Talk:Revolver

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Long Arms?

This article never says "hangun" (as compared to a shoulder-held firearm such as a rifle). Are there non-handgun revolvers? Even if so, "revolver" is almost always used in the sense of a handgun, a fact that should be put into this article - but by someone with more certainty and knowledge than me. DavidWBrooks 16:16, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

      • May 12,2004
Yes there are non-hand gun revolvers called revolving rifles (there is no technical reason why a shot gun could not be made the same way.) The handguns are much more common but if you look in something like a "Shooters Bible" you can find them. I am sure you can also find info and a picture if you do a web search ( I did but not being sure if they are in the public domain won't post them. )Because some of the hot gas escapes from a revolver in front of the cylinder, one can't put there hand there for support with out risk of it being burnt. Mostly they are now sold as novelties. There much more practical replace ments for firearms of that type.
The revolving rifle has been dead for over a century now. Back before cartrdige arms, a revolving rifle was one of the only practical ways to have a mutli-shot, rapid fire rifle. There weren't many made, because there is always a risk with muzzle loading revolvers of a "cross-fire", where the gas escaping from one cylinder will ignite other cylinders, causing a catastrophic failure in the form of an exploding cylinder. Not too big a deal with a revolving pistol, as you're likely to survive with only minor injuries; you might loose a finger or two, but that's about the worst. With a revolving rifle, the cylinder is right in front of the shooter's face. A cross-fire in that case could result in the loss of one or both eyes, and could even be fatal.

==Multiple Barrels

I would also like to comment about the revolver having "one barrel" as stated in the article. There was a revolver that had a cylinder that revolved around another barrel. This was a shot barrel. Therefore one had 2 barrels. That appears to be the picture of the fire-arm in the photo for this article. I believe it was a William Tranter patent. --Pistol Paul

The LeMat revolver, invented in the US and made mainly in Britain and France during the American Civil War, is the only example of a revolver with more than one barrel. It is a 9 shot .42 caliber revolver that had a huge "cylinder pin" that it revolved on. This "cylinder pin" was a ~.60 caliber smoothbore shotgun barrel (roughly 20 gauge) that was usually loaded with buckshot. To fire the second barrel, a switch on the hammer was flipped, which caused the hammer to strike the percussion cap for the shotgun barrel. The defining characteristic of a revolver is a revolving chamber that fires mutiple shots through one barrel, so the LeMat qualifies. Multiple revolving chambers with their own barrels makes a Pepperbox or Gatling, multiple chambers/barrels that are fixed makes a derringer or organ gun, and multiple chambers/one barrel with a non-revolving setup is a harmonica gun. scot 15:07, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Patent Date: Is it February 24th or February 25th, 1836 ?

Can someone please confirm the date of the patent on Colt's revolver ? It says February 24th in the article right now. User:68.225.74.155 wrote on Talk:February 24 that "Samuel Colt received his patent for the "revolver" on Feb. 25, 1836 by almost every other source I checked. You might want to revisit this article. " Is it February 24th or February 25th ? Thanks. -- PFHLai 01:25, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)

I'd guess that the 24th is a typo. If you can find another reference to the 24th, I'd list it as disputed, otherwise, go with the 25th. You might also find an e-mail address at colt.com and see what they have to say--Colt does have an historical department for tracking down information on old guns. scot 15:07, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll go with February 25 for now. -- PFHLai 23:09, 2005 Feb 22 (UTC)
The re-issued patent 138, released on Oct 24, 1848 as RE124, confirms that the original 138 patent was issued on Feb 25, 1846. Yaf 16:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to yank Walther and FN/Browinng from the list of well known makers. I've never heard of any of the three marketing a revolver, nor does my copy of Fjestad's "Blue Book of Gun Values" list a revolver by any of them. scot 15:07, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My apologies, I was simlutaneously looking at both revolvers and pistols and included them where they shouldn't have been.GraemeLeggett

In fact FN did distribute FN BARRACUDA-revolver with .357 Magnum / 9x19mm Parabellum drums between 197?-198?, thou it was possible manufactured by spanish Astra. http://www.securityarms.com/20010315/galleryfiles/1400/1496.htm --81.197.218.62 02:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


I just want to bring to your attention that in Europe, Smith and Wesson revolvers are marketed under the Walther name. --Mfree 02:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why not issued to infantry during the civil war?

The weapon used primarily at the time was a single shot rifle. A revolver could shooter 6 bullets before being reloaded. Sure there were issues of range, but at least they could have carried both (considering how small a revolver was). So why not?

Power, accuracy, cost, and conservatism. While a revolver had a far higher rate of fire (take a look at the Civil War era LeMat Revolver, which had 8 shots of .42 caliber around a roughly 20 gauge shotgun barrel), revolvers suffered from many disadvantages. Perhaps the biggest of these was cost--for the cost of one revolver, you could equip several men with rifled muskets. The musket was also more powerful, had a much greater effective range, and was a lot easier to shoot. In addition, while the initial rate of fire of a revolver was much higher, the sustained rate was much lower. It only took a few seconds to reload a rifled musket using a paper cartridge and Minie ball; cap and ball revolvers required tight fitting balls that had to be swaged into place, loose powder, percussion caps on all cylinders, and, to prevent catastrophic cross-fires, you had to pack the front of each cylinder with grease. This meant that a revolver took far longer than 6 times as long to reload.
The few units that were equipped with revolvers in the Civil War were primarily cavalry. These were the special forces of the era, so cost was of little consideration, and the reload time was also less significant given the hit and run tactics that cavalry tended to employ. Now when the cartridge revolver came out, the Army was much more aggressive about obtaining them--the Colt 1873 was built specifically at the request of the US Cavalry (prior Colt revolvers had open tops). The 1911 was also a cutting edge design, built to meet exacting requirements of, again, the Cavalry units, who wanted an equivalent to their .45 caliber 1873s.
The last factor was conservatism. Army weapons procurement was traditionally suspicious of new things; they turned down such cutting edge ideas as lever action rifles, Gatling guns, the Thompson SMG, and probably a lot more I don't know about. It wasn't until WWII that the US started to show an advantage in infantry weapons, with the wide fielding of the semiautomatic M-1 Garand (which still used an inefficiently loaded cartridge--see .30-03). On the other hand, being too aggressive with procurement can get you into hot water as well--look at the problems the Army had when they adopted the M-16, then started to fiddle with the ammo. scot 15:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Revolver locking points

there is a point in the article which references that most revolvers only lock at one point, at the rear of the cylinder. This is true for such arms as Colt, Ruger, and Charter Arms; but one of the hallmarks of the modern S&W revolver design is that there is a secondary lock found at the nose of the ejector rod, which is disengaged by an internal piston pushing the locking bolt out of the hollow rod when the cylinder release is pressed. This design is also in use by Taurus, who take things one step further in some of their large caliber revolvers by integrating a third lock at the top of the crane. Furthermore, S&W was at one time producing a triple-lock revolver with those three locking points, and it is a common modofication to at a spring-loaded ball to the top surface of the crane of a S&W revolver for additional locking surface and to aid in crane alignment. Do bear in mind that the purpose of the clause in the article, that "snapping" a cylinder open and closed by a flick of the wrist will bend the crane and do irreparable harm to the revolver (and perhaps the shooter, if done just right) is still an accurate assertion. --Mfree 02:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The S&W Triple Lock action, which really did lock the crane, was discontinued in 1915. S&W's current "locks" (on the models that have them; note absence on, say the 629-2[1]) are spring loaded balls that lock into detents in the crane, which serve merely to remove slack (this is true even of the X-Frame[2]). This does help, as it promotes a positive cylinder alignment and keeps the cylinder from moving under recoil, but it's not that strong. Whack the cylinder with a hammer and it won't do you any good, as the impact will force the ball back down. The detent at the end of the ejector rod is a bit more positive than that, since it is cylinderical for a distance, but it's still not going to hold up to rough handling, it'll just bend the ejector rod.
Rugers, on the other hand, have used a much more aggressive crane lock based on the old Triple Lock deisgn since the Redhawk came out, and it's incorporated into all current Ruger DA designs (GP-100, SP-101, Super Redhawk; [3] part 25). It's similar to the crane lock on the Triple Lock, with a pivoting bar in the crane that locks into a slot in the frame--the only reason it's not a triple lock is that Rugers always shroud the non-rotating ejector rod on these guns, so locking the rod is pointless. The Dan Wesson crane lock[4] is similar, but must be operated with the off hand, since the latch is on the crane. Taurus went the cheap and simple route, putting separate locks on front and rear[5], requiring two hands to operate--no worse than the Dan Wesson, really, but costs less. scot 15:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Silenced revolvers needs sources

The stuff about the automatic revolver and silencers needs sources. (section 1.4)

I can probably find that, but it's pretty obvious that the cylinder gap leaks--having been personally burned by escaping partially burned powder, I can testify to that...

Most modern automatic pistols will work perfectly fine with "silencers". Otherwise, the military and spec ops would not use suppressed automatic pistols. The US Spec Ops troops did make use of special auto-pistols that used a slide-lock mechanism, preventing the slide from moving after firing, but this was to make them quieter. I believe the modified pistols were Smith and Wesson automatics, in either 9mm or .45 caliber.

On the contraray, recoil operated pistols (i.e. just about anything greater than .380 ACP caliber) will ONLY work with correctly designed suppressors intended for use on recoil operated firearms. The mass of the suppressor will otherwise slow down the slide velocity to about half of the intended velocity, which will result in a failure to eject or failure to feed. Recoil enhancing designs use a movable baffle in the rear to give the slide and barrel and extra push backwards to make up for the mass of the suppressor. An alternate route, used by the Colt JSOC entry (a modified Double Eagle) mounted the suppressor via a bracket to the frame, not the slide/barrel, and the barrel locked up into a bushing on the back of the suppressor. Upon firing, the barrel and slide moved backwards, but the suppressor remained stationary relative to the frame. See this for more information.

The Nagant revolver is an antique, and not practical for modern combat/service.

Just because it's old doesn't mean it's no good. The 12 gauge pump shotgun is still the most effective combat weapon ever made--the only functional difference between the current mil-spec riot shotgun (the Mossberg 500) and the 1897 Winchester trench gun is the concealed hammer. Twice the hit probability out ot 75 meters as an assault rifle, and 50% greater than a submachinegun. My only complaint about the Nagant is that the round is woefully underpowered, but no more so than any suppressable .32 caliber handgun cartridge. scot 21:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


--Your comparison between a Mossberg 500 and Winchester M1897 is a gross generalization. Until you provide sources for your claims, I will continue to correct section 1.4. Your info about the recoil-operated auto pistols and silencers was interesting, but not particularly relevent to the discussion. There are a plethora of silencers for recoil operated pistols.

Yes, it is a gross generalization; so is the statement that most modern pistols will work with suppressors, since recoil operated firearms must have suppressors designed specifically to work with recoil operated firearms (i.e. ultra-light or with Neilsen devices and the like). Nagants are unique in that they are a revolver that can be suppressed; there is an example of a suppressed Nagant revolver cited in the Nagant M1895 article, and here are more sources:
  • [6]
  • [7] with picture
  • [8] mentions Russian article on Nagant suppressors
I don't object to eliminating the bit about Neilsen devices and recoil operated pistols, that belongs in the supperssor article. However, the Nagant's unique gas seal does deserve to be mentioned here because it does allow it to do what other revolvers cannot (movies don't count). With the addition of a swing-out cylinder and a more potent cartridge in the .357-.45 caliber range, the Nagant's gas seal design would be perfectly practical as a military arm today, assuming you could build it tough enough and cheap enough. Tough shouldn't be a problem, today's steels are MUCH better than 100 years ago, but it's hard to beat the price of cast plastic and stamped steel parts in modern autos. scot 20:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

--I heard somewhere that some very well-designed, well-made and well-maintained fixed barrel and top-break revolvers can be silenced, because the cylinder is fitted against the barrel snugly enough to prevent gases from escaping. Confirm or deny? User:Kalaong 17:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Astra revolvers

I have had to delink the Astra listing in revolver manufacturers as there is no relevant listing in the disambig page it went to. I know that they made revolvers since my brother owned one (9shot .22 target revolver), and I believe they were manufactured in Spain. If the firearms company was anything to do with the fireworks company (both involved with powder explosives) then I believe they went bust in the 1980's. Perhaps someone with more knowledge can check this out?LessHeard vanU 21:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revolving rifles

Does anyone else think that this article needs more information on revolving rifles? I have a picture of one which could be used in the article, but I've never been very good with the whole copyright business. Here's the picture, by the way: [9] (Taken from here). Also, does the DAO-12 deserve a mention, specifically as an example of a revolving shotgun using double action operating principles? The Jackhammer got a mention as an example of an autorevolver shotgun, so should the DAO-12 be given a mention in the Double-Action category?CeeWhy2 11:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A diagram?

I was just thinking, how about including a diagram? I have many, of revolvers and practically any handgun ever made, and I believe it'll add incredible enciclopedyc value, since none of the gun articles I've seen sport diagrams of any sort. Let me know what you think.Vicius 07:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we might run into copyright problems. Unless your diagram is old enough to be in the public domain (entirely possible), it'd probably be very difficult to find the copyright holder. If you can find a suitable image, though, by all means add it; it'd be a great addition! --Eyrian 07:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the perfect source is a diagram from a patent. From http://www.uspto.gov/main/ccpubguide.htm: Patents are published as part of the terms of granting the patent to the inventor. Subject to limited exceptions reflected in 37 CFR 1.71(d) & (e) and 1.84(s), the text and drawings of a patent are typically not subject to copyright restrictions. The restructions are that a copyright notice MUST appear directly below the drawing in question for it to be copyrighted--any patent NOT bearing that notice is NOT copyrighted, but is public domain. scot 15:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mentions

We should probably make mention of flintlock revolvers. AllStarZ 01:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LeMat Revolver Edit

I edited the sidebar about the LeMat Revolver to reflect the fact that it holds 9 rounds plus the center shotgun round, not 9 total.

[edit] Reliability

I was a little surprised that there is no mention of reliability in this (informative) article. I expected some form of review regarding the reliability of the revolver, for example, relative to the automatic. I am not sure if this is an urban legend but I have heard that many of the British Royalty Protection Department of the Met. Police carry or carried revolvers after Princess Anne's bodyguard had an automatic jam during an attempted kidnapping. Might be a myth but I've heard it several times and thought it relevant.130.237.175.198 08:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Older gun

A museum called Maihaugen in Norway has a revolver made by Hans Stopler in Nürnberg in 1597. It was owned by Georg Reichwein who had his name engraved on it in 1663. In the article printed in Vi Menn the museum gun expert explicitly states it is older than the revolver kept in the Tower of London.Inge 20:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relative power

In computer games, revolvers are normally touted as being a more powerful, slower version of the "regular" pistol. Does the increased power have any basis in reality? me_and (talk) 11:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

In short, yes, there is a basis in reality. Typical handgun calibers are 9x19mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP, all of which produce under 500 ft. lbs. of muzzle energy in their standard loadings. Typical revolver calibers are .357 Magnum and .44 Magnum, which generate between 500 and 1000 ft. lbs. of power. Now you can get semiautomatic pistols in these large calibers (such as the Desert Eagle), and bigger, but they are bigger, heavier, and much more expensive. Since the typical large revolver these days is chambered in magnum caliber, many companies are making super-magnum revolvers, in calibers such as .454 Casull and .500 S&W Magnum, plus various wildcat cartridges, like those of John Linebaugh, which are based on the .45-70 case, cut down to a shorter length (the .480 Ruger is a downloaded version of the .475 Linebaugh). These start at 1500 ft. lbs. and go up to over 3000 ft. lbs. in some loadings. This is nearing the power levels of rifle cartridges such as the .30-06 Springfield, although with much heavier bullets and lower velocities. Semiautomatic pistols cannot practically fire cartridges in the .500 S&W Mag class, because nearly all semiautomatic pistols feed through magazines in the grip, and these big cartridges are too large to fit; the Desert Eagle's .50 AE is about as much as you can fit in a grip, and even that grip is too large for many people.
However, this is all "typical" cases; when you look at the atypical cases, things get more confusing. If you want the esoteric details, read on...
There is one major limitation of the revolver, which is that it cannot practically chamber bottlenecked cartridges. Bottlenecked cartridges taper significantly from the base to the bullet, and allow a fat case for lots of gunpowder capacity to be used with a small, light bullet, for lots of velocity. However, upon firing, the shoulder of the cartridge pushes against the front of the chamber, while the rear pushes against the frame, and the cartridge actually stretches slightly. This happens in all firearms, hence the need to resize the cartridge as one of the first steps in handloading fired cases. However, in most other firearm actions, the bolt that holds the cartridge in place during firing moves back to unlock, so a slight stretching of the cartridge is not a big deal. In a revolver, the cylinder must rotate sideways, and a stretched case can bind the action and prevent the cylinder from rotating. There have been a few bottlenecked cartridges for revolvers, and even fewer successful ones; the .38-40 has been around for over a century, but it has such a small shoulder that setback isn't really a problem. The .22 Remington Jet, introduced by S&W in the model 53 revolver in 1960, is basically a .357 Magnum necked down to .22 with a long, shallow taper. The cartridge was a failure, because any trace of oil on the case or in the chamber during firing would allow the case to set back, and lock up the cylinder. The modern 5.7x28mm is similar to in concept, though less powerful, than the .22 Jet, and it functions easily in a semiautomatic pistol.
Semiautomatics aren't without their function problems, however. The long, skinny .22 WMR case has caused problems in blowback actions in the past; the Automag II and the Grendel P-30 both used specially designed chambers which tapped powder gas and routed it back into the chamber to "float" out the brass. The .17 HMR has been chambered in a number of revolvers with some degree of success; Gun Tests tested S&W, Taurus, and Ruger revolvers a while back, and the Taurus and S&W gave them setback problems, but the single action Ruger functioned flawlessly. High Standard bought out all the AMT designs when they went out of business, and they are starting to make the Automag II design again. Since the .17 HMR is based on the .22 WMR case, they have plans to chamber the Automag II in .17 HMR as well as .22 WMR, and there is a least one other gunmaker building a .17 HMR semiautomatic pistol, so only time will tell which path, revolver or semiautomatic, becomes the most successful for that cartridge. scot (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)