Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

1. What is the first repeating rifle/ musket/harquebus ever invented in human history? and its operation mechanism
2. for the earlier repeating firearms. are they too complex to mass produce for troops? is there any other techs or concepts required to produce ones?
3. Even the first commercially successful repeating rifles became available by 1850s. why aren't any nations adopt it by then? was it very weak?
4. and why bolt action rifles became the most popular military rifles? even when Winchester perfected Henry lever acton mechanism to the point that it can fire military rounds (any bottleneck ammo that has its lengh of 3 cm or more) and released 'military' versions of Winchester lever action rifle (marketed as 'musket' ), no army in the world officially used it, instead everyone either goes for Mannlicher clip fed (1880s. i think) or Mauser 1898 series... , or even make their very own repeating bolt action rifles by then (Lee Enfield for Brits, and Mosin Nagant for Russians) )
5. And even when John Moses Browning introduced pump action repeating firearms at the turn of the century. why the pump action rifles are not popular even in civilian markets? (and strange enough, pump action shotguns are common)

I'm skipping 1 and 2
3. Money, mostly and most repeating arms at the time fired pistol cartridges.
4. Bolt actions were chosen over levers because of cost and speed of manufacture. A bolt action is essentially a cylinder of metal lugged to fit into another cylynder. A lever action is exponentially more complex and weaker under stress.
5. They are an aquired taste, and with the advent of more powerful cartridges bolts are the strongest action (and most forgiving)

1.The brilliantly names Puckle gun was one of the first repeaters from 1718, its essentially a big revolver and 100+ years before Colt patented his. Too complex to ever go into mass production in the 1700s though.
not sure if its regarded as the first repeater

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun

2. In general it wasn't until well into the 19th century that mass producing repeaters became practical with the invention of standardized machine parts.

1. What is the first repeating rifle/ musket/harquebus ever invented in human history? and its operation mechanism

Well, it's kinda difficult to include a muzzleloader in the "repeater" category without throwing in things like pepperboxes and all manner of wierdness, so I am going to stick to cartridge firearms. I submit the spencer rifle or henry rifle as the first. Both are lever actions.

2. for the earlier repeating firearms. are they too complex to mass produce for troops? is there any other techs or concepts required to produce ones?

Back in the day? They were pretty complex pieces of equipment, and even little details like we take for granted like "Springs that won't take a set and lose tension." were a bit more difficult to do then. Didn't stop them from BEING mass produced though.

3. Even the first commercially successful repeating rifles became available by 1850s. why aren't any nations adopt it by then? was it very weak?

A surprising amount of them used rimfire ammo at first (Bad for military use. Crushing a rim on chambering CAN cause a powder ignition, they have a definite pressure ceiling before the gas decides the path of least resistance is out through the rim of the case rather than down the barrel, comparably unreliable ignition vs. centerfire priming even today except with "The good stuff") and because it was a fair bit more expensive than ye olde smokepoles, and because a lot of generals figured their men couldn't be trusted to not waste their ammo in the first few minutes of a firefight (....Wait, isn't that why the M16A2 is burst rather than auto?...Some things never change, I suppose.)....This only changed after repeater armed forces started clocking those without. It was also felt that the additional training required on their maintenance and the penalties for not doing so was too much of a burden. (Black powder is corrosive. Corrosive compounds in a very expensive rifle that doesn't get cleaned out in favor of food and sleep after being shot at for two days is a whole lot of sadness for everyone.)

4. and why bolt action rifles became the most popular military rifles? even when Winchester perfected Henry lever acton mechanism to the point that it can fire military rounds (any bottleneck ammo that has its lengh of 3 cm or more) and released 'military' versions of Winchester lever action rifle (marketed as 'musket' ), no army in the world officially used it, instead everyone either goes for Mannlicher clip fed (1880s. i think) or Mauser 1898 series... , or even make their very own repeating bolt action rifles by then (Lee Enfield for Brits, and Mosin Nagant for Russians) )

Because many of the military lever and slide actions (Who have generally now joined the centerfire priming revolution...or are stuck below a certain power level by the limits of what the casing can withstand without Ka-Boom.) also used tube magazines underneath the barrel, and in a world where the spitzer (pointy.) bullet has just made a staggering appearance in long range shooting, having a tube magazine is BAD. Why? Because the pointy bullet is now pressing against the centerfire primer under spring compression. You are now going to subject this unfortunate situation to recoil. The consequences are both hilarious (For onlookers) and painful (for the firer.) The only leveraction of the time that I can recall that had a more modern box magazine was the 1895 model winchester produced a few hundred thousand of on behalf of the russian military.

Second, using a lever or slide action rifle in any situation where you are attempting to become the same approximate size as an amoeba (You are being shot at.) is...problematic compared to a bolt action, the slide actions are just <CENSORED> uncomfortable and the lever actions like to hit the ground unless you do RifleGymnastics.

Third, and this is why the 1898 mauser took off so well (I would list the 1903 here too, but we copied the 98 so close we had to pay royalties, so I can't rightly say it's a different system.)....mechanically speaking, it is as strong as a mountain versus most repeating lever actions and slide actions. The locking lugs for the breech are huge. Their engagement surfaces in the action are huge. The action is one huge piece of steel rather than plates screwed together. There are even frequently vent holes in case of a case head separation (Also known as a Ka-Boom.)...in short, in the land of rather poor ammunition QC, it was probably one of the safest rifles you could obtain. Even compared to things like the SMLE, which has not only a smaller locking lug, but it only has one.

It also had a better clip-feed system than the mannlichers, since you didn't have the bottom of your magazine open to filth and mud because the rifle would eject the clip out there upon empty. It also HAD a clip-feed system, which wasn't QUITE universal yet.

5. And even when John Moses Browning introduced pump action repeating firearms at the turn of the century. why the pump action rifles are not popular even in civilian markets? (and strange enough, pump action shotguns are common)

10 and 12 gauge shotgun shells are huge, clunky devices. Box magazines containing 10 and 12 gauge shotgun ammunition (Looking at you, Saiga 12 and AA-12.) are huge, clunky devices x5-10. The bullet point-to-primer issue is not present with shotshells, and it manages to keep the ammo supply placed out of the way quite nicely, and even makes use of what otherwise be wasted space in a slide action (Unless that slide is going to be directly riding on your barrel, it needs something underneath the barrel.)

Couple this with a pump shotguns ability to put more weight of lead/number of projectiles in a shorter space of time than any other weapon on earth at the time (Yes, I am including the maxim here. The duration may be much shorter, but the math does not lie.) and then take away the disadvantages of a pump action rifle (As you will not be doing much prone shooting while assaulting an enemy trench, etc. and shotgun shells don't run as hot as rifle rounds, so the typical slide action is plenty strong enough.) and you have a recipe for popularity in its envelope.

1. Puckle needs an emplacement to fire. just like an MGs or swivel cannon (by that time). i've heard that it was intended to be mount on vessels to fight any boarding pirates.
2. Aren't military elites ever care of ROF? Do they still maintain Line Infantry tradition even when they can afford that awesome repeating rifles?
even clip-fed repeating bolt action rifles are still slow to me. there are four-step hand movement sequences to c0ck it while for lever action and later on.. pump action, has only two sequences.
Hadn't european nobles ever meet the wild west americans and learn from those cowboys how to do an awesome gunfight? Didn't they even think that the rules of combat in a confined space also apply in a Nation VS Nation engagements??

I feel like a lengthy(er) explanation might simply be wasted. In historical context few if any "awesome" gunfights occured in the American West. Gunfights were an inaccurate, smokey, and shortranged. That is if simple murder would not suffice.
Should a whole unit, even a small one chose to use repeating arms they lost the ability to aim accurately in the cloud of smoke created, negating the only advantage or elite troops in that era of warfare.

1. So you say that 'speedy' lever action rifles don't suit a formation of line infantry that by that time. 120+ men strengh? and by that time no one cares of urban combat? or did military academy teaches the officer to value accuracy over ROF?
2. Is blackpowder ash acidic ones? if so, what is the name of acid being a products of a reactions inside the firing chambre?
3. and which units in the Imperial russia gets winchester? Grenadiers? or Cavs?

I have discovered a new website that will assist you in your journey for truth.
http://www.google.com/

Corrosive does not necessarily mean acidic.

Yes, acids can corrode, but other corrosives are not acids.
Various nitrates, sulphates and hydroxides can all be corrosives without being acids. Sodium hydroxide being one of them.

Yes, NaOH, that common one from the science labs.

It's corrosive to certain steels. It's not an acid. It's an alkali and will give you a chemical burn in a similar way to acids - but it's on the other end of the scale.

Lone Cat wrote:
Hadn't european nobles ever meet the wild west americans and learn from those cowboys how to do an awesome gunfight? Didn't they even think that the rules of combat in a confined space also apply in a Nation VS Nation engagements??

At the time close quarters infantry action was usually settled with bayonets and rifle butts.

1. What is the first repeating rifle/ musket/harquebus ever invented in human history? and its operation mechanism
Well I would imagine the chinese had the first musket, and it was probably a primitive matchlock

2. for the earlier repeating firearms. are they too complex to mass produce for troops? is there any other techs or concepts required to produce ones?
The smoke from the powder tended to null out the Rate of fire that was attained, so it wasnt til the invention of smokeless powder that they became popular in militaries

3. Even the first commercially successful repeating rifles became available by 1850s. why aren't any nations adopt it by then? was it very weak?
If I am funding an army I would go with a simple cheap and easily mass produced weapon, which was the bane of all your early repeating rifles

4. and why bolt action rifles became the most popular military rifles? even when Winchester perfected Henry lever acton mechanism to the point that it can fire military rounds (any bottleneck ammo that has its lengh of 3 cm or more) and released 'military' versions of Winchester lever action rifle (marketed as 'musket' ), no army in the world officially used it, instead everyone either goes for Mannlicher clip fed (1880s. i think) or Mauser 1898 series... , or even make their very own repeating bolt action rifles by then (Lee Enfield for Brits, and Mosin Nagant for Russians) )
The problem with lever actions is firing from prone, which in war is a very necessary thing, also I think (never owned a lever action) they have more moving parts, so more parts that can break
5. And even when John Moses Browning introduced pump action repeating firearms at the turn of the century. why the pump action rifles are not popular even in civilian markets? (and strange enough, pump action shotguns are common)
Again we come across the prone issue, also amongst hunters racking the pump can screw with your aim, wherein with a shotgun you are not looking at long ranges, typically you are aiming at about 100 yards before being unable to hit targets very easily(by targets I mean kill shots, not just wounding), that and pump action rifles look wierd as hell

This should help you and exerpt from a discussion of the weapons used at the Battle of the Little Bighorn. If you follow the link and read down you'll find the Indians were primarily armed with repeating rifles. Pay special attention to the last line of the quote for the answers to some of the questions you were asking neatly summed up.

The established wisdom is that the U.S. Army did not adopt lever-action multiple shot weapons during the Civil War because of the problems they would create regarding the supply of ammunition.  However, I believe that by the time of the Indian Wars the Army viewed the lever-actions weapons as under-powered novelty weapons and that they were equipping their men to fight wars against European equipped enemies or to re-fight the Civil War.  The Indian Wars were seen as a minor sideshow in which troops armed to fight on European battlefields would be more than a match for fighting any number of Indians.  
The established wisdom is that the U.S. Army did not adopt lever-action multiple shot weapons during the Civil War because of the problems they would create regarding the supply of ammunition.  However, I believe that by the time of the Indian Wars the Army viewed the lever-actions weapons as under-powered novelty weapons and that they were equipping their men to fight wars against European equipped enemies or to re-fight the Civil War.  The Indian Wars were seen as a minor sideshow in which troops armed to fight on European battlefields would be more than a match for fighting any number of Indians.  
The Army saw breech-loading rifles and carbines as the way forward.  They could fire a much more powerful round at longer ranges than lever-actions.  Although lever-actions could give an initially high rate of fire, unless they were equipped with some kind of loading gate, breechloaders in the long run had a higher rate of fire, which was sustainable throughout a battle. 

In answer to why pump action, or more correctly, slide action rifles have never found a military application the answer is that same as lever loaders: because of the mechanism of the slide action bolt the chamber is not as securely locked. The chamber is not able to handle the pressure of full power rounds. Modern materials have significantly increased the ability of the slide action rifle to chamber full size military rounds, decades after thier introduction.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Forgot link
http://www.westernerspublications.ltd.uk/CAGB%20Guns%20at%20the%20LBH.htm

While the US Army as a whole never adopted lever action carbines, certain units were developed almost specifically to use them.. Case in point: The Regiment of Mounted Riflemen. They were created to secure trails to Oregon, but ended up fighting alot in the Mexican-American War.

The rate of fire of a lever action Winchester was not inhibited by smoke, because the "infantryman" was mounted on horseback, so he was nearly in constant motion.

I think that above posters have adequately discussed why the rifles were not more widely accepted.

I do know that bolt actions were favored in the early 20th Century by snipers (read, WW2 and newer), because the rate of fire meant that the barrel wouldn't heat as much per round, and thus the accuracy would not be affected nearly as much as a repeating rifle (machine gun, Garand, etc.)

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

I do know that bolt actions were favored in the early 20th Century by snipers (read, WW2 and newer), because the rate of fire meant that the barrel wouldn't heat as much per round, and thus the accuracy would not be affected nearly as much as a repeating rifle (machine gun, Garand, etc.)

I think OP was wondering why bolt action rifle's were favored as a standard infantry rifle in the early 20th century, which i think comes from Rate of Fire (munitions are expensive), I think they can take more abuse than a lever action, easier to mass produce, and the added benefit of the ease in which you can shoot from prone

^ you got it right. and that was before the concept of semiauto rifles being accepted. not sure if this extremely advanced semiautomatic weapons (by the 1900) even comes to exist

=^.^=