What if the Savage levergun had been adopted by the Army?

[Cosmoline]

IIRC, an early incarnation of the Savage '99 had been considered but rejected by the Army. What if the '99 itself had been adopted and adapted for use with the .30'06 or similar cartridge? Then we would have had an American levergun as the standard rifle going into WWI.

I recently found a 99E in .308 and in messing around with it this weekend I've been deeply impressed with its tacticality and practicality. A few points:

--It allows spitzer bullets and greater range as a consequence
--It shoots well prone, far better than I expected. From a normal prone position it was no problem getting enough clearance to cycle the lever.
--It allows for fast close-range shots
--It can be fired from nearly all positions with a scope, without breaking the cheek weld.
--The magazine provides excellent reliability in feeding, better than earlier leverguns.
--It's at least two pounds lighter than most bolt action military rifles I've had and handles far better in tight spaces.

With such a rifle, I could see us keeping it in service through WWII at least.

 

[pbhome71]

I believe that Russian and some other countries (Turkey/Ottoman) were using Winchester '95 in 7.62x54R. Rumors has it that the Russian still have these Winchester in storage some where.

New Zeland also have some of the Win '95 in .303Brit.

I was skeptic about lever-gun's utility until this weekend. A gentleman was kind enough to let me try his Win 1886. The receiver was made in 1893.

I need to get myself one of this lever-gun.

To keep it this thread from going off-topic. I don't think the U.S. ever fielded a lever-gun. Is this true?

-Pat

 

[Preacherman]

Well, in the Civil War the North fielded thousands of Spencer carbines and Henry rifles - most of the cavalry were issued the Spencer by 1864/5, while some units were issued Henry's, and many thousands of other soldiers bought their own. I also understand that some cavalry units were re-issued the Spencer in limited numbers during the Indian wars in the 1870's and 1880's, but I don't know whether this was official Government issue or an arrangement by some enterprising officer from local resources.

 

[Cosmoline]

IIRC most of the leverguns in use during the Civil War were *not* official. Didn't one unit buy all its own Spencers or somesuch? The memory is foggy.

Anyway what surprises me is that, as the '99 shows, there is a great deal of potential in the fundamental lever-action design. With adaptations it could have been superior to the bolt action for combat, and IMHO would have been the best war rifle until the advent of the Garand. Plus, it's an American design so no royalties would need to be paid to Mauser.

But for whatever reason, the idea stayed in the 19th century and our military went right from single shots to bolts. Perhaps because everyone else was doing it.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

A fundamental problem with repeaters was ammunition management. There were several early approaches to the problem:

1. Detatchable Magazines -- the British issued the first Lee-Metfords with two spare magazines, but dropped that rather quickly.

2. Large capacity. The Lee-Metford had a 10 round magazine, and that seemed to be an advantage.

3. Loading with a round in the chamber -- that was a major advantage of the Krag.

4. Clip loading -- that was the approach Mauser took.

By an accident of history, the proponents of the first three ideas managed to get into wars with people using the fourth -- the Americans fought the Mauser-armed Spanish in 1898, and the British fought the Mauser-armed Boers from 1899-1902.

And number 4 was the winner. The Savage, like the Krag, must be single loaded, and that knocks out any advantage of rapid fire.

Note that the '95 Winchesters sold to the Russians were all adapted to clip loading.

 

[MeekandMild]

IIRC one of the reasons it was nixed was that the lever could not be operated with the soldier kissing the dirt. OK from a loophole or from behind a vertical wall, but dangerous from some styles of trenchwork. This is the same philosophy which caused a generation of British SMGs to be developed with side magazines.

 

[Cosmoline]

Actually, the Savage can be adapted to magazine loading. And though it was never done I see no reason why a clip loading system could not be used. Just press down on the cartridges and the rotary mag will pick them up as it spins around.

I know the Mannlicher-Schoenauers the Greeks used also had rotary magazines, so it wasn't unknown for military rifles. I suspect the big problem was cost. A rotary magazine must cost many times what a simple Mauser-style magazine costs.

 

[roscoe]

The Winchester 88 (one of the best leverguns I have ever used - in .308) has a detachable box magazine.

 

[Jim Watson]

I think a major reason was maintenance. The Savage 99 and other lever actions have no real fieldstrip capability, while military bolt actions and autos can all be disassembled to some extent by the shooter.

 

[Dave Markowitz]

Most military bolt actions were simpler than leverguns. They also had much better primary extraction, important if the only ammo you have is kinda grungy and extraction is sticky.

 

[Badger Arms]

I'm not so sure that the Savage would have been a good gun for military use. While it's a fine sporting arm, the complicate magazine and lack of strength were negatives in adition to those mentioned before. The Savage 99 is not as robust an action as either the Krag or the Mauser / Springfield action. Following our experience with the Krag, it's doubtful that anything LESS powerful than the 30-03 would have been adopted and the Savage is simply not capable of handling that round.

As for firing the gun while prone, It's just as easy to work a bolt as it is to rotate a lever gun to the left to work the lever so the advantage is marginal. Given conditions in the first World War, it's a good thing that reduction in caliber and/or power had not happened or we would have been severely outranged by superior German arms.

The final nail in the coffin would have been the "Not invented here" syndrome. Springfield Armory wanted to develop their own gun and did. The NIH syndrome has shot-down such fine weapons as the Enfield 1917, Johnson 1941, FN FAL, and even the M-16 in the early years. While I don't think the Savage would have served poorly, it certainly was not the battle rifle that the 1903 and Garand turned out to be.

I second the criticisms voiced earlier. 1) no clip-loading provision. 2) no easy field-stripping method. 3) can't top-off magazine while loaded. Because the gun is rear-locking, there are significant safetly issues in th case of a ruptured case head or cracked receiver that are not present on the Mauser.

 

[106rr]

The Savage lever action was in fact a martial rifle. Fifty were purchased by the Washington State Militia. I believe it was the 95 model, 30-30 cal, and in musket format, that is stocked to the muzzle.
The criticisms about prone position lever use and single loading of cartridges were well stated. I never heard any comments from the Washington State Militia one way or the other.

 

[Delmar]

Of all the "traditional" lever guns, the 99 action is probably the sturdiest. And note that during the last decade or three of the 99's manufacture, they came out of the box with a detachable magazine-in fact, the last few thousand made came only with a box magazine.

Because of the long throw of the 99, the longest cartridge you could normally chamber them for is the 308 Winchester.

The rotary mag is a good thing for sportsmen but it did not offer a fast reload and I don't know how much dirt they would put up with. I never heard any particular complaints against it, but then I'm not sure how well they would have done in a muddy trench.

The only thing I ever had against them is the stock shape-the stock drop is pretty severe, and having shot a few off the bench in 308 will wake you up . Not a big problem in the field and snap shooting is easy to do. Lots of machining required to make the action-typical of the time period.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Quote:
--------------------------------------------
The rotary mag is a good thing for sportsmen but it did not offer a fast reload and I don't know how much dirt they would put up with.
--------------------------------------------

We do know that some "great ideas," like the Ross straight-pull bolt action failed miserably in the trenches in France in WWI.

I like the Model 99 (my dad killed a tiger, a cheetah, a lion, and a slew of other game, including a kudu good enough for Rowland Ward with a model 99 in 250-3000). But I wouldn't want it in the trenches in France.

 

[Nightcrawler]

I don't think topping off a loaded Mauser is particularly simple, either.

Okay, so all of your ammo is on five round clips, right? Say you've got three rounds left in the magazine.

You work the bolt. The round in the chamber ejects. You've got to catch it and put it somewhere, else you've wasted round. You shove the stripper clip in, but only three rounds go into the magazine (I believe the Mauser had a capacity of five, correct?). So now you've got two rounds on a stripper clip and one loose round.

In the heat of battle, you'd likely just drop the loose rounds and the partial stripper and lose three rounds. Otherwise you'd probably want to put the loose round on the stripper and put it in your pocket or someplace.

Either way, though, it doesn't make for quick and efficient topping off, in the way we think of it today, unless there's something about the function of a bolt action military rifle I'm not seeing.

 

[Cosmoline]

I'm still convinced that the Savage 99 would have been a superior battle rifle to either the Krag or the Springfield '03. Neither bolt action can match its speed or handling in close quarters, and while the '03 has better accuracy downrange, that matters more in a target rifle than a battle rifle. The '99 is more than accurate enough to work in combat.

But maybe it's just me. I admit I think it's cool to imagine an alternative history where doughboys under C'nC Teddy Roosevelt come to France in 1914 armed with Savage 99's It just sits better with me that what actually took place--doughboys under Wilson arriving late with Mauser and Enfield knockoffs.

 

[Checkman]

During WW1 the United States Army did field the Winchester 1894 in 30-30. They were issued to Signal Corp troops stationed in the Northwestern United States. At that time the forests of the region were vital to the national defense (airplanes,etc.). The timber industry had been bothered by violent labor disputes and the Signal Corp soldiers were there to ensure that the war effort wasn't interfered with. Since the Springfields and P1917's were going to the troops in France the Army went with the Winchester 30-30. They were plentiful and it was felt that it was an adequate weapon for the task at hand. Also a handful of Winchester 1895's in 30-40 Krag were issued to troops during the insurrection in the Phililipines for testing. The soldiers found the rifles to fragile for the combat conditions.

 

[Dr.Rob]

Here's one reason you probably never thought of.

The stock is FRAGILE.

I was watching some Discovery?TLC show on "true crime" where a Savage 99 was used as a murder weapon. When attempting to CLUB someone with a Savage 99 (things like this happen in war, that's why rifles have steel buttplates) the rifle's stock will invariably shatter at the wrist.

No matter how robust the action is, that's a weakness you don't want in an army rifle.

(yet another useless bit of trivia from the staff)

 

[Cosmoline]

Well that's the sporter stock. The military version prototype had a full musket-style stock. The fact that it's two-piece doesn't make it fragile per se, just look at the SMLE's. But your point is excellent. IMHO that's one of the main reasons the AR makes a poor platform for an assault rifle.

 

[Jim K]

Hi, Cosmoline,

I will be more prepared to listen to your argument for the Model 99 Savage as a military rifle when you tell me how many times you have "field stripped" one for cleaning.

Also note that the rifle has zero primary extraction, and is much slower to load than the Krag. The solid top receiver has some advantages, but not enough to outweigh the disadvantages. Savage did produce the rifle in a military version, with a full stock and bayonet; while several nations tested it, AFAIK it was never adopted by any army.

(The use of the Winchester 95 by Russia was not really because it was the best rifle, or even a good one, it was because it was available in quantity when Russia desperately needed anything that would shoot.)

Jim

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I go and take down my M1905 Ross, and see how simple the Ross is, how easy to take down and clean, how you can load it by dropping in a handfull of cartridges -- no clip needed.

And then I remember how badly it failed in France.

In fact, mine (which is US-surcharged, meaning it was given to us for training purposes when we entered the war) has had the chamber deliberately deepened -- you should see what a fired case looks like. You'd call it a ".303 Improved." This was a last-ditch attempt to make the rifle work reliably in the mud of the trenches.

Then imagine trying to keep a Savage 99 working under those conditions.

 

[JNewell]

Neither bolt action can match its speed

I subscribed to this belief for years also, but there was a field test of sorts done by AR staff a year or two ago that showed that the two lever rifles tested were about the same as two bolt rifles on a time/score combined basis. The pump action was faster than either, IIRC.

Y'all help me out here...we're remodeling and all my stuff is in boxes. Does someone have a copy of that issue of AR handy?

Edit to add that a while back I was reading a lot about Krags and was surprised to read that, in the original Ordnance Dept. trials, the rate of fire single-loading the Krag wasn't a whole lot slower than firing from the magazine. And, before someone makes a crack about the magazine, please don't. It's very fast to load. You can basically just dump 'em in and go.

 

[MrMurphy]

The Winchester 1895 saw service in the Phillipine Insurrection, somewhere from 600-1,000 or so of them if I remember, chambered in .30-06 and set up for stripper clip loading with the charger guide on top of the reciever. Didn't go over all THAT well, though they did the job, not spectacularly well enough to make them change anything.

 

[4v50 Gary]

Wilder's Lightning Brigade (mounted infantry) was equipped with the Spencer Rifle. They served in Kilpatrick's Division and Old Killcavalry wasn't convinced as to their usefulness. One regiment had to take this hill. They advanced upright using walking fire. The Confederates couldn't pop their heads up to return fire and skedaddled. Afterwards, Kilpatrick was convinced as to the usefulness of the Spencer.

At one time, because of the effectiveness of Wilder's Mounted Infantry Brigade and its Spencers, General Rosseau planned to equip an entire mounted infantry division with Spencers. Well, Ordnance Chief Gen. John Ripley refused to place the order for more guns so it never happened. (BTW, go to the blackpowder forum and there's a thread on Ripley).

 

[Penman]

If anyone has the chance, see if you can find a video of the movie "Dersu Uzala". Akira Kurosawa filmed it in the Soviet Union, and it's about a Siberian hunter who guides a Russian Army survey team. Kurosawa went to the Soviet Union to film the movie, and they are using Winchester '95's in the film. Somewhere in a warehouse....