According to Chris Baker, Lever Action Rifles reputation for ruggedness/reliability is undeserved.

[Scorch]

Sitting Bull's guys used Lever Actions, Custer's had Army Issue Single Shots

In the movies, yes. In real life, they were a mix of bows, single shots, front-stuffers and lever actions. And during the battlefield archeollogical digs there were more arrow heads than shell casings.

The H&K 416. If I were to bet, I'd bet the side that says it has the most reliable action on the planet

I think somebody's buying HK's marketing claims. If I were to bet, I would say that a bolt action rifle is the most reliable action type on the planet. After all, it has just a few parts, easily serviced even in the field, and they are proven grunt-proof. Just not as fast. The HK 416 (and other piston AR-ish rifles) were tested and rejected by the US Army as being no more reliable nor prone to malfunctions than the impingement action rifles and for being A LOT more expensive. And so the USMC decides that it's a better rifle because oorah? Yes, the Marines have a history of picking things that are just a little different (6mm Lee, Johson rifle and LMG, M79, etc). But modern militaries have extensive support groups that outnumber the field personnel by 10 to 1, more support than at any other time in history.

 

[44 AMP]

While interesting to discuss, in the proper places, what the most reliable rifle action is was not the idea in the OP, which was that lever guns reputation for ruggedness/reliability is undeserved.

Mr Baker makes multiple comparisons between some lever guns and the semi auto derivatives of modern military arms, and finding the lever guns wanting or perhaps, "flawed".

To my way of thinking that is finding fault with your sedan because its not a dump truck.

I'll freely admit that lever guns are not, and never were built to current military standards for "ruggedness/reliability. I don't think that matters.

There are literally millions of lever actions in use, some well past the century mark and some are still in current production. If they weren't rugged and reliable enough to do their intended job, I doubt this would be the case.

 

[pete2]

Sanch, it isn't my belief. It's what I have experienced. Belief has nothing to do with it. It's fact based on my experience. Maybe someday I will have a revolver to fail, I just haven't had one fail yet. It could happen tho they are a mechanical device. I've had several failures with semis, broken ejector, bottom fell out of a magazine, magazines that puke out ammo, double feeds, unexplained failures to feed. Premature slide lock, double feeds. IT AIN'T MY BELIEF, IT'S FACT.

 

[tdoyka]

chris who? i don't do gun rags and gun shows years ago. they are INTENT in selling something.

my win m94 in 35/30-30 is accurate, rugged and since 1973, is reliable. this is sighting in at 100 yards.

 

[The Happy kaboomer]

Just another unknown jerk with a typewriter.......IGNORE.

 

[Sanch]

Good Morning pete2,

I'm good.

 

[Nanuk]

I lost all respect for Chris as a gun writer/shooter after watching him handle a revolver like a wet fish and declaring magnum revolvers as unusable for SD.

 

[Bart B.]

In both my trips to South Africa and talking with white hunters about reliable repeating rifles, they all said the Winchester model 70 control feed ones was their choice. Least reliable was the Remington 700.

In the late 1960's when Winchester was in dire financial straits, the USA military was wanting a sniper rifle to replace their old Winchester 70's using 30-06 M72 match ammo. Most of the snipers were also top ranked competitive shooters who knew Remington 700's were not too reliable. They weren't able to convince the top brass to buy Winchester 70's and bail out Winchester.

 

[LeverGunFan]

In both my trips to South Africa and talking with white hunters about reliable repeating rifles, they all said the Winchester model 70 control feed ones was their choice. Least reliable was the Remington 700.

In the late 1960's when Winchester was in dire financial straits, the USA military was wanting a sniper rifle to replace their old Winchester 70's using 30-06 M72 match ammo. Most of the snipers were also top ranked competitive shooters who knew Remington 700's were not too reliable. They weren't able to convince the top brass to buy Winchester 70's and bail out Winchester.

Are we talking about operational reliability - push feed vs control feed - or mechanical reliability - parts breakage? There are a lot of back and forth discussions about "reliability" that do not specify what criteria the reliability rating is based on, for example discussions about revolvers compared to semi-autos.

 

[Bart B.]

Are we talking about operational reliability - push feed vs control feed - or mechanical reliability - parts breakage? There are a lot of back and forth discussions about "reliability" that do not specify what criteria the reliability rating is based on, for example discussions about revolvers compared to semi-autos.

I included all those reliably areas. Included field replacement ease for the critical parts. Otherwise, i would have specifically listed exceptions.

Remington was very upset about one of their field reps won the NRA's 1964 highpower rifle nationals shooting a Winchester 70.

 

[Rob228]

My 94 Timber Carbine is lighter, handier and more powerful than any other rifle I own. But unlike my ARs, I can't beat someone to death with it if need be.

 

[44 AMP]

But unlike my ARs, I can't beat someone to death with it if need be.

why not??

 

[jetinteriorguy]

My 94 Timber Carbine is lighter, handier and more powerful than any other rifle I own. But unlike my ARs, I can't beat someone to death with it if need be.

I think you have that backwards, wood stock vs plastic stock mounted on a hollow thin metal tube.

 

[Rob228]

I've got this crazy feeling if I swung it by the barrel the stock would snap off at the tang, If I tried to butt stroke it would do the same thing. Which just leaves muzzle punching which is just awkward.

 

[gb_in_ga]

In all of my years (and I'm in my 60s), I've only experienced a single broken stock. My sister did it when she dropped a Remington 600 while dragging a deer she had just taken. Notice that it is a bolt action rifle with a 1 piece stock.

The sturdiness of a wooden stock really isn't a big worry of mine.

 

[Scorch]

As a gunsmith, I see broken stocks quite a bit, typically in 2-piece stocks like lever actions and shotguns, and typically due to dropping the gun or falling on the gun. They usually split along the grain through the pistol grip, starting at the inlet for the tang and hammer. Shotguns split along the draw bolt hole.

1-piece stocks are a lot sturdier, but still break from seemingly trivial events, like being dropped on the butt or falling over when leaned on a truck/wall/desk/bench. Often, they shatter or shiver due to falling on a hard floor, splitting along the grain throughout the whole stock. And then there are horses . . .

If I had to go into thick stuff after a very mean critter (Alaskan coastal griz), I'd want an old school Marlin 1895 loaded with max loaded .45/70 rounds.

Marlin 1895s (and the 336 model they are developed from) are not "old school" in any way. The 336 was developed in the 1950s. The previous model, the model 36, was an update to the 1936, which was an updated 1893. But the 336 was totally different.

 

[jetinteriorguy]

I've got this crazy feeling if I swung it by the barrel the stock would snap off at the tang, If I tried to butt stroke it would do the same thing. Which just leaves muzzle punching which is just awkward.

I see what you mean, but if I swing it by the barrel I’d do in such a way that it was the receiver making contact, not the stock. But, using it to buttstroke someone sure wouldn’t hurt it. I keep thinking of AR’s as back with the M16 if you swung it the stock and buffer tube were toast, I’d bet swinging an AR15 would snap the buffer tube off like a twig, pretty much rendering it useless whereas a lever with the stock broken off could still fire most likely.

 

[44 AMP]

Neither the AR nor the lever gun are good choices for hand to hand combat AND having the gun survive in functional condition.

There's a reason GI bolt actions weigh 8-9lbs, and it isn't to keep soldiers fit carrying them.

Saw my uncle slip and fall on his Marlin, buttstock snapped right off.

Worked as a Small Arms Repairman in the Army. M16s (AR's) DO break.

when considering which rifle is better for "beating someone to death" with, I am reminded of the wisdom of my DI when he explained why they were not teaching us that, or use of the bayonet...

"The Army, in it's infinite wisdom, has determined that, should you face an enemy in hand to hand combat, the odds are extremely high that one of you will have ammunition. If that's you. SHOOT THEM! IF its not, well, some days, sucks to be you!"

 

[Shadow9mm]

From just a basic perspective, the more moving parts, the more things that can fail. It would make sense to me that a lever gun would be more prone to failure as it does have a lot going on.

 

[jetinteriorguy]

From just a basic perspective, the more moving parts, the more things that can fail. It would make sense to me that a lever gun would be more prone to failure as it does have a lot going on.

I don’t buy this, if the design is strong and the parts are properly made any machine can be better than a poorer designed machine with fewer more poorly manufactured parts. It’s more about quality in design and parts than the number of parts that determine how good something works. And then there is also the problems in proper cleaning and maintenance and the impact that has on durability.