# Gun question, revolver-rifles? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 26, 2001, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-question-revolver-rifles/95300 "2001-11-26T16:13:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Iyamity](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/96bed5/32.png) [@Iyamity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iyamity)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2001, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-question-revolver-rifles/95300/1 "2001-11-26T16:13:03Z")
I watched a pre-Civil War movie a few days ago, where they had revolvers, and single shot rifles, because repeating rifles didn’t come along until later. I’m wondering why someone didn’t design a rifle with a revolving cylinder for cartridges when they designed them for handguns. Wouldn’t you just have to put a longer barrel and a stock on it? Or, if someone did build a gun like that, and it wasn’t successful, why wasn’t it? Just had a thought, maybe that would put the explosion too close to the shooter’s eyes or something. Anybody know about this, or have any other guesses? ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2001, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-question-revolver-rifles/95300/2 "2001-11-26T16:20:44Z")
I’ve seen pictures of guns like this. A knowledgeable person told me that revolver-style rifles never came into widespread use. The reason he gave was as follows: A typical revolver has a “cylinder gap” - a gap between the front of the cylinder and the rear of the barrel, of .02 inches or so. This gap is necessary so that the cylinder can turn freely between shots. When you fire a revolver, a small amount of hot gases escape from the cylinder gap. When a typical person fires a revolver-style rifle, there is a good chance that his or her arm will be near the cylinder gap, and that he or she will be burned. Anyway, this is the explanation I was given. Of course, you might ask - why not put a shield in place, or use a locking cylinder, such as in the Mosin-Nagant revolver. I don’t know why - hopefully somebody more knowledgeable will check in. ---
**Author:** ![Iyamity](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/96bed5/32.png) [@Iyamity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iyamity)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2001, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-question-revolver-rifles/95300/3 "2001-11-26T16:28:32Z")
Thanks for the quick response, lucwarm, that’s kinda what I thought. You’d think that the benefits of having more firepower handy would outweigh the danger of maybe getting singed by the explosion, though, wouldn’t you? Especially when what you’re shooting at is shooting back? ---
**Author:** ![royjwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ce73a5/32.png) [@royjwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/royjwood)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2001, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-question-revolver-rifles/95300/4 "2001-11-26T16:34:58Z")
I can only tell you that they did and still do exist. Why they did not become quite as popular as say, the Springfield, I have no idea, but they do look kind of wierd, anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Tranquilis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tranquilis/32/3639_2.png) [@Tranquilis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tranquilis)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2001, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-question-revolver-rifles/95300/5 "2001-11-26T16:45:24Z")
Technically, making a locking-cylinder revolver rifle, working on a lever, would be quite do-able _today_, but once metallic cartridges came along, it was far easier to go with a tubular magazine and lever action, along the lines of the Winchester Model '94. The only place where a revolver-rifle makes practical sense would be in the pre-metalic cartridge era, but the technical/industrial base to make a locking cylinder developed at about the same time as the metalic cartridge, making revolver-rifles curiousities, rather than viable firearms. ---
**Author:** ![AndyJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8491ac/32.png) [@AndyJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AndyJ)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2001, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-question-revolver-rifles/95300/6 "2001-11-26T16:49:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lucwarm \* > \*\*I’ve seen pictures of guns like this. > > A knowledgeable person told me that revolver-style rifles never came into widespread use. The reason he gave was as follows: A typical revolver has a “cylinder gap” - a gap between the front of the cylinder and the rear of the barrel, of .02 inches or so. This gap is necessary so that the cylinder can turn freely between shots. When you fire a revolver, a small amount of hot gases escape from the cylinder gap. When a typical person fires a revolver-style rifle, there is a good chance that his or her arm will be near the cylinder gap, and that he or she will be burned. > \*\* Now to me this says… Because of the “cylinder gap” you’d get burnt. The way a rifle is held, tight into the shoulder and with the cheek against the side so you can see down the sights, it would lead to the shooters burning their face and at worst blinding them selfs. ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2001, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-question-revolver-rifles/95300/7 "2001-11-26T16:52:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Iyamity \* > \*\*Thanks for the quick response, lucwarm, that’s kinda what I thought. You’d think that the benefits of having more firepower handy would outweigh the danger of maybe getting singed by the explosion, though, wouldn’t you? Especially when what you’re shooting at is shooting back? \*\* I think you have a point. Perhaps revolver-style actions were so expensive, and lever action rifles caught on so quickly, that revolver-style rifles never had much of a chance. Just guessing. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2001, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-question-revolver-rifles/95300/8 "2001-11-26T17:12:36Z")
Colt revolvers were often sold with shoulder stocks. The barrels were still 7 3/4" (or whatever) though. [_Colt: An American Legend_](http://shop.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=5FBVV1JQUD&mscssid=DR1D0308XE9M8MVCG3BEG985UJT1BBE1&isbn=0896600114) by R.L. Wilson (a “must have” if you like Colt firearms) has some nice photos of cased sets of Colt Navy revolvers with their shoulder stocks and accessories. ---
**Author:** ![False\_God](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ee7513/32.png) [@False\_God](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/False_God)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2001, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-question-revolver-rifles/95300/9 "2001-11-26T17:22:07Z")
I’d think that the gap would seriously damage someone’s eyesight if hot gases were being vented near the shooter’s head. I did a Google source on “revolving rifles”, and found out that Colt and Sharps both manufactured them, and they were used to good effect in the Civil War. I think one of the barriers to its being more widely adopted was the inherent limitations of a wheeled revolver-it can only hold so many shots before it becomes too large to fit properly into the frame. Interestingly, Calico Arms made a “helical feed” magazine that stacks the rounds in a helix or spiral in the magazine, and gets much more capacity in a relatively small area. Sort of like an updated version of the revolver breech. ---
**Author:** ![justwannano](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7ab992/32.png) [@justwannano](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/justwannano)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2001, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-question-revolver-rifles/95300/10 "2001-11-26T17:22:14Z")
Look here [http://www.antique-firearms.com/](http://www.antique-firearms.com/) The M1850 musket revolver. I once had a website showing pictures of guns but lost it in a crash.Lots of really good info but I seldom used it. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2001, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-question-revolver-rifles/95300/11 "2001-11-26T17:25:27Z")
Okay, the link isn’t working. Just go to B&N and type in the title and author to see the book. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2001, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-question-revolver-rifles/95300/12 "2001-11-26T17:41:12Z")
the gas leakage is more important than you may think. In a rifle with a long barrel there is longer friction but also longer gas propelling the bullet so the muzzle velocity will be higher and the accuracy will also be higher. Now, in a revolver, if you just lengthen the barrel you have the problem that you increase the friction in higher proportion than the propelling because the gasses have more time to leak, so you get to a point where you lose more than you gain. The longer the barrel, the more propelling you need and in a revolver the leak is just too high. ---
**Author:** ![Padeye](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@Padeye](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Padeye)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2001, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-question-revolver-rifles/95300/13 "2001-11-26T17:51:04Z")
The cylinder gap flash is directed to the sides, as well as upwards for Colt revolvers with no top strap. It’s not the ideal situation but not as bad as you might think. I don’t shoot without protective glasses ever but if I get a chance to try one of my '60 armies with a shoulder stock I’ll give a report. The construction of Colt revolvers allows a bit of fine tuning of the cylinder gap with the barrel wedge. FWIW if one were to add a shoulder stock to a cartridge revolver with a barrel less than 16" long it would become a short barreled rifle, requiring ATF registration much like a machine gun. Cap and ball revolvers that don’t use fixed cartridges are not regulated by federal law so it’s perfectly legal to attach a shoulder stock. ---
**Author:** ![Tranquilis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tranquilis/32/3639_2.png) [@Tranquilis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tranquilis)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2001, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-question-revolver-rifles/95300/14 "2001-11-26T17:54:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by False\_God \* > **I’d think that the gap would seriously damage someone’s eyesight if hot gases were being vented near the shooter’s head.** Well, actually, the cylinder was safely enough placed, as it was _forward_ of the trigger, and therefore the cylinder face was at least 8" away from the face, venting gasses _sideways_. That means it’s the shooter’s forearm getting the heat. One other issue is reloading: Once you’ve fired your five or six shots, you’re going to be out of action as long as it takes to reload _five or six times_. I think this wouldn’t be much of an issue in a raid, but in a set-piece battle you’d have whole sections of the line suddenly without firepower, depending on your fire discipline. Initialy very dense fire, followed by no fire, followed by fire rates cycling up and down in unpredictable cycles, depending on how well trained and disciplined the soldiers are, could present serious doctrine issues, not to mention being mighty embarassing if your line should run dry just as the bayonet-charge started… Single-shot muzzle-loaders would present roughly the same _average_ rate of fire, but it would be more evenly distributed over time, which would be a good thing. ---
**Author:** ![Tranquilis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tranquilis/32/3639_2.png) [@Tranquilis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tranquilis)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2001, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-question-revolver-rifles/95300/15 "2001-11-26T18:27:04Z")
And then there’s [this](http://www.ironoutlaw.com/html/weapons.html) little gem: > [@](#): > > …a treacherous Colt revolving rifle, which had the unpleasant knack of firing all six chambers at once and removing the shooters fingers. That might kinda put the damper on enthusiasm for revolver-rifles… ---
**Author:** ![Padeye](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@Padeye](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Padeye)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2001, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-question-revolver-rifles/95300/16 "2001-11-26T20:59:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tranquilis \* > **…but once metallic cartridges came along, it was far easier to go with a tubular magazine and lever action, along the lines of the Winchester Model '94.** Metallic cartridges were in common use by 1860 with the Henry rifle’s .44 rimfire flat round. It was called the rifle you load on Sunday and shoot all week. Not terribly powerful by modern standards but it was the high capacity assualt weapon of its day. Conside that during the U.S. civil war the military issued muskets but many bought Henry rifles on the open market for it’s firepower advantage. Colt didn’t make a metallic cartridge pistol until the 1872 open top becaus Smith and Wesson held the patent on bored through cylinders but only used it for .22 short rimfire. Metallic cartridges came of age in '73 when Colt introduced the single action army revolver and Winchester came out with the .44WCF cartidge in an enhanced version of the Henry rifle design. The following year Colt offered the SAA pistol in .44WCF which made for simplified logistics as a cowboy could carry one type of ammunition for rifle and revolver. FWIW chain fires, where multiple chambers of a C&B revolver go off at once are spectacular but rarely the cause of catastophic blowups. The bottom most chamber will fire into the loading rammer but with pure lead balls it just deforms into the rammer. The remaining four chambers are mostly unobstructed and at most strike the sides of the frame and barrel. ---
**Author:** ![Tranquilis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tranquilis/32/3639_2.png) [@Tranquilis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tranquilis)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2001, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-question-revolver-rifles/95300/17 "2001-11-26T21:46:25Z")
> [@](#): > > **Metallic cartridges were in common use by 1860 with the Henry rifle’s .44 rimfire flat round. It was called the rifle you load on Sunday and shoot all week. Not terribly powerful by modern standards but it was the high capacity assualt weapon of its day. Conside that during the U.S. civil war the military issued muskets but many bought Henry rifles on the open market for it’s firepower advantage.** Ah, yes, I neglected to mention the Henry. I picked the '94 out of the proverbial hat (or perhaps because I own one?) The Henry gives revolver-rifles about a five year span where they were the undisputed rapid-fire champs. The Henry (and later, basically similar designs such as the model '94) had the advantages of more rapid loading, more water resistant cartridges, and no chance of gang-fire (which, even if it didn’t remove appendages, was dangerous and uncomfortable, not to mention embarassing when faced with an armed foe). > [@](#): > > **Colt didn’t make a metallic cartridge pistol until the 1872 open top becaus Smith and Wesson held the patent on bored through cylinders but only used it for .22 short rimfire. Metallic cartridges came of age in '73…** Colt wasn’t the only manufacturer of revolver-rifles, either, just the best known. Sharps made one, and there were other, lesser maunfacturers. It was really a moot point by the time the center fire cartridge came around, as the Henry was already well known and successful, making revolver-rifles a curiosity. > [@](#): > > \*\*FWIW chain fires, where multiple chambers of a C&B revolver go off at once are spectacular but rarely the cause of catastophic blowups. The bottom most chamber will fire into the loading rammer but with pure lead balls it just deforms into the rammer. The remaining four chambers are mostly unobstructed and at most strike the sides of the frame and barrel. \*\* The issue with revolver-rifles and gang fire isn’t spectacular blow-ups, but that _when they go, the shooter frequently has a has a hand on the fore-end, exposing his hand and wrist to the bullets_. ---
**Author:** ![Spavined\_Gelding](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/958977/32.png) [@Spavined\_Gelding](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spavined_Gelding)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2001, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-question-revolver-rifles/95300/18 "2001-11-26T22:56:10Z")
As indicated above, Colt made a revolving six-shot rifle. In its shorter barreled carbine version it was issued to a few Northern cavalry units in the Civil War, including the 2d Iowa Cavalry which acted as the decoy in Grierson’s Raid in April, 1863. The troops did not like it at all. As noted by others, the weapon kicked badly, leaked gas between the cylinder and the barrel and every once in a while suffered a chamber flash when all six chambers went off at once blowing off the shooter’s left hand, and was a real pain to reload, especially while mounted. It did have an impressive rate of fire. The troops preferred the Sharps and Smith single-shot carbine to the Colt. Later in the war the Spencer carbine with its seven-shot magazine and the Henry, the predecessor to the Winchester lever action, became available and the Colt revolving rifle passed out of use. The Colt revolving pistol (both the Navy model and the bigger bored Army model) with its lighter load and recoil and one hand operation became the gold standard for hand guns. These were both cap and ball weapons as originally designed. After the Civil War a fair number were re-chambered for metallic cartridges. The Colt Army of 1873 was so good a pistol that “Colt” came to mean pistol. ---
**Author:** ![Padeye](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@Padeye](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Padeye)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2001, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-question-revolver-rifles/95300/19 "2001-11-26T23:04:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tranquilis \* > \*\*Ah, yes, I neglected to mention the Henry. I picked the '94 out of the proverbial hat (or perhaps because I own one?) \*\* I draw a very big distintion between the '94 and earlier rifles as I own both a '94 and a reproduction '73. The toggle action used in the Henry, Yellowboy and '73 is very weak by modern standartds and is only suitable for pistol size cartidges loaded with black powder. The toggle action and elevator lifter of that family of rifles makes them the smoothest and most reliable feeding which is why I use a repro '73 in competition. The '94 is a radically different design in how it feeds and locks the breech. It was designed for modern smokeless, bottleneck, small bore cartidges. The '94 is tactically different as it can only hold five or six rounds in the magazine. By contrast a 24" barrel '73 rifle can hold 13 .44-40 cartridges. IIRC a similar size Henry or Yellowboy could hold 16 or 17 Henry flat rounds. > [@](#): > > \*\*The issue with revolver-rifles and gang fire isn’t spectacular blow-ups, but that \*when they go, the shooter frequently has a has a hand on the fore-end, exposing his hand and wrist to the bullets. \*\*\* That’s not how a revolving carbine is held as there is no wood fore end on the barrel. There’s no way to mount one as it would get in the way of the ejector of a SAA Colt or the loading lever on a C&B revolver. Normal hold would be with the left hand wrapped around the right or holding the buttstuck behind the pistol grip. ---
**Author:** ![Tranquilis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tranquilis/32/3639_2.png) [@Tranquilis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tranquilis)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2001, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-question-revolver-rifles/95300/20 "2001-11-27T02:28:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\*I draw a very big distintion between the '94 and earlier rifles as I own both a '94 and a reproduction '73. The toggle action used in the Henry, Yellowboy and '73 is very weak by modern standartds and is only suitable for pistol size cartidges loaded with black powder. \*\* I bow to your superior knowledge on lever actions, but this is kinda a hijack to the main question of the OP. Despite it’s weaknesses, the Henry had a basically superior design to the revolving rifle. The hijack is interesting and informative, none-the-less, and I thank you. > [@](#): > > \*\*That’s not how a revolving carbine is held as there is no wood fore end on the barrel. There’s no way to mount one as it would get in the way of the ejector of a SAA Colt or the loading lever on a C&B revolver. Normal hold would be with the left hand wrapped around the right or holding the buttstuck behind the pistol grip. \*\* The OP wasn’t talking about Revolver-carbines, nor was I. I was refering to revolver-rifles, a different beast almost entirely, being designed from the word “Go” as rifles. [Observe](http://www.ben-n-terrys.com/ac50.htm). [Here](http://www.replica-guns.com/19th-century-guns/colt-revolving-rifle.htm), too. One thing I was mistaken on, was the period of time where revolving rifles were viable: The first link above is to a Model 1850 Colt Revolving Rifle, so the revolver-rifle had perhaps 10 years as the reigning rate-of-fire champ.