Pepperboxes?

D

Drae

New member
I mean, these weren't a bad idea, and have an awesome look to them. Given some revolvers can 'survive' having half their frame cut away, what if we did that to one, then attached a machined very long cylinder?
Also, aside from waste of materials and weight, what even are the cons to pepperboxes?
 
Yes, something like this, but with a bit longer 'cylinder', less 'historical and fragile' value, and a more modern look. Oh, and no black powder, normal cartridges please.
 
Each barrel has to be rifled. None of the barrels will shoot to the same pint of aim. Lots of barrels are heavier than one barrel. More expensive than a single barrel.
There have been a few guns made like this. None of them sold well.
 
Well, given a pepperbox (and to an extent snub revolvers) are to be used in pretty short ranges you don't need each last drop of accuracy right?
 
What would the advantage be?

Most people aren't looking for modern variations of antiquated designs. Especially when they're larger and more expensive than "normal" guns.
 
Only advantage I can even remotely think of, and I'm reaching here, is that one barrel gets a bad load and leaves the bullet in the barrel you still have the other barrels shootable. Personally I'd still rather have a modern revolver.
 
Aguila Blanca said:
You beat me to it. I saw that at the SHOT Show, and I asked myself, "Why?"
Click to expand...
Because Sam Colt held patents to the better idea and had lawyers that would back up those patent's with lawsuits.
This was a way to sell a multi shot firearm and not run afoul of the law.
 
I do wonder if the manufacturers get bored on a rainy day when sales are slow and they have their crew dream up some wildly impractical, even foolish, variant, (deviant, perhaps?), of something more sensible that they already have in production, so as to save the cost of designing something really stupid from the ground up. "If we make it, they will buy it." That long-cylinder-barreless, 1851 Colt-ish abomination is ridiculous. But so is the, "Mare's Leg", and the Ruger Charger.... yet, apparently, they sell. I guess the manufacturers found a niche market that prevents them from having to lay off skilled workers. I suppose that's a good thing; clowns need guns, too.:D
 
Because Sam Colt held patents to the better idea and had lawyers that would back up those patent's with lawsuits.
This was a way to sell a multi shot firearm and not run afoul of the law.
Click to expand...

Colt had nothing to do with that monstrosity. That is an Italian fantasy piece. I dare say half of the guns Pietta makes never existed outside of their imaginations before they made them.
 
But still, they're cool as heck! The other issue with them is that there are no sights. Like already said, they're not for aiming. Another thing that could be done with them (the cap and ball one), is add a rifled conversion cylinder if Howell's or Taylor's would make one. 38 special would be perfect, but it could even be made to shoot other calibers since there's no barrel to limit it.

I guess the manufacturers found a niche market that prevents them from having to lay off skilled workers. I suppose that's a good thing; clowns need guns, too.
Click to expand...
We all like what we like. So, I guess I'm a proud clown. :)

attachment.php
 
Last edited:
gwpercle said:
Aguila Blanca said:
You beat me to it. I saw that at the SHOT Show, and I asked myself, "Why?"
Click to expand...
Because Sam Colt held patents to the better idea and had lawyers that would back up those patent's with lawsuits.
This was a way to sell a multi shot firearm and not run afoul of the law.
Click to expand...
I wasn't questiong the invention of pepperboxes in general. What I meant was why would Pietta come out with a pepperbox cylinder (which they advertise as "historical") on a Colt 1851 frame? It's another in a long line of "historical replicas" of firearms that never existed in history.
 
I do wonder if the manufacturers get bored on a rainy day when sales are slow and they have their crew dream up some wildly impractical, even foolish, variant, (deviant, perhaps?), of something more sensible that they already have in production, so as to save the cost of designing something really stupid from the ground up.
Click to expand...

Have you ever worked in manufacturing? Everything costs money, including design time. I cannot remember ever being assigned to come up with something wildly impractical. Before a dime gets spent on development, the bean counters have to be convinced there is a potential market for something. Otherwise nobody gets paid to come up with new ideas.
 
The issue with a modern pepperbox is the reload time would be so long that they'd be impractical. Seriously, an NAA mini revolver would be faster to reload.

I do think that pepperboxes are simpler and more robust designs because they'll never have timing issues develop like a revolver will, but the length of time that it will take for mechanical wear to develop in the any newly manufactured gun will be longer than your lifespan most likely.

A pepperbox would be a great end of the world gun or something, but the design doesn't work with cartridges. For muzzleloaders, they're not a bad idea. I think with a long enough cylinder and large enough caliber, you could put 2 or 3 buckshot balls in the cylinder and it would be an effective close range gun.

I wouldn't want three .45 caliber balls being shot at me.

But, again, the size is impractical and if I wanted a big bore black powder percussion handgun, I'd get one of the Great Gun derringers in .54 caliber.
 
but the design doesn't work with cartridges.
Click to expand...
Why not? Seems to work for the Volley Fire prototype ( post 15). I'm sure the design could be altered to fire only one barrel at a time instead of two with one trigger pull.
The big difference being the barrels don't revolve, the firing mechanism does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top