Military gun question. Why no lever actions?

[fightingquaker13]

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

[tombogan03884]

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.

[ronlarimer]

Have you ever tried to shoot a lever action prone?  That is my guess.

[Tyler Durden]

^^^ 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).

[tombogan03884]

This is just opinion, but I doubt that was much of an issue to people who were most familiar with muzzle loaders.

[Sponsor]

[Tyler Durden]

yes, that would suck trying to reload a muzzle loader while on horseback.

[Pathfinder]

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.

[tombogan03884]

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.

[Pecos Bill]

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

[Majer]

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.