Tell me /k, why were bolt actions chosen over lever actions

>>33488310
because spitzer ammo (the lebel being an exception)

>>33488321
What is that? Not really a total gun nut.

File: win95russian (1).jpg (48KB, 1200x217px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 1200x217px

Mauser didn't make a lever.

>>33488339
pointy bullets

>>33488339
pointy bullets pointed straight at primers in a tube magazine is not a sound design feature

>>33488339
Pointy nosed bullets. If you load spitzers in a tube (like a lever action uses) you run a much greater risk of accidental detonation. Also it's easier to prone fire with a bolt than with a lever.

>>33488383
I see

>better
>less complicated
>cheaper
>stronger
>better feeding reliability
>far, far better extraction
>better rounds
>easier to clean
>better
And I'm probably skipping over one or two things.

>>33488310
I want you to lie prone and shoot a bolt gun and a lever gun.

Now while still prone load both guns.

Which one can you seem to operate easier, if you didn't say bolt gun you must have a serious mental deficiency.

File: WWI-Russians-with-Winchester-M1895-Muskets.jpg (601KB, 1584x888px) Image search: [Google]

601KB, 1584x888px

Simpler to manufacture, and by the time they were strong enough to handle the big smokeless cartridges and redesigned to use spitzer projectiles the bolt-action was already dominating the arms market.

>>33488383
>>33488362
>>33488321
>>33488358

See


>>33488344


Internal box magazine. Adopted in 1895.

Literally fixed the feed tube problem before either war.

If Springfield Armory didn't have a dick in their ass and their hands in everyone's pockets the 1903 wouldn't exist

>>33488321
this.
also the lowest common denominator and murphy are always concerns.
>in general:
exposed hammers and firing pins can cause both reliability and idiot issues
lever actions have more spaces to accept debris and fouling
in the case of a bolt action it usually matters much less if the bottom of the rifle gets dirty which is good because earth is a soldier's friend
bolts are simple and quick in terms of reassembly and maintenance
box magazines are reliable and much easier to fuck with if they're jammed up
the use of stripper clips
when lever actions fail they usually fail spectacularly, which shouldn't be taken to suggest a bolt action failure is inherently safe
i would be surprised if bolt actions were not generally more accurate by virtue of both ammunition and locking surface design

>>33488473
>lever actions have more spaces to accept debris and fouling
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f59tHO8-HlI

Why did it take so long to develop box magazines?

It seems like stacking the cartridges side by side is the most common sense, compact way to packa a lot of shots in a small space.

>>33488405
answer
>>33488310
a good thread died for this bullshit

I'd give my left nut for a 1895 win in .405

>>33488870
>token mud fetishist who still thinks ian's tests mean anything

File: 13932792_742659509170936_4951363810440322586_n.jpg (24KB, 359x365px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 359x365px

>>33488393
They're difficult to fire prone which was big for a lot of militaries. Also until the Winchester 1892 lever actions had weaker actions that couldn't handle smokeless powder and by that time most countries had adopted bolt actions

>>33488321
/thread

pointy bullets + tube mag = a very bad day if you hit it just right

File: gun jesus.png (71KB, 196x144px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 196x144px

>>33488942
>get shown proof your point is bullshit
>"t-that doesn't c-count!!!!"

>>33488310
3 chief reasons.

1. Cost/Difficulty of manufacturing. Single shot bolt actions were already old hat in Europe when the lever action came around. Adopting tooling around this was simpler and cheaper than redesigning for lever action rifles. Not to mention the cost buying the rights to all of these things, should you desire to get a lever action rifle.

2. Training and doctrine. European soldiers were already accustomed to bolt actions of various sorts. Continuing with this trend made training faster and easier. Additionally, bolt actions more easily lent themselves to the tactics of the day (or at least as they were envisioned by generals at the time). And they were more easily adapted to a magazine cut off, which was popular with multiple armies because.... fuck if I know what they were thinking but that's what they wanted.

3. National pride. All the great nations ended up with home grown designs, for a number of reasons. But because patents and tooling were effectively kept in America, they didn't have a chance to experiment and develope their own lever action designs. Smaller nations were either colonial extensions of the greater powers or were in their sphere of influence and thus bought from them.

Ultimately it was economics and politics, not performance that left lever actions rifles out of military adoption.

>>33489018
static mud tests are mostly meaningless. it can tell you if you have a bad design for muddy conditions but it can't tell you if you have a really good design. really just that in the closed and non-operating state, the firearm is reasonably sealed but even at that the test isn't long or comprehensive enough to arrive at a meaningful conclusion.
i honestly can't tell if you're trolling or believe these that these youtube cake tests have some sort of scientific legitimacy.

Bolt actions have a stronger action than levers, and are better suited to high pressure, full size rifle rounds than levers

>>33488974
That's actually a good point I didn't consider, wp

>>33488974
>They're difficult to fire prone
Not really. At the most all you have to do is tilt it slightly, but usually not even that is necessary.

>>33489231
I meant more difficult to fire than bolt actions, for most people. I'm left handed so lever actions are easier for me in prone. But that was the thought of military planners at the time.

Look at how many countries adopted Martini actions. It would be worked around but by the time smokeless powder came around there were more bolt actions in service, especially in Europe

>>33490870
Yes, there were definitely more around. I listed the primary reasons why here >>33489099

File: 1355382457098.jpg (443KB, 1007x1405px) Image search: [Google]

443KB, 1007x1405px

>>33491002
Yeah, I do think a lot of it was institutional momentum for bolt actions, but more countries switched from lever actions to bolt actions when adopting smokeless cartridges so there must have been an advantage in the mechanism.

I also realized that bolt actions can adapt to longer cartridges, look at an 1895 opened up.

>>33488876
>Why did it take so long to develop box magazines?
Because it makes gun to look different from musket what was big no-no.

>>33488974
>They're difficult to fire prone which was big for a lot of militaries.
Already was answered that levers are not so difficult to should prone. And more importantly: shooting prone was not SOP prior to WWI so it could not be "a "big thing".

>>33492572
By late 19th century, all infantry units, whether line, light, rifleman, jager etc., were issued the same rifle. A rifle was expected to be able to work with line and skirmishing tactics, which included prone firing. I was even taught formally: https://youtu.be/RPNc5IAwp6g?t=15m41s

skip to 15:41

I'm not saying that they were correct in their reasoning, but this was how they thought. They also thought that infantry could march on machine guns in lines and cavalry could charge dug in infantry with ;lances ad sabres.

Lever actions are nowhere near as strong of an action as bolt guns.

Also, all of the internals get dragged out when you use it, so there's no way to keep it clean.

File: mauservssingleshot.jpg (239KB, 2000x940px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 2000x940px

>>33492526
How so?

Pic related is a single shot rifle (Lebel) vs one with box mags (Mauser G98) from around the same time.

>>33488310
Bolt action is very simple and very strong (if done properly).

By the point strong lever-action were invented many nations already adopted bolt guns.

>>33494968

>single shot rifle (Lebel)

but the lebel has a tubular magazine that can hold 8 rounds.

>>33495008
So it should still look similar to a musket then. How then does it look substantially different from a bolt action with a box mag?

>>33495043

I'm not the same anon you were having the discussion with prior.

I was just confused because you said the lebel was a single shot .

>>33491197
One advantage is likely less distance over which the metal can stretch. With the locking lugs closer to the chamber on the bolt action, it is a far superior system in that regard.

Ian I think briefly mentioned this in a recent FW video.
When the British were doing rifle trials before WWI they had lever action rifles in the competition but one of them exploded after rounds went off in the tube.
The round at the time wasn't even a spitzer tip, the force of the tube spring pushing the stack of rounds forward was enough to cause a round nose cartridge to set off a primer.