It seems it was not Colt who invented a working revolver (with rotating chambers, not barrels), but Elisha Collier, who patented this firearm in 1818.

From what I found out it had a single action mechanism and a container which reprimed the pan automatically. It was so functional that the British Army even ordered some 10,000 pieces in a tuned down version (no single action).

I ponder if such weapon could have been built 100-200 years earlier. I read somewhere that a similar construction with a matchlock was made for a french king (on a caliver/arquebuse).

How reliable would you regard the priming system in field condition? Already small amounts of moisture or dirt would clog that small hole.

---

 Attachment: 26.25 KB



 Attachment: 20.63 KB

Apparently it was not reliable or at least not reliable enough to warrant general adoption by the military and civilian populations of GB or elsewhere. Colt's invention, which arrived about 18 years later was adopted worldwide over time. Of course it also used the percussion system instead of flintlock, which was more practical.

I cannot recall ever noticing this firearm or examining photos of one before so have to make some assumptions. The first is that the frizzen contained the supply of priming powder. From the photo that appears to be the case. While that is an interesting idea, there are some complications that can result from it. The priming reservoir almost has to be exposed to the flash of the priming powder in the pan as well as the "exhaust" from the touch hole when the main charge goes off. Unless there is some kind of ingenious - and complicated - shut off mechanism within the frizzen, then the possibility of ignition of the reserve priming powder is there. Also, unless there is some sort of metering device within the reservoir, too much or too little priming can be dumped in the pan. If there is no metering or shutoff mechanism then you have to be concerned that jostling the firearm while being carried could result in shifting of the priming or some other condiiton that would cause mis-fire or slower ignition. Introduction of dirt into the system, as you mentioned, could be a problem. If there are a lot of complicated mechanisms for priming, then potential mechanical failure becomes an issue. One reason the snaphaunce lock fell out of favor was the sliding pan cover and the mechanism that controlled it frequently failed due to build up of powder fouling, which could occur in this case too.

As a long-time flintlock shooter, I have learned that I frequently have to wipe the face of the frizzen to clear fouling and insure consisten ignition. That would be required of this gun as well and, depending on weather conditions you might have to do it before you got six shots off.

There were hundreds of multi-shot mechanisms invented in Europe beginning not long after firearms became practical weapons. The revolving chamber was one of them. However, until Colt patented his mechanism, most were apparently impractical for military applications. It also seems that the civilian market was mostly content with single shot muzzle loaders until the 19th century.

Hi Folks,

I am not a gun enthusiast as such, and this is all off the top of my head, but I seem to remember reading somewhere that the first true revolver, as we know it , was invented by a Spaniard called Orbea, not too sure of the exact date but presumably in the early 1800's.
There is also (not exactly a revolver, as it stands on a tripod ! :lol: ), a weapon in the Royal Armouries called 'The Puckle gun', which is , if IIRC. from the 1700's. This is a long barrel with a revolving cylinder with twelve (?),shots. I seem to recall that there is also another version of it that fired square bullets!! :eek:
This is off the top of my head, and hopefully Lin can correct me if there any innaccuracies...........

Regards,

Russ

You also need to remember that the same British Army that ordered this revolver refused to order the Ferguson Breechloading Rifle which might well have led to a British victory in the American Revolution. It would certainly have played Hell with the American and French troops to have faced a whole army equipped with breechloading rifles. Major Patrick Ferguson was, as most of know, killed at King's Mountain in October of 1780.

You also need to remember that the same British Army that ordered this revolver refused to order the Ferguson Breechloading Rifle which might well have led to a British victory in the American Revolution. It would certainly have played Hell with the American and French troops to have faced a whole army equipped with breechloading rifles. Major Patrick Ferguson was, as most of us know, killed at King's Mountain in October of 1780.

You also need to remember that the same British Army that ordered this revolver refused to order the Ferguson Breechloading Rifle which might well have led to a British victory in the American Revolution. It would certainly have played Hell with the American and French troops to have faced a whole army equipped with breechloading rifles. Major Patrick Ferguson was, as most of us know, killed at King's Mountain in October of 1780.

When in college, a friend of mine worked summers at the Smithsonian in their arms collection. He was able to get me access to handle some of the collection back in a workroom and one of the items was a Ferguson rifle. I will agree that it had a very complicated breech system, operating as it did with an interrupted screw. But you would be amazed just how much proper training could remedy the problems of powder fouling. Remember that powder fouling during a battle was such a problem that even the muskets, intentionally bored oversize, became too fouled to load. One simple solution was for the soldier to pee down the barrel, plug the muzzle with his thumb, and give the musket a good shaking. This would clear much of the fouling from the bore as well as clearing the hole from the pan to the chamber. As the barrel was usually pretty hot, it would dry quickly after it was emptied and the soldier could get back to his job of loading and firing. I have read that modern re-enactors are discouraged from using this technique as it would not be suitable in a public demonstration, but pouring water from your canteen down the barrel seems a waste to me. Better to recycle the water.

Now, if you can clear fouling from a musket in that manner, I fail to see why the technique could not be applied to clearing the breech mechanism of a Ferguson. BTW, as you know, urine contains substances such as ammonia that have the effect of cleaning things. That is why fullers used it to bleach and to degrease woolen goods.

Please understand, Lin, that I have fired a number of black powder weapons over my 65+ years. Among them were a flintlock Hall breechloader, a couple of Sharps percussion carbines, and numerous cap and ball revolvers and flintlock pistols. I have also fired several muskets, rifled muskets, and "Kentucky" or Pennsylvania hunting rifles. I also own and have fired a Palmetto Contract Model 1842 Rifle. It is a South Carolina state contract version of the Harper's Ferry Model 1842 Rifle, the first percussion cap rifle issued to the US Army. It became known as the "Mississippi Rifle" after its use by Jefferson Davis' Mississippi Volunteer Regiment during the Mexican War. So I really do have practical experience with such weapons.

Oh, and I will also quote Brigadier General James W. Ripley's infamous statement as Chief of Ordnance for the U.S. Army at the beginning of the War Between the States. When presented with repeating weapons such as the Spencer or even breech-loading rifle versions of the Sharps, he said, "The musket is now and will always be the prime weapon of the infantry. Repeating weapons only cause the soldier to shoot too fast and thus waste ammunition."

Did these revolvers also have the usual problems with sealing? Its very hard to make a breech-loader by hand craftsmanship which doesn't let dangerous amounts of gas leak out between the chamber (cylinder in this case) and the barrel. Fergueson's rifles were one solution, but like Lin said they were expensive and would have been very hard to produce on a large scale.

After doing some more research on the Elisha revolver, I figured it did feature single action (see blueprint). This seems to have been really Samuel Colt's invention. The tuned down verison the British government ordered for their officers in india did not include the repriming container, which makes one doubt its reliability.

The Elisha revolver afterall does not look that innovative. I found some similar creations from far earlier periods even though I cannot say how workable they were (considering the sealing issue).

---

 Attachment: 112.94 KB
[ Download ]

An early version of the Colt Revolving Rifle was issued to the Dragoon Regiment sent down to Florida to hunt down the Seminoles. The Dragoons simply lowered the ramrod and used that as a forward grip or braced the barrel against a tree and kept their off hand behind the cylinder. I had an Italian replica of an 1851 Navy chain fire on me despite putting Crisco in the chambers. It was loaded with bullets and it did not explde but it was damned scary. Fortunately it did it on the second shot out of the five loaded so that there were only three chambers to fire plust the one alined witht he barrel.

Lin, I cannot remember the exact references but I have seen peeing into the barrel more than once. There may have been some mention of it in the memoir of a Highland Light Infantry soldier from the Napoleonic Wars. And, yes, I know that the barrel gets hot and I presumed that the guys doing this were smart enough to use some sort of padding at the muzzle, perhaps a neckerchief or a piece of cloth.

I cannot say that I have ever fired a Ferguson, original or replica and I know of but three originals, the one at the Smithsonian, one at the West Point Museum, and the one at Kings Mountain. As I said, I had held and examined the one at the Smithsonian courtesy of my friend who worked there and had friends there. There miust be more around but I have no knowledge of them.

As to gas leakage, that was a problem with all of the early breechloaders, even the Sharps, the best of them. The Confederates attempted a copy of the Sharps made at Richmond using machinery brought down from Harpers Ferry but they weren't up to the manufacturing tolerances needed and the carbines had major problems with gas leakage to the point that the troops wouldn't use them. The early Hall that I mentioned had the same problem to a lesser degree when I fired it back in the 1950s.

As to the Ripley quote, I don't really disagree with you, Lin. I am very aware of the institutional conservatism of military organizations ahving grown up in an Army family. I sometimes think that it was the inherent dumb conservatism that kept the British to their system of purchasing commissions that made the eventual victory of the Americans in our Revolution possible. Just think of what might have happened if, instead of relegating them to commands of Tory units, they had promoted Tarleton and Ferguson to commands of regular units and then on up to higher commands. Tarleton was, with Light Horse Harry Lee, one of the two best cavalry commanders in the War and Patrick Ferguson was a most skilled infantry commander who was put into an impossible position in the Carolinas.

Here are some other photos of the mentioned earlier revolver models. I found them in another forum (http://www.huntamerica.com/wwwthreads/showfla...amp;page=2)

The oldest recorded version of revolver (not shown in the pictures) is said to be a schnapphahn model made by John Dafte in 1680 shown in the Tower of London.

Quote:

Single action simply refers to having to manually cock the hammer each time you fire, as opposed to double action where pulling the trigger actually rotates the cylinder into positon before the hammer falls onto the cap or firing pin. The gun would have had to be a single action.

I always thought that single action also means that the clyinder will rotate while cocking the hammer. With the Collier revolver you had to turn it manually.

I am also not sure if the priming container should work automatically. Maybe you also had to press a release mechanism to let the powder rinse onto the pan. It would still be faster than using a flask.

---

 Attachment: 126.86 KB

This is said to belong to Matthias before he became king of hungary. It is dated to 1606

 Attachment: 77.33 KB

snaphaunce made by londini and dates to 1680

 Attachment: 97.81 KB

This one rifle not a pistol is a Kalesnikoff and dates to befor 1780. Its a 58 cal smooth bore.

I had a closer look on the priming mechanism in the exploding diagramm. It looks the powder was inside the "priming drum" (no. 8) which will rotate when the whole priming reservoir moves downward. By this some powder will rinse through an opening onto the pan. A spring mechanism will let it roll back again and sealing it by this.

What do you think? Would this really be workable after some fouling occured? What about the danger of blowing up the whole priming reservoir? Is the distance where it rests towards the pan sufficient to prevent this?

Also the priming drum looks pretty small to me. Will it be enough powder to prime the pan for 5-6 shots?