Rampant Colt symbolism
- Thread starter angeldeville
- Start date
Tyler Thomas Colt
New member
Samuel carried Whitney's conceptions to transcendent heights. No question about it. The significance of Sam's invention can be seen throughout history, and Whitney's cannot.
I must be insane because Sam Colt did not invent the revolver. As I said before, he made it work and he made it practical while still affordable for the common man. His designs, which led to William Mason's Single Action Army are highly deserving of their legendary status. The handgun world as we know it today would probably be very different had he not done what he did. The fact that he did not invent the concept does not take away from that.
CraigC said:
Alright CraigC I'll play. Samuel Colt invented a revolver, a revolver who's cocking action rotated the cylinder an 'idea'
that was Colt's. Why don't you tell us which inventor patented a 'revolver' in the sense of the word as it is commonly used before Colt's that was sucessful and mass produced.
That's an interesting stipulation, considering what I've posted once and since repeated.
All you have to do is look for it. Doesn't get much simpler than this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolver
Here's one example by British inventor James Puckle with a revolving cylinder and a single fixed barrel dating 1718:
http://www.ccrkba.org/pub/rkba/news/PuckleGun.htm
http://www.wedmore.org.uk/puckle/James.htm
Elisha Collier's flintlock pistol dating 1818:
http://plowshareforge.blogspot.com/2006/12/inventor-of-revolver.html
From one article you cite.
The interesting thing is that, while in London he was reputed to have purchased an example of the second weapon featured, a flintlock revolver made by Elisha H. Collier, late of Boston.
By whom?
The term "flintlock revolver" has to rank some where in the same category as "steam-powered pocket watch"
The only salient difference seems to be that there was no mechanism for rotating the cylinder. One had to do it by hand.
What a difference!
Its like saying the Wright Brothers didn't invent the airplane, Da Vinci did in 1490, after all the Wright Brothers only made it work and practical.
The interesting thing is that, while in London he was reputed to have purchased an example of the second weapon featured, a flintlock revolver made by Elisha H. Collier, late of Boston.
By whom?
The term "flintlock revolver" has to rank some where in the same category as "steam-powered pocket watch"
The only salient difference seems to be that there was no mechanism for rotating the cylinder. One had to do it by hand.
What a difference!
Its like saying the Wright Brothers didn't invent the airplane, Da Vinci did in 1490, after all the Wright Brothers only made it work and practical.
Only DaVinci didn't actually build a functioning airplane, nor did he have registered patents on their designs. Yeah, that's a minor detail.
Your point is that those early revolvers aren't actually revolvers because they don't automatically rotate the cylinder when you cock the hammer? That IS a minor difference and it is one manner in which Colt "greatly improved upon its function". I can see that you have your preconceived notions about Samuel Colt and your own ideas for worshipping at his altar and won't be swayed by the facts. Have a nice day.
CraigC said:
No they have chambers that revolve. I'll concede that.
It's ok if for the sake of semantics you want to compare Sam Colt's revolutionary design to the pepper box or the revolving flintlock.
Perhaps it is unfair to give so much credit to the Wright Bros, Edison, and yes even Colt and I'm sure many others.
None of them actually did what history gives them credit for the act of true invention ( to create something previously unknown) they were however the first to have the most successful, practical designs.
What do you suggest we call them in lieu of 'inventor'?
Not semantics in any shape, form or fashion. Historical fact. The flintlock above, an improvement over the pepperbox, is a revolver by any definition of the word. No, it does not fit your narrow view of what a revolver should be but that does not change what it is nor does that change the fact that they predated Sam Colt's design for the Paterson. I am sorry to gore your sacred goat but it is unabashed historical fact, not my humble opinion. John Taffin, well known writer and sixgun fancier, would agree with me and does, in print.
You can call him whatever you like. You can say that he designed the first mass produced revolver, he successfully adapted percussion caps to the design, he successfully sold the concept to the military and that his designs have been extremely influential in the industry to this day. There are a great many things to be said of the man, you just cannot say that he originated the concept or the execution of the first revolver. That singular fact does not diminish what he did accomplish. As I said before, three times, he may not have invented the revolver but he did make it practical. His designs led directly to the legendary Single Action Army of 1873. It is a fitting tribute that so many of his designs are available today as reproductions. Even Bill Ruger's first single actions were changed very little from the Colt design, before they were fully modernized (for the lawyers!) in 1973.
I am not comparing the different designs as if it were a competition. I do not care to argue the merits of each. History is what it is. They are very different firearms from two very different eras but the simple fact remains that the revolver was around long before Samuel Colt.
I am also not seeking to dethrone the legend. I own more traditional single action revolvers than any other type of firearm. Over two dozen if I remember right. All guns that owe their lineage to Sam Colt in one way or another.
Tyler Thomas Colt
New member
CraigC. I hate to bust your bacon but it's as black and white as it can get. You posted a bunch of pictures of FLINTLOCK revolving cylinder pistols that have to be revolved by HAND, as well as a massive revolving mounted rifle dealio that looks to weigh a hundred pounds.
If you walk into a gunshop and ask them to show you a standard "Revolver" what do you think they will hand you? Something that works similar to what you posted? I don't think so.
None of that crap operates even remotely similar to Samuel's design, aside from the fact that they have "rotating" chambers.
There's just no arguement here, really man...
If you walk into a gunshop and ask them to show you a standard "Revolver" what do you think they will hand you? Something that works similar to what you posted? I don't think so.
None of that crap operates even remotely similar to Samuel's design, aside from the fact that they have "rotating" chambers.
There's just no arguement here, really man...
Yes it is, that much we agree on. You guys can believe what you like. You have presented no supporting data or cited sources, only your own opinion. Find something in print that supports your position and we'll have something more to discuss. No firearms authority or credible writer will agree that Sam Colt "invented" the revolver.
Tyler Thomas Colt
New member
Does the fact that the united states military purchased a metric crapload of Colt's revolver have anything to do with it? And every revolver used today is based on his design? I think it might be kinda hard to get my hands on those reciepts.
There are two pieces to this. "Revolving cylender firearms pre Sam Colt"
And, The Revolver perfected by Sam Colt...
There are two pieces to this. "Revolving cylender firearms pre Sam Colt"
And, The Revolver perfected by Sam Colt...
What are you even talking about? Have anything to do with what?
So you can give him credit for his work influencing modern guns that have no outward similarity (other than a fixed barrel and revolving cylinder) and at the same time give absolutely no credit to those who came before him who originated the concept and brought it to fruition simply because they don't look like a Colt??? Sorry but you can't have it both ways.
The difference being what exactly? The terms 'you' choose to describe them?
This is getting extremely childish. If you honestly cannot recognize those examples I gave and those posted by Maddock as "revolvers" pre-dating Colt's Paterson then you are obviously delusional, intent on worshipping your supposed ancestors and won't be swayed by the facts.
Doublestack
New member
Quote from darrentxs
"I'm just glad his name wasn't Samuel Hamster. "
LMAO!
Now THAT"S FUNNY. I don't care who y'are!!!
Hey guys, I just got an incredible deal on a 1st generation hamster! Only $4700.00 !!!
From the outlaw Josey Wales:
"Well are ya gonna pull them hamsters or whistle Dixie"
...I could go on and on.
DS
Been doing a little reading in R.L. Wilson's book, "Colt: An American Legend" and "The Standard Catalog of Colt Firearms" by Rick Sapp. It appears as though even Sam Colt recognized the existence of revolving firearms before he got his start. Referencing "the existence of ancient examples" in his own writing. He probably got a look at those examples I posted while in London and also in India where the Collier guns were issued to British troops. Not that he copied their designs. He DID recognize their existence and knew his revolving firearm concept was not original.
What I also find interesting is that the Paterson guns (several models, including rifles) were not commercially successful and suffered from reliability issues and immature design qualities. It wasn't until his 1847 Walker did he see commercial success.
What I also find interesting is that the Paterson guns (several models, including rifles) were not commercially successful and suffered from reliability issues and immature design qualities. It wasn't until his 1847 Walker did he see commercial success.