Military gun question. Why no lever actions?

[fightingquaker13]

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

[Majer]

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.

[tombogan03884]

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.

[fightingquaker13]

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

[jnevis]

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.

[Sponsor]

[twyacht]

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...

[Tyler Durden]

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."

[fightingquaker13]

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

[twyacht]

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.

[tombogan03884]

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.