A few comments about cavalry uses, yes many countries still outfitted troops on horse back with lever actions. It made sense because it was easier to use on horse back, but even then they were eventually replaced with cavalry carbines that were also bolt action, or shorter rifles. Something something, tool that fits the job. Reason stripper clips weren’t involved here was many bolt actions were tube fed or involved loading one at a time during the first adoptions of bolt action rifles. Once mannlichers and the G98 came out it was just one more thing that made it superior for military use. There are maybe a couple more reasons for the change, but it’s a 60 second video. Also that Mauser I’m showing doesn’t fire smokeless spitzer rounds. It fires 11mm mauser, a rounded black powder cartridge. Spitzer rounds took a little time to show the advantages, it was however ANOTHER reason bolt actions were there to stay but they came after the adoption of bolt actions in general. And yes, higher calibers were suitable for bolt actions. Part two clearing up some misconceptions ruclips.net/user/shortsbooZNbedqWg?feature=share
I am really starting to like the logic of your videos. Start with just enough material to let the comments fill in the blanks. I always think you forgot something and I'll find it in the comments.
Problem with this video. Lever action repeaters, with the exception of the Winchester 1895 (which isn't even what people think of when they think lever action) were never used in mass numbers in military service. You can't replace something that wasn't there to begin with. Bolt action rifles replaced the single shot breechloader.
The argument could also be made for the Winchester 1895. It was lever action and took stripper clips, even a few were made in 30-03 and then the 30-06 cartridges. Their great downfall was 2 fold, penny pincher accountant generals didn't like them because their rate of fire was hire than the bolt actions and their mechanism was less durable to being fired when then guns were used in very muddy conditions. These were the same arguments made by the detractors of repeaters since their first developments. As for accuracy, lever actions can and are just as accurate as bolt actions of the day.
@@dirtyaznstyle4156 the sprncer is pretty close to most lever guns now if the lever guns are 1895 lever actions in 30-40 kreg you might have a formidable appointment
@dirtyaznstyle4156 depends on if you're gonna sling lead out in the open, in a posse, or in the bush. Also, lever lead is cheaper and can probably fit your six shooter too.
One MAJOR difference that was not mentioned in the video is that the bolt action is a significantly stronger design, allowing larger, higher pressure cartridges to be utilized. Thus increasing effective range potential.
This. I was actually shocked he didn't mention this. I'd honestly be shocked if someone got a 7.62x54r, 8mm Mauser, or a .30-06 lever action working reliably, and with safe chamber pressures, and not being extremely overbuilt compared to equivalent performing bolt action rifle.
@@spiritofnex Winchester managed it rather well in 7.52x54R in the model 1895 for the Russians during ww1 but even by 1895 the world's militarys had been well equipped with various magazine bolt actions in small bore calibers for almost a decade
@@VintageWarfare What about M1895 Winchester? Especially the Russian contract guns. Best of both worlds. Stripper clip reloading and lever action rate of fire. I wonder why people always forget about it when the Bolt action vs Lever action argument gets brought up.
@@TheDragonGamerTV Russians were different in the fact they had to buy whatever they could get at the time on top of their mosins. Cavalry still used lever actions as well.
@@VintageWarfare You're right. But what I am implying is that it IS technically a gun that can be brought up in the argument. You get the best of both worlds, but it is technically a lever action so it, it my opinion, says that a lever action is slightly better than a bolt gun. I find it easier to use a lever than a bolt anyway. So it takes the cake for me on which is better. And on the whole Russian ordering anything they could get there hands on. I have a feeling any soldier, cavalry or not, that got their hands on one of those Winchesters can say that the action is 100x smoother. (I've shot a few Mosins from a few different countries, and they haven't been the greatest) (I would also hate to be the poor infantryman that got one of those Italian black-powder rifles)
@@TheDragonGamerTV I don’t think you are wrong as to what is better. I think what you are not crediting is the Russians were more of a “good enough” kind of weapons culture rather than “it has to be excellent” sorta deal
I was going to say this. They really didn't seem to appreciate the utility of a pistol caliber carbine. So it was tiny bolt carbine or multiple pistols. Sometimes both. Ironic because they were also so obsessed with only providing one cartridge for everything due to logistics.
Another point to consider is that the lever action was never adopted officially. The bolt action replaced single shot breechloaders, not the lever action.
That's a good point. The bolt isn't a direct upgrade to the lever, it's a different attempt at upgrading a previous design. So it never replaced the lever, it just beat it. Like how the design for the seatbelt used to be different for each car before the 3 point system got the most popular
@BrainiLack it didn't even really beat it. Lever action weren't seriously considered. No soldier needed that many rounds, they likely wouldn't live long enough. And bolt action were way cheaper to buy. You don't spend lever action money on soldiers. Hell the government took forever to upgrade from black powder for the same reason. It was cheaper.
@majinjason 5/6 years between France revealing Smokeless Powder and the Lebel for the U.S. to adopt Smokeless. For the development of a Powder, Cartridge, Small Bore Bullet, then adoption of a new rifle... That is pretty fast. If anything Repeating Arms is more apt. The U.S. didn't adopt a standard repeating rifle until the Springfield m1892. And we were one of the last major powers to adopt a smokeless rifle.
This is the major issue. You Need flat-nose bullets in the tube magazine if you don't want the recoil to ignite you bullets. This greatly reduces you range.
Not until the creation of polymer point bullets at least. Hornady’s LEVERevolution ammo is safe to be used in magazine tubes since the polymer tip won’t detonate the primer on the next round under recoil.
@@jakeplumber1373 no bolt actions go chick chick chick chick see you get two extra chicks beacuse you unload the round and load the round lift the bolt and pull the bolt down each one of those actions has a chick, with the lever action there's only two motions up and down. So chick chick.
@@jakeplumber1373 each hand motion has a chick there's no possible way a lever action could have more than two as you obviously know a lever action takes 2 hand motions. Up/down similar to a shotgun forward/back. Bolt actions have all the motions combined which adds up to four motions which makes four chicks.
He makes some good points However 1of the main reasons The us army of the eighteen hundreds Kept a single shot rifle for so long Over the lever actions Was because of supply lines They were scared Troops would use up ammunition to quickly And then They would be completely out of ammo for Weeks or months This didn't stop troops from purchasing winchesters on their own though Many still did and preferred to carry that .
yes , I've never seen one function improperly tbh. however it's not a practical combat rifle. its best for a small number of possibly moving targets. but you better hit them all before it's time to reload. and ideally targets which are not shooting back at you.
@@biohazard_the_potato_muncher More about bayonet charge. Already mentioned in the video, bayonet charge prefer one piece stock. Also reloading for rapid fire can be problem with lever action. You can shoot rapidly but limited to 10 rounds of 38 spec instead continuous full cartridge for bolt action.
@@yulusleonard985 well there was high capacity lever actions but reloading was a really serious problem and if im not wrong there was a few speed loaders but they weren't that reliable and were extremily annoying to carry around compared to clips
the whole of the rifleman show would have been different without the lever action half the point of mcain is that he can fire faster than someone with a handgun while keeping his accuracy
I doubt that, cause you're using something you already have an emotion connection to and memory of and comparing it to something that you've either not thought about or have discounted entirely because of the aforementioned reasons. If The Rifleman did use a bolt action, you'd probably argue that's what made the show unique and amazing compared to the other westerns of the time, and that the directors knew of the superiority of the bolt actions and thats why they went with it.
Lever guns werent accepted by mikitaries but they played such a critical role in early usa development during the literal wild west that people still want to buy them today. Also because its fun to be a cowboy but the first part i mentioned is significant
Once bolt actions got the addition of box magazines it was gameover. Being able to use longer spitzer style rounds without the chance of detonation and the ability to charge with clips.
I never understood that when I was a kid. All I could think was "the lever action holds twice as much ammo, is easier to shoot, and can be shot faster."
His points may be wrong though. The reason few countries adopted lever actions for infantry use is that lever actions are not strong enough to handle the calibres armies wanted their infantry to use. That and the largest armies at the time, those of France and Germany, already had single shot bolt actions that they thought they could convert into magazine fed rifles. You can watch a channel CandR Arsenal. They produced a series with actual research that covers almost every lever gun issued in WW1. Forgotten Weapons likewise has covered the developmental history of lever guns. That history ends with the 1897 Winchester which could handle rifle calibers. Bolt actions were in wide use by that time though. There are other reasons this short is probably wrong. If you're interested I could share those. The bolt action's story is long and complicated.
@@iivin4233 I mean, he's not wrong though. The reasons he give are all entirely valid and they did factor in to the decision making, especially the cost part, they just weren't the primary reasons
@@chrthiel You're right. I think it's misleading not to mention the main reason along with the other considerations though. Misleading not malicious. I was thinking he's not wrong but his reasons are a little anachronistic.
One thing you can do with a lever action that you can't with a bolt action, is drill a hole in the trigger guard section of the lever and add a screw that strikes the trigger every time the lever is reset, essentially making it a slam-fire rifle. That way you can shoot just like _The Rifleman!_
True, but there's no reason the design inherently had to stick with a tube either. They could have just have easily been made with stripper clips or box magazines. You can buy box magazine levers right now. It's just no one did it back then. Probably because those round bullets were still very popular. I really think the cost and ease of repair trumps everything else when we're talking about a military.
I disagree. The 8 mm Lebel was one of the first multi-show bolt actions that come on the scene and address this issue. Also most bolt action military rifles were adopted with a round nose bullet in Spencer didn't come around until bolt actions had well established their dominance
Levers, as much as I love them, are also much more prone to wear out parts than a bolt. A bolt action has a bolt that rotates and slides back and forth whereas a lever not only has a sliding bolt, but several pins and hinge points that are going to see much more wear in comparison.
Could get more versatility using different bullet profiles in bolt guns, with the ability to stack rounds vertically, folks could utilize pointed spritzer shaped projectiles with better BCs. Although there were plenty of acceptions, the old tube mags of lever guns were limited to the more traditional flat point projectiles to prevent out of batt detonations in the mag tube, due to factors like recoil, excessive abuse in the field or even debris btwn cartridges & what not. IDK, just a thought. Love me some old rifles. Cool short, thanks for sharing.
Lebel used spitzer bullets just fine with a tube mag. Id say the biggest issue is your omly option is to load 1 bullet at a time and you have no access to something like a stripper clip or detachable magazines.
@@robertharris6092however the level case was really tapered and had a rim, to make sure the bullet points laid flat in the tube, only contact with rim of the cartridge in front of it. Also ww1 soldiers used it in single shot mode, they didn't take the time to load up the whole tube in the heat of battle. But she is hot, isn't she😏
Don't forget the bayonet. The bolt action is much easier to stick a bayonet on. You would also have to make the lever action stock stronger to stop it breaking (but it can be done- see the Martini Henry). Bayonet fighting is very important in 19th century wars.
@@player-mv7th it’s got it’s place for heavier cartridges like 45-70, and I do believe the hype about being more accurate shooting through heavy brush.
@@player-mv7th Eh different tastes. I personally like bolt action better. Bolt action just handles better for me and I just like them. This is basically a debate of turkey subs and ham sandwiches though.
With the wonders of modern technology, you can have a lever action in .308 Winchester, 6.5 Creedmore, or 5.56 NATO. Probably even some others. Look up the Henry Long Ranger.
I had a 1937 Springfield Model 15 .22lr. I fired tens of thousands of rounds through it. So much so, that i could confidently hunt anything from, deer to rabbits, and squirrels, with it. It was the most accurate weapon I ever fired. It also helped me, when i joined the Army. I never missed a target, with my M16, my entire time in service. (Eventhough, I'm left-handed.) When my medical records went missing, at the end of basic training, i was asigned as Range Cadre, on an M16 range. (I couldn't be released until my records had been recompiled.) They gave me all the guys who couldn't qualify, as a last resort. I never failed a troop. I taught them everything my grandfather, (a WWII Army vet) and that Springfield taught me.
Don't forget the most important thing! Lever action ammo is in a tube putting front of bullet right behind primer of other bullet. If you fall or take a spill it can explode and it has many times!!!
I remember thinking about this when I was learning about WW1 at school, a lever action seemed more convenient to use than a bolt action. Thank you for answering a question I'd had floating around my head for a while now 😀
Convenient in imaginary circumstances. im afraid. Firing from horseback was largely out of date by ww1, it was out of date by the 2nd boer war, prompting the lever action carbines replacement with the bolt action smle. In short, if you can hit an infantry sized target from horseback with a lever action rifle, the infantryman with his bolt action could have hit your horseman sized target much easier a good 100 metres ago. By the boer war, the horse carrys the shooter where he wants to go, he dismounts and shoots, rifles are too accurate for american wild west tactics to work reliably by that time. So the cavalryman must be able to match the infantry in range, effectively deleting most lever action rifles from the discussion.
@@fishlife1013 not true. You need to do more research. All the main armies of ww1 (french, British, German, American and Russian) were using Spitzer ammo by around 1905 or so and definitely in their service rifles and MG's in ww1. The only countries not using Spitzer ammo in the first world war were Austria, Italy and some minor players.
Thank you for bringing up the prone point. So many people forget that. Its why armies didn't use them during World War 1 at least not as standard issue. The lever action wouldn't be great in the mud of world war 1 and needing to hit the floor quickly and shoot and manipulate the bolt. The lever action traditionally was better for cavalry but as cavalry got phased out after World War 1 it lost that advantage. The American rough riders made great use of them in the Spanish American war.
Bolt actions are easier to clean too. Something militaries are always keen on. Apart from some very early ones you usually didn't need a screwdriver to be able to clean the most important moving parts. (no sideplate removal needed)
Also when spitzer style cartridges were introduced, they often were not compatible with the stereotypical lever action’s tubular magazine (as the bullet would seat itself on the next round’s primer). There are exceptions like the Lebel rifle but i imagine it was just far more convenient to do away with the tube style all together
@@robertharris6092 true but magazine cut offs were standard issue for most bolt action rifles until WW1 proved their obsolescence. I don’t think Rifleman doctrine at the time was as concerned about rapid reloading until they were truly tested by the trench and assault tactics of the Great War
Winchester did make a stripper clip fed, full size, spitzer rifle round version of their venerable lever gun, in the form of the model 1895, but it kinda came too late to see any widespread interest, with only the russians buying them, mostly out of necessity, as they were losing so many guns to wartime attrition, that they were buying anything and everything they could get their hands on. the vast majority of lever guns were simple small caliber carbines, often chambered in the same caliber as the user's six shooter, and incapable of handling full size rifle rounds such as .30-30 and .45-70. While rifles chambered in such calibers did eventually come out, by that point interest in lever guns had largely waned in favor of bolt actions, especially in a military capacity. Interest in lever guns didnt pick up again till more the half a century later in the 1960's with the advent of spaghetti westerns and cowboy action shooting.
The thing is the battle is supported directly off the action on both. What it really came down to was thw ability to pump out more bolt actions that are chambered in higher caliber then a lever gun.
Talk about a subvert and expectations. Honestly I had never heard anyone sing the Praises of bolt action but this was pretty good and great information. Thank you for teaching me something new I hope you have a wonderful day.
One thing you also forget that there’re not many model that have mag fed lever action. Which means they stuck with slug round. While we all know that for long range, a modern pointing shape projectiles will be way more efficiency than round shape slug.
Reason 4: Ammunition . Lever action feeds from a tubular magazine and requires soft-nose rounds. Bolt action allows feed from the breach or a removable magazine and allows pointy bullets that fly straighter and penetrate deeper.
I think it mostly comes down to cost, just like during the veg of firearms in warfare. They had Wheelock's, but still outfitted their armies with matchlocks. A bolt action or single shot cost a lot less then a lever action , so with more rifles even if they were subpar, like the m91, more men would be armed. You.have to remember, Arni are funded by the lowest bidder. People can say oh this is better then that, but bottom line is what is the cheapest and easiest to make and which one takes the least amount of resources. Also, you have to remember that a lot of commanders were still off the opinion that soldiers waisted ammo. The Spencer proved that a lever action was a viable war weapon. Argue all you want, it mostly comes down to out dated tactics and cost.
Re: wheel and matchlocks. Also don't forget that as the guns were all handmade there was not that many gun makers that had the skills to make stuff like wheel locks, and more importantly: fix them when they broke. Iirc there was a gun that was like centuries ahead of its time, being a repeater in the 17th century without being too bulky... but there was only a single Danish family that knew how to make them so the only military force equipped with them was the Danish Royal Guards
A big issue with the lever action rifle is almost all are tube fed. Meaning you cant use bottle necked pointed rounds that u see today. As each tip of a round would hit the primer of another and may lead to a spontaneous discharge when used.
To add: Up to a point there wasnt yet a sturdy enough lever system to contain the energy of full powdered rifle cartridges. Lever guns were by-n-large all pistol or lower powdered cartridges.
Bolt guns are inherently stronger actions for handling more powerful cartridges. Also we moved to faster and more accurate conical bullets which can't be safely housed in a tubular magazine.
The mauser type reciever can withstand very high pressures meaning you can shoot cartridges with more powder and bigger bullets and it won't blow up in your face. John Browning eventually remedied that for the lever action but price wise its no contest
We just won’t take into account the biggest reason why which was the ammo that was used. 30-06 Springfield was quite a different round than .44-40 Winchester.
Also, while lever actions could theoretically be fired faster due to the simple up-and-down motion to load a new round, they also relied on tube magazines, which were slower to reload than a bolt action. In addition, the tube magazine meant the bullets had to be a blunt shape, like pistol ammunition, unlike the more aerodynamic pointed bolt action ammunition. This was to prevent any worries of the pointed tip hitting the primer of another bullet wrong and triggering the round.
Indeed. The French found that out the hard way with the world’s very first Smokeless Powder Cartridge Rifle, the Lebel. They had to develop a new cartridge case with a special circular ‘trench” around the Primer, which was intended to rest the tip of the bullet of the cartridge behind it. This, combined with the only being able to load one cartridge at a time, while other bolt action rifles were using box magazines, removable magazines, stripper clips and Mannlicher clips, the tube magazines were a very big handicap.
I mean there's no reason they need to have a tube magazine. They could have just as easily been made to use stripper clips or later on box magazines. Such rifles were made later. Just no one put two and two together at the time. Likely because those round-nosed bullets were quite popular.
The russians in WW1 though would contend that the lever gun they got, the 1895, was superior to the bolt actions they had. Due to it being built for modern bullets with stripper clip compatibility, the differences were cut down to the cost and prone awkwardness, but the reliability in adverse conditions the lever provided was really appreciated by the few that got them. It can be further argued by them being visibly worn in any pictures of troops in the trenches and the few notes on them noted how soldiers would try and grab any one they saw from a casualty.
Indeed, I'll be getting one as soon as possible to go with my M91 from 33. They are both neat rifle from Russian history, and since that was the start if my antique rifle collection, I have a special affinity for antique arms of said category. Though I am rather proud of the the French and American rifles I have as well.
No they didn't think it was better. Less than 300,000 were built for them with many being rejected by the inspectors. Out of 25 different models they used only 4 were lever actions.
Well the 1895 lever guns made for Russians use were ordered, like many guns of world war one used by the Russians, we're used because they had a large army but didn't have the arms to arm everyone. They were very sought after even after the war though
I doubt that, only 300k ordered compared to 3mil mossin and most of them ended in rear echelon trooper, and sthere are huge quantity in Finland before they destroy them eventually.
Another reason, though it may have come later: Bullet shapes and types. Lever actions fire from tubular magazines, which require soft-nosed bullets to avoid premature detonation. Hard nosed bullets can strike the primer of the round in front of them, causing the round to explode. Bolt action rifles usually have box magazines (internal or external) where the rounds are stacked, not loaded end to end, which allows for a variety of bullet types.
Thanks for pointing out the differences between the two models. The rear sight is forward of the action on a lever action. So that's not a factor in shooting one accurately.
Also the new standard in military ammunition (small bore smokeless) and strength of the lever action design coupled with the metallurgy at the time. Wasnt until 1895 with the Winchester 1895 that any lever rifle could handle the new, high pressure, spitzer bullet smokeless cartridges.
@@lukasanderson4757 the US adopted smokeless in 1892 with the krag Jørgenson in 30-40 krag. It didn't get to soldiers hands until 1894. Anyways smokeless was invented in 1884 and the French picked it up in 1886 and every country saw it as the future. Ergo nobody wanted stinky black powder cartridges anymore. The way a traditional Winchester lever action locks is through a toggle, not locking lugs in the receiver or at the breach face. Meaning if you chambered that style of lever gun in a high-pressure (for the time), smokeless cartridge it would more than likely break the toggle and send the bolt careening into the users face. The 1894 Winchester was able to handle the smokeless cartridges by introducing a falling cross block that locks the bolt forward when the action is closed, but was still tube fed which isn't the greatest for spitzer type rounds. The winchester 1895 brought in an even stronger action with a box magazine.
@@Thoroughly_Wet interesting, I was meaning the first Winchester available in smokeless. If memory serves it was .32-20 that was available in smokeless then .30-30? I know there were about a dozen pyrotechnics around the world between 1880 and the early 1900s coming up with different formulations, before a common medium was reached. Thanks for your amazing input.
Lever actions have the potential to fire way quicker, and your finger never has to come off the trigger or trigger area. Nowadays, there's lever actions in 500 magnum and so on.
@@Erakius323 Its either " For a Few Dollars more " or " Fistfull of Dollars " Clint Eastwood . I think its Fistfull of Dollars . Its Free on RUclips Free movies
@@Erakius323 "A fistful of dollars" There's a lever action, I think Remington. I'm more of a film guy lost in the weapons side of YT. Great movie! Don't spoil the ending.
The introduction of high velocity pointed spitzer bullet in 1890s. In the tubular magazine of most lever actions, pointy bullet resting against the primer of next cartridge go bang.
They also were worried about getting a "chain fire" due to the rounds being held tip to primer in the lever action. It was tried by a few European militaries with their bolt actions, but abandoned due to that exact fear.
Yes but spitzer rounds came after bolt actions were adopted in mass, it just ended up solidifying the use of them when countries adopted spitzer rounds and stripper clips
Bolt actions can utilize longer range spitzer rounds in top loaded magazines. Lever actions tend to be limited to rounded bullets behind each other in the tube magazine, which would cause spitzer bullets to detonate the primer in the round ahead of it.
@@thegrinningplague I believe in the video that is a Winchester 1894 level action and it is, indeed, a more badass looking gun to shoot. Has a very satisfying kickback.
Lever action is even more bad ass in real life. Chambering rounds way faster. It's actually easier to keep your "sight picture " in any position other than prone. With bolt action you have to take one hand off the rifle to work the bolt. The lever action allows the hand to remain in contact. The kinesiology to work the lever is more fluid. Bolt action is considered the least fluid of any multiple round action. It's this reason with the fact that Bolt actions are even worse for left handers that makes the Warren report so full of shite. They want us to believe LHA fired off x rounds so fast & accurate when he was supposedly using a right handed Bolt action rifle. Let's face it, it was probably cost & simplicity of parts
In general bolt actions are significantly more durable and a stronger lock up. They can handle more powerful cartridges, especially during that time. Lever guns were usually a pistol caliber or close to it.
Power =/= chamber pressure Cartridge design was moving towards bottleneck, smokeless powder, higher velocity cartridges firing spitzer bullets...all things lever guns are not optimal for. Bolt actions can be made to handle higher pressures, handle Spitzer bullets, and more durable for less money
I would suggest that if you were laying prone or propping the lever action on something you would have to raise the gun to cock it versus the bolt action you don't. Less movement less detection by the enemy.
Or when you cant decide wich one to pick just be like Russians take a lever action rifle and chamber it to shoot 7,62x54R and boom you got yourself a Winchester 1895 Russian.
I have one of both, a .30-30 lever and a Turkish Mauser. Two tools for different jobs. The Mauser is nearly as tall as my wife, and she is scary good at long range. Her first time with it was 800 meters, putting holes in a truck engine. The lever action is a saddle carbine, and is about as short as they make. It hasn't got much range, but neither do I, and we both kick like a mule.
@@MrShenanigans28 it was an exception, but there was a more circumstance reason it was adopted rather than it was better than their M91s The stripper clip also came after the bolt actions were adopted.
Also the stock goes most of the length of the barrel meaning you can fire more rounds and hold the thing when it gets hot. The lever action you can't manipulate it as much
@@awesomeopossum4632 my guess is he thinks these rifles literally meant to bash peoples faces in and be used to dig trenches if need be will break if I dry fire them once in a video
I inherited a 22lr with a broken firing pin. It's a 1920's break action I don't remember the name of, but I do know it took hundreds, if not thousands of dryfires before the pin broke, and that was the ONLY part to suffer damage. Though neglect has made the bore a pitted disaster, dry fire had nothing to do with that. Anyway, I replaced the pin and it runs fine, though I need to fix the bore if I want to get any decent use out of it. I'll likely have to bore it out and insert a liner given the severity of damage it has...
The introduction of Spitzer type ammunition probably played a part too. The only lever rifle I can think of that was designed to be used with it were the Russian contract Winchesters.
I could also see the advantages bolt had in the trenches durning war. Laying down, easier to use that side motion then raising up a bit to hit the lever and get an extra hole in your head
mostly cost it meant more money dedicated to specialized cuts that would require very expensive jigs just to get to run reliably and it adds a good amount of wait to the action
Theyre also more likely to have issues with getting dirty. But if youre comparing elite troops to elite troops and not grunts then a straight pull would be all the advantages of the lever action with none of the disadvantages.
@@robertharris6092 what's the name of that one Swiss straight pull rifle it was carried by Swiss mountaineers during I believe the first and second world wars like you were saying very specialized troops doing a very specific job and knowing their weapons very well
Later on down the line it was because of the Mauser action being fantastic and mass adopted and copied pretty much everywhere. Despite this, the Austrians and Swiss both used straight pull rifles. I would imagine it was a combination of cost, and an already abundant and proven design existing.
@@rebelrat3594, can't think of the name of the early version, but the "later" one was the K31 that was produced from the '30s up through the late 60s or early 70s. I've got a K31 that was made in 1942. It's in amazing condition especially considering it's military surplus. Love that straight pull and the trigger is smooth like butter. I mean really really good. Detachable magazine but is really meant to be loaded from a stripper clip with the bolt open. It also holds the bolt open when empty. Action is really smooth and accuracy impressive. 174 grain bullet (7.5 x 55) packs a punch. In case you can't tell, I love my K31.
Lever actions aren't easy to use in prone. Main reason. Also when you open the lever you got all the internals like the fire mechanism exposed to mud grime dust etc
A few comments about cavalry uses, yes many countries still outfitted troops on horse back with lever actions. It made sense because it was easier to use on horse back, but even then they were eventually replaced with cavalry carbines that were also bolt action, or shorter rifles.
Something something, tool that fits the job.
Reason stripper clips weren’t involved here was many bolt actions were tube fed or involved loading one at a time during the first adoptions of bolt action rifles. Once mannlichers and the G98 came out it was just one more thing that made it superior for military use.
There are maybe a couple more reasons for the change, but it’s a 60 second video.
Also that Mauser I’m showing doesn’t fire smokeless spitzer rounds. It fires 11mm mauser, a rounded black powder cartridge. Spitzer rounds took a little time to show the advantages, it was however ANOTHER reason bolt actions were there to stay but they came after the adoption of bolt actions in general. And yes, higher calibers were suitable for bolt actions.
Part two clearing up some misconceptions ruclips.net/user/shortsbooZNbedqWg?feature=share
I am really starting to like the logic of your videos.
Start with just enough material to let the comments fill in the blanks.
I always think you forgot something and I'll find it in the comments.
While the others make sense, as prior service, the third reason was what immediately jumped into my head.
Problem with this video. Lever action repeaters, with the exception of the Winchester 1895 (which isn't even what people think of when they think lever action) were never used in mass numbers in military service. You can't replace something that wasn't there to begin with. Bolt action rifles replaced the single shot breechloader.
The argument could also be made for the Winchester 1895. It was lever action and took stripper clips, even a few were made in 30-03 and then the 30-06 cartridges. Their great downfall was 2 fold, penny pincher accountant generals didn't like them because their rate of fire was hire than the bolt actions and their mechanism was less durable to being fired when then guns were used in very muddy conditions. These were the same arguments made by the detractors of repeaters since their first developments. As for accuracy, lever actions can and are just as accurate as bolt actions of the day.
I would have figured the two main reasons were 1. Cost and 2. Power.
Full size cartridges were too powerful for the lever actions.
Yeah, but, cowboys and shit.
makes sense to me
Now yer talkin ma language bawh!
As I European I don't have the love of lever action. But a beautiful bolt action has a place in my heart.
@@murphy7801Yeah but as he said, cowboys and shit.
You’re right!
“Lever-actions are cooler.”
-Tsun Tsu, Art of War
"No, I don't think so." - Obi Wan Karabiner
“I-I uh I like ice cream.”
-Joe Biden
“I will build a bigger wall then you Joe”
-Donald Trump
“He’s a nice kid, but he’s got cats”
-guy at my job
@@thatgoose9705 hello there
Great points, very valid, one small problem: lever action go yee-haw 🤠
yeah lever actions really yee that haw better than any other gun
Still arent gonna go yeehawing up on a couple of guys with sharps or Spencer’s
@Jagged i dunno the sharps rifles and krag Jorgensen rifles made yee haws die pretty hard
@@dirtyaznstyle4156 the sprncer is pretty close to most lever guns now if the lever guns are 1895 lever actions in 30-40 kreg you might have a formidable appointment
@dirtyaznstyle4156 depends on if you're gonna sling lead out in the open, in a posse, or in the bush. Also, lever lead is cheaper and can probably fit your six shooter too.
One MAJOR difference that was not mentioned in the video is that the bolt action is a significantly stronger design, allowing larger, higher pressure cartridges to be utilized. Thus increasing effective range potential.
I would argue that’s the MAIN reason.
100% the number 1 reason
This. I was actually shocked he didn't mention this. I'd honestly be shocked if someone got a 7.62x54r, 8mm Mauser, or a .30-06 lever action working reliably, and with safe chamber pressures, and not being extremely overbuilt compared to equivalent performing bolt action rifle.
@@spiritofnex Winchester managed it rather well in 7.52x54R in the model 1895 for the Russians during ww1 but even by 1895 the world's militarys had been well equipped with various magazine bolt actions in small bore calibers for almost a decade
@@spiritofnexis 30.06 really _that much higher pressure_ than 308?
Also don’t forget with the introduction of stripper clips the reloading time and fire rate both improved noticeably over the lever action
Absolutely this is as well
@@VintageWarfare What about M1895 Winchester? Especially the Russian contract guns. Best of both worlds. Stripper clip reloading and lever action rate of fire. I wonder why people always forget about it when the Bolt action vs Lever action argument gets brought up.
@@TheDragonGamerTV Russians were different in the fact they had to buy whatever they could get at the time on top of their mosins. Cavalry still used lever actions as well.
@@VintageWarfare You're right. But what I am implying is that it IS technically a gun that can be brought up in the argument. You get the best of both worlds, but it is technically a lever action so it, it my opinion, says that a lever action is slightly better than a bolt gun. I find it easier to use a lever than a bolt anyway. So it takes the cake for me on which is better.
And on the whole Russian ordering anything they could get there hands on. I have a feeling any soldier, cavalry or not, that got their hands on one of those Winchesters can say that the action is 100x smoother.
(I've shot a few Mosins from a few different countries, and they haven't been the greatest) (I would also hate to be the poor infantryman that got one of those Italian black-powder rifles)
@@TheDragonGamerTV I don’t think you are wrong as to what is better.
I think what you are not crediting is the Russians were more of a “good enough” kind of weapons culture rather than “it has to be excellent” sorta deal
I'll pick a lever on a horse anyday, however.
I'll pick off the horse from a bush though
I meant for saddle shooting, but okay?
@@zathary564 I'll get you with my squirrel carbine made by henry
I was going to say this. They really didn't seem to appreciate the utility of a pistol caliber carbine. So it was tiny bolt carbine or multiple pistols. Sometimes both.
Ironic because they were also so obsessed with only providing one cartridge for everything due to logistics.
Maxim gun go brrrrr
Another point to consider is that the lever action was never adopted officially. The bolt action replaced single shot breechloaders, not the lever action.
That's a good point. The bolt isn't a direct upgrade to the lever, it's a different attempt at upgrading a previous design. So it never replaced the lever, it just beat it. Like how the design for the seatbelt used to be different for each car before the 3 point system got the most popular
@BrainiLack it didn't even really beat it. Lever action weren't seriously considered. No soldier needed that many rounds, they likely wouldn't live long enough. And bolt action were way cheaper to buy. You don't spend lever action money on soldiers. Hell the government took forever to upgrade from black powder for the same reason. It was cheaper.
@@majinjason~Also, a better detachable box magazine in a bolt-action "vs" an inferior tube (tubular) magazine in a lever-action.
@majinjason 5/6 years between France revealing Smokeless Powder and the Lebel for the U.S. to adopt Smokeless.
For the development of a Powder, Cartridge, Small Bore Bullet, then adoption of a new rifle...
That is pretty fast. If anything Repeating Arms is more apt. The U.S. didn't adopt a standard repeating rifle until the Springfield m1892.
And we were one of the last major powers to adopt a smokeless rifle.
I was under the impression the US army adopted lever actions in the late 1800’s?
Spitzer bullets in bolt-actions vs flat-nose bullets in levers also was a tremendous advantage.
This is the major issue. You Need flat-nose bullets in the tube magazine if you don't want the recoil to ignite you bullets. This greatly reduces you range.
Was about to say this since not a lot of people seem to be mentioning it.
This and being easier/simpler to manufacture are why Bolts beat Levers, IMO.
Solved in the Winchester model 1895.
@@Dimetropteryx correct. That's why I specified "tube" magazine. For me, the tube magazine just looks better. It's feels right.
Not until the creation of polymer point bullets at least. Hornady’s LEVERevolution ammo is safe to be used in magazine tubes since the polymer tip won’t detonate the primer on the next round under recoil.
Vintage warfare giving valid reasons for why nobody chose lever actions
Me: “But cow boy gun go “chick-chick”
*bolt actions. Got it mixed up
@@jakeplumber1373 no bolt actions go chick chick chick chick see you get two extra chicks beacuse you unload the round and load the round lift the bolt and pull the bolt down each one of those actions has a chick, with the lever action there's only two motions up and down. So chick chick.
@@jakeplumber1373 each hand motion has a chick there's no possible way a lever action could have more than two as you obviously know a lever action takes 2 hand motions. Up/down similar to a shotgun forward/back. Bolt actions have all the motions combined which adds up to four motions which makes four chicks.
That is correct
He makes some good points However 1of the main reasons The us army of the eighteen hundreds Kept a single shot rifle for so long Over the lever actions Was because of supply lines They were scared Troops would use up ammunition to quickly And then They would be completely out of ammo for Weeks or months This didn't stop troops from purchasing winchesters on their own though Many still did and preferred to carry that .
Insert meme about Jeremy Clarkson "this is brilliant, but i like this" favoring the lever action, here:
hey it's the gun from Fortnite they copied Fortnite 🤣😂🤣
@@themanthedan8710satire right?
@@wauwau-21stgod I hope so
Winchester 1895 full barrel verrient that Russia used in ww1 I can’t remember if we ever used it
Naw, the bolt action is better in every way.
"I want an official Red Ryder Carbine Action 200-shot Range Model Air Rifle!"
-Ralphie
With a compass in the stock!
No, you'll shoot your eye out
You’ll shoot your eye out!
Mine wasn't an air rifle.
Underated
I've had my lever action Winchester 30-30 for 40 years. Never had a problem.
And you never used it in combat in miserable conditions.
Carry it around like a soldier
Then fire off a basic load now and again
yes , I've never seen one function improperly tbh. however it's not a practical combat rifle. its best for a small number of possibly moving targets. but you better hit them all before it's time to reload. and ideally targets which are not shooting back at you.
@@666toysoldier Well even if it's not that much different compared to a bolt action.
@@666toysoldierwhy would he bro
Elegant vs simplicity.
Both are elegant, it's more about style
@@omargerardolopez3294 I feel is a little bit more about fire rate, theres some competitive shoters that use a level action rifle like a semi auto
@@omargerardolopez3294 style and probably more about cost.
@@biohazard_the_potato_muncher More about bayonet charge. Already mentioned in the video, bayonet charge prefer one piece stock. Also reloading for rapid fire can be problem with lever action. You can shoot rapidly but limited to 10 rounds of 38 spec instead continuous full cartridge for bolt action.
@@yulusleonard985 well there was high capacity lever actions but reloading was a really serious problem and if im not wrong there was a few speed loaders but they weren't that reliable and were extremily annoying to carry around compared to clips
We all like the lever action because of how Arnie handled the shotgun in T2.
Us gen x like them from Westerns .
I like them from rdr2
For me, it's Tallahassee's sawed off lever action from Zombieland
And yes I know it's from wanted dead or alive but I'm not a boomer soooo
I like them better because I like the way they feel in my hand.... I actually prefer shooting lever action
The introduction to "The Rifleman" would never be as cool if he was using a bolt action
the whole of the rifleman show would have been different without the lever action
half the point of mcain is that he can fire faster than someone with a handgun while keeping his accuracy
@@virgilmcmath6363If you're using a rifle for close distances, you're doing it wrong.
I doubt that, cause you're using something you already have an emotion connection to and memory of and comparing it to something that you've either not thought about or have discounted entirely because of the aforementioned reasons. If The Rifleman did use a bolt action, you'd probably argue that's what made the show unique and amazing compared to the other westerns of the time, and that the directors knew of the superiority of the bolt actions and thats why they went with it.
That the show that got me into lever action riffles and laramie and death valley put me on to quick gunslinging revolvers
all valid points but you can't help but notice the beauty of that Winchester what a gorgeous piece of history
Lever guns werent accepted by mikitaries but they played such a critical role in early usa development during the literal wild west that people still want to buy them today. Also because its fun to be a cowboy but the first part i mentioned is significant
man, those nice mechanical sounds are beautiful
I couldn't agree more, I can still hear dad cycling his Model 88 to this day😓
Lever guns are like a fallout player maxed on charisma.
Me pointing at a bolt action: this is amazing, but I like this
Me pointing at a lever action: 😊
I feel this lol The bolt action has a lot of perks, but lever actions are just cool haha
Lever action just looks awesome lol
Took the words right out of my mouth
The bolt action has stronger rounds.
Once bolt actions got the addition of box magazines it was gameover. Being able to use longer spitzer style rounds without the chance of detonation and the ability to charge with clips.
But the key is wild west guns are using wild west cartridges. You may complain sure but for me tis only staying consistent with the vibe
Counterpoint: with a Winchester 1895 Russian contract you can pretend to be a badass Siberian cowboy
I can't stop thinking of Mongol cowboys now.
It was because Tsar Russia didn't have enough number of their Mosin-Nagant M1891 bolt-actionr rifles for their troops to fight the Germans
I never understood that when I was a kid. All I could think was "the lever action holds twice as much ammo, is easier to shoot, and can be shot faster."
Depends on the round. My Marlin 30-30 holds six. IDK what it would hold in .44mag, definitely more.
@@markchidester6239 it would simplify supply lines as well imagine an entire army back then using nothing but .357 magnum or .45 colt
You only learn to appreciate paperwork and bills as you get older.
@@happyjohn354 Hi. .357-magnum wasn't invented till 1934. Modern lever action guns can be chambered in .357-magnum but not the 19th century ones.
@@davidhoffman6980 your right they had .38 though
I LOVE these kind of videos where I start with "oh yeah why did they do that" and then in every point I go. "Why yes that makes perfect sense"
His points may be wrong though. The reason few countries adopted lever actions for infantry use is that lever actions are not strong enough to handle the calibres armies wanted their infantry to use.
That and the largest armies at the time, those of France and Germany, already had single shot bolt actions that they thought they could convert into magazine fed rifles.
You can watch a channel CandR Arsenal. They produced a series with actual research that covers almost every lever gun issued in WW1.
Forgotten Weapons likewise has covered the developmental history of lever guns.
That history ends with the 1897 Winchester which could handle rifle calibers.
Bolt actions were in wide use by that time though.
There are other reasons this short is probably wrong. If you're interested I could share those.
The bolt action's story is long and complicated.
@@iivin4233 I mean, he's not wrong though. The reasons he give are all entirely valid and they did factor in to the decision making, especially the cost part, they just weren't the primary reasons
@@chrthiel You're right. I think it's misleading not to mention the main reason along with the other considerations though. Misleading not malicious.
I was thinking he's not wrong but his reasons are a little anachronistic.
but deep inside, you still don't understand cuz you're a cowboy
a fast effective answer
One thing you can do with a lever action that you can't with a bolt action, is drill a hole in the trigger guard section of the lever and add a screw that strikes the trigger every time the lever is reset, essentially making it a slam-fire rifle. That way you can shoot just like _The Rifleman!_
Or like the guy from once apon a time in the west
@@fishlife1013 Awesome movie.
So essentially make it even more useless, lol
@@georgewhitworth9742 Yes, semi-auto firing is completely useless.
Also much easier to negligent discharge into he floor or your foot as you close the action with your finger in there.
Spitzer round was a factor as well. Pointed bullet, accuracy at distance. Cant load those in a tube. ( well you could, but...)
True, but there's no reason the design inherently had to stick with a tube either. They could have just have easily been made with stripper clips or box magazines. You can buy box magazine levers right now. It's just no one did it back then. Probably because those round bullets were still very popular.
I really think the cost and ease of repair trumps everything else when we're talking about a military.
@@Furluge Well, there was also the change in warfare from Calvary to Tanks and Infantry.
As a former Dogface, I preferred the bolt when lying in mud.
Winchester solved that problem in the model 1895.
I disagree. The 8 mm Lebel was one of the first multi-show bolt actions that come on the scene and address this issue.
Also most bolt action military rifles were adopted with a round nose bullet in Spencer didn't come around until bolt actions had well established their dominance
Bolt action gets the trenchfoot.
Lever action gets the "nymphs du prairie"...🤠
*Lumbago
Levers, as much as I love them, are also much more prone to wear out parts than a bolt. A bolt action has a bolt that rotates and slides back and forth whereas a lever not only has a sliding bolt, but several pins and hinge points that are going to see much more wear in comparison.
They are beautiful firearms in multiple respects
Cartridge also, in that time period it was viewed that most engagements would be at longer ranges.
Could get more versatility using different bullet profiles in bolt guns, with the ability to stack rounds vertically, folks could utilize pointed spritzer shaped projectiles with better BCs. Although there were plenty of acceptions, the old tube mags of lever guns were limited to the more traditional flat point projectiles to prevent out of batt detonations in the mag tube, due to factors like recoil, excessive abuse in the field or even debris btwn cartridges & what not.
IDK, just a thought.
Love me some old rifles. Cool short, thanks for sharing.
winchester 1895 had a box mag and clip guide
Lebel used spitzer bullets just fine with a tube mag. Id say the biggest issue is your omly option is to load 1 bullet at a time and you have no access to something like a stripper clip or detachable magazines.
@@sethmullins8346 it also doesnt seem to operate as fast as classic lever actions. At that point id just getva straight pull bolt action.
@@robertharris6092however the level case was really tapered and had a rim, to make sure the bullet points laid flat in the tube, only contact with rim of the cartridge in front of it.
Also ww1 soldiers used it in single shot mode, they didn't take the time to load up the whole tube in the heat of battle.
But she is hot, isn't she😏
I think you forgot about the rotary magazine like savage 99
Don't forget the bayonet. The bolt action is much easier to stick a bayonet on. You would also have to make the lever action stock stronger to stop it breaking (but it can be done- see the Martini Henry). Bayonet fighting is very important in 19th century wars.
Bayonet fighting is brutal...
Winchester did make military versions of their lever action rifles that could take bayonets.
That's probably the nicest 71/84 I've ever seen. Looks factory fresh. Nicely done. :)
Loading a lever action makes you feel like John wayne on the Prairie pilgrim
That bolt action is sexy af.
Nah man lever action is underrated, look at that sexy beast. Such a fun and satisfying motion for cycling the round
@@player-mv7th it’s got it’s place for heavier cartridges like 45-70, and I do believe the hype about being more accurate shooting through heavy brush.
@@player-mv7th Eh different tastes. I personally like bolt action better. Bolt action just handles better for me and I just like them. This is basically a debate of turkey subs and ham sandwiches though.
@@leonardticsay8046 Heavier but much slower and shorter range. Pistol-like.
With the wonders of modern technology, you can have a lever action in .308 Winchester, 6.5 Creedmore, or 5.56 NATO. Probably even some others.
Look up the Henry Long Ranger.
I had a 1937 Springfield Model 15 .22lr. I fired tens of thousands of rounds through it. So much so, that i could confidently hunt anything from, deer to rabbits, and squirrels, with it. It was the most accurate weapon I ever fired. It also helped me, when i joined the Army. I never missed a target, with my M16, my entire time in service. (Eventhough, I'm left-handed.)
When my medical records went missing, at the end of basic training, i was asigned as Range Cadre, on an M16 range. (I couldn't be released until my records had been recompiled.) They gave me all the guys who couldn't qualify, as a last resort. I never failed a troop. I taught them everything my grandfather, (a WWII Army vet) and that Springfield taught me.
thats cool af brother
Cool story that doesn't apply to the arguement.
@@georgewhitworth9742
If you knew what a Springfield Model 15 is, you wouldn’t have posted that.
Don't forget the most important thing! Lever action ammo is in a tube putting front of bullet right behind primer of other bullet. If you fall or take a spill it can explode and it has many times!!!
Except they dont
I remember thinking about this when I was learning about WW1 at school, a lever action seemed more convenient to use than a bolt action. Thank you for answering a question I'd had floating around my head for a while now 😀
And it is. Just don't lie down.
Convenient in imaginary circumstances. im afraid.
Firing from horseback was largely out of date by ww1, it was out of date by the 2nd boer war, prompting the lever action carbines replacement with the bolt action smle.
In short, if you can hit an infantry sized target from horseback with a lever action rifle, the infantryman with his bolt action could have hit your horseman sized target much easier a good 100 metres ago.
By the boer war, the horse carrys the shooter where he wants to go, he dismounts and shoots, rifles are too accurate for american wild west tactics to work reliably by that time.
So the cavalryman must be able to match the infantry in range, effectively deleting most lever action rifles from the discussion.
@@spoopy9689 ww1 the spitzer bullet had not yet been commonly made yet
The Russians did use a variant of the Winchester M1896 that could be fed with mosin stripper clips
@@fishlife1013 not true. You need to do more research. All the main armies of ww1 (french, British, German, American and Russian) were using Spitzer ammo by around 1905 or so and definitely in their service rifles and MG's in ww1. The only countries not using Spitzer ammo in the first world war were Austria, Italy and some minor players.
Thank you for bringing up the prone point. So many people forget that. Its why armies didn't use them during World War 1 at least not as standard issue. The lever action wouldn't be great in the mud of world war 1 and needing to hit the floor quickly and shoot and manipulate the bolt. The lever action traditionally was better for cavalry but as cavalry got phased out after World War 1 it lost that advantage. The American rough riders made great use of them in the Spanish American war.
Dont forget the American Indians. Big advance for them over bow and arrow.
Almost all cavalry in Europe and Asia used revolvers or melee weapons.
Bolt actions are easier to clean too.
Something militaries are always keen on. Apart from some very early ones you usually didn't need a screwdriver to be able to clean the most important moving parts. (no sideplate removal needed)
Ian from forgotten weapons (or was it on inrange tv?) did a mud test on the winchester 1895 and it surprisingly ran reliably tho.
Oh wtf hi professional. I didn’t expect seeing you here
The tubular magazine on lever actions were prone to damage, whereas the internal magazine in bolt actions was protected, and this was a huge reason.
Also when spitzer style cartridges were introduced, they often were not compatible with the stereotypical lever action’s tubular magazine (as the bullet would seat itself on the next round’s primer). There are exceptions like the Lebel rifle but i imagine it was just far more convenient to do away with the tube style all together
The issue then is lack of stripper clips or derachable magazines. Loading 8/9 cartridges into a lebel takes forever vs 10 in an SMLE.
Spitzer ammo didn't see mass adoption before 1906, long long long after lever actions had been disqualified from mass issue.
I'm glad someone else knows this, I kept waiting for it to be on the video but it wasn't mentioned.
@@robertharris6092 true but magazine cut offs were standard issue for most bolt action rifles until WW1 proved their obsolescence. I don’t think Rifleman doctrine at the time was as concerned about rapid reloading until they were truly tested by the trench and assault tactics of the Great War
Winchester did make a stripper clip fed, full size, spitzer rifle round version of their venerable lever gun, in the form of the model 1895, but it kinda came too late to see any widespread interest, with only the russians buying them, mostly out of necessity, as they were losing so many guns to wartime attrition, that they were buying anything and everything they could get their hands on. the vast majority of lever guns were simple small caliber carbines, often chambered in the same caliber as the user's six shooter, and incapable of handling full size rifle rounds such as .30-30 and .45-70. While rifles chambered in such calibers did eventually come out, by that point interest in lever guns had largely waned in favor of bolt actions, especially in a military capacity. Interest in lever guns didnt pick up again till more the half a century later in the 1960's with the advent of spaghetti westerns and cowboy action shooting.
Those are both beautiful rifles.
The bolt action is also much stronger than a lever action, so it can better contain the pressures of higher power cartridges.
1886,1895 winchester enters the chat lemme introduce myself
Every action is as strong as it’s designed to be. Neither bolt or lever action is inherently stronger or weaker than the other.
@@fishlife1013Still can't shoot them prone as well as bolt actions
@@georgewhitworth9742i shoot mine laying down just fine and faster than my bolt guns
You know nothing about power. *Laughs in .45-70 govt*
The thing is the battle is supported directly off the action on both. What it really came down to was thw ability to pump out more bolt actions that are chambered in higher caliber then a lever gun.
Talk about a subvert and expectations. Honestly I had never heard anyone sing the Praises of bolt action but this was pretty good and great information. Thank you for teaching me something new I hope you have a wonderful day.
One thing you also forget that there’re not many model that have mag fed lever action. Which means they stuck with slug round. While we all know that for long range, a modern pointing shape projectiles will be way more efficiency than round shape slug.
Reason 4: Ammunition . Lever action feeds from a tubular magazine and requires soft-nose rounds.
Bolt action allows feed from the breach or a removable magazine and allows pointy bullets that fly straighter and penetrate deeper.
I think it mostly comes down to cost, just like during the veg of firearms in warfare. They had Wheelock's, but still outfitted their armies with matchlocks. A bolt action or single shot cost a lot less then a lever action , so with more rifles even if they were subpar, like the m91, more men would be armed. You.have to remember, Arni are funded by the lowest bidder. People can say oh this is better then that, but bottom line is what is the cheapest and easiest to make and which one takes the least amount of resources. Also, you have to remember that a lot of commanders were still off the opinion that soldiers waisted ammo. The Spencer proved that a lever action was a viable war weapon. Argue all you want, it mostly comes down to out dated tactics and cost.
Re: wheel and matchlocks. Also don't forget that as the guns were all handmade there was not that many gun makers that had the skills to make stuff like wheel locks, and more importantly: fix them when they broke.
Iirc there was a gun that was like centuries ahead of its time, being a repeater in the 17th century without being too bulky... but there was only a single Danish family that knew how to make them so the only military force equipped with them was the Danish Royal Guards
Try cleaning a lever action. You'll want a bolt action
@@berniegores2083 I saw a mud test on the Winchester 1895 and hardly any mud can get into the action, it's surprisingly reliable.
A big issue with the lever action rifle is almost all are tube fed. Meaning you cant use bottle necked pointed rounds that u see today. As each tip of a round would hit the primer of another and may lead to a spontaneous discharge when used.
Which is why the Savage 99 came about..lever action with a rotary magazine, allowing the use of spitzer bullets
lebel solution, simply dont align the rounds and that will probably not happen until it does
To add:
Up to a point there wasnt yet a sturdy enough lever system to contain the energy of full powdered rifle cartridges. Lever guns were by-n-large all pistol or lower powdered cartridges.
Bolt guns are inherently stronger actions for handling more powerful cartridges. Also we moved to faster and more accurate conical bullets which can't be safely housed in a tubular magazine.
Man I love the way a lever-action feels.
I love the role they played in american history
And don't forget on the ground you can go to the next round much easier with a bolt action rifle, though they shoot slower.
The mauser type reciever can withstand very high pressures meaning you can shoot cartridges with more powder and bigger bullets and it won't blow up in your face. John Browning eventually remedied that for the lever action but price wise its no contest
We just won’t take into account the biggest reason why which was the ammo that was used. 30-06 Springfield was quite a different round than .44-40 Winchester.
Savage model 99
Also, while lever actions could theoretically be fired faster due to the simple up-and-down motion to load a new round, they also relied on tube magazines, which were slower to reload than a bolt action. In addition, the tube magazine meant the bullets had to be a blunt shape, like pistol ammunition, unlike the more aerodynamic pointed bolt action ammunition. This was to prevent any worries of the pointed tip hitting the primer of another bullet wrong and triggering the round.
Indeed. The French found that out the hard way with the world’s very first Smokeless Powder Cartridge Rifle, the Lebel. They had to develop a new cartridge case with a special circular ‘trench” around the Primer, which was intended to rest the tip of the bullet of the cartridge behind it.
This, combined with the only being able to load one cartridge at a time, while other bolt action rifles were using box magazines, removable magazines, stripper clips and Mannlicher clips, the tube magazines were a very big handicap.
The Swiss used a strait pull rifle, K31, for decades. Finely made and accurate.
I mean there's no reason they need to have a tube magazine. They could have just as easily been made to use stripper clips or later on box magazines. Such rifles were made later. Just no one put two and two together at the time. Likely because those round-nosed bullets were quite popular.
Savage model 99 would like a word with you
The russians in WW1 though would contend that the lever gun they got, the 1895, was superior to the bolt actions they had. Due to it being built for modern bullets with stripper clip compatibility, the differences were cut down to the cost and prone awkwardness, but the reliability in adverse conditions the lever provided was really appreciated by the few that got them. It can be further argued by them being visibly worn in any pictures of troops in the trenches and the few notes on them noted how soldiers would try and grab any one they saw from a casualty.
Indeed, I'll be getting one as soon as possible to go with my M91 from 33. They are both neat rifle from Russian history, and since that was the start if my antique rifle collection, I have a special affinity for antique arms of said category. Though I am rather proud of the the French and American rifles I have as well.
No they didn't think it was better. Less than 300,000 were built for them with many being rejected by the inspectors. Out of 25 different models they used only 4 were lever actions.
Well the 1895 lever guns made for Russians use were ordered, like many guns of world war one used by the Russians, we're used because they had a large army but didn't have the arms to arm everyone. They were very sought after even after the war though
I doubt that, only 300k ordered compared to 3mil mossin and most of them ended in rear echelon trooper, and sthere are huge quantity in Finland before they destroy them eventually.
Then in ww2 they casually borrowed any weapon they could find from a casualty
Another reason, though it may have come later: Bullet shapes and types. Lever actions fire from tubular magazines, which require soft-nosed bullets to avoid premature detonation. Hard nosed bullets can strike the primer of the round in front of them, causing the round to explode. Bolt action rifles usually have box magazines (internal or external) where the rounds are stacked, not loaded end to end, which allows for a variety of bullet types.
Thanks for pointing out the differences between the two models.
The rear sight is forward of the action on a lever action. So that's not a factor in shooting one accurately.
Also the new standard in military ammunition (small bore smokeless) and strength of the lever action design coupled with the metallurgy at the time. Wasnt until 1895 with the Winchester 1895 that any lever rifle could handle the new, high pressure, spitzer bullet smokeless cartridges.
Smokeless was first available in the 1894
@@lukasanderson4757 the US adopted smokeless in 1892 with the krag Jørgenson in 30-40 krag. It didn't get to soldiers hands until 1894. Anyways smokeless was invented in 1884 and the French picked it up in 1886 and every country saw it as the future. Ergo nobody wanted stinky black powder cartridges anymore. The way a traditional Winchester lever action locks is through a toggle, not locking lugs in the receiver or at the breach face. Meaning if you chambered that style of lever gun in a high-pressure (for the time), smokeless cartridge it would more than likely break the toggle and send the bolt careening into the users face.
The 1894 Winchester was able to handle the smokeless cartridges by introducing a falling cross block that locks the bolt forward when the action is closed, but was still tube fed which isn't the greatest for spitzer type rounds. The winchester 1895 brought in an even stronger action with a box magazine.
@@Thoroughly_Wet interesting, I was meaning the first Winchester available in smokeless. If memory serves it was .32-20 that was available in smokeless then .30-30? I know there were about a dozen pyrotechnics around the world between 1880 and the early 1900s coming up with different formulations, before a common medium was reached. Thanks for your amazing input.
@@lukasanderson4757 Wasn't it 1886? with the Lebel?
M1 GARAND: "Hey guies, whats goin on here?"
Guys
Krag-Jørgensen: "HeLlOö HœW Arrë Yuuů?!
Never seen a 30-06 Winchester
It's different time period.
M16 : really ?
Lever actions have the potential to fire way quicker, and your finger never has to come off the trigger or trigger area. Nowadays, there's lever actions in 500 magnum and so on.
My lever action never worked when I needed it . But I love them their beautiful rifles .
This is actually very informative thank you
The heart, Ramon... Aim for the heart...
But ..
What if Ramon aimed for Clint's Head ?
What film is that from? I assume an old western?
@@Erakius323 Its either " For a Few Dollars more "
or " Fistfull of Dollars "
Clint Eastwood .
I think its Fistfull of Dollars .
Its Free on RUclips Free movies
@@Erakius323 "A fistful of dollars" There's a lever action, I think Remington. I'm more of a film guy lost in the weapons side of YT. Great movie! Don't spoil the ending.
The introduction of high velocity pointed spitzer bullet in 1890s.
In the tubular magazine of most lever actions, pointy bullet resting against the primer of next cartridge go bang.
Glad you bought up the firing from the prone
This is the most informative short I have ever watched, and a subject I care about. Thanks xD
They also were worried about getting a "chain fire" due to the rounds being held tip to primer in the lever action. It was tried by a few European militaries with their bolt actions, but abandoned due to that exact fear.
More specifically with Spitzer cartridges. With blunt bullets this isn't an issue.
The lebel worked fine. The issue is lack of stripper clips and detachable magazines.
Yes but spitzer rounds came after bolt actions were adopted in mass, it just ended up solidifying the use of them when countries adopted spitzer rounds and stripper clips
Bolt actions can utilize longer range spitzer rounds in top loaded magazines. Lever actions tend to be limited to rounded bullets behind each other in the tube magazine, which would cause spitzer bullets to detonate the primer in the round ahead of it.
I love the lever action!!!
Counter argument: Lever action feels more badass in Video games
Oof, compelling argument.
No
lever-actions just more badass in general
@@thegrinningplague I believe in the video that is a Winchester 1894 level action and it is, indeed, a more badass looking gun to shoot. Has a very satisfying kickback.
Lever action is even more bad ass in real life.
Chambering rounds way faster.
It's actually easier to keep your "sight picture " in any position other than prone.
With bolt action you have to take one hand off the rifle to work the bolt.
The lever action allows the hand to remain in contact.
The kinesiology to work the lever is more fluid. Bolt action is considered the least fluid of any multiple round action.
It's this reason with the fact that Bolt actions are even worse for left handers that makes the Warren report so full of shite.
They want us to believe LHA fired off x rounds so fast & accurate when he was supposedly using a right handed Bolt action rifle.
Let's face it, it was probably cost & simplicity of parts
In general bolt actions are significantly more durable and a stronger lock up. They can handle more powerful cartridges, especially during that time. Lever guns were usually a pistol caliber or close to it.
86 and 94 Winchester would like a word....
The 86 used 45-90, which is just as or more powerful than the bolt action calibers of the time
Power =/= chamber pressure
Cartridge design was moving towards bottleneck, smokeless powder, higher velocity cartridges firing spitzer bullets...all things lever guns are not optimal for.
Bolt actions can be made to handle higher pressures, handle Spitzer bullets, and more durable for less money
Both are fucking beautiful and could tell some wild stories though
I would suggest that if you were laying prone or propping the lever action on something you would have to raise the gun to cock it versus the bolt action you don't. Less movement less detection by the enemy.
I always really wondered this honestly
Or when you cant decide wich one to pick just be like Russians take a lever action rifle and chamber it to shoot 7,62x54R and boom you got yourself a Winchester 1895 Russian.
The Henry hybrid is sick
I need 5 of each before determining I like them all.
Good short. 👍 I appreciate both, and you did a great job showing why one got phased out.
The video and your attached note were very informative. Thank you.
I have one of both, a .30-30 lever and a Turkish Mauser. Two tools for different jobs. The Mauser is nearly as tall as my wife, and she is scary good at long range. Her first time with it was 800 meters, putting holes in a truck engine. The lever action is a saddle carbine, and is about as short as they make. It hasn't got much range, but neither do I, and we both kick like a mule.
I misread the title and was so confused 😂. Glad we cleared that up.
This was definitely a big question for me after watching All Quiet On The Western Front
My guy u forgot stripper clips, those things were a breeze compared to individual loading woth the lever action
Winchester m1895 lever action was stripper clip fed and used by the Russian military in ww1
@@MrShenanigans28 it was an exception, but there was a more circumstance reason it was adopted rather than it was better than their M91s
The stripper clip also came after the bolt actions were adopted.
Also the stock goes most of the length of the barrel meaning you can fire more rounds and hold the thing when it gets hot. The lever action you can't manipulate it as much
Also allowed for a spitzer style bullet. Something only seen for lever actions now, due to polymer tips.
My father had a Marlin 30. It was a beaitiful rifle. He sold it and regretted it shortly after.
*IT HURTS MY EARS AND BREAKS MY HEART SEEING THAT*
Why
@@awesomeopossum4632 my guess is he thinks these rifles literally meant to bash peoples faces in and be used to dig trenches if need be will break if I dry fire them once in a video
@@VintageWarfare you mean the rifles designed to withstand tens of thousands of rounds won’t break from doing the thing they’re designed to do?
@@awesomeopossum4632 it’s a wild thought I know.
I inherited a 22lr with a broken firing pin. It's a 1920's break action I don't remember the name of, but I do know it took hundreds, if not thousands of dryfires before the pin broke, and that was the ONLY part to suffer damage. Though neglect has made the bore a pitted disaster, dry fire had nothing to do with that. Anyway, I replaced the pin and it runs fine, though I need to fix the bore if I want to get any decent use out of it. I'll likely have to bore it out and insert a liner given the severity of damage it has...
In a word - Reliability.
Done
The introduction of Spitzer type ammunition probably played a part too. The only lever rifle I can think of that was designed to be used with it were the Russian contract Winchesters.
They can also handle higher pressures, black or smokeless powder. Its a lot easier to beef up a bolt action.
Always love these shorts, learning the reasons choices were made have always been very interesting to me
I could also see the advantages bolt had in the trenches durning war. Laying down, easier to use that side motion then raising up a bit to hit the lever and get an extra hole in your head
why was straight pull bolt actions not more common?
mostly cost it meant more money dedicated to specialized cuts that would require very expensive jigs just to get to run reliably and it adds a good amount of wait to the action
Theyre also more likely to have issues with getting dirty. But if youre comparing elite troops to elite troops and not grunts then a straight pull would be all the advantages of the lever action with none of the disadvantages.
@@robertharris6092 what's the name of that one Swiss straight pull rifle it was carried by Swiss mountaineers during I believe the first and second world wars like you were saying very specialized troops doing a very specific job and knowing their weapons very well
Later on down the line it was because of the Mauser action being fantastic and mass adopted and copied pretty much everywhere.
Despite this, the Austrians and Swiss both used straight pull rifles. I would imagine it was a combination of cost, and an already abundant and proven design existing.
@@rebelrat3594, can't think of the name of the early version, but the "later" one was the K31 that was produced from the '30s up through the late 60s or early 70s. I've got a K31 that was made in 1942. It's in amazing condition especially considering it's military surplus. Love that straight pull and the trigger is smooth like butter. I mean really really good. Detachable magazine but is really meant to be loaded from a stripper clip with the bolt open. It also holds the bolt open when empty. Action is really smooth and accuracy impressive. 174 grain bullet (7.5 x 55) packs a punch. In case you can't tell, I love my K31.
Thank you so much. I was so confused why bolt action rifles were used in ww1 trenches when lever actions existed at the same time.
Both are nice to have, bolt-actions and lever-actions are so satisfyingly mechanical...
4. Sh!t just feels and looks awesome on the reload.
Everyone becomes a sniper!
No. Cowboys and shit.
Arthur morgan train scene chapter 2.
@@not.krosshair Average Bolt-action fan VS Average lever-action enjoyer
So in short;
Sometimes simpler is better
those old bolt actions still have shit MOA
Lever actions aren't easy to use in prone. Main reason. Also when you open the lever you got all the internals like the fire mechanism exposed to mud grime dust etc
Enfields don’t have solid through stocks, still incredibly accurate