Plausibility check: Repeating rifles with pump action instead of bolt-action ?

Back in the late '90s, Sommer & Ockenfuss made a bull-pup, clip-fed rifle capable of taking up to a 300 WinMag cartridge. The damthang was very accurate, but, as a previous poster noted, a bit hard to shoot prone, especially as the pump was activated by moving the pistol grip fore and aft. Not many made, hard to get, clips impossible, but great fun.

Yes, this thing.

I don't know exactly how the bolt worked on this, but I know there have been other bullpups with forward slide actions that are essentially straight pulls.

I've ofter thought this type of design might have been considered as a cavalry carbine in the early 20th century. Maybe it might have been successful, maybe it would have been no better than the Ross (or the 1895 Winchester lever action; I'm certain that longarm didn't have what it takes for successful utilisation by a mass conscript army rolling about in the mud of Flanders.)
 
Maybe it might have been successful, maybe it would have been no better than the Ross (or the 1895 Winchester lever action; I'm certain that longarm didn't have what it takes for successful utilisation by a mass conscript army rolling about in the mud of Flanders.)

Around 300,000 1895 Winchesters were made in 7.62x54R for the Czar in WWI, used Nagant chargers for reloading, and had a Bayonet lug:D

Why did the Russians accept lever action Rifles?

one reason is that when they fought the Turk at Plevna, the Turks had the 1873 Model, and worked well in slowing the Russians, who had single shot Berdans at that point. They lost over 30,000 thousand men in assaulting the outnumbered, but well dug in Turk who had plenty of .44 ammo.
 
Around 300,000 1895 Winchesters were made in 7.62x54R for the Czar in WWI, used Nagant chargers for reloading, and had a Bayonet lug:D

Why did the Russians accept lever action Rifles?

one reason is that when they fought the Turk at Plevna, the Turks had the 1873 Model, and worked well in slowing the Russians, who had single shot Berdans at that point. They lost over 30,000 thousand men in assaulting the outnumbered, but well dug in Turk who had plenty of .44 ammo.

Not hugely succesful though. Having a rifle that by it's very nature demands that the soldier is either standing or kneeling is not the best choice in a world where the Maxim Gun exists.
 
Around 300,000 1895 Winchesters were made in 7.62x54R for the Czar in WWI

There are essentially no accounts of how the 1895 performed in service on the Eastern Front. Gun historians like Skinnerton et al invariably point to the bulk purchase, but they never follow up with anything else. From my reading over the years I have no idea if it was even a frontline weapon, or a second line one.

300,000 sounds impressive, but there were already millions of Nagants in service at the time.

1288253947.jpg

I find it impossible to believe that weapon would meet the standards of Western armies fighting in trench warfare. Just look at it. Invariably it must be every bit the jam-action the Ross was when you take it into a muddy environment.

Not to say it isn't an exceptional sporter, or officers weapon in a colonial conflict (the Spanish-American War) but reliable WWI mass infantry arm?

1288253947.jpg
 
I find it impossible to believe that weapon would meet the standards of Western armies fighting in trench warfare. Just look at it. Invariably it must be every bit the jam-action the Ross was when you take it into a muddy environment.

Not to say it isn't an exceptional sporter, or officers weapon in a colonial conflict (the Spanish-American War) but reliable WWI mass infantry arm?

The Austrians didn't have the problems with millions of their straight pull, bottom clip ejecting Steyr-Mannlicher M1895 Rifles

1288247094.jpg


1288247136.jpg


that the thousands of Ross Rifles that the Canadians used.

Eastern Front Mud different from Western Front Mud?

And as I listed, the Turks used their Winchesters in their Trenches in 1878 successfully


 
The Austrians didn't have the problems with millions of their straight pull, bottom clip ejecting Steyr-Mannlicher M1895 Rifles that the thousands of Ross Rifles that the Canadians used.

Eastern Front Mud different from Western Front Mud? And as I listed, the Turks used their Winchesters in their Trenches in 1878 successfully.

Amen to that. The M1895 was one kickass rifle. Partly ahead of its time.
 
Take a look at the trigger on the 1895.seriously.JPG This is a mechanism which will fail in the trenches of Flanders.
Hell, it makes the rest of the lever action look positively fool proof.

Now, this Mannlicher which you think is comparable, it has a receiver which, when cycled, opens on top & to the rear, just like any other bolt action. The only difference is it's not a turnbolt.

The 1895 has a receiver which opens on two sides, above and below, and to the rear when cycled.

bottom clip ejecting

Not when the weapon is cycling.

that the thousands of Ross Rifles that the Canadians used.

Yes, and any Western army equipped with the 1895 in the same conditions that the Canadians faced will most likely have the same problems with the Winchester.

Eastern Front Mud different from Western Front Mud?

Regarding which weapons? The 1895 or the simpler Mannlicher? Find us some historical research that shows that the Russians actually thought the 1895 was a first rate weapon, as opposed to an emergency stopgap rifle purchased because they couldn't manufacture enough Mosin Nagants, and then you might have a point.

And as I listed, the Turks used their Winchesters in their Trenches in 1878 successfully

I've read that story as well, but it's almost irrelevant to the subject of the Winchester 1895 (and it's not exactly rock solid historial fact that the Winchester was the master of the battlefield in the Russo-Turkish War. It's mostly anecdotal. Wiki talks about modern artillery being deployed alongside these rifles.)

Because if you're comparing the merits of pistol calibre, short lever action Yellow Boy blackpowder repeaters (rimfire!) compared to trapdoor blackpowder rifles, you're not making an argument for the 1895 being a suitable weapon for the 20th century.

seriously.JPG
 
Last edited:
Top