Why don't more revolvers shoot from the lower cylinder?

[Pb]

I would think it would reduce felt recoil.

What am I missing?

[Firethorn]

Tradition is probably a big one.  Secondarily, the more distance between the sights and the barrel, the less perceived accuracy?

The end of the barrel is a convenient spot to put the sights?

[BlueStarLizzard]

The end of the barrel is a convenient spot to put the sights?

See, that's what I was thinking. Where do the sights go and how much adjustment would be need to make the sights work with that?

[T.O.M.]

Because Sam Cot didn't invent them that way!

I'd guess tradition, and at this point cost. Revolver makers are set up to build traditional barrel on top guns, as are holster makers.  More cost effective to do things the traditional way.

[MechAg94]

It probably goes back to early wheel lock and matchlock designs.  You always had the grip, barrel and trigger.  You sighted down the barrel.  I guess when they added a cylinder, I guess it made sense to keep things below the barrel. 

Which is why a robust civilian firearms industry is great for design and innovation.

[HeroHog]

They DO exist, look at the Rhino.

[BlueStarLizzard]

We know they exist. The question is why not more.

[Firethorn]

They DO exist, look at the Rhino.

We're not saying that they don't.  We're asking why they're as rare as Hen's teeth.

Generally speaking, it ends up being things like gyrojet systems - where the problem that the system is supposed to address isn't actually that big of a problem and the solution imposes additional ones.

In the case of gyrojets you 'fixed' the problems of recoil and expensive, heavy firearms but imposed problems with expensive ammunition that was hard to keep accurate.

How much is recoil a problem with traditional revolvers?  How much is it reduced with the alternate system?  What are the side effects(cost, accuracy, etc...)

Looking at the Rhino - how much does the machining for that massive top cost?  How much weight does it add to the firearm?  

[HeroHog]

Why aren't there more? Look at the cost of the Rhino and It's market share. It's a niche market at best, a novelty at worst. The standard design has existed for over a hundred years and has been widely accepted. Change and acceptance comes hard.

[Mannlicher]

because it's a solution in search of a problem.  There is no rational reason to change the basic design of the revolver.

[MechAg94]

I was thinking that cannon were also sighted down the barrel.  Do you think there is any relationship with bows and crossbows?  The shooter usually just sighted along the arrow.  I guess it is just a natural way to do it. 

[AJ Dual]

It's largely because the lockwork is complicated to transfer the action from the trigger to the hammer/striker/firing pin vs. a "normal" top-firing cylinder.  Especially if you want DA/SA functionality.

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/rhino-inside.jpg

[Unisaw]

Firing from the bottom of the cylinder would also put the gasses from the barrel/cylinder gap a lot closer to your fingers.

[KD5NRH]

It's largely because the lockwork is complicated to transfer the action from the trigger to the hammer/striker/firing pin vs. a "normal" top-firing cylinder.  Especially if you want DA/SA functionality.

Meh; I want semiauto.

[AJ Dual]

because it's a solution in search of a problem.  There is no rational reason to change the basic design of the revolver.

If you've ever shot a low bore-axis bottom firing revolver, you'll immediately know there is a rational reason for it.

However, that reason, while significant, hasn't risen to the level where it comes out of the wash in cost/benefit analysis most times.

[Brad Johnson]

By co-inkydinks this recently hit yootoob. Gives a good 'splanation of why cylinder-bottom barrel placement isn't more common.

Review of the Rhino 200 in .357 Mag.
https://youtu.be/wsmQiR5L2tQ

Enjoy.

Brad

[T.O.M.]

By co-inkydinks this recently hit yootoob. Gives a good 'splanation of why cylinder-bottom barrel placement isn't more common.

Review of the Rhino 200 in .357 Mag.
https://youtu.be/wsmQiR5L2tQ

Enjoy.

Brad

Thanks.  Good vid.  Though he mentions that the design won't work with an exposed hammer.  Back as a youth, I read a ton of gun magazines, and seem to remember seeing an article on custom competition revolvers that fired from the bottom of the cylinder.  Used a transfer bar mechanism with the exposed hammer.  Talk about an expensive and complicated mechanism.

[De Selby]

Meh; I want semiauto.

Drooling for a mateba

[freakazoid]

Familiar with this guys channel? https://www.youtube.com/user/LifeSizePotato/videos He loves the Matebas. Want.

[AJ Dual]

Same here. Even just a Rhino would be nice. Just not quite for the premium price they command. I get that because of their construction they're more comparable to the Aluminum/Scandium S&W's etc. but the striker-fired semi-auto like trigger pull, and the fit and finish with all the exposed Kel-Tec'ish screws everywhere just makes it seem "wrong" to spend premium-revolver prices on them.

I can't however stress enough that the bottom cylinder firing really makes a difference. And would be even better in .44 mag, .454 etc. If they can beef it up to the point of .460 S&W or .500, I'd be really interested.

In the 4" Rhino I got to try and put a few boxes through, full house 125gr .357 feels like .38's, 38's feel like light target wadcutters, and light target .38 wadcutters feel like .22LR's in a Rhino.

Unfortunately, the only ones that seem to be reasonably priced are the .40 S&W ones. Presumably because almost nobody wants or needs a .40 S&W revolver.  Especially if it can't take 10mm too

[230RN]

Not a revolver, but the same concept of lowering the barrel axis to reduce felt recoil appears in one compact .45 ACP semiauto pistol.

That one has the locking mechanism above the barrel to achieve the low bore axis, as opposed to the conventional barrel link or ramp of the regular 1911-style mechanism.  It's probably still pretty stout in recoil, but looks like it will reduce muzzle flip.

Just another take on the low-bore axis discussion.

I've been trying to find more details on it.  I saw a video on it somewhere, and a brief mention in the American Rifleman, but now I can't locate the references.

Terry

[De Selby]

What's the rhino trigger weight?   Seems to me it would be a far better weapon with a Glock style trigger.  I'd buy in a heart beat if it did.

[lee n. field]

What's the rhino trigger weight?   Seems to me it would be a far better weapon with a Glock style trigger.  I'd buy in a heart beat if it did.

The youtube review linked above said 4 pounds single action, and more than the 12 lbs his scale measured for double action.

Light triggers aren't everything.  I bet the DA trigger on both my snubs would be up there, but they're both smooth and controllable.

Seems to me it would be a far better weapon with a Glock style trigger.

Partially pre-cocked?  Not even sure how that'd be possible, short of a Mateba style auto-revolver.

[AJ Dual]

Yes, the complicated lockwork means the Rhino has a trigger feel, in both SA and DA that is relatively soft, but it's stagey and uneven, and much more like that of a polymer framed DA/SA auto or Glock's quasi-single/safe-action trigger pull.

"crisp" is the last adjective you'd probably use.

It's not horrible, but it's nothing you'd normally associate with a traditional revolver at that price point.