Why no Lever/Pump-Action Service Rifle in WW1?
- Thread starter Famaldehide Face
- Start date
- Status
max popenker
Member
speaking on Russian M1895 Winchesters, there were 2 major gripes about them - first, it was problematic to cycle its action while shooting prone, and second, it was too sensitive to mud and dirt for trench warfare
OTOH, many soldiers liked them for rapidity of fire
OTOH, many soldiers liked them for rapidity of fire
KC0QGL
Member
You are correct about the .30-40. I've been looking for one.
To follow Eric's hijacking, actually the Remington Model 8 became the inspiration for the most famous and widely produced assault rifle ever made. Kalishnikov even admitted that the Model 8 was his inspiration when he designed the AK-47. Just look at the receiver and the safety lever of the two weapons side by side, and you can see the similarities. Even the 7.62x39 cartridge has an intermediate power relationship to the 7.62x54r similar to what the .30 Remington (for the Model 8) has to the more powerful 30.06 cartridge.
I think Kleanbore nailed it
The military does not tend toward cutting edge thinking and is always fighting the last war. There was a lot of concern amongst the brass at that time that troops with repeating rifles would waste ammunition indiscriminately. Remember that this is a time when volley fire was still considered a valid tactic. When you think of it, it's almost a wonder that they finally went with bolt rifles that could hold 5 rounds instead of single shot guns.
The military does not tend toward cutting edge thinking and is always fighting the last war. There was a lot of concern amongst the brass at that time that troops with repeating rifles would waste ammunition indiscriminately. Remember that this is a time when volley fire was still considered a valid tactic. When you think of it, it's almost a wonder that they finally went with bolt rifles that could hold 5 rounds instead of single shot guns.
unspellable
Member
Lever guns
The two primary objections the military (At least in the US.) had to the early lever rifles were the inability to handle a powerful cartridge and the tubular magazine's susceptibility to being put out of action by dents. Somewhat later the Winchester Model 1895 could handle powerful cartridges and had a box magazine but by that time the wave of the future in military thinking was the bolt action.
The two primary objections the military (At least in the US.) had to the early lever rifles were the inability to handle a powerful cartridge and the tubular magazine's susceptibility to being put out of action by dents. Somewhat later the Winchester Model 1895 could handle powerful cartridges and had a box magazine but by that time the wave of the future in military thinking was the bolt action.
Duke of Doubt
member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2008
- Messages
- 2,863
The Italians and Austrians used Vetterlis and Vetterli-Vitalis -- a tube-fed bolt gun pattern -- in WWI. The later Italian Vetterli-Vitale was converted to box magazine to handle the spitzer Carcano 6,5 m/m round. The Italians used those V-Vs until at least 1942, in North Africa.
The Ottoman Turks used American Winchesters in WWI as well, in limited number.
The Japanese still had a few tube-fed Murata around for WWI.
The Ottoman Turks used American Winchesters in WWI as well, in limited number.
The Japanese still had a few tube-fed Murata around for WWI.
Famaldehide Face
Member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2008
- Messages
- 93
And the Lebel 1886 had a tubular magazine, but the French 8mm bullet had a round tip.
As said before, Lever/Pump action rifles could have had a box magazine with the ability to be stripper fed as this would have sorted the problems out.
As said before, Lever/Pump action rifles could have had a box magazine with the ability to be stripper fed as this would have sorted the problems out.
James T Thomas
Member
POW Guard Troops
A note for Griz:
I do not know if the rifles -referred to, were used in the Pacific NW, but our nation had POW camps there for Japanese soldiers during WWII.
An older gentleman, a friend of mine, told me stories about his experiences as a guard during those times.
I suppose they enjoyed the fresh salmon caught by our NAM inhabitants.
A note for Griz:
I do not know if the rifles -referred to, were used in the Pacific NW, but our nation had POW camps there for Japanese soldiers during WWII.
An older gentleman, a friend of mine, told me stories about his experiences as a guard during those times.
I suppose they enjoyed the fresh salmon caught by our NAM inhabitants.
There was an article in the "American Rifleman" in the past year or so on the Model 94 which is where I got the info on it being issued to troops in WWI guarding lumber forests.
There is an interesting side note to the information I posted. I worked for US Customs on the Mexican Border in the 1970s (and again in the 1990s). When I was there in the 70s my supervisor had an issued Model 94. We thought it may have been one used by Bureau of Prisons but the rifle was marked US and had an Ordnance Bomb stamped on the receiver. The federal goverment does keep firerams in circulation between agencies at times. The magazine article said this is how these WWI M94s were marked. 60 years later taht rifle was still doing service. No, we didn't get to keep it. It had to be turned in when we got USAF M16s (early ones without the forward assist).
There is an interesting side note to the information I posted. I worked for US Customs on the Mexican Border in the 1970s (and again in the 1990s). When I was there in the 70s my supervisor had an issued Model 94. We thought it may have been one used by Bureau of Prisons but the rifle was marked US and had an Ordnance Bomb stamped on the receiver. The federal goverment does keep firerams in circulation between agencies at times. The magazine article said this is how these WWI M94s were marked. 60 years later taht rifle was still doing service. No, we didn't get to keep it. It had to be turned in when we got USAF M16s (early ones without the forward assist).
dudechance
Member
you all are forgetting the main/most important issue with
the powers to be back in the day. they would not approve
a rifle capable of rapid fire,,,because of the expense. they
approved of less than 24 rounds per year for practice. any
rifle capable of firing more than 5 rounds per minute or so,
was just wasteful. think of why they went from a 7 shot
spencer rifle to the single shot springfield. is the classic
exsample of why we had custer and others out gunned.
hate to admit it but our military fiancing sucks...good as the m-16 is now,,,back in the day (65thru68) the m16 was
a piece of jamming non reliable junk. i was there and much preferred the m14 that was being fazzed out
all you need to do to confirm my prefernce...is check your
history a small amount.
the powers to be back in the day. they would not approve
a rifle capable of rapid fire,,,because of the expense. they
approved of less than 24 rounds per year for practice. any
rifle capable of firing more than 5 rounds per minute or so,
was just wasteful. think of why they went from a 7 shot
spencer rifle to the single shot springfield. is the classic
exsample of why we had custer and others out gunned.
hate to admit it but our military fiancing sucks...good as the m-16 is now,,,back in the day (65thru68) the m16 was
a piece of jamming non reliable junk. i was there and much preferred the m14 that was being fazzed out
all you need to do to confirm my prefernce...is check your
history a small amount.
Tommygunn
Member
Custer and his troopers had largely been equiped with Spencer repeaters through the Civil War and even while commanding the 7th Cavalry, up to 1873 ... when --*!SIGH!* -- the military decommisioned the Spencers and issued them the Trapdoors. But, at the Little Bighorn, I doubt that having repeaters by itself would have made too much difference for Custer and his men.
TEDDY
Member
WW1x2
the model 4 not 8 was the bases for the french chauchat.the russians made auto loaders using jap 6.5.the french also had auto loaders,I almost bought one yrs ago.the 95 win WAS in 303-30/40-7.62russ-30/06-35 win-405 win.
and the 30/30 could be in soft point as it was not used in combat.and the french used spitser bullets hence the groove around the primer.
the AK used the safety of the mod 4/8.
the model 4 not 8 was the bases for the french chauchat.the russians made auto loaders using jap 6.5.the french also had auto loaders,I almost bought one yrs ago.the 95 win WAS in 303-30/40-7.62russ-30/06-35 win-405 win.
and the 30/30 could be in soft point as it was not used in combat.and the french used spitser bullets hence the groove around the primer.
the AK used the safety of the mod 4/8.
mljdeckard
Member
Without reading all the other responses, I'm going to guess that the army had just grown into rifles that could use smokeless powder and spitzer bullets, and didn't want to mess with anything with less range and velocity. Lever guns of the era had to use blunted bullets.
BHP FAN
Member
''Remember that the Enfield only held 5 rounds so there was a lot of reloading going on''
My 1918 Enfield holds 10.
My 1918 Enfield holds 10.
From King Ghidora:
Here's a good article on the Lee Enfield:
http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/smallarms/p/leeenfield.htm
"Combining Lee's bolt-action with the Enfield barrel led to the production of the first Lee-Enfields in 1895. Designated .303 caliber, Rifle, Magazine, Lee-Enfield, the weapon was frequently referred to as the MLE (Magazine Lee-Enfield) or the "Long Lee" in reference to its barrel length. Among the upgrades incorporated into the MLE, was a 10-round detachable magazine. This was initially debated as some critics feared that soldiers would lose it in the field."
There are two reasons I can think of for the idea of five shot Lee Enfields. The first is that the ammunition was issued in five shot "chargers" or clips. It took two to load the rifle.
http://thegunner.net/khxc/index1.php?app=gbu0&ns=prodshow&ref=LE1-53
The second, and this based on vague memory, is that back in the 1960s one could (I think) buy five round box magazines so that surplus Lee Enfields could be used for hunting.
Here's a good article on the Lee Enfield:
http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/smallarms/p/leeenfield.htm
"Combining Lee's bolt-action with the Enfield barrel led to the production of the first Lee-Enfields in 1895. Designated .303 caliber, Rifle, Magazine, Lee-Enfield, the weapon was frequently referred to as the MLE (Magazine Lee-Enfield) or the "Long Lee" in reference to its barrel length. Among the upgrades incorporated into the MLE, was a 10-round detachable magazine. This was initially debated as some critics feared that soldiers would lose it in the field."
There are two reasons I can think of for the idea of five shot Lee Enfields. The first is that the ammunition was issued in five shot "chargers" or clips. It took two to load the rifle.
http://thegunner.net/khxc/index1.php?app=gbu0&ns=prodshow&ref=LE1-53
The second, and this based on vague memory, is that back in the 1960s one could (I think) buy five round box magazines so that surplus Lee Enfields could be used for hunting.
Carl N. Brown
Member
remington mod 8
Any gun that found its way into the federal prison system would eventually be used though not adopted by military services. The Winchester 94 lever action and Remington Model 8 semi-auto were used for prison guard duty by the corrections system and have been used for guard duty at military air fields as well.
Julian S. Hatcher's Notebook has a photo of a Remington Model 8 with peep sight and sling swivels tested at the proving grounds in the 1920s for its military potential.
Any gun that found its way into the federal prison system would eventually be used though not adopted by military services. The Winchester 94 lever action and Remington Model 8 semi-auto were used for prison guard duty by the corrections system and have been used for guard duty at military air fields as well.
Julian S. Hatcher's Notebook has a photo of a Remington Model 8 with peep sight and sling swivels tested at the proving grounds in the 1920s for its military potential.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Are you talking about our military, the same military that developed the M1 Garand, the heavy bomber and daylight bombing, aircraft carriers, amphibious landing techniques and equipment, centeralized control of artillery and so on during the period between WWI and WWII?
Tommygunn
Member
Vern Humphrey said:
No, I think he's talking about the military that walloped the Taliban in Afghanistan, then went into Iraq the same way and got bogged down for over three years because of the insurgents since they thought it was Afghanistan redux.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Excuse me?!?!
The operations in Afghanistan were essential Special Operations support to the Northern Alliance.
The operations in Iraq were conventional infantry-armor-artillery operations. Two entirely different concepts.
- Status
