[geekWithA.45]

It seems that historically, the military abandoned lever action rifles in favor of bolt action.

Now it seems to me that working a lever is a more ergonomic motion than working a bolt (Then again, I am a lefty, and bolts are hell on left handers) so what was the advantage?

My presumption is that there is a limit to how powerful a cartridge you can run with a lever action, and that limit is removed with the bolt action. Am I on track here?

If that wasn't it, what where the other drivers for that situation?

[MrAcheson]

Its very hard to work a lever action rifle when prone. They are also slow to reload (no stripper clips for most levers) and pointy spitzer bullets can cause a magazine explosion under the right circumstances. The fact that early levers shot pistol caliber cartridges did not help things either.

Also "abandon" is probably not the right word. Many/most militaries never officially adopted levers in the first place.

[rick newland]

I have no answer to your question, but one of the greatest military battles in history was the Turks winning the battle of Sofia with Winchester lever actions in 44 WCF. Also I don't agree with you on the power limitations on lever actions with the 45-70 and 405 being chambered in lever actions.

[Z_Infidel]

I found that last post interesting and did some searching. Found some more info here:

http://www.carbinesforcollectors.com/bulg.htm

... also this picture:

http://www2.arnes.si/~ljmuzejnz/winches.jpg

[Kamicosmos]

I think MrAcheson is close, I think the Ammo-Reloading-Capacity-&-Speed issues is why lever actions went unnoticed by Military forces.

Wasn't it the 1903 Springfield that just 'revolutionized' infanty combat because it was so fast to reload and shoot quickly? Or maybe that was the Krag? Or the Mauser...one of them just completely upset the balance of some war around the turn of the century. anyways, I digress...

Also, lever guns were pistol cartridge based, and were meant more for horseback use, not really an infantry piece. Very much like the M1 Carbine was meant to give officers and medics a bit more reach and ammo capacity than a 1911 could offer...

[rick newland]

Z_Infidel thanks for the links. I remember reading aobut it several years ago but couldn't remember the source.

[Mike Irwin]

"Also I don't agree with you on the power limitations on lever actions with the 45-70 and 405 being chambered in lever actions."

Lever actions chambering rounds of decent power levels in rifles considered to be sturdy enough for routine military use didn't come about until the bolt action was clearly the wave of the future.

The first truly robust and successful lever action firing a decently powerful cartridge was the 1886 Winchester.

The 1876 was a step in the right direction, but it was still felt to be too fragile and complex for military usage.

It took the genius of John Browning to make the lever action both strong and simple.

As for the Turks vs the Russians, wasn't that the battle of Plevna?

But, what you're leaving out is that while the Russian troops were advancing at longer ranges, the Turks were laying in fairly effective fire with their single-shot rifles firing I believe 9.3mm Turkish Mauser cartridges.

It wasn't until the Russians got to within effective range of the less-powerful ammo that the Turks picked up their Winchesters and cut the Russians to pieces.

Ultimately, though, the lever action Winchester did NOT help the Turks will the war. They lost it, with the result being that the Treaty of San Stefano set up an independent Bulgaria.

[mete]

When that battle was fought with winchester repeaters, that ended the use of single shots for the military.There was then a period of trying many different repeaters, different magazine systems ending up with the bolt action ,box magazine type as the best. The best of those is the Mauser 98 and also the SMLE.

[Mike Irwin]

The period of the single shot was already coming to an end, Mete.

Remember, US forces had used lever-action repeaters to great effect during the Civil War.

It was just a case of technology having to catch up to the desire.

It's true that the United States started to withdraw the Spencer repeater from general issue not long after the end of the Civil War.

There were some logical reasons for that, or at least what appeard to be logical reasons, primary among them being that the Spencer was a very short ranged round. It was felt that troops on the prairie needed a firearm with a longer effective range. Hence the general issue of the Trapdoor Springfield.

Even the Cavalry carbine version of the Trapdoor had almost 3 times the range of the Spencer.

[Keith]

Actually, there are magazine fed lever actions like the Browning BLR and Savage 99 that handle high pressure rounds. And there's no reason they couldn't be fed with stripper clips with a bit of re-design.

I don't buy the "can't shoot them prone" argument, because anyone who tries it will learn that you CAN shoot them from the prone position just as easily as you can shoot a bolt action from prone.

I think it's simply that the Europeans went with the bolt action and we followed their lead.

Keith

[DMK]

I've often wondered this myself. There are a few good examples of box magazine straight pull military rifles. I don't see why a military lever action couldn't have been designed and that would have solved the spitzer bullet problem.

I think that a lever has some good advantages in speed of action. I find that they are much faster to cycle than bolt action and it's easier to keep a sight picture while doing so.

[Mike Irwin]

"Actually, there are magazine fed lever actions like the Browning BLR and Savage 99 that handle high pressure rounds."

And they were available in the 1870s?

No. They were later developments, developed after the bolt action had proven it's superiority.

Arthur Savage originally designed what would become the 1895 Savage and evolved into the 1899 Savage for consideration as a military firearms.

"I don't see why a military lever action couldn't have been designed and that would have solved the spitzer bullet problem."

The Russians bought something like 300,000 Winchester Model 95s in 7.62x53R. It was clip fed, had a box magazine that made spitzer bullets OK, but had rotten balance.

[Keith]

And they were available in the 1870s?

You are confused. Early bolt actions (1870's) shot black powder rounds that were no more effective and had no greater range than the rounds in lever guns of the period.
It wasn't until the 1890's that smokeless powder high pressure rounds began to be seen and the US adopted its first bolt rifle - the Krag.

They could just as easily asked for a lever gun designed for the new smokeless rounds. Savage (on their own) began work on such a rifle in 1894 and chambered it for much hotter rounds than the .30/40 Krag.

Keith

[Mike Irwin]

"Early bolt actions (1870's) shot black powder rounds that were no more effective and had no greater range than the rounds in lever guns of the period."

No, I'm not.

The early single-shot bolt action rifles of the 1870s, such as the Mauser 71, fired cartridges of MUCH greater power than the rounds available for lever-action rifles at the time. Hell, the Chassepotte and Dreyse bolt-action needle guns were more powerful than a Winchester in .44-40, and they used caseless ammo.

It wasn't until 1876 that the first Winchester came out that would fire cartridges of roughly the same power, but had to do so with very short, stubby bottlenecked cases.

Prior to 1876 lever action rifles manufactured in the United States were, except for a few unsuccessful designs, limited to the power generated by rounds such as the .44-40 and .32-20.

It wasn't until 1886 that Browning's complete redesign of the Winchester lever-action locking system allowed the chambering of cartridges the length of the .45-70. By that time the bolt-action rifle was already well-established in Europe, and the first American bolt action rifles, such as the Remington-Keene, were hitting the streets.

And it wasn't until 1895, or well AFTER the bolt action had proven its functionality, that a lever-action rifle proved itself to be capable of regularly handling rounds generating the pressures developed by the new small-bore smokeless centerfire rounds.

As for the Savage, the concept of "much hotter rounds than the .30-40 Krag" didn't come about until well into the 20th century.

The first commercial Savage was chambered for the .303 Savage cartridge, which had operating pressures on par with the .30-30 Winchester, well below the .30-40.

The Savage 1895/1899 was then chambered in rounds such as the .32-40, .38-55, and .30-30, all operating at less pressure than the .30-40.

It wasn't until just prior to WW I that the Savage was first chambered for a round that approached the chamber pressure generated by the .30-40 -- the .22 Savage Hi Power. And it wasn't until 1920 with the advent of the .300 Savage, that the 99 was chambered for a round hotter than the .30-40.

The fact remains, though, that the United States military found the lever action lacking for a number of reasons: action strength, mechanical complexity, accuracy, and overall durability, among other reasons.

The United States military also didn't make a unilateral decision to simply cast the lever action to the side, either. A number of lever action rifles were tested as potential military rifles to replace the Sprinfield/Krag, and all were found wanting for any number of reasons.

[Keith]

The fact remains, though, that the United States military found the lever action lacking for a number of reasons: action strength, mechanical complexity, accuracy, and overall durability, among other reasons.

The 1890 military board had already settled on a bolt action because of the success of the Mauser rifle. The requirements were narrow enough to rule out anything but another bolt rifle and in fact, no lever guns were considered in the trials. The Krag won not because it was stronger or less complex or more durable, but because the magazine could be "topped off".

As for the Savage, the concept of "much hotter rounds than the .30-40 Krag" didn't come about until well into the 20th century.

Only because the Savage was a sporting rifle and shooters didn't ask for anything more powerful at the time. The action is certainly strong enough for anything ever considered by the military right through the twentieth century and has in fact been chambered for some very high pressure rounds - .308 for example.

The Winchester 95 was also around and available in smokeless rounds - including .30/40 Krag - and many Spanish American War officers chose the Winchester 95 lever gun in .30/40 over the issue Krag!

I would argue that a Savage 99 (or 95) in .30/40 would have been at least as good a rifle as the Krag for military service. It's certainly a more durable rifle and every bit as accurate.

If the same thought and development had gone into lever guns as went into bolt guns we might have seen some very fine military rifles of that design.
Surely, the BLR we see today in 30.06, with its detachable mag, terrific accuracy and handy length and weight, would be a better choice for a WWI soldier than the 03 Springfield! I would certainly choose a BLR over an 03 Springfield if TSHTF. And if the military had looked into lever guns we might have seen something very much like that in the early 20th century!

And the Garand would have eclipsed it (just as it did the Springfield) and we'd have moved on.

Keith

[Mike Irwin]

"The 1890 military board had already settled on a bolt action because of the success of the Mauser rifle."

AND the military's previous experience with lever-action rifles stretching from the 1860 to about 1880.


"Surely, the BLR we see today in 30.06, with its detachable mag, terrific accuracy and handy length and weight, would be a better choice for a WWI soldier than the 03 Springfield!"

Ever seen a BLR with a stripped rack & pinion gear from someone getting a shell stuck in the chamber?

I have. Nearly a dozen.

The BLR suffers from a serious lack of primary extraction power. In a military environment I seriously doubt that the BLR would be able to pass the functioning tests required of it.

[telewinz]

One of the main "military" short-comings of a lever action compared to a bolt-action is the weak extraction offered by most if not all lever/pump action designs. Dirty/ corroded ammo needs as much camming power as possible, this "added power" is generally offered only by a bolt-action. This is the reason that with bolt action reloads you can just do neck resizing while pump/lever/autoload actions require full length resizing.

IIRC the vintage Winchester 1895 was offered in 30/06 (30/03?) but today the NRA and Winchester advise against firing these rifles do to their receiver stretching from the high pressures generated.:eek: BLR is probably the best design of the lot and if it failed....enough said.

[BigG]

Don't think anybody mentioned it, but the lever guns are seriously difficult to strip, therefore they would not get cleaned like they should.

[chadintex]

One of my concerns is that most lever actions are tube fed and damage in that area could cause feeding problems.

[PaladinX13]

Slightly off topic...

All I know is that if I watch "Open Range" this weekend, I probably won't be able to stop myself from picking up a lever action rifle soon after! :D

[Keith]

The BLR suffers from a serious lack of primary extraction power.

You're missing the point! The BLR and other lever guns were never offered or asked to participate in a US military selection board. If they had, any such concerns would have been addressed.

We'd have hated the original "1911" as offered by JMB - a .38 with a weird grip angle, two barrel pivot points, no grip OR thumb safety... The board demanded something different and JMB complied and we are all better for it.

If a board had wanted to look at lever rifle designs; Winchester, Savage and company would have had to look at extraction, easy field stripping, top loading with stripper clips and all the other little things that military selection boards of the era wanted. After all, these are rather straightforward engineering changes, not something prohibited by the design in and of itself.

Keith

[SelfProclaimedExpert]

A bolt action is a really simple way of engineering a repeater for high pressure ammo. As evidenced by the modern lever guns, like the BLR or Savage 99, you can make a lever gun just as good, but the gun is more complex and pricier to build so it works and feeds well.

The question is; if a military has the ability to produce something as complex as a BLR, why wouldn't they just produce the equally complex autoloader?


The answer is, they did just produce the autoloader. US first, then Germany, then everybody else.

Anyway, if you were going to war with a manual repeater, wouldn't you rather have a pump?

[TallPine]

The 1876 was a step in the right direction, but it was still felt to be too fragile and complex for military usage.

Do you mean the 1873 Winchester instead .... :confused:

Anyway, the Sioux and Cheyenne sure used lever action rifles with devastating effect on Custer & Co, who still had single shot rifles.

[Mike Irwin]

Tall Pine,

No, I mean the 1876 Winchester, aka the Centennial Model.

The 1873 was chambered for rounds like the .44-40, .38-40, and .32-20.

The 1876 was chambered for rounds like the .45-60, the .45-75 and the .50-95.


"You're missing the point! The BLR and other lever guns were never offered or asked to participate in a US military selection board. If they had, any such concerns would have been addressed."

No I'm NOT missing the point, Keith, because ALL lever-action rifles suffer from a lack of primary extraction power! It's the mechanical nature of the design.

Even HAD the BLR been around in 1895, perfected, box fed, etc., it would STILL suffer from this problem.

Lever rifles have, at best, slightly more primary extraction power than the straight pull bolt designs that were adopted around the turn of the last century -- the Schmidt Rubin, the Steyr 95, the Winchester-Lee, and the Ross. With those firearms, though, you could put the butt on the ground and apply a boot to the bolt handle.

There are only so many ways that you can skin the cat on this matter. Winchester was actively seeking military contracts for the 1895, and made some inroads, yet even his design genius couldn't produce a lever-action rifle that was substantially superior, or even fundamentally equal to, the basic bolt-action rifle.

Winchester was sending its agents worldwide around this time, because there was a HUGE move toward new rifles. Yet the only substantial military contract Winchester got was with the Russians.

After the initial purchase, Winchester even offered to set up a factory in Russia to make the rifles if they wanted more. The Russians refused.

Every other nation that adopted a new rifle in this time frame went with a bolt-action gun, and many of those nations went with bolt action guns that were not Mauser guns, so it can't be said that it was simply a Mauser cabal.

It should be pretty evident that if roughly 50 nations around the world know about your rifles and designs and you make offers to those nations to produce lever-action rifles for them, and EVERY ONE OF THEM turns you down in favor of a bolt action rifle, it should tell you that more than just a few military people felt that the inherent design of the lever action was unsuitable for military purposes.

I'm not sure why you're not grasping that concept.

[Sir Galahad]

What Mike Irwin said!:D

[Keith]

Winchester was actively seeking military contracts for the 1895, and made some inroads, yet even his design genius couldn't produce a lever-action rifle that was substantially superior, or even fundamentally equal to, the basic bolt-action rifle.

Uh sorry, but Winchester was not a design genius by any stretch of the imagination and more importantly; he was DEAD twenty years before any of this took place!

Lever rifles have, at best, slightly more primary extraction power than the straight pull bolt designs that were adopted around the turn of the last century

It's just not true! There is nothing inherent in the design that prevents you from beefing up extraction to satisfy a military board. In fact, the BLR has the same extraction principle as the BAR - are you going to suggest the BAR has faulty extraction and couldn't satisfy a military board?

It should be pretty evident that if roughly 50 nations around the world know about your rifles and designs and you make offers to those nations to produce lever-action rifles for them, and EVERY ONE OF THEM turns you down in favor of a bolt action rifle, it should tell you that more than just a few military people felt that the inherent design of the lever action was unsuitable for military purposes.

Or, it might tell you that military boards then, as now, are going to stick with the status quo. The Mauser brothers ushered Europe into the age of the bolt action rifle and no military board on earth was going to look into any explore any other option.

Keith

[Kaylee]

Or, it might tell you that military boards then, as now, are going to stick with the status quo. The Mauser brothers ushered Europe into the age of the bolt action rifle and no military board on earth was going to look into any explore any other option.

But... they did. That, or we're all imagining the M1, FN49, CETME, FAL, and the current crop of uberpuppy blasters. :)

I think a lot of us think in terms of rifle specialists... what is the best that we can have? What's the best solution, the most technically elegant weapon with which to give our troops?

Military logisticians dont -- and moreover shouldn't think that way.

For instance, let's go back to 1955. If I can make 5 FALS with the production resources it would take to make 1 M14, the military would be best served standardizing on the FAL even if I personally think the M14 is a better rifle. The slightly better trigger and sights don't make up for the logistics and production problems.

Same thing in this context. Sure, the lever action could in theory have been redesigned to work better than the Mausers then in service. But if you were going to all that trouble... why not develop a self loader to solve the problem entirely?

Oh.... we did. :)

I'm not saying that leverguns aren't great, or even that the more refined lever guns then in use wouldn't have worked in a military context at that time and place. Or even that all change is bad and we should stay with what works, like a nice solid reliable Brown Bess.

What I am saying is that LOGISTICALLY the resources that would have been necessary to make those changes would have been better served in other avenues.. and in fact, were.

-K

(in comparison to today's times, I believe it's similar to the XM-8 project now. Sure, the HK system is good. Better in a lot of ways that the AR system. But I don't believe its better ENOUGH to justify the expenditure. Same idea.)

[Jim K]

Hi, guys,

Everyone seems to be missing one very important point. In the olden days it was (believe it or not) actually expected that a solidier would clean his rifle. That meant being able to at least "field strip" the rifle. Has anyone here ever actually taken down a Winchester 1886 or 1895 or 1894 or Savage 1899? Ever tried to do it in the field?

Believe me, removing a bolt and running a patch through the bore is much easier than having a dozen small pieces laying around the place and needing a vise and three hands to reassemble the rifle.

Yes, some countries considered the firepower of the lever action important enough to adopt it temporarily, and both Winchester and Savage had salesmen who could convince a statue that their rifles were the greatest. But the lever action was almost always considered a temporary stop-gap. The Turks used the Winchester with good effect against the Russians, but they soon dropped it in favor of a bolt action.

Jim

[Keith]

But... they did. That, or we're all imagining the M1, FN49, CETME, FAL, and the current crop of uberpuppy blasters.

Umm, that was sixty years later... In 1895, there was no reason a lever gun couldn't have been everything the bolt action was - IF a military board had asked for the design changes required to turn it from a sporting rifle to a military rifle.

A lever gun has several advantages over a bolt gun and several drawbacks. Yet, the drawbacks; extraction, easy cleaning, etc, (as pointed out by others) are purely engineering features that could be changed quite readily.

I'm not arguing that a Winchester 95 or Savage 99 would be the perfect military rifle of the era. I'm arguing that the basic lever gun would have been adaptable as a military rifle and if those changes had been made - would have been an improvement over the bolt guns of the period.

Hell, we still had people arguing in favor of the bolt guns (against the Garand) at the beginning of WWII! And that prejudice was not limited to our own military boards, look at the Germans, Brits, etc, who used bolt guns right through the war.

Keith

[Hand_Rifle_Guy]

Good points Kieth, but M-95 Winchesters are a lot more expensive to build than a tubular-receivered boltgun, a major military logistical consideration, and they're already heavy. Beefing it up to make it more suitable for military purposes would have made it prohibitively heavy. M-95 muskets (The full-stocked military configuration.) are heavier than a Trapdoor Springfield. M-86's are also pretty massive actions, and the only other full-pressure action offered (Savages aside.) before the .308-capable modern-metallurgy-ed M-94 A.E. was the th M-71, a direct M-86 derivative.

They also have two-piece stocks, a notorious sticking point in early arms design-by-committee, the Lee-Enfield and Lebel rifles notwithstanding.

The K.I.S.S principle is an issue of primary importance. While the 1876 Winchester design, a HUGE, beefed up toggle-link action derived from the '73, is pretty simple, the '95 action, like the '94 and the '86, emphatically is not. Many people take leverguns to a gunsmith once a year for a detail-strip-and-clean because of their mechanical complexity. I've disassembled and re-built my '94, and can see why people would do this. The turnbolt is inherently simpler, with fewer parts.

The only levergun design that addresses the primary extraction issues is the Winchester Model 88, a lever-operated version of the M-100 autoloader. It's essentialy a lever-actuated turn-bolt design that is fully capable of withstanding whatever pressure ammo might be required, but it's a moot point, as the M-88 didn't arrive until well after the military advent of autoloaders. My '94 sometimes has sticky extraction with factory ammo, requiring thwacks on a springy lever. Palm-whacking a turnbolt handle applies worm-gear style force, a lot greater available mechanical advantage.

Straight-pulls like the Mannlicher M-95 use a helical camming motion to rotate their turning boltheads, but that's less direct, and not as powerful as yanking up the end of a boltknob. Most other straight-pull actions, the Lee and the Colt Lightning being excepted, use a similar set-up, and the Lee and the Lightning rely on pure muscle, a design issue that the large-frame (.45-70 class.) Lightnings never really overcame to the detriment of their sales. Modern straight-pull autos like the FAL and the Tokarev SVT-38/40 use enough brute force from their gas operation to pull through extraction grooves, making this a non-issue for autoloaders. However, if a case gets stuck on the way in because of deformity, like what happened to my Remington 7400 auto, you're out of luck. The Remington's a turning-head design, but had such a dinkum bolt handle that I had to pound the gunbutt on the bench to pull the jammed case out, as I couldn't get enough of a grip on the handle. Whacking my as-new rifle on the bench to free it made me wince, and doing that in a firefight is not an option, which is one of the reasons I really favor Garand/M-14 actions that have a turn-bolt style design.

Autoloaders with bottom-feed magazines pretty much put paid to the prone-use argument, making it time-contextual, although the Garand still allows such use, the only military auto that does. I'm not sure how relevant the argument is, but if I was a soldier, the ability to kiss dirt under fire while shooting back would be high on my list. Prone use of a levergun wouldn't be hard anyhow, merely requiring twisting the rifle, but a comittee might could object to the neccessity of un-shouldering a rifle to cyle it.

The inherent conservative-ness of military trials and procurement boards is a valid consideration. Mandating magazine cut-offs as an attempt to conserve ammo is a good example, and that grew out of an initial resistance to repeaters for the same reason. Committees are just that: committees. What they conclude doesn't neccessarily make sense outside of the committee. Arms committees notoriously have little contact or empathy with the common soldier despite the military origins of their members.

Just my rambling $.02. I'm all over the place, like usual. :)

[Kaylee]

Hrmm.. was it here or in a book I read recently that one of the main selling points of the Krag at the time of its adoption was that it could be topped off like a levergun via the side loading port?

Regardless.. it wasn't a 60 year gap and the autos magically appeared on the scene. We had functioning semi-autos before the end of the 19th century in the C96 Mauser (pistol/carbine), and Browning's little autopistols were just starting to develop as well. The Pederson device for '03s was around to see use in WWI, and the M1 was under development likewise by around 1919 as I recally. Sure it took twenty years to get right (that's gov't arsenals for ya, I guess.. :p ) -- but it was an actively pursued course of research through a good deal of the turnbolt era.

Sure, a lever gun COULD have been redesigned to meet a military board's requirements... but why? Mauser-based turnbolts already met all those requirements off the shelf. For all the R&D it would take to get the levergun meeting spec... might as well just throw your money into the REAL next leap, self-loading.

And finally, even if we HAD gone that route... what would we have really gained? What's the point? Slightly faster working of the action (as long as you ain't prone). Not worth it to me I don't think, given that Brits with Enfields were reported to shoot just about as fast as our guys with M1s. Turnbolts aren't slow by any stretch of the imagination, not with skilled users.

Other advantages... the ability to top off the magazine? Again.. even presuming we managed to keep that advantage while changing things to meet 1900 milspec, we tried that with the Krag. We dropped it 'cause the clip charging system worked better.

It's not that leverguns are bad little guns -- they're GREAT..and have a handiness that was envied even in the middle of WWI. It's just that the economics and logistics weren't there at the time.

-K

[SelfProclaimedExpert]

Weren't the Maxims and other machine guns in testing in 1895? Was the writing on the wall?

[Keith]

Sure, a lever gun COULD have been redesigned to meet a military board's requirements... but why?

Why not? I'm only arguing that the lever gun could have satisfied military requirements of the era, not that it would have been some great leap forward. It would have had a few advantages and a few disadvantages.

Personally, give a choice between a Mauser and a Winchester 95, I'd have probably taken the Mauser, though it would be tough to choose.... Given a choice between something like the BLR and a Mauser and I'd certainly take the BLR.
And the BLR might more closely resemble what a lever gun run through a military board would be - a more robust camming action, better extraction, detachable magazine, etc.
And doubtless, they'd make other changes - it would have to disassemble and clean easier, etc.

And as far as shooting prone, I think that's a theoretical flaw rather than a real one. You certainly can work the lever from a prone position and without tilting the gun - try it!

Keith

[Kaylee]

Why not?

$$$$$

:)

-K