1870 repeating gitbox7/29/2023 ![]() ![]() Or, for that matter a self-loading action. 38-40, for instance.Īs for “external power”, either one could easily be made into a pump-action, either Spencer (forearm) or Burgess (pistol-grip) type. However, with interchangeable barrels, this setup could easily accommodate various cartridges with the same head diameter. The latter would make more sense, as most rounds then had fairly similar OALs within caliber (.44-40, etc.) regardless of bullet type. The devices to vary the length of cartridges to be deposited on the lifter really only makes sense if he was thinking of either (1) various loads with varying bullet extruded length or (2) various cartridges with different OALs. It seems to me that what’s missing from both of his designs is an external power system to operate the breech (other than the shooter’s hand) and a separate means of returning the bolt in each to battery.(i.e., a recoil spring.) I’m wondering if Robinson wasn’t groping his way toward a basic self-loading action. And one that can give you severe migraines if you think about it too much. “Falling blocks” are an interesting field of study. This piece is not actually connected to the breechblock, it just “rides” up and down on the breechblock, driven by its own spring. What looks sort of like a “toggle” on the Spencer is actually the spring-loaded “finger” on top of the breech, that first guides the round being brought up from the magazine tube int the chamber (keeping it from popping up and out of the breech), and when the breech is in the full “down” (open) position, acting a a ramp to ensure that when the extractor/ejector arm throws the round out of the chamber, it actually goes up and out instead of falling back into the breech. The Peabody, Peabody-Martini, and Martini-Henry are rear-pivot dropping-front type “falling blocks”, as is the Bavarian Werder “Lightning”.Īll of the above are considered “falling blocks”, but they are actually two different types, one moving straight up-and-down, the other pivoted at one end or the other and describing a segment of a circle as it moves. The Spencer, along with the Starr single-shot, is an example of a front-pivot “hinged” or “rotating” type “falling-block”. Tyler Henry) is another such, as is the Portuguese Guedes. The British Alexander Henry (not to be confused with B. The Sharps, with its block moving straight up and down in a mortise, is a “true” falling-block. ![]() Which actually have very few members that really qualify as such. The Spencer is actually an example of that large family known as “falling block” actions. Whether Ferdinand Mannlicher ever saw one of the 1870 pattern rifles is unknown, but it could have been the basis for his early 1886 action… Winchester shut down the production they were not interested in having a viable competitor to their lever-action rifles. They purchased his inventory and patents, and Robinson signed a non-compete contract to boot. Much like a lever action, but without the lever.īoth guns seems to have had significant promise, which may explain why the Winchester company was interested in buying out Robinson in 1874. The shooter would use it to pull the bolt open and push it closed. The later 1872 pattern rifle abandoned the earlier action for a toggle type of lock, operated manually with a small knob on the side of the bolt. This Robinson design had a pair of checkered tabs on the back of the bolt, and the shooter would use them to manually cycle the bolt back and forth. The first ( the 1870 model) used a tilting wedge very similar in concept to the 1886 Mannlicher straight-pull action. They are both pistol-caliber actions, with tubular magazines. Orvill Robinson was a gunsmith and gun designer in upstate New York who developed two rather interesting rifle designs in the 1870s. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |