Posted on Apr 16, 2018
What if...the US Army adopted Lever Guns in the 1870s?
1.32K
12
5
3
3
0
Posted in these groups: 
Firearms and Guns
Rifle Shooting
Firearms and Guns Rifle Shooting
Posted 6 y ago
Responses: 3
5
5
0
I can tell you why I think they didn't.
-Lever action sucks in the prone position and may or may not be a problem in the supported position.
- You have to be careful because the point of the round in a tube magazine is in near contact with the primer of a center fire cartridge in front of it. (Although there are box magazine fed lever action rifles.
-Actuating the lever, takes you further off a target than a semi-automatic rifle.
-Lever action sucks in the prone position and may or may not be a problem in the supported position.
- You have to be careful because the point of the round in a tube magazine is in near contact with the primer of a center fire cartridge in front of it. (Although there are box magazine fed lever action rifles.
-Actuating the lever, takes you further off a target than a semi-automatic rifle.
(5)
(0)
SFC Stephen Atchley
I recall reading somewhere that another reason was the rate of fire. The army didn't want soldiers wasting rounds in poorly aimed fusillades.
(1)
(0)
PO3 Steven Sherrill
Maj John Bell These weapons are fare superior to other weapons available at the time. This is the transition from muzzle loaded rifles to cartridge firing weapons. I agree that trying to operate a lever while prone would suck. The big one to me is your second point. In the heat of battle with an enemy firing back at you, being cognisant of not dropping a round in such a manner that it discharges is a danger that may not be worth the benefit.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
I own a Winchester Model 94 (1970) and you cannot shoot easily in the prone position. It is good for sitting, standing and riding. I think back then, it could have been an advantage in many ways except perhaps some infantry situations. I would have taken it over a breach loader any day of the week though.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
Well... there would have certainly been more battlefield captures meaning the Indian Wars time period would have been far more ...interesting perhaps? When captured, Geronimo had a lever model 1873 as I recall... in his possession. Could have been a Model 1866...er... a 1876... or a 1885...oh snap it was one of the levers back in the day... I understand it to be the highest dollar lever ever sold... I woulda thought that the Calvary would have been able to carry more ammo for a duty day supply. The 45-70's compared to say a 30-30 or a .35 or a 44-40 the weight factor difference would have been a plus. Resupply lines would have been taken a toll eventually. I read about the higher ups concerned about infantry shooting the dickens out of every cactus in the Southwest rather than shooting bad guys... but look at it today, stateside duty daily ammo is 120 rounds... overseas 240 rounds...back in that day it was a ammo pouch of 20...(I have one, heavy bulky uncomfortable POS it is...) You ever lay on a bulky ammo pouch while in a prone position...? Just as difficult as operating a lever gun I recon. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say the Indian Wars would have ended much sooner, with more dead... on both sides. That's the only thing I seer if there was a "What If Time Machine" was put into place.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google