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

[Moparmike]

Maybe I missed it somewhere in the thread, but wouldnt a lever-action pose other problems:

1. Pointy (spitzer?) bullets being shoved into another bullet's primer is bad inside a tube, or so I understand.
2. Soldiers would be forced to carry bags of loose ammo, lending help to losing ammo while moving about.
3. Loading an empty lever-action is slower and more cumbersome than loading a stripper-clip fed bolt action.

My own ignorance of LA's follows, but relates to the topic:

4. Compared to bolts, arent LA's harder to maintain in the field/ more susceptible to dirt? I realize both are rugged designs, but compared to each other, which fares better?
5. Dont tube springs wear out faster than bolt-mag springs? Isnt it faster to unload a bolt than a side-loading tube?

 

[Triad]

Mopar, the Savage being discussed has a box magazine like a bolt rifle.

 

[Jim K]

Hi, JNewell,

I don't think the story was about loading single shot vs. loading from the magazine, but rather about tests that showed the Krag was not loaded much faster using a clip than it was by simply dumping in rounds. That was during the testing of the Parkhurst attachment for clip loading the Krag.

Jim

 

[Moparmike]

Mopar, the Savage being discussed has a box magazine like a bolt rifle.

Oops, my bad.

Wouldnt 2,3, & 4 still apply?

 

[Delmar]

Savage came out with a detachable box magazine, so I do not see a particular problem with quick reloads-in fact, might even be able to mount a bridge on top of the receiver to accept stripper clips too.

I'd have to call it a toss up on which action keeps the elements out better-the Savage does not "fall apart" every time you manipulate the lever, unlike the Win 95.

Field stripping and cleaning is going to be more difficult than a Mauser/Springfield/Enfield. And, its a clean from the muzzle proposition-IMO, not a good thing.

Somebody I think aleady mentioned the lack of camming power in primary extraction. The ammunition we take for granted today would have been considered match ammo back then-not a lot in the way of consistancy in the WWI days.

I suspect one of the biggest reasons an autoloading battle rifle did not take WWI by storm was due in part to the ammo being made at the time.

 

[artherd]

We'd have people bitching all the time about the unreliable crap lever-actions.

* Combat Veterans would lamblast the .30-30 round as an 'ineffective man-stoper'!

* The entire lever action, though it produced a reliable and light-weight fast-loading rifle, would be looked upon with distain and touted as 'unreliable', a 'jam-o-matic'.

* The lever mechanism would be said to be too hard to clean.

* HK would make one at 3x the price that everyone wants but no one buys.