What if...the US Army adopted Lever Guns in the 1870s?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 кві 2017
- The 1860 Henry and 1866 Winchester cut a bloody swath in the "old west" not due to the power of the cartridge, but based on their capacity, controllability and rate of fire.
In this video we discuss an idea - what if the US Army had embraced the idea of the high capacity and rate of fire that the lever guns could deliver instead of the single shot Trapdoor rifle?
InRangeTV is viewer supported:
/ inrangetv
We have Tshirts!
shop.bbtv.com/collections/for...
There was an incident in 1868, the Battle of Beecher's Island, that might have given the Army a clue. 50 men armed with Spencer rifles held off a force estimated at between 200 and 1,000 Indians for several days. The Indians withdrew after their leader, Roman Nose, was killed. The unit was composed of experienced frontiersmen and had the advantage of a good defensive position on a wooded sand bar, but one wonders what the outcome would have been if they had single shots.
Excellent point. At least the cavalry came out of the Civil War recognizing the use of lever action repeaters and held onto their war era Spencers until they were totally worn out. They're still in use in the Modoc War of 1873 when the Spencer Company had gone under in 1869.
The Spencer Company surviving might have had a big impact on at least limited official use of lever guns beyond using up Spencer stocks since Spencer's company had official government connections the Winchester company did not. .56-50 Spencer also had more power than .44-40 Henry.
This is a critical case study; at Beecher's Island and early after the Civil War, US troops still used a ton of lever gun carbines left over from the war before the M1873 trapdoor rifle and carbine were standardized. Still, I'm more interested how lever gun armed US troops would have fared against a European Army: say, a British Army with Martinis or a French Force with the Gras rifle.
@@shaunw9092 It would be strange. Lever guns would allow for not just a higher volume of fire but also for added mobility. The English and the French, I think at least, would have the upper hand in discipline, but US troops with higher capacity and faster firing rifles would be able to lay down a volley of suppressing fire for other men to advance under and they they could support the rear units advance up and repeat until they are either in hand to hand range or have come onto the enemy flank.
Charles Inglin
Andrew Graves there’s probably something to say for us troops being better shots (or at least some of them) considering they had to hunt do food in the backwoods of Kentucky
"Bwoop" is the sound you hear when you design a larger receiver.
Bwoop it's very catchy
I believe that it was Bill Mauldin writing about 1941 during the transition between the Bolt-Action Springfield and the Semi-Automatic Garand that the problem so many of the older soldiers had with the Garand was that they believed that soldier would simply waste their ammunition, rather then aiming their shots. The more thing change, the more things stay the same.
The very same argument was used by uor general staff to turn down a semiautomatic option in 36.
The '1 shot, 1 kill' fallacy is just that, a fallacy. WW2 era vets have even said when they got shipped to Europe as fresh troops they were trained to take aimed shots. Once they hit ground the more experienced guys said "Fuck that noise, throw out a volume of fire so we can maneuver around!"
Craptastic13: I think I remember that being said on WWII in HD.
Bit late to the party, but that's the same argument for why the early M16s had burst fire rather than going through the time to train troops on full auto trigger control.
@@KurtAustin2448 Later M16s, actually, but yes. The first variants started as full auto
I can remember wondering about this as a child and being so frustrated that that the lever action was passed over in favor of breech loaders and bolt actions! Haven't thought about this is forever! Great vid!
Now I'm going to have to get a lever action!
John Doe they’re worth it completely. I prefer them over semi autos and bolts any day.
I'm imagining Americans in WWII with M1 garands and lever guns
X_Fox More plausible and still super interesting is WW1. If America adopted lever guns in the late 1800s, they'd still be using lever guns at the outbreak of hostilities.
Imagine all those American dough-boys with 30-30’s and 45-70’s. 45-90’s, and 50-110’s. Good lord that’s a lot of heavy lead flying into those krauts.
That would be such an american way to fight WWI. Might as well issue cowboy hats and dusters too. You know, for morale.
@@calebchristensen900 Would've made up a little bit for our lack of machine guns. Not a whole lot, but maybe a little.
Jim Bonian they basically did issue cowboy hats tbh
California: bans SimiAutos
Lever actions *EXIST
For real, everyone around here has a .30-30 or a .357 lever gun. It’s like the late Wild West going to the range, lever guns and 1911s everywhere.
@@arieheath7773 sounds awesome
@@arieheath7773 There's a joke that California laws are trying to bring back the Wild West. It's called the Yee-Haw Conspiracy, look it up.
@@spartanalex9006 i like the yeehaw conspiracy, make it happen
@@spartanalex9006 feels true at this point with how lawless it feels in cali.
I brought this up on Bloke On the Range's channel, the comparison of lever guns vs bolt guns (specifically Lee-Enfields). The dudes in the channel were seething when I told them lever guns were faster then Enfields. I swear I had 20 euros wanting to swing on me if they ever met me in real life.
LordDigz12 would be an interesting comparison.
A lever action is faster than an SMLE... until it's mag is empty. Then the SMLE slaughters it.
Kennetic well thats assuming its not a clip fed lever which do exist
The most you'll get out of a clip fed lever gun is 5, SMLE holds 10, it wins on speed simply due to less reloads. There's a reason why there's no mad minute with a lever gun.
@@kennetic9196 not really, they would both be close in terms on reload since the Enfield takes double the time to reload a completely empty Enfield. I love the Enfield series but the 10 Rd mag is only an advantage between round 5 -10 on the ready mag. Once you have to reload it's not necessarily a big plus.
I want see this Enfield vs Winchester video
They're not wrong that a Winchester has more firepower, but the smoke could be an issue.
They would use smokeless powder, much like modern .45-70 uses
Moto Rad That would make necessary to make even bulkier rifles, increasing the mass of metallic surface because smokeless powder generates more pressure than black powder.
the original henry action could not handle smokeless powder due to the increase in power, reproductions have to bulk up the cams inside, so that needs to be considered
No, as with modern .45-70 commercial loadings, they'd load the ammunition down to equal the pressures generated with the old black powder versions. They do this because that ammunition might get used in someone's Trapdoor Springfield. They later did develop stronger lever action rifles that could handle higher pressures. The Winchester Model 1895 was the one used by Imperial Russia mentioned in the video - box magazine fed, chambered for 7.62x54R, took stripper clips. Still wasn't up to Mauser pressures or performance, but who knows what might've come later if they continued to develop the concept. Bullpup lever actions, anyone? Incidentally, on D-Day, Lord Lovat came ashore with his Commandos carrying a Winchester lever action in .45-70.
I really enjoy the "what if?" lever action line of thought. I sat up for a while thinking about how this could have actually happened, and came up with something like this-
1870- U.S. Army adopts the Smith & Wesson Model 3 revolver.
1872- Due to something different than our own world, the revolver trials of 1872 do not happen, and therefore the Colt S.A. Army is not adopted.
1873- Ordinance Department notices the new Winchester 1873 rifle and .44-40 centerfire round. They begin a limited trial with the new rifle, and the Schofield is now made in this caliber as well, instead of the .45 as in our world.
1880 onward- Army doctrine has junior officers and NCO's equipped with the 1873 Winchester. The line troops still have trapdoor Springfield rifles. This is done as a compromise to the whole "they will waste ammo" thing, with the "ammo waster" weapons being in the hands of those who should know better. With doctrine being more suited to the realities of the West, there is a divergence in thinking from where we were in our world. The ramifications of this are even more food for thought. We might have been hesitant to jump on the auto pistol bandwagon of the early 1900's because our soldiers who in the 1870's and 1880's had lever guns would then be field or general grade officers making decisions. With no .45 long Colt there would have been no .45 ACP. We might have very well developed a smokeless pistol caliber cartridge (for military use) with priority on how it worked in a lever action and second on how it worked in a pistol. They may have ended up with "weird" guns that don't exist in our world, like 1895 Winchesters that fire from detachable pistol magazines, or might have had a military carbine version of the early semi auto Winchesters like the model 1907 as standard NCO/junior officer weapons before WWI. After that the timelines are just too different, but I imagine they may have developed the pdw concept (and maybe even the assault rifle) earlier than we did.
My only practical concerns would be the quantity of fouling from all that black powder, and the logistical difficulty of keeping troops supplied in the field and at remote installations. All that ammo had to be hauled in wagons or on the backs of pack animals, and carried with the troops on patrol.
Karl solved the black powder fouling problem with water and even spit in a pinch.
I think the saying "Hind sight is 20/20" is totally applicable here. If they knew then what we know now about the future shape of warfare or ballistics and modern tactics, I'm confident they would have gone this route. Sure for prone firing lever actions arent as good as bolt actions, but this could have been worked around with say a pump action rifle instead I think.
Frankly, I've shot lever actions prone and bolt actions, and depending on the bolt action, you still have to take your eyes off target and thus suffer the same "problem" lever actions did where you'd have to move a bit taking your eyes off target. That and the use of the 1895 in the hands of the Russian's showed it wasnt as ineffective at trench warfare as people thought it was too. So it's quite a realistic possibility that this could have been a good route to go.
I feel it may even have advanced self loading designs a bit too if the mass adoption of quick load firearms was done.
Christopher Even if they knew all this they'd probably go that's need, but we can't afford that.
Well, they kinda should have known better, as the Union's repeating rifles did play largely into how the War between the States went, and then the Indian Wars made it more clear, as the US Army was very often at a steep disadvantage to the better firepower of the various Indians' Henrys and Winchesters.
Were they really though? I'm by no means well read on the Indian Wars, but the things I have read seems to indicate that it wasn't the weapons that were the issue, it was because the Army kept walking blindly into one ambush after the other.
You could have given Custer's men directed energy weapons and personal nuclear weapons and they would still have lost because, through ignorance or malice, they put themselves in an impossible situation.
overcome the prone problem would be to put a sideways sight on the rifle, not the best solution but it might work.
Tactics certainly played a part, but then the tactics were a function of the weapons they had. The problem, as rightly stated, was the Army thought they could "save money" by converting muskets into trapdoors instead of investing in new technology on par with what their enemies (the Native Americans) were wielding. In the end, they spent more money on the 45/70 and the problems with trapdoor guns that weren't as good as the Army claimed they were. However, the biggest problem was doctrinal - Army acquisitions were run by men who didn't fight on the field. They bought by committee, they specified by committee, and they tested by committee, and it wasn't until late in this process that they actually asked any field units what they needed.
Look at it this way - if Custer's men had been given repeating rifles, there wouldn't have been a need for the heavy and hard to move Gatlings. The men could have created the level of suppressing fire those weapons gave, and thus would have meant more men on the line, and more supplies for the same number of horses.
modern training with that setup would be seriously dangerous to face.
It’s even be dangerous today. I’m sure there’s some militias with 30-30 squad training. It’d be a similar circumstance with pump-action rifles. Tubular magazines would evolve into box magazines.
Especially whrn you apply this same combined arms warfare to artillary and other systems. You can have a company with longguns given to the privates and corprals, the carbines to the NCO's and officers with a sharpa on every 5-7 man squad. And on the company level have short range semi portable morters and small feild guns. Perhaps a gatling and a few baloons. You are almost facing the same concept as a company in the world wars
@@benjaminjarrells622 I wouldn't give the sharps to the officer, give it to the best shot in every squad
Seal Team 6 with lever guns still would've sent Osama to pasture
@@joshuagarzone6841 That would be mostly due to the element of surprise; not so much the rifles used, but I agree with the sentiment.
When comparing loading speed between lever actions and bolt actions that were not mag or clip fed. I feel that you must consider how easy it is to load the lever action without opening the action. So during a hesitation in fire or while moving you can continue slip rounds into the magazine.
You might consider modern leverguns in 44 magnum. It is a slight step down from 45-60, but it would make ammo pretty easy to source. And 44 Special is a good alternative to 44-40 for the squad leader. Get a few shooters together and you could emulate a possible 1880s commando unit.
what a hat! What a wall! What a video! What time is it! Who are you? Who am i?
Drew Butler who's askin?
Same
When's Lunch and Where are we?
Hello (hello...hello)...is there anybody In there? Just nod if you can hear me. Is there anyone home?
Bro you're trippin'
Times have changed a lot. Today's military pursues every bit of new technology. The US army had been very slow to embrace new ideas in the early 20th century. Champions of airplanes got pretty shabby treatment early on. By WW2 the embrace of technology was total. Your ideas about lever guns in the 1800's are spot on.
"Better than an Enfield." I HEAR A CHALLENGE, SIR!
As someone who grew up shooting a 30-30 and then a Savage 99, I love this "what if". They are just plain fast.
Would the US have even had the infrastructure required to produce ammo in quantities sufficient to support this line of thinking at the time?
that's a good point... with soldiers being able to dump 15 rounds in a couple seconds left and right, they'd have been absolutely plowing through ammunition really quickly.
crunchysuperman Does any country have the infrastructure at the exact time they want to implement an idea? Probably not, they implement the steps needed to get to where they want to be then step it up until they are in a comfortable position and don't need to work about supply, production, or quality issues.
3 ammo types. for the Henry rifles of your squad leader as well as his sidearm in .44 Henry rather than the 45 LC , Main line infantry with 45.60 and then top it off it a third round the Marksmen with a 45-70 round that could be common with fire support in the form of Gatling guns
crunchysuperman would have been taking place during the largest period of economic growth in US history, and so I think they would have had no problem with logistics.
for the Henry or winchester 66 that was very common civilian ammo. we know the Native Americans had that ammo to. the standard long arm used 45-70 and the Gatling guns of the Period used yet another cartridge, the Rifles used by Custer's men were In fact 1873 Springfield carbines for yet another cartridge the 45-50. what the guys are suggesting would have been to standardize around 2-3 cartridges that could be common between rifles.
Confession when i was a 10 year old cowboy (1955) my gun's would have been 1, Walker Colt 1,1866 Winchester 1, Sharps.that's not bad for a kid in the UK. (i just could not get enough western films.or a horse. in south London) love the hat.
just had a flashback.my Nan on mothers side,would always tell us about the time when she met Buffalo Bill around 1890,? at his show at Waddon marsh..
tony Wyatt world wide , the american wild west , firearms , tough guys, and beautiful horses are just manly and womenly romantic and near timeless. personally , I have shot many many types of firearms , but I still want a custom gun belt with a peacemaker.
Tony Wyatt, dad had a Colt Walker reproduction, very fun to use
Simunitions. Get on it!
I'll volunteer.
I'd love to see this put to the test with simuniton.
hey, these guns work great at average combat distances! the intermediate cartridge concept leads to a round that's something like 7.62x40mm, instead of .30-06. bolt guns are never adopted, but lever actions are phased out in favor of pump or slide action guns that can be used prone. By world war 2, self loading rifles are being adopted, but since the rounds are shorter/lighter the US enters the war with box magazine fed, gas operated assault rifles.
Nicolas Borelli I was thinking just about the same thing.
Pump action rifles aren't really that good.
while they arnt that good imagine the US military putting hundreds of thousands of dollars into researching a solution and youd get a pretty good rifle out of the deal.
I had a .22lr pump that would shoot all day long, no cleaning (I know...) and never jam. That's a dirty cartridge too. It was far more reliable than my Marlin lever .22. We wore that thing out. I know its not a linear comparison to the cartridge size needed for military service but I expect it could be even better with a larger one. At the same time I know there are some crap pump actions out there.
Kristobro98 or imagine if the military told JM Browning that is what they wanted and were the only item they would purchase. If it could have been perfected, those are the circumstances to do so.
I've been thinking about his whole lever action scenario for many weeks! Really looking forward to it guys :)
its so shiny!
Being a lever gun fan your line of reasoning is spot on, and I look forward to your what if experiment. would love to see a 2 gum match similar to the ones you have presented with modern arms, would be enlightening , even put the lever guns up against the bolts of ww1
It would be really cool to see ideas like this turn into a series on here. also in WW1 if the american forces were out fitted like you described in this video, the defensive capabilities of american forces in the trenches would have been staggering, due to magazine capacity and fire rate, trench raids would have been a different matter as well, since the action on a lever can be worked quickly and effectively in smaller confines than a bolt action could.
Ok this was awesome. You guys won me over with all the Lever gun content. Now supporting you guys on Patreon!
This is the type of show that I've never seen anyone else do.
The format of your whole program ( and l am including your
"In Range " and "Forgotten Weapons" as connected together as they really do compliment one another.
Love your shows....
Wish I could afford more.....
Holy hell. You just made a pretty damn modern squad out of 1860's tech. That's actually mindblowing. Keep videos like this coming! I want to see more, I want to see it in action!
Ever since seeing the movie Zulu for the first time I have often thought of how different South Africa would have played out if the Zulus had a few hundred 1873 Winchesters. The short range a rapid fire would have set well with their close with the enemy tactics. I have always been of the opinion that a small number of Winchesters of any type would have give a huge advantage to any army from 1860 through 1890.
BeoZard thing is its only really applicable to that, if they fought European formations with repeaters, I doubt it would be an advantage
European armies did not begin to consider repeating rifles until after the siege of Plevna in 1877 when the Turk used a few hundred Winchesters to great effect against the larger Russian forces. The Anglo-Zulu war occurred in 1879 and Winchester rifles were pretty common in the Americas by that time. They were still not considered a 'military' weapon by most of the Europeans.
Most use of Winchester 92 and similar were with the Pioneer Columns up in Matabele land, the Brits learnt wht the Us millitry did not use, thnk god for that. Also it was used by native police forces, if they deserted it was only they who had ammo sincenthey were not issused .450 MH or .303 s
Canada used a bunch of Henry rifles against Fenians with mostly muzzle loaders in 1866 and got its ass kicked anyway.
MisdirectedSasha if by, "ass kicked anyway", you mean 2 Canadian militiamen got shot dead in cold blood whilst hailing the Fenians to stop unloading from their boats, then both sides settling down on the lake-bank to take ineffective pot-shots at each other for the rest of the day, until US pressure forced the Fenians to go back south ..... if that's what you mean by "kicked ass", then you're correct.
Given the extreme trepidation by either side, especially the Canadians to really fight the incredibly politically sensitive battle, I'd argue it's a fairly poor engagement to draw conclusions from. Because neither side hooked into the enemy or assaulted, so there were no firepower lessons to be learnt.
You guys are really nerding out, and it's totally awesome.
This is quite the badass and thought provoking concept. Love the video and can't wait to see if y'all go further into with actual rifles. Brilliant video my dudes.
You boys been drinkin that devil's liquor
Graham Hawes good ole fire water
Lawdy.
The Indians didn't want to lose any men where the whites figured at even 5 to 1 odds was a fair deal. Whites had an endless supply of men but guns,horses and ammo cost money.
I have a .45-60 & love it. I usually just cut down .45-70 brass. I use a 292 grain bullet.
Really great content. Gives plenty of food for thought. More please!
Karl's excitement when Ian mentioned that he wanted an 1876 was priceless. I would give my left arm to do what you guys do! Keep doing it!
I friggin love that Wall O' Guns you have there Ian. You chose wisely.
It be interesting seeing a video debunking common Wild West myths, or seeing a video on what firearms were actually commonly owned or used by people of that era. If I recall correctly guns like the Colt SAA were not as common as people believed them to be due to their price. I may be totally incorrect but it's interesting information
Tequila Cured Salmon Carpaccio With Vodka Foam I think cartridge conversions for cap and ball revolvers were probably more popular.
Gray Jackson not really, there were so many different guns on the market that you could by that cap and ball conversions. Even into the 1890's cap and balls were used by cowpunchers, outlaws, lawmen, and gunslingers because they were cheap.
Keep in mind that there was also no regulation of firearms whatsoever. So you had a lot of variety in what was actually available. People often bought what they liked not necessarily what worked well.
The boring answer is that the most popular firearms would be long arms that you can hunt with. Even for Wild West archetypes like cowboys and coach drivers, a pistol would be secondary to their rifle or shotgun.
This is the coolest video you guys have put out, and that's saying a lot!
Awesome stuff! This is the way history and somewhat alternate history should be taught and discussed. Great job, love what you're doing!
I know one of the reasons they didn't use lever actions was the lack of easy prone firing. Not too big a deal, but was a concern in ww1 and 2
Very interesting presentation. I would think that the only limiting factor or dis-advantage to lever action repeaters would be the ability to carry enough ammunition to take full advantage of their volume of fire power. There are some indications that one of the factors that lead to Custer's defeat at the Little Big Horn was that his troopers started to run low on ammunition causing their fire to slacken. Granted, despite all of those movies, not every Indian War engagement was like the Little Big Horn battle. Also there is a story, whether it is actually true or not, that after the Civil War a northern newspaper correspondent interviewed a Confederate general. One of the questions he asked was how the general felt about fighting Union troops armed with repeaters. The answer surprised him. The general responded that he preferred fighting against troops armed with repeaters, because they had a tendency to not use fire discipline and would fire away all of their ammunition in a matter of minutes. In the time it took to replace those troops in the line or resupply them with ammunition it gave him an opportunity to make an attack against a quiet section of their defenses. If Custer's men had been armed with repeaters the battle could have gone either way; either they fired away their ammunition faster and lost the battle sooner, or the Indians fell back because of the soldiers overwhelming firepower.
I love how these worries are easily fixed by just
Supplying a bit more ammo
It's absolutely crazy that it took actual war to make generals realize this
A massive slap to the head
Interesting ideas. I love that you did this in front of Ian's wall in his office it is a better background then the bookshelf.
Don't know how I haven't seen this one until now. Wonderful conversation.
the proplem wasnt the firearm, but the supplylines. Ammo was not only pretty expensive, but they couldnt supply the amount of ammo needed on horse carts or packing horses. This stuff is heavy and back in these days there were many areas without Trains too
The Supply with Ammo is also the reason why the Marines didnt want adopt the Garand
One shot one kill
"The Supply with Ammo is also the reason why the Marines didnt want adopt the Garand"
That doesn't even make sense. unless it's about the enbloc clip, to which you should pick it up after use.
it is more about the firerate, a boltaction slows you down and forces you into proper aiming.
Semi and fullauto guns are prone for a spray and pray type of shooting, and this let the Ammo consumtion climb by quit a bit
that is what training is for. besides aren't marines supposed to be all marksmen?
Back in the days Marksmen training meant something else then as today. It was more about punching nice little groups on paper, but this doesnt make you a good Rifleman when bullets fly in your direction. Firsttimer tend ether to panic and empty blindly magazins or even worst to freeze
The US-Military changend the hole training program because of that after the Vietnamwar
Great video. Really interesting, but I think that as autoloading rifles became prevalent, old bolt actions still found use among snipers and marksman, but these lever actions wouldn't have had the kind of reach out ability necessary
This is, from all the magnificient videos you've uploaded so far, the best one
I love videos like this. Very thought provoking
Now imagine they ride hot air balloons, with snakes for ropes.
Imagining a squad of WWII soldiers with lever action rifle
Ye haw intensifies
simply great topic & video!!!
Very interesting! I have a soft spot for lever action rifles, can't wait to see the follow up video(s) on this subject.
The .45-60 was created by shortening
the .45-70 case from 2.10 to
1.89 inches. Bullet weight was listed
at 300 grains, and when shot with
around 60 grains of black powder,
muzzle velocity was advertised at
1,315 fps.
+mcpypr Yes.
Okay, In Range now has to make a kickstarter for a time machine because I like the idea of the US Army going into the WW1 Armed with Winchesters latest and greatest, the M1895.
You two are awesome. Thank you.
You guys are Mad. And this really needs to happen!
Ian, as for the rebel cap, a black slouch hat or a Hardee hat would be more appropriate as the most famous Henry armed regiments of the War of the Rebellion were the 7th Illinois, 64th Illinois and 66th Illinois infantry regiments. All three were in the Army of the Tennesee, the Midwestern army that fought at Shiloh, captured Vicksburg and was part of Sherman's army group in Georgia and the Carolinas. Anyway the soldiers of that army usually wore hats, very seldom did they wear those silly caps.
Tom Brennan HE SAID IT WAS THE ONLY HAT HE CAP HE HAD.
Sadly, some US Army units were still using Trapdoor Springfield rifles during the Spanish-American War.
great content and ideas!!!!
Your 'what if' lever gun video warmed this lever gun fancier's heart. Well done, guys!
Have you ever done a analysis or review of the 1884 Colt Lightning pump action rifle?
I haven't read all the comments, so forgive me if someone has already mentioned this... but, I have to wonder that if the Army did adopt a lever gun; if they would have pressured Colt to allow the .45LC loaded in a non Colt gun? Or, if the Army would have gone to a different pistol cartridge? Assuming that they retained a pistol caliber levergun. The .45-60 is really interesting too. Great "what if" discussion.
LOVE THIS ONE! Thanks guys!
Man this is fantastic, youtube is worth something because of these guys! As was alluded to, there were other factors that made the mixed arms squad idea difficult in the day, the level of free function given to the individual soldier and the function of the NCO would have to change significantly to make the use of these, lets face it, much more expensive, and somewhat more delicate weapons. Deeper changes in doctrine would be required. In many places U.S. soldiers at this time spent a good deal of effort just trying survive malnutrition and the weather! The soldier training system just wasn't in place as it has been the last century. This is the coolest "what if" !
There was lots of lever guns in the military, even though they were not "issue". Indian and civilian Scouts had them, officers could carry any firearms they wished, as could civilian employees of the Army such as muleskinners and hunters, railroad men, Pinkerton's, and woodcutters. There were many incidents where civilians on Army missions such as surveyors and telegraph wire men, reporters, geologists, and photographers defeated large war parties with lever guns. And of course...these groups were working together all the time.
I believe the Wagon Box fight was a success because the wood gathering civilians had lever action weapons while their Army guards had the trap-door.
Holy shit, I thought the title said What if the US Army adopted Laser guns in the 1870s. And that made think this was gonna be some weird tesla shit.
As a civil war reenactor we did an experiment where during a tactical match ( no script battle where you actually use your tactics to fight and win) we had a guy hidden within out ranks armed with a Henry.. when the enemy tried to flank us he popped up and started laying suppressive fire. Then we would volly fire during his reload and do it again.. it stopped the flankers cold and we were able to use this tactic to push them back to there original line thus saving our fkan
A History Channel documentary(I think History Channel) cited Custer's troops being equipped with .45-70 cartridges with copper cases instead of brass that resulted in a stifling inability to keep up any rate of fire as the hulls would become so jammed in the chambers after firing as to be nearly impossible to dislodge.
I think early lever actions would make sense as early SMGS
Very interesting thought. On the lever action squad vs. WW2 bolt action: You forget one very critical force multiplier here - the machine gun. German infantry squads were built arround the MG to the point where riflemen are almost reduced to protection of the MG crew. Most other nations had a lot of light machine guns which is in practice nearly the same firepower. That is the reason why a lever action squad would not be on the same level as a WW2 squad I recon.
But thats like comparing ww2 American squads against German squads as well. Our squads weren't built around mgs, and the semi automatic rifles distributed the firepower around the whole squad, making a lone US rifleman more dangerous than a German one. We did have the BAR though, but it only had a 20 round magazine, so it was more like an automatic rifle than a true lmg.
Right but a US Squad shouldn't factor in here since they specifically said a "squad from a country that is still using bolt actions." Anyway almost all nations had some sort of automatic firepower at section level, be it British BREN guns, American BAR's, German MG38's etc. I'm not convinced though that the level action would fare all that well, just the action itself always struck me as not being something I'd want in a military rifle... and I feel like they are forgetting that, okay the mauser has 5 shots vs 15 (less egregiously 10 vs 15 if you are putting it up against an Enflied), but you can reload most bolt actions with a stripper or enbloc clip, rather than have to labouriously load each round by hand... dunno...
This is why I follow you guys.
I've always thought about this so glad I'm not the only one!
1894 Marlins, for states that ban black rifles.
Now I want to know how well a squad outfitted with the lever-actions you mentioned in this video would fair against a typical Whermacht squad.
Wehrmacht squad from what year?
Karelwolfpup 1939-1940.
pfff... uh, depends really, your average straight leg infantry squad without the support of an mg34 would struggle close up against massed rapid fire. The officer and squadleaders would be the only guys with an MP40/MP38/MP34/MP28, everyone else aside from any potentially attached scharfschutze or MG Zug would have a Kar98K with just iron sights.
Though if we're talking panzergrenadiers or a foot mobile aufklarer/recon squad, you can add a few more MP40s.
If you're talking assault pioneere/sturmgrenadiere/Fallschirmjager then you can up the submachine gun count to 1/4 of the squad total, with rifle grenades, a dedicated mg34 and possibly flammenwerfers.
Scribe Hammar I doubt lever guns would have lasted past WW1 in anything but "non combat" use like prison guards and police.
The modern squad wins even without the MG, though discussing a WWII era squad makes as much sense as discussing how fast your car can go without wheels.
Why? Because the modern squad has hand and rifle grenades that allows them to engage the lever squad indirectly.
Great concept-keep it going!
Hello from Suomi Finland! this was awesome vid. I hope that U do more videos like this.
Not only that, like it did in russians (7.62x54R), it would handle the bolt-action rounds as it progressed.
Abdullah Samed Demir at that point it's not an advantage over a good bolt gun, as you don't have that huge capacity.
Yeah, but the fact that they are very similar at range and lever is very good at close range it makes the lever action better than a bolt action.
+Abdullah Samed Demir Plus, if the military had been using lever actions for 2-3 decades, they would probably look towards a lever action design when they went to get a new, full-power rifle for smokeless powder.
im giggling my ass off at 330 in the morning scrolling through the comments...
I love this idea! Please explore it!
awesome video guys
I'd be interested to know in real terms how reliable and squaddie proof the 1860 &1866 were when they were the new high tech thing. Would they be rugged enough for field use? Genuinely don't know, I guess they probably would have been though.
And they were heavily used by indian tribesmen.
Native Americans used them, and used them, and used them. Don't know how many nomadic Cheyenne Gunsmiths were around, but I'd guess there weren't too many.
Henry DauBresse if you see some original rifles in native hands, they are beat to shit and worn down 90% of the time
Th3Sabator45 Well duh. Theyre being USED.
You guys fans of Harry Turtledove? Read "Guns of The South".
Harry Turtledove: what if they guy who lost, won?
Pretty much, but If I recall in GoTS it ended in a stalemate or sorts once the north came up with a reasonable adaptation of the AKM.
Aye, and the Confederates are more interested in the time traveller's food rations than they are an automatic rifle... :)
I read that book. I thought it was stupid.
Greg B no less an author than Larry Niven has pointed out that time travel is fantasy. His alternative history of the Great War is better.
Very very interesting concept. This definitely needs to be fleshed out more.
Please continue this thought experiment. I Love it!!
what if... napoleon had a b-52 at the battle of waterloo?
God fights on the side with the best artillery...
CthulhuInc Can't do much with just a plane.
@@Warriorcat49 you know that's so true its disturbing
Then Blücher wouldve had a Eurofighter
@Charles Yuditsky they did on a small scale
I just got a "stoner" thought us cavalry still with their 45-70 trapdoors vs. Native American warriors with like some mp5 10mm's. holy mother of god, were screwed. LOL
I have been thinking about that for years, you guys are right on the dot about it.
The idea is awesome. What I would want is for you to build on it and have period-correct uniforms and strategy narration like that deadliest warrior TV show - each time you get a historical idea and the weaponry to follow suit. 2 Gun is fun and all but if there's enough paying interest you could start up a new channel dedicated to this. So excited right now!
This is kinda like "If Russians had Fedorov's assault rifles in WW1/2"
The military system was just too conservative to adopt supremacy weapon
my basic thought is that during the Spanish American war we see Lever guns employed in action and while the tactics are not there yet they were not quite the game changer that you are presenting them as.
While it's easy to write some of the lack of adoption off as the army/Gov missing the potential there was at least one issue that the soldiers using the rifles at the time found to be a real usage problem. The ability to use and manipulate a lever action while prone is noticably harder to do than the comparable bolt guns of the erra.
Maybe one of the requests the army could've asked for was some sort of snub lever. Something that had a small enough pull or grip hole to clear the ground while working the action.
it would definitely be an interesting thing to think about I would also imagine that the army may have also experimented with alternate positions for king gates and loading methods as that might be another issue of ergonomics while prone that might have favored a bolt gun.
definitely, but at the same time Lever actions were employed and written about by the soldiers using them so we can still look at the experiences and talk about the drawbacks.
Can you cite an example where large scale units used lever action during the Spanish American War.
Shooting in prone is actually pretty easy on a lever gun. You just need a different technique.
The unable to shoot in prone meme isn't real.
For logistics, the Colt SAA and 1873 Winchester both in .44-40 [44WCF]. Also, the S&W is made in .44-40 as a secondary gun
awesome vid, make more of these what if discussions! i do think adopting henry's would been a superior choice even if you have 2 or maybe 3 times less of it compare to trapdoor single shot rifles, cuz you are more fast pasting and you can take down targets faster which will actually make the henry riflemen feel superior and confident, the enemys moral will boost down cuz you will have stress opening up your breech/trap of the gun under fire but pulling just a lever for your next round.. i dont see where anxiety comes in for that
By the time smokeless powder, bolt actions, and ammunition clips came about, lever guns were far out classed. A bolt gun using a five round en-block clip has a far higher rate of fire than any lever gun. The only issue the armies had was still thinking they needed a cartridge with an effective range of 1500 meters. Those armies that adopted 6.5mm cartridges and the 6mm Lee Navy were on the right track.
An 1898 Mouser is still a far superior gun. Rifle that used en-block clips are even faster.
Donald Weber Mausers use stripper clips... don't know where you are getting this en bloc clip thing
The 1898 Mouser was the only gun I could think of off the top of my head. The M95 Mannlicher used an en-block clip. Was a much faster gun than an 1895 Winchester.
Where are you getting this "much faster". Do you have a video or sources? I don't see how an action that requires 4 seperate motions to cycle (unlock, open, close, lock) can be "much faster" than a 2 motion action (forward stroke, rearward stroke).
+Donald Weber If you are playing Battlefield 1, yes the M95 is faster, in real life that's the shittest straight pull ever made, you have to crank hard [or bring a hammer] on the thing to open it once it gets warm, a 1895 will blow it out of the water in real life.
Most casualties came from disease in war until the mid 20th century. The most effective squad would use soap and boil their drinking water. Not sure that a lever gun would have changed history too much.
Michael Degginger You're downplaying the importance of battles and the effect of who wins them.
Tannenburg mattered. Verdun mattered. Stalingrad mattered.
Gettysburg mattered!
Completely misrepresenting warfare here. Disease was indeed the largest killer, but consider that there are 2 reasons for the prevalence of disease during war: 1) Armies had to be large to effectively _combat_ other armies, leading to logistics, sanitation, and space issues, all of which exacerbate disease. 2) Large numbers of wounded men were a breeding ground for diseases that could spread out from field hospitals, killing weak and healthy soldiers alike. To put it succinctly, disease only mattered because of the combat and the weapons used in it.
@@KingdomOfDimensions he's putting the cart before the horse
Guys! This is a great concept. I am enthralled by it!
very interesting idea ! I love to see where this goes !!!
Totally agree with your concept.
You guys seem like good friends and I like that.
And this is why I love InRangeTV.
I so want to sit down with you guys, drink some beer and talk weapons development in the latter 19th century. Its a hobby of mine. You're on the right track with the tools and available technology.