Why didn't the Union or Confederate army engineer Revolver rifles? Simple extremely reliable battle tested gun with a repeating action that would have given them a massive advantage during the war?
>>871604
It blew up on your hands, faggot
They could have trained soldiers to work on these guns and relode faster the the guns they used in those times and at a faster rate and both types of guns would probably cost about the same to produce.
>the winchester rifle didn't come 5 years earlier
both sides were behind the times in terms of what was available on the civilian market. it takes time and lots of money to produce new arms for millions of men.
the war was relatively short
>>871637
lever actions are useless in combat which is why armies adopted bolt action
>>871604
>Germaniggers and Frenchies have been working bolts by 1860's
>Fucking anglos still muzzle loading
KEK
>>871628
Not that exact model. They could have engineered one that actually worked. They make them today so it's not impossible. I'm sure if they gave it some sort of effort it could have worked.
>>871641
russia trashed the turks with repeaters in the 1870s
>>871643
It's worse than that, the Prussians had bolt-actions in service by the fucking 1840s
>>871643
The Brits had the Snider rifle by the 1860's
nice try m8 :^)
>>871641
Why are lever actions usless in combat?
>>871643
Just Prussia
Austria still was working muzzle loaders for example.
>>871659
pistol caliber
>>871643
Why didn't the Germans and French take over as much land as they could with such superior weapons at the time?
>>871669
because real life is not a video game
(also better small arms alone usually don't win wars)
>>871669
The Dreyse needle gun was the gun that unified Germany. France was stagnating in population in this time.
>>871659
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=228108
check it out. lots of relevant answers there.
basically -
too many moving parts make it less accurate, most used black powder loads (less powerful), tubular mags, have to use round tipped bullets so you don't run the risk of accidental firings
>>871668
It's not like back in the day they had great body armor or anything or took shoot for very far? Why would it matter? The repeating action should be more than enough to make up for that.
>>871679
read accounts of old west shoot outs, people would be shot multiple times and live
the brits would have regular shooting competitions with Enfields well out to 1km
good luck doing that with a 38-55 or some other fuddy duddy round
>>871674
Way to be a dick annon. When it comes down to it small arms and infantry is what wins wars and having bolt actions against an army that is using muzzleloader sister a insane advantage. You would need to be outnumbered 12-1 to lose a war like that.
>>871690
Replace sister with "is" I honestly don't know how spellcheck changed is that drastically.
>>871690
Even if you were outnumbered 12-1 with the right tactics you could even still win with that much of an advantage. It's not like there was bombers or anything back then? Why is Germany and France basically all of Eurupe right now?
>>871699
>Basically not
>>871690
>When it comes down to it small arms and infantry is what wins wars
no
>>871713
Great argument annon so let's just say Germany had less than half the man power they started out with in ww2 but twice as much supplies and a better economy. How well do you think they would have done?
>>871715
I mean the manpower Russia had didn't help them one bit right? It was all those fancy weapons and airplanes and their booming economy
>>871715
Soviets would've bumrushed them even harder
>>871604
YEAH, BECAUSE MAKING AMMUNITION FOR YOUR SOLDIERS WHEN PEOPLE ARE FIRING 4 ROUNDS A MINUTE IS ALREADY HARD FOR YOUR INDUSTRIAL BASE SO ALL YOUR SOLDIERS FIRING 20 ROUNDS A MINUTE IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU NEED.
THAT'S REALLY WHAT WOULD JUST MAKE YOUR DAY
MORE SHIT TO GET TO THE FRONTLINE ON YOUR 2 RAILROADS FROM YOUR SHITTY 5 FACTORIES
LOOK AT ME I'M JEFFERSON DAVIS AND I'M SUPER SMART THIS IS CLEARLY THE BEST IDEA EVER.
END.FUCKING.SARCASM.
>>871734
This is actually a good argument. It a shame you let your ADHD take over when you expressed it.
>>871734
>implying armchair generals give a shit about logistics
>>871604
if it was a history chanel sponsored strategy game thats exactly how it would have worked
also the altirely would have been semi-automatic and the cavalry would all have motorised morning-stars and chainswords
these latter would run on moonshine
>>871648
I thought it was agreed upon to throw logic out the window when it came to russian military execution.
>>871604
go ask /k
>>871797
It's a question about history.
>>871604
There's one single "sealed"(that's how you call it /k/?) revolver that was used operationally(Nagant 1895).
In revolver rifles that, yes, did exist, parts of the exhaust go on your hands, which is something you'd normally want to avoid.
>>871604
probably some engineering limitations at the time
>>871658
>Horizontal trapdoor
>Not superior Springfield 1873 vertical trapdoor
Why don't you sit in front of my farting direction?
>>871806
I thought it was flash and exhaust in front of your face, hence why revolver rifles suck but revolver pistols are okay.
>>871690
>small arms and infantry is what wins wars
Never in the history of modern war has this been true.
iirc the Union did have revolving rifles, just never that many.
>>871604
With revolvers some gases always escape out the rear.
Enjoy putting your cheek and face up close to that.
>>872046
Another issue with revolvers is that occasionally, they fire all 6 rounds at once, called Chain firing. This is dangerous but with a pistol they all go forward at what you're shooting at, even if it ruins your gun. But if this happens with a revolving rifle and those other bullets are going through your forearm.
>>872055
Only with black powder. Not modern ammunition.
>>871647
And while they are at it they could have engineered planes and zeppelins and long range artillery.
You know why they didn't develop any of that stuff. It's because technology takes time to develop and you make due with what you have when you need it.
>>871604
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbKDkOAi6Mo
Ian tells us about it
>>871659
Harder to fire from a prone position and the tubular magazine being awkward to reload and limiting the kind of ammunition that can be used.
>>871888
Do you even read what you post annon? I really hope you're not serious.
>>872432
True, but guess what virtually everyone in the 19th century was using?
>>875306
I know I was just saying because I didn't want you to give the impression that all these guns do this.
Firing a revolver rifle is a pain in the ass. The smoke from the gun goes right into your face because the chamber doesn't seal. Besides, the tactics of the day prioritized volley fire and for those purposes rifled muskets worked fine, and were cheap to produce and distribute.
>>871659
> Why are lever actions usless in combat?
They’re not of course, but the military preferred single-shot breach loaders until bolt-actions became common because;
A. early lever-actions weren’t as strong, which limited them to lower powered cartridges.
B. the military was concerned about ammo expenditure, a valid concern when your logistics train is horse drawn.
>>875699
>The smoke from the gun goes right into your face because the chamber doesn't seal.
There's a way to get around that, just have the cylinder move forward while firing. You still however have to deal with the increased price of manufacture and increased consumption of lead, powder and caps by soldiers in every single engagement.
The alternative to avoid all of that shit is, like you suggested, just make a musket.
