What were Prussian/German opinions on Lever Guns?

[Teku]

After getting my hands on a Russian Contract Winchester, I had been wondering if Germany/Prussia had any documentation of what they thought of lever action firearms.
Given that it was the Winchester's in use by the Ottomans that changed the view of Euorpean nations about the ideas of a rapid fire weapon (albeit as an emergency use weapon), did they give the weapon any direct tests like the Swiss did at the time with the result being the Vetterli Rifle. Was there any attempt to do similar tests or was the idea of a lever action so disliked that it was just never considered?

 

[Hambone]

That's a good question.

 

[AN-94]

Interesting question. I'd also be interested to hear their opinion of straight pull rifles considering that their ally of Austria-Hungary had been using straight pull rifles since 1886.

 

[Warrior1354]

I think the European powers had the same concept of thinking as we the United States did for the time. They were so afraid that soldiers would expel all their ammunition so quickly in the heat of battle. We as the United States soldiered on with the trapdoor series of rifles and carbines during the Indian Wars. Even though the Indian nations would equip themselves with lever action repeaters. Even after the model 1892 krag rifle was adopted we still had the rifle designed to act with a magazine cut off. We learned our lesson about having accurate volume of fire during the Spanish-American War plus a better cartridge. But the military brass still wanted a magazine cut off even with the later model 1903 Springfield rifle. So it kind of goes why have a fast loading repeater, if you still want this useless device? And the other thing was they thought lever guns were too complex, and expensive. The US military for that time was actually still recovering from the Civil War as well.

 

[togor]

Rounds were heavier then and had to be transported by flesh and blood to the battlefield, so it's easier to see the concern.

 

[Warrior1354]

Indeed Railway transportation to the towns out west, then horse and buggy to the forts. But, it still makes you wonder why you had the magazine cut off system all the way up to the M1903A3 Springfield rifle? Especially when the receiver was kind of already redesigned for that rifle. Sounds more like politics and military brass to me.

 

[MichaelWC]

According the rumor. "In 1912 the carbine was issued in test quantities to the 17th Saxon Lancer Regiment ("Ulanen-Regiment "Kaiser Franz Josef von Österreich, König von Ungarn" (1. Königlich Sächsisches) Nr. 17") and also to the South West African Schutztruppe for evaluation." I contacted Ashley from Cody Firearms museum about this topic when she still worked there. She told me it may have happened but she didn't really know off hand she told me the contact the archives. Archives asked me for a serial number and I didn't have one. So my research on this topic is still ongoing.

 

[Cyrano4747]

Just spitballing, but it may also have to do with when and how the arms were adopted. You don't really start seeing full sized rifle caliber lever actions until I want to say the 1890s. If you look at all the classic American Civil War / Frontier Wars lever actions they're all in what we'd consider stout pistol cartridges today. The powder loads were considerably less than what the contemporary muzzle loaders were using, and when you compare them to the first breech loading (bolt or falling block) firearms they're also considerably less. Something similar came up recently in another thread and I compared the Spencer to 11mm Mauser. .56-56 Spencer had about 350 grains of bullet sitting over about 45 grains of black powder. 11mm Mauser is about 385 grains of bullet sitting on about 75 grains of black powder.

I don't know why that is, but I one idea may be metallurgy. Better later century steels could have made for stouter actions and let Winchester start cramming full sized smokeless cartridges into lever actions.

Either way, from the view of the 1870s it seems to be that breech loaders (including bolt actuated breech loaders like the m71) let you have a stouter powder charge and a weapon with a longer effective range. My suspicion is that by the time you get into the 1890s everyone has already gotten used to bolt actions and doesn't want to bother with retraining the manual of arms for a questionable improvement.

 

[Teku]

Just spitballing, but it may also have to do with when and how the arms were adopted. You don't really start seeing full sized rifle caliber lever actions until I want to say the 1890s. If you look at all the classic American Civil War / Frontier Wars lever actions they're all in what we'd consider stout pistol cartridges today. The powder loads were considerably less than what the contemporary muzzle loaders were using, and when you compare them to the first breech loading (bolt or falling block) firearms they're also considerably less. Something similar came up recently in another thread and I compared the Spencer to 11mm Mauser. .56-56 Spencer had about 350 grains of bullet sitting over about 45 grains of black powder. 11mm Mauser is about 385 grains of bullet sitting on about 75 grains of black powder.

I don't know why that is, but I one idea may be metallurgy. Better later century steels could have made for stouter actions and let Winchester start cramming full sized smokeless cartridges into lever actions.

Either way, from the view of the 1870s it seems to be that breech loaders (including bolt actuated breech loaders like the m71) let you have a stouter powder charge and a weapon with a longer effective range. My suspicion is that by the time you get into the 1890s everyone has already gotten used to bolt actions and doesn't want to bother with retraining the manual of arms for a questionable improvement.

This is true. The early Winchester variants were only capable of being equal to, if only slightly better than a pistol round. But if you're not expect to be a frontline unit, sometimes that's enough. I have seen photographs of French motorcyclists and other smaller officer class units being issued them (model 1894s), on the basis that its better than the pistol they were to initially carry, they arent expected to be in frontline service with it, and it frees up a Lebel or Berthier which they are desperate for in this front. The Brits adopted them in very small numbers for naval use where it was just an immidiate improvement over what they had been previously issued, but thats about it. Americans soldiers would independently use Winchesters all the way up until WW2. So other nations and soldiers were willing to use them even if they were only pistol sized rounds, with the Russians being the only ones to use an actualy Militarized version of the Winchester. the Ottomans had Winchester 66s for a long time in their arsenal, but I don't know if they did bring them into WW1. But then you look at Germany, and you see almost no evidence of them even considering it, even using as a capture seems to have been not even a consideration. It begs the question as to why, since they were more than willing to use things like the Belgian 1889, once they were converted to 8mm. Its just something I always thought as odd.

Also, they Spencer V 1871 Mauser was me. Was just a weird hypothetical that came to mind as I was looking at the two.

Edit: The first Winchester that had a the capacity to fire, what was at the time considered adequate military ammunition was the model 1886 with its ability to chamber 45-70 ammunition. With hindesight we know that the French were doing things to render that rather moot, but it is worth noting that it was out there and generally a known capability the Winchester could bring.
Edit 2: I forgot the Burgess lever actions of 1878 could fire 45-70.