Revolving Rifles

Pistols at this time were not used with a 'supporting hand'. This stemmed from the days of the flintlock pistol and the flash from the pan. Military and naval flintlock pistols were often used with the lock towards the sky, mainly to ensure the intitiation of the charge. There was no sight on the barrel. For military use, often the 'other' hand was also doing or holding something else. There was also duel 'etiquette' which dictated that pistols be held in just one hand.
This tradition continued over the change to percusson and the gradual introduction of revolvers. Despite the provision of sights, it seems they were not often used and pistols remained a close-quarter weapon - "point it in the right direction". It is perhaps to maintain this tradition that the 'cylinder gap' theory was started. Without a doubt, there were some pistols that splattered hot gas and even lead fragments, given the state of poorly maintained or over-used pistols of the period, but I suspect that this did not apply to the better makes.
Revolvers no matter how well made or maintained spit gas due to the cylinder/forcing cone gap. One exception is the Russian 1895 Nagant revolver. Cocking the hammer moved the cylinder forward so the brass case containing the bullet (seated below the mouth of the case) entered the forcing cone to make a gas tight seal. It was said to provide perhaps an addition 50 FPS to the muzzle velocity. It is an interesting pistol to shoot with proper ammunition but the trigger pull is terrible. Even today with the best revolvers you don't want to put your finger anywhere near the cylinder gap. There are YOUTUBE videos showing how dangerous this can be. Look it up and watch a hotdog being shredded by the blast.
 
Revolvers no matter how well made or maintained spit gas due to the cylinder/forcing cone gap. One exception is the Russian 1895 Nagant revolver. Cocking the hammer moved the cylinder forward so the brass case containing the bullet (seated below the mouth of the case) entered the forcing cone to make a gas tight seal. It was said to provide perhaps an addition 50 FPS to the muzzle velocity. It is an interesting pistol to shoot with proper ammunition but the trigger pull is terrible. Even today with the best revolvers you don't want to put your finger anywhere near the cylinder gap. There are YOUTUBE videos showing how dangerous this can be. Look it up and watch a hotdog being shredded by the blast.
But this was the 1895 Nagant, not a 1851 Colt Navy - or a Tranter Type 4. So we can asume that the Civil War pistols were a leaky as ... All the more reason for single-hand shooting. This would also go for revolver longarms too! Yes, some were made with forestocks but they would need a 'long grip' to prevent powder burns. It was also the reason for the 'sling hold' on the Baker rifle - to keep the left hand as far from the pan as possible yet mainstain a steady hold
positions for firing the baker rifle2.jpg
 
Read what I said, I said the Nagant was the exception to all revolvers, pistol or rifle that must leak gas due to the basic design. While your illustrations are pretty they are irrelevant. I base my cylinder gap blast experience from shooting all models of Colt cap and ball revolvers from the .31 Pocket to the .44 Walker and modern revolvers from .22LR to .44 Magnum. While I respect you for your service your arguments are weak. If you're ever in the USA near Maryland let me know, you're invited to take a crack at the 75 yard steel Dave Tutt gong with a Colt 1851 Navy on my private range, just mind your fingers with a two handed grip😉
 
Read what I said, I said the Nagant was the exception to all revolvers, pistol or rifle that must leak gas due to the basic design. While your illustrations are pretty they are irrelevant. I base my cylinder gap blast experience from shooting all models of Colt cap and ball revolvers from the .31 Pocket to the .44 Walker and modern revolvers from .22LR to .44 Magnum. While I respect you for your service your arguments are weak. If you're ever in the USA near Maryland let me know, you're invited to take a crack at the 75 yard steel Dave Tutt gong with a Colt 1851 Navy on my private range, just mind your fingers with a two handed grip😉
I too have fired all sorts of pistol, including revolvers - but not cap-and-ball, although I have restored a number of British and Continental ones. I know full well not to put my hands forward of the trigger. The 'pretty illustrations' were to show that the escape of gases/powder burns were not confined to revolvers - of any type.
 
Just to prove my point - here is one of those 1855 Colt revolving rifles being fired:
View attachment 508374
Now that's a worthy picture of a smart shooter. I'm sure the side blast is even more intense with the rifle barrel containing the gas longer. Notice the cylinder gas has cooled with flame no longer present but still plenty of flame at the muzzle. It was a poor design alright along with the detachable stocks Colt offered with their revolvers for the unwary. FWIW the cylinder gap on my Colt Navy measures .010", my S&W .38 Special Target Masterpiece is only .003" since powder fouling isn't an issue with smokeless powder. YGMV (your gap may vary)
 
Thank you Joe.
I have two decent British revolvers, both 54-bore (.441") - a Beaumont-Adams and a Tranter Type three, both from about 1860. The Tranter is as tight as (and fitted with an adjuster on the cylinder axis to keep it so). The Beaumont-Adams has seen better days and the cylinder has no adjustment and has 1.3mm 'free play'. It moves some 2mm (0.08") back against the hammer. It does close the gap when you cock it, but it is only being held there by the arm (pawl lever) spring. Not the best situation. I would happily shoot the Tranter, but not the Adams. (Both types were issued and used by the Confederate Army)
#Cylinder movement-gap.JPG
Beaumont-Adams
Tranter First Finish R.JPG
(Tranter type 3)
As some are aware, since I am living in Britain, if I was to shoot the Tranter, it would jump from 'antique' (display) to Class 1 firearm which requires all sorts of security and equipment for BP loading which is only just legal and membership of a shooting club! That would cost me more than the pistol is worth!
 
You're most welcome Old Soldier. Bummer about the red tape and cost to shoot an antique :frown: We've had our differences of opinion but should you ever visit Antietam, Harpers Ferry or Gettysburg you're invited to my nearby home to shoot many things old and new that will put a smile on your face and leave great memories. I have a pretty nice display of CW relics I have dug here you might find interesting also. BTW I'm a great fan of the Spitfire and the Rolls Royce Merlin. Got fly behind one many years ago in a P-51, although it was built here under license by Packard. The sound of that beautiful (it's a pretty engine) V-12 is pure music to the ears.
1716416191841.png


1716416091228.png
 
You're most welcome Old Soldier. Bummer about the red tape and cost to shoot an antique :( We've had our differences of opinion but should you ever visit Antietam, Harpers Ferry or Gettysburg you're invited to my nearby home to shoot many things old and new that will put a smile on your face and leave great memories. I have pretty nice display of CW relics I have dug here you might find interesting also. BTW I'm a great fan of the Spitfire and the Rolls Royce Merlin. Got fly behind one once many years ago in a P-51, although it was built her under license by Packard. The sound of that beautiful (it's a pretty engine) V-12 is pure music to the ears.
View attachment 508421
 
How common were stocks on pistols used?
The US single shot pistol/ carbine M1855 was provided with a shoulder stock, only 4,000 were produced. As to stocks issued with US revolvers I don't think it ever happened. They were offered commercially by Colt but judging by surviving numbers they weren't big sellers. I believe more repos have been sold then real ones were ever made and they do look cool for a display. While they exist I don't think I have ever seen but one or two originals at Civil War or gun shows. These links have a bit of info:


 

Enough that the US Army adopted one and they are not unknown even today. Probably most famous with the broom handle Mauser or Browning High Power.
The Artillery Luger (8 inch barrel), the aforementioned High Power and Broomhandle all had shoulder stocks that doubled as holsters, a really handy feature the Colt stocks didn't offer.
 

Learn About Us
About CivilWarTalk
Contact the Webmaster
Meet the Staff
Link to CivilWarTalk
Join Our Community
Register
Browse Forums
View Today's Discussions
Search the Forum
Get Help
FAQ
Student Guide
Forum Rules & Etiquette
Copyright / DMCA

     Contact Us CivilwarTalk on Facebook CivilWarTalk on YouTube CivilWarTalk on Twitter RSS Feed

Bringing the American Civil War and More to Life.
© 1999 - , CIVILWARTALK, LLC - Site Version 10.0

SlaveryTalk.com - SecessionTalk.com - CivilWarTalk.com - ReconstructionTalk.com
Back
Top