How come repeating rifles weren't used in the first World War?

Yeah because nobody uses 7.62x54r anymore amirite?

Ahh yes, the infamous .32wcf Maxim. Hard to forget that one.

Because lever-actions are inferior to bolt-actions in a number of ways. For example:

1) They're more mechanically complex, which means that it's a lot more expensive to manufacture them on the scale needed to equip the infantry with them

2) They're harder to shoot while prone, it's much harder to keep your eye on the target while chambering the next round

3) Since most lever-action designs use a tubular magazine it takes much longer to load them, and this is a huge disadvantage in combat because you will be then be forced to load each shot one at a time like a single-shot rifle

4) They generally fire a weaker cartridge than bolt-action designs. It's debatable as to whether this is really an issue, but in the military thinking of the time a large calibre like .303 or .30-06 was seen as an absolute must for an infantry rifle because of their stopping power

>because the magazine design in levergats doesn't allow you to use the pointed bullets that militaries like.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester_Model_1895
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browning_BLR

Note how they use a box magazine, and not a tubular magazine like most lever-actions.

because shooting a lever action while prone on the ground, or leaning up against the berm of a trench is either impossible or very difficult. Thats literally the answer.

>/thread

Traditional lever actions that had already been in mass production for decades.
OR
>here's this new thing
>weird parts
>going to cost a lot
>you can shoot spitzers out of it
>or just use this bolt action that'll be a fraction of the cost

in ww1 rifles were basically not an issue at all, you could hand every infantryman a mossberg with slugs and the'd potentially even be better off. what they should have concentrated on is MGs, airpower and artillery.

and even then, military thinking at the time said that rifles were precision weapons, and so rapid fire capability out of a rifle was actually considered undesirable, because soldiers would just waste their ammo instead of taking the time to actually aim.

This, in fact, was the thinking of most armies until after WWII.

contrasting that, no country aside from the US had a marksmanship program to speak of. this is the case to this day.

yes, and that's partially why the US was the first to make a semi-auto their standard issue rifle. Competitors bitched that working the bolt made it harder to do follow-up shots on rapid-fire stages

Yes but OP asked why armies in WWI used bolt-actions instead of lever-actions, and the main points were the cost and the larger calibre. They had to equip the infantry with something, so it made sense that they equipped them with what they did.

so do semi autos that were invented shortly after bolt actions while working more reliably and having stronger actions that ran themselves

lever actions are larper shit. they have no advantages. and 30-30 is an overpriced shitfest of a round.

Yep. Levernuggets and their .30-06 equivalent did exist, but the bolt action rifles and pump shotguns were better.

Didn't Mexico introduce a semi-auto rifle first? The Mondragón

t. Dances with Mouthwash, still crying about Winchester and Browning

>almost everybody ITT didn't realize OP said "repeating" and not "lever-action"
You fags are embarrassing

Attached: 1522069874302.png (657x539, 110K)

I thought OP was using "repeating" as a synonym for lever-action because he's a brainlet who heard it being called that in a film somewhere

Nigger you dumb.

At least I'm not illiterate.

The better question is: Why did the US military adopt this stupid thing over the battle-tested Henry and Spencer?

Attached: SPRINGFIELD_MODEL_1873_TRAPDOOR_RIFLE_WITH_BAYONET._Cal._45-70._SN_77641.jpg (700x121, 12K)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeating_rifle
>also including a picture of a lever action rifle in the OP
Nigger you dumbx2

>OP's post includes a picture of a lever-action
>uses the word "repeating" in a way that would imply he is talking about lever-actions
>apparently everyone else is the dumb one for not knowing what you're talking about

Big boolit

>A repeating rifle, or repeater for short, is a single-barrel rifle capable of repeated discharges following a single ammunition reload, typically by having multiple cartridges stored in a magazine (within or attached to the gun) and then fed into the chamber by the bolt via either a manual or automatic mechanism, while the act of chambering the rifle typically also recocks the action for the following shot. In common usage, the term "repeating rifle" most often refers specifically to manually-operated weapons, as opposed to self-loading rifles, which use the recoil and blowback of the previous shot to cycle the action and load the next round, even though all self-loading firearms are technically a subcategory of repeating firearms.
At least I'm not illiterate x2

They were in limited use, pic related.
Why they weren't used more often is because they were difficult to disassemble for maintenance, didn't handle dirt well, couldn't be shot prone easily, were more expensive and time consuming to make, etc...
There's pretty much nothing they did better than bolt action rifles
>b-but, muh speed
Almost completely irrelevant when you only have shots, hell, most militaries doctrines of the era was to cut off the magazine and shoot one shot at a time, only falling back on the magazine when the enemy was close

Attached: Lever Nugget.jpg (954x617, 189K)

Not true
Because some faggot generals decided that marksmanship at extended ranges would be the future of combat, even though most other large armies with bolt guns were taking insane losses in what should have been easy conflicts, because their volume of fire wasnt high enough.
So they decided instead of fire volume forcing a caliber effective to 1200m, with iron sites, and shove it into the hands of a kid who couldn't hit a man at 400m with it.

Lever action rifles (repeaters) dont have bolts?

If he did mean that (which he didn't) then what the fuck is even his question because every military used bolt action rifles, which by that broad definition are repeating rifles.

Nice attempt at damage control

>what the fuck is even his question
a dumb one that shouldn't have gotten a single reply

Let's have a look at OP's sentence again:

>How come repeating rifles weren't used in the first World War?

Since bolt-actions were used in WW1, and semi-automatic rifles had not yet been invented, we can therefore infer that OP (incorrectly) used the phrase "repeating rifle" to refer specifically to lever-actions, rather than to just any gun with an internal magazine.

>and semi-automatic rifles had not yet been invented

Attached: 1470780293549.png (763x960, 375K)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lever_action
Ctrl + f "Repeating"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeating_rifle
Ctrl + f "Lever Action"

>we can therefore infer that OP (incorrectly) used the phrase "repeating rifle" to refer specifically to lever-actions
Yes, and everybody jumped at the chance to spout memes at lever actions instead of correcting his dumb ass.

>more mechanically complex
Slightly, less so then the MGs they were fielding, so wrong.
>harder to shoot prone
True, good thing they were prone so much in WWI, not standing shooting from trenches or anything.
>takes longer to load
Feeding 1 round at a time takes longer then feeding 1 round at a time, at least you can top off a tub mag (also Russians had a box mag fed lever gun, retard)
>more powerful cartridge
It wasnt important, within the distance the average soldier can readily put down effective fire, a lever cartridge will do just as well externally and terminally ballistically.

Am I wrong?

I'm sure there are some examples you can find of semi-automatic rifles made before WWI, but I doubt they were anything more than prototypes

Fuck you're retarded
Repeating rifles were used in WW1 regardless of their action. There you go Timmy, I hope you get it now.

>So they decided instead of fire volume forcing a caliber effective to 1200m, with iron sites, and shove it into the hands of a kid who couldn't hit a man at 400m with it.

Awww, I love the volley sights on WWI-era rifles.

Semi auto rifles have been around since the 1890s

Most posters recognised that OP had made a mistake and worked around it, rather than just belittling him for not using the correct terminology. Because, you know, most people aren't pedantic assholes.

Yes but OP was specifically referencing repeating rifles that operated via Lever Action hence the picture. You decided to flaunt your autism and have a pedantic hissyfit.

>You decided to flaunt your autism and have a pedantic hissyfit.
I wouldn't have if you hadn't defended OP's mistake

>Smgs

Attached: 12343214123.jpg (1800x536, 84K)

>It wasnt important,

It was extremely important in the minds of the brass at the time. They were obsessed with the idea of long-range engagements. Christ, just look at how the sights of weapons from that era. Even a fucking C96 pistol had sights going out to a thousand meters. Volley sights on rifles went well beyond that.

Are lever action rifles not repeating firearms?
Hmm, it's almost like reference pictures serve a purpose.
>op said repeating
>posted a picture of a lever action
>CLEARLY HE MEANT BOLT ACTION RIFLES HURRRR AUTISM AWAY!
Unironically end your life.

Literally never mentioned bolt actions once.

>most people aren't pedantic assholes

most ppl also do not believe it's a right to own and carry arms. let's not use "most people" as a benchmark of value.

>Slightly, less so then the MGs they were fielding, so wrong.
MGs were not being produced in anywhere near the same quantity as infantry rifles. If you're having to make a rifle for every soldier then the added costs will quickly add up.

>True, good thing they were prone so much in WWI, not standing shooting from trenches or anything.
You seem to massively underestimate the amount of shooting that takes place from the prone position. You also completely ignored the second half of the sentence, where I mentioned that with a lever-action it's much harder to keep your sight on the target when chambering the next round.

>Feeding 1 round at a time takes longer then feeding 1 round at a time, at least you can top off a tub mag (also Russians had a box mag fed lever gun, retard)
Which would you rather take into battle, a French Lebel or a German Mauser? The Lebel's tube magazine put it at a big disadvantage compared to a box magazine.

>It wasnt important, within the distance the average soldier can readily put down effective fire, a lever cartridge will do just as well externally and terminally ballistically.
I actually agree with you here but that isn't how people thought about it at the time. That's something that didn't become widely recognized until after WW2.

OP here. Jesus, what a shit show.

Attached: 1543341307801.png (585x470, 67K)

So what was OP referring to then? Can you orchestrate an answer without sounding like a pedantic aspie? I highly doubt it but try me nonetheless.

They were far too mechanically complex and prone to jamming from mud and dirt to ever be issued to infantry, so it doesn't count

>So what was OP referring to then?
Repeating rifles.

And what was is reference picture in the OP?

He was fucking obviously referring to lever-actions. Are you using a text-based browser like Mosaic where you can't see the pic OP posted alongside his post?

You said semi-automatic rifles haven't been invented yet, not that they had been invented but weren't viable because of mechanical complexity.

Because OP pics on Jow Forums are infallible references regarding the topic discussed in any given thread.

Follow the reply chain dipshit.

Since the thread is about equipping infantry in WW1 I thought it went without saying

Mmmm that's a nice deflection. Delicious.

My bad, apologies

Glad to see you're finally admitting you have no argument.

Sure thing buddy. You came in trying to sound like a smarmy cunt know it all who doesn't know a single thing as it turns out.

Maybe you should make a thread about fully semi automatic rifles because otherwise that would be pedantic.

Are you retarded? Because you sound like it.

>am I retarded for wanting to use proper terms in a technical field
Maybe.

Are lever action rifles not repeating rifles?

>am I autistic for wanting to use the the exact terms for everything even when everyone else understood the intent behind what was being said
Definitely

harder to fire from the prone, that simple

They were. By several armies mostly by reserve troops.

not to mention tube vs magazine feeding. higher cost of lever production. Less reliable in dirty conditions.

Muh Prone is the weakest and most stupid argument though.

Attached: 1543508659975.png (806x823, 147K)

because they had the idea that they could depot convert rifled muskets in inventory into these things instead of having to buy completely new weapons.

OP is deflecting which is hilarious, now that he's using the correct definition of "repeater" of which every bolt action rifle qualifies.

He asserted that repeaters weren't used in WWI, and Jow Forums correctly thought he was a retard and thought "repeater" meant "lever gun"

Henry
>weak cartridge
>hot barrel transferring heat to the tube you're gripping
>Henry Hop
>complicated loading
>Practiced soldier using a trapdoor is still firing while the Henry user is reloading

Spencer
>awkward loading
>dancing hands to work the thing
>lost follower=fancy club
>Practiced soldier with a trapdoor is still firing while the Spencer user is loading it

No? Lever action rifles are in fact repeating arms. They are just a subset. OP also included a picture of a lever action rifle for reference dumbass.

OP here these are my only posts.
Other than that, I'm just enjoying this shit show you autists are having.

Attached: 1544062742916.png (397x575, 122K)

You must be at least 8YO to post on this board

You didn't answer OP's question

then OP's question makes no sense, as bolt action repeaters were, in fact, the standard issue on all sides.

Lever Action rifles (the type of rifle featured in the OP pic ,usually used as a reference for the thread)
Were in fact not used as prolifically as the other common types of repeating arms at the time. This is widely known by just about everyone. Since your average person could deduce that lever actions were not common, and OP included a picture of said rifles he was talking about them. Social cues and normal peoples speech aren't usually picked up by people with aspergers, are you diagnosed?

right back at you, because I'm mocking OP for backpedaling on his assertion that repeaters weren't used in WWI, when they were. I agree with Jow Forums dunking on him for correctly assuming OP was talking about lever actions, which OP is now backpedaling about in order to not look like a retard

They weren't widely used compared to other types of repeating rifles. This is a simple figure of speech where saying it wasn't used is usually seen as "little to none". While SU-152s have seen action all over the middle east in recent conflicts to say that they aren't used is an appropriate claim. They are not used in any standard arsenal or in any significant capacity near even the rarest piece of artillery used by a modern military. So one would be correct in saying the SU-152 is not used in modern combat despite statistical outliers proving this claim false. That brings us to another topic, statistical outliers. Now I'll let you do your research on those by yourself.

you cant use 7.62x54r in a lever gun

How am i backpedaling. you know you're not talking to the OP

my posts are as follows:

Now this one.

It's fun watching you fight yourself though. :)

Attached: comfyneety.jpg (670x424, 142K)

It's really a nice gun tho

Some were used, Russia bought 300,000 Winchester 1895s with modern military sights in archens, bayonets, slings and was loaded with Nagant stripper clips. Those were also used in the Civil war and Winter war. Stalin also sold them to Republican Spain and swindled them out of their gold reserves.

The British bought 21,000 1892s to arm the Royal Navy and free up Enfields for the Army.

The 1894 was bought by France (15,100), America (1,800) and Britain (5,000) for navy and rear units who weren't expected to need them.

The Royal Flying Corps also bought less than 50 Winchester 1886s at the start of the war to shoot down zepplins with special incendiary bullets.

Attached: winchester-lever-action-1.jpg (745x420, 72K)

mosin nagant we don't deserve.

Attached: 1895ActnW-Charger[1].jpg (732x473, 92K)

The argument was about the invalidity of OP's base assumption using that exact wording, not what type of gun a lever action is.