Home
Creators
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

PODCAST: What if...the US Army adopted Lever Guns in the 1870s? (Patreon)

Published:
2017-04-13 12:21:02
Imported:
2026-06

Downloads

Content

The 1860 Henry and 1866 Winchester cut a bloody swath in the "old west" not due to the power of the cartridge, but based on their capacity, controllability and rate of fire.

In this video we discuss an idea - what if the US Army had embraced the idea of the high capacity and rate of fire that the lever guns could deliver instead of the single shot Trapdoor rifle?

Files

Comments

Ken McNamee

Karl/Ian, I think you guys have just described the next version of the video game Battlefield - Cowboys and Indians using InRange TV "what if" weapons.

Kenny VanCleave

Love the podcasts. Keep up the the fine work.

Kenny VanCleave

How did you guy meet and were did you go to school?

Louis W. Reuter II

No doubt the use of modern tactics with old weapons systems would have been superior to what was used at that time. I am curious about what post-war west culture would have been like. Would there even have be American Indians? Could they have caused a whole socioeconomic group to go extinct? More food for thought, NOT a condemnation in any way.

GunnerFreeman

Taking this thought experiment on to the next level, would the Gatling guns have stayed chambered in .45-70, or would those have been bumped up to .45-120 or down to .45-60? Also after more successful Indian Wars, potentially no Custer's last stand, I am not sure if the difference in equipment would have allowed the army to overcome Custer's incompetence, how would the U.S. army have handled the move to smokeless powder and Spitzer bullets. I believe that this hypothetical U.S. army would have been more open to new technology but unwilling to give up the extended capacity of the tube fed lever guns. Do you all think this would have pushed designers to get detachable box magazines to work faster because of the demands of the U.S. army. Also how would the Spanish American war have played out if the US army had been made up of the squads you all described?

Brendon Burns

I live this kind theory! Been thinking about it since I was a kid! So glad you brought it up! As much as it would have been cool, there was no way it would happen. 1. Stock piles of springfields rifle muskets to convert to trapdoor.2. The cost of a '73 or '76 would have made arming each soldier very expensive. 3. The Winchester '73 or '76 really weren't battlefield/soldier proof. Compared to a trapdoor the durability isnt there comparatively. However the US Army Cavalry did have stock piles of repeaters. The Spencers. You hear of them being used by the cavalry and infantry in combat in the west occasionally. Now I know the Spencer company went out of business in 1869. But the us army still had a ton of these spencers. Why the hell didn't they pursue the Spencer, a design that they already possessed, battle proven and the soldiers are accustomed to. To me that is simply neglectful.

Alexandru Ianu

If the US had adopted lever guns (of any type) as a service rifle, it might have sped up the development of stronger lever actions, so an earlier '1886/1894/1895' series, and maybe led to the adoption of lever actions in other militaries.

Andrew MacDougall

First off it wasn't the Army's discision to spend they money; it was Congress, so blame them. Secondly, three squad-level cartridges to supply? lol And the generals weren't concerned with privates merely "wasting" ammo but the very real concern that when your supply train runs at the speed of hooves you can only carry so much before you really do run out and then you're left with...nothing. This was also the era when militaries world wide were entranced by the possibilities of long range fire rifling and then smokeless powder afforded. Infantry replacing artillery with volley fire etc.

Sam

I think if that had happened semi automatic guns would have been available much sooner on the battlefield

Karl Schrantz

More than just a 2 gun match. Get an actual squad of competent shooters with your load outs and then run yourselves through a small unit training course. Someone out there should be able to accommodate this. How effective can a lever unit be? Neat experiment.

Mark Osborne

Great content. I actually like the podcasts, I can listen to them at work without wandering PC eyes to worry about.... :)

Ron Johnson

The Army would have needed a much more developed logistics chain than it had. Also, the US Federal Budget was a *lot* smaller back then.

Michael Hyde

Follow up question: If you take the 1876 to a two gun match, what's the other gun gonna be? I vote Schofield.

MrMister

That was a fun video, good job on the theoretical analysis

Cary Widauf

This is a great "what if" scenario!!! However, if you put this squad up against a WW2 infantry squad is the whole issue w/black powder... I guess they could the black powder smoke as concealment...

Matthew Troccoli

Excellent video! I think part of the reason the trapdoor conversion was selected is that it was cheap to convert existing muskets, the US likely did not foresee any armed conflict with a foreign power using superior rifles in the immediate future, and the only foreseeable opponent (Native Americans) in Western expansion was greatly underestimated.

Bruce Brodnax

Have to say, the US Army made the right choice at the time: the country was broke following the Civil War, and all .gov funds were being put into Restoration, so arming the soldiers w/ a buffalo rifle to depopulate the Plains nations' food supply w/o overstepping the limited logistical capacity of the Army's miniscule budget [by modern standards] was in fact the most efficient choice. Manpower [& life} was cheap back then, so the fact that a few soldiers lost their lives in choosing that path was small beans. There's a reason that you saw Germany and France adopting repeaters before anyone else, & it's not because they were at each others' throats: it's because they were the richest nations in the world at the time! [Here's where you say: "What about Britain?" & the reply is "all their money was tied up in administration of a globe-spanning empire, so their Navy got the money and they'd rather field more soldiers on the Queen's shilling than worry about how many more spear-throwing wogs they could shoot if they could only shoot faster..." ;-) ]

Paul Craig

I enjoy this kind of stuff. Years ago I read a historical fiction about neo-nazis using time travel to bring AK-47s to the confederate south. That book was way more fantastical than your discussion but it was interesting to imagine the world changes that could have happened if something like the soldiers primary weapon had changed.

John R. Dorn

The model 1886 was the first lever action Winchester to handle proper rifle cartridges. Could handle up to 50-110. The 1895 Winchester was a 1886 with a vertical magazine so spitzer bullets could be used. Both designed by J. Browning.

Greg Gifford

Why did you feel that you had to "make apologies" for wearing a Confederate kepi? You made it seem as though you think there is something somehow "wrong" with it. Many hundreds of thousands of fine Southern men had no problem in wearing one while attempting to repulse an unwarranted invasion of their homeland. I would have thought that someone as seemingly well versed as you are in matters of history would have long ago seen through the smear job that the official gatekeepers of history have done on the South. Apparently not. I am disappointed.

InRange TV

Greg, I think you're reading too much into that off the cuff comment from Ian. Silly things like the color of a hat turn into horrible issues we have to deal with in the comments sections in places like YouTube. I can't speak for Ian, but that was my thought when he made that comment and I'm coming at this from being a "content creator". I do not believe it was intended to offend. ~Karl

Marc Hooper

All I got from the hat comment was that Ian sees himself as a union soldier when re-enacting that period.

Bruce Brodnax

Greg, Ian was holding the Henry rifle, which was a weapon of the Union army, ergo his kepi was the incorrect color for that bit of historical portrayal. While southern soldiers were happy to use a Henry or Spencer that was captured with a supply of ammunition, since the South couldn't resupply [having no means of manufacturing the fixed rimfire ammunition that it required], they were rapidly discarded once the supply of captured ammunition ran out. Plus, Ian & Karl were discussing the "what if" the U.S. Army had profited from its experience w/ lever action repeaters in the Civil War by then changing their choice of arms after the war, and again, his kepi was the wrong color for that circumstance. To paraphrase Karl's much more polite demurral, don't get yourself in a swivet over it...

Michael Smith

What if Lee had an AK?? Just joking about an alternative history book I read a long time ago. If the US had adopted a lever action rifle I do not know if many battle results would have changed? Would Little Big Horn happened? Yes, because JAC was too arrogant to listen to anyone else. Would it have been such a slaughter? Yes, because the Indians knew there whereabouts for days beforehand and were really pissed and in much superior numbers and some did have lever action rifles. If you have a chance to walk the battlefield do so and you will see why the Locals were able to hide an sequester such a huge force. As for the lever actions helping or hindering other military campaigns, well that's just good speculation..

Brendon Burns

Without getting to far into it. No it wasn't a unwarrneted foreign invasion -_-

Brendon Burns

The only thing worse than internet caliber debates are internet civil war debates. Especially when college kids, or bitter southerners are involved. Both think they're the ones with the answers and both make me shake my head.

Nathan K.

This a really interesting armchair battalion commander discussion about tactics and technologies. I really appreciated Ian's insights into the "political wrangling" behind the selection process, and Karl's insight into tactics. I look forward to more content like this!

Carlo Parisi

Thinking about it, I would give everybody the same caliber lever action within the squad, including the leader, so the supply chain is simple and nobody is out of ammo in an expedition. I guess the cavalry should use the same round. The marksman should have a full power rifle, but then the gatling guns should be fitted to use it, so at least two types of specialists use the same round and again the supply chain doesn't create starving guns in the lines. Officers, Cavalry trooopers, noncoms and the marksman need a pistol for personal protection. Given that we've left out the 44 lever action, we can choose the pistol caliber we want and I'd say 1870 is the time of the Webley RIC: it's double and single action, it's light and portable so it can also be issued to HQ officers and doctors and can be carried concealed, when needed.