Military Review

Automatic revolver H. Lanstad (Norway)

33
Currently rifle weapon based on several time-tested and proven schemes. Radically new innovations appear extremely rarely and almost never become widespread. At the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, the situation was different. The used schemes used now either did not exist yet or did not have time to gain popularity. Because of this, any designer with his original idea could become the future classic of the weapon case. So, at the very end of the 19th century, the Norwegian gunsmith Halvard Lanstad made an attempt to create a cardinally new model.


One of the promising approaches to creating promising systems with high performance is to combine the positive features of different samples. It was on this path that the Norwegian gunsmith decided to go in his new project. He proposed to create a gun with a store supply and a revolving drum. This concept was called the "automatic revolver". It should be noted that this name in those days was also applied to self-loading revolvers, which can be confusing.

The “automatic revolver” project was developed by H. Lanstad in 1899. Soon a patent was obtained for this invention. In the future, the gunsmith offered his development to the Norwegian military, who conducted tests and made certain conclusions. Probably, they were interested in a curious proposal, but the implementation of the original design clearly did not suit the potential customer.


General view of weapons and shop


The new project proposed to combine the positive features of self-loading pistols and revolvers. A perspective weapon from pistols was to receive a relatively large ready-to-use ammunition, from revolvers - reliability, ease of operation and safety. To implement such plans, H. Lanstad had to re-design all the elements of his weapon, without using any existing models as a basis.

The main element of the new weapon was a metal frame with a 7,5 mm caliber barrel pressed into it. In general terms, this unit resembled the details of revolvers, but the original design ideas led to the appearance of some differences. The barrel and the supporting cylinder of the drum axis (under the barrel) were fixed in front of the frame. Behind the barrel there was a large window for the drum, under which the trigger bracket was located. At the rear of the frame, behind the window, mounts were provided for parts of the firing mechanism and ammunition supply systems. Under them, in turn, there was a handle in the form of a hollow design with a place to install the store.

The greatest interest in the "automatic revolver" by H. Lanstad is the ammunition system. Wanting to improve the characteristics of the weapon, the inventor literally crossed a self-loading pistol with a magazine and a revolver with a drum. This led to the creation of an original feed system for the cartridge to the barrel.

A special flat-shaped drum was installed in the front frame window, in which only two chambers for the cartridges were provided. The use of a full-fledged store allowed to reduce the drum within reasonable limits, while retaining its main functions. In the handle it was proposed to place a single-row store of a special curved shape. For some reason, the store was supposed to be placed not through the lower receiving window in the handle, but inserted into it on the left side, in the corresponding large window. In this case, the left wall of the store was made in the form of a full-fledged side of the gun and was even equipped with a wooden lining. The capacity of the magazine was 6 cartridges caliber 7,5 mm Nagan system (7,5x23 mm R). At that time, this ammunition was the main patron of its class in the Norwegian army.


Incomplete disassembly, right view


The upper part of the store, placed in the handle, was flush with the lower chamber. With the help of a special device mounted in the back of the frame, the upper cartridge from the store, in preparation for the shot, was to be sent to the lower chamber of the drum.

In the back of the frame there were two cylindrical grooves, interconnected and containing the main parts of the firing mechanism. On the right side of the frame there was a plate-cap on which other USM components were attached. In addition, she did not let the springs and other parts fly from their seats. The used design USM allowed to fire in a self-loading mode, cocking the bolt-drummer and turning the drum with cartridges. She also provided automatic extraction of spent cartridges.

According to available data, the automatics of the revolver H. Lanstad was built on the basis of a free gate (according to other data, on the basis of a double action USM and free gate). In the upper groove of the cavity of the frame was placed a spring-loaded bolt, combined with a drummer, with which the cartridge primer was ignited. Also an extractor was connected to the gate. In the lower cavity, as follows from the available data, a part was placed for feeding cartridges from the magazine to the drum. The shutter and the feeder together moved back, and their displacement forward was provided by its own springs and carried out separately. For the initial cocking mechanisms used a system similar to the pistol USM with a slide gate.

Nominally, being a revolver and using revolving mechanisms, X. Lanstad's weapon did not need a safety lock. The safe handling of it should have been ensured by the characteristic features of the structure.

For aiming, the prototype of the new weapon received extremely simple adaptations. A small front sight was located above the muzzle of the barrel, and on the upper part of the frame, behind the drum, there was a protrusion with a slot that served as the rear sight.


Partial disassembly, left view


The handle, including the side wall of the store, was equipped with two wooden plates for greater ease of loading. On its lower surface a metal ring was provided for a safety lace. In terms of ergonomics, the “automatic revolver” by H. Lanstad differed little from the usual revolvers of the time, including those in service with Norway.

The original design led to the emergence of a non-standard way of working mechanisms. In preparation for the shooting should be placed in the handle of the "automatic revolver" curb shop. Then you had to pull the bolt handle in the back of the frame and release it. In this case, the bolt-drummer became a platoon, and the feeder sent the upper cartridge from the store to the lower chamber of the drum. After that, you could pull the trigger and fire. When the hook was pressed with the help of a special thrust, the force was transmitted to the drive of the drum, which led to its rotation by 180 °. After filing the chamber with the cartridge released the shutter. Drummer hit the cap and fired a shot.

Rolling back under the effect of recoil, the bolt seized the sleeve, removed it from the chamber and threw it through the corresponding window in the upper part of the frame, while he himself stood on the support. When moving backward, the bolt driver also shifted the feeder, which then moved forward with its own spring and sent a new cartridge to the lower chamber. For the next shot, you had to pull the trigger again, turning the drum and releasing the bolt.

It is easy to see that the design of the “automatic revolver” by Halvard Lanstad was original and interesting, but was very complex. In addition, the combination of two types of small arms in one sample led to the emergence of several fundamentally unrecoverable problems. Correcting these shortcomings would require completely reworking the entire structure or even abandoning the ideas underlying it.


British patent drawing


In 1901, H. Lanstad presented his invention to the Norwegian military. According to reports, representatives of the military department immediately reacted to his proposal with skepticism. Nevertheless, despite the opinion that emerged after the first acquaintance, the “automatic revolver” was sent to the landfill for verification in practice. Such tests allowed to identify all the insignificant pluses and a lot of minuses.

The main and, perhaps, the only advantage of the new project was the fact that the original architecture of weapons was created by a Norwegian expert. Other expected positive features, such as the safety of a revolver and a pistol ammunition, have not been confirmed in practice.

It was too difficult to reload weapons. The need to insert into the side window of the handle of a fairly large store made it difficult to work with weapons, and also did not give particular advantages over other methods of reloading, including clips for revolvers. In addition, according to some reports, for the first shot, it was necessary to pull the bolt handle twice to feed the cartridge into the lower chamber, and then turn the drum.

According to the firing characteristics of the submitted sample could hardly seriously differ from weapons that consisted in service. Nevertheless, he differed from them by other features. It was harder and more expensive to manufacture, even considering the mass production of large series, and also had no particular advantages in terms of ammunition size, reload speed, etc. Skeptics from the Norwegian army were right: the proposed weapon could not be used in practice.


British patent drawing


According to the test results, the Norwegian army decided not to use the “automatic revolver” by H. Lanstad and not to order its mass production. In the arsenals of the army remained less bold, but time-tested weapons. Nobody needed the prototypes of the perspective system.

Apparently, at least two experienced pistols were made, which were used in the initial and field tests. These samples differed from each other in some external details and elements of decoration. In addition, it cannot be ruled out that the internal mechanisms were subject to changes.

It is known that at least one of the prototypes of the “automatic revolver” belonged personally to Halvar Lanstad. Over time, he left Norway for the UK, where he lived until his death in 1955. The heirs of the inventor handed over a unique sample of weapons to the British National Rifle Association, which placed it in its museum. For two decades, the weapon was a museum piece while it was not sold at auction in 1977. The fate of the prototype is unknown. No other specimens available.

H. Lanstad attempted to combine the positive features of two classes of small arms, but failed. "Hybrid" was not viable due to the excessive complexity of the design and numerous technical and operational problems. Thus, the revolution in the field of small arms did not happen. However, it should be noted that the failure of the Norwegian project allowed to fill up the list of unpromising areas that should not be dealt with, and thereby contributed to the future success of gunsmiths.


On the materials of the sites:
http://forgottenweapons.com/
http://strangernn.livejournal.com/
http://municion.org/
Author:
Photos used:
Forgottenweapons.com
33 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Bayonet
    Bayonet 26 January 2016 07: 02
    +4
    Unjustified complexity, and the design is original. yes
  2. alex-cn
    alex-cn 26 January 2016 07: 07
    +4
    Somehow, such a revolver did not shine earlier anywhere. The truth in my opinion is a gun with a very complex feed system.
    By the way, the idea of ​​an automatic revolver did not die at all .. In the 60s, the British (I don’t know the results), in the 80s Italians, Matbea, for very large calibers such as casulla, they tried to reduce the recoil.
    1. gross kaput
      gross kaput 26 January 2016 12: 33
      +4
      Quote: alex-cn
      In the 60 years, the Englishmen (I don’t know the results)

      Only much earlier - Webli-fosbury appeared at the end of the 19th (first patent of 1894) century, when self-loading pistols took their first steps and there were no brilliant browning designs yet, there were healthy log-like Borchards and Mausers against their background, revolver automation looked very attractive. Well, then everything is already known - there appeared adequate in size and fairly reliable designs of Browning, Luger, Roth, Krynka, etc. and it became clear auto-revolver is a dead end. Well, Mateba is nothing more than an interesting PR move for fans of shooting punches.
      1. alex-cn
        alex-cn 26 January 2016 16: 46
        0
        I agree with you as well. It was just that they were talking about what they actually exist. When I first read about it, I myself could not understand - it was drawn. but about fosbury either did not know, or completely forgot, senks, I'll see. still interesting about all sorts of "kunshtuk"
  3. aszzz888
    aszzz888 26 January 2016 07: 08
    +4
    The sample is interesting for its originality. But war requires mechanisms that are easy to manufacture, cheap, and most importantly, precisely designed for their kind. To the author of the article +.
  4. Assistant
    Assistant 26 January 2016 10: 32
    +1
    allowed to replenish the list of unpromising areas that should not be addressed


    In hand-held individual weapons - yes, but if you look at automatic revolving guns?
    1. gross kaput
      gross kaput 26 January 2016 12: 37
      +1
      Quote: Assistant
      and if you look at automatic revolving guns?

      And what to look at them? the logic and concept of creation are completely different - an example is a soldering iron and hair tongs - the design is similar but the concept and purpose are completely different.
      1. Vladimirets
        Vladimirets 26 January 2016 17: 12
        0
        Quote: gross kaput
        An example is a soldering iron and hair tongs - the design is similar but the concept and purpose are completely different.

        Great comparison. good
  5. bootlegger
    bootlegger 26 January 2016 11: 19
    +2
    The problems of revolvers are known. With a high level of reliability, it is impossible to carry out targeted high-speed shooting.
    When self-cocking, considerable effort is required on the trigger. You have to choose either accuracy or rate of fire.
    This design does not collect the advantages of pistols and revolvers, but rather concentrates their shortcomings.
    It would be interesting to look at the design of the revolver, where the problem of the preliminary cocking of the trigger and the rotation of the drum due to the energy of powder gases or recoil was solved. So far I have not seen this ...
    1. alex-cn
      alex-cn 26 January 2016 11: 33
      0
      In matbea - cranking the drum, for sure.
      And as for accuracy, I saw it live, but I recommend that you search for a video of how specialists shoot from a revolver. They will not concede to any pistol. You have to train, otherwise you won’t get into the barn from a rifle ...
      1. bootlegger
        bootlegger 26 January 2016 12: 10
        +1
        They shoot accurately, but with a preliminary cocking of the trigger. It is clear that with long trainings and a hare, you can teach matches to light.
        It's like the difference between an archer and a crossbowman. The archer had to be taught all his life, from childhood, and the crossbow was mastered by illiterate peasants in a few weeks ...
        The revolver is already being considered as a universal weapon. The police refused, so only hunters can carry because of reliability and high power cartridge ..
        1. alex-cn
          alex-cn 26 January 2016 12: 19
          0
          Is the first shot from a pistol self-cocking not weak? But modern pistols are designed specifically for this, and many constantly work only with a partially cocked spring.
          1. bootlegger
            bootlegger 26 January 2016 12: 29
            0
            Strikers have a slight pulling force. Self-cocking cannot be compared with revolvers ...
          2. gross kaput
            gross kaput 26 January 2016 13: 14
            +2
            Quote: alex-cn
            Is the first shot from a pistol self-cocking not weak?

            Alex, you forget one important detail - with a pistol, self-cocking is needed only for cocking a trigger with a revolver - the force of rotation of the drum is also added to this force - therefore, the self-cocking force of a revolver, other things being equal, will always be greater than that of a gun.
      2. Alex
        Alex 26 January 2016 12: 18
        +2
        Quote: alex-cn
        And as for accuracy, I saw it live, but I recommend that you search for a video of how specialists shoot from a revolver. They will not concede to any pistol. You have to train, otherwise you won’t get into the barn from a rifle ...

        There is an episode in the old Romanian film "With Clean Hands". Two commissars - Stefan Patula and Tudor Miklovan - competed "pistol vs revolver": two clips for speed and accuracy. The pistol won by a small margin. But the speed and lightness of the revolver simply fascinated. I understand - cinema, of course, but pretty realistic.
        1. bootlegger
          bootlegger 26 January 2016 12: 26
          0
          Win by a small margin, this means staying alive))
          The movie is certainly wonderful, but the revolver is usually massive and it’s even harder to get it quickly, even if it is cocked beforehand.
          But, if the first shot did not hit, then the chances fall further.
          The advantage will be only if you shoot at each other from a long distance. With revolvers, ammunition is usually more powerful. Due to the persistence of the trajectory will be easier ..
          1. alex-cn
            alex-cn 26 January 2016 13: 47
            0
            actually, if you compare the most common 9mm para and 38 sw, then the initial speed of the second one and a half times less. In fact, most revolving cartridges have a speed of up to 400 ms, more often closer to 300. Options are para 415 and higher, so about flatness ...
            1. bootlegger
              bootlegger 26 January 2016 14: 38
              0
              For revolvers, a bullet is usually heavier. Compare the sizes of 9mm para and 38 sw and questions about which cartridge is more powerful. So the reduced speed of the revolver bullet is only due to its greater mass. And there are cartridges of different modifications, and with a light bullet too.
              For a more contrasting comparison, you can see .357 Magnum. Its speed varies from 370-500 m / s, and the energy from 730 to 1000-1300 j. Ammo 9x19 has a maximum energy of about 670 j.
              About the fact that revolvers are now highly specialized weapons.
              1. alex-cn
                alex-cn 26 January 2016 16: 42
                +1
                Magnums have nothing to do with it, this is a separate category. I gave you for comparison the two most common cartridges. The muzzle energy of any cartridge directly depends on the mass of the bullet and the square of the speed. Those. a bullet twice lighter should fly 1,5 times faster. then the muzzle energy will be the same.
                I have managed very little to shoot from a gun (in a dash), but I can say that you forget about hard descent very quickly.
                But the civil revolver has a number of non-obvious advantages: it can lie ready for use for years and not a single spring can sit, it allows you to make a second shot regardless of the results of the first, which is important in a landfill and some more.
                I don’t argue, the revolver is outdated in the army, but for some reason new developments regularly appear for the Ministry of Internal Affairs, special groups, etc. I think that the revolver will live for a long time ...
                1. Vladimirets
                  Vladimirets 26 January 2016 17: 24
                  +1
                  Quote: alex-cn
                  the revolver is outdated in the army, but for some reason new developments regularly appear for the Ministry of Internal Affairs, special groups, etc. I think that the revolver will live for a long time ...

                  Here is an interesting little book http://coollib.com/b/266081/read Written by a man who loves revolvers (especially short-barreled ones) and tells why.
                2. bootlegger
                  bootlegger 26 January 2016 17: 54
                  0
                  Quote: alex-cn
                  I gave you for comparison the two most common cartridges. The muzzle energy of any cartridge directly depends on the mass of the bullet and the square of the speed.

                  I just did not find the modern characteristics of this cartridge. Only the beginning of the century.
                  They give energy as in PM, i.e., about 300 J. Therefore, correct comparisons are difficult to make.
                  I'm more interested in something else. Why didn’t the models of a real revolver appear? It’s not so difficult to make a system with a gas outlet and achieve cocking and turning the drum due to the energy of powder gases.
                  Such weapons could have good indicators of accuracy in high-speed shooting.
                  After all, the mass movements in them were less significant than in pistols and this would have a positive effect on the final accuracy.
                  And it really hurts the rate of fire is low ...
                  1. alex-cn
                    alex-cn 26 January 2016 18: 16
                    0
                    Simply, nobody needs it. Who knows how, he shoots and so. And the movement of masses in a modern pistol occurs "inside the fist" and vertically and has little effect on centering. And the automatics on the revolver, Gross is right, these are "kunshtuks"
                    As for the characteristics of patr.sw, they have not changed ... why spoil a successful cartridge .. except that all sorts of abstruse bullets periodically pop up
                  2. Siberia 9444
                    Siberia 9444 27 January 2016 15: 46
                    0
                    Good little cannon at the grandfather
              2. gross kaput
                gross kaput 26 January 2016 16: 52
                +1
                Quote: bootlegger
                Its speed varies from 370-500 m / s, and energy from 730 to 1000-1300 j

                No need to blindly believe pedivics and 1000 joules is a home-made diphenhydramine that periodically ends in disrepair for factory .357 magnum energy ranges from 560 to 790 joules and growth is limited by the maximum allowable pressure value that is written in international tables of the SAAMI type. In pistol calibers, it is absolutely comparable in energy with .357 magnum - .357 zig, if we talk about heavy magnums of the .44 type, that is, pistol types of 50 AE with energies in the region of 2000 joules, but these are purely sports, entertainment and punter calibres.
                1. alex-cn
                  alex-cn 26 January 2016 17: 42
                  0
                  Gross! This is already so for laughter ...
                  Recall haudah double-barreled pistols, which use cartridges from the average power of the fittings ...
                  It’s true that in nature in one instance there is a Tseliski revolver with a muzzle energy of 5000 joules, but this is really for a thrill-seeker
  6. kav669
    kav669 26 January 2016 11: 33
    -1
    A good idea and the future of automatic weapons.
  7. avdkrd
    avdkrd 26 January 2016 12: 06
    +2
    similar to the result of crossing a hedgehog with a snake ....
  8. Kushadasov
    Kushadasov 26 January 2016 14: 01
    0
    I suspect that he weighs heavily
  9. AUL
    AUL 26 January 2016 14: 44
    +2
    It is unclear why it was necessary to fence the garden with an intermediate link - an under-drum. It would be much easier to drive the cartridge not into the drum, but directly into the barrel. Why is there a drum in this scheme, I do not understand.
  10. chelovektapok
    chelovektapok 26 January 2016 17: 57
    0
    The system was 100 years too late. The technologically complex product has already been successfully compensated by cheaper and more "resourceful" systems of semi-automatic pistols, such as the 911. The cartridge is powerful, promoted to the service level in the Army. Revolving system for police civilian weapons - YES! For the military - NO! As if this revolver did not stand next to Stechkin ... GY!
  11. Denimax
    Denimax 26 January 2016 18: 40
    0
    Quote: AUL
    It would be much easier to drive the cartridge not into the drum, but directly into the barrel.

    Self-loading or automatic pistol will work (there is a small difference).
    Quote: AUL
    Why is there a drum in this circuit, I don’t understand

    If the misfire, by pressing the trigger again, you can shoot the second cartridge.
    1. Mordvin 3
      Mordvin 3 26 January 2016 21: 38
      +3
      Quote: Denimax

      If the misfire, by pressing the trigger again, you can shoot the second cartridge.

      Not. If a misfire, then this whole miracle mechanism stops working, and the cartridge is not fed into the lower chamber.
  12. Arktidianets
    Arktidianets 26 January 2016 19: 09
    0
    Wonderful construction