Originally Posted by Bob Wright

O.K. we've talked the top-break revolver idea to death seems like. So.......
can you think of a newer/better design than the current Single Action and Double action revolvers?

Sounds good to me. I'll check over at "RUGER".

Originally Posted by Bob Wright

. . . or maybe even a "western style" rod ejector double action revolver.

Or a solid frame double action revolver (Think N-Frame S&W) with loading gate and rod ejecting. . . But what say you?

Isn't this the 1877 Colt Lightning ?

Colt M1877 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Colt M1877 was a double action revolver manufactured by Colt's Manufacturing Company from January 1877 to 1909 for a total of 166,849 revolvers. The Model 1877 was offered in three calibers, which lent them three unofficial names: the "Lightning", the "Thunderer", and the "Rainmaker". The principal difference between the models was the cartridge in which they were chambered: the "Lightning" being chambered in .38 Colt; the "Thunderer" in .41 Colt. Both models had a six-round ammunition capacity.[1] An earlier model in .32 Colt known as the "Rainmaker" was offered in 1877.

I NEVER understood why it wasn't offered in .45 LC. Not strong enough ? ? ?
Until I read this.

Its early double-action mechanism proved to be both intricate and delicate, and thus prone to breakage.[2] The design had a reputation for failure. Typically, this would reduce the revolver to single-action fire only. Because of the intricate design and difficulty of repair, gunsmiths disliked working on them.[2] Gun Digest referred to it as "the worst double-action trigger mechanism ever made".[3]

And, here we are, all the way around the horn and back to

Revolver Design !

I guess those design computers in 1877 were just a little bit too slow and unwieldy.

I like blue steel, AND stainless...and walnut............and I like the S&W design for DA revolvers..........looking at a mint blued Dan Wesson 15-2...absolutely beautiful.

Originally Posted by Bob Wright

. . . Also prefer blue steel, case colors, and walnut on my sixguns. But what say you?

I forgot the very most important part.

YES !

Maybe a single action revolver with a frame made out of polymer with a 1911 style safety and an internal lock. Then maybe make the the cylinder real long so you can shoot 410 shells out of it and give it night sights. Then make the grip out of a real spongey type of rubber that your hands sink into. Then give it a cool name like the revolver from hell

Originally Posted by jdw68

Maybe a single action revolver with a frame made out of polymer with a 1911 style safety and an internal lock. Then maybe make the the cylinder real long so you can shoot 410 shells out of it and give it night sights. Then make the grip out of a real spongey type of rubber that your hands sink into. Then give it a cool name like the revolver from hell

I was only joking. My favorite single action revolvers are probably ruger vaquero's with color case hardening finish.

Originally Posted by Bob Wright

O.K. we've talked the top-break revolver idea to death seems like. So.......

Over on the Ruger Forum, the subject has been brought up regarding a Single Action revolver with a swing out cylinder, or maybe even a "western style" rod ejector double action revolver.

Or a solid frame double action revolver (Think N-Frame S&W) with loading gate and rod ejecting.

Now, mind you, I'm certainly not advocating the introduction of either. But I reckon the bottom line question is, can you think of a newer/better design than the current Single Action and Double action revolvers? So we've got those Rhino things built upside down, which I have never seen nor h andled. (Obviously if I've never seen one, I've never handled one.)

Revolver enthusiasists are a stubborn bunch, to which I readily admit. I like the status quo on the Colt style single action and the S&W design for double action revolvers. Also prefer blue steel, case colors, and walnut on my sixguns. But what say you?


Bob Wright

This is what I say:
Revolver design has evolved through centuries of conflict. Designs that have worked have survived. Designs that have not worked, did not survive.
I used to be a "auto-loader only" man. As of late, I've returned to the simplicity and reliability of the revolver.
I just got tired of MORE, MORE, MORE and decided to go with a mindset of "one shot show stopper" marksmanship and attitude.
The revolver designs that are in current mass production have evolved over many, many conflicts and eras of conflict.
I have both single action and double action revolvers, and I like them both for what they are and for what they are intended for.
If I change my mind again, I'll go back to the 1911 Colt Automatic Pistol design. I'm still young enough to change my mind again, once or twice!
Cheers!

Been thinking about this.I went looking and the only real major design change has been the Chippa Rhino.Ive watched videos and read reviews and it makes sense with the recoil being more in line and the result is less muzzle rise.I found another strange creature that the guy who designed the Rhino developed one called the Mateba,another revolutionary design.It said only 10 were imported to the U.S. in the 80's.I think it is our mindset of being strange makes us leary and why mess with something that works well.I dont care for the judge but I saw on Gallery of Guns that they make a carbine which could be a good hunting or varmit rifle.Here are 2 videos of what I am talking about.

Shooting the Mateba MTR-8 target revolver - YouTube

Gun Digest Gun Review: Rossi Circuit Judge - YouTube

The Mateba didn't succeed because:
1. It was, in Jeff Cooper's words (not about the Mateba), "A solution looking for a problem," and
2. It was much too complex, and seemed possibly unreliable as the result (a little like the Rhino, to me).

Recoil-operated revolvers have "been there, done that," and have proved themselves unnecessary.
The previously-most-recent try was the Webley-Fosbery of the WW1 era. Few of them sold, and no government was silly enough to adopt them.
Except that the idea was intriguing to mechanical engineers, there was no good reason for the mechanism.

If you're really interested, you may enjoy reading this: The Gun Zone – Webley-Fosbery Automatic-Revolver
(I wrote it several years ago.)



New Subject:
Jean and I will be away visiting our brand-new, second granddaughter from June 29th through July 7th.
Our daughter, the girl who swore that she would absolutely never reproduce, has delivered!
Not only that, but the baby, little Moya, actually is quite pretty!
We're very happy about the whole thing.
Please keep the conversations polite and factual for me.
See you again on the 7th.

Hey Bob,I was watching a video on what happens when a revolver is fired under water.We all know there is a huge release of gas when fired,which quite a bit goes out the side.Maybe a design that would improve gas effiency that is wasted.Kinda like the nagant revolver.

Originally Posted by DanP_from_AZ

Isn't this the 1877 Colt Lightning ?

I NEVER understood why it wasn't offered in .45 LC. Not strong enough ? ? ?

The Colt M1877 was a little too small to contain the .45 Colt cartridge. And its rather small grip didn't endear itself to many shooters. Later the M1878 rod ejector double was introduced, but it too was not so popular, double action mechanisms of the day far from being as slick as modern actions.

But just suppose you had a Smith Model 29, for example, but instead of the cylinder swinging out, it was a solid frame rod ejector revolver, in .44 Magnum. Now this gun is for the woods, so rapid reloading is of no consequence. You would have a revolver which, because of its solid frame, is even stronger that the Model 29, with a slick action capable of either single action or double action shots. The gun would not "roll up" in your hand under recoil but would allow a faster follow-up shot.

This is the type of daydreaming I'm talking about.

Bob Wright

cool idea.some great inventions come from daydreaming.

Bob;
Back during WW2, one or more Philippine shade-tree gunsmiths were banging out really simple, solid-frame revolvers to use the .45 ACP cartridge. A few of these guns still exist somewhere. They were crude, but they worked.
The receiver could be profiled out of a piece of mild steel of a reasonable thickness, using only cold chisels, a hacksaw, and files. Drilling for the insertion of a barrel wouldn't be too difficult, either. Heat-treatment might be a difficulty, though.
The lockwork of the typical Philippine gun was contained in the handle, not in the receiver. That saved a lot of fiddling. But you'd have to somehow allow a frame mortise for a cylinder-locking pawl.
Of course, the hard part, foregone by the shade-tree mechanics, would be rifling, throating, and gapping the barrel. But you could use a S&W replacement barrel, if you have the proper tap and a feeler gauge. You could use a ready-made cylinder, too.

I think that the hunting pistol you have described is well within the fabricating ability of a home mechanic.
I bet that you could make one for yourself.

Steve M1911A1:

Glad to see you back, hope you enjoyed your get-away.

It is indeed a pleasure bouncing ideas off of you!

Bob Wright