Why 6?
- Thread starter nater762
- Start date
- Status
oneounceload
member
there are 7 and 8 shot 38/357 revolvers
orionengnr
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2005
- Messages
- 5,715
simple math, and physics
Six .38/.357 rounds can fit in a K-frame.
Want 7? You have to move up to an L frame.
Want 8? Now you're talking N frame.
A good bit over 100 years ago, someone decided that a six shot "~K-frame size" revolver was a handy size to carry. Apparently he guessed right.
How big a gun do you want to carry?
Six .38/.357 rounds can fit in a K-frame.
Want 7? You have to move up to an L frame.
Want 8? Now you're talking N frame.
A good bit over 100 years ago, someone decided that a six shot "~K-frame size" revolver was a handy size to carry. Apparently he guessed right.
How big a gun do you want to carry?
Jim Watson
Member
Yeah in the 90's lol
Yeah, in the 1890s; lol to you too.
For one example just consider the shiploads of 7 shot gas seal Nagants, model of 1895, that out friends who used to be our enemies have been unloading on gullible Americans.
Apparently the Walker and other Colt Dragoons set the standard of a holster pistol for six shots. But even in those days there were plenty of fiveshooters; and not much later 7 shooters. And the 4 shot Colt Cloverleaf, and assorted 5, 8, and 9 shot European designs.
Yeah, in the 1890s; lol to you too.
For one example just consider the shiploads of 7 shot gas seal Nagants, model of 1895, that out friends who used to be our enemies have been unloading on gullible Americans.
Apparently the Walker and other Colt Dragoons set the standard of a holster pistol for six shots. But even in those days there were plenty of fiveshooters; and not much later 7 shooters. And the 4 shot Colt Cloverleaf, and assorted 5, 8, and 9 shot European designs.
Elm Creek Smith
Member
There were a lot of 5 shot cap-and-ball revolvers, too. Then there was the LeMat which had 8 .42 caliber chambers plus the 20 gauge shotgun barrel. The littler revolvers were (or developed into) pocket pistols. The Colt 1851 Navy .36 with six chambers was just about the perfect size with wonderful balance. The 1860 Army .44 had a rebated cylinder to keep the action the same size as the Navy while still providing a larger bullet. The grip on the 1860 was considerably longer than the Navy's to balance the heavy cylinder/larger barrel. Six just seemed to work best in the states (since most were carried with 5 loaded/capped chambers).
European gun makers were not nearly as wedded to the "Colt ideal" as we ended up, e.g. .577 Tranter 5 shot revolver, Belgian 20 shot pinfire revolver.
ECS
European gun makers were not nearly as wedded to the "Colt ideal" as we ended up, e.g. .577 Tranter 5 shot revolver, Belgian 20 shot pinfire revolver.
ECS
BCRider
Member
Yes, and those guns were already bigger than the eventual K frame original .38 cal guns and the equivalent competition from Colt. Carry around a big 1873 Peacemaker on your hip for long and you'll begin to like the idea of a slightly lighter and more compact K frame.
If you look into it there were also a number of small pocket revolvers that held .36 cap&ball that were "just" 5 shot models so that they would be more pocket'able. And at various times folks in Europe did make revolvers with more than 6 shots. But when you look at them they were all cumbersome if they used large size ammo.
When Colt downsized from the big Walker to the 1851 it didn't reduce in size and weight by that much. But it was enough to allow the gun to be carried on a hip instead of a saddle holster. From there each new gun was aimed at trying to maintain the 6 rounds while downsizing. But that was back in the day when .44-40 .44S&W and .45Colt were the rounds that everyone wanted to shoot in their full size frontier guns. The city slickers went with smaller guns that held 6 or 5 smaller rounds rather than wanting one of the big guns with more than 6.
So all in all it just sort of happened that way. Oh sure, back then COlt or S&W COULD have stuffed 7 rounds of 32-20 into the same size of gun. But I suspect that there wasn't enough of a market for such nonsense. If there had been I'm sure we would have seen more evidence of it.
And for those who just needed that extra shot? Well, there was always the LeMat ! ! !
It comes down to the Papa's, Mama's and Baby Bear's porridge scenario. 6 rounds gave a gun which wasn't too big and heavy to carry. You try packing around an N frame original .357 Registered Magnum or later model 28 Highway Patrolman on your hip all day and then tell us if you still think that a 7 or 8 round .357 is a good idea.
BCRider
Member
The 1851 ain't all that light either. But yeah, I guess I did sort of exagerate a bit....
..and just in case you weren't aware, the 1851 weighed 2.62lbs...so almost 2 lbs less
whanson_wi
Member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2011
- Messages
- 46
Most likely it was driven by what people considered to be a convenient size. Let's face it - they probably could have *made* a twelve-shot revolver, but could they have *sold* it?
Because geometrically, 6 cylinders surrounding a central cylinder all of the same diameter makes a perfect hexagon, which can be encased in steel cylinder.
It makes mathematical and aesthetic sense.
Granted, the 5-shot cylinder is stronger due to the bolt notch being between cylinders vs. on top of one...
It makes mathematical and aesthetic sense.
Granted, the 5-shot cylinder is stronger due to the bolt notch being between cylinders vs. on top of one...
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
It was easier in those days to split a 360 degree circle into equal, easily divisible parts with the more primitive dividing heads. 72 degrees for 5 holes...60 degrees for 6 holes. 7 holes require more a lot more precision. 8 holes/45 degrees was just as easy, but they were dealing with wrought iron, so strength was a concern while also keeping the revolver at a reasonable size and weight. Not a problem with the .31 and .36 calibers. Problem with the .44s and .45s.
Lawdawg45
Member
My 7 shot Taurus!
LD
LD
Last edited:
rcmodel
Member in memoriam
Believe it or not, internal parts for a 5 or 6 shot revolt are much stronger and need to apply less force to turn the crank then they would with more holes closer together.
They just have more mechanical advantage then they would if they had to do the same work of turning the cylinder in a shorter distance.
It very well could be that 5 or 6 shot cylinders were determined to be best for overcoming black powder fouling & cap fragments without breaking hands and wearing out ratchets prematurely.
rc
They just have more mechanical advantage then they would if they had to do the same work of turning the cylinder in a shorter distance.
It very well could be that 5 or 6 shot cylinders were determined to be best for overcoming black powder fouling & cap fragments without breaking hands and wearing out ratchets prematurely.
rc
Last edited:
rcmodel
Member in memoriam
I don't know how to "provide proof" to you, so I won't.
But if it takes say 15 pounds of torque to shear off a cap fragment, you have more leverage turning the cylinder 60 degrees (6-shot) then turning it 45 degrees (8-shot) with an equal force applied to the hammer spur.
Just like moving the fulcrum of a lever closer or further away from the object you are trying to lift with a lever.
The lever moves the same distance on the long end, but the closer the fulcrum is to the object being lifted, the more force and less distance you get.
Conversely, the more force you have to apply to a revolver hand & ratchet to turn the cylinder, the more likely it is to wear or break.
And it takes more force to turn it a short distance 8 times then it takes to turn it a longer distance 6 times if it doesn't want to turn.
rc
Last edited:
The first commercial revolver had a 5 shot cylinder and was a .28 caliber. What was Sam Colt thinking when he decided on a mouse load? It was a year before he upped the Patterson to .36 and it was a decade before he produced the first 6 shot revolver.
BCRider
Member
The reasoning is likely easier than we're allowing for.
For whatever reason the market of the time liked the .44 caliber bore with the associated .454 round ball ammo size. If you group 5 of these in a circle with the proper amount of metal between the bores they close in too much on the middle and there's no room for a decent size cylinder pin or arbor. Grouping 6 chambers together with the required room for metal provides a nice size center area. Put 7 together and the center grows more but so does the outside diameter of the cylinder so the whole gun begins to need to "fatten up" as the bigger cylinder forces the need for a bigger frame and so on down the line. The Lemat did this with the greater number of rounds allowing the gun to have an oversize "arbor shaft" which doubled as the shotgun barrel for the center shot. But when you look at a Lemat there's no doubt that it's a bigger lump than the sleeker Colts of the day.
So I suspect that it comes down to 6 was the number that provided the right size all around for a gun that held "enough" of the big .44 size chambers but was still reasonably compact.
Now I'd have to CAD it up to see but I suspect that if we put .36 size holes into the 6 shot .44 cylinder that we could indeed fit 7 of them. But it would mean that they could not sit on the same axis as the .44's. The bore axis would have needed to move outwards a little. So a 7 shot .36 would require a fairly major redesign of the basic planform. Far easier to just put 6 .36 size holes in the same hunk o' iron used for the .44's so much of the rest of the gun could be kept the same and share parts.
RC, I'm afraid you're looking at the issue backwards. An 8 shot moving through 45 or a 6 shot moving through 60 still uses the same energy from the hammer being cocked back over the same distance. So the leverage at the cylinder moving over a 45 degree angle would be greater for cutting through any cap shards. But at the same time you are also correct in that the hand and hook on the cylinder would be subject to greater stress while doing so.
In the end though I still suspect it came down to the simple fact that a 6 shot layout that still provided .44 size bores proved to be as big a gun as the majority of folks were willing to carry.
For whatever reason the market of the time liked the .44 caliber bore with the associated .454 round ball ammo size. If you group 5 of these in a circle with the proper amount of metal between the bores they close in too much on the middle and there's no room for a decent size cylinder pin or arbor. Grouping 6 chambers together with the required room for metal provides a nice size center area. Put 7 together and the center grows more but so does the outside diameter of the cylinder so the whole gun begins to need to "fatten up" as the bigger cylinder forces the need for a bigger frame and so on down the line. The Lemat did this with the greater number of rounds allowing the gun to have an oversize "arbor shaft" which doubled as the shotgun barrel for the center shot. But when you look at a Lemat there's no doubt that it's a bigger lump than the sleeker Colts of the day.
So I suspect that it comes down to 6 was the number that provided the right size all around for a gun that held "enough" of the big .44 size chambers but was still reasonably compact.
Now I'd have to CAD it up to see but I suspect that if we put .36 size holes into the 6 shot .44 cylinder that we could indeed fit 7 of them. But it would mean that they could not sit on the same axis as the .44's. The bore axis would have needed to move outwards a little. So a 7 shot .36 would require a fairly major redesign of the basic planform. Far easier to just put 6 .36 size holes in the same hunk o' iron used for the .44's so much of the rest of the gun could be kept the same and share parts.
RC, I'm afraid you're looking at the issue backwards. An 8 shot moving through 45 or a 6 shot moving through 60 still uses the same energy from the hammer being cocked back over the same distance. So the leverage at the cylinder moving over a 45 degree angle would be greater for cutting through any cap shards. But at the same time you are also correct in that the hand and hook on the cylinder would be subject to greater stress while doing so.
In the end though I still suspect it came down to the simple fact that a 6 shot layout that still provided .44 size bores proved to be as big a gun as the majority of folks were willing to carry.
As others have suggested, I suspect geometry was the driving factor, along with ergonomic issues. Consider this: the number of rounds that a cylinder can accomodate is governed by its circumfrence, since you're drilling holes close to the outer edge. But the weight of a cylinder is determined by its volume. Volume and circumfrence don't "move" at the same pace. As the circumfrence increases some, the volume increases a lot. Going from 6 shots to 7 adds a lot more metal than going from 5 to 6.
Go look at a .22 revolver with 9-12 round capacity. Look at how much blank metal there is in the middle of the cylinder. Scale that up to what a .36 or .45 caliber bullet would be like... you've got a boat anchor.
Go look at a .22 revolver with 9-12 round capacity. Look at how much blank metal there is in the middle of the cylinder. Scale that up to what a .36 or .45 caliber bullet would be like... you've got a boat anchor.
rcmodel
Member in memoriam
That is all I so poorly tried to say.
rc
- Status
