Were lever rifles commonly used by Murican troops in combat during WWI? If they were how effective were they compared to bolt action rifles and if they werent common the why not?
>>29796278
Not that I know of but the russians did. Try looking into that.
But overall they're inferior to bolt actions.
>>29796278
No, but they were used by Canadian troops(specifically the Frog units in Quebec that never deployed) during WW1, and by "Canadian Coastal Rangers" in British Columbia during WW2.
Lever actions aren't as good as bolt actions for actual combat because they don't shoot from prone as well.
>>29796304
>But overall they're inferior to bolt actions.
If you're goal is rapid fire while maintaining sight picture during a period of time were semi-automatic rifles were complete dogshit or non-existant then they certainly had their place.
>>29796327
The from prone problem seems easy enough to fix but maybe its because i dont shoot levers too much.
>turn gun on side
>rack it?
>Lever it?
>Fuck you call it?
>>29796362
>If you're goal is rapid fire while maintaining sight picture
>turning the rifle to the side while prone or holding it high in order to function the lever
>maintaining sight picture
Bolt actions were literally better at maintaining sight picture while firing.
>>29796393
The proper phrase is "swish and flick"
>>29796278
Lever-actions are a lot more complex than bolt-actions. That means they're more expensive to build and harder to fix.
>>29796431
Gonna swish and flick my rifle
>>29796278
Lever rifles were never commonly used by Murican troops even in the late 1800s when they should have been. The military didn't trust the new technology and instead opted for single shot trap door rifles. This contributed to Custer's defeat at Little Bighorn where they were outgunned by Sioux warriors armed with Winchesters.
By WWI the US military was already on its second Bolt Action rifle the 1903 Springfield (which was also used in WWII) which replaced the Krag Carbine.
Bolt actions were preferred to lever actions by virtually all militaries since the action could be operated and fired much more easily while prone on the ground.
>>29796448
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOEAQ9mrcrs
In addition to the issues with shooting from prone, the limited effective range of the various tube-fed cartridges was probably a factor in their non-use as well. Long range aimed fire was kind of a big thing doctrine-wise.
However, comma, there's a blurb on Wikipedia about Winchester 1894s being purchased by various countries for various non-infantry roles.
>>29796424
You realize that often times trenches were deep enough to stand up in, right?
>>29796551
>Winchester 1894s being purchased by various countries for various non-infantry roles
It makes perfect sense, they're light as balls and they'll take down a fucking water buffalo if it's within 200 yards.
>>29796491
WAIT, THAT GAME WAS SWEDISH?
THIS EXPLAINS SO MUCH!
>>29796491
>not to mention the sioux basically hunted them like animals
They don't talk about how often indians would literally hunt settlers and deserting military men and etc.
Not even savages, just dudes here before Europeans who took up the entire continent walking around, dancing hunting and fucking. Then Europeans decided people should have jobs and they thought that was lame so they decided to try to kill them.
>>29796818
You realize keeping a sight picture on a bolt action can be done from any position right?
>>29796525
>>29796393
My argument to that is you can maintain sight picture while racking a bolt. A lever would require you to reacquire target in that way.
>>29799953
You usually can't for most rifles, but you don't have to reposition your rifle afterwards like you would with a lever action. That was one of the great advantages of semi-autos when they were introduced.
Bolts are stronger actions that handle hotter bullets
Tube fed lever guns couldn't use pointy bullets, unlike bolts
>>29800057
The inability to use spitzer bullets, which were superior in every way to round nosed bullets, was the really big thing.
>>29799847
Stolen content, that isn't on the right channel, or in the right resolution.
>>29796818
You realise that during World War Two there weren't that many places where American troops were fighting in well prepared and dug trench systems in a way that would make your stupid point valid?
>>29798144
The hunter-gatherer life style truly was the best.....
>>29800377
But then we wouldn't have beer.
>>29800384
But you did have plenty of mildly-to-very hallucinogenic plants lying about and a roster of responsibilites that amounted to;
1. Find food.
2. Pro-create.
3. Protect the tribe.
Ah if only anon, if only.....
>>29796278
Is anyone else kinda digging that tactical lever action?
I feel like I shouldn't but I can't help it
>>29800438
>Tactical lever action
Literal cancer
IS NOTHING SACRED LEAVE THESE BEAUTIFUL RAIFUS ALONE
>>29800370
you do realize the OP said WW1, right?
dipshit
Contributing with pic.
>Winchester M95 Russian, from WWI (made in 1916)
>Winchester M94 from 1960's
>Henry Big Boy from a couple years back
As someone already said, the 'murricans didn't use lever actions in WWI, but Russians did and they also armed the Finnish Red party with Winchester M95s during the Finnish civil war.
These rifles were part of Russian weapon modernisation and rearming their companies fast, because war. That's also the reason why Remington made some Mosins.
As for why the lever guns are inferior has been answered already, but i'd say it's alot easier to maintain sight picture while rechambering a lever gun than a bolt gun when not prone. But that's just me.
>>29796818
Yes, and if you had a lever you still would have had to move the rifle significantly to work the action, dingus.
>>29796278
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGDYIVY_rKI
nice bit with some nice rifles.
>>29800438
It's aight. The Mossberg one with the adjusting stock is fucking cancer tho.
>>29796278
what model/caliber is this rifle?
>>29796551
Found the military guy.
>>29800057
They had a couple tube fed bolt guns with pointed bullets in WW1. I think the bullets were angled and not nose to ass as to not set off the primer
>>29796818
yeah but that actually has surprisingly little relevance to the issue.
firstly because the armies fighting in 1914 were all expecting to be fighting a more mobile and open kind of warfare and indeed in the first month or so were fighting that kind of war, so the question of whether a lever action would be better for trench fighting never really arose.
secondly being geared for bolt action production there was little reason to make a switch to a different rifle with the attendant changes in manufacturing and subsequent production delays, the logistics werent worth it.
and thirdly the rate of fire from rifles in trenches was a secondary factor at most in defending a trench system, machine guns playing a far bigger role than rifles, and in offense the bolt action was felt to be more reliable and could be more readily fired from prone.
thirdly bolt actions were simpler to make, and more reliable in the field and could take more powerful rounds
