Revolving rifles.

[major bill]

Although the muskets was the standard long arm at the start of the Civil War, repeating rifles had seen service well before the start of the Civil War. The Colt Paterson Revolving Rifles were used in 1838 in the Seminole War. In the end revolving long arms were not particularly successful during the Civil War. Here is an early example of the use of the Colt Paterson Revolving Carbine by the Republic of Texas Marine Corps.

 

[johan_steele]

Saw one of these at a show a year or two back, I was $15k or so short.

 

[7th Mississippi Infantry]

Another early revolving rifle :

http://theautry.org/the-colt-revolv...t/success-through-failure?artifact=87.118.129

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

I believe I read recently (maybe in Jack Coggins' Arms and Equipment of the Civil War?) that the Colt revolving rifle had a nasty tendency for multiple chambers letting go when the piece was fired, sometimes taking the firer's left hand off... if true, not something to engender much trust in one's weapon!

 

[unionblue]

Isn't there a modern repro of this weapon being made or sold?

 

[johan_steele]

I believe I read recently (maybe in Jack Coggins' Arms and Equipment of the Civil War?) that the Colt revolving rifle had a nasty tendency for multiple chambers letting go when the piece was fired, sometimes taking the firer's left hand off... if true, not something to engender much trust in one's weapon!

I used to preach that as gospel and then started doing a little bit of research on. I've never managed to find the name of a single individual that actually had it happen. A gent I know peripherally has an M1855 Revolving rifle and he hunts with it to this day... though on second thought he may not anymore as he's well west of 70.

Upon studying that original, it has seen real use over the last 150 years and still functions flawlessly, w/ the Colt ammo the whole cartridge was placed in the chamber w/ the bullet formiung a tight seal. The only way it might conceivably happen would be a cracked nipple w/out a cap on it. Firing blanks would be a hole different can o worms.

The story seemed to come from Berdans men in their campaign to get their promised Sharps M1859 rifles. The M1855's were issued to shooters who by their very nature like to tinker and take things apart to see how they work. The Colt Revolving rifle is not for the inexperianced or faint at heart to take apart. And men like that aren't about to admit they screwed up putting it back together and blame their problems on the tool instead of the user. Those same arms were reissued to the 21st Ohio & other units... those units not only liked them they used them to deadly effect. In short I think the story a period urban legend if you will.

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

Ah... interesting!

(Was the Sharps really that much better, at least in the Berdans' opinion?)

 

[Patrick H]

I've always thought revolving rifles were very interesting, but this whole discussion reminds me of something I saw a few years ago on Lee Ermey's Lock and Load television series. One program was about the evolution of rifles. At a certain point, one of his vintage consultants offered to let the Gunny shoot his vintage revolving rifle. The possibility of a chain fire was mentioned. Gunny looks at the rifle and says: "There's no way I'm shooting this thing." He then looks at his left hand and begins to recite a parody of the Marine Corps Rifleman's Code: "This is my hand. There are many like it, but this one is mine......" I couldn't say whether the rifle is inherently dangerous, but Gunny's recitation was pretty funny.

 

[major bill]

Revolving carbines have been used since the 17th century. They were usually intended for cavalry use.I can see multiple discharge being an issue before metallic cartridges. Other nations did not find them particularly successful. Other than the British Webley Revolving Rifle of 1853, name a non U.S. revolving rifle or carbine that was considered successful.

 

[4th-MSM]

Isn't there a modern repro of this weapon being made or sold?

I see revolving carbines like the Uberti below sold quite often, even at local gun shops, but I don't recall seeing a reproduction rifle. I would imagine they are reproduced as well, though. Dixie Gun Works probably sells them.

Once in a while I like to browse through Bass Pro's "fine gun room" and on occasion I've seen a few original revolving rifles and shotguns for sale there.

 

[kevikens]

All that this repro above is is a Remington 1858 with a lengthened stock and barrel. The ones used in the Civil War, as by an Ohio Regiment, were based on the lock developed in 1855 by a partner of Colt named Root. It has a side hammer. I have read that chain reaction firing of all the chambers in the cylinder was not unusual and the riflemen were taught to hold the rifle when firing by the loading rod in the down position. Ill take their word for it. In all the years I have fired cap and ball pistols I have never had multiple chamber firing. I keep hearing about it but never experienced it. Perhaps the side hammer Root version was prone to do this.

 

[Patrick H]

Years ago, I knew a guy who shot a black powder revolver. He put crisco in the front of his chambers to seal them against a possible chain fire from that end. I have no idea if that's actually a valid precaution, but that was his explanation for the process. Of course, we were shooting for fun on a range, with no pressure from an opposing enemy force. Do we know whether revolver shooters in the CW ever followed a similar practice?

 

[44 Henry]

The revolving rifle was inherently a dangerous design unless proper procedures were followed. The barrel/cylinder gap as well as the possibility of chain fire was very real. One's hand and arm in the forward position ahead of the cylinder was in danger of injury even if no chain fire took place. It happened during the war as well as during present day. I have witness revolvers chain firing with blanks as well as firing live ammunition. Reproduction revolving rifles have done the same thing. While you were able to have a repeating rifle for the first 5 shots it became time consuming to reload properly. The Spencer and the Henry rifle were far better in design, rate of fire and reloading as well as the ammunition that each used was far superior being self-contained. The rate of fire for a Sharps was about equal or better over a 10 shot run.

 

[johan_steele]

Around 2000 Dixie offered a repop M1855 revolving rifle, spoke to several people who purchased one and they were rather unhappy w/ the quality. I've seen the repop once but can't intelligently comment on it. The originals are handy and rather accurate. But IMO they are not an M1859 Sharps.

The advantage of the M1859 Sharps over the M1855 Colt revolving rifle were the shorter length, superior rear sight and the ability to easily load and fire in the prone position. Also the Sharps is a simpler action and IMO an inherently stronger action. Less small parts make it more reliable and less prone to breakage.

 

[kevikens]

I can understand why these revolvers might chain fire with blanks, as the flame from a chamber going off could get behind the wadding of the next chamber, setting it off. With a ball or bullet firmly rammed into the cylinder I could never figure out how the flame could get past the ball and into the chamber. I understand the use of the Crisco over the ball to prevent flame from getting into the adjacent cylinders but with a bullet wedged into the chamber already it seems like an unnecessary redundancy, though burning Crisco does smell good.

 

[Patrick H]

I can understand why these revolvers might chain fire with blanks, as the flame from a chamber going off could get behind the wadding of the next chamber, setting it off. With a ball or bullet firmly rammed into the cylinder I could never figure out how the flame could get past the ball and into the chamber. I understand the use of the Crisco over the ball to prevent flame from getting into the adjacent cylinders but with a bullet wedged into the chamber already it seems like an unnecessary redundancy, though burning Crisco does smell good.

This is exactly the question I had about the use of Crisco, or any other grease. I've also seen it done on various youtube videos and I still don't really understand it. But, if everyone seems to do it, I guess at least it doesn't hurt.

 

[Poor Private]

It has been determined on another forum that I belong to www.muzzleloadingforum.com that most if not all chain fires come from the nipple area of the revolvers(when firing live). I have seen a couple of chain fires on blank loaders, but not live rounds. I have found that most reenactor chin firing is due to improper sealing of the chambers mouth.
Below is an image I have downloaded(don't remember where from) of a revolver firing at night notice the flame coming out of the nipple area. If a cap has fallen off you can see where it would start. Myself I would love to have a colt revolving rifle but I still hesitate to put my cheek down next to that flame coming out of a nipple.
In regards to the Remington Carbine, they did make them but it was an after war gun. So don't bring one to a civil war event.

 

[kevikens]

Great photo. Question. Look at the hammer. It appears to be well back of the fired cap just as the revolver fires. If it were a double action (Remington, among others like Adams made them during the Civil War) I would think that the shooter was already puling on the trigger for another shot. But this looks like a single action Colt. I never considered this but it looks like blow back from out of the nipple has forced the hammer back at least a quarter inch from the cylinder. I never thought there could be so much force applied by blow back to the hammer. In cocking a Colt some noticeable force is required to get the hammer that far back. A very thought provoking photo.

 

[44 Henry]

The thing about sparks they need very little room to go through an opening and set off a charge in a chamber. Not all of the projectiles were perfectly round and did not seal the chamber perfectly when loading for live fire. If the cap fits the nipple properly there should be no sparks to get to the chamber of a chamber not in line to fire but then it is also another variable.

 

[Poor Private]

Great photo. Question. Look at the hammer. It appears to be well back of the fired cap just as the revolver fires. If it were a double action (Remington, among others like Adams made them during the Civil War) I would think that the shooter was already puling on the trigger for another shot. But this looks like a single action Colt. I never considered this but it looks like blow back from out of the nipple has forced the hammer back at least a quarter inch from the cylinder. I never thought there could be so much force applied by blow back to the hammer. In cocking a Colt some noticeable force is required to get the hammer that far back. A very thought provoking photo.

Yes we figured the hammer being back is due to the blowback from firing. either a weak spring, or that particular gun was overloaded. Of course it looks like it might be a dragoon, or walker, and people just ram as much powder as they can in those guns. They are able to handle up to 40-45 grains with a round ball on top.