The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: fightingquaker13 on January 08, 2012, 06:41:44 PM
-
Here's a question. Why didn't the military ever adopt lever action rifles on a mass scale? I know some few units were issued Henry's, but for the most part it was single shots until the '03 Springfield's came along. Now I know that converting Springfield muzzle loaders to single shots explained a lot of this. But why sharps carbines rather than Winchesters for the cavalry? Why bother with the Krag at all? Even if you wanted to use a bayonet ready gun for most troops, putting a lever action or two per squad would make sense as it was the Tommy gun of its day. It would fill the niche of a squad automatic weapon. Granted there was no such concept, but surely the idea of someone laying down suppressive fire while everyone else was reloading must have crossed more than a few people's minds. Anyone have answers?
FQ13
-
Basically the higher powers though that the troops would waste ammo with anything other than a single shot rifle.It's why the M-16's & M-4's have a 3 shot burst on them.
-
Cost.
It was much less expensive to convert 10's of thousands of Springfield's to the "Trapdoor configuration than it was to buy new rifles.
Several foreign armies did purchase various models of Winchester prior to 1910.
-
Cost.
It was much less expensive to convert 10's of thousands of Springfield's to the "Trapdoor configuration than it was to buy new rifles.
Several foreign armies did purchase various models of Winchester prior to 1910.
Agreed for the infantry. But it doesn't explain the Sharps for the cavalry, or why not one Winchester per squad for the infantry. The infantry, and cavalry, revolvers were .45 so it wouldn't have meant adding a new round. It would also have exponentially increased firepower for the Calvary who operated in small units in the West. Hell, Little Bighorn might have ended very differently. (Probably not, but there would have been a lot more dead Indians).
FQ13
-
Not an answwer to the OP but wirth noting
Basically the higher powers though that the troops would waste ammo with anything other than a single shot rifle.It's why the M-16's & M-4's have a 3 shot burst on them.
Although part of the reason, the modern rifles are limited to three because after that you can't HIT anything. When they were first developed they didn't limit it and they found that after the third or fourth round the muzzle climb put the round well above the target but at three you could keep it on a man-sized target fairly easily.
I've seen the logic of it demonstrated a couple ways.
Using a pump shotgun with 000, an MP5, and an M-4 with a three shot trigger we had guys fire as fast as they could until empty then counted hits on target.
IIRC the MP was around 10/30, M4 15/30, the shotgun 20/30 on an IDPA style target.
Not an M4, but the range near my "tech school" had an Uzi and Tommy gun for rent. The Marine students used to rent it all the time (on payday). Being big bad Marines they figured they'd just let'r rip. Of course the first round was center mass, the second on the head and the third was in the ceiling half way back and the fourth was almost 90deg up.
-
Cost, technology advancing at a fast pace, politics, and gov't contracts.
Lever actions worked, but arming every one of the troops was not feasible. Sharps, Spencer, Harrington & Richardson, Winchester, and Remington were in fierce competition. The gov't "let" the makers keep making better rifles, knowing next month there would be something "better"...
Right up until the Krag....The Mausers were a formidable rifle during the Spainish-American War,...as the Krag was a PITA to reload, and prone to FTF when gummed up in the swamps.
Than the Springfield angle, the 03, simply shot better. The ammo was available en mass, and cheaper than the Trapdoor's, Spencer's, Henry's and Sharps'...
The Gov't wanted "standardized" for the grunt troops. But technology was advancing at an alarming rate. There was the Luger, Thompson, Broomhandles, and again, better Mausers, that kept coming...
-
could be just the dogma of tactics or doctrine, remember the British, and how our troops were only supposed to shoot when they saw the whites of their eyes.
and the British would just march shoulder to shoulder like robots into incoming volleys of lead.
how dumb was that?
I'm sure we have all seen those aerial video clips of Napoleonic warfare where they had these square formations of men out on these nice flat fields with nothing around for cover. IIRC, there would be three layers of men...one kneeling and shooting, one standing, and one in the back reloading his musket. They would rotate through.
What was it that the southerners used to say about the Henry rifle (the yellow boy?)..."that's the damned Yankee rifle you can load on Sunday, and shoot all week."
-
Nothing dumb about those tactics (if you weren't in the front line ;)). They, like all tactics were dictated by technology. You couldn't hit squat beyond about 75 yards (on a good day) with a smooth bore musket if you were an average soldier. Getting close was necessary, and massed fire was essential, hence the tight formations. Add to that the fact that you had to stand or kneel to reload and hitting the dirt wasn't an option. Here's a fun fact. I read a study about casualties in the Napoleonic Wars. Less than 15% died of bullet wounds (take it for what its worth), but the fact is that most folks missed, or the rifle miss fired. The killing was done with bayonets and artillery, and of course disease. The Civil war changed that as rifled muzzle loaders extended the kill zone to 200 yards and beyond and those square formations were suicide squads. But that returns me to my question. Give every soldier, or just 1 out of 8 a lever action? Well, that would have changed the game a whole lot quicker. I'd have taken a Mauser over a Winchester for most applications if it were me. But the Mauser's weren't there when the choices were made. it was levers or single shots. What jackass would want a single shot?
FQ13
-
By the time WWI broke out, sturdy bolt actions, mad it so easy "a caveman could do it",...and at that scale they did...and it controlled, the ratio of kills to shots fired....check the Vietnam stats for "kills" to shots fired....
Plus one could affix bayonets, and/or beat the enemy to death with steel butt plates, and large pointy things at the other end.,
Lever actions had their place in Calvary, specialized platoons, and cowboys. but fell short by the time WWI came about. The K.I.S.S.
method was in the bolt actions....
and we can always discuss Garands.....I'm a proud owner and a big fan...there are also the Enfields, even the French Mas, Carcano's, and yes, Mauser's (of which I am also a owner and fan)...that just were cost effective, simple and rugged to fire those rds.
-
Agreed for the infantry. But it doesn't explain the Sharps for the cavalry, or why not one Winchester per squad for the infantry. The infantry, and cavalry, revolvers were .45 so it wouldn't have meant adding a new round. It would also have exponentially increased firepower for the Calvary who operated in small units in the West. Hell, Little Bighorn might have ended very differently. (Probably not, but there would have been a lot more dead Indians).
FQ13
Again it goes back to what Majer and I posted.
To back up Majer's claim about ammo consumption I will point out that the Krags issued for the Spanish American war had a "magazine cut off". They were intended to be used as single shots, reserving the magazine for "emergencies".
The reason the Patriots at Bunker hill were told to hold their fire "till you see the whites of their eyes" was because of a critical ammunition shortage.
Had the Patriots had more ammunition and bayonets the British landing force would have been destroyed.
It nearly was any way.
-
Again it goes back to what Majer and I posted.
To back up Majer's claim about ammo consumption I will point out that the Krags issued for the Spanish American war had a "magazine cut off". They were intended to be used as single shots, reserving the magazine for "emergencies".
The reason the Patriots at Bunker hill were told to hold their fire "till you see the whites of their eyes" was because of a critical ammunition shortage.
Had the Patriots had more ammunition and bayonets the British landing force would have been destroyed.
It nearly was any way.
Tellingly, if you read the correspondence, Revolutionary War leaders complained more about the lack of bayonets then the lack of ammo. It was one or two volleys and charge or defend. We could do neither effectively without steel. It led to a lot of us running away. I think it also ingrained the ideal of marksmanship as the ideal skill for a soldier or marine, as if you didn't kill them at a distance, they'd kill you up close and personal.
FQ13
-
The lack of bayonets led to the poor reputation of Militia units .
When the regulars got with in range to charge their only choices were run or die.
They did not have the equipment to mix it up in hand to hand combat.
Which actually is another black mark against the Lever rifle, they were somewhat shorter than standard military rifles and would have left troops at a disadvantage in a bayonet fight.
If you notice, early in WWII the bayonets on Garands sent to the ETO were cut down to around 10 inches.
The ones in the Pacific were left at 16 inches.
Because the Japanese still used long "sword" style bayonets, while the Germans used shorter "knife" style .
The troops in the Pacific were not left a a reach disadvantage against the Japanese until later and by then it mattered much less.
-
Have you ever tried to shoot a lever action prone? That is my guess.
-
^^^ winner winner chicken dinner!
how hard is it to manipulate a lever gun while riding horse and trying to hold the reigns? ( given that the average cavalry soldier wasn't capable of pulling a Rooster Cogburn).
-
This is just opinion, but I doubt that was much of an issue to people who were most familiar with muzzle loaders.
-
yes, that would suck trying to reload a muzzle loader while on horseback.
-
The Civil war changed that as rifled muzzle loaders extended the kill zone to 200 yards and beyond and those square formations were suicide squads. But that returns me to my question. Give every soldier, or just 1 out of 8 a lever action? Well, that would have changed the game a whole lot quicker. I'd have taken a Mauser over a Winchester for most applications if it were me. But the Mauser's weren't there when the choices were made. it was levers or single shots. What jackass would want a single shot?
FQ13
Rifled muzzle loaders have been around for some time. There were Rev. War squads of marksmen tasked with killing the British officers, which PO'd said officers quite a lot, it's just not done and it's not at all sporting don't you know?
The squares were not suicide squads, they were a defense against the cavalry as there was no flank to for the cavalry to attack. The older square formations with pikes were referred to as scilltrons. And with the long rifles with long steel bayonet on the end were an effective tool against the horses themselves, as the horses could not be goaded by their riders to run into a wall of men and steel. It was only with the advent of cannon that squares lost their value, as did massed formations of any kind - a lesson not learned until after WWI.
At the ranges cavalry fought on the Western Plains, the single shot was a rifle, the lever action mostly a glorified pistol shooting a pistol cartridge. They were roughly equivalent to going into combat today with a 9mm Hi-Point. So if you are shooting at 2-400 yards, the lever action is not such a great tool as even if you could get the .44-40 bullet that far, it wouldn't do a whole lot of damage when it eventually arrived!
True rifle rounds did not appear in the lever action for some decades after the lever action was perfected. One of the first successful and generally available lever action was the Sharps carbine in the 1860's. The Henry Yellow Boy was introduced after the Civil War was over. The early Winchesters - the 1873, 1876, etc. were all small cartridge rifles. IIRC, it was not until the Winchester 1892 that you were able to get a true rifle cartridge in a lever action. In a carbine, you still had range and accuracy at range issues, and in the 1890's there were bolt actions with box magazines - and excellent accuracy - that made the lever action obsolete.
Where the lever action excelled was rate of fire at closer ranges, as demonstrated at the Wagon Box Fight. And that was won dismounted from behind barricades - the wagons - by the civilians, not the military with the Springfields.
-
The Army did in fact use Spencer's after the war as at the Battle of Beecher's Island.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Beecher_Island
Forsyth hand-picked 48 men at Fort Hays and armed them with Spencer repeating rifles.
-
Since everyone has waded into this with their opinion I guess I'll take a shot at FQ's OP. The generally accepted reason for no lever rifles ISSUED to the Army was the idea of wasting ammunition. The powers that were, at that time, let it be known that in their opinion if repeating rifles were ISSUED to the troops they would just blast away (much like we see in some movies). There were some units EQUIPT with lever rifles in the Civil War, notably with "Henry" rifles. These were bought by the individual units and were not ISSUED by the Government. There were also some Spencer Carbines ISSUED to some mounted troops at the insistence of President Lincoln. These carbines were resisted by the Army because of the logistics of different caliber ammunition. The Sharps rifles used were purchased by the units. These units were used, primarily as sniper units and is where we get the term "sharp shooter". The Army never purchased lever guns in quantity nor did they issue them in quantity. Thw why remains a small mystery to this day.
The conversion of rifled muskets to single shot metallic cartridge rifles was done as an economy move to use the existing store of serviceable arms. The original Allen conversions were in 50 not 45 caliber.
My source for all this is the various books I have reference to in my library.
I do have one question which I raise from this discussion: would someone please tell me what cartridge the Winchester Mod. 1892 was chambered for which would be considered a "rifle" cartridge?
Also, the rifles used in the Revolutionary War were the very accurate American type hunting rifles but are not considered to have been much of a factor in the war. They were used the disrupt the British command structure but the tactic of massed frontal attack was still the prevalent method of war at that time.
Pecos
-
Path, the 1876 Winchester was cambered in 45-60, .45-75, and .50-95,I would hardly call those small rifle caliber.The 1860 Henry was chambered in .44 Henry,an anemic caliber at best,But since most people back then died from infection from being shot it served it's purpose.
-
Path, the 1876 Winchester was cambered in 45-60, .45-75, and .50-95,I would hardly call those small rifle caliber.The 1860 Henry was chambered in .44 Henry,an anemic caliber at best,But since most people back then died from infection from being shot it served it's purpose.
I knew that!!!!! ::)
Seriously, I did - the RCMP used the 1876 short musket in .45-75 IIRC. I had blanked on that, thanks for reminding me.
But I don't think I am that far off, I believe the larger calibers were only in the rifle version and not the carbine. And the 1876 was never even considered beyond a cursory look by the US Army. Same with all of the later models too - a shame, they would have made very useful and effective rifles for the Cavalry, just like they show in the old movies! ;D
-
I knew that!!!!! ::)
Seriously, I did - the RCMP used the 1876 short musket in .45-75 IIRC. I had blanked on that, thanks for reminding me.
But I don't think I am that far off, I believe the larger calibers were only in the rifle version and not the carbine. And the 1876 was never even considered beyond a cursory look by the US Army. Same with all of the later models too - a shame, they would have made very useful and effective rifles for the Cavalry, just like they show in the old movies! ;D
Path, the Northwest Mounted Police, now the RCMP, used a carbine version of the Winchester '76. It was a carbine even though it had an upper hand guard. This was the standard configuration of the 76 carbine, the only lever carbine Winchester made that way. They were chambered for all the calibers available for the 76. I think, perhaps, when you said that the 92 was the first to be chambered for a "rifle" cartridge you may have been thinking of the model 1886. The 92 looks like an 86 that got left out in the rain and shrunk. The 92 was chambered for the same cartridges as the 73 except for the 22 Short. The 86 was chambered for such as the 45-70, 45-90, 40-82 and latter the 33 Winchester.
Pecos
-
Path, the Northwest Mounted Police, now the RCMP, used a carbine version of the Winchester '76. It was a carbine even though it had an upper hand guard. This was the standard configuration of the 76 carbine, the only lever carbine Winchester made that way. They were chambered for all the calibers available for the 76. I think, perhaps, when you said that the 92 was the first to be chambered for a "rifle" cartridge you may have been thinking of the model 1886. The 92 looks like an 86 that got left out in the rain and shrunk. The 92 was chambered for the same cartridges as the 73 except for the 22 Short. The 86 was chambered for such as the 45-70, 45-90, 40-82 and latter the 33 Winchester.
Pecos
Thanks for the details, I am not so much a Winchester lever gun expert as I am a fan-boy of the RCMP! ;D
My understanding was that the RCMP - my bad, at that point they were still the NWMP - started using the 1876 in 1878 (Wiki says 1883, Mounties say 1878), and they specified the musket style where the lower wood goes almost all of the way to the muzzle. You're right, Winchester did not make that style for any other rifle, nor IIRC for any other clients (although Wiki does say the Mountie version was issued to the Texas Rangers, but with no reference for the information). It may have been in the catalog, but the extra weight of the extra wood supposedly made it unpopular with anyone else.
It was also my understanding that the Mountie rifle was carbine-like, but was a little longer than a standard carbine, again specified by the RCMP. My book on the Arms of the RCMP is packed up somewhere, so I can't get all of the details at the moment. And I have only seen a real (not a replica) 1876 Mountie rifle one time, and that was a few years ago.
-
Path, I'm useing Maddis' book on the Winchester and according to that all 76 carbines were made on the NWMP pattern. Yes they were longer but were not considered rifles by the factory. There were. of course, short rifles but the normal carbine is configured differently. I made something of a study of the Winchesters some time ago and I know just enough about the RCMP to get myself in trouble.
Peace Bro, Pecos
-
The only way I have been able to ride an M-14 on full auto is to hold it at the hip and put my left hand with a fairly straight left arm on top of the handguard.