Want to Build a Joslyn Army Revolver

[Pestilence]

Here's an interesting request you guys might be able to help me out with. I'm looking for any and all information on the action used in the Joslyn Army Revolver. Most importantly photos or drawings of the internal components.*

I found out about this interesting revolver a couple of nights ago while surfing the web and have determined that I must build a working replica of it. While it would be nice to have an original to work from, the cost of one of these little darlings in working condition is way outside most peoples price range. So I set myself to gathering as much data as I could find regarding this nifty little gun.

I did find out that the revolver is based on an 1858 patent, but we all know that filed patent drawings and actual production models rarely have the same features incorporated into their designs.*

Here is a copy of the May 4, 1858 patent drawing.



While the action, from what I can determine, is similar to the production revolver, it does differ in several major ways. Below is an interesting photo of a cut away revealing some but not all of the secrets hidden away within the revolver.



I then found an 1863 patent that was filed as an improvement to a revolver that shows a bizarre slide out cylinder for reloading. It seems that Benjamin Joslyn used the action from his production revolver in the design for this improvement patent. The problem is that the patent focuses on the cylinder slide out mechanism and shows little on how the ratcheting system works for indexing the cylinder. It does clearly show the action is the same as the cutaway view from above.

*

Any help in getting as much information about the Joslyn Army Revolver as possible short of buying an antique would be greatly appreciated. Heck, aside from knowing that it's called a .44 I have no idea what the actual bore diameter is. There are still many question that need to be answered, but for now how about some eye candy.

 

[Dframe]

Fascinating revolver. Unfortunatley I can be of NO use to you since this is the first time I've ever heard of this gun.

 

[Pestilence]

Me too, turns out only about three thousand were made.

 

[blarby]

Ok, I'll bite.

What makes this revolver so special, other than being rare ?

 

[Pestilence]

Not realy all that special, other than being rare. I am just facinated by the different types of early revolvers and their contribution to the evolution of mid 19th century handguns. Plus I kind of like the external hammer look on what otherwise looks like an average single action. It would really garnner a lot of attention at cowboy shoots as well. It would be nice to see some of the little known handguns and rifles from that era come out as replicas someday. They did fight the War of Northern Aggression with a lot more than Colts and Remingtons.

 

[blarby]

Fair 'nuff !

 

[Jim K]

The Army didn't think much of them, calling them "unfit for service". Like the Colt Root model (which it somewhat resembles) there seems to be no reason for the Joslyn except one man's conviction that he had a "better mousetrap" with a side hammer.

It seems to me the best way to get one to copy is to find enough money to buy one, copy it (or make up engineering drawings), then sell the original for what you have in it. Even if you take a small loss, that would be chalked up to research.

The next question is, to what purpose? I may be wrong, but I don't see Joslyn repros as the next big thing in the firearms industry, even if you could get Pietta or someone to make them.

Jim

 

[WestKentucky]

This is a very interesting design. Side hammer and rear insert cylinder pin.

 

[PRD1]

Before you get carried away...

by your interest in the Joslyn (or any other CW) revolver, I suggest you acquire and read a copy of 'Civil War Revolvers - Myth vs. Reality' by Peter Schiffers.
In actual (modern, and none-too-rigorous) testing of original revolvers in very good condition, the Joslyn was among the very worst of the CW-era revolvers... and most of them were really pretty bad, by modern revolver standards.

PRD1 - mhb - Mike

 

[Jim K]

I never did any extensive testing, but have owned and fired CW era revolvers by Colt, Remington, Starr, S&W, Savage, Cooper, and Bacon, as well as pepperboxes. All I fired were near new functionally, though not always in top exterior condition. IMHO, the only one made to anything like modern standards was the S&W and it was small and rather badly underpowered. Were I to pick the best of the others, I would choose the Colt, because it is the simplest, easiest to use, and least likely to get out of order, with the Remington second. In other words, the same approximate order of preference as in the 1860's.

Jim

 

[PRD1]

Jim K:

You should read Mr. Schiffers' book.
I have shot most of the common CW revolvers (and some uncommon ones), and found, like you, that the Colt and Remington models were undoubtedly the most practical (and most commonly encountered).
But Schiffers has some surprising results to show for his testing, and some eye-opening results from measuring the chambers, bore and groove diameters, etc.
I have some problems with his methodology (he says that his research found that government contract revolver cartridges of the CW were loaded with musket powder (an exception being the Colt cartridges, which were loaded with a fine-grained Hazard's powder, but which were not used in large quantities). His ballistic results make one wonder what useful effect CW soldiers could have obtained with ammunition performing as poorly as his tests indicate - the .32 Long RF actually outperformed the .44 Colt, so far as muzzle energy is concerned - really!
He also has a similar book on CW carbines - equally disparaging and discouraging, but probably accurate.
Check it out!

PRD1 - mhb - Mike

 

[blaisenguns]

If the replica was reasonably priced, I would most definitely buy one. I wish companies would produce more "obscure" arms from those days. If for no other reason, than you have to role your eyes when EVERYONE in a western packs a SAA.

 

[Jim K]

Hi, PRD1,

I will see if I can find that book, but I have other books on CW era ammunition and it was certainly not very consistent. I have no idea how many rounds of contract ammunition he actually broke down to conclude that it was loaded with "musket powder" but all contract ammo certainly was not. There were at least a dozen contractors, plus loading at the government factories, and they made at least a half dozen types of revolver cartridges. I suspect the ones made by the government, which used the same type of paper cartridges as the musket cartridges, would be more likely to contain musket powder than those made by private contractors who generally did not load anything but pistol cartridges.

FWIW, ammunition purchase and expenditure in the CW was enormous. Millions of rounds of rifle and musket cartridges were made and issued.* One of the points raised in favor of going to metallic cartridges was that several million rounds turned in at the end of the war were found broken up or otherwise destroyed in the cartridge boxes. Even the better protected pistol (revolver) cartridges were often ruined because the fragile foil or skin broke.

*In 1863, Frankford Arsenal alone made some 12 million rifle musket cartridges. In an interesting contrast, the same factory in WWII made around 1.2 million rounds of .30 ammunition per day.

Jim

 

[Pestilence]

Looks like I opened an interesting can of worms here. From what I could tell about the Joslyn being declared unfit for service, it had more to do with poor craftsmanship than actual design. Now granted the design of a side hammer pistol is quite a bit more archaic than a center hammer, and the Colt and the Remmy deserve their place as top pick of the time do to their astoundingly simple and elegant designs, but I would have to say that a Joslyn made with modern materials and quality craftsmanship would probably be a fine little pistol. And thats what I'd like to find out. I honestly believe that a good number of historic designs fell by the wayside not due to poor design but rather poor quality, bad business descisions, or just not being in the right place at the right time. And if the price was right it would be a great way for a collector to shoot an obscure piece guilt free. I also looked into the book recommended and I will definitely pick it up. Will probably get his book on carbines as well.

 

[PRD1]

If you do get the books...

and study Mr. Schiffers' findings, please let us know what you decide to do, and what you think of his work, overall.

On the choice of project, I will fall back on a (loose) quotation from Mark Twain:
" A man who sets out to carry a cat home by the tail is going to be getting several times as much information as the man who hasn't tried it - information that's always going to be useful, and isn't ever likely to grow dim or doubtful, either. But if a man wants to carry a cat home by the tail, I say 'Let him!'. It isn't always easy to be eccentric, you know".

PRD1 - mhb - Mike

 

[Dframe]

Well said Pestilence. I've felt that way for years!

 

[Jim K]

I think most of the failures in gun design come from an inventor having an idea, and pursuing it with grit and determination even after he knows deep down that it is not going to work.

It is not a revolver, but a good example is the Schwarzlose blow forward pistol. In theory at least, a blow forward should be as practical as a blowback and even have some advantages. But actually making such a gun work gets into complexities that pile on one another until the whole thing becomes absurd. Yet, the guns were made, and sold, though few today are in working condition.

I think the genesis of the Joslyn and the Root was the idea of a solid frame revolver with a traditional side hammer, and things went down hill from there. As I said, most of the guns of that era I fired were in good shape and (with some exceptions) workmanship and quality were quite adequate. It was the design that was lacking simply because the inventor kept trying to make his not-so-great idea work. (The Savage, for example, is complex because the great idea was to close the barrel-cylinder gap, something not necessary then or now; the Savage revolver ended up as clumsy and awkward because everything had to be designed to make the great idea work.)

Jim

 

[Pestilence]

I have no practical knowledge of the function of these old side hammer pistols, so unfortunately I'm not certain as to the shortcomings of the design. Jim, what was it in particular that made these pistols not perform well? Was it a problem with cylinder indexing/ timing, it seems from the patent drawings that this was the most complex part of the action? As for the lock itself, that seems pretty straight forward.

Thanks,
Pestilence

 

[PRD1]

Pestilence:

I think you'll find that Mr. Schiffers' book will answer most of your questions about the design and manufacturing shortcomings of the Joslyn, as well as a number of other contemporary revolvers, including some of the 'best' of them.

PRD1 - mhb - Mike

 

[Jim K]

I don't know the exact reason(s) the Army didn't like the Joslyn, but I suspect it was a combination of fragile parts (a common complaint with other guns) and poor handling, also a complaint with the likes of the Savage.

The Army, in spite of issuing some pretty complex weapons systems, still believes that the simplest is the best as long as it does the job and the Colt is certainly simpler than the Joslyn.

Jim