Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Little Ray

“the Army rejected lever action weapons because the rate of fire was too high and might cause the soldiers to waste ammo.”

Not at all true. Quite a few lever actions were put into the field on a test basis and were uniformly rejected by officers and soldiers alike. The rounds were too light, not at all the equal of the .45-70(particularly the 500 grn round issued to the infantry).

Our doctrine at the time was to engage the enemy at longer distances than the lever actions were capable of reaching with any degree of certainty.

This is well documented in the reports of the Ordnance Department.


12 posted on 02/12/2013 2:03:07 PM PST by buffaloguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: buffaloguy
Our doctrine at the time was to engage the enemy at longer distances than the lever actions were capable of reaching with any degree of certainty.

That's what Custer thought ... His troops were equipped with Springfield carbines. The Indians were sporting Henrys. We know how that one turned out ...

16 posted on 02/12/2013 3:27:04 PM PST by IronJack (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: buffaloguy

You are right, but I do recall there were arguments against faster RoFs because of “wasted ammo.”
And I bet Custer would have liked a bunch of those lever actions at the Little Bighorn.


19 posted on 02/12/2013 3:46:33 PM PST by Little Ray (Waiting for the return of the Gods of the Copybook Headings.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson