Why weren't revolver rifles more common in late 19th century/early 20th century armies? Why ditch them for single shot bolt actions?
>>65469937they weren't very good and the BP ones were kinds dangerous
>>65469937Talking out of my ass, but I’d assume maintenance and production were simpler on boltgats. I’ve seen the cylinder get plugged up and stuck on revolvers a few times. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a seized bolt that wasn’t like 15 years old and made of rust
>>65469937People complain about gassing themselves with bullpups, now imagine what having a rifle load of black powder expanding through the cylinder gap very close to your face is like.On top of that, you can't hold it forward of the cylinder and the general level of engineering can't attain the level of precision required to prevent lead bits from being sheared off by the edge of the barrel mouth.You also get loads more gunk than you would from a pistol load, which isn't great on a revolver mechanism and makes building a version that seals the cylinder against the opening of the barrel just not practical.
>>65469937The cap-and-ball versions were prone to chainfire, which would send one or more bullets into your forearm - which contains a major artery and vein.The cartridge ones didn't chainfire, but still had the problem of cylinder gap blowing high pressure gas and lead shavings sideways into your forearm - which contains a major artery and vein.Modern versions have a shield around the cylinder gap which ameliorates this problem somewhat.
>>65469937They suck/thread
>>65469982Haven't shields been around for ages? They just didn't help much since the revolver rifle would've only offered an advantage prior to self-contained cartridges, and those would be made (even more) susceptible to chainfiring by the shield. After metallic cartridges became a thing revolver rifles lost all their advantages to bolt-actions, lever actions etc.
>>65469937it is worse by every measure than the alternative
>>65469937It's obvious you haven't fired one. It's even more finicky than a cap and ball revolver. If you are able to reload, you can probably fire a single shot cartridge rifle, like a trapdoor, faster. If you are riding a horse it makes more sense, but you can probably just get closer and use a normal revolver.
The solution to the cylinder gap problem was solved in revolving rifles as early as the 1850s IIRC: you just push the cylinder forward so the mouth of each chamber seats on the end of the barrel and seals the gap. But this makes the lockwork more complicated (therefore, more expensive) and makes the trigger pull much heavier if using it in double-action mode. Military organizations want cheap & simple to maintain and use, thus they're almost immediately disregarding anything like a revolving rifle.
>>65469937>have to wear a glove to shoot it or your hand gets 2nd degree burns>wear a glove and the rifle chainfires>hand gets blown off
You can easily prevent chainfires by using wax in the front of a cylinder load. Or, by having paper cartridges already made up like that. Why do people who have never handled guns like to parrot shit they've heard once?
>>65471232>hey you injuns stop attacking plz while I make a fire to melt some wax to seal off my cylinders so I don't accidentally myselftruly a cunning plan
>>65469937Just guessing here but I would say that they wanted to be able to use bottlenecked cartridges for ideal accuracy and velocity at distance.Revolvers typically use straight wall cartridges. There are reasons but you'll have to look them up for yourself.I would also say that reloading with a stripper clip is faster than reloading a cylinder with no speedloader.Also soldiers slamming cylinders open and closed means you're going to need armorers to be checking the bolts and cylinders to check for wear. Okay for a sidearm but not great on an issue rifle. A bolt action stands up to more operator abuse.
>>65471232Wasn't there also the problem that the supply lines gave them undersized bullets and ill-fitting percussion caps, which didn't seal well enough to keep sparks out?
>>65471408I heard they'd carry spare cylinders rather than reload
>>65471436You could've just said you're retarded.
>>65471456You gonna tell me what you're talking about specifically?
>>65469937chainfire concerns (mostly unwarranted)weak cartridge compared to carbines of the era like sharpsmore expensivedoes nothing a pistol cant do while having more problems than breechloaders
>>65470834>Uberti decided on 16" barrel when period .36 and the rarer .44 Remington revolving rifle had 24-32" barrels, making them entirely useless for civil war reenactment Briefly had one. Still mad about that.
>>65471535Anon, the topic of this thread is why a single action black powder revolver rifle failed to catch on, and you jumped forward around 50 years and spouted normie talking points.
>>65470854nah the early ones still had gas leakage issues, you need something like the nagant's extra long casings to seal the chamber properly, and if you're using metallic cartridges the revolver stops being a particularly attractive design.
Did Root revolving rifles see much use after the war? I've read that the government sold theirs for less than most surplus muskets.
>>65469937>way less safe>can't really handle rifle pressures>way more complicated>slower to load>more fragile>more expensivethere's a reason they have never been popular and it's because they're bad.
>>65471444not true, historically cylinders were hand fitted so were not sold separately until reproductions
>>65471436They are cap and ball guns. The cylinder does not sling open nor do they use cartridges.
>>65471698>and if you're using metallic cartridges the revolver stops being a particularly attractive design. An Henri Pieper M1893 revolver carbine (which uses a variation of the Nagant gas seal + case-telescoped round) is lighter than a classic lever-action (6.5 lb versus 9.5 lb for a Winchester M1873). Mind you, this is for lower-power cartridges (you wouldn't use 45-70 in a revolver rifle), but there was a(n admittedly limited) use case for a while.
>>65469937expensive, mechanically complex, fragile, unable to handle heavy rifle loads, dangerous both due to chain fire and the fact you're shooting metal shavings at your left arm and the generals were worried about retards blowing through their ammo too fast
>>65471408kek>>65471444>>65472096there's a civil war larper channel on youtube that looked into that and not only did they not find any evidence of anyone doing that, but when they tried it they all ended up dropping their cylinders on the ground (it's like ohio cavalry so they were on horses. One guy drew his sword in a manner not approved of by the manuals at the time and slashed his wrist and needed stitches)
Slide thread Because wars were still largely fought like Napoleon was still running around. You’re gonna still have to wait until after WW1 for that to have fallen completely out of fashion.
>>65472195>Slide threadwhat is there even to slide? there are like 3 actual gun threads and a bunch of garbage war tourist shit. That's like complaining about a slide thread on /pol/ where 90% of the threads are off topic third worlder shit
Because they were costly to manufacture compared to the alternatives. The various lever actions that were developed were much cheaper to manufacture, and required lesser tolerances that were more easily achievable in the era of rough mill machining and hand finishing.
>>65469937Gun designs were evolving very fast and the ones which were practical and reliable caught on, the designs that weren't fell by the wayside. Same thing happened in the early years of the automobile. Hundreds of car companies with unique designs would go out of business overnight. The designs that worked best became standardized. In a modern sense, the AR platform is a very good example of this.
>>65471408>gif
>>65469937Nobody cleaned anything and were filthy as fuck, so wiping their guns down was a monumental challenge to them
>>65469937>>65470834>>65470854This game introduce me that 1855 rifle.
>>65472111it's a super niche weapon, especially given the much larger capacity of the 1873. plus if we're going by the 1890s there were a number of bolt action carbines at that point, which were only marginally heavier and used far superior cartridges, and by the late 1890s you had pistol-carbines like the C96 which surpassed it in capacity and weight. at best it had a use case for like 3-4 years, but contemporary doctrine wouldn't have favored it.
>>65474587American almost have bolt action adoption in 1849 and 1882.
>>65476128good morning, saar!
>You take a sip from your trusty Vault 13 canteen…
>>65469937Because literal fire arms.
>>65469937The whole point of a rifle is to send a bullet out much faster than a handgun can. It does that by using more powder and generating higher pressure. Now put that higher pressure against a cylinder gap between the cylinder and the forcing cone that leads into the barrel. Congratulations, you just lost nearly all of the advantage a rifle is supposed to have against a handgun.
BTW, I >>65477521 agree that the aesthetic is way cool.
>>65469937Because revolver carbines were replaced 5 years later after they were made because Samuel Colt was a greedy asshole. Yes because of Samuel Colt the lever repeating rifle wouldn't have existed and names like Horace Smith, Dan Wesson, John Browning, Benjamin Henry, and Oliver Winchester would not be written. In fact the U.S. military dropped use of the revolver rifle because normal soldiers would break it all the time if it didn't kill them.
>>65469937the gap between the cylinder and the barrel reduces the power of the roundlever action rifles are just fine for a weapon of that size.
>>65476148Fuck off shitskins
>>65477696>Wikipedia
>>65477521>>65477508>>65472022One solution.
>>65469937>BP ones chain fired>Longer barrel for higher velocity was made moot by cylinder gap>Tube magazine-fed repeaters made them obsolete.
>>65469937they break easily because percussion loading means the barrels are generally held in with wedges and are awkward to shoot due to gasses leaking at the cylinder gap, they are lower power/velocity than mussleloading designs being derived from a handgin design and for example in killing a horse you need something with more energy>>65469953They are fine if hamdled correctly but that's always a lot to expect from ordinary soldiers in the first half of the 19th centuryA single shot bolt action is greater energy, greater range and greater accuracy the side with them will kill the opposition with shorter range lower energy less accurate weapons and the revolver rifle side will have less chances of killing the opponents horses A decent musketrifle is good in volley to 500 yards and up as are single shot bolt actions.
>>65476128>American almost have bolt action adoption in 1849 and 1882.what is this nonsense, the first mass issue cartridge gun was the snider in 1866 and that and the trapdoor were musket conversions using swinging breech blocks not bolt actions, the US did see some limited use of lever action rifles which wree not mass issues but the early models of those were much lower energy than a rifle musket at much higher cost The transition to high power long range rifles was an eveolutoon of the brass cartridge and metalurgy of firearms and was simply practically unavailable technologically in the first half of the 19th century. The single shot bolt action was the sensible weapon to adopt for multiple tactical reasons. Cavalry had become dragoons and typically dismounted and fired in lines and (maybe from cover). They had revolvers and to a lesser extent sabres for when there was close action.
