Great article!

I first got interested in the Chamelot-Delvigne 1873 after watching the 90s version of "The Mummy", in which a pair of those revolvers figured very prominently.

Since then, a friend purchased an 1873 (dated sometime in the 1880s) and an 1874 "Officer's Model".
Both revolvers exhibited fine fit and finish, and the "white metal" of the 1873 was remarkably well-preserved for a holster weapon.
Internally, the mechanism is incredibly robust and stout (the small parts are much sturdier than those in the Colt Single Action Army, and the layout is conducive for easy maintainence and repair.

The grip shape and angle are almost ideal for a double action service revolver, and the weapon points very naturally.

We fired the 1873, and it shot well for its purpose, generally averaging about 5 inch groups (offhand, single action) at 50 feet.
It did shoot over a foot low at the range, however.

The single action trigger is "acceptable", but the double action trigger pull, while smooth, was so heavy as to defy description.
It would be very difficult to get good shots off quickly at even very short range, since the simple action of pulling the long trigger "pulls" the gun to a significant degree.

I was impressed with the overall quality and handling characteristics of the weapons, but less than impressed with the triggers.
My feeling was that these were weapons designed to be carried a lot and shot a little, as the saying goes.
If I had been on the design team (!!!) there would have been a tension screw or a provision for spacer/pad behind the mainspring in order to adjust the trigger pull to a more acceptable level for a proper service weapon.
As it was, given the way the base of the mainspring locks into a slot in the frame, there is no way to adjust the tension without thinning/weakening the leaf spring.

I have also handled, but not fired, a specimen of the Reichsrevolver. It seemed like a sturdy piece with good handling characteristics, but as the author of this article stated, it lacked many of the common technological advances of the day.
Given a choice of the two, I would far sooner carry the Chamelot-Delvigne design.
If there was a way to lighten the mainspring, I would gladly carry a version of that weapon even today.
In many ways, it rivals the SAA and the early Smith and Wessons in quality of construction, sheer functionality, and excellent ergonomics.

Thanks for the feedback! I encouraged Richard to do this piece for us, and I know he'll be thrilled to learn that others out there share his interest in this period. He has an amazing collection!

John;

I had one of the Chamelot-Delvigne revolvers as well, and I really liked it. They are a beefy, well designed and well constructed piece. I made up rounds from .44 Special cases, and it shot quite well. The only problem I had with it was that it was pretty under-powered for my tastes. But then, I like the Colt SAA .45 with a 40-grain charge, which is rather stout compared to the 15-grain charge in the Chamelot-Delvigne! :D Funny that the French were still issuing them to Colonial police forces into the 1960's, but hey, they work!

I also had one of the 1892 French Commission revolvers in 8mm. Also a nicely made piece, very reliable, horribly underpowered by my "Wild West" comparisons. But heck, with a few boxes of .32 Short Colt reloads, it made for a nice rainy-day shooting expedition!

I well remember the scene in "The Mummy" in which Our Hero throws his M1911's, and pulls out his Chamelot-Delvigne revolvers and uses them in their stead. I thought "This guy is NUTS!" However, the use of the Tommy Gun in the sequel brought him back up in my estimation. :cool:

Cheers!

Gordon

I am also a long time fan of the Chamelot-Delvigne 1873, and I was very pleased to see them in The Mummy. I had never handled one prior to viewing that movie, and, given the astonishing speed at which the hero was handling them, I had to wonder if they were some sort of a blow-back design akin to the Webley-Fosbury. I later handled a rather decrepit example at a gun show, and was startled to find that insanely heavy double action. Until reading this thread, I had credited that to the overall poor shape of the revolver.

Nonetheless, I do hope to get one of these eventually! Wonderful article! Keep up the excellent work!

John;

Funny, I prefer the big DA Colts for the same reason you prefer the big Smiths; they fit my hands better. (Colt SAA's, Colt DA's, Colt M1911's... the list goes on! :D )

A good friend has one of the S&W Mountain Guns in .45 as well... SWEET GUN! I have a .44 to play with at the shop every day, and it's as nice, I just for some reason prefer .45. But true enough, it's as close to a Triple Lock as you're going to find in this day and age! I "wouldn't mind" having one of those!

Thos USFA SAA's are pretty darned nice, I'll admit! As close to a pre-war Colt as you're going to find without spending a sum with comma's in it. Missing that little rampant colt, but that's all!

Per M1911's, hehehe... I like my old war horse that was slapped together back in 1914... :cool: But I pack the Compact Commander, however. Old Warhorse stays in the safe most of the time. I really don't want to loose it, as it's been my companion for 30-some odd years!

Cheers!

Gordon