Freedom Arms 1983 Revolving Rifle

[stevejr454]

There have been a few of us that would like to see Freedom Arms build a rifle. I have an idea that I'm sure there has been some thought about already. It may have even been ruled out as an option by Freedom Arms for some reason.

I thought I would put this question here to get some feed back from individuals that would be willing to purchase a Freedom Arms 1983 Revolving Rifle? In my opinion the only issue for Freedom Arms would be finding some material (wood or composit) stock that would not allow the tang to drive its self into the stock.

The nice thing about building such a weapon for Freedom Arms is that there would not be that much tool work involved? Think about the options, such as an octagon barrel ranging from 16" up to 32" if desired wow. It could also be done on the 1997, Feedom Arms 1997 Revolving Rifle.

[AmBraCol]

Three words for you.

Barrel/Cylinder Gap

The flash from the barrel/cylinder gap can be damaging to soft tissue. Somewhere on the net is a picture of someone's hand from when they used a thumb forward position when firing a S&W 460 or 500 magnum. It's nasty, to say the least. The fabrication of such a rifle as you mention would be an invitation to a lawsuit or three in no time flat was folks were careless about the proper hold for such a rifle. That's the state of our sue happy society. The issue of the use of courts to wreck havoc on others is a long standing tradition. Even George A. Custer got siouxed...

[jeepnik]

I guess you're thinking about something like this with a longer barrel.



Use a two hand hold on the grip and it works pretty well. Lots of fun at the range. Being as it has a 3" barrel, it shoots smoke and flame like nobodies business.

[CowboyTutt]

Hey Steve, nice to see you here! You may have missed the thread, but FA has a new product coming out that may be of interest to you!

-Tutt

[2ndovc]

Why not?

Kinda cool idea. I've always wanted one of the Uberti's.

A 16" 454 or 475 would be fun. Octagon Barrel be a nice touch.

Too bad we just can't have a detachable butt stock anymore.

jb

[Kansas Ed]

I asked that same question when I started working there...and Ambracol's response is exactly what I got in return. At the time, there was someone who had lost the tip of his thumb by sticking it up there inadvertently. If they changed the design enough, I'm sure it could be accomplished though.

Ed

[stevejr454]

That’s why I put the question out to get the pros and cons of such an idea. We are not talking about the Mack truck clearance of the Smith and Wesson, but there is some flash that does come out and pose some danger. Could a flash shield be designed?

Tutt can I have the info for the thread you mentioned?

[Hobie]

I just dont' see it as being practical unless in something like the Russian Nagant and then it is impractical for other reasons.

[AmBraCol]

Here's the thread Andy mentioned:

http://www.levergunscommunity.com/viewt ... f=1&t=7508

A shield will add to the bulk or change the mechanism. The Russians had a revolver that had no problem sealing at the barrel cylinder gap. But the cylinder actually moved forward to mate up with the forcing cone and (IIRC) the case projected into the cone, expanding and sealing that joint. I doubt that the calibers used in Freedom Arms revolvers would lend themselves to such things - not to mention the complete reworking of the mechanism. The addition of a shield would also complicate an otherwise fine and simple mechanism. Essentially, it wouldn't be worth the expense of research and design as they'd not move enough of them to pay for the costs of designing, much less producing, such a rifle. The black powder revolving rifles are copies of old, original revolving rifles. They don't generate near the amount of heat and velocity and pressure that the FA guns would. To convince a US manufacturer to come out with what would essentially be a huge "Sue me" invitation is not likely to happen.

[AmBraCol]

I just dont' see it as being practical unless in something like the Russian Nagant and then it is impractical for other reasons.

Nagant, that's it. I couldn't for the life of me come up with what it was called...

[hfcable]

Here's the thread Andy mentioned:

http://www.levergunscommunity.com/viewt ... f=1&t=7508

A shield will add to the bulk or change the mechanism. The Russians had a revolver that had no problem sealing at the barrel cylinder gap. But the cylinder actually moved forward to mate up with the forcing cone and (IIRC) the case projected into the cone, expanding and sealing that joint. I doubt that the calibers used in Freedom Arms revolvers would lend themselves to such things - not to mention the complete reworking of the mechanism. The addition of a shield would also complicate an otherwise fine and simple mechanism. Essentially, it wouldn't be worth the expense of research and design as they'd not move enough of them to pay for the costs of designing, much less producing, such a rifle. The black powder revolving rifles are copies of old, original revolving rifles. They don't generate near the amount of heat and velocity and pressure that the FA guns would. To convince a US manufacturer to come out with what would essentially be a huge "Sue me" invitation is not likely to happen.

a few years ago there was a brief article from a gunsmith who said he was going to make revolving rifles with just such a cylinder sealing mechanism, where the cylinder moved forward, and was going to include the 454 as an offering; that was at least 5 years ago and have not seen anything else on this...really would be neat though.

[colo native]

Had a friend who had a 45lc revolving carbine by Uberti, he shot it one time and sold it burnt the krap outa his left hand, he dodnt know abour the cyl gap, he almost had to give it away, only wish hed sold it to me...

[Crazy Horse]

I love and own 3 FA pistols but I would not buy a revolving rifle.

[azzhandler]

something like this? beretta stampede, 45lc, Isaw a flyer that said, 1 of 200, dont know if it is or not, ive never shot the gun, in fact the gun has never been cocked since it left the factory, its a weird feeling gun, and i believe the rear stock is ment to sit on your bicep, and the off hand should support your trigger hand, ive always thought this would be a good gun for a guy who hunts bears behind hounds, plenty of power for a treed bear, and if bayed in thick brush, you could still shoot it 1 handed like a regular revolver.


james

[JimT]

Revolving Rifles were an attempt in the early days of repeating firearms experimentation, to find a way to build a rifle that could produce a high volume of fire. They did not meet the expectations. Volume of fire was high, but the serious difficulties of the design killed them.

If they had worked Colt would still be making them, since the first guns Colt produced were the revolving rifle.

Some of the same problems could seriously disable any shooter who tried to use a Freedom Arms 454 in such a manner. If you are not familiar with what high pressure gas can do I don't know that I can adequately explain it. But 60,000 + PSI jetting out from the barrel/cylinder gap can remove appendages with ease. The high pressure backblast back through the cylinder and around the frame could cause problems in other ways.

Gas pressure is high enough in the 454 that if you open the loading gate with an empty cartridge in that chamber and fire the gun -with the gate open - the empty cartridge will come back out of the cylinder hard enough to make an imprint on plywood several feet away.

I didn't believe it until I tried it.

Revolving rifles are a neat oddity ... cool looking ... a fascinating design .. but not a practical one. Enjoy them for what they are.

.

[NonPCnraRN]

I know that nothing is foolproof for a suffiently motivated fool. But I don't know why someone would use anything but a two handed hold on the pistolgrip portion of the stock. If there is no wood on the barrel I don't see why anyone would grab the gun past the recoil shield. We are talking in essence about a revolver with a permanently attached shoulder stock and 16" barrel. I don't know of anyone who would grab a revolver by the cylinder while shooting it. Has anyone ever held a 10.5" SBH forward of the recoil shield? I agree with Jim T that such a rifle would be more of a novelty than practical, but I think poor sales would be the real reason for such a rifle not being produced. If someone wanted such a gun, a 16" replacement barrel could be used and a permanent buttstock could be attached to the grip. I know you can't make a pistol out of a rifle, but the other way around should be legal as long as the buttstock is permanently attached. Personally, I think a 92 with a 16" barrel would be a lot more handy, with all the combustion gasses leaving the muzzle. The only thing going for the revolving rifle vs levergun is that pointed bullets could be used in the revolving rifle. At the ranges it would be used, the round or flat point bullets of the carbine would not be a hindrence. In reality a revolving rifle has the same usefullness as a Mare's Leg. They are great conversation pieces.

[KWK]

I plan to get one of the Uberti's this year, just to see what such guns are like. There was a used .44-40 on the wall of one shop many years ago, and I've long regretted not getting it. From what little I could gather off the internet, you do not want to shoot high pressure cartridges from these things. Low pressure cartridges I've read are fine. One fellow bought a .357 and only fired a few rounds of those before swearing off them, yet he rated the gun as great fun when shooting .38s.

As has been mentioned, the off hand is placed under the hand on the trigger, not on the barrel.

The typical cylinder gap has a bit more area than a flintlock's touch hole, and a tight revolver would probably produce less venting. I conclude concussion and gases should be manageable if kept to BP pressures. I've thought a .45-70 BRF converted to a rifle would be interesting, but keeping pressures down around 11,000 psi would really sap performance.

Their advantage is simplicity and light weight, but by their nature these are low power arms. Realistically, there's nothing you could do with one that you couldn't do with the pistol version, although fitting the carbine with an aperture rear sight might make for a gun which could get on target a bit quicker and with more accuracy than the pistol.

It's really no wonder the levers and pumps won out, but revolver carbines do have a certain appeal.

[kaschi]

I'd rather see Freedom Arms make high quality stainless Wincheter Model 86 and 92 clones.