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
"It really took the combination of smokeless powder and the jacketed bullet to make the center fire repeating rifle a reliable weapons system."
I'm sure Oliver Winchester and his Model 1873 would disagree with that...
I'm sure Oliver Winchester and his Model 1873 would disagree with that...
Mike Irwin
Staff
"Mike, I would agree with this entirely, except, no REAL AMERICAN measures the distance to his target in meters!!!"
BBBBBBBBBBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!
Wrong answer, thanks for playing, don't go away mad, just go away!
Google Kasson Act.
It's period appropriate for this discussion.
BBBBBBBBBBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!
Wrong answer, thanks for playing, don't go away mad, just go away!
Google Kasson Act.
It's period appropriate for this discussion.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"Unlikely, not a lot of trench warfare going on at that time..."
Actually a lot more than you think.
The Siege of Plevna involved significant trench works by the Ottoman forces, as well as their use of Winchester lever action rifles.
There was also a significant amount of trench warfare conducted in the later phases of the American Civil War.
Actually a lot more than you think.
The Siege of Plevna involved significant trench works by the Ottoman forces, as well as their use of Winchester lever action rifles.
There was also a significant amount of trench warfare conducted in the later phases of the American Civil War.
zincwarrior
New member
This. It was all about money. They preferred to spend less on an internally engineered solution for a breech loading rifle able to be utilize existing rifles.
Consider the time. Even more so than post WWII, the US wound down its massive land armies after the ACW. And why not? It had no need for a large land force. As noted our major foes were Mexico, Canada, and native American tribes that were fierce but relatively minor powers. I'm sure had Prussia been sitting where Mexico is, the land forces would have been considerably stronger, but that was not necessary.
In contrast, the US spent relatively large sums on its navy.
Mike Irwin
Staff
Please note what I said...
Only about 50,000 Civil War era rifled muskets were converted to trapdoors.
It was quickly found that conversion was NOT a suitable solution for a number of reasons.
Given that the military had a chance to "clean the slate" starting around 1868, when the conversions were shown not to be a long-term solution, they ended up redesigning the entire system into a newly manufactured rifle.
While cost is always a factor, had it truly been the primary factor the military simply would have stayed with the Springfield rifled musket, of which there were nearly 3 million at the end of the war.
Only about 50,000 Civil War era rifled muskets were converted to trapdoors.
It was quickly found that conversion was NOT a suitable solution for a number of reasons.
Given that the military had a chance to "clean the slate" starting around 1868, when the conversions were shown not to be a long-term solution, they ended up redesigning the entire system into a newly manufactured rifle.
While cost is always a factor, had it truly been the primary factor the military simply would have stayed with the Springfield rifled musket, of which there were nearly 3 million at the end of the war.
Cost, I'm sure was the primary reason for not adopting a lever action.
The tactical problems associated with muzzle loading muskets compared to the duties of a constabulary Army tasked with pacifying the West, were likely the reasons for adopting a single shot cartridge rifle. Despite not having a vastly superior rate of fire a cartridge rifle is much easier to reload in the prone and more reliable in bad weather.
The Army historically gets the cheapest of the best, or the best of the cheapest, saving the major expenses for big ticket items like tanks, helicopters, or in the days of the "wild west," Gatling guns.
Jimro
Read some history about the corruption in Grant's government. The Trap Door Springfield procurement was riddled with it.
"...Only about 50,000 Civil War era rifled muskets were converted..." By 1876, the entire U.S. Army had a total authorized force of 27,442, all ranks. And it stayed there until the Spanish-American War.
"...Cost, I'm sure was the primary reason for not adopting a lever action..." Absolutely. An Allin Trapdoor cost $5 vs about $20 for a new rifle. No Winchester 1873 in .45 Colt due to it failing to feed.
"...Only about 50,000 Civil War era rifled muskets were converted..." By 1876, the entire U.S. Army had a total authorized force of 27,442, all ranks. And it stayed there until the Spanish-American War.
"...Cost, I'm sure was the primary reason for not adopting a lever action..." Absolutely. An Allin Trapdoor cost $5 vs about $20 for a new rifle. No Winchester 1873 in .45 Colt due to it failing to feed.
rufus11381
Inactive
All this talk about the trapdoor Springfield, don't forget about the remmington #1 rolling block, took over sharpshooter duties from the plains rifle, went up San Juan hill with big teddy and the rough riders
The obstinacy of persons in charge of acquisitions for large military and para-military organizations rears its head WAY to many times as the reason for hanging on to obsolescent weapons systems, even in the face of proof of superiority of other systems. Witness the long run of the Lee-Enfield and the bolt-action Mauser. Even after M1 Garands became prevalent on the battlefield, the Germans clung to the MP-40 and Kar 98K, thinking that the MG-34s & MG-42s would cure all ills. They eventually saw the folly, and fielded the GEW-43 & StG-44, but far too late in the game to make much difference. The Brits remained clueless until after the Korean conflict, but then surpassed the U.S. by adopting the FN-FAL rifle types, while the U.S. hung on the M1 until 1962, when it was replaced by the excellent M14.
I don't like to think about what happened after that, so I'll stop here.
I don't like to think about what happened after that, so I'll stop here.
Hi, T. O'Heir,
That is the first I had heard of the Winchester 73 being offered to the Army in .45 Colt. Sounds interesting. The main reason rifle makers rejected the .45 Colt in that period was that the tiny rim made extraction problematical. In the SAA, of course, that didn't matter, since that revolver had a rod extractor, but the Army had to keep increasing the rim diameter of the .45 Government (aka .45 Schofield) to work better in the S&W revolver while still fitting in the Colt.
As to German semi-auto rifles in WWII, don't overlook the G.41(M) and G.41(W), both of which were fielded in 1941 to compete with the Russian semi-autos and (if the U.S. entered the war) with the M1 rifle.
Jim
That is the first I had heard of the Winchester 73 being offered to the Army in .45 Colt. Sounds interesting. The main reason rifle makers rejected the .45 Colt in that period was that the tiny rim made extraction problematical. In the SAA, of course, that didn't matter, since that revolver had a rod extractor, but the Army had to keep increasing the rim diameter of the .45 Government (aka .45 Schofield) to work better in the S&W revolver while still fitting in the Colt.
As to German semi-auto rifles in WWII, don't overlook the G.41(M) and G.41(W), both of which were fielded in 1941 to compete with the Russian semi-autos and (if the U.S. entered the war) with the M1 rifle.
Jim
This^
I've heard it said more than once in discussing Civil War tactics that Veterans could be distinguished from raw troops by the fact that the former began improving their positions whenever they were not marching ......
Not many trenches in the Civil War? Fredericksburg, Vicksburg, Cold Harbour, Petersburg, just off the top my head ...... add in all the field expedient "breast works" made nearly everywhere .....soldiers then are no different than soldiers now: they will do what they can, left to their own devices, to not get shot......
Re: The Fetterman Massacre
reference The Fetterman Massacre, Dee Brown,
http://www.amazon.com/Fetterman-Massacre-formerly-Fort-Kearney/dp/0803257309
As was mentioned there were a couple of civilian guides out front with Henry rifles. The bodies of the soldiers were terribly mutilated, following indian custom, EXCEPT that of one of the buglers, which was wrapped in a robe. Its speculated that he fought so bravely the indians honored him by wrapping him in a robe.
Their were three groups engaged, the civilian scouts, 27 troopers from the second cavalry, and 49 infantry. It was the cavalry troopers that had the Spencers.
reference The Fetterman Massacre, Dee Brown,
http://www.amazon.com/Fetterman-Massacre-formerly-Fort-Kearney/dp/0803257309
As was mentioned there were a couple of civilian guides out front with Henry rifles. The bodies of the soldiers were terribly mutilated, following indian custom, EXCEPT that of one of the buglers, which was wrapped in a robe. Its speculated that he fought so bravely the indians honored him by wrapping him in a robe.
Their were three groups engaged, the civilian scouts, 27 troopers from the second cavalry, and 49 infantry. It was the cavalry troopers that had the Spencers.
Last edited:
LeverGunFan
New member
Marlin did submit their model 1881 in .45-70 for the Army trials of 1882, but it had several incidents of cartridges exploding in the tubular magazine. It's been speculated that the round nose bullets that were used in the .45-70 cartridge at that time were the culprit. Regardless, it was withdrawn from the competition. I don't know of any other tube fed, centerfire lever actions that were ever tested by the Army.
"The excellent M-14??? Don't make me laugh."
Well, the M14 was pretty good compared with the early M16's which gave nothing but trouble, not all of it the fault of the rifle.
The real problems of the M14 were that it was a traditional rifle when the trend was to (then) unconventional arms like the AK-47, and that it was a selective fire rifle totally unsuited to full automatic fire. As a semi-auto, full power rifle it was pretty good, better than its main contemporary, the FAL; as a full auto, it was about useless, far inferior to the AK and M16.
Jim
Well, the M14 was pretty good compared with the early M16's which gave nothing but trouble, not all of it the fault of the rifle.
The real problems of the M14 were that it was a traditional rifle when the trend was to (then) unconventional arms like the AK-47, and that it was a selective fire rifle totally unsuited to full automatic fire. As a semi-auto, full power rifle it was pretty good, better than its main contemporary, the FAL; as a full auto, it was about useless, far inferior to the AK and M16.
Jim
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
I think it is important to point out the differences in ammunition cost way back then and now. I don't have exact figures, although I would love to see some, but I think a single round for a metallic cartridge at that time was considerably more expensive than ammunition now in relative terms. Several dollars in today's money.
The benefit of a fixed magazine lever action in a mass of troops is limited to the first magazine. After that first set of shots whichever action reloads the fastest has the advantage. The pause on the first reload is also substantial if everyone is firing at similar rates. What was the max magazine size available at that point? 7 or 8? That is a lot of firepower, but after those the advantage is lost.
The benefit of a fixed magazine lever action in a mass of troops is limited to the first magazine. After that first set of shots whichever action reloads the fastest has the advantage. The pause on the first reload is also substantial if everyone is firing at similar rates. What was the max magazine size available at that point? 7 or 8? That is a lot of firepower, but after those the advantage is lost.
I have to disagree with this; Everything I have read about the test trials showed that the T48 outperformed the T44 in almost all tests.
Prevailing (read: typical) ordnance board thinking was that a "foreign" design was not desirable.
The M-14 was an attempt at cost saving (again) and an attempt to correct so-called deficiencies of the M-1. The M-14 inherited a lot of problems from the M-1 that weren't corrected for many years, including its penchant for not working in the rain.
Saive's gas piston system has gone full circle and is now being used on the latest incarnations of the AR 15s.