Why did the U.S. army turn their back on the lever gun after the Civil War?
- Thread starter kcub
- Start date
Mike Irwin
Staff
Primarily it was the desire to have one general issue firearm that had greater range than any of the lever actions of the time.
Another primary reason is that they didn't want to have to continue to purchase firearms from the civilian market. The military wanted full military control.
Then you had some of the remainder of the old guard to thought that a man given a repeating firearm would simply spray bullets in any direction but the correct one and waste horrific amounts of expensive ammunition.
Then there's the old, and exceptionally hard to kill, theory that every American man is, by birthright, God, country, Mom, and apple pie, a sniper of incredible skill who can place repeated shots on a man-sized target at 1,000 meters all day long. And since their slaughter ability is so high, "you don't need to give them some new-fangled prone to break ammunition pump.
Besides, those low powered cartridges can't reach out to the distances where our red blooded sniperbots do their best work!"
Yeah, a bit melodramatic on that last one, but damned if that wasn't the logic for a long, long time.
I've often said that the military should have bought Christopher Spencer's guns, patents, etc., when he was looking to sell, converted the thing to use the standard .45 S&W round that entered service around 1874, and given them to cavalry and infantry units on the Great Plains in a 50-50 mix with the Springfield carbine/rifle.
Would have dramatically increased a unit's combat firepower.
Another primary reason is that they didn't want to have to continue to purchase firearms from the civilian market. The military wanted full military control.
Then you had some of the remainder of the old guard to thought that a man given a repeating firearm would simply spray bullets in any direction but the correct one and waste horrific amounts of expensive ammunition.
Then there's the old, and exceptionally hard to kill, theory that every American man is, by birthright, God, country, Mom, and apple pie, a sniper of incredible skill who can place repeated shots on a man-sized target at 1,000 meters all day long. And since their slaughter ability is so high, "you don't need to give them some new-fangled prone to break ammunition pump.
Besides, those low powered cartridges can't reach out to the distances where our red blooded sniperbots do their best work!"
Yeah, a bit melodramatic on that last one, but damned if that wasn't the logic for a long, long time.
I've often said that the military should have bought Christopher Spencer's guns, patents, etc., when he was looking to sell, converted the thing to use the standard .45 S&W round that entered service around 1874, and given them to cavalry and infantry units on the Great Plains in a 50-50 mix with the Springfield carbine/rifle.
Would have dramatically increased a unit's combat firepower.
The Army (read Infantry) was still wedded to controlled/massed/long-range fire (to include volley fire) as it's basic weapons raison d'etre. That meant large/heavy caliber (aka 50-95, 45-70 etc) which until later in the game were not available in common lever-actions.
Then of course, there was the cost. A muzzle-loading Springfield converted to trapdoor was a heckuva lot cheaper that a new-fangled lever action -- which were a passing fad anyway.
Then of course, there was the cost. A muzzle-loading Springfield converted to trapdoor was a heckuva lot cheaper that a new-fangled lever action -- which were a passing fad anyway.
snowman748
New member
lever guns
The Army turned their back on the lever gun because they can't be easily used in a trench when compared to the bolt action rifle. Yes they can be dependable and in some cases hold more ammo then a bolt gun but the lack of being able to use spitzer bullets and it being hard to use when in the prone position or on the side of a trench lead to it not being used much by the military.
some lever guns were developed to use a box style magazine and use spitzer bullets but the capacity was limited to similar capacity of a bolt gun in those cases.
You gotta realize america didn't really become a major player in the world till WWI and because of that our Army was lacking before hand. Some lever guns were employed in WWI but troopers had problems with them.
The Army turned their back on the lever gun because they can't be easily used in a trench when compared to the bolt action rifle. Yes they can be dependable and in some cases hold more ammo then a bolt gun but the lack of being able to use spitzer bullets and it being hard to use when in the prone position or on the side of a trench lead to it not being used much by the military.
some lever guns were developed to use a box style magazine and use spitzer bullets but the capacity was limited to similar capacity of a bolt gun in those cases.
You gotta realize america didn't really become a major player in the world till WWI and because of that our Army was lacking before hand. Some lever guns were employed in WWI but troopers had problems with them.
Pathfinder45
New member
Forsyth and his men were armed with the Spencer at the Battle of Beecher Island in 1868. Whithout the Spencer they most likely would have been wiped out. Oddly, decisions were made between then and 1876 that left Custer with inferior single-shot rifles against Indians that were well armed with many repeating rifles. Someone learned something at Beecher Island. Everyone else forgot.
Like anything involving government procurement, there's plenty of sides to the story. The one that is most likely true is cost.
Look at the manufacturing complexity of a decent lever action rifle, then look at the Springfield. More complex generally means more cost, and the US Army was very interested in keeping costs down.
After the Civil War the US Army was largely a "constabulary" army and single shot rifles were generally adequate when supported by cannon and machine gun Gatling from 1862 on. That worked out well enough for the Indian wars with the exception of the one time where Custer left the Gatlings out of the fight, although whether it would have made a difference or not will be debated into eternity.
The Cavalry had their pistols and sabers for fast close work, and their carbines should they need to dismount and form a skirmish line or hasty defense.
Then in 1892 the Krag came about, in 1895 the Potato Digger machine gun, and next thing you know its the Spanish American War which led to a better rifle the 1903 Springfield, and better machine guns, the M1904 Maxim gun. Imagine an Army so small that less than 300 Maxim machine guns was considered adequate.
Then WWI happened, and the war of the the individual rifle was considered done for with the carnage caused by machine guns and artillery. WWII was largely fought by both sides trying to keep enough tactical mobility to avoid getting caught in trench lines.
But its not like the US military hated lever actions, the US Navy issued a few Winchester 94s to some ships in WWII.
Of course after WWII the Cold War started, and now the military had to be huge, it had to be well armed, and so within the span of 15 years went from the M1 Garand to the M14 to the M16, from propeller driven aircraft in the Army Air Corps to supersonic jet fighters in the US Air Force. Helicopters came into their own. The Army of the 1960s was no longer anything like a post Civil War constabulary force.
Cost takes on a different meaning when you are keeping a standing Army with the goal of deterring WWIII.
I know that was just the briefest overview, and I skipped a whole bunch of important subjects, but sometimes the Army couldn't afford the best until Congress opened up the flood gates on money to go to war, then the Army got cool new rifles and machine guns, new tanks and artillery. And then in peacetime, it's back to counting the taxpayer pennies.
Jimro
Look at the manufacturing complexity of a decent lever action rifle, then look at the Springfield. More complex generally means more cost, and the US Army was very interested in keeping costs down.
After the Civil War the US Army was largely a "constabulary" army and single shot rifles were generally adequate when supported by cannon and machine gun Gatling from 1862 on. That worked out well enough for the Indian wars with the exception of the one time where Custer left the Gatlings out of the fight, although whether it would have made a difference or not will be debated into eternity.
The Cavalry had their pistols and sabers for fast close work, and their carbines should they need to dismount and form a skirmish line or hasty defense.
Then in 1892 the Krag came about, in 1895 the Potato Digger machine gun, and next thing you know its the Spanish American War which led to a better rifle the 1903 Springfield, and better machine guns, the M1904 Maxim gun. Imagine an Army so small that less than 300 Maxim machine guns was considered adequate.
Then WWI happened, and the war of the the individual rifle was considered done for with the carnage caused by machine guns and artillery. WWII was largely fought by both sides trying to keep enough tactical mobility to avoid getting caught in trench lines.
But its not like the US military hated lever actions, the US Navy issued a few Winchester 94s to some ships in WWII.
Of course after WWII the Cold War started, and now the military had to be huge, it had to be well armed, and so within the span of 15 years went from the M1 Garand to the M14 to the M16, from propeller driven aircraft in the Army Air Corps to supersonic jet fighters in the US Air Force. Helicopters came into their own. The Army of the 1960s was no longer anything like a post Civil War constabulary force.
Cost takes on a different meaning when you are keeping a standing Army with the goal of deterring WWIII.
I know that was just the briefest overview, and I skipped a whole bunch of important subjects, but sometimes the Army couldn't afford the best until Congress opened up the flood gates on money to go to war, then the Army got cool new rifles and machine guns, new tanks and artillery. And then in peacetime, it's back to counting the taxpayer pennies.
Jimro
Fetterman Fight
interestingly at the Fetterman Fight/massacre, the participating cavalry were armed with Spencer Carbines. They (approximately 20-25 troopers) were eventually overwhelmed by the estimated 1000 Indians. I think the smoke from black powder provided some concealment that allowed the Indians to move within bow and arrow and eventually hand weapon range and overrun the troopers.
interestingly at the Fetterman Fight/massacre, the participating cavalry were armed with Spencer Carbines. They (approximately 20-25 troopers) were eventually overwhelmed by the estimated 1000 Indians. I think the smoke from black powder provided some concealment that allowed the Indians to move within bow and arrow and eventually hand weapon range and overrun the troopers.
Mike Irwin
Staff
Forsyth was a Civil War veteran. He personally picked the contingent of men he led to Beecher Island and personally armed them with Spencers. Most of the men with him were not military - they were frontiersmen.
Forsyth had been a cavalry soldier/officer during the Civil War, and he was undoubtedly familiar with Spencer and possibly even Henry rifles. I don't think it's a fluke at all that he chose the Spencer to arm his small (roughly 50) man contingent.
Forsyth had been a cavalry soldier/officer during the Civil War, and he was undoubtedly familiar with Spencer and possibly even Henry rifles. I don't think it's a fluke at all that he chose the Spencer to arm his small (roughly 50) man contingent.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"I thought it was because easy and cheap to convert the many front loading civil war rifles."
The first trapdoors in US service were conversion rifles, the Model 1866, in .50-70, but those didn't last long, being in service only until 1869.
The relined barrels had issues with the liners slipping under extensive firing.
Only about 50,000 Model 1866s were built and issues until the Model 1873, a purpose built gun, was adopted.
The first trapdoors in US service were conversion rifles, the Model 1866, in .50-70, but those didn't last long, being in service only until 1869.
The relined barrels had issues with the liners slipping under extensive firing.
Only about 50,000 Model 1866s were built and issues until the Model 1873, a purpose built gun, was adopted.
Often things like this happen because of guns already in inventory and buying new ones costs money or because the fix was in for a supplier to provide outdated weapons. I have read that the number one concern brass had about repeating rifles was the troops wasting valuable ammunition. I have also read that during the Vietnam War one million rounds were expended for each casualty inflicted so maybe those guys had something back in 1861.
DAVID NANCARROW
New member
The tactics were way behind the technology during and after the Civil War. It was thought that to mass your fire, you had to mass your men. The bayonet was not used as much as you might think.
A couple of bad things about the early lever guns. Hard to lie prone and work the action. The rimfire cartridges didn't have much power or range compared to the Springfield muzzle loader, even though it was a muzzle loading single shot. Lever actions were a lot more expensive than muzzle loaders or the trapdoor which replaced it. A black powder repeater is going to be more difficult to clean, too.
It really took the combination of smokeless powder and the jacketed bullet to make the center fire repeating rifle a reliable weapons system.
A couple of bad things about the early lever guns. Hard to lie prone and work the action. The rimfire cartridges didn't have much power or range compared to the Springfield muzzle loader, even though it was a muzzle loading single shot. Lever actions were a lot more expensive than muzzle loaders or the trapdoor which replaced it. A black powder repeater is going to be more difficult to clean, too.
It really took the combination of smokeless powder and the jacketed bullet to make the center fire repeating rifle a reliable weapons system.
Most of us grew up watching cowboys shooting their lever guns on TV and in the theater. The truth is that they weren't nearly as popular (or as good) in real life as on the silver screen for a lot of the reasons listed above. Lever actions really took off after WW-1 when they started starring in the early westerns of the 1920's through the 1970's.
In the real world they aren't all that fast to shoot, nor all that reliable. Most people don't stand up in the open during a fight like the cowboys in the movies, but on the ground or behind cover. From those positions many other designs are almost as fast, sometimes faster for repeat shots.
In the real world they aren't all that fast to shoot, nor all that reliable. Most people don't stand up in the open during a fight like the cowboys in the movies, but on the ground or behind cover. From those positions many other designs are almost as fast, sometimes faster for repeat shots.
Mike, I would agree with this entirely, except, no REAL AMERICAN measures the distance to his target in meters!!!
The answers to the OP are COST, complexity, fragility, and general bigotry.
Remember to look at things in the mindset of the era, and NOT with 20/21st century "common knowledge".
Along with the already mentioned cost of the rifles, ammo "wastage" etc, there is the fact that the military arm was still considered to be an IMPACT weapon. Bayonet or buttstroke, the rifle had to be able to dish out, and take these. This is something NO lever gun design was as good at as "regular" rifles and muskets.
Lever gun cartridges didn't have the power (=range) you could get in a single shot until the later 1880s. And by then, technology was feeding itself, various improvements upon improvements, some dead ends, and some resulting in state of the art guns that haven't been significantly improved on in 100+ years. Basically, by the time there were lever gun designs that might have been suitable for military service, there were other designs, (notably bolt actions) that were even better suited.
the early lever guns had tremendous firepower compared to muzzle loaders and early breechloading single shots. But they were also complex, expensive and not nearly as rugged compared to those same single shots.
and the Army of the day was not yet wedded to the idea of the individual soldier have the greatest firepower (or even the best weapon) possible.
In the immediate post civil war period (and for some time after) a large portion of the Army's troopers were illiterate, or only semi literate. They were not the educated highly trained professionals we associate with our armed services today.
Also remember we are talking about a rough 30 year period between the 1860s and 1890s where there was no pressure to fight a foreign army driving improvements in arms. We were still in the process of switching over to the new, high tech "smallbore" (.30cal) Krag and smokeless powder when we ran into the Mauser in the Spanish American war. Where we learned that while the Krag was a good rifle, its wasn't the best combat weapon possible, and we adopted what was essentially a Mauser system rifle a few years later (1903).
By this point, the lever gun, even one shooting the same rounds as the bolt gun, simply didn't stand a chance of being considered.
Remember that the competition was not the later 1894 Winchester or even the 1873. The lever actions were the Spencer and the Winchester 1866. Both were rimfire and pretty low power compared to the .45-70 trapdoor, plus the Winchester was not a rugged rifle. The Army has never, to this day, seen a need to have a super soldier, .50 BMG in each hand, spraying bullets all over. Like a good football team, the emphasis is on training, command and control, and teamwork.
The Springfield rifles and carbines worked OK in most situations; the LBH fight was an exception. Even so, some studies seem to show that had Custer's troops been better trained, maintained fire discipline and unit cohesiveness, they might well have won the battle. The native Americans (they aren't "Indians" any more) did not all have high power rifles. Most had bows, and the firearms were a motley assortment of modern and ancient. And the "Indians" never were known to be very good with guns; they mostly had the idea that if the gun went bang, the enemy would die. (A lot of people still believe that, and TV shows foster it.)
Jim
The Springfield rifles and carbines worked OK in most situations; the LBH fight was an exception. Even so, some studies seem to show that had Custer's troops been better trained, maintained fire discipline and unit cohesiveness, they might well have won the battle. The native Americans (they aren't "Indians" any more) did not all have high power rifles. Most had bows, and the firearms were a motley assortment of modern and ancient. And the "Indians" never were known to be very good with guns; they mostly had the idea that if the gun went bang, the enemy would die. (A lot of people still believe that, and TV shows foster it.)
Jim
Pathfinder45
New member
The reference above to the Fetterman Fight is not consistent with what I have read. I am under the impression that 79 soldiers and two civilians were killed in that engagement and that the two civilians were armed with Henry rifles. I'm not so sure there were any Spencers there. A man was sent to Fort Laramie after the fight with a request for reinforcements and a request for Spencers. The Indians reportedly had very few firearms at this event.
By 1876, through some shrewd trading over the years involving the, "Laramie Loafers", The Sioux and their allies built up a fairly large quantity of repeating weapons. However the comment of poor Native American marksmanship skills is generally agreed with by accounts of the time including eye witness accounts at the Little Bighorn Fight. An exception is found in the eye witness accounts of The battle with the Nez Perce at the Big Hole battle in Montana. Apparently, Chief Joseph's People were excellent shots.
By 1876, through some shrewd trading over the years involving the, "Laramie Loafers", The Sioux and their allies built up a fairly large quantity of repeating weapons. However the comment of poor Native American marksmanship skills is generally agreed with by accounts of the time including eye witness accounts at the Little Bighorn Fight. An exception is found in the eye witness accounts of The battle with the Nez Perce at the Big Hole battle in Montana. Apparently, Chief Joseph's People were excellent shots.