WWII lever action rifle
Eddie
a 3-man shore party is sent ashore onto enemy territory from a
submarine. They are carrying lever action rifles. Now, I know this
is Hollywood, and maybe they didn't have the proper weapons in their
gun store inventory, but lever action? I thought they were never used
on military weapons due to the difficulty of using a lever action when
lying prone.
Were there lever actions in WWII?
TIA
Eddie
--
Chris Morton
>Were there lever actions in WWII?
Yes!
But primarily used by the Soviets, who had a stock of Winchester Model 1895
lever actions left over from Tsarist purchases during WWI. The Russian M95s
were of the long "musket" style with bayonet lugs, and unique among lever action
rifles, a guide for the use of stripper clips. They were chambered for the
standard 7.62x54mmR cartridge. I almost bought one once just for grins.
They were marginal as combat weapons, but marginal beats nothing every time.
Numbers of commercial Winchester lever actions were purchased in WWI (and WWII
if I remember correctly) for general utility use. They were not intended for
combat.
--
--
Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women should have to fistfight with 210lb.
rapists.
--
Marvin
A few WW I Springfield rifles were still used in WW II, especially by snipers because they
were considered to be more accurate at long range than the Garand rifles. The US sniper
in Saving Private Ryan is shown working the bolt on a Springfield rifle, as I recall. But
those aren't lever action rifles.
--
Hal Hanig
> Were there lever actions in WWII?
Do you mean lever action or bolt action? The M1 Garand semi-automatic was
adopted as the standard issue by the Army in 1937, although there may very well
have been units deployed overseas when the war started for the US that were
still equipped with the M1903 Springfield, which was bolt operated.
--
John Dean
They were certainly available.
Lot of info on various models here:
http://www.pmulcahy.com/lever-action_rifles/us_lever-action_rifles.htm
Note, for example, that the Marlin 39 was built from 1922 to 1983 and
the Marlin 36 from before the war to the end of it. The Savage 99
stopped production as WW2 began but, obviously, there would have been
plenty around for anyone who wanted one.
One thing continues to surprise me - that people assert that the lever
action is difficult to use prone. I've experimented with a replica
Winchester and find no problem using it prone. When the lever is lowered
to its fullest extent (90 degrees to the barrel and 90 degrees to the
ground, I have 5 inches clearance. I am 6'1", so a shorter person might
not have so much clearance, but a slight rotation of the weapon to the
right should solve that.
There are other reasons why a bolt action is preferable to a lever
action, but usage prone is not, IMHO, one of them.
--
John Dean
Oxford
--
Brad Meyer
There were. Marines did not start getting M1s until after Guadacanal.
--
Chris Morton
>A few WW I Springfield rifles were still used in WW II, especially by snipers
Actually a LOT of O3 and 03-A3 Springfield rifles were used, especially by
Marines early in the war, and by 2nd line troops.
Brad Meyer
<john...@frag.lineone.net> wrote:
>One thing continues to surprise me - that people assert that the lever
>action is difficult to use prone. I've experimented with a replica
>Winchester and find no problem using it prone. When the lever is lowered
>to its fullest extent (90 degrees to the barrel and 90 degrees to the
>ground, I have 5 inches clearance. I am 6'1", so a shorter person might
>not have so much clearance, but a slight rotation of the weapon to the
>right should solve that.
I hunted for may years with a 308 Winchester lever action and had
pretty much the same experiences.
>There are other reasons why a bolt action is preferable to a lever
>action, but usage prone is not, IMHO, one of them.
One practical advantage of a lever is that they are much less "handed"
then a bolt action. For a lefty shooting off the left shoulder it
makes a big difference. My 308 was eventually replaced by a 302
Wetherbee with a left handed bolt.
--
b.ing...@shaw.ca
and got one chance at the shooting range. I shoot a rifle or shotgun
naturally from the left shoulder (although I shoot a pistol and and
write with my right hand!); the ejection of the spent M1 cartridge to
the right and inches in front of my eyes seriously affected my
accuracy, which probably wouldn't have been good even if I had been
right handed. Left-handed infantrymen using the M1 in WWII and in Korea
must have been at a serious disadvantage.
Bob
--
Bill Shatzer
I suppose the Navy was not overly concerned with small arms prowess
but in Army basic training, the word was, You WILL Learn to Shoot
Right-Handed.
Not only because of the cartridge ejection problem you mention but
also because the operating rod handle (cocking lever) was located
on the right side of the weapon and it was terribly awkward (if not
impossible) to operate the lever to clear a jammed cartridge while
firing from the left-handed shooting position.
There were undoubtably left-handed infantrymen in WW2 but I think all
of them had been trained to fire their weapons right-handed.
Cheers and all,
--
Michael Emrys
b.ing...@shaw.ca wrote on 8/15/05 5:01 PM:
> I shoot a rifle or shotgun naturally from the left shoulder (although I shoot
> a pistol and and write with my right hand!); the ejection of the spent M1
> cartridge to the right and inches in front of my eyes seriously affected my
> accuracy, which probably wouldn't have been good even if I had been right
> handed. Left-handed infantrymen using the M1 in WWII and in Korea must have
> been at a serious disadvantage.
My father, though right handed, hunted with an automatic shotgun that he
fired left handed. I was present once when someone asked him if the expended
shell ejecting in front of his face didn't bother him. His answer was no,
that he became used to it early on and it didn't bother or distract him at
all. He was a pretty good shot BTW. So my guess is that most soldiers who
fired left handed acclimatized to it fairly quickly, even if they had not
hunted before. Perhaps you would have as well, given enough time.
Michael
--
Michael Emrys
bsha...@OregonVOS.net wrote on 8/16/05 9:08 AM:
> There were undoubtably left-handed infantrymen in WW2 but I think all of them
> had been trained to fire their weapons right-handed.
That may have been what they were taught in basic, but I don't believe that
that was always what they actually practiced in the field, based on the
photographs I have of soldiers holding and firing their weapons left
handedly.
Michael
--
Cub Driver
wrote:
> But
>those aren't lever action rifles.
Lever action was considered a bad choice in the military because of
the difficulty of operating the lever while prone or in a foxhole or
trench. The notion of American troops in the Pacific in WWII being
armed with Winchesters is just to bizarre to be credited. As others
have said, bolt-action Springfields were certainly possible in the
early months of the war, and so were soup-plate helmets of WWI issue,.
-- all the best, Dan Ford
email war...@mailblocks.com (put Cubdriver in subject line)
Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com
--
Cub Driver
<brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I hunted for may years with a 308 Winchester lever action and had
>pretty much the same experiences.
When hunting or target shooting, the target generally doesn't shoot
back, so you needn't hug the ground the way a soldier generally does.
In combat, you want to be FLAT.
Cub Driver
>Left-handed infantrymen using the M1 in WWII and in Korea
>must have been at a serious disadvantage.
Aw, they managed!
Because I'd fired on an ROTC team in college, I was made a coach in
basic training. I was given all the bolos and told to qualify them
while the cadre continued to process the other trainees.
One of my charges was evidently blind in his right eye, because he put
his chin on the right side of the stock and aimed with his left eye.
Really weird! But I qualified him on his first attempt.
I don't even remember any problem with the lefties. Sure, the shell
ejected across his line of vision. So what? Remember, this was a time
when nobody used ear protection on the firing range, not the cruits
and not the cadre. We also fired live ammunition on the assault
course, with the cadre holding onto our cartridge belts from behind so
as to keep us more or less in line. I can't imagine that happening
today.
I qualified all my charges simply by not telling them they were firing
for record. Everyone is relaxed when he's only practicing. One was
quite irate that he never got to fire for record. "No, no, go away,
you're qualified!"
At the end of the day, with two or three bolos still left on the
field, the last sergeant just went down the line, picked up the
cruit's rifle, and qualified him by firing offhand. Thus they got
their medals: Marksman!
Chris Morton
>Lever action was considered a bad choice in the military because of
>the difficulty of operating the lever while prone or in a foxhole or
>trench. The notion of American troops in the Pacific in WWII being
The actual difficulty with lever action infantry rifles isn't the lever itself,
it's what it's attached to.
Most lever action rifles do not have primary extraction to loosen the cartridge
in the chamber before it's extracted. Under prolonged firing conditions, this
can lead to torn rims and stuck cases.
Brad Meyer
<war...@mailblocks.com> wrote:
>As others
>have said, bolt-action Springfields were certainly possible in the
>early months of the war, and so were soup-plate helmets of WWI issue,.
Generally, USMC carried Springfields through the end of 1942 or later.
1st Marine Division fought Guadacanal with Springfields. My father
claimed his outfit (22nd Marines) did not get M1s until just prior to
the Marshalls.
--
Brad Meyer
<war...@mailblocks.com> wrote:
>In combat, you want to be FLAT.
Flat isn't the problem. A simple 90 degree rotation (clockwise if one
is shooting off the left shoulder) of the piece allows operation of
the lever while staying flat. The real problem is breaking one's
sighting, which is going to happen even while standing.
Lever action would also play hob with the sling, assuming the piece
had one.
--
Cub Driver
<brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>In combat, you want to be FLAT.
>
>Flat isn't the problem. A simple 90 degree rotation (clockwise if one
>is shooting off the left shoulder) of the piece allows operation of
>the lever while staying flat.
Perhaps you are more limber than I, but rotating a rifle
(anti-clockwise in my case) would require me to raise portions of my
body higher than I would care to, if only my elbow!
As you go on to say, losing the sight would also be a significant
problem with the rotation. I'm not so sure about the sling. I don't
recall using the sling except when firing for qualification or in
competition.
I was interested in the extraction issue, mentioned in another post.
Save for air rifles, I've never actually used a lever action: I didn't
know about the primary extraction.
In ROTC rifle competition we used a Springfold bolt action chambered
for a .22 cartridge. It was a fine weapon, and I can understand why
people might favor it over the Garand. But as a 'cruit in 1956, I just
thought the M-1 Garand was the most magnificent assemblage of wood and
metal I had ever encountered. I think American soldiers were most
fortunate to be armed with it during WWII.