Yeah, basically, you have a five shooter, and if you go back before speed loaders were common, this could save some time since you wouldn’t bother ejecting the last case. You would load 5 and let the first shot blow the last case out. Still a dumb idea though. Just use speed loaders.
@@justins8802 That's not why they did that, an old single action revolvers if you leave a live round in the chamber if you bump the hammer on the back of the gun the gun will discharge
I feel like it would work well as a single action. It's cool to see the things that didn't make a splash which through all the failures, led us to where we are today. Thanks for the video Ian, keep up the great work!
To make that fundamental design work it would be necessary to store the gas pressure from the previous shot in a small tank with a check valve so the gas pressure can charge the tank and the action of the cylinder rotating would trip a valve to vent the gas to the cylinder and eject the round that was just fired. Very simple fix.
What would be cool would be if someone was to modify a Mateba or Fosberry autorevolver with some sort of spring-loaded ejector that would activate after the frame went through its recoil cycle, then you'd have solved the problem of that sixth round, since every round fired from an autorevolver cycles the frame and thus every round would provide the energy for its own ejection.
There's a version of the Striker 12 that uses the same gas ejection system. It makes a lot more sense on something with a 12-shot cylinder that you reload like a hilariously oversized Single Action Army - saves you a lot of time and movement.
One additional problem you didn't mention was that upon firing the first round of a fully loaded cylinder, it would attempt to eject the live round that was in the number six position behind the gas tube.
I suppose the initial idea was to load the cylinders one by one as you shoot during lulls by pulling the deflector back rather than loading with a speedloader, so its still kinda practical maybe? I mean like you start with 5 shots and one empty, then go bang bang, get cover, and load in another 2, and keep shooting until your pocket is empty
As a revolver pistol, this doesn't make much sense. However, at the same time as adopting the M16, we also se the air force looking at faster firing guns for aircraft - Gatling guns and revolver cannons. For an aircraft weapon that is using a revolving feeding tray/link less ammo system, this is a pretty ingenious way to clear cases. I could see this as working for a semi-auto tank gun or artillery piece.
This blowback ejector idea would have been well used before revolvers opened for reloading. But also this design sets you back in not being able to fully load because the last round would be ejected on your first shot.. Meaning you'd load 6 but only get 5 shots.
The Stryker 12 revolving shotgun uses gas ejection, but DUH!, there's plenty of gas at the cylinder gap, so no gas tube is necessary. It simply directs the existing, normal gas leakage to eject the previously fire shell. Since the Stryker has an ejector rod, like the typical single action revolver, and the huge 12 round cylinder doesn't tip out for reloading, you yank the ejector rod once after firing your 12 shots and you're ready to reload. Also it has a loading gate, old-fashioned single action style, which is forced open after the first shot. The next shot sees the port open, and the gas propels the previous shell out into a neoprene shell deflector. It's a very simple system. It's never been a great gun, but the gas ejection did work very well. Someone at Colt was smoking WAY too much doobie, methinks. The very thought of putting a gas port in a revolver barrel is ridiculous. EVERY REVOLVER EVER MADE COMES WITH A "GAS PORT" ALREADY. The guys working next to you are trying to prevent gas cutting in the frames of magnum revolvers, and you can't see there's plenty of energy there? Also it is considered by some to be an advantage that a revolver doesn't spit out its empties. You can save your cases without searching through the grass, bushes, thistles, nettles, snow, sand, leaves, cow pies and mud puddles.
Colt has made a lot of unusual and Interesting Firearms over the Years, to compeat with Winchester, Colt came out with the pump action Lighting, very popular in the old west Because of how fast it could be fired, mostly in .45 long Colt and .38-40 which was actually a .40 caliber bullet with 38 grains of Black Powder. Have you done a review and or firing of these classic Colt's of the old West? Enjoy your Channel for the unusual and rare Firearms I can seldom find anywhere else.
AK 56 wapenmagazine tested a selfejecting revolver in .25 auto. this thing blows the cartridge-case right out the back of the cylinder. magazine nr. 107 march 2012.
I wonder if you could design an auto-ejecting revolver like the one in fallout where it automatically ejects the cartridges when you open the cylinder, basically an automatic ejection rod.
Possible, but I would think it unlikely to be completely effective. If it has enough pressure to blow the empty out quickly and cleanly, then it would likely still at least move a live round back a bit, potentially preventing the cylinder from rotating for the next shot. I wouldn't think this possible failure point to be worth the risk.
I could see a system like this being useful on a single action revolver. Instead of having to remove all 6 spend casings you only end up needing to remove the last one.
Missed opportunity to add a left side loading gate and just keep slowfiring as you load/eject.... But at that point, you've basically just made a manual action belt feed...
Ultimately having the cylinder ejector plate spring loaded to elect once the cylinder reaches full swing out is the answer, if any was needed: saves one hand movement at best, and can still fail.
Plus you will loose one good bullet through each cylinder you shoot, 6 good bullets and the 1st shot ejects the last bullet in the cylinder, that leaves you with 4 bullets in a 6 shot cylinder after the first shot
For a reloading gate revolvers like the single action army it would be nice to have all the cases ejected so you can focus on the reloading part, other than that I can't see a benefit like you said. Edit : a mechanically ejection system would be more reliable and less dangerous for the shooter and you can fire 6 or more rather than 5.
No practical benefit? Maybe... Inconvenient? Maybe... Really cool? HECK YEAH! (That's the entire motto of the Heereswaffenamt in the second half of WWII)
Won't eject the last fired case and will eject a live cartridge on the first shot if fully loaded. I'm shocked that an experienced gun guy would make this thing, unless maybe it was a test/stepping stone towards something else that never came to be.
The only purpose I think this serves is if you never expect to fully empty your cylinder of rounds and just drop more rounds in as you need, making sure not to fire the last round.
Wouldn't have tried this with a contemporary Smith and Wesson, it occurs to me, and not because he worked for Colt either. See below cut for theory..... .... S&W's rotate the opposite direction from Colts. A S&W would be ejecting it's spent cartridge to the left, from the left side of the frame... which puts any potential mechanism at odds with the cylinder crane. As long as the cylinder swings left, the cylinder has to rotate clockwise for a simple frame-mounted system to eject the immediate trailing case.
For a left-handed shooter, it would not be that hard to load a single round in the vacated spot in the cylinder. Which would obviate having to open the cylinder (until you ran out of ammo, at least). Right-handers, not so much.
Reminds of my 38.long colt 1903 New army revolver,. Nothing to much special aside from the roation being counter clock wise. Shoot like a beaut but can only fire the original bullets Wich they still make but it's like a dollar a bullet lol.
If it was a gate loading revolver the system might of been a lot more useful, and a cowboy load would stop the flaw of it trying to eject 1 live round.
It only sold for $1840? I'm surprised. Seems to me that the final design for this would offer a method of loading one as the empty chamber rotated around. Not really practical, but it solves the issue of manually ejecting the sixth cartridge. Of course it basically turns it into a single shot. Load one, shoot one, load one, shoot one. If I was going to design it, I would make it so that the cylinder auto ejected all 6 cartridges when it was swung open rather than as they are shot. Then you just swing out the cylinder, reload, and swing it back into position. Still probably not that practical. I carry revolvers frequently, and never felt a need for a system to speed up my reloads over a speed loader, or moon clips. I'm pretty sure the idea died because they realized these things and more. Not every POC deserves to be produced. But they always provide a learning experience. At $1840, I would have bid more on it, and made a cool display in my living room as a conversational piece.
Don't see why there would be any need for it if there are top break open revolvers that eject all casings at once which has been around more than 120 years.
Why not make the cylinder with the size to hold 7 rounds but the 7th (or 1st depending on how you think about it) isnt machined out leave it solid that way there is nothing to eject. Maybe make it in a smaller caliber.
I've never heard of this gun before. Google Maurice the Frankenruger, my build. In my early development stage I had exactly this system working based on a Ruger New Vaquero. At that point I still had the original ejector rod to spit out that last shell. In a single action revolver ("cowboy gun") there was still a significant speed advantage to auto ejecting five of the six rounds. (Continued in reply)
Then I took it to the next level. I converted it to 9mm Parabellum, punched a hole in the back of the frame on the left side and was able to use tubular magazines to inject new rounds into the back of the cylinder as soon as an empty chamber passed in front of the magazine well. I also ditched the mechanical ejector and did a straight gas line very similar to this Colt although quite a bit bigger. Instead of tapping the barrel I did a muzzle attached gas trap which doubles as the front sight base. I normally carry it with a short two round tubular magazine topping off 5 in the cylinder but my reload magazines are a foot long holding 9 rounds, and if I want I can stack 9 on 5 and get a 14 shot capacity cowboy gun. (Continued!)
My next planned modification is to upgrade the caliber to 9X23 Winchester, giving me enough gas pressure to run a second gas line driving a small slide stripping rounds off the top of a Glock 10-millimeter family magazine into the back of the cylinder. Mags would poke out sideways and up a bit. Using happy sticks I should get somewhere over 30 rounds of firepower out of a cowboy gun. Regular holster carry would be easy with 10 round mags which would probably carry 11 in 9x23. If it's not clear yet, 9mm rimless ammo was necessary to clear the gun's guts on the left side as the shells are injected into the back of the cylinder. 357 was too fat and would have hung up on the pawl. I've tried to figure out how many SASS rules I'm violating. The best answer I can come up with is "all of them".
I can't wait to see your next modification. :) I'd try the mag fed slide action version in 9mm Parabellum first on the off chance it surprises you by working. :) If it didn't you'd just have to ream the chamber, scale up the mag well and perhaps tweak the slide travel distance. (9X23 Winchester is so much more expensive than 9mm Para and I'm cheep.)
Isnt there another problem? you have a full drum of 6, you fire your first shot, the gas then kicks out the fresh cartridge that is sitting to the right of your firing cartridge.
I wonder, if you have that thing fully loaded, the first shot should eject a live round ... I guess this was just a test if the ejection worked as it has no practical application in a revolver what so ever ...
Surely the whole idea about a auto eject revolver is that you dont have to reload.? You just put another cartridge into the hole that the empty case came out of, and are never left in a vulnerable position with a empty gun.?
i'm guessing maybe the weight of an unfired round would prevent it from moving with the right calculators on bore size you could vent enough gas to move an empty case but not a full one
Rock Island Auction Company: any gun with Colt on it, people will buy.IMHO and of course the same goes with Winchester,Remington,Marlin, and etc Everyone always want to own a piece of history
Nah, that game would've had a more clever or useful design to their revolver...This just seems like the bois at Colt got drunk one night and were fuckin' around xD
When you're down in the mouth, and life's a pain Weatherman says "heavy rain" A little boost is all you need Average Joe to Hercules A stronger arm, a sharper brain That's why the future is Fontaine!
I'm thinking he probably did it just to see if it could be done, rather than for practical purposes. One of the benefits of a revolver, when you can take your time shooting, is not having to pick your cases off the ground.
I think this idea would be okay if implemented on a single action army. Because you load it on one side and it ejects out the other side. It would save loads of time.
Then you'd have to remove the loading gate and replace it with the auto ejector, then make a whole new loading gate on the left side. Like someone said though, on the first shot you'd have that ejection gas coming out of the empty chamber in the direction towards the shooter.
Robert E. Roy, 73, of Barefoot Bay, FL, died Wednesday, (March 27, 2002) at Indian River Memorial Hospital in Vero Beach, FL. He was the beloved husband for 53 years of Theresa (Marlow) Roy. He was born in Holyoke, MA, and was a longtime resident of central Connecticut. Before his retirement in 1993, which concluded 30 years of service, Mr. Roy was the Director of International Sales for Colt Firearms. He was well known and respected by business and government leaders around the world. He was an avid shooter and photographer, enjoyed reading, listening to jazz and telling stories of his travels. Besides his wife, he is survived by his daughters and sons-in-law, Linda and Allan Craig, and Sandy and Tom Mepham; his son, Robert Roy, Jr.; six grandchildren; three great-grandchildren; his sister and brother-in-law, Phyllis and Jim Norwood; his sister, Carol Stanka; and his brother and sister-in-law, John and Kathy Roy. Services were held in Florida. Memorial donations may be made to the American Heart Association, American Diabetes Foundation or American Cancer Society.
I am amazed that with the amount of weird designs you've already shown, you still manage to find subjects like this where the first reaction to the concept is utter disbelief. I find it humbling that after those years, you still haven't been able to document every method about the (one would think) relatively simple function of throwing a bit of dense metal at something. Thanks for your work :)
A lot of people seem to be mistaking this as a prototype of an actual possible product. It is not that. It is a test bed for an idea. The idea was "could we tap gas from the barrel to eject cases?" The reply would be "let's find out." So they built a test bed out of existing, off the shelf parts just to see if the concept would work. Once that is done, there are three possibilities. 1. It didn't work. They couldn't make it work so they scrap the whole idea. 2. It worked so they took the concept and further develop it into an actual product that probably would have been far different from this test prototype. This obviously didn't happen in this case. 3. It worked but no one could figure out a way to use this new knowledge to improve on existing designs. This is probably the most likely outcome in this case.
When speedloading it would solve the practical issue of having to tilt the gun 90 degrees and use gravity to help eject the spent cases. Often if you go too quickly the cases won't have time to clear the cylinder or if you have it at the wrong angle they might not eject all the way. The trouble is that in today's era any speed advantage would easily be won over by moon clips, so it's not worth it.
This reminds me about a question I've been dying to ask: Why haven't "Tround" guns ever taken off? I can see why the Dardick revolver itself didn't take off, but why hasn't the idea been used since? It seems like it could be useful, especially in a hunting rifle. Sorry if you've answered this in a Q&A already, I don't usually have the time to watch them through.
the plastic cased ammo and the shape and all that maybe if they made it with regular rimless semiauto type of ammo it could work if they remade it the reason they tryed the first thing i said was cause it supposedly held more ammo
The concept was explored further in small-scale tests, with the US Navy building a .50 caliber tround machine gun. The rate of fire was quite high and it worked without issue, which is really where the tround comes into play; the tround was really meant for something like a machine gun or autocannon for aircraft use, as the case design allows an “open-cylinder” design that simplified chambering and ejection with a linkless feed system.
Back in 2012 I took an M1895 Nagant revolver & made it gas ejecting. The mechanism I made was nearly identical to this. I had no idea this prototype Colt revolver existed. I had many of the same problems. Such as how it ejects on every shot, so I had to leave actually two chambers empty due to the position of the ejector rod. Which since a Nagant holds 7rds it still had 5rds, but with such a slow reloading process you really want to have those extra 2rds. Having it auto eject really didn't save much time on the reload.
Not true, two cartridges can be loaded on the left side of the cylinder at a time prior to the discharge of the last case leaving a continuous loading and auto unloading.
i dont think you eject that last round. you probably keep it in there so when reload the cylinder, it will blow out that last round instead of blowing out a unused round. but regardless you would be stuck with a 5 round revolver
I think it IS a bad idea. Why would you even want this? One of the benefits of shooting a revolver is not having to police your brass. Why would you want a revolver that throws spent casings everywhere?
I’m kinda pissed we don’t do cool stuff like this and even I wanted to just bust the tools out and try to make it myself I would get fined or arrested.
Ive seen a similar idea with a chain fed .38 acp. The Shells were chain fed and advanced every time you pulled the trigger then ejected on the far side of the gun as the links fell out. It looked like there was a cylinder but it was just a half tube that was machined to look like one. it was neat to watch him shoot the different guns he made. The makers name was Shelenhamer he was an accountant in Palmyra Pa. He had several rifle cartridges named after him. After his death I don't know what happened to the pistol.
