Imperial Russians look to Colt and Sharps

Given the availability of two crude proto-lever action rifles by Colt in the late 1830s, the Colt Patterson revolver in the 1830s and Colt-Walker revolver in the later 1840s, and the first Sharps rifles being available around the same time, what advantage (if any) would Imperial Russia enjoy later by early adoption and perhaps local imitation of these firearms?
 

trurle

Banned
Probably very little advantage. Revolvers were auxiliary weapons.
I can imagine more battles won with the revolver and sword armed dragoons, keeping cavalry troops in operation a bit longer. Post-1862, early advantages will be offset by more of later disasters of the type "revolver-armed dragoons vs machine guns"
 
Problem is cost , sharp rifle was very expensive compared to the standard rifles ( 3x is claimed ) so doubtful the Russians could afford enough to make a difference. Also a good rifle is no good unless the shooter is well trained , not a Russian virtue at this time ( again due to cost ).
 
Given the availability of two crude proto-lever action rifles by Colt in the late 1830s, the Colt Patterson revolver in the 1830s and Colt-Walker revolver in the later 1840s, and the first Sharps rifles being available around the same time, what advantage (if any) would Imperial Russia enjoy later by early adoption and perhaps local imitation of these firearms?

Or Chassepot repetier riffles. Chassepot build the prototype in 1827. So they could be the first nation with non-muzzle loader equipment by the 1840es.
 
How do you think these developments could affect the Crimean War?

The problem for a revolver is that it is a pistol and pistols have never managed to be decisive weapons in warfare. The problem with the Sharps rifles and carbines for the Russian Empire is the same one that the British also encountered when they investigated the Sharps which is the Maynard tape primer is not terribly resistant to varied climates, such as were experienced in Russia and the British Empire.
 
Top