Remington Revolving Carbine

[9245]

I'm struggling to find an affordable rifle (and also historically correct) (I just drop $1,200 on a rifle), and all roads seem to be leading me to the Remington Revolving Carbine, for a few reasons.

I need something that is correct for 1885 so that rules out the Rossi R92, which is the only remotely affordable lever action that I have found that's not a .22LR.

It is the ONLY period repeating rifle that I have found that was theoretically capable of firing .45 Colt (I have found ONE original example that a gunsmith converted to .45 Colt, and, conveniently, it also had the barrel shortened to 18 inches (you know like the Uberti reproduction), it used a two piece conversion cylinder, like a Howell, albeit with a modified hammer instead of multiple firing pins).

.45 Colt is cheaper to buy and cheaper to reload than .44-40.

.44-40 Would not be correct (or possible) for a cartridge conversion to a Remington New Model Army, but I HAVE seen an original example in .45 Colt (again, one example and with the same style of conversion cylinder as the rifle).

It can also be used in it's original cap and ball form.

My questions are, first, am I wrong?  Is there a better way to go about this?  Second, would it be match legal for NCOWS?  I know that it is not for SASS for some reason.  Third, assuming that it is allowed, what style of conversion would be allowed.  The example I found was the two piece cylinder, but I have seen the navy versions of the revolver typically have gated conversions so I don't think it would be much of a logical stretch to assume that if the two piece conversion were possible that someone could not have made a gated one as well.  So would a gated conversion be allowed?

Last question, going for revolvers as well, what about hot swapping the cylinders?  I know the historicity of that is questionable, but given that both types of conversion's required a new cylinder it is not at all unreasonable to assume that the gunsmith would have returned the original cylinder to the customer, thus leaving them with two cylinders, one for cartridges and the other for percussion.  Is it that much of a logical stretch to assume that the spare could have been carried?  (Yes I'm aware of the safety concerns (although I question the validity of that to an extent, because without a barrel I don't really see that projectile as being able to do much more than make a popping noise), but what about swapping in an uncapped cylinder?)

[Tascosa Joe]

The 2 piece conversion cylinders for Remington's are the earliest and are shown in McDowell's book. The "thin plate" conversions came later.  I have seen the use of changing cylinders as a method of reloading a Remington at some NCOWS clubs.  Swapping cylinders on a Colt is a less viable option than the Remington.  You might send an email to judge@ncows.org and present your questions to him.  I know Bryan will answer and he might answer here if he sees the thread.  I think the Remington Revolving Rifle is ok, but I am not sure.  Go on the NCOWS web sight and check the authorized and unauthorized lists.  I hope to see you at the NCOWS Convention in March, although I understand your travel issues.

[Tascosa Joe]

I am not sure about your last question as I don't shoot cap and ball.

[Abilene]

The revolving carbine is not mentioned in either the approved nor unapproved lists that I can see.

As for "hot swapping" a cylinder, whether it is allowed or not, your notion of there only being a "popping noise" if dropped just right is not correct, IMO.  Yes, if a loose round or shotshell hits the ground just right on a primer, it will pop and there may be some minor shrapnel because the powder explosion is not contained by the thin brass and the force goes in every direction.  A bullet or ball in a cylinder is different, all the power pushes the projectile in a single direction.  Lower velocity than from a barrel, but I expect capable of doing damage.

[9245]

The 2 piece conversion cylinders for Remington's are the earliest and are shown in McDowell's book. The "thin plate" conversions came later.  I have seen the use of changing cylinders as a method of reloading a Remington at some NCOWS clubs.  Swapping cylinders on a Colt is a less viable option than the Remington.  You might send an email to judge@ncows.org and present your questions to him.  I know Bryan will answer and he might answer here if he sees the thread.  I think the Remington Revolving Rifle is ok, but I am not sure.  Go on the NCOWS web sight and check the authorized and unauthorized lists.  I hope to see you at the NCOWS Convention in March, although I understand your travel issues.

I hope to be there, but it will be a logistical challenge to be certain.

[9245]

The revolving carbine is not mentioned in either the approved nor unapproved lists that I can see.

As for "hot swapping" a cylinder, whether it is allowed or not, your notion of there only being a "popping noise" if dropped just right is not correct, IMO.  Yes, if a loose round or shotshell hits the ground just right on a primer, it will pop and there may be some minor shrapnel because the powder explosion is not contained by the thin brass and the force goes in every direction.  A bullet or ball in a cylinder is different, all the power pushes the projectile in a single direction.  Lower velocity than from a barrel, but I expect capable of doing damage.

Assuming that the cylinder is fully loaded I don't think the projectile would have enough room for any meaningful velocity.  I saw a video once too that demonstrated that but I can't seem to find it now.  A pop gun load ironically might be more dangerous in that case than a full load.