Why not more revolving rifles?

With this style, my only experience is with my dads Circuit Judge. Its a goofing looking rifle but extremely comfortable. Its not really a tack driver either. I can't even compare it to a 30-30 lever or .44mag lever or bolt gun. As a close range woods rifle, it will work just fine. Unfortunately though, its kind of a deadend niche. Kinda like how only Ruger has a 44mag and 357mag bolt gun. There is just not that big of a demand and its little too weird for some.
 
There was a guy in the area CAS who campaigned a revolving carbine until the courses of fire got standardized on ten shots. His results did not impress me. Maybe YOU can do better, but I did not see the point of trying, my lever action suits me.
 
currently moderately popular due only to the novelty factor.
Click to expand...
Dead end. No benefits. Etc etc. With the market for firearms the last few years who still thinks niche/novelty/weird guns don't have a place in the market? I don't think anyone is saying one should be submitted to a DOD trial.

A modified 357 maximum revolving rifle that could fire normal 357 mags would be interesting.
 
I have fired a fair number of shoulder stocked pistols (though not a revolver), and that entire concept is IMHO a dead end. There is little to be gained in military use and less in self defense or hunting use. With a normal length pistol, like a 1911 or BHP, the muzzle blast is too close to the ear for use without heavy muffs (not practical in combat) and the sights are too close to the eye to be usable. With a longer pistol, like the Mauser broomhandle, things are not much better and with the 7.63mm the blast is still pretty bad.

It is not an accident that while some countries issued shoulder stocked pistols and had their pistols cut for stocks, almost no armies actually used them that way and the stocks were either not issued or were ultimately withdrawn.

Jim
 
My son, 8 years old, is beginning to show a slight interest in my guns. If his interest is there, I plan to buy him his own around 10 years old. I ponder a lot about at it will be and I really like the idea of the single action revolving carbine in .357/.38. Less than four pounds, SA only and I can load 38spl loads that are as soft as a .22. I am usually only keen on it until is see the price tags, the only current production I can find is a cimmaron at around 800$ bones. Not only am I not a huge fan of cimmaron, I also think I'm setting myself up for a bad day giving a new shooter that's still a kid a piece of 800$ wood.

Uberti has the buntline for a tad less dough, probably a solid rifle too. I have never seen one in stock though. But these are all just back and forth thoughts, my mind will change with the wind, and ultimately it will end up being a decision of his, so long as its singke action, single shot or lever shooting a low power handloadable cartridge.

Me personally? Never had an interest. I feel like it would be losing some accuracy over a lever guns solid chamber, it has less capacity than a lever, it seems very awkward to grip without using bags or sticks on the front and it costs more than a lever, maybe if they could pull off a forend it would make more sense. Just can't think of one plus a revolving carving has over a lever except brass retrieval. I do find them to be very interesting and visually appealing though, and if I ever had the means to just collect guns that I found interesting than I would surely acquire one. But that seems like a pretty small market of folks and isilikely why no majors have decided to dive into production.
 
It is not an accident that while some countries issued shoulder stocked pistols and had their pistols cut for stocks, almost no armies actually used them that way and the stocks were either not issued or were ultimately withdrawn.
Click to expand...

The only real exception to this that I can think of is the Mauser Broomhandle, where the stock did serve in the field, in numbers, most often in its role as the holster for the pistol.
 
why not more revolving rifles

The old percussion revolving rifles would cross fire sometimes, with worn nipples etc.
The cartridge design cured that but, failure of the cylinder to index, with wear of the hand and pawl on cylinder and you would get lead spit out the sides as many revolver shooters have experienced.
That aside you will get some gas from the front of the cylinder and holding it like a rifle a noticeable effect sometimes.
Even properly times cylinder shooting lead bullets will sometimes spray some lead out the side of the gap between cylinder and forcing cone.
I notice some time back they have equipped many of these carbines with shields of sorts on the left side of the cylinder gap.
I would like to have one, better made with good walnut and excellent bluing, and good timing.
 
I've always admired revolving rifles as they are quite pleasant to look at. The realities are that they are typically dangerous, low capacity, heavy, and not as strong. While they can be made less dangerous or possibly even completely safe, they are an impractical design with too many flaws and not enough benefits. The American Army learned this lesson long ago with the Colt Revolving Rifle.
 
I have heard the sad tale of shooters who bought a reproduction revolving carbine that the sale clerk said would be just dandy for cowboy action shooting, then they learned that they are not allowed under the match rules.

I put these in the same category as the lever action pistols: interesting movie props.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top