Grandaddy of assault rifles

[delta13soultaker]

Just wanted to bring yall in on a little on-going debate I've had with some fellows at work.

Now, I have a soft spot for Old West guns, and while discussing fighting rifles in general I made the bold statement that a good lever gun like a Winchester '94 loaded with .44 mag or maybe hot .45 Colt could hold its own in the right hands during a 21st Century gun fight (which mostly implies urban terrain). Well from the reaction I got you'd think I said a .22 LR is equal to .338 win mag for grizzly or something.

Anyway, in my view a sturdy rifle/carbine like a Win '94 or similar gun with side loading gate (not like Henrys or anything with detachable mag), that holds 9+ rounds, in a good pistol caliber is a reasonable piece of hardware. I say that it can be steadily loaded on the move, hits hard enough, has low recoil, is a reasonably fast repeater, can share ammo with a sidearm, and (gasp!) a better than average shot can hit with one at 200+ yards enough times to be dangerous. The quick pointing handling has some of the same characteristics desired in a modern assault rifle.

The opposition says that modern fighting iron like the AK, M16/M4, G3, and such will put the old Win '94 at such disadvantage through ballistic prowess and ergonomic brilliance that defeat for the cowboy gun would be just a matter of rabbit vs the turtle. They do have some historic data to back up their argument too (which I won't repeat). One good friend (who to give him his due, has probably forgotten more about assault rifles than most of us mortals will ever even know) tells me that any 'ol cheap 3rd world 9mm sub-machine gun in the hands of a novice will shoot rings around the gun that won the West (yeah, I know there was the '73 and all that).

Just some thought. Opinions welcomed of course.

**Disclaimer** For anyone offended by the combined words of "assault" and "rifle" or "fighting" and "gun" or similar useage please insert some of the following words as applicable so as to be less offensive.

fuzzy~~~~~bunny
bouncy~~~~kitten
saucy~~~~~dancer
tasty~~~~~orange

Use in any combination until political correctness is restored.

[LIKTOSHOOT]

CAN-O-WORMS!!!---CAN-O-WORMS!!!

This ole fart after pulling a 16 hour double shift will have to get back to you in the morning after a little rack time. I`m sure you`ll wait with baited breath.......lol



LTS

[Marlin]

SURE, we will!!!!!!!!!!!!

With baited breath - - -

[Jay]

Just curious....... would you "really" want to find out, if you had the "old west gun of your choice", and the guy trying to kill you had an M4? If that is true, I applaud your courage, but I fear you alone would incur some serious damage.

[GunnFixr]

Originally Posted by delta13soultaker

One good friend (who to give him his due, has probably forgotten more about assault rifles than most of us mortals will ever even know) tells me that any 'ol cheap 3rd world 9mm sub-machine gun in the hands of a novice will shoot rings around the gun that won the West

I beg to differ. Technology is no replacement for skill. A skilled marksman will win out over the novice even if he is armed with a Ruger #1 and the novice is armed with an RPK. That being said, I would still rather a proper magazine fed semiauto, or select fire rifle in a suitable caliber such as .308

I wouldn't feel under armed with a levergun, I would just have to adjust tactics a bit.

**Disclaimer** For anyone offended by the combined words of "assault" and "rifle" or "fighting" and "gun"

Make no bones about it, guns are made for killin. The joy derived from poking holes in paper, or knocking down a bowling pin is just a happy benefit. Look at th major shooting sports such as IDPA or IPSC....the targets are human shillouettes.

[delta13soultaker]

Yeah it is a can of worms...lol. Not your average smoke break debate. And I haven't heard much middle ground.

Now, the M4 has been my service weapon for several years now, so I'm pretty familiar with it, and can say with much assurance that I don't want to be on the other end of it in any circumstance. But this ain't about what anyone wants to do, or is "brave" enough to try to do; it's about whether the lever gun is so absolutely obselete in the face of highly evolved battle rifles or if the technological gap between the two types is not as big as it appears on the surface (no doubt the lever gun was hi-tech/state-of-the-art in its beginning days).

I agree that skill cannot be replaced. That is sorta the foundation of my arguement: A good rifleman is as deadly today with that rifle as he was 100 years ago, and nothing invented in the past century really takes away from that. (Yes this is herasy and the laser dot/ghetto grip/ghost ring/gas operated/hi-cap mag fed Gods of War shall descend from Mt. Polymer Frame and chastise me for thinking it.)
I understand the preference for a semi-auto .308 and agree it is a fine choice for many. You can put more steel down range in less time, with less "Kentucky windage", and with greater stand-off distance IMO.
Tactics for a lever gun different? I think yes and no. More moving and less shooting. Engagment at closer quarters. But use of cover, "key-hole" firing positions, etc etc still pretty similar, just executed with a lot more intensity. The lever gun operator would really have to do it like he meant it against the true modern assault rifleman; the lever gun would make him work harder to a degree. But IMO the tactics would not be as drastically different as say with a 1911 (Now that would be outgunned! and I'm a die-hard 1911 fan). I'm saying the principles are the same and keep in mind I'm talking about in an urban area (a fact of our time, most places you find people are built up) where distances can be expected to be closer than further.

My disclaimer is just for humor. Don't take that too serious. That being said, I really did have a gunshop owner look me in the eye and advise me agaist saying "assault rifle" because it gave sport shooting a bad image and was not good representation of the gun culture, then explained to me how assault rifles have select fire and all that. And I have to find something there funny that things have gone that far; sorry.

[stash247]

Delta, let me offer a couple of ideas.
The lever gun that you could "load on Monday and shoot all week", became the tool of Indian fighters, in the West, because prior to it, they were outgunned by the Indians; with a bow, the second and subsequent shots were a lot quicker than with a single shot rifle. Range was seldom an issue.
If range, in your scenario, IS an issue, perhaps changing the number from 1894 to 1886 (Winchester), or 1895 (Marlin) is the trick! In, say, .45-70, or .333, or .348, the energy is still there, even though the trajectory is somewhat extreme; a 300-500 grain bullet could wreck your day, even before you heard the shot.
If this does not make sense, ask any Russian soldier who served in their Afghanistan campaign how effective an old .303 Brit rifle, a real " high performance" round/platform, was, when used against them from horseback!
Tactics is the essence of your question, however; and no one but a fool would consider a rifle squad, armed with lever guns of the era of which you speak, the equal to a squad armed with M-4's, M-16's, Steyr AUG's, of the like, in CONVENTIONAL warfare: On the other hand, a guerilla force could do one heck of a lot of damage with almost any weapon.
I was taught, years ago, by the best of the best, at Camp McCall, that "only a fool joins a battle he cannot win", and it's an accurate observation. Given the limitations of any particular weapon, one ought to pick his battles wisely, and optimise results.
Consider the choice of the USMC in the M-42( I think) Sniper rifle System; in a contest of firepower, at close to intermediate range, that bolt gun loses, every time. But, used to it's strength i.e., accuracy at longer range, it's a winner, in the hands of a skilled operator, because few, if any, 'assault rifles' can do much damage to the sniper, at 600 yards! You gotta pick yer battle!

[delta13soultaker]

Okay. Right on.

I haven't really thrown the effective range side out there. Simply because there are several cowboy rounds out there that can reach way way out and make a big hole (no doubt at all there), but like you said the trajectory is tricky. The fact is that it takes lots of practice to be effective. Lots and lots. On the other hand, I know very well that you can take pretty much any kid off the street, give him an M-16, and after just a few days of simple instruction and practice he/she will be consistantly hitting out to 300-400 meters (that's nearly a quarter mile btw). Which is what my buddies keep saying "any cherry with a 16 can whack anybody with a Winchester", which I won't agree with.

I'm not really trying to get into good and bad decisions and picking battles and all that because when it comes down to it, sometimes other people pick the time/place first and that's that. I'm talking more of a "meeting engagement"; sorta like the bullets are already in the air and you got what you got. Now if you're going squad on squad, bring what you want, I'm calling 155 and air anyway, so no problem. But out of a military scenerio, you have a Winchester in your truck and find yourself mixing it up with a guy with an SKS or Mini-14; are you certainly dead because the Winchester is obselete? I'm saying no, it still has the same strengths that made it a winner 100 years ago.

[stash247]

Delta; My Truck gun is a 1983 vintage M1894 Win in .45 Colt. 16in barrel, with nearly 1/2 inch hole in it.
It will handle ammo I would never put thru a revolver; and, accurately.
Given your scenario, NO, I do not feel handicapped by the weapon.
My FAL is marginally quicker, for me, in accurate fire, but too long, at 45 inches, to be handy. I'm in your camp, to be sure
If only there were a "Trapper" length lever gun, in 45-70, it would be the ultimate in urban survival weapons!.
Comments??

[delta13soultaker]

45-70 is a hell of a round. The fact that it still has such a market speaks more than anything I can say here. Marlin makes the 1895G in 45-70 and with the 18 1/2 inch barrel it is almost a "trapper" size. I held one once (wish I coulda shot it) and was impressed. It's light too and I remember thinking it would be worth the money to port it and get a good after-market recoil pad. It's about the most handy sized 45-70 I can think of besides a T/C.

How is your 1894 for reliability? I recently heard that the 1894 was built for longer cartridges and the 1892 is more reliable with shorter shells. This struck me as odd and I'd never heard anything bad about the Winchester 1894 except that the Marlin has a simpler mechanism.

[stash247]

The '94 continues to be a flawless performer; don't know where the 'length' issue began.
If the '94 would work, with the .44 Mag, flawlessly, why should the .45 LC be a different deal??? WRA only did it for three years, as I understand, because the market was soft/sales poor, but the caliber, in a rifle like this, is well the ballistic better of the .44 Rem Mag, by virtue of both caliber, and capacity.
The loads I use in the rifle would likely wreck a Colt Rvolver; so much for the 'interchangability' of ammo, but, so what???
It's a little 'long gun', with a lot of potential!

[Jay]

I think that all the comments thus far are accurate/correct. HOWEVER....... the original statement...

I made the bold statement that a good lever gun like a Winchester '94 loaded with .44 mag or maybe hot .45 Colt could hold its own in the right hands during a 21st Century gun fight (which mostly implies urban terrain)

I still feel that even with all the venerable qualities of the vintage Winchesters, when you consider the amount of ammo that can be carried per person, the ballistics of the ammo and the maximun effective range at which the enemy could be engaged, modern weaponry would prevail.

[delta13soultaker]

Maybe this is kinda like what my performance car friends call "A drivers' race", meaning that once there are two very different vehicles that have been modified until their power/torque/traction/handling/endurance characteristics are so similar that a clear victory on the pavement will be decided finally by flesh and blood, not just iron and fuel.

I could argue the point of how much ammo can be carried, but it is a bit too hypothetical to run with. At the ranges I'm talking about (which I'm trying to stay in a practical distance i.e. typical urban) ballistics are not a major factor. There's really no arguement about .44 mag/.45 Colt vs 5.56/7.62 after 200 meters on this. Maybe it would be more valuable to compare the lever gun to modern semi-auto carbines chambered in 9mm/.40/.45acp; then again if you think about it the selection of semi-auto carbines is far less than the lever guns and maybe that says something.

At one time, the longsword was the peek of fighting iron in Western civilization. In it's own time, the lever gun was the most evolved fighting piece for the technology available in a different West. Today, our most effective long arm is one of a large selection of rapid fire rifles launching projectiles not even dreamed of 100 years ago.

I think now it's a bit of a shooters' race. Once the peek of technical evolution has been reached for weapons of two different eras, then it will be skill and not magazine capacity, judgment and not MOA ability, speed of hand or eye and not velocity of metal that wins when it counts.

One day I'm going to find time and I'm going to test this theory out. I'll get together some skilled shooters and run some lanes against the plywood horde or balloons or something simple, Win '94 vs bring your best, and see what the time scores look like.

[GunnFixr]

Originally Posted by delta13soultaker

...At the ranges I'm talking about (which I'm trying to stay in a practical distance i.e. typical urban) ballistics are not a major factor. There's really no arguement about .44 mag/.45 Colt vs 5.56/7.62 after 200 meters on this.

One thing that should be pointed out, most modern armies field their troops with some sort of body armor. 80% of them (I'm plucking this number out of the air, I have nothing to back it up save for my own travels) have at least level two body armor that will defeat the 44mag and the 45 colt.

[delta13soultaker]

Gunn, if you read up a bit you notice I'm not trying to validate the lever gun for 21st century military equipment or discuss it in an organized military role where it will face down body armor etc. Yeah I know it could happen anywhere because lots of people now have vests and you could see it in any situation(I keep my interceptor body armor in the car cause I usually find out we're hitting the range with no notice and we usually have to wear it to fire) but I'm not trying to get neck deep in ballistics/penetration/stopping power simply because we are comparing pistol rounds to rifle rounds that have nothing in common accept being fired from a long barrel weapon. Purely talking about the gun here; if we're going to get on all the variables to include what equipment the opponents are wearing then we'll need another website and several books to reach a conclusion. If any Americans right now are fighting a modern Army somewhere with their personal weapons, let me know and I'll retract, but I'm not trying to go that route because it will go in circles until we are bringing in tank specs, FO's, and naval fire. That being said, I think if you are seriously seeking protection from .44 rem mag or better you need at least Level III or maybe IIIA.

Stash, that's what I expected to hear. I figured the '94 is still around because it is reliable and durable enough to hang in there. As far as cartridge interchangability, just cause you can't put the hot carbine rounds in the pistol don't mean you can't fall back on the pistol rounds when the carbine goes dry...by my thinking.
I always figured the .45 favors a reloader, cause he can tailor make his rounds as he needs to (he knows if his guns can handle hot loads or should stick with the blackpowder pressure). But for the non-reloader, I think the .44 mag might be better because of availability of full powder loads off the shelf. It seems that one has to look around to find .45s loaded to near full potential because so many old guns are still out there and the danger for a catostrophic cylinder/chamber failure is very real.

[stash247]

Delta, on ammo, you are spot on! On body armor, however, you omit a really salient fact; regardless of protection level, none I have seen offer any head protection. Advantage goes, as it has since the origin, to the skilled operator, especially if he gets the first, unexpected, shot!
Tactics, always, tactics! Given the advantage of superior position (I planned this ambush) a Ruger #1 in say, 7 Mag, trumps a squad of m-4's, every time, with much less logistics, since I chose my battle!
I was trained as an 'unconventional warrior', many years ago, and seem to have never lost the mindset.
Fidel Castro came to power against the Battista regime using leverguns, whiskey bottles, and mogas; the others had tanks, yet Castro came out on top-figger that?
Pick your battle-fade, rapidly, from an unsatisfactory position, and re-join only on your terms.
Pick, or create, a battle situation, that favors your ordinance, and you win.
I never counted on tac-air, as reliable, and so, always created my situations as to be win-able, without them; ditto, the big stuff from the sp155's. Given the jobs I usually caught, and the places I had to play in, the fact that we're corresponding, tonight, supports my theory pretty well, I think.

[ROTCC]

You'll get killed if the guys know what they are doing with the M4's. You'll hit one, the others will take cover, then use fire and maneuver, pin you and kill you. We aint talking ignorant barbarians, using AK's with half the range. Good riflemen with M4's will give you a VERY hard time at 500 yds. Others hit you at 100 yds only by pure luck.

[delta13soultaker]

Stash, thanks for the input. I didn't mention head protection. That's a whole other thing. That's pretty interesting that Castro came to power in such a way; I tend to wonder if his success had a lot more to do with things other than armament though, cause he has proven to be a wiley ol' bastard (nothing against ol' bastards in general, mind ya).

Once again, I ain't trying to get knee deep in tactics and the like, I was just talking about the gun. Talking about squads, picking battles, etc is going in a direction that will end up with us rewritting stuff that some good generals already wrote in manuals I think. I'm trying to stay away from squad/small unit tactics for a couple reasons. One, it puts us on the modern battlefield, which ain't a likely place for the lever gun (as opposed to say something more applicable like a deputy, whose department still uses lever action carbines, taking down a guy with a Bushmaster or something). Two, the lone rifleman popping off at a squad on the modern battlefield I have seen a few times before. Something I learned in the last few years is that if I call for help because I am suddenly non-mission capable, help will come whether it be on wings, rotors, fired from big tubes, on tracks, or other dismounted units (wish I could say the same for some combat service/service support, but there were couple times they got it too fast/too hard to call in time to matter). The fact is that if a lone rifleman takes one squad member down from this nation's soldiers or marines or some of our allies I won't name, he had better run like hell or call a bunch of friends, I don't care if he has God's own rifle; that way he has a viable chance to fight another day. If he stays alone to take a second or third, he will be located, fixed, and a nightmare brought on him from afar.

See ya already got ROTCC talking about support by fire and flanking. As far as "***heads" hitting by luck beyond 100 yards; not always. Take a walk along the river in central/southern Baghdad and test that out. Those "***heads", some of them, are trained in places that know what they are doing. They are men, and that is pretty much the most dangerous thing in the world no matter what cute name you give them (we just call 'em The Moodge). An AK may not be known for range or accuracy, but it has already killed more than the M4 ever will. An AK is not thought of as much by some, buy by some who have been on both ends of them, we generally think they are usually enough.

[inplanotx]

Gentlemen, I nor any of the staff condone some of the terminology used here. I have edited the above posts and I will expect that this will not continue. Thanks for your understanding in this matter. Please continue.

[delta13soultaker]

Yessir. Will do.

[stash247]

Delta, the AK is certainly a competent arm, somewhat range and accuracy challenged; many of it's operators are, without a doubt, highly skilled. It's hard to find anybody, who, having made a living with it, even for a short time, who will speak ill of it!
I, personally, like simple, reliable things; the AK qualifies, as reliable. The '94 Win touches BOTH bases. The '74 Sharps has the advantage of power, and range, in most of the calibers it was ever chambered in.
Would I go to war with the Sharps? Not on your life! Not because it is lacking, because it is not, simply because there are better tools to do the job with.
Ronnie Barrett makes some large caliber, long range rifles, that yank the rat out out of his hole, so to speak, as well, or better, than the Sharps could ever do; they use easily available, .50 BMG ammo.
But, given an impromtu, domestic situation, a large pistol caliber, in a short lever gun, would rate far higher, for me, than most of the current, high tech, weapons, because it will work!
I think this is where you started with this thread, and I totally agree; the day of the lever gun is not yet done!

The Brits chose to make the FAL a semi-only weapon, as they issued it, in deference to accurate (effective) fire; the US did the same with the M-14. No volume of misses will count as high as one solid hit; thus, my love for reliable, accurate, mechanical repeaters.
I think you could use a Win or Marlin lever gun, given ammo availability, in any theater, to good effect; the choice of caliber, based on need. If I had not given up the pursuit, Iraq would seem a good place to try out the premise!

[delta13soultaker]

Yeah. That's pretty much my stance on the lever gun: It still works.

A lot of people mention, here and just about anywhere else this stuff comes up, the advantages of a long gun when available; usually a shotgun. I think that when over-penatration is not a factor or perhaps a very low risk (there are some places/areas where the structures are not likely to be pierced by any small arms fire) the lever gun is about on par with the scattergun. It hits harder than the pistol, has greater range, and has ease of operation. The shotgun delivers greater trauma in much less time, but at the loss of precise shot placement beyond a few meters. Kind of a trade off I guess. Put shortly, if no shotgun is available, don't overlook the lever gun.

[LIKTOSHOOT]

Now you`ve done again.......mentioned the ineffective shotgun. If your right handed, hit yourself in the forehead with your left......DOH!


LTS

[delta13soultaker]

Shucks I ain't gonna call the shotgun ineffective. I keep one around where I am. Just saying there are other good weapons.

[LIKTOSHOOT]

A few meters??? You must try an FN slug gun or one of the others.....in 20 or 12, they will match any pistol caliber rifle in range with more power. And be it pump or semi.......easier to load on the move than ANY lever gun. Just some fodder.



LTS