20th May 2010, 03:54 AM | #1 |
(deceased)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: OKLAHOMA, USA
Posts: 3,138
|
OLDEST REVOLVER ?
I VISITED WARWICK CASTLE NEAR STRATFORD ON AVON IN BRITIAN SEVERAL YEARS AGO. THEY HAVE A REVOLVER PISTOL SAID TO BE VERY EARLY IF NOT THE FIRST OF ITS TYPE. IT FURTHER STATED THAT COLT STUDIED IT WHEN DESIGNING HIS SIX GUNS. I WAS WONDERING IF THERE ARE ANY FORUM MEMBERS WHO HAVE VISITED THIS CASTLE/MUSEUM OR ANY LIVING IN THE AREA WHO COULD PERHAPS GET MORE INFORMATION AND PERHAPS PICTURES OF THIS PISTOL.
THE CASTLE IS FULL OF LOTS OF VERY GOOD STUFF AS THE OWNER WAS ON THE SIDE OF CROMWELL AND GOT TO KEEP ALL HIS STUFF AS WELL AS LOOT FROM THE WAR. A VERY CREEPY DUNGEON AS WELL AS A TOWER WITH ITS OWN GHOST ARE WORTH A LOOK AND THE GREAT HALL IS ESPECIALLY NICE, LOTS OF WEAPONS, ARMOR ECT. HERE ARE SOME PICTURES TO WHET YOUR APPATITE. (The fourth photo below - the long interior view down the table - is from floato's flickr page ) Last edited by Lee; 23rd August 2011 at 01:53 AM. Reason: add photo cretit |
20th May 2010, 01:25 PM | #2 |
Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Austin, Texas USA
Posts: 257
|
It is generally believed that when Sam Colt briefly visited London in 1830 as a midshipman on the Brig Corvo he observed a flintlock revolver made according to the American inventor Elisha Collier's 1813 British patent.
Revolving firearms were made well before that time, as shown by this matchlock revolver from the Musee de L'Arme in Paris. Colt's design employing the percussion ignition system was the first practical revolving cylinder multiple-shot firearm. |
20th May 2010, 04:56 PM | #3 |
(deceased)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: OKLAHOMA, USA
Posts: 3,138
|
THANKS BERKLEY
THATS THE INFO I WAS LOOKING FOR. THE GUN THEY HAVE MAY HAVE BEEN OF THE TYPE COLT LOOKED AT OR ONE HE ACTUALLY EXAMINED ?? THE POST ON THE OTHER OLDER FIRE ARM JOGGED MY MEMORY AND MADE ME CURIOUS. THANKS AGAIN THE CASTLE MAY BE MORE COMERCIAL THESE DAYS WITH RESANANCE FAIR TYPE ACTIVITYS AT CERTIAN TIMES OF YEAR. THERE WERE NO LINES WHEN I VISITED AND ONE WAS FREE TO WANDER WHERE YOU WISHED AND TO STAY AS LONG AS YOU LIKED. MUCH MORE FUN THAN SHUFFELING ALONG WITH THE CROWDS AT THE TOWER OF LONDON. BUT THE TOWER OF LONDON IS NOT TO BE MISSED REGARDLESS. |
20th May 2010, 05:07 PM | #4 |
(deceased)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal
Posts: 9,694
|
All right Barry, we have a deal. I will take both castle and weapons .
I could swear i have read that Samuel Colt made his first protoptype in wood, when aboard a ship; it was after this visit to London, then ?! Fernando |
20th May 2010, 05:36 PM | #5 | |
Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Austin, Texas USA
Posts: 257
|
Quote:
|
|
20th May 2010, 08:46 PM | #6 |
(deceased)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking
Posts: 4,310
|
Revolvers at least as old as 1530-40 !!!
Here are two North Italian matchlock revolvers with three revolving barrels of ca. 1530-40, now presereved in the Ducals' Palace Venice and a Munich wheel-lock revolving dart shooting system of ca. 1550! Moreover a bundle of three North Italian revolving matchlock barrels, ca. 1530-40 and preserved in the Ashmolean Mueum Oxford since the late 17th century.
All these and many later systems as posted here have been known to Samuel Colt and at least 'inspired' him! Best, Michael |
20th May 2010, 08:55 PM | #7 |
(deceased)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking
Posts: 4,310
|
More.
Here now the images of the three barrel arquebus, ca. 1530-40, in the Museum Luigi Marzoli, Brescia. |
26th May 2010, 09:35 PM | #8 |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 227
|
...doesn't Elisha Collier appear as a character in one of Mallinson's Hervey novels? - demonstrates the gun on Hampstead Heath
|
26th May 2010, 10:38 PM | #9 |
(deceased)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal
Posts: 9,694
|
Well, this one is not so old ... but not so new, either
. |
28th May 2010, 05:56 AM | #10 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: California
Posts: 1,036
|
Revolving barrels vs. revolving cylinder
Gentlemen,
Thanks much for posting all those pics of these rare and fascinating guns! Not all the examples posted so far are true revolvers in the modern sense. What made Sam'l Colt's "invention" so notable, to the point that the essence of its design is still in current use, is that the multiple charges (powder and bullet) were housed in a revolving CYLINDER and were discharged one by one through a single BARREL when the mechanism lined each chamber up with the bore. Firearms with multiple rotating barrels are a separate class, which culminated and ended with the PEPPERBOX pistols of the first half of the 19th cent. The advantage of the true REVOLVER, with its compact cylinder and single barrel, are obvious to anyone who has hefted each type of pistol of comparable length and caliber. The weight of a pair of p'boxes in belt holsters can pull a guy's pants down if his belt isn't cinched tight enough, and that's not even addressing the issues of aiming and balance. Of all the guns on this thread so far, Collier's flintlock revolver and the rare Portuguese revolving fowling piece (oh my, where can I get one for my collection?) are the direct mechanical antecedents to Colt's prototype. All the rest are the forebears of the percussion pepperbox. |
30th May 2010, 09:25 PM | #11 |
(deceased)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking
Posts: 4,310
|
Exactly, Philip,
I think we can summarize the 500 years of the development of the revolver from several rotating barrels to the turning cylinder by defining it as a process of shortening the barrels to the length required by the load inside and simultaneously reducing their number to one which is longer than the cylinder. On this basis, can the 'Apache' revolver which features only the cylinder be called a true revolver? Best, Michael |
30th May 2010, 09:51 PM | #12 |
(deceased)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal
Posts: 9,694
|
Hi Michael
May i say no ... at least semantically? Technicalities apart, and giving place to connotations, this would belong to the class of "pepper boxes" (poivriers, pimenteiros), only later appearing those labelled as "revolvers" ... having had an intermediary hybrid, so called "transitional". Could it be that, the early term for multi shooters was connected to the "repetition" terminology? BTW, this French Apache setup was more an impressive resource than an efective weapon ... says i, in my innocence . Fernando |
30th May 2010, 11:54 PM | #13 |
(deceased)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking
Posts: 4,310
|
Thank you so much for your precise arguments, Fernando,
They exactly confirm my opinion, so thanks again for denying my question. My request was just meant to explore whether there are any differing opinions on this topic. And yes, of course this curious weapon must have had very little practical use, apart from astounding people for its multiple functions combined. On the other hand, though - what practical use did my almost 500 year old four barrel mace have? Please cf. http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=8179 (I realize that the barrels did not rotate). In spite of the spikes in the head the grip is way too fragile and the head containg the barrels is way too heavy in order to really deal a hard blow - the grip would have broken in no time. And the spearhead is riveted to the hinged muzzle lid in such a delicate way that it, too, would have broken at the very first thrust. What I wish to say is that curious combination weapons like my mace or the Apache 'revolver' have been built again and again throughout the centuries regardless of their being of little or no practical use. I feel they are just based on the playful human wit, which seems to have first manifested in the Italian High Renaissance Mannerism of the 16th century, ca. 1520-80. As to your thesis that the term of multishot firearms may have related to early repeating arms I should suggest to rather put it the other way round. The earliest period illustrations and actually surviving pieces of both multibarrel and superimposed load firearms clearly prove that the invention of repeated fire out of one single barrel did not take place before ca. the 1570's - and that of course is identical with the first application of a revolving cylinder connected to a fixed barrel. ) Before that time (and for long after) it was all about either multiple barrels or superimposed loads in one barrel (the first evidence of the latter, a six shot snap tinderlock arquebus the upper five loads of which would of course have to be fired manually by holding a smoldering match or piece of tinder into the respective pan!, is found in a South German manuscript of ca. 1525 - please see attachment: Best, Michael Last edited by Matchlock; 31st May 2010 at 02:49 AM. |
31st May 2010, 06:17 AM | #14 | |||
Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Austin, Texas USA
Posts: 257
|
Some references on the distinction between "revolvers" and "pepperboxes":
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Berkley; 1st June 2010 at 04:05 AM. |
|||
31st May 2010, 06:44 AM | #15 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: California
Posts: 1,036
|
the intimidation factor
Michael,
Your multi-barrel mace and the Apache pistol (I concur with Fernando in that it falls in the pepperbox category) may be of questionable utility as regards to some aspects of their construction, but the psychological effect cannot be ignored. A person without a superior weapon in his hand, staring at those muzzles pointing at him from close range, is more likely to picture the likelihood of being hit by multiple shots than he is to analyze whether the spikes, the handle, or the little bayonet are sturdy enough. At the very least, these odd weapons are a good illustration of our species' mechanical ingenuity through the ages and across national boundaries. |
31st May 2010, 07:50 AM | #16 |
(deceased)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking
Posts: 4,310
|
Hi Berkley and Philip,
Your contributions are much appreciated! Thanks. Best, Michael |
|
|