Talk:Lebel Model 1886 rifle

message: There is a gross and wholly inappropriate mistake here! The M1888 German commission rifle was not a Mauser design at all! It replaced, and then was replaced by, two Mauser designs. However, the 1888 is called a commission rifle because it was designed by a military commission rather than by any single manufacturer, and Mauser was one of few companies in Germany that didn't even produce the gun under license. By design, the M1888 isn't a Mauser gun at all. The comparison of the qualities of the Lebel to the 1888 may be decent, but to say the 1888 is a Mauser puts into question that writer/editor's knowledge of anything regarding the rifles of the period. That is such basic information.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.67.65.35 (talk) 05:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: 1888 commission rifle NOT a Mauser rifle!

message: Huh, I heard that the Lebel was slightly unbalanced because of it's tubular magazine which extended nearly to the muzzle? AllStarZ 03:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unbalanced?

message: Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe all of this article is NPOV.
--Redlock 01:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: This article was automatically  assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 07:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: This article contains a link to "boat tailed" bullets, but the link actually directs to a species of bird. Answer: this  has been corrected.Thank you. The correct designation is "boat-tail bullet"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.15.152 (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  poor link direction 

message: This page is redirected from Lebel and Bertheir Rifles. It's not Bertheir, it's Berthier rifle. This should be adjusted. Thank you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.51.66.191 (talk) 23:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirection 

message: The 'Post-WW-1 Use' section contains the following claim:
:  'Yet another result of the failure to modernize, is that outdated Lebel rifles - many of which had since been modified into a carbine-length version, the "Mle 1886 M93R35" - were still in the hands of French Army second line troops at the outbreak of World War II. One is at a loss to explain negligence on such a large scale, except by blaming the upper levels of the French military for laxness and/or incompetence. There is little doubt that their neglect to fully modernize French infantry armament after WW-1 was one of the contributing factors to the defeat that they suffered in June 1940.' 
This is a very 'hard' claim and it is not verified by any references or similar. Furthermore, to link the presence of outdated (but, I would contend, not completely obsolete) rifles in the hands of  'second line troops'  (whatever that means) with France's defeat in 1940 is to me a very 'hard sell'. Particularly considering that the Germans were using Mauser rifles little different (apart from being slightly shorter and lighter) from those of 1914-'18 (compare the List of infantry weapons of World War I with the List of common World War II infantry weapons).
Yes, the Lebel and its bullet were dated, but they weren't commissioned to frontline troops, and I doubt that they were so inferior to the Karabiner 98k as to make a difference. Also, when one considers similarly or even more dated weapons of the Imperial Japanese Army with the exploits of that force, the contributing factor of French infantry weapons to the Fall of France seems dubious.
Mojowiha (talk) 14:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: On a related note, why is "AND" written in all capital letters in the lead to emphasize the rightness of the cartridge being pointed and (allegedly) boat-tailed?--172.190.77.135 (talk) 03:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced/Original research in the 'Post-WW-1 Use' section 

message: The text states the tube magazine was a weakness in reloading. The article needs to explain precisely how the soldier reloaded this rifle, especially in combat. E.g. compare and contrast reloading ease/difficulty and speed in comparison with its clip-loading competitors. Was a French rifleman originally expected to fire no more than 8 or 9 rounds in an individual action, in which case reload speed was not an issue, whereas a British rifleman was originally expected to be able to deliver sustained aimed fire, in which case reload speed was crucial l ? I understand the SMLE originally had only a 5 round magazine, so  a French rifleman could fire 8 or 9 shots to the British 5 before reloading. I.e. was the ammo loading system influenced by French infantry doctrine of the time ? Rcbutcher (talk) 00:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The SMLE has always had a 10 round magazine capacity as did the earlier Lee-Metford, so your argument may be effected by this assumption. Check the links given for info on these rifles. On the Lebel reloading,See the excellent youtube video featured as external link for this. Its in the last 3 mins or so. Open the action, and there is an elevator. The user just basically loads cartridges into an aperture at the front of the action using the elevator as the guide platform. It loads a tubular forestock shrouded magazine, so the forestock is basically the mag. It is very slow to reload compaired to clip-loaded rifles like the Lee Enfield SMLE or the 5 round Springfield 03. British regular troops were trained in the techniques of the Mad minute. This was unique amongst infantry tactics of the time in any nation. A trained rifleman was expected to fire at least 15 aimed rounds per minute. Often this was exceeded. At the Battle of Mons German units were utterly convinced that they had been decimated by massed machine gun fire, as opposed to intense and accurate rifle fire. The Brits only had 2 machine guns deployed in the action. The French Army was inspired by the philosophy of "The utter attack", using the sheer elan of the french Infantry, backed by the force of the bayonet and the Canon de 75 modele 1897, which with Shrapnel shells was expected to clear the way. The British technique was considered a defensive mentality by French military thinkers of 1914. The 8 round reserve was seen as adequate for the technique of massed bayonet charges which were so responsible for the huge French loss rate during the execution of Plan XVII Irondome (talk) 02:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: My point is that the all this relating to French military doctrine should be in the article : we need the Why and How as well as the What. BTW : the stuff about 15 rounds per minute being the required British standard, and Germans mistaking rifle fire for machine-gun fire at Mons, are myths. 15 rounds per minute was the maximum capability of the SMLE and only achieved by some exceptional Regular marksmen; the required standard of the ordinary soldier was much lower. There is no way trained soldiers, and definitely not officers, mistake individual rifle fire for automatic weapons fire. If any German reports in fact claimed they were wiped out by machine-gun fire they were probably trying to cover up for the incompetence of their own tactics. However, I believe the Mons myth is probably British propaganda. Rcbutcher (talk) 03:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the loading technique could be clarified in mainspace, Then there should be a separate article about French military tactics and doctrine 1871-1914. I attempted to answer the question on tactics. It is a huge field of study and does deserve an article of its own. BTW the rapid rifle fire capability of the regular British infantry is no myth. Remember those four infantry divisions of the BEF were the cream of the British army. They were trained for a staggering 5 years. See Lynn McDonald, 1914.  The SMLE can fire 20+ aimed rounds per minute, and this was certainly the standard of most units in the BEF in August 1914. I have never heard of the British propaganda idea. Is that OR?. All attacking infantry advance tactics in all the armies involved were crap in 1914. The British and all the others were often decimated in attacks during this period when attempting to advance against intense firepower, be it MG 08's or the clip-loaded rifle, either SMLE or Mauser. Check Lynne McDonald, 1914 and Richard Holmes, Tommy, for further info. It was not propaganda. It is in German army reports as early as September 1914, and is constantly repeated, from both German and British sources. Do check Irondome (talk) 03:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: How was it reloaded ?

message: "Tests at Spandau in the winter of 1887-1888 found that the Lebel could fire 43 rounds of smokeless powder ammunition per minute compared to just 26 of black-powder ammunition for the M-71/84". Huh ? with a manual bolt action and an 8-round tube magazine to reload ? 8 rounds a minute more likely. Maximum. Rcbutcher (talk) 05:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: rate of fire ?

message: For those who want to investigate on the phrase "Functional Lebel rifles have been brought back in recent years from the mountains of Afghanistan.":
* https://www.forgottenweapons.com/m1886-lebel-video/#comment-35721 (a comment there by user "bombdoc" seems to be the source of this phrase)
* https://www.proxibid.com/Firearms-Military-Artifacts/Firearms/Lebel-1886-M93-8mm-Lebel-SN-RI12368/lotInformation/39955966 probably the same rifle, since it's a rare find
I am not sure these can be used as citation, but perhaps if you can find it in an official catalog - that would suffice. One would have to trust the catalog for the information about the source.
--Legolas558 (talk) 10:51, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation for rifle found in Afghanistan 

message: "1,800 m (1,644 yards)" doesn't make sense  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.79.228.10 (talk) 11:59, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  effective range needs verification 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Lebel Model 1886 rifle's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Smith":
From Chiang Kai-shek rifle: 
From Vz. 24: Smith, p. 295
From MG 08: 
From Kingdom of Italy: Smith (1997), p. 284.
Reference named "Jones":
From Malta: 
From Pakistan: 
Reference named "Banana":
From Thompson submachine gun: 
From Fusil Gras mle 1874: 
Reference named "Greek":
From Chauchat: 
From St. Étienne Mle 1907: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 06:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Lebel Model 1886 rifle]] 

message: — Assignment last updated by Tbone 427 (talk) 20:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: The Editing Process