Full-auto conversion of Ruger Blackhawk revolver

Interesting, I've never seen that idea before. There have been a lot of strange ideas come down the pike though. There's probably somebody out there trying to make that revolver into a belt fed. LOL!! Remember the caseless pistol?

I have no idea if a full auto Ruger revolver ever existed, but my question would be why? There are and were so many other weapons out there that would do the same job and these would not need to be custom made.

I can't help thinking of the Webley "automatic revolver"...an amazingly complex weapon that didn't improve on either component....But the made 'EM anyway.
Well, some.

Or the pistol that fired triangular bullets?

Click to expand...

I'd like to discuss that.

There wasn't one.

I think you are referring to the Dardick semi-auto pistol "tround".

And it did use triangle shaped cartridges.

But the bullets that came out of the cartridges were quite round & bullet shaped.

rc

The only thing I can find on Richard Paulson designs is supposed to be in this book.
A.W.F. Taylerson's book "The Revolver, 1865-1888

I can't help but think there is a connection between his designs and Fosbery.
Whether anyone ever made a workable model from the drawing you show is questionable.

Ever hear of the brush-buster shotgun load that uses cut square wire in place of round shot for hunting? They came with a clear plastic hull ala Brenneke and a horrible pattern.

Click to expand...

Thought they were called 'Spreader Loads'...

Hey, if they can make the 1903 Springfield full auto, why not a single-action revolver.

pretty similar to Brownings first experiments with semi-auto lever-actions.

There have been belt fed fully automatic revolvers for more than half a century and in common use........as 20 mm cannon on the F-100 and later US fighters, and I believe still in use in other folks air forces. They were replaced by gatling type guns mostly.

I would however like more details on this US murder with a fully auto .30 carbine BH revolver though......

-kBob

Seems to me that the hammer would follow the piston and not hit the primer with enough force to ignite it.

Actually, you can make any single action revolver full automatic. For a Colt SAA, just remove the firing pin bushing. The primers will blow out and the escaping gas will cock the hammer and rotate the cylinder. This can even happen in unmodified pre-WWII SAAs in .357.

Yeah, those have been around for a long time and proven themselves.

Whole different ballgame converting a handheld single action revolver to function in full automatic mode by adding some parts from a gas operated rifle to it.

SHUCKS !! To those who read all sorts of interesting I-do-not-freakin'-believe-it stuff is available.
It is pretty darned easy to turn a COLT SAA into a full auto pistol that'll rip off six in the blink of an eye.
And so it goes....

W.E.G.

Pedersen device is semi auto or was as adopted and demonstrated by the US army in 1918.

I beleive the Austrailians ( or NZs) produced a modified Enfield No III series rifle that had been converted to full auto for home guard use called the Charlton in WWII.

There were a number of designs and working models for making bolt actions go bang rapidly without bolt manipulation between WWI and WWII.

Supposedly there were a few Winchester '92 designs made into SMGs for use by Castro's folks in Cuba when the revolution was yet young, they used magazines based on the design of the Luger snail drums of WWII. Talk about convoluted! Surely it would have been easier to make Stens....but not if what you have to start with is Winnie '92s.

I have never said one could not make a usless six shot 'chine gun from a single action revolver, I mearly question why anyone would go to the trouble of doing so.

-kBob

Winchester 94

Moses Browning converted a Winchester 94 to semi-auto in the space of eight hours. I suspect a bet may have been involved.

The Dardick, in its hand held pistol version was magazine fed. It was essentially developed as proof of concept for light artillery designs that were a belt fed revolver.

Interesting. I'm gonna add that to my store of useless(?) gun info. Might come in handy for something one day.

It's possible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4OE78spknk

At first I was like WTH? But the drawing makes it look like it would not be all that hard.

A short sharp blow from the piston would "throw" the hammer back and the piston would be returned by a recoil spring leaving the hammer a free travel to strike the next round.

But WOW! Would this ever be hard on the stop bolt, frame, cylinder ratchet teeth and hand! ! ! ! I would expect that the gun would shoot itself loose in almost no time at all. Or, more likely, that the hand would simply bend, shatter or otherwise lay down and play dead or the indexing teeth on the rear of the cylinder would be chiseled away by the hand.

But WOW! Would this ever be hard on the stop bolt, frame, cylinder ratchet teeth and hand! ! ! ! I would expect that the gun would shoot itself loose in almost no time at all. Or, more likely, that the hand would simply bend, shatter or otherwise lay down and play dead or the indexing teeth on the rear of the cylinder would be chiseled away by the hand.

Click to expand...

Very likely.

As an elderly lady from Mis'sippi I used to know would say, "Oh, isn't that useless!"

Send it to Bob Munden for one of his quickdraw tunes, before you make it a rock n roll revolver.
I'd like to see someone do this with a Freedom Arms Casull.
Then, I'd like to see video of someone shooting it.
The last round fired would probably be aimed directly behind the shooter.
Unless you made a muzzle brake like on a Barrett .50.

Send it to Bob Munden for one of his quickdraw tunes, before you make it a rock n roll revolver.
I'd like to see someone do this with a Freedom Arms Casull.
Then, I'd like to see video of someone shooting it.
The last round fired would probably be aimed directly behind the shooter.
Unless you made a muzzle brake like on a Barrett .50.

Click to expand...

Which is why you would not want to be there to see it. Although it might be fun to get there before the paramedics arrived.

I take it back, the third shot would probably be directly aft of the shooter.
That thing has a violent recoil.

I would definitely not want to be within range of that round when it was touched off. Remote controlled camera would be good enough for me.
It would be cool if you mounted it to a 1919 or M2 bipod.

Wise man. There are some things that should only be enjoyed from a distance.

When I was doing training for the Singapore Army, we ran a combat patrol to destroy a radar installation (and the Army provided an obsolete radar set for a target.)

The idea was to develop two Computer-Aided Instruction programs -- one for planning the raid, one for executing it. We videoed the patrol, then came back and videoed the various options at each decision point.

In the end, we were to show how to properly prepare a radar set for demolotion -- I was supposed to do this, the troops were only to go through the motions.

I had built a U-shaped sandbag bunker for a remote camera, another camera in a more substantial sandbag bunker in a ravine close to the radar station and a third camera beside a concrete blast-proof bunker with armored windows and an open back.

I'm up on the radar set putting charges in place when I hear my counterpart, Major Li say, "Meester Humphrey, do you plan to be in that ravine?"

"Why, yes I do, Major."

"I don't think is too safe. Because of the petrol."

"Because of the WHAT????"

I looked down, and all the engineers in the Singapore Army were coming out of the jungle and crossing the clearing, each one carrying a 5-gallon gas can. Major Li was making up 2-lb charges of C4, dropping one in each gas can, and wiring them into my firing circuit.

"On second thought, I think I'll join you in the big bunker."

So we all congregated in the concrete bunker and I twisted the handle of the blasting machine. There was an incredible explosion. Everyone turned to go out of the bunker, and I had to tackle a couple to stop them -- crap was falling like rain. Pieces of debris the size of your leg landed behind the bunker.

We went out to film the destroyed radar set -- which was the point of the exercise -- and it was freekin' gone!

A couple of days later, I'm editing the video. Frame by frame, nothing. Then the screen is filled with flame and you can acutally see a bit of the radar set, displaced upward by about six feet in that one frame.

Major Li, looking over my shoulder said, "What do you think happened to the radar set, Meester Humphrey?"

I looked at him, "Major Li, by my calculations it should be passing over Dallas, Texas about now.