How do you like pepper boxes ?

[Rich]

I was told by a knowledgeable antique firearms collector and dealer that
pepperboxes were basically regarded as explosives more likely to harm the
user than who was being shot at. Seems it was common for all the cylinders
to fire at once. I can't verify or deny the statement as I'm not a firearms
collector and bearly know a pepperbox when I see them at shows.

Rich S

[fernando]

Hi Rich,
Thank you for entering the Forum via this thread.

Originally Posted by Rich

... pepperboxes were basically regarded as explosives more likely to harm the user than who was being shot at. Seems it was common for all the cylinders to fire at once ...

Well, that's an (other) aproach, that of such collector.
At a certain stage, most (all?) pioneering firearms were dangerous to the user ... one way or another. I don't recall any stories about pepperboxes blowing in the user's face, but i don't exclude such probability; although such things could have easier happened with a generation much earlier than the model posted here.
OTHH, the evolution of hand guns undoubtfully passed through this type of weapons. As said in the first post, these were the ancestors of the ever lasting revolver.
Besides, the issue here is how charming and mechanicaly interesting they could be; no shooting required, just collecting purposes ... well, at least in my case
Fernando

[fearn]

I can't resist.

Quote from Mark Twain, Roughing it (1872) (link)

"Mr. George Bemis was dismally formidable. George Bemis was
our fellow-traveler...We had never seen him before. He wore in his belt
an old original "Allen" revolver, such as irreverent people called a "pepper-box."
Simply drawing the trigger back, cocked and fired the pistol. As the trigger
came back, the hammer would begin to rise and the barrel to turn over,
and presently down would drop the hammer, and away would speed the ball.
To aim along the turning barrel and hit the thing aimed at was a feat
which was probably never done with an "Allen" in the world. But George's
was a reliable weapon, nevertheless, because, as one of the stage-drivers
afterward said, "If she didn't get what she went after, she would fetch
something else." And so she did. She went after a deuce of spades nailed
against a tree, once, and fetched a mule standing about thirty yards to
the left of it. Bemis did not want the mule; but the owner came out with
a double-barreled shotgun and persuaded him to buy it, anyhow. It was a
cheerful weapon--the "Allen." Sometimes all its six barrels would go off
at once, and then there was no safe place in all the region round about,
but behind it. "

I've never forgotten that quote. Great weapon!

[fernando]

Hi Fearn,
Thanks for having dug such an amazing story
It is of common knowledge that Mr. Twain was a man of great resources; but it is obvious that he wasn't familiar with the weaponry universe. What his friend had was a 'mule killer', rather than a decent 'pepper-box' .
Perhaps Allen had better restraining his abilities to single shot pistols, while others developed more secure multiple shooters .
Speaking seriously, one can read that, the potential simultaneous shooting of all chambers was indeed more dangerous with the next generation single barrelers. Quoting for example 'answers.com':

Several models were dangerous because firing one powder charge could ignite the others, all at the same time, when proper care was not taken. This would be less dangerous than when the same thing happened in a single-barreled revolver, because in the pepperbox at least all the bullets could freely exit the muzzle. This was perhaps the main reason for the pepperbox's survival after more modern revolvers came along.

Just for perusal, i attach here a Net picture of what could have been George Bemis's Allen 'pepper-box', as well as a set of photos of a single barrel 'muff pistol' made by the same author, from my own little collection. Worthy of note is the fact that both these two examples have a front loading percussion system, whereas the pepper box i've opened the thread with, belongs to a later generation; certainly a much safer system. There are no powder charges, but metalic (pinfire) cartridges.

Fernando

BTW, pepper-boxes are not aimable guns; you just shoot them (hip level) at close range ... impossible to miss the mule .

.

[Jim McDougall]

Fearn, thank you so much for sharing that colorful piece of Americana, which really adds contemporary dimension to our understanding these guns! I really love that quote as well! Its amazing how much history Mr. Twain has preserved for us.
Fernando, thank you for again adding beautiful examples of these weapons, and always sharing your prespective on them. It is great learning so much on firearms here since the forum has begun, and I am always impressed with the explanations and detail you add.

It seems I had once heard the bit about pepperboxes exploding in the manner described (perhaps an explanation for their very descriptive nickname?), but could not recall where it was that information came from. Again, Fearn I really appreciate you citing that quote, which presents at least one source, and I'm sure there are others in firearms lore.

Not being familiar with firearms, I am still unclear on how simultaneous detonation in multiple chambers of a revolver could occur (not disagreeing as obviously this event did occasionally take place). It is quite clear how having the barrels with unobstructed exit prevented tragedy to the person firing it, but how would the detonation reach all the barrels without striking the percussion caps. Would not the detonation flash from the charge in the barrel of the moment be contained?

This phenomenon is an interesting one in looking into the dynamics of firearms, which becomes more and more interesting with you guys presenting all these great examples and discussion, so please bear with me

Thank you so much,
All the best,
Jim

[fearn]

Dear Fernando and Jim,

You're quite welcome on the quote, and I'm glad to finally see one of those Allen guns.

Jim--I'm not an expert on blackpowder weapons, but logically, I would guess that the source of the multiple ignition problem lies in the back of the revolving barrel. In modern revolvers, the cartridge seals the back of the barrel, so that the explosion is contained in the chamber. In a black powder revolver, if there's any leakage from one chamber to the next (or from one primer hole to the next) you could get the explosion in one chamber setting off the others.

Just a guess.

F

[fernando]

Hi Gentlemen,
I'm no expert either, but i see it close to Fearn's impression.
I would further point out that, in my view:
The black powder cylinders or, better saying, the percussion (cap and ball) cylinders, are not opened in their back; you pour your gunpowder into them like you pour it in a vase, later locking it with the bullet. The only passage to the exterior is inded the ignition cap nipple.
It happens that, when you strike the cap with the pistol's hammer to ignite the powder charge inside the chamber, plenty flames come out the nipple, as the cap is not completely tight. Therefore and potentialy these escaping flames end out igniting the nipple next door, due to their close vicinity. You would then, in a hazardous context, ignite all chambers ... either in a chain succession, which is more likely and, in such case, only shooting the whole thing without bursting in your face, or in an absolute simultaneous deflagration, in such case blowing yourself up, instead of shooting frontwards.
I guess the efect quoted in the first place is like when you want to extract rock from a stone pit. As you don't want your rocks to pulverize with the explosion, you use detonators with a (micro) time delay among them, so that the apparent simultanity achieved is 'false', with your rocks bracking apart but not becoming gravel; how's this for a comparison ?
If indeed things happened as sugested, the coming of the complete sealed cartridge has put an end to these misfire situations; in this case ignition occurs inside the ammunition ... no flames hanging around.
Pardon me for all i said, in case it's all 'bs'.
Fernando