What would be considered the best firearm that saw action during the conflict, the Henry rifle perhaps.
I have to respectfully disagree as I have owned 2 Colt revolving rifles and numerous Colt Army's over the years and even though I have never fired any of them I did find that with the stock and the length of the barrel of the rifle it was not as near as easy to load as the pistol.and was no more difficult than loading the revolver.
Is this correct though? I've never heard of it happening.Can't use the forearm to support it.
It has the same issues as with cap 'n ball revolvers. First, like Zburkett mentioned, gases and lead escaping from the barrel and cylinder gap can injure the support hand if it is holding onto the forearm. Second, like a cap 'n ball revolver, you can had chain fire where other cylinders discharge. If your hand is supporting the forearm, you can get shot in the hand/wrist.
So in your opinion the Revolving rifle was unecessarily maligned?I’ve never managed to find a first person account of a chain fire on a Colt Revolving rifle or shotgun prewar, wartime or postwar. I’ve failed o ever find the name of a man wounded by a chain fire of a Colt Revolving rifle. It seems most of the negative remarks and writing came out of Berdan’s men. I believe it has more to do with it being in the hands of men who were prone to tinker or were prone to tear things apart to see what made them work.
The Colt Revolving rifle is not a simple rifle and just because a man knows how to shoot doesn’t make him a gunsmith. If you don’t know the weapon putting it back together correctly can be an issue. Admission of mistakes isn’t done as often as people admit.
It doesn’t help that the men had been promised Sharps rifle. Which already had a good reputation and was a simpler arm.
I believe the Colt Revolving rifle gets a bad reputation. But from what I’ve seen much of it is undeserved.
I have seen some really boneheaded things done to firearms over the years. Some done long in the past.
I think so. The weapon remained in use well after the war, especially the shotgun version. As often as I’ve read of complaints about the chain fire issue I’ve not found a first hand account of it happening or the name of a victim.So in your opinion the Revolving rifle was unecessarily maligned?
The weapon remained in use well after the war, especially the shotgun version.
In antique fair to good condition you'd not want to shoot it.
A 1855 Colt revolving rifle now can be found in Very Good to Fine condition with a shootable bore and NO U.S> cartouche for about 6 to 11 K. With the "U.S" and bayonet lug double the price. Carbines run about the same, but 24" Artillery carbines are rarely seen and are much more valuable due to the very limited numbers made.
Just like the pistol, grease had to be smeared over the individual holes to prevent a chain fire. You left out that step at your peril. Even modern revolvers have blow by where the cylinder meets the barrel. By all accounts, the gap on the Colt rifle resulted in a significant spray that could inflict burns on the shooter.
I quit firing my 36 cal, Navy Colt because it became progressively terrifying. No matter how hard I tried, couldn't hit what I aimed at.No one has mentioned the possibility of spraying pieces of LEAD. I had a cheap replica Colt with brass frame and 5-1/1 inch barrel. One time I fired it, a close bystander said something hit him in the face. Luckily it didn't break his skin.
A proper ball will shear off a ring of lead as it is rammed into the cylinder. Then after firing, it enters the barrel with Lands that are even smaller in diameter and the ball is further deformed. This constriction combined with the gap between the cylinder and barrel +PLUS+ any slop that would allow the cylinder misalignment with the barrel could lead to Lead (that is hard to read) being sprayed out to the sides of the pistol.
Comments? Ever experienced this?