1855 Colt-Root Revolving Rifle

[BlaiseNSaddles]

I see Dixi Gun Works has working replicas and wanted to see if anyone here had a chance to try them.

Thank you kindly!

[Steel Horse Bailey]

I wish!

[litl rooster]

 haven't tired one either, but before you buy Log Cabin in Lodi ,O  had them at one time.

[Advertising]

[Jubel]

I have an Uberti cattleman's carbine, basically an 1858 with a rifle stock and an 18 inch bbl. I shoot it with Pyrodex or use my Kirst Konverter and shoot it with my "Schofield" cartridges. I love the firearm, accuracy is excellent. If the root revolving rifle is as good I'd like one.
Jubel 

[Bushwack Bill]

Bottom Dealing Mike had one out at Westshore last Sunday.  It was in .44 Caliber.  If memory serves me right, they were also in a variety of calibers:  .58, with a rifled barrel, .54, .56, and I think there was a .62 caliber smooth bore version as well.

To say that the Colt was not a popular rifle would be an under statement.

To many injuries due to people putting their hands forward of the cylinder to steady the rifle as they fired it.  OUCH!!

[Bottom Dealin Mike]

Hi Evie,

Yup, I have one to test for the B-P column. I had it out at West Shore on Sunday and Highlander and I shot it before the match. It was very pleasant shooting, but you have to hold it with both hands behind the end of the cylinder so you don't lose fingers in the event of a multiple discaharge.

We had no trouble ringing steel on CAS rifle targets, but that's not much of a testemony. 

Right after I finish typing this I'll be on my way to the range to give it an official work out.

[Bottom Dealin Mike]

OK...just got back from the range after putting the 1855 Root Rifle through its paces. The first thing to note is that I disagree with DGW's recommended ball size. They say .454, but I think that is too small. They seated with very little effort...barely (and I mean BARELY!) shaved any lead.

I switched to .457, which were much more satisfactory.

I also think that DGW's recommended 40 grain powder charge is much too conservative. You can barely (and again I mean BARELY) get the ball rammed far enough down to touch that small charge. I found 60 grains of FFFg to perform much better.

In fact the best groups I shot were with .457" balls and 65 grains of powder, which is a max load. That delivered 4"-5" groups at 50 yards.

Recoil is very minimal. The gun is heavy, the ball is light. But there is noticeable gas and powder spray from the barrel cylinder gap. That gap is tiny, but there was enough spray to make my face sting a little with every shot.

The biggest drawback to this rifle are the sights. The rear sight is good enough, but too high. The front is a low, narrow, pointed blade. It was very hard for my middle aged eyes to see. Groups printed a foot high with 40 grains of 3Fg powder, and about eight inches high with 65 grains of 3Fg. With 40 grains of powder and .454' balls my groups at 50 yards were a foot across. With a .457" ball and 65 grains of powder, groups were 4" to 6". With good sights I'd have cut them in half.

It is a fun gun to shoot, but if I were keeping it I'd have a big bead front sight installed.