How did the 1855 Root fit into Colt's product line?

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JRD

Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2003
Messages
8
I've known the Colt Root revolver existed for many years and always knew it was kind of an outlier in the Colt lineup of percussion revolvers. I guess I always thought that it was a early model that was succeeded by the more prevalent designs.

The other day something made me start looking up the history of the 1855 Root, and it made me wonder: How did the 1855 Root fit into the Colt product line?

The 1849 Pocket Model was already in production and off to great success when the Root was introduced. Colt made over 300,000 of them. The 1855 Root was also a pocket revolver. Why would Colt introduce another pocket revolver of totally different design when the 1849 was already doing well in the market? Roots were reportedly made until 1870 but only around 45,000, so production was way smaller than the 1849.

Was the solid frame Root thought to offer an improvement over the 1849, but it wasn't accepted in the market and never found success?

Certainly no one is left from the 1850's to tell us what factors were at play, so we are left to speculate.
Does anyone have any theories or (even better) any historical sources that may shed some light?
 
.455_Hunter said:
I would love if the Root guns were available in replica form.
Click to expand...
Palmetto made both the replica Colt Root revolver and the replica Colt Root revolving rifle for Dixie but Palmetto is gone and 1st gen. Roots come up on auction sites more often than the replicas!
https://www.dixiegunworks.com/index...M1855+SIDEHAMMER+POCKET+REVOLVER+3+12"+BARREL
https://www.dixiegunworks.com/index...oduct_name/PR0103C+M1855+ROOT+REVOLVING+RIFLE
https://www.cascity.com/forumhall/index.php?topic=16804.0
 
I would also like to see a Root in production again, as they look like neat little guns. Palmetto made some a few years back but I understand the quality was spotty.
 
Navy Six 2 said:
I would also like to see a Root in production again, as they look like neat little guns. Palmetto made some a few years back but I understand the quality was spotty.
Click to expand...

I own one. It works, but it is a bit tricky in assembly & disassembly with regard to the cylinder alignment with the arbor. Also, originals had either fluted cylinders or engraved nonfluted ones; the Palmetto has no flutes or engraving. Wood fit is .....um, amateurish, I guess, describes it best.

If anyone resurrects it, Uberti or Pietta could do it right.
 
The main lasting impact that Root had upon Colt revolvers was the creeping load lever (patented in 1856) on the 1860 Army and the 1861 Navy revolvers. The problem with that design had to do with the ratchet impressions that were left upon the barrel bore, especially with the 1860 Army, and not so much with the 1861 Navy because of barrel thickness.
 
It's really funny what gets produced as a replica...

The Spencer, Henry, 1866, 1873, 1892 get made in all original calibers (or similar, if rim- fire) OK- that's fine.

The odd duck 1876 gets reproduced in all its calibers, because the .40-60 is AWESOME!

The Confederate ball and cap revolvers (Dance, G&G, etc) have all been re-done and coveted. I am not sure why.

There is even a Burgess replica.

However...

No market for Roots (????)

No market for 1886's expect for .45-70 and a small run of .45-90. Why not .40-82 or .50-110????

Why a replica 1876 in .45-60 is cool, but a replica 1886 in .40-82 is not, really baffles me.
 
.455_Hunter said:
It's really funny what gets produced as a replica...

The Spencer, Henry, 1866, 1873, 1892 get made in all original calibers (or similar, if rim- fire) OK- that's fine.

The odd duck 1876 gets reproduced in all its calibers, because the .40-60 is AWESOME!

The Confederate ball and cap revolvers (Dance, G&G, etc) have all been re-done and coveted. I am not sure why.

There is even a Burgess replica.

However...

No market for Roots (????)

No market for 1886's expect for .45-70 and a small run of .45-90. Why not .40-82 or .50-110????

Why a replica 1876 in .45-60 is cool, but a replica 1886 in .40-82 is not, really baffles me.
Click to expand...


You know that is a real interesting question, how much interest does there have to be to warrant a reproduction?? What would be the cost to make one ??? and then the number that must be sold to break even???
 
Last edited:
.455_Hunter said:
It's really funny what gets produced as a replica...

The Spencer, Henry, 1866, 1873, 1892 get made in all original calibers (or similar, if rim- fire) OK- that's fine.

The odd duck 1876 gets reproduced in all its calibers, because the .40-60 is AWESOME!

The Confederate ball and cap revolvers (Dance, G&G, etc) have all been re-done and coveted. I am not sure why.

There is even a Burgess replica.

However...

No market for Roots (????)

No market for 1886's expect for .45-70 and a small run of .45-90. Why not .40-82 or .50-110????

Why a replica 1876 in .45-60 is cool, but a replica 1886 in .40-82 is not, really baffles me.
Click to expand...

I have a Burgess carbine. It is one SWEEEET carbine!!! I WISH I had an 1886 in .45-70.
 
indy1919a4 said:
You know that is a real interesting question, how much interest does there have to be to warrant a reproduction?? What would be the soct to make one ??? and then the number that must be sold to break even???
Click to expand...


As I said I have a Burgess, and not very many originals were made. It's amazing to me Uberti decided to make this....there must be a demand, and I'm very happy that this repro exists.
 
Tommygunn said:
As I said I have a Burgess, and not very many originals were made. It's amazing to me Uberti decided to make this....there must be a demand, and I'm very happy that this repro exists.
Click to expand...

Well who knows some times, but to me you can see that they did not have reinvent the whole wheel when they re-made the Burgess. The receiver is unique, but the barrels/stocks etc look like the Winchester clones. So they were able to come out with a unique rifle while reusing lots of other designed parts.

Now if they are making Burgess firearms, I vote for the Burgess folding shotgun :)










burgess.jpg
 
Last edited:
I decided to do some old school research and actually cracked a book. It’s a darned shame that our minds get computerized and opening a book from my library was an afterthought.
“Colt Firearms from 1836” by James Serven copyright 1954 dedicates the first 158 pages to percussion revolvers- of which 4 pages are about the side hammer pistols. I guess that shows they are but a small part of Colt.
There is no historical context about the Root in this book but some good technical observations.
1. We already know the creeping loading lever came from the Root.
2. The Root was the only percussion Colt made in more than one caliber- both .28 and .31.
3. The Root was the only percussion Colt made with non-removable nipples- in the .28 caliber version.
Described by Serven: “structurally this was the least efficient of all Colt pistols” and “small, delicate working parts, and features of the cylinder-pin turning device caused many mechanical failures”. “In spite of this a large number of pistols was sold.”
Perhaps the delicate nature of the parts and mechanical failures explain the lack of reproductions. A repro would likely be a headache because customers would expect guns to work, not have authentic failings...
 
Last edited:
indy1919a4 said:
Well who knows some times, but to me you can see that they did not have reinvent the whole wheel when they re-made the Burgess. The receiver is unique, but the barrels/stocks etc look like the Winchester clones. So they were able to come out with a unique rifle while reusing lots of other designed parts. .......
Click to expand...

You might be correct; the Burgess shoulder stock & forearm are purrrty dang close to the equivalent on my Uberti Winchester 1873 saddle-ring carbine. But also remember "form follows function." All shoulder stocks served the same function so it's natural they would be atleast similar.

In favor of your theory is that the Colt 1883 Burgess was meant to compete with the 1873 Winnie. So...."imitation is the sincerest form of flattery."
;)
I wonder if there's any books that detail just how the Burgess design evolved .....:)
 
From “A History of the Colt Revolver” by Haven and Belden copyright 1997, they write:

“This arm was different in almost every respect from the regular Colt models of precious twenty years.”
“The working parts of the lock operated for the most part in a manner precisely the reverse of those of the regular Colt models. The hand turned the cylinder by pulling down on its ratchet instead of pushing up...”
Also the model was known as the “New Model Pocket Pistol” in Colt’s advertising. It’s collectors who coined the term Root Model.
They were patented in 1855 by Root but the patent shows the zig zag grooves on the cylinder exterior for rotation and indexing. The model wasn’t sold commercially until 1857 and by then the design had been refined to have the hand turn the cylinder basepin.
We still don’t know why, but I have some personal theories based on what I’ve read and my own background in new product development. The technology may be new today but engineers and businessmen still have the same thought process.
My conjecture is that Colt’s original revolver patents were expiring and they looked to lock up intellectual property on other potential revolver methods of operation by designing a new model that worked on different principles. Refined it enough to where they thought it was a viable product even though it really did the same thing as the already successful 1849 Pocket. Obviously it didn’t keep other revolver makers out of the game, but Colt’s wouldn’t have produced them if they didn’t think they could make money at it. If they made 45,000 over 15 years it must have been profitable to stay in production.
That’s my theory anyway.

The best part in this was cracking open the Colt reference books.
 
JRD said:
From “A History of the Colt Revolver” by Haven and Belden copyright 1997, they write:

“This arm was different in almost every respect from the regular Colt models of precious twenty years.”
“The working parts of the lock operated for the most part in a manner precisely the reverse of those of the regular Colt models. The hand turned the cylinder by pulling down on its ratchet instead of pushing up...”
Also the model was known as the “New Model Pocket Pistol” in Colt’s advertising. It’s collectors who coined the term Root Model.
They were patented in 1855 by Root but the patent shows the zig zag grooves on the cylinder exterior for rotation and indexing. The model wasn’t sold commercially until 1857 and by then the design had been refined to have the hand turn the cylinder basepin.
We still don’t know why, but I have some personal theories based on what I’ve read and my own background in new product development. The technology may be new today but engineers and businessmen still have the same thought process.
My conjecture is that Colt’s original revolver patents were expiring and they looked to lock up intellectual property on other potential revolver methods of operation by designing a new model that worked on different principles. Refined it enough to where they thought it was a viable product even though it really did the same thing as the already successful 1849 Pocket. Obviously it didn’t keep other revolver makers out of the game, but Colt’s wouldn’t have produced them if they didn’t think they could make money at it. If they made 45,000 over 15 years it must have been profitable to stay in production.
That’s my theory anyway.

The best part in this was cracking open the Colt reference books.
Click to expand...


You know you do bring up a great point. 45,000 guns that is one heck of a good run in those pre civil war days.
 
JRD said:
A repro would likely be a headache because customers would expect guns to work, not have authentic failings...
Click to expand...
That summarizes the situation with Paterson repros. Original Patersons are rare, their values are astronomical, and so reproduction makers are tempted to make them. They forget the reasons why the originals are rare in the first place (they were commercial failures).
 
I'm reading "Killer Colt" a dual biography of Samuel Colt and his brother John. I just finished the part where Patent Arms of Paterson, NJ went bankrupt because the pistols and rifles were so expensive and Colt could not get a military contract. It describes how Colt took 100 rifles to Florida and sold 50 of them to a military unit fighting the Seminoles. He left with over $6000 and glowing comments from the soldiers. On the way home, his boat sank off St. Augustine and he lost the other 50 rifles and all the money. When he got home, he got letters from the soldiers complaining that his guns did not hold up to the rigors of warfare with exploded cylinders and barrels. I'm just starting the part where he is getting a Government contract to develop underwater mines for the Navy. When I get to the part were he works with Root I'll let you know what the driving force was behind developing the side hammer guns. It is a really detailed book about their personal lives and an easy read.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

arcticap
  • Locked
Video - Colt Root Model 1855 Dragoon .44 Prototype
Replies
6
Views
575
Tommygunn
Tommygunn
W
  • Locked
Colt Marked ASM v/s Colt 2nd Gen
2
Replies
32
Views
5K
Fingers McGee
Fingers McGee
P
  • Locked
Classicballistx
Replies
5
Views
1K
classicballistx
C
N
  • Locked
So what if Nightcrawler acquired Colt?
2
Replies
34
Views
1K
unspellable
U
D
  • Locked
Numerous repeating firearms were used during Civil War
Replies
4
Views
981
swampdog
S
Back
Top