Eleven Mike
Member
Is the bolt handle of a bolt-action firearm also a lever, widening Tory's definition even more?
Has any Army ever adopted a lever action?
- Thread starter Freddymac
- Start date
- Status
Sleuth
Member
Take the next step. Since all semi and fully automatic firearms utilize the principal of the lever (including revolvers), let's distort the meaning to "All firearms that have levers in them are lever guns!"
(You don't think they do? Look at triggers, safetys, extractors, etc.)
(You don't think they do? Look at triggers, safetys, extractors, etc.)
rbernie
Contributing Member
"Give me a place to stand and with a lever I will move the whole world."
[Archimedes]
Who'da thunk Archimedes was a closet gunnie?
[Archimedes]
Who'da thunk Archimedes was a closet gunnie?
What about hinge action, as in a single shot or doublebarreled break open shotgun? Same thing there, the hinge is only opening the breach and ejecting the case.
The lever on a single shot was around before the repeater, I see no problem with labeling a single shot rifle that operates by means of a lever as a lever action, just like a single shot bolt action is still a bolt.
I've also heard the ruger single shot rifles referred to as lever action
freedom and guns
member
unspellable
Member
Lever action?
Guess my break open 12 gauge double is now a lever action.
more seriously, many types of actions have levers. The point that distinguishes a "lever action" is that the lever moves the breech block or bolt back and forth by pivoted lever action and in the process reloads the chamber. It was conceived from the beginning as a repeater and I've never heard of anything that could be construed as a lever action that was not a repeater.
Calling anything with a lever a "lever action" would be the same as labeling any self loader as "gas operated" because utimately it's gas pressure that operates it regardless of whether its blow back, blow forward, short recoil, long recoil, or gas operated. But we still divide self loaders into the five categories because their operation is so different.
And then most operated firearms have a bolt so that would make them bolt actions? The Ithica 22 is clearly a faux lever action and not a true lever action.
I've always heard that one of the reasons the lever action was not more widely regarded as a military arm was the risk of denting a tubular magazine and rendering it inoperative or at least into a single shot.
Guess my break open 12 gauge double is now a lever action.
more seriously, many types of actions have levers. The point that distinguishes a "lever action" is that the lever moves the breech block or bolt back and forth by pivoted lever action and in the process reloads the chamber. It was conceived from the beginning as a repeater and I've never heard of anything that could be construed as a lever action that was not a repeater.
Calling anything with a lever a "lever action" would be the same as labeling any self loader as "gas operated" because utimately it's gas pressure that operates it regardless of whether its blow back, blow forward, short recoil, long recoil, or gas operated. But we still divide self loaders into the five categories because their operation is so different.
And then most operated firearms have a bolt so that would make them bolt actions? The Ithica 22 is clearly a faux lever action and not a true lever action.
I've always heard that one of the reasons the lever action was not more widely regarded as a military arm was the risk of denting a tubular magazine and rendering it inoperative or at least into a single shot.
Eleven Mike
Member
Wouldn't make a difference now, of course, as we have tube mags on military shotguns and box mags which are not exactly indestructible. I would imagine a tube magazine on a rifle could be pretty tough, if made from steel of the appropriate guage.
I have no experience with levers. Have dented magazines ever been a problem?
KaceCoyote
Member
I would kill for a 7.62x54R Leveraction, man that would be AWESOME!
Nashmack
Member
The United States Army issued limited numbers of Winchester 1895's during the Philipene Insurrection for field trials against the Krag. These 95s were never adopted, soldiers believing the Krag was easier to load. The American 95s were in caliber 30-40.
Nashmack
Member
Unspellable, Eleven Mike, the Winchester 1895 used a 5 shot box magazine, not a tube. That argument does not apply to that situation.
Eleven Mike
Member
You don't say. Next thing you know, Winchester will make a lever-action shot gun, perhaps a 94 chambered in .410.
Nashmack
Member
You can get a 10 in lever action, but those old Brownings are pretty hard to find
unspellable
Member
Military lever actions?
Not all lever actions have tubular magazines, but as far as I can remember all center fire lever actions had tubular magazines up until the Winchester Model 1895. I'd suppose a tubular magazine could be made pretty strong if you were willing to put up with the weight, something that never seemed to give the military pause unti lafter WWII. But in the era of Custer and Little Big Horn the military supposedly did not like the tubular magazines. The indians seem to have had nothing against it though. The lever action would have lent itself to the light calvary techniques the plains indians specialized in.
Another strike against the lever action from the military viewpoint at the time was that the available lever actions were short actions and could not handle longer more powerful cartridges. John Browning came to the rescue once again and developed the compound lever action to handle longer cartridges.
I am thinking there was one model before it, but the 1894 is a long action. The locking lugs at the rear of the breech block meant it would compress and allow the cartridge case to stretch, limiting it to cartridges in the 30-30 class.
In the 1895 the locking lugs moved forward, making a more rigid assembly and allowing use of the 30-40, 405, 7.63x54R, etc.
Not all lever actions have tubular magazines, but as far as I can remember all center fire lever actions had tubular magazines up until the Winchester Model 1895. I'd suppose a tubular magazine could be made pretty strong if you were willing to put up with the weight, something that never seemed to give the military pause unti lafter WWII. But in the era of Custer and Little Big Horn the military supposedly did not like the tubular magazines. The indians seem to have had nothing against it though. The lever action would have lent itself to the light calvary techniques the plains indians specialized in.
Another strike against the lever action from the military viewpoint at the time was that the available lever actions were short actions and could not handle longer more powerful cartridges. John Browning came to the rescue once again and developed the compound lever action to handle longer cartridges.
I am thinking there was one model before it, but the 1894 is a long action. The locking lugs at the rear of the breech block meant it would compress and allow the cartridge case to stretch, limiting it to cartridges in the 30-30 class.
In the 1895 the locking lugs moved forward, making a more rigid assembly and allowing use of the 30-40, 405, 7.63x54R, etc.
Sleuth
Member
Much of the objection to lever action rifles was an objection to all repeaters:
"The troops would waste ammo, and increase the need for supplies".
Our wonderful Ord. Dept. tried to keep single shot rifles because:
1. We had lots in inventory
2. They had a much lower rate of fire
3. They were a lot cheaper.
So much for worrying about the troops on the sharp end!
Even the 1903 rifle, which is magazine fed, has a cutoff. Troops were taught to fire the rifle as a single loader unless authorized by an officer to use magazine fire. I have a 1917 dated field manual to back this up, as well as several books about the history of our Ord. Corps.
(Sounds remarkably like the fiasco with the early M16's, where they changed to remanufactured leftover powder (with a high calcium content) to save money. That killed a lot of our troops as well.)
"The troops would waste ammo, and increase the need for supplies".
Our wonderful Ord. Dept. tried to keep single shot rifles because:
1. We had lots in inventory
2. They had a much lower rate of fire
3. They were a lot cheaper.
So much for worrying about the troops on the sharp end!
Even the 1903 rifle, which is magazine fed, has a cutoff. Troops were taught to fire the rifle as a single loader unless authorized by an officer to use magazine fire. I have a 1917 dated field manual to back this up, as well as several books about the history of our Ord. Corps.
(Sounds remarkably like the fiasco with the early M16's, where they changed to remanufactured leftover powder (with a high calcium content) to save money. That killed a lot of our troops as well.)
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
One of the few rifles on which I made a profit and have regretted ever since was a high-grade 1895 saddle-ring carbine in .30-'03 with US Army markings on it.
So, yeah, for a while the US Army used the 1895.
Art
So, yeah, for a while the US Army used the 1895.
Art
- Status
