Who really invented the first revolver?

[Cannoneer]

The winner is still Sam Colt, his frst application for a patent for a revolver dates to 1836 but this gun may indeed be the first three-peater (groan). I'd love to know the history of how this evidently experimental bronze cannon ended up at Les Invalides Military Museum in France.

[cannonmn]

bronze cannon

If you look at the holes in the turret ring, there's iron rust.  I'm guessing the whole thing is made of ferrous metal as Cochrane's items tended to be (turret small arms, model turret cannon.)  I suspect they were painted verdegris so that exhibit would blend in with the many bronze cannon in that area of the Musee.

Here again are pix of the Cochrane turret cannon model in case anyone missed them when I posted them a few months back:

[cannonmn]

I think one reason the turret cannons weren't successful is that they are extremely heavy compared to single-barrel cannons.  When you scale up the turret portion to the dimensions requried for a full-scale cannon, let's say a 12-pounder, the weight of it is more than you can possibly pull with horses or support on two wheels.

There's a story behind how I got this model.  I spotted it at a meeting of the Ohio Gun Collectors Association in Columbus OH in about 1982.   I had to have it, no way I'd leave there without it, but it was more money than I had on me or in my checking account.  I got the seller to agree to hold my check for a week until I could get home and get more money in the bank.   A few days later I got a very nasty call on my answering machine that my check had bounced and I could either send him a money order that day, or he'd drive from Illinois to Virginia with a shotgun and get his cannon back from me.  Nice guy, kinda forgot about our agreement, didn't he?

Anyway the documentation that came with the cannon was the hardbound catalog of the artifacts in the then-defunct "Stagecoach Museum" in Minneapolis MN where this had been one of the featured exhibits.  There was also a short article about it in a magazine called "The Gun Collector" in the 1950's, written by the model's owner, also the owner of the Stagecoach Museum.  He was a physician with a Swedish name that I can't dig out of my brain at the moment.

[Cannoneer]

I"ve had these pics in my photo file for a few years and I have indeed noticed what appeared to be ferrous metal oxidation in the rings that are cast on the drum. Here's what I came up with to explain it: When the drum (or turret/cylinder) was in battery and the chamber was lined up in relation to the bore an iron pin would have been inserted through the eye in the frame then through the ring in the cylinder to hold it securely, if the piece had been outdoors this pin or bolt would have rusted and caused the stains to bleed on to the bronze. I've gone back and reviewed the enlarged pic and I'll be damned if I don't now agree with you that this model has been painted. The French have found yet another way to irritate me! Isn't it the job of museum curators to preserve objects as close to their original appearance as is possible? Well, evidenty in France it is not one of their main objectives, to the contrary they like to disguise the real material an object is made out of, it must make life more interesting for them.

This is from "The National Cyclopaedia of American Biography", John Webster Cochran, inventor, was born in Enfield, N.H., May 16, 1814. (these are excerpts) In 1834 he perfected a revolving breech-loading rifled cannon, constructed upon the principle that afterward made the Colt revolver successful (so maybe that scoundrel Colt, did take his inspiration from Cochran), the cylinder being automatically rotated by the cocking of the hammer. (this description threw me before you posted photos of your model, because it certainly doesn't describe the model in Paris) Failing to secure in the United States the capital necessary for its manufacture he visited Paris, France. (this explains how the model ended up in Les Invalides) In, 1835, there he made the acquaintance of the Turkish Ambassador, who became interested in his models and caused Sultan Mahmoud to invite the inventor to Constantinople. Mr. Cochran remained in Turkey for several years and was munificently rewarded by the Sultan for his labors. I don't know about this last sentence; like you I find it hard to believe, for the reason you state and various other reasons, that Cochran's designs could have ever been brought to a practical fruition but who knows maybe the Sultan did have some manufactured and their performance pleased him.

Thanks for including the story of your purchase of Cochran's model; very good. 

[dan610324]

what you mean by that question ??
what is an revolver ??
is an 3 barrel flinlock gun where you rotate the barrels by hand to be an revolver ??
please explain more carefully what you mean .

[Cannoneer]

what you mean by that question ??
what is an revolver ??
is an 3 barrel flinlock gun where you rotate the barrels by hand to be an revolver ??
please explain more carefully what you mean .

Who really invented the first revolver? On the plaque in the French museum the American inventor John Cochran's cannon model is named a revolver and its date is given as 1840. Another American inventor Samuel Colt is credited with inventing the first true revolver, a pistol with a rotating cylinder that had six chambers and his first patent was registered in 1836. So according to these dates S. Colt would be the first person to invent the revolver.

What is an revolver? A revolver is a pistol with one barrel and a chambered cylinder that mechanically cycles when the hammer is fully cocked (single action) or when the trigger is pulled (double action).

Is an 3 barrel flintlock gun where you rotate the barrels by hand to be an revolver? I suppose this could be a matter of opinion but I'll go along with the general consensus and say no, these guns should be referred to as forerunners or precursors of the gun designed by Samuel Colt that most experts call the first "true revolver". In America we call this type of gun a pepperbox.

[torpedoman]

I believe it was a frenchman and it shot pinfire rounds

[Cannoneer]

   Torpedoman, when I was aswering Dan's questions I thought this same thing; could it have really been a Brit or Swiss etc., that actually invented the revolver and it be only pride of place that was the reason the vast majority of American sources quote Samuel Colt as being the title holder? When Russia was the U.S.S.R. American historians used to find it extremely amusing to point out the fact that in their students school books the Soviets had Russians as the real inventors of the first telephone, cotton gin, radio, apple pie, motorcycle etc., ad nauseam. While I admire Colt as a designer of firearms and think he manufactured fine pistols, I really don't think much of his character as a man, so it would be fine with me if you happen to be right in your assumption. Is there anything tangible that informs your belief or is it just a leap of faith?   

[cannonmn]

How 'bout James Puckle's 1718 patent?

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.wedmore.org.uk/puckle/PuckleGun.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.wedmore.org.uk/puckle/James.htm&h=556&w=725&sz=17&tbnid=B6B45dwvwmoJ::&tbnh=107&tbnw=140&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dpuckle%2Bgun&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=1&ct=image&cd=1

[Cannoneer]

  I 'd already seen the "Puckle gun" listed under muskets on this site; the item that follows the "Puckle gun" informs me that knowledge of the "Puckle gun" doesn't seem to change the opinions of some (if not many) on their continuing insistence on the originator of the revolver as being Samuel Colt.

inventors.about.com/od/militaryhistoryinventions/a/firearms.htm

[Max Caliber]

I've thought that a contributing factor for the success of Colt guns is in the name Colt, which sounds good for a gun. I wonder if he would have been as successful if his name had been, say, Elwood Fernfarm.

[Cannoneer]

   That's a very good point Max but in reading about S. Colt I've come to the conclusion that he was such a great huckster and consumate self promoter that he could have even gotten the name Elwood Fernfarm to somehow work to his advantage.

[torpedoman]

colt is like edison they get a lot of credit for other peoples work they didn't do it themself but they hired very good people and owned their ideas as their employers.

[Cannoneer]

   Torpedoman, I agree with you, I don't think there is much doubt that if Colt hadn't managed to hire Elisha Root to plan everything from the ground up and then superintend his first manufacturing plant in Hartford, that it would have had the quick and lasting success that it did.

[Cannoneer]

   Double D has been very patient with these posts, I've been waiting for the gentle elbow nudge, " Gentlemen, I seem to recall there being two words in our forums name, one is mortar and the other is cannon and I haven't seen either one used in awhile." I now think a better title for this topic may have been "An American in Paris".

Seriously, when I first started this thread I thought there would be some comments from the designing engineers, machinists and carriage builders on the board so Mike and Tracy, George, Wes, Dom, Kap et al., how about making some comments. I made up a Franklin sheet as I was pondering this experimental cannon model, on the positive side all I came up with is three shots in quick succession, not a bad feature by any means. On the negative side I can come up with more than a few reasons why this cannon could never have been a great success. The most obvious but by no means the most important has already been mentioned but in my opinion it has been overstated; this being the excessive weight of the piece if it were made in full scale. As a field gun there's no question it would have been impossible; Leonardo would have been needed to design the carriage and you'd also need twenty Clydesdales to pull the thing but I can envision it being used as a seacost defense, garrison or even a naval gun mounted on the spar deck. How many other negatives, including the most important of them (at least in my opinion) can you guys come up with?

[Double D]

Looks like the discussion is revolving cannons...continue!

[seacoastartillery]

     The association of revolving cannons/small arms and the French is as natural as "Mom and apple pie", or, in this case, "pie a la mode".  You can point to the classic, 11 mm double/single action French Army revolver, Model 1873.  Although Cochran and Hotchkiss were both Americans, the French fascination with revolving cannons provided both men with connections and/or investment francs and manufacturing facilities. 
   
      Lack of  37 mm Hotchkiss revolver cannons, designed in the 1880s, proved to be the downfall of the huge French Fort Douaumont in WWI during the Feb. 25, 1916 portion of the Battle of Verdun.  Armed with about 15 stick grenades, Pioneer Sergeant Kunze, ( no relation), led a small, advanced element of the 24th Brandenburg Division of the Kaiser's Fifth Army into the fort's ditch and up the scarp, climbing on each other's shoulders and into the fort through an empty, revolver cannon port.  They quickly captured the French artillerymen on the 75 mm and 155 mm guns, and, a few minutes later, the entire garrison, by locking the steel doors to the large meeting room where they all were attending a training lecture! 
     
     We don't have time to attempt a complete research of this question, but given the French propensity to invite revolving gun designers to their shores, we would not be surprised if an earlier example shows up someday in the armaments history of that country.

Regards,

Tracy and Mike

[Cat Whisperer]

Looks like the discussion is revolving cannons...continue!

I concur!

[GGaskill]

From my perspective, the advantage would be that the artillerymen could keep up a steadier, faster fire and not have to go in front of the muzzle.  There would be some problem with relaying the gun after the recoil but one might be able to deal with that with ramps behind the wheels.  There would also be a problem with recoil dislodging the charges in the preloaded chambers but that could be dealt with when seating the shot in the chamber next to be fired.

All in all, the self-contained cartridge/hydraulic recoil system was a better solution to the problem.

[Cannoneer]

   Excellent observations George, I didn't even stop to consider the added safety feature of not having to have any of the gun crew put in jeopardy while reloading from the muzzle; this definitely adds one more to the plus column. I did consider the ease of loading aspect but what held me back from counting this on the plus side was another observation you made, namely that the concussive force (added to the weight of the shot and charge pressing down on the wad in the lower chamber) of firing might have a tendency to loosen the wad and cause it, the shot and the charge to be dislodged out of the lower chamber. I think that loading the upper chamber when one chamber was in battery and ready to fire would certainly nullify this problem but it would also take away what I consider this guns greatest asset, namely the ability of getting three projectiles in the air in short order. After reading your post I'm going to change my mind on this aspect of the gun, I now think that a tight wooden plug that had either canvas or maybe leather fastened to its sides would be secure enough in the chamber to hold everything inside, so I'm going to now go with your opinion and count this as a plus. There's also this plus that your post just helped me to realize; it would be another great safety feature of this model that in reloading the gunners would actually be able to see and more easily reach down into the chamber and counter ever having any hazard occur from smoldering remnants of the powder bag. I don't visualize anything being drastically different with getting this type of gun back into battery and layed as opposed to any other large gun of the period, the only feature of the carriage that would be different in my opinion would be the fact that the cheeks would have to be very tall to accommodate the cylinder. As for your last sentence, as far as I'm concerned it's nolo contendere, there's no question about it.

[seacoastartillery]

      So you want some negatives pertaining to this design, eh?  Well, let's see, how about these:

          1)   This gun, when completely loaded, covers, not only the enemy ahead of you, but you and your crew as well.  This radial cylinder design would certainly be in the top 3 of the world's most dangerous weapon designs TO THE USER!

          2)   How about lead-shaving and cylinder flash?  Look at that mechanism; do you see any robust and exact method of indexing the chamber mouth to the barrel end, and that partial, radiused shield piece at the rear of the barrel on cannonmn's model actually appears to exacerbate this nasty and typical revolver problem, in that it would direct shavings from the ball to actually go slightly to the rear. 

          3)  The delicate looking mechanism also brings to mind constant garrison maintenance chores, parts replacement, etc. in a seacoast fort location where you would have saltwater corrosion and windblown sand to contend with.  Delicate things do not good weapons make.

     Can you really imagine what it would feel like actually trying to operate a full scale version of this weapon?  You would know EXACTLY how the Mexican guerrillas felt as they were confronted by trooper Chamberlain of the Third U.S. Dragoons in that little cafe near Vera Cruz, Mexico in 1847.  They had knives; he had them covered, at a range of 7 feet, with the fully loaded breech of his Hall Carbine, model 1833!

Regards,

Tracy and Mike

[cannonmn]

Does anyone have a photo of the octopus revolving cannon in the Musee Invalides, Paris?  It is really something.  I have it on a postcard somewhere but I have to find it, scan it, etc. and someone else may have one in digits already.

[seacoastartillery]

       

I can envision it being used as a seacoast defense, garrison or even a naval gun mounted on the spar deck. How many other negatives, including the most important of them (at least in my opinion) can you guys come up with?

     O.K.  here's two more for you as far as negative qualities of this design go.  Mike thought of both of these which are:

          4)   The absence of a protective shield at the rear of this revolver-cannon for the purpose of preventing crew injury or death in the event of a partial or multiple chain-fire is certainly a negligent, if not criminal, omission.

          5)   The probability is great that this type of revolver-cannon would cease to function after as few as two or three reloadings of the cylinder, especially in the larger sizes based on our experiences in firing BP revolvers.  Yes, there ARE exceptions, but the huge volume of residue issuing forth from a 3 Inch version of this design, would most quickly halt it's revolution, hence it's execution of seacoast defense. 

     Hope this helps propel this discussion along as this is a very interesting topic.

Regards,

Mike and Tracy

[seacoastartillery]

     One more, (our last), and that's this:

          6)   Would not this design reduce the velocity of the ball or shell, especially in the larger bore sizes, noticeably, when compared to non-cylinder gap designs and thus reduce terminal velocity which would probably create a lesser effect on the target?

     If you see big holes in our logic on any one of these let's here from you, or, if you agree, why?  Thanks to BOOM J. for introducing this topic.  Very, very interesting.

Regards,

Mike and Tracy

[Cannoneer]

   
   

If you see big holes in our logic on any one of these let's here from you, or, if you agree, why?

 
   
   Mike and Tracy, I'm going to get to it very soon but I will tell both of you this now, you have indeed hit upon the main reason (at least your reason jibes with my mildly educated guess) that I think this gun could never have attained any degree of practical success.
 

[Cannoneer]

   Mike and Tracy, first, let me apologize for fiddling around and not getting to this reply in a more timely fashion but don't feel too bad I'm still waiting for KABAR2 to give me a confirmation (or not) on his mystery build and all he has to do is type thumbs up or thumbs down.

This is my fault, I should have been more specific but I was only referring to the Paris Museum's model when I originally brought up the Franklin sheet and the model's posititve and negative attributes. This doesn't really matter in the final analysis because our main reason for these designs being destined to remain models apply equally well to both guns. I agree with almost all the observations you both made that were specifically directed towards cannonmn's model. J. Cochran's creative imagination far overreached his eras real manufacturing capabilities, you will get no argument from me concerning this fact.

Your no. 2 and no. 6 negative opinions combined (in my opinion) would constitute the main argument as to why these models could never have been successfully manufactured to be of any use to either land or sea warfare. What leads me to this conclusion isn't a study of artillery but a moderate knowledge of contemporary and antique reproduction wheel guns. Most people that have some experience with revolvers or have ever fired a revolver in low light conditions would be able to comment on the incredible amount of "flash" that exits out the sides of the frame from between the cylinder and the forcing cone or rear of the barrel and keep in mind these guns have been manufactured with exacting tolerances between moving parts: So all anyone has to do is use a little imagination to come to the realization that the amount of compression or explosive force that would be being lost from between the cylinder and the back of the barrel on Cochran's Paris model would be considerable, I'll even go so far as to describe this loss of cumbustive power as intolerable and there is one more and equally important factor that you have also discerned that would greatly exacerbate this problem, namely the windage that would have had to be incorporated into the design of this barrel for safety reasons. In your no.2 negative comment you mention lead shaving but in reality when discussing this gun we wouldn't be talking about soft lead being shaved when the projectile was hitting the edge of the barrels bore while entering it, we'd actually be describing iron hitting iron with great force. This situation would of course be impossible to allow because this impact would eventually lead to the guns' barrel shattering and the only way that I can think of to remedy this situation would be to have a very large degree of windage incorporated into the design of the barrel's manufacture. The chambers would have to be made with noticeably smaller inner diameters than the barrel's bore diameters to counteract this dangerous problem. In my opinion these are the two most important factors that would make it unfeasable to ever produce this cannon on a full size scale for practical use in warfare. The energy loss that would be the outcome of these two major ( but unavoidable for the time) design flaws would have to make the performance of this gun seem almost comical as compared to the performance of the muzzle loading artillery of the same time period. 

OK guys, as I said in the beginning, I was only talking about the Paris model so some of your negatives may actually be dead on for the other model but not apply to the Paris model and vice versa and it's at times hard to tell which one your really discussing (sometimes it is self evident, like your no.3 where there is no question your talking about the c-man's model) so don't take any of these comments as inferring that it's my opinion that your wrong in your observations because the following comments are only going to pertain to Cochran's Paris model.   

Hey! Can't you guys practice a little patience? I'm typing here and all of a sudden I'm seeing red warning signs about new replies and suggestions that I may want to review my life and I'll tell ya all these distractions are ruining my karma. I'm not even going to read your post till I've saved this, even if your post contradicts everything I just typed. How you like those apples. Jeez!

Anyway where was I, oh yeah, I dont think the Paris gun would be prone to a chain fire occuring, the chambers would be sealed very tightly and the vent would be well away from the flame emanatiing from the chamber that was being fired.

That black powder fouling would incapacitate this gun because of a build up between the cylinder and the rear of the barrel doesn't concern me greatly, I think crewmen could clean this area in a matter of seconds with a rough canvas cloth soaked in cleaning solution that would be pulled up and down between these surfaces. Of course the three of us will probably agree that these and any other ancillary reasons any of us can come up with are going to pale in comparison with the two main design weaknesses of this piece. 

            

[seacoastartillery]

     There is one more and equally important factor that you have also discerned that would greatly exacerbate this problem, namely the windage that would have had to be incorporated into the design of this barrel for safety reasons. In your no.2 negative comment you mention lead shaving but in reality when discussing this gun we wouldn't be talking about soft lead being shaved when the projectile was hitting the edge of the barrels bore while entering it, we'd actually be describing iron hitting iron with great force. This situation would of course be impossible to allow because this impact would eventually lead to the guns' barrel shattering and the only way that I can think of to remedy this situation would be to have a very large degree of windage incorporated into the design of the barrels' manufacture. The chamber would have to be  ---   To be continued..........                                    

      You are correct, we would not be talking about malleable lead balls, as we are talking about the negative features of a full size, fixed fortification gun here.  Before someone mentions "forcing cone", remember that the limited malleability of cast iron can only be elicited upon the release of massive amounts of energy as was found in ordnance and projectile tests conducted at the major foundries and forts before and during the Civil War.  Our Avatar shows what happens when you impact a 15" Dahlgren, 440 pound cored shot into a 6" thick wrought iron armor plate.  Upon impact the north pole partially catches up to the south pole just before the armor is defeated and the equator expands to make this formerly spherical ball assume the shape of a curling stone.  Nothing close to THIS AMOUNT of energy is generated by Cochran's revolver cannon, even at full size. 

     A slight amount of misalignment of the cylinder/barrel interface OR introduction of any kind of forcing cone would, in our opinion lead to the Energetic Disassembly of the revolver cannon being tested.  Comments from the crew of the test battery would probably mirror those immortal words uttered by Bill Murray in the movie 'Stripes'.  Asked by the reviewing General, during their Basic Training Graduation Ceremony, 'What happened to your training Sergeant, Sergeant Hulka, men?"  Bill answers him with typical, less than respectful, swagger, "Blown Up, Sir!!" ( in a Mortar fire accident ). 

Please continue!

Tracy and Mike

[Cannoneer]

   Mike & Tracy, I didn't misread your comment about " lead-shaving and cylinder flash " I knew you were being analogous in reference to a modern revolver. In the same vein I hope you know that when I used the term " forcing cone " that I was only referring to contemporary revolvers. BTW I think you both came up with some very astute observations on these models.

There's a good site on the net that has a series of pics that document the effects of solid shot on iron plates of various thicknesses, with the plates also arranged at different angles to simulate the angled plates on the Virginia, I think these original tests were inaugurated by Dahlgren after the Monitor and Merrimac-Virginia engagement but I can't find it or remember the sites' title. The fact that his 11 inch guns were throwing solid shot that just glanced off the armor of the Virginia infuriated Dahlgren the perfectionist and he immediately set out to remedy this situation. Anyway, what Im getting at is that some of these photos show how the iron shot when striking the plate at an angle would sometimes just make relatively deep gouges in the plate while at other times cause cracking or deformities, depending on the degree of the angle. In any event, (I love your term "Energetic Disassembly") the effect of solid shot caroming off the posterior edge of this cannon's bore would soon turn the proper description of this gun from relatively ineffectual to absolutely useless, that is, if the gun crew were still around to call it anything.

Everybody, I've had a good time with this topic, you all had some great posts, thanks.

PS., This last sentence doesn't in any way imply that posts on this topic should stop.

[Squire Robin]

What's this I see in the Ordnance Society newsletter? A 5 shot American Civil War cannon in the Siege Museum, Petersbug, Virginia. Looks like it was based on a Colt open frame but 3.31" bore.

Says they made two but after the first exploded at proof killing 3 men nobody wanted to try the other.

Perhaps they aren't a good idea as previously mentioned

[Cannoneer]

   Howdy Squire, I didn't know about the experimental gun at the Petersburg Museum, I'm going to surf the net a bit to see if I can find anything, I'd love to see a pic of a full size version of something similar to these models; thanks for the info.

Yeah, I think that the designer of these models while very bold and imaginative in his thinking outside the box might have found a little more success in making guns that were a tad more practically feasible if he had managed to keep just a little bit more of his thought process inside the shelter of a square container.

It's good to see you posting again.