Why didnt the army use a lever gun after Civil War?

[dgr416]

The army used the henry rifle rifle during the civil war then went backwards to the Trapdoor springfield.I am suyprised the major companies didnt push the lever guns more for the army more than they did.Was it because the army thought it was a waste of ammo or did thye lever guns not hold up.I would rather have a lever action 45-70 than and slow to use trapdoor spring field.I know it was cheaper to convert muskets to the 50-70 but later they made new 45-70 trapdoors.I bet the rough riders hated using the trapdoor against the 7x57 mausers.

[Griff]

I believe it stems from the Army's belief at the time that firepower was preferable over rate of fire.

[salvo]

Any body else catch the article in this months American Rifleman "Drafted: The U.S. Military Contract Winchester Model 1894 .30-30 Carbine"
Pretty good read on the "spruce" rifles.

Winchester pushed for military acceptance since the Model 1873 they just were never deemed suitable for military service by the U.S Army Ordnance Dept. According to this article.

[Rexster]

I think Griff is right about power; repeaters were not very powerful until later in history. Remember, stopping a cavalry charge means stopping horses. Plus, MONEY. Reading a history of how the rifled muskets were converted to trapdoor-style actions, resulting in the Trapdoor Springfield rifle, will reveal that cost was a major factor.

[Kansas Ed]

IIRC the "Army" never used the Henry during the Civil War. Any Henry's which were purchased were done so by the individuals/companies out of their own pockets. I believe that I also read somewhere that the cost of lever action repeaters was prohibitive for the military, as compared to the single shot rifles of the day.

Ed

[cas]

yep... the country was hurting big time financially, and it was cheaper to convert the rifled muskets.

[Pete44ru]

Besides the low-power of the leverguns of the time, money ruled, as it does to some extent now.

After all, just look at how many forumites object to what they perceive as "high" prices - when, to other members, "the price is right".

[Malamute]

Actually, the Army did use some lever actions after the war, the Spencer. It played a major role in the Battle of Beechers Island.

One of the major considerations after the war was range, and the repeaters didnt have the range that the 50-70 And 45-70 did when they were adopted, cost was another major consideration as was mentioned. In looking at the difference between the trapdoor and a repeater, they army considered rate of fire not just in the first magazine, but over a sustained period of time. The trapdoor wasn't considered as slow as we think, when looking at rate of fire over 5 minutes or longer. I don't completely agree with the Army's conclusion or choice, as I prefer a repeater, but that was part of their criteria. I have the clarity of hindsight, and the disadvantage that I am always alone with nobody else to cover my tail while I reload if I was in a jam, tho I wouldn't be likely to have to face a charge by 40 mounted indians.

[dogngun]

I have owned and shot a trapdoor, and front-loading black powder arms, both revolvers and rifles. There is a real advantage to the trapdoor-the pre-loaded cartridge is very much more reliable, consistant and weather proof than a front loading rifle, and it IS much faster to load if all is working right and the fired case doesn't stick in the breech.
As stated in the above post, the trapdoor is far from ideal-I would not like to be in some battle situation alone with one- but I'd prefer it to any front loader I've ever shot in that situation.
The trapdoor is a very accurate, powerful weapon at long range, something that counted for a lot in those days.

Also, then as now, no one ever accused the Army of having too much sense.

mark
Former E-4, USA

[guido4198]

I seem to remember reading that back in those days, in addition to many of the concerns voiced above, the "High Command" types didn't want to promote "promiscuous, wasteful firing" by the individual soldier.

[Big Bore 94]

Most of the 1895 Winchester total production went to Russia. After having heavy losses with levergun armed Turks. 1895 Winchester's 30-40 in carbine configuration USA. 1899 303 Savage Muskets Canada. Model 94 Winchesters for war time factory gaurds. Who knows what all were gladly given to arm the citizens of the UK by the citizens of the USA after Dunkirk? But the design is poor for use by the mud, gravel and sand technicians. Especialy when fired from the prone position. Not many I believe. Would like to walk around the battlefield like they own it. Working a lever from a standing or kneeling position. But many a life was loss converting to modern weapons with outdated tactics.

[bogus bill]

I read several articles on this many years ago. You guys are right, the biggest factor was expense. The army just cheapley converted the many springfields they had. Thats probley a big factor why custer lost and the indians won!

[J Miller]

There is another possible reason.

Think of current military arms. All of them are designed to be disassembled in modular units. Very simply put they are designed to be disassembled for service and cleaning. If you think back to all the guns used by our military all of them were much simpler and had fewer moving parts than lever action rifles.

Now, think for a moment of how you would feel trying to disassemble an 1873 or a 1894 Winchester or even an early Marlin with an action jam while those 40 PO'd Apaches were thundering down on you. You wouldn't, you'd simply have a club.

Leverguns are prohibitively complicated compared to most military arms.
Consider just how many of us have had military training and can strip an M1 / M 14 or M16 down blind folded, but are totally lost with a Mdl 94 Winchester?

Just a thought.

Joe

[budliteguy]

You have to remember all the guns used blackpowder back then, the more you shoot and dont have time to clean, then that blackpowder is going to build up and jam that rifle wither it's a lever gun or Trapdoor. Remember that alot of Custer's troopers had the extractor pull the rims off the case when they fliped up the loading gate on those Trapdoors. Because of Blackpowder fowling.
That left the shell casing in the camber with no rim so your screwed in a fire fight with 2000 screaming Indians coming at you. Also the army thought if the shell tube on the Winchester got dented it would put the rifle out of commission. Capt. McNielly of the Texas Rangers perfered the Sharps rifle over the lever gun because with the sharps you would be more apt to take better aim. But they also use lever guns at close distance and mulitple Bad guys. I go with the lever gun, 2 short guns and a good double barrel shotgun at close range plus a good sharp Bowie knife for when it gets up close and personial.
At long Range, give me a good 45/70 Sharps or Trapdoor.

[Terry Murbach]

THE U.S. ARMY TESTED ALL OF THOSE LEVERGUNS TO SEE WHAT THEY COULD DO. THE FIRST THING THEY FOUND WAS HOW UNDER POWERED THEY WERE.
THE SECOND THING THEY FOUND WAS NONE OF THEM--NONE!!--WOULD STAND UP TO ARMY SERVICE. THE ARMY TESTS TRASHED THEM ALL IN NO TIME FLAT. I MEAN TO SAY IN A FEW DAYS ALL THE TEST GUNS WERE JUNKED; UNSERVICEABLE, INOPERABLE, UNLOADABLE, JAMMED ACTIONS, BROKEN PARTS, BUT MOST ASSUREDLY THE BIGGEST PROBLEM WAS DENTS IN THE MAGAZINE FROM NORMAL MILITARY HANDLING AND THEY WERE UNLOADABLE.

[505stevec]

you know? you guys are all, right on the money for the reasons to use the Trapdoor opposed to the Leveractions of the day. But if you look at today and the Sass competition every one uses repeaters. Sure a Jam only means your out of time but just think. If Sass really wanted to be is realistic as possible maybe they would force a round with Trapdoors or Sharps as primary weapons of choice. Was the west settled with repeaters or breechloading single shots? Wow what a thought! All the western movies I have seen other than Jeramiah Johnson and Mountain Men seemed to have repeaters primarily. Hmmmm


Oh just an ademdum. I was watching Rough Riders the other day. Wasnt Teddy Roosevelt using a 1895 in 45 Krag? It seemed all the others were using trapdoor carbines.

[horsesoldier03]

Immediately following the Civil War the primary lever guns around were the Spencer, 1866 and Henry Rifles. None of which are impressive when you consider the fragile actions and weak cartridges. I am sure many still depended on war surplus muskets and bp rifles and the serious frontiersmen probably found the money for a Sharps. IMO they were the best rifles of the time. Not to mention most of them probably were like our grandparents and great grandparents being that they were frugal and would not splurge on such a purchase when they still had rifles around that had been passed down through the family. If I ever wanted to impress either of my grandfathers with a gun one thing was for sure, it had to shoot straight and be bought at a bargin price.

[Ben_Rumson]

Owing to the fact that Irskine Allin had the Patent & worked for Springfield that figured highly into the cost equation of the conversion..... The early soft copper cartridge cases had more to with Trapdoor stoppages than the fouling did..

[marlinman93]

The Army didn't think the average soldier capable of field stripping or servicing a lever action, and they most certainly were right about that. Compared to the singleshot rifle, the lever action repeaters wer way too complicated.
Additionally the appropriations committee felt the average soldier would squander ammo if he had the ability, and gun to do so.
As for underpowered, I'd say NOT. The Army tested the 1881 Marlin in .45-70, and determined it was reliable, and powerful, but as Terry mentioned, they did not like the tubular magazines.

[Ysabel Kid]

Think of it this way. The lever action Henry, and later the 1866 and then the 1873 only had capacity and initial rate of fire for them in the positive column. The Spencer had even less capacity. Some were used in the Indian Wars, but the most common long arm was the Springfield trap door. It had price and range going to it, plus the general feeling that soliders wouldn't waste ammunition as they may be inclined to do so with repeaters.

[Rusty]

I have a book around here somewhere that a cousin gave me for Christmas one year called "The Great Black Rifle Controversy." It is the story of how the M16 came to be our current service rifle and about all the obstacles that had to be overcome in the process. One of the things that they said was that every rifle that this country has used up until the M16 was developed at least in part by the military and built in military armories by Gov't employees. If a levergun were adopted this would not have been the case. When people have authority they seldom like to have it taken away. this would have been the case had they agreed to accept a rifle made by an outside source.

The levergun was also a totally new concept. Look what happened when the M1 Garand came along. Same thing. The powers that be didn't want change.

Rusty <><

[jbm1968]

I am tired so I am not sure if anyone else hit this, but I think the rough riders used the 30-40 Krag that was issued to the regular army Soldiers. TR went to alot of trouble to make sure they got those rifles. Other Militia and non-active duty troops did carry the Trapdoor Springfield into action against the Spanish. The Spanish were armed with the finest military rifle available in the world at the time (In my opinion). We just had better everything else!

As to the original question; it was alway my understanding that the things already mentioned: Power, Range, Durability, Price.

[junkbug]

Jonathan is right about the Rough Riders. They used Krag Carbines in .30 US ARMY, the first line US military issue carbine for calvary. They were in short supply, and the regular US army was limited to approximately 25,000 men, total at the time. The state militias were the great man power reserve then and were armed predominantly with Trapdoor Spingfields.

TR. may have carried a 1895 Winchester, (in 30 US), as well as a few others, due to shortages of the Krag, but the US Army was not impressed with the Winchester design. Just as Terry Murbach said, they did not hold up hard military use. Nobody has produced any evidence I have ever seen as to how the Russians regarded their 1895's other than thinking they were special because they were different. I bet they did not hold up as well as the Mosin Nagant M-91. Those 300,000 '95 Winchesters were small potatoes next to the millions of Mosin Nagants.

Sean

[donw]

big bore94 hit on the most prominent reason the lever gun was not accepted by the army was the awkward operation while firing from the prone position.

mounted cavalry seldom, if ever, used rifles while mounted. more often the colt SAA was used when on horseback during CQB. operating EITHER rifle on horseback is difficult and challenging at best; if not darned near impossible.

not to mention accuracy issues of shooting from horseback during a "charge". the shooting from horseback is mostly a hollywood invention.

remember, cavalry troopers were trained to use their rifles once dismounted and acting as infantry. they often used their horses for sheilds when dismounted and could accurately deliver fire from defensive positioning; that usually meant the prone position.

the money for training, maintenance, cost per rifle also figured in. it's true it's difficult to beat a trapdoor springfield when it comes to ease of operation and maintenance. the army more often than not, thought in those terms. look how long it took them to accept fully automatic weapons..the gatling was available and used during the civil war, but the colt "potato digger" was not accepted until the early 1900's. (remember, the first publicized use of was at the wounded knee massacre where the army used them and the hotchkiss.)

[Griff]

Finally found one of my references:
The Horse Soldier 1776-1943... Volume II, The Frontier, the Mexican War, the Civil War, The Indian Wars 1851-1880 by Randy Steffen.

pg. 100, ARMS, states in significant part:

"During the period after the war, the regiments continued to use the same arms they had carried in the fight against the Confederacy. Tests were made on new patterns of carbines and limited number of Remingtons and War Burtons were issued to some cavalry companies for test in the field during 1871. But for the most part the troopers were armed with both Remington and Colt percussion pistols' Sharps, Spencer and Starr carbines; and some, according the Army & Navy Journal, with Henry repeating rifles.
Ordnance Memoranda No. 9, which was the pulished proceedings of the 1867 Ordnance Board, recommened that the Shaprs carbines in the of hands of the troops should be altered to accommodate metallic cartridges, and evidence indicates that a great many of these arms were altered and reissued.
In the fall of 1869 the Army & Navy Journal reported that General Sherman had ordered the board of officers assembled at St. Louis for the revision of tactics to examine and report upon, in cooperation with a board of naval officers, the bes small arms and accoutrements for the use of the Army and Navy.
Althought the Remington rolling-block system was selected of the Springfield and other systems of breech-loading for the armed forces, few Remingtons were ever puchased by this government. The cavalry regiments received 159 Model 1870 Springfield carbines in 1871 for field trials, in addition to 150 Remington half-cock, 94 Remington full-cock and 1256 Sharps carbines. The next year 150 Ward Buront bolt-action carbines were also issued to cavalry - all in .50 caliber. Only the Springfield carbines were ever issued in quanitity, and these several years later. Of these experimental arms, Lieutenant Charles Larned of Company F, Seventh Cavalry, wrote:

Whenever the arms were in the hands of the men, it was noticed that the piece that seemingly required the least attention in manipulation of loading was the Government Springfield carbine... for rapidity of fire there seems to be little choice between the Ward Burton and the Springfield, both of excell in that respect the Remington, as their facilities for ejecting cartridges are superior to those of the latter...."

The author then delves in the description of the Springfield with the Allin system of breech-loading and the ensuing race of handguns manufacturers to get their revolver selected.

The other reference, which I couldn't find, but which I do seem to recall, stated it was the cost of the "wasted ammo" the troops would expend rather the actual cost of the arms that turned off the "Brass" as stated by guido4198.

I also have no doubt that politics somewhat played a part in the decision making process. While the above is simply a discussion for cavalry units, I have no doubt a very similar selection process carried over into infantry and artillery units. As, in this period of history, was not the cavalry the shining light in rapid deployment and the rest of the Army followed in their shadow?

[gregg]

I don't remember where but read of an trooper that felt because of the long range shooting required that he felt better off with the trapdoor.
Got to remember it was much later before a lever with the same power
came along. Plus what others here have said. You get on the plains the wind blows and shots get long. Big heavy long bullet is your friend at that time in history. A 45-70 will Kill a horse or a man at long range.

[Leverdude]

This months American rifleman has a piece on the US Govt buying some 1800 Win 94's in WW1 for use protecting spruce trees needed for the war effort.