The Sad Story of American Hunting Rifles

[goon]

Gotta agree with these guys.
The lever action got it's big start in the Henry rifle (BTW, it was chambered for .44 rimfire - the .44-40 didn't come along until the '73 Winchester) and the Henry proved itself in the civil war.
I'm not sure if the Volcanic lever action guns that preceded the Henry were marketed toward the military or not though.
Along with that, you have to consider that the military has often been the driving force behind many new technological advances that eventually made their way to civilian uses.
Point blank, governments have more money to spend on new gadgets than hunters do. If you're looking to make money, who does it make more sense to market your new invention to?
Even if you look at the Winchester 94 in 30-30, at its time it was considered a flat-shooting, high velocity wonder. It was "new" (borrowing from earlier smokeless powder rounds) technology that pushed it's way past the black powder pistol cartridges of the 73 and 92 Winchesters and in some ways, even outclassed the 76 Winchester. There may have been those who lamented that change but it's the price of progress.
Bolt action rifles firing pointed bullets at high velocities are just another logical step.

 

[Art Eatman]

Addendum: There are only three guns which have passed through my hands where I've regretted taking a nice profit.

One was a lever gun. A Model 1895 USGI saddle-ring carbine in (of all things) .30-03. Military stampings, around NRA 90%. Heavy, but good balance. I was still pretty much a poor boy, back then, and as I've mentioned, my eyes aren't worth a hoot with iron sights.

Sigh...

 

[Mongrel]

Hard to take a man serious when he publically belittles Mr. Mauser and his daughter the 1903 Springfield.

But hey it's all in fun right?

 

[JShirley]

It's hard to take anyone seriously who thinks he belittles Uncle Art Eatman.

As well, the statement "eminently suitable for the American hunter" when speaking of a close-range, relatively fragile weapons system is obviously false. You're wrong from the premise, and depart immediately from pure opinion- which would be your right- to barely informed semi-historical wandering.

John

 

[SpeedAKL]

I like lever guns, I hope to get a .30-30 eventually. It's probably killed more whitetail than any other cartridge out there. However, for longer-distance shots using high-powered cartridges, a good bolt gun or even a semi such as an AR-10 are both superior weapons.

The ideal hunting rifle and cartridge all depends on the situation....and even then,. you'll find people who shoot better with different rifles and cartridges.

 

[Shawnee]

Belittle the Good Senator from Tequila, Texas ???????????


"NOT I", said the chicken ! I may well rib him a bit (well, okay, two bits), and play Devil's Advocate just for ther Devilry of it. But he's a good lad an' Tha's a Fac', Jack !

 

[scythefwd]

My question is this...
What makes a lever action rifle more suitable than other types of firearms for hunting? Bolts can be cocked quickly, and are very reliable. Bolts have an excellent variety of rounds (from your example 30/30 all the way up to the rediculously overpowered .300 win mag). Semi autos are accurate enough at hunting ranges (all the way out to 400y, yes I know people who take shots on trotting deer at that distance... it weighed about 125lbs, was about 2 years old, had 6 points, and sucked dragging it up the hills). Semi autos are now almost as reliable, and are most definately suited to adverse weather conditions (or can be, just look at the battle rifles, they are more than capable in rain, snow, sleet, hellfire, napalm, etc ). Since there isn't any major capabilities differences between the different actions now... why suggest in your rhetoric that levers are the only hunting rifle (what about the original... black powder )?

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Actuallh lever guns were developed for non-military applications. The Jennings and Hunt designs were applied to the "Volcanic Ball" (a hollowbase bullet filled with fulminate of mercury.) They didn't sell, and Oliver F. Winchester wound up owning the assets of the Volcanic Arms Company.

He hired B. Tyler Henry to make something out of his assets. Henry improved on Jennings' and Hunt's design, but knew the real problem was ammunition. By then, Smith and Wesson (the original partnership running Volcanic Arms) were back in business as Smith & Wesson and had developed -- but failed to patent -- the .22 Short. Henry scaled it up to .44 Caliber, with a charge of about 28 grains of black powder. Most Henries used in the Civil War were privately purchased.

The Spencer rifle used a .56-.56 rimfire cartridge, and was purchased in large quantities for Cavalry by the Union -- but was not orginally designed for military use. Like the Henry, the Spencer was underpowered -- basically a glorified pistol cartridge.

In 1866, the Model 1866 Winchester was brought out -- an improved Henry, and using the same cartridge.

In 1873, the Model 1873 Winchester appeared, chambered for the new .44 WCF, popularly called the ".44-40" because of it's powder charge. This was purely a sporting arm.

From the Civil War until the 1880s, there were no repeating rifles capable of handling a full charge rifle cartridge. Marlin was the first to produce a repeating rifle for the .45-70 US Military Cartridge, and Winchester followed with the 1886.

By the turn of the century, smokeless powder was ruling the roost. Few rifles were developed in the US for hunting use with smokeless powder

The Model 1894 Winchester, with the .30 WCF or .30-30 was the first, although the stronger blackpowder designs were adapted to using either smokeless powder loadings of old cartridges, or the few new smokeless designs being developed.

In WWI, about 2 million men were drafted and taught to shoot the Army way -- with bolt-action smokeless powder rifles. It was an eye-opener to boys from the hills and farms of America.

After the War, there were no American-made bolt actions available (Newton's Buffalo Rifle Company had failed), except for military surplus.

And the rest is history.

 

[RonE]

I think Shawnee is pretty close to the truth....The first American hunting rifles were loaded from the front and then one bullet at a time from the back. And then along came the centerfire repeaters (lever guns) and for years and years, there was none more popular. The first commercial cartridge to exceed 3,000 fps velociety? A lever action rifle made by Savage.

I believe Shawnee makes a very valid arguement so lets all try to pick it apart.

 

[Cosmoline]

It's funny but it's not accurate. The bolt action after WWI was NOT particularly cheap or easy to find. That's why there was a big market for sporterized surplus firearms. The Winchester Mod. 54 was far from ideal, and it wasn't until '36 and the advent of the Mod. 70 that there was a high quality American-made bolt action hunting rifle available. The shift from levergun to bolt wasn't really complete until after WWII when the price came down far enough. Semiautos have never captured more than a small percentage of the hunting market.

Winchester's quality took a hit in the 60's and an even bigger hit when USRAC took over. The leverguns they made before their demise were barely worthy of the name. Marlin soldiers on, of course.

 

[Drgong]

A REAL hunting rifle is blackpowder

I think bolt action are just fine myself for hunting rifles. I would say that my main hunting rifle even though it is chambered in a old military caliber (6.5 x 55 Swede) the round and action has more then proved itself as a excellent hunting combo.

For me at least, hunting is getting a meat animal with a clean kill and more importantly, unless I am starving, enjoying nature and friends.

 

[MinnMooney]

Pretty funny but your "History" was written with a lot of opinion and far-out writer's license.

and since then we pretty much need the ugliest, blackest, semi-auto military “rifle” , man-damager caliber

Since when is a .223Remington any more of a "man-damager" than any hunting caliber? It is so under-sized that many states won't allow it's use on anything larger than coyotes - and for good reason. Just about any deer hunting caliber, whether from 110 years ago or more recently, can kill more proficiently and humanely than the low powered .223Rem.

The civilian AR-15 in .223Rem is a great hunting rifle for game that can be humanely harvested with it's use. It is so versitile that there are now a multitude of calibers that this platform is capible of shooting. The AR-15 in .50 Beowolf is great on bear, deer, elk & caribou if taken within the caliber's range.

Are you just against "military, look-a-like weapons" being used for civilian purposes? A certain sports writer touted that very idea last year....

 

[Wheeler44]

Awww you guys give ol' Shawnee a break. Remember he's the feller that says that the .30-'06 ain't a good round. Sometimes I think his bus doesn't stop at all the bus stops, Bless his heart.

 

[R.W.Dale]

I think that Jim Zumbo would have really liked this OP ED piece.

 

[Caimlas]

The deer don't seem to be able to tell the difference between a lever action, a cheap "bring back" (in my case, import and bought) SKS, and a fancy-smancy scoped bolt action. Dead is dead, and shot placement is all that really matters.

On the other hand, it's kind of funny/sad how the government determined that Winchester lever guns were not suitable for military use - but those military guns are more than suitable for taking game.

Now, if you're trying to make a critique of people taking game from far distances using uber-magnum cartridges, that's another thing...

 

[Caimlas]

Oh and I don't know of anyone who hunts with a military rifle, unless it's an old milsurp. None of the newer (past 40+ years) stuff at least. Why bother, when you know you're only going to be taking, at most, 2-3 shots in a day?

 

[Shawnee]

Eau Contraire.... Shawnee doesn't say the 30/06 is not a good round - he says there are many rounds that are much better for the average American hunter.

As one or two posters commented - there is a conflict built in to the Human Experience - that of older humans scoffing at the "progressive" tools and ways of the younger - and the younger scoffing at the "outdated" tools and ways of the older. Game shooting is just one manifestation of that eternal fact.

It has progressed to the point of being an equipment contest or game - thus requiring a new and very different skillset. Plugging a paper plate at 1000 yds. is certainly to be respected and admired - but only in the very narrow context of a fairly brief moment in Time. That doesn't make it "bad" - but it does include some "sad".... a sadness for the disappearance of the skillsets from yesteryear (along with the men who excelled at those skillsets).

There was the day when the equipment component of the hunting equation was a 30/30 rifle, some ammo, a skinning knife, a red flannel shirt and some boots that were more or less dry more or less half the time. No spotter. No scope with a Christmas tree reticle, no rangefinder, no on-board ballistics program, no sling, no sticks, no rangefinder, no GPS, no Sonar, Radar, Pulsar or Quesar, no bench, no camo undershorts. Everything besides the gun and the ammo was supplied by the hunter - the skillset was sourced in the hunter - the skill came from effort and talent, not from Visacard.

Truth is - the "oldsters" and the "youngsters" should actually hold each other and their skillsets in high esteem - because they are linked together.

Sure - admire and respect the fellow who can hit apples at 800yds. with his XYZ SuperBlaster and all his "progressive" digital equipment. He deserves it for his skill in mastering all that gadgetry.
But, before he gets to scoff at and denigrate the tools and ways and shooters of "a ways back" - let him walk away from all that equipment, stand up on his two hind legs with a factory-issue 336 and no $200 sunglasses and hit 10 woodchucks in a row at unknown ranges from 30 to 225 yds. or so. Grab yourself a chair because it's going to take him a goodly while. In fact, I'd bet Tiger Woods is more accurate with a 5-iron than some of our equipment-dependant shooters would be with just a 30/30 and a spot to stand on.

Of course - they have the equipment; they don't need those (old) skills. And that's the "sad" - that the "yesterday" skills are lost along with the yesterday rifles and riflemen.

On the positive side - there are always some who admire and respect the old tools - the lever guns and the muzzleloaders and the bows and are willing to learn the old skillsets, thus keeping them alive.... mostly out of respect and for the challenge I suspect. Salud to them.

But Human Nature is Human Nature so have a good time defending your plastics and black paint and magic numbers. So it has been always. You day will come soon enough.

 

[goon]

Vern -
I have a couple questions:
1. On the Henry, weren't a large number of the ones that were privately purchased actually being bought by soldiers in the Union Army? IIRC, the army didn't issue many but they were willing to supply ammo for soldiers who had their own.
Seems that before the Henry, although the Volcanic guns had brought the design to life, it took a good designer and military use (official and otherwise) to make something useful out of it. Even if it wasn't designed specifically for military use, it was eventually marketed to the military and I'd bet that being adopted by the military helped get it started.
Also, to paraphrase your own explanation, when those farm boys who had grown up shooting single shot percussion guns got a taste of what a lever action repeater could do it must have really made an impression.
2. Smokeless powder. IIRC, the French were the first to use a smokeless powder cartridge in the 8mm Lebel (around 1886, I think ?). Eventually everyone else saw the advantages and started using smokeless ammunition too. At the very least, I'm pretty sure that it predated the Winchester 94.
3. Although the '76 Winchester wasn't quite full powered in terms of matching the single shot breechloaders, was it actually underpowered?
I don't know what the ballistics on a .45-60 were but just the numbers alone suggest that it wasn't something to be on the recieving end.
Sounds like more than a glorified pistol cartrige to me.

Shawnee -
There is something to what you're saying. I learned to hunt with rifle, several layers of clothes, boots that were more than less dry most of the time, a hand-me-down stag handle hunting knife that I still have, and a length of clothesline rope for dragging a deer.
I can see your point. Technology is not hugely beneficial in many hunting situations. And here in the East, in many places even the old '06 is overpowered for what we need. The .30-30 with irons or a low power scope is still a great choice. That's why people still use them.
At the same time, a good clear Nikon scope can make the difference between a target you can make a shot on and one you can't. A more powerful cartridge can allow you to take a shot that would have been unethical to take with a less powerful round. A synthetic stock and a stainless barrel and action can mean that you don't have to worry so much about actually getting out and using your rifle in the weather.
Besides, if it's ugly anyway, why worry about scratching it up?

 

[zinj]

I don't see why people feel the need to slam others' choices in equipment or style.

 

[Hokkmike]

Interesting reading but too negative from one of our own.

 

[rbernie]

if the words in the thread title are too big for you I surely apologize.

Oh, I understood the title OK. My comment was primarily geared towards the fact that the ten paragraphs following the thread title lacked a thesis and accomplished nothing but rambling through a poorly-crafted rendition of revisionist history.

If it makes ya happy, more power to ya, bud. I'll sit this one out and watch.

 

[elmerfudd]

I don't get the fascination with the lever action. They're not particularly accurate, until very recently they required round nosed bullets and they don't cycle as quickly as a semi. Most weren't designed very well for optics either.

A bolt action is stronger and more accurate. A semi-auto can put more lead out and both are better suited to modern bullet designs.

If you like lever actions, that's fine, but they're not inherently any better than a bolt action, semi or pump for hunting.

 

[Shawnee]

"I don't get the fascination with the lever action.... but they're not inherently any better than a bolt action, semi or pump for hunting."

The levers are perfectly capable, IF the shooter is up to it - so they are not "inherently worse" than the other action types either, and that means the other action types are not "inherently better".

The lever-action is just a symbol - a symbol of a time when the skill was supplied by the shooter/hunter. It's passing is a "sadness" or "loss" only to "the whole" - the entire timespan and tradition of the hunting fraternity - the span that links all generations of hunters together. For that - the symbol deserves respect.

Local opinion may vary.

 

[HB]

However - there are still – surprisingly – some Neanderthal lunatics around who actually attempt to harvest game with old Roman Candles like the lever-action 30/30s – some of them even without scopes with heat-seeking reticules - because they simply don’t know any better and never got passed Y-1939-Compliant. But they probably can’t hold out much longer.

Sounds like Me

 

[Matt-J2]

It can always be taken a step further.


Back in the day, spears were used to take Mammoths. So, real hunters, and real men, shouldn't need anything more than a stone tipped spear.


When I bowhunt, it's with a recurve and even wooden arrows. I just don't like the modern compound bows, nor all the associated gadgets like sights, rests, etc.
With handguns, it tends to be iron sights, though I will be acquiring optics ready handguns at some point, so I can use both.
With rifles, I like optics more often than not. Just the way it is. I do like lever rifles, but I don't like the sights that tend to be on them. I think scopes/red dots are fun.

So I like my bows old school, my handguns a bit of both, and my rifles modern. Hell, since I do most all of my hunting with my bow, that thinking transfers over. I still consider 100yds to be a long shot, even with a scoped rifle.