Hotchkiss M1909 Benet-Mercie

Hotchkiss et Cie · Machine Gun · Out Of Production · 1909

Also known as: Benet-Mercie, Hotchkiss Portative, Hotchkiss Mle 1909, Hotchkiss Mark I

Overview

The Hotchkiss M1909, known in US service as the Benet-Mercie Machine Rifle and in Britain as the Hotchkiss Mark I, was an early light machine gun developed by Hotchkiss et Cie. Its locking mechanism was designed by Laurence Benet and Henri Mercie, building on Adolf Odkolek's patent. Gas-operated and air-cooled, it fed from rigid metallic feed strips and was produced in 8mm Lebel, .303 British and .30-06 Springfield. It saw wide use in cavalry, fortress, aircraft and early tank roles during and around World War I.

Specifications

Weight (empty)12000 g (423.3 oz)
Overall Length1187 mm (46.73")
Barrel Length596 mm (23.46")
Action TypeGas Operated Long Stroke
Firing MechanismOpen Bolt
Trigger TypeFull Auto Only
Magazine Capacity30 rounds
Magazine TypeStripper Clip
Muzzle Velocity730 m/s (2395 fps)
Effective Range600 m (656 yd)
Maximum Range3800 m (4156 yd)
Rate of Fire500 rpm
Barrel RiflingRight Hand
Rifling Twist240 mm (9.45")
Frame MaterialSteel
Barrel MaterialSteel
Stock MaterialWood

Calibers

Features

Variants

Service history

Operators

Conflicts

Production

Estimated total produced: 50,000 · Production years: 1909-1918

~40,000+ produced in Britain (Coventry, .303) and ~670-700 in the US (Springfield/Colt), plus French production; total likely well over 50,000 across all producers.

Origin

Country of origin: France

Designer: Laurence Benet and Henri Mercie

Discontinued: 1918

Notes

US troops nicknamed it the 'daylight gun' because broken pins were hard to replace in the dark and feed strips were easily inserted upside-down at night. Sources vary on barrel length (596-640 mm) and overstate muzzle velocity in places (8mm Lebel realistically ~730 m/s).

Background

At the 1916 Battle of Columbus four M1909s fired some 20,000 rounds against Pancho Villa's raiders; the 'daylight gun' reputation later led Major Julian Hatcher to conclude the reliability complaints stemmed largely from poor training rather than the design itself.