Why not more revolving rifles?

P

Pond James Pond

New member
I was looking at a member's video of the Uberti replica of the Remington revolving rifle a couple of days ago and it got me wondering.

Revolvers are popular for a number of reasons. Some have long barrels for hunting and some shoot a hard-hitting cartridge.

So why aren't there many rifles that run a rotating cylinder like the one in that video?

I know that Rossi do some sort, and I think Taurus might too, but aside from that why is a beefy, unfluted clylinder in a stout frame and barrel with a solid stock not a popular option?

If I imagine a Ruger Redhawk with a 10" barrel and thumbhole stock I smile a little bit.... and start to sweat on the upper lip! :D

Is what they would offer already offered in another platform?
Is that other option better or cheaper?
Does the revolving aspect limit the shooter?

Why no love for the coolness of a cylinder in the handiness of a rifle?
 
They were never all that popular, partly because they are dangerous.
Holding them in the typical rifle manner, with the support hand forward of the cylinder is a disaster.
Holding them in the safe manner, like a handgun, makes them unwieldy and clumsy.
 
I looked at a .45/.410 Circuit Judge. But since it was 6 shot, it was impossible to block to shotgun hunt with legally due to the 3 cartridge rule. They do have a block, but it does not require dis-assembly to uninstall as required for such blocks in most states.
 
They were, despite a couple modern bring-backs, an evolutionary dead end.

The barrel/cylinder gap is the primary deal-killer in an un-modified design.
They offer no increased accuracy benefit, are slower to reload in a single-action version, and are more of a curiosity than anything.
Denis
 
Also, I'm not sure what your laws are like in Estonia, but here in America there's a lot of red tape attached to a rifle with a barrel under 16". Somebody might find utility in a medium length revolver carbine, but there's a lot of extra hassle to get one when much better options exist. If they weren't so highly regulated, I'm sure we'd see stocks for revolvers just like we would for many semi-automatic pistols. But I think the other problems described here become more of a hindrance with a longer barrel.
 
In the ca. 1850s, some U.S. troops were outfitted with Colt's revolving rifle. They quickly learned that it was extremely unpleasant to hold when there was a multiple discharge.

Mexico issued, on a limited basis, the Pieper revolving carbine chambered for the 8mm Pieper cartridge. It functioned much like the famous Nagant revolver in that the cylinder moved forward to put the case mouth in the barrel throat creating a gas seal. It was not a rousing success.

See photos:
 

Attachments

  • Pieper carbine.jpg
    Pieper carbine.jpg
    3.1 KB · Views: 68
  • Pieper carbine 2.png
    Pieper carbine 2.png
    88.1 KB · Views: 46
With some recent ATFE letters I have considered writing them about an 1895 Nagant revolving carbine conversion. Eliminate the main problem of the revolving carbine. Not the most impressive round though.
 
I own one in cartridge form and two in black powder. If you are smarter then the gun you will have no problems with them. Yes they do load slow compared to a Spencer or Volcanic or a Henry even but for hunting where six shots is plenty they work fine unless you are hunting dangerous game and a bad shot. I will be using mine again this year for deer hunting and my Cattleman for bear.

The limiting factor is the cylinder can only be built to handle so much of a charge.
 
I own one in cartridge form and two in black powder. If you are smarter then the gun you will have no problems with them. Yes they do load slow compared to a Spencer or Volcanic or a Henry even but for hunting where six shots is plenty they work fine unless you are hunting dangerous game and a bad shot. I will be using mine again this year for deer hunting and my Cattleman for bear.

The limiting factor is the cylinder can only be built to handle so much of a charge
Click to expand...

I touched on this in another thread hoping to get a real world idea of comparative ballistics. What sort of game can a rifle such as these take? And at what distance? (Assuming a max charge! This is probably about 35gn with a .454 140gn ball squeezed on top.)

To give you an idea I was watching vids of the Uberti Remington 18" in .44 calibre.
 
When I was young, I was at the range with my .44 revolver. I was going to hunt with it. I sat down with my back against a pole (Simulating a tree) and started shooting. I had used my left arm on my knee to steady the gun. It was not long before my coat sleeve was on fire.
I cannot imagine anything better coming of having a sleeve under a cylinder while holding a forearm. There are plenty of ideas about guns that died with history. Leave that one buried unless you want to waste time and money on your own for a project gun.
 
Each chamber has a different point of impact for a given point of aim. That's why the Colt rifles were not popular (despite being reliable). Shooters had to mark a 'master' chamber that would be used for the first/most accurate shots. Probably not quite as bad with modern tolerances, but every chamber will always have slightly different geometry, effecting impact.

TCB
 
I have the Rossi " Circuit Judge " and never had a problem, even with short sleeves. The deflectors work fine. And it's a fun weapon 5 shot chambered in .410 / 45LC. Mix and match without changing anything. Shoots all kinds of crap. What weapon can do that? 45, .410 , slugs ,buckshot ,birdshot, all at once. Lightweight too.....under 5 pounds.
 
"What weapon can do that? 45, .410 , slugs ,buckshot ,birdshot, all at once."

Savage 24...:D

Just not all at the same time...

T.
 
With some recent ATFE letters I have considered writing them about an 1895 Nagant revolving carbine conversion. Eliminate the main problem of the revolving carbine. Not the most impressive round though.
Click to expand...

At which point you will have effectively recreated the Pieper revolving carbine, although the Pieper was slightly more modern with a swing-out cylinder.
 
After reading my previous post it is clear that some posters that followed mine should not be allowed anywhere near a firearm.

Now to answer Pond, James Pond. My Uberti Cattleman I load to Kieths loadings for .44 Magnum and it will drop North American Elk and Black Bear with a properly placed shot at distance under 100 yards.

My others are .44 caliber BP. One is an Armi San Marco and the other is a Pietta and with proper loadings and a skilled user they are powerful enough for deer at ranges under 100 yards.

I wish someone made a stock for Uberti Walkers as that would be some more fun.
 
That's why the Colt rifles were not popular...
Click to expand...

As I stated earlier, Colt revolving rifles were found to have a propensity for multiple discharges with predictable VERY unpleasant results to the hand holding the forearm.
 
Is what they would offer already offered in another platform?
Is that other option better or cheaper?
Does the revolving aspect limit the shooter?
Click to expand...

in a word, Yes.

There isn't anything you can use in a revolver that isn't also found in some other action type.

The other action types are often better in several ways, and can be cheaper, as well.

Revolvers are limited to essentially "revolver class" cartridges. And while there are some quite powerful rounds in that group, there are practical limits to size and pressure that are more restrictive than what other action types can handle. You can built a revolver to handle 40K psi rounds. I have yet to see one that can handle 55Kpsi rifle rounds.

Then there is the bulk of the cylinder, right in the middle where many will be carrying the rifle. And the complexities of the revolver lockwork, compared to bolt, and other action types.

And as most often mentioned, the barrel/cylinder gap. Early revolving carbines were nothing more than a long barreled stocked handgun, with nothing to protect the forward hand. Modern designs include a "blast shield", but still, lots of folks are uncomfortable with the idea of putting a hand out there infront of the cylinder, shield or not.

As said, an evolutionary dead end in rifle design, currently moderately popular due only to the novelty factor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top