Some folks looked at Sam Colt’s 1836 patent on his repeating guns with envy. They couldn’t just copy Colt’s designs while it was under patent protection, but the precedent had been established; revolvers were the big thing in repeaters, and the market was open for them. So to get around Colt’s patent, some new ideas were brought forth that were, to say the least, novel.

1836: Sam Colt’s Patent, Cochran and Porter

Two gunmakers used the turret model to try to sidestep Sam Colt’s 1836 patent. What is that turret model? Instead of having a cylinder with the chambers drilled all in parallel and revolving around a central pin, a turret revolver has a disk-shaped turret with chambers drilled so that they radiate away from a pivot. This means that loaded chambers, when not being fired, are not aligned with the barrel; instead, depending on design, they are pointed every which way.

See Related: Sunday Gun Day XLI - Five Guns That Just Don't Make Sense

Only a few examples of these guns survive.

The first, the Cochran revolver, was designed by John Cochran sometime in the 1830s and used a turret that was arranged in a flat disk, like a steel pancake full of gunpowder and lead. Firing it was a chore:

Firing the Cochran turret revolver was not only risky but also a clunky affair. To avoid violating Samuel Colt’s patent, the Cochran revolver was manually indexed to subsequent chambers via a small spring-loaded button and tab on the top strap. Then, one had to manually cock the hammer and fire. To fire the next round, the disk would need to be manually indexed to the next chamber.

Both rifle and pistol versions of the Cochran were made in the United States and Great Britain.

Another example of this workaround was the Porter Turret Rifle, first produced in 1851. This gun used a turret mounted on edge, like a wheel. The most common variation of this gun held nine .44 caliber loads, one of which would always be pointed back at the shooter.

As the chambers opened in all directions, it also meant that one chamber would be pointed at the shooter’s face—just like the Cochran rifle. More ominous was the fact that, due to the proximity of the respective chambers, there was a good chance of a row ignition or “chain fire.” This would result in all of the rounds firing in sequence, creating an all-too-fatal accident. This could kill the operator as well as anyone standing next to the shooter as bullets could literally fire in a 360-degree arc from the turret.

It's easy to see how the poor old common soldier standing in a row might just prefer a solid old single-shot rifled musket to one of these contraptions.

The Pros and Cons

The pros of the turret revolver over the traditional single-barrel front-stuffer and even Colonel Colt’s revolvers were significant, including capacity; bear in mind that Colt’s initial offering, the Paterson revolver, only had five chambers. This capacity also made a decent rate of fire possible.

But the cons? Oh, the cons. Turret revolvers were heavy, bulky, and complex, which also made them expensive and possibly unreliable. But worse – well, with that turret design, where all of the chambers radiated away from the pivot point, then when the shooter was commencing operations, one or more of the loaded chambers was always pointing at some portion of the shooter’s anatomy.

I’ve had occasion once or twice to examine cap-and-ball revolvers that had done what shooters call “chain firing.” What happens here is that a revolver that has, perhaps, a ball improperly seated will malfunction in that when the chamber lined up with the barrel is fired, the chambers on either side will go off as well, generally wrecking the gun. Now, imagine a chain fire in which one of the chambers is quite literally staring you in the face.

That kind of event has the possibility of ruining one’s whole day.

See Related: Sunday Gun Day Vol. II Ep. I - The Amazing Puckle Gun

In the End:

The turret revolvers didn’t last. There’s little reason why they should. Compared to traditional revolvers, they were heavy, clunky, awkward, and complicated. The chain-firing issue always included the possibility that one could end up with a lead ball in one’s noggin. Safety is a big consideration, even in military circles; a soldier hasn’t gained much by un-aliving his enemy on the battlefield if he has managed to revoke his own birth certificate in the process.

But the guns remain as interesting examples of how designers can find ways around a troublesome patent and, in so doing, come up with a design that is unique and innovative. In this case, it was a dangerous way around, but for a few years, it worked.

You wouldn’t catch me firing one, though. I wouldn’t be able to take my eyes off that loaded chamber aimed backward, directly at my face. No thanks!