Why no Lever/Pump-Action Service Rifle in WW1?

[Famaldehide Face]

I know Lever/Pump-Action weapons were around well before WW1/WW2 but why didnt they become standard issue instead of Bolt-Actions?. They would fire much faster and have a greater effect in the battlefield.

 

[General Geoff]

pump and lever guns were usually tube mag fed, which is a big no-no with spitzer bullets.

lever rifles are also difficult to operate in the prone position.

 

[shevrock]

Spitzer bullets?

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

Spitzer bullets?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spitzer_(bullet)

 

[JImbothefiveth]

Lever actions don't work well in all positions, such as perhaps when you are against a trench wall. Not sure why they didn't use pump actions.

 

[BHP FAN]

there was a good article in the American Rifleman about just that.

 

[shotgunjoel]

Spitzer is pointed bullets

 

[crushbup]

Didn't the Russians have lever actions in 7.62x54R? I remember reading that somewhere.

 

[Mike OTDP]

The Russians issued Winchester 1895s as substitute standard, IIRC.

Bolt guns were faster to reload with stripper clips, and were stronger.

 

[jimmyraythomason]

Winchester 1897 pump action shotguns were used as trench sweepers in WWI and saw service in WWII and Korea. Also limited sevice in Vietnam.

 

[shotgunjoel]

you can get more power/ higher pressures with a bolt action.

 

[Jim Watson]

Lever actions are less rugged and harder to maintain than bolt actions. You see a lot of well worn lever action hunting rifles, but they would be scrap iron if humped through the trenches for a few campaigns.

 

[GRIZ22]

There were M94 Winchesters issued to troops guarding lumber forests in the Pacific Northwest.

 

[paintballdude902]

griz didnt know that interesting

 

[BHP FAN]

Yep,that's what the article was about ''Spruce Winchesters of WWII'' or some such.

 

[2RCO]

Well there were all the Lend Lease Winchester 94's for WWII. Although used by home guard folks. Bolts just seem more logical for trenches. As far as tube mags well there was the 1895 and the Ruskies did buy some of those.

 

[moooose102]

personally, i think that bolts are just plain more rugged and reliable. way less moving parts to freeze up, and try to clean mud out of, etc. you have to think about this from the standpoint of running through muddy, half frozen swamps, snow, freezing rain, sand, etc., etc.. all thiose small working parts, that work fine in your sporting firearm, are actually a liability in a service rifle. how they ever made automatics that work under those conditions baffles me. i guess they beef up the parts, and fit them loose.

 

[ArmedBear]

Trench warfare.

Even a pump doesn't work too well if you're keeping down as low as you can. Your elbow has to bend somewhere to work the thing.

 

[green country shooter]

Most lever actions back then could not handle the powerful rifle cartridges armies were using. A lever action is capable of handling about anything if strongly built, but a lot of them were designed to handle mild black powder loads and couldn't take rounds like the .30-06, 8mm etc.

 

[Kleanbore]

Interesting question. Even before WWI, lever action rifles had generally fallen out of favor for military applications, and that did not necessarily have to do with the type of magazine or the bullet design.

In the late 1870s and early '80s, the U. S. Army evaluated several rifles in .45-70 as potential replacements for the single shot Springfield. These included the box magazine Lee, provided by Remington; the tubular magazine Hotchkiss, provided by Winchester; and the tubular magazine Chaffee-Reece, manufactured by Springfield Armory. They were all bolt action rifles.

In the event, none were adopted, and the Springfield remained standard issue until the adoption of the Krag-Jorgensen with its small bore smokeless cartridge. Some in Ordnance were opposed to the idea of issuing repeating rifles to the troops and remained so until European developments indicated a need for change. Even then, the Krag and the Model 1903 had magazine cut-offs so that single shot loading would be employed when use of the magazine was not necessary.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Service rifles in WWI were chambered for the same round as the light and medium machineguns
(.30-06, .303 Brit, 7.92x57, 7.62.54R, etc). With the execption of the Winchester 1895, lever and pump guns just were not suitable for military rifle/machinegun ammo.

 

[Eric F]

A better question would be why not the auto loading remington mod 8? I have my great grandfathers mod 8 and several others maintance is not an issue it has a 5 round fixed box mag and had striperclips. The intermediate 30 remington would have been suitable for the day. I suspect several reasons.

1. cost
2. ammo expenditure
3. no bayonet
4. not a full power round

ok I'm done hijacking

 

[Famaldehide Face]

For the ammo supply, It still could have a box magazine/stripper feed, especially for a pump-action service rifle. The magazine for a lever action rifle would be better off side mounted like the Krag Jorgensen.

Rifles such as the Winchester Model 88, Remington 7600/7615 would have been effective weapons if they existed then. Or if the Model 1887/1901(With box magazine) could have been too.

 

[Dean Williams]

It could have something to do with the bolt design vs other actions of the time. Extraction leverage of lever and pump guns are not up to snuff compared to the cam over leverage provided by a bolt gun. Same goes for a cartridge that may be hard to put into battery under battle conditions. Push the bolt forward and cam it down, and it will fully chamber under most circumstances. The same cannot always be said for lever and pump guns.

 

[paintballdude902]

well the 1895 is mag fed and atleast in the 7.62 russ it wourked great with strippers according to vaarok it works better witht eh mosin strippers than the mosin does lol

they were also made in .303, .30-06, and i believe .30-40