Colt Revolving Rifle

[F.G. Ford]

Has any body seen or used the new " Uberti Colt" revolving rifle?
Is it as well made as the original Colts?
I have had the older version of the " Uberti revolving rifle" based on a Remington design.
It functioned ok, but the blast blow back from the cylinder was so bad you had to use a face sheild.
I hope that someone has had the chance to shoot the new reproduction of the Colt.

Best Regards.
F.G. Ford

 

[Mulebrain]

Funny, I was just looking at one on Dixie's site. This one is based on the Root version tho!

Just reduced from 1250.00

http://www.dixiegunworks.com/product_inf...4a096e7cb0cf8e0

 

[mk434]

I read somewhere that you are never supposed to put your non-shooting hand on the barrel because of the risk of a chain fire from these types of guns. I don't see how these could be very accurate if you are shooting them with one hand.

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

You don't use just one hand. You rest the bottom of the pistol grip in your off hand or use a sort of two handed grip like you use on a modern handgun. Under no circumstances should any part of your anatomy be in front of the cylinder gap.

 

[thehorn]

I believe the piece is made by Palmetto; could only wish it were Uberti. For reviews of the gun, check the product page at Dixie's web site, where some owners have left feedback on it.

 

[pondoro]

Anyone know how common these were in the 19th century? Lots of historical oddities get mass produced today for the repro market.

Just curious.

 

[jim gray]

I read somewhere that you are never supposed to put your non-shooting hand on the barrel because of the risk of a chain fire from these types of guns.

Even if it doesn't ever chain fire (I would never bet on that.), the powder that blows out of the cylinder gap will cause you a good bit of discomfort if you place your hand in front of the cylinder. This is true of modern revolvers as well so the chain fire is not the only concern, but either of those reasons would be good enough for me.

 

[crockett]

My guess is that they were not very common. The State Library of Connecticut(Hartford) maintains the Colt Firearms collection. I was there years ago and they had quite a few of the revolvering rifles. I have never seen any at any of the Civil War Parks- Spencers and Sharps.

 

[tmdreb]

A quick glance at my old copy of Flayderman's would indicate that around 16,000 of the 1855 style revolving rifles, carbines and shotguns were produced.

They weren't common, but neither were they completely obscure. The USSS (US Sharp Shooters) used them in the beginning of the Civil War before they turned them in for Sharps Rifles, and the 21st Ohio used them (the same batch of guns) to good effect at Chickamauga.

Of course, the rifles I mentioned above were the .56, five-shot versions, though the .44 did see service.

If the gun were a more realistic price, it could be worth buying. The reviews make it seem iffy on live firing, and the blowback would keep it out of a line of battle formation in reenacting situations.

 

[Gary]

Never place your hand on the forearm to steady a revolving rifle. A Berdan Sharpshooter lost some digits when he did with his Colt Root Revolver Rifle. BTW, you won't find that in any history that mentions the Berdan Sharpshooters. The only thing any of those books mention is that they hated the guns and thought it was unsafe. I found it in a letter that was unpublished.