIK. It was in 7.65 x 20, for the French RfP, and was also the only one with a double-action trigger, using a drawbar setup similar to the Walther arrangement. It was shown in several editions of Small Arms of the World in the historical chapters on automatic pistol development, with nobody actually knowing WTH it was.
If you go to page 227 of Handguns of the World by Ezell (1981), you can see U.S. Patent 1,618,510, filed 28 June 1923, granted 22 February 1927, in Browning’s name. The original “Automatic Firearm” patent for the High Power, clearly showing the double-column magazine.
Saive’s contribution was mainly tweaking the design after Browning’s passing. Saive was mainly a rifle designer, not a pistol expert.
cheers
eon
Very simple hammer actuated “Escaping” disconnector… However, has not a “Battery off firing” possibilty since loading through “Push Feed”.
I had a dream about that; French Long, about 3 days ago – Just saying. But I did. Don’t remember the details…
Was a pistol looked like a MAB with big sights… Which… Sort of like this. Was arguing I think about “4.5mm” projectiles and sabots with some fecker. For some reason. Very well made aren’t they, this has nice features – But is just me, or do these older pistols, just look better made/materials, they just look – More quality?
Background I was giving it, 30. cal .223 sabots! And, I don’t know someone with a beret, a moustach, stripy blue and white t-shirt under a blazer said French long, French long. No locking mech on this is there…
“(…) 30. cal .223 sabots! (…)”
That is most likely beyond what 1920s technology could do. I must warn you that when United Kingdom deployed APDS for their 17pdr guns in 1940s, they find that it provide noticeable handicap to accuracy. For example http://panzer-war.com/page40.html they determined Comparative Dispersion of Tank Guns in November 1944 using target 2′ high by 5′ wide and Sherman armed with 17pdr, hit probability was as follows:
Round – 500yds – 800yds – 1000yds
APC – 88% – 66% – 52%
APDS – 42% – 21% – 14%
If you wish to use smaller but faster bullet, just necking down cartridge is simpler and positively within 1920s technology realm. Result would be most likely similar to .25 NAA cartridge.
Not quite up to Nostradamus level yet there, but keep at ‘er. l
“(…)look better made/materials, they just look – More quality(…)”
Shown specimen is prototype. If you have, say, 10 examples more work-hours can be applied to each, than it is feasible during mass production.