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.

[Major 2]

Go to www.ncows.org and look at Governance...

all the Approved List PDF and Unapproved List are there.

The Remington Revolving Carbine is in neither (as Abalene mentions earlier)

I am a Former NCOWS National Judge (the position Bryan Buck now holds)
The question for or against listing never was raised in my tenure.
However, had it been I doubt it would have gain acceptance.

That's not to say a local posse' might, I say might allow usage at the local match.
 I would not expect to see one used at regional or certainly the National.
Way too much disadvantage, and highly questionable handling, the cylinder swap and
cylinder gap side gas spew. 

I suggest, hold your jets and shop for a Lever gun I: E: 66 or 73 on occasion
they do turn up under a Grand.

  I'm not tiring to be overly harsh, however One does not play golf with a Ping-pong ball.
 

 


 

[Mogorilla]

Swapping a capped cylinder not allowed.  You can swap an uncapped cylinder and cap on clock.   I will let Bryan weigh in on aproval, but my take is it is a replica of. firearm from the period, so should be allowed.   I have shot a match using an 1860 colt with a shoulder stock and one without.

[River City John]

They are cool looking, at first glance.
In reality, after a match or two you'll wish you had waited and saved up for a lever gun. Like a '66 with that beautiful brass.
Let a Remington Revolving Carbine be your 2nd longarm acquisition goal.
Trust me.  

[9245]

They are cool looking, at first glance.
In reality, after a match or two you'll wish you had waited and saved up for a lever gun. Like a '66 with that beautiful brass.
Let a Remington Revolving Carbine be your 2nd longarm acquisition goal.
Trust me.  

Love to, but this stuff is expensive as much as I love it, and even the Remington is a budgetary stretch.  It just annoys me that Rossi can make the 1892 at a reasonable price but yet somehow the 1866 and 1873 cost three times as much to make?  How does that make sense?  Sure I could save, but realistically there is just so much more that I could get for $1,200 that would be far more useful to me, I'd realistically never hit the goal because something else more important would always come up.

I'd also love to have a pair of Schofields or better yet .44 double actions, or even Webleys or "bulldogs."  Or even Merwin and Hulberts, but same issue.  As much as I love this stuff I just don't have the budget to get to that level.  Heck, I started getting in to CAS in 2020 and I have yet to shoot a match because I am still gathering the (very expensive for me) minimal equipment and I've still a ways to go.  Can someone please explain to me how a correct style HAT can cost $500?  Or how boots can be even more than that?  Heck I'm struggling just getting a gun belt together
, buying the cheapest crap imaginable and it's still costing me a few hundred bucks.  If I weren't dropping nearly $200 on a BELT and probably as much on a pair of bargain basement holsters maybe I could actually get that 1866...  Why do I always have to pick the world's most expensive hobbies? Lol

OK frustrated mini rant over.

[Tascosa Joe]

Now days go to any western wear store and a decent hat will cost you a pretty penny.  River Junction has hats but most run in the $200 or so range.

Last year I bought a used Great Plains hat for $75 at the convention.  I bought 2 new Great Plains hats in 1999 and they cost me $250 each that was 25 years ago.  Hats are expensive and 25 years ago I had money, but not now. Go to your local good will and see what they have or a used clothing store, maybe you can find something cheap that you could steam and restyle to a reasonable period looking hat. 

[9245]

Now days go to any western wear store and a decent hat will cost you a pretty penny.  River Junction has hats but most run in the $200 or so range.

Last year I bought a used Great Plains hat for $75.  I bought 2 new Great Plains hats in 1999 and they cost me $250 each that was 25 years ago.  Hats are expensive and 25 years ago I had money, but not now. Go to your local good will and see what they have or a used clothing store, maybe you can find something cheap that you could steam and restyle to a reasonable period looking hat. 

I've tried goodwill, all their good stuff is auctioned online and correct style hats still go for a few hundred dollars.  Modern style ones are cheap but useless for my purposes, there's no adapting it to work, a synthetic hat with vent holes or a straw hat is just never going to be correct, modified or not.

[Abilene]

Took me 25 years, but I now have 14 hats for CAS.  I wear most of them at least occasionally.  The most I paid for one was $50. 

You can complain all you want about how much stuff costs and how poor you are.  It all comes down to priorities.  If you want something enough, you figure out how to work for it.  I drove old cars, lived in a tired house, bought my clothes at Goodwill, etc. for many years so I could feed my hobbies, and I have plenty of nice CAS toys as a result.  Now that I am retired I'm ready to start spending that IRA money that I never touched all those years.  Hopefully my health will hold up long enough for me to spend it.

[OklaTom]

@9245

I am happy to answer your questions. I like the Remington revolving rifle. I have a Uberti one (44 Percussion). Originally, they were manufactured in a variety of barrel lengths, later cartridge versions, between 1865 and 1878. So they do fall into our official time frame. For my Uberti I purchased 3 two piece conversion cylinders chambered for 44 Colt (the heeled bullet version). I went this route for a couple of reasons. First, six shots per cylinder. Leaving one empty every time gave 15 shots. Since the heeled 44 Colt bullet drive bands are .453, good seal in the .452 barrel.

On to your carrying multiple cylinders. This is not a problem. But there is a sticky bit about this. You cannot carry loaded cartridge cylinders on your belt and swap. This is a safety issue, not meant to handicap the shooter. Those 2-part cylinders have firing pins with no springs. A drop will likely set a chamber off. To those that say "it won't cause more than a pop", that is wrong. A cartridge that goes bang out of battery can be very dangerous. Saw a guy recently taken to the hospital for such a discharge. So you can carry spare cylinders and feed them on the clock (slow and still a bit risky) or carry uncapped but charged percussion cylinders. First round, use your conversion. After that, slip in the charged cylinder(s) and cap them on the clock as Mogorilla said.

Let's address the cost here. First, you will spend between $600 and $650 for the carbine with a single percussion cylinder. Each conversion cylinder (the 2-piece) will cost $245. Carbine and one cylinder will give you 10 shots for roughly $900. Cheaper than an 1866 or 1873, but with less utility and more time consuming on the clock. You might be better serve scouring GunBroker for a used 1866 in 45 Colt. Last used one I bought (44-40) cost me $850.

Match legal? Yes if you do it right following safety as described.

I have another question for you, as it is not stated in your post. Have you already joined NCOWS? The by laws state that a new member has a full year to get his or her kit compliant. It does not have to be perfect anyway, unless you plan to be an Original. My experience attending matches and conventions has shown me most people do not have a period hat (the "Gus crease" being prevalent, which is early 20th century). A lot of people do not have the original style 2 piece boots either. I see a lot that are 2-piece foot and 2-piece shaft. But again, unless you are going for the Originals, none of that really matters. We are really about having safe fun. Buy the clothing you can afford and enjoy your shoots.

I assume you have a reason for the year 1885, but that reason was not described.

Finally, the Approved List and the Unapproved List are never all encompassing. It would be impossible to keep something like that continually updated every time.

If you have further questions, feel free to email me at judge@ncows.org. I'll be happy to discuss further.

[9245]

@9245

I am happy to answer your questions. I like the Remington revolving rifle. I have a Uberti one (44 Percussion). Originally, they were manufactured in a variety of barrel lengths, later cartridge versions, between 1865 and 1878. So they do fall into our official time frame. For my Uberti I purchased 3 two piece conversion cylinders chambered for 44 Colt (the heeled bullet version). I went this route for a couple of reasons. First, six shots per cylinder. Leaving one empty every time gave 15 shots. Since the heeled 44 Colt bullet drive bands are .453, good seal in the .452 barrel.

On to your carrying multiple cylinders. This is not a problem. But there is a sticky bit about this. You cannot carry loaded cartridge cylinders on your belt and swap. This is a safety issue, not meant to handicap the shooter. Those 2-part cylinders have firing pins with no springs. A drop will likely set a chamber off. To those that say "it won't cause more than a pop", that is wrong. A cartridge that goes bang out of battery can be very dangerous. Saw a guy recently taken to the hospital for such a discharge. So you can carry spare cylinders and feed them on the clock (slow and still a bit risky) or carry uncapped but charged percussion cylinders. First round, use your conversion. After that, slip in the charged cylinder(s) and cap them on the clock as Mogorilla said.

Let's address the cost here. First, you will spend between $600 and $650 for the carbine with a single percussion cylinder. Each conversion cylinder (the 2-piece) will cost $245. Carbine and one cylinder will give you 10 shots for roughly $900. Cheaper than an 1866 or 1873, but with less utility and more time consuming on the clock. You might be better serve scouring GunBroker for a used 1866 in 45 Colt. Last used one I bought (44-40) cost me $850.

Match legal? Yes if you do it right following safety as described.

I have another question for you, as it is not stated in your post. Have you already joined NCOWS? The by laws state that a new member has a full year to get his or her kit compliant. It does not have to be perfect anyway, unless you plan to be an Original. My experience attending matches and conventions has shown me most people do not have a period hat (the "Gus crease" being prevalent, which is early 20th century). A lot of people do not have the original style 2 piece boots either. I see a lot that are 2-piece foot and 2-piece shaft. But again, unless you are going for the Originals, none of that really matters. We are really about having safe fun. Buy the clothing you can afford and enjoy your shoots.

I assume you have a reason for the year 1885, but that reason was not described.

Finally, the Approved List and the Unapproved List are never all encompassing. It would be impossible to keep something like that continually updated every time.

If you have further questions, feel free to email me at judge@ncows.org. I'll be happy to discuss further.

Yes, I'm very interested in the originals.  (It's just the way my brain is wired, if I'm going to "dress like the old west," I'm going to dress like I just stepped off of a time machine from the old west, if I can.)

I chose 1885 because of my character.  I wanted a character who's age would match my own and who was old enough to have been in bloody Kansas and ended up in Quantrill's Raiders and met Frank and Jesse and ended up riding with them after the war, yet still young enough to have been around and active during the Lincoln County War and the Vendetta Ride.  The only way I could make that work plausibly was to have him born in 1844 near the Kansas Arkansas border and then joined the 1st Cavalry Regiment of Arkansas State Militia in May of 1861 at 16, having lied about his age, that would land me in 1885 given my current age.

Basically I'm going for a kind of Outlaw Jose Wales kind of feel to the character, he is driven by vengeance because his farm was burned and father killed by Unionist's during bloody Kansas and then he wants to continue his own personal war with the Union after, right next to Frank and Jesse James, who have similar feelings, yet he also has a conscience and tends to ride both sides of the law, a morally gray character.

I've already laid out about half the bio along with detailed character notes, it's a work in progress but I like it so far.

The problem is if I bump the year ahead to 1892 then I have him joining the war at 9 years old, which is not believable, or I have to give up the disaffected confederate angle but that fundamentally changes the character and his motivations.