Revolving rifles

[Poor Private]

Has anyone had any experience in either the 1855 Root revolving Colt rifle, or the 1865 Remington carbine? I have a Remington pistol and was thinking about purchasing the carbine but I have no knowledge of it or the colts reliablility.

 

[Raider2000]

Years ago I used a friends Remington Carbine repro & after about 100 shots we were hitting pretty consistently at 50 yards, the reliability was the same as our C&B revolvers as every once in a while you do have to remove the cylinder to clean & relube.

I'd like one of the Remington Revolving Carbine copies but instead I'd like it in .50 caliber instead of the .44 & have a powder capacity of 50gr. FFFG instead of just 40gr. but I ain't got that type of $$$$ to get one custom built.

 

[Poor Private]

The reason I am asking especially about the Remington is that it comes in .44 same as the pistol. Also I was wondering if you can use the converters in them for cartridge firing, like the pistol.

 

[Raider2000]

I think Uberti is the only one that is making them right now & Cimarron showes that there is one available so I'm going to guess & say that the cylinders for a Uberti '58 will work in one of those Uberti Remington Carbines.

 

[rice1817]

I had a Remmy 1865 cap and ball and got rid of it. All of these including the Colts have a tendancy to spit cap fire right back into your cheek. At arms length with a pistol, you would never notice but put that cylinder right next to your face and you figure it out quick. Also, you must hold the Remmy with your free hand under your trigger hand...holding it by the barrel risks losing a hand in the event of a chain fire. I suppose the Colt Roots would have the same problem although they are much heavier guns and it may not be so easy to hold them this way.

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

And these are the reasons why they they never became popular back when they were new. And even if a chain-fire didn't cripple you for life, the flash at the cylinder gap would burn your left arm/wrist and ruin your shirt or coat. Other than these little problems, they were splendid firearms...

 

[Zonie]

An interesting quote by John Scoffern, writing in his "The Royal Rifle Match on Wimbledon Common" c.1860:

"Fire a revolving pistol at night; observe the escape of lateral flame like the halo aound the head of a saint. How would you like your arm to be in that burning halo of flame? Colt tells you his carbines need not be held with two hands. I tell you they cannot be held with two hands; the coat sleeve would be burned through presently. And see how manufactures of revolver long arms steer clear of big or moderately big bores; a condition which would speedily try out conclusions. They stick to thick barrels and small bores and low charges. I tell you revolving full length arms are a failure."

 

[Mr Nick]

I shoot mine with both hands. I hold my left hand over my right. Very stable. Never put any body parts even with or in front of the clyinder.

 

[F.G. Ford]

I have submitted a reply about the Remington revolving rifles before,
They in themselves shoot well!
But, the flask back, spent caps, and lube bouncing off your face, certainly attributes to flinch, and poor groups.
To shoot the rifle safely, you must extend it like a pistol, then what is the point, you might as well shoot pistol.
The blast from the cylinder is painfull to the ear.
Plugs or protection MUST be worn.
I've had two of them, neat to hold, and point (empty) but painful to shoot as they were intended.
If I may suggest, take any one of the cap & ball revolvers, hold it to your nose, and touch it off.
If you can shoot all six chambers, in like manner, then you are ready for a revolving rifle.
Old Ford

 

[Blizzard of '93]

Guns&Ammo had an article about the Colt a few months back with actual fireing test. it was powerful but not particularly accurate (group size) an interesting rifle but pricey$$. seems AR had a write-up maybe a couple years back about Civil War usage.

 

[colmoultrie]

Berdan's Sharpshooters were originally issued Colt revolving rifles. They didn't last too long for them.