I don't know.
This design sure looks a lot like the Hopkins & Allen/Merwin & Hulbert design that was quite successful during the later 1870's and 1880's. Based initially on the active 1871 "swinging Link" patent where the cylinder tips out of the frame from a lower frame link. That's exactly what I'm seeing on this design. I think patent attorneys could have easily and effectively challenged this design. Notice also the frame to barrel rear lock looks identical to Hopkins and Allen/Merwin and Hulbert.

I haven't done the research but it could have been initially a simple "Legal challenge" that stopped production. The proof is historical fact when we look at the thousands and thousands of Merwins produced in large and small frame revolvers having this same basic type of frame break. The design did succeed. It's proven.

It could also have been initially a slick legal threat to stop production only to actually steal the design after this patent expired 7 years after application. That's very possible if we cross reference patent applications from Hopkins and Allen. So, That's just as likely. Basing the initial legal challenge on an infringement of the swinging link patent. Most of us stop in our tracks if we receive a letter in the mail threating legal action unless we cease and desist. Sometimes it might be a bluff? but often its about legal fees. Most of the time its not worth fighting it.

Just from memory, without access to my patent data base? I don't think there were "any" revolvers manufactured with a swing out cylinder until "after" the swinging link patent expired in about 1878. In fact, Shattuck jumped on it in November 1879 and came out with a new "patented" variation of swing out cylinder that also "owned" the market until it expired. So, legal Patents basically are the boss card! Until they expire.

I personally think this is a very exceptional example of a prototype that was created 7 years "before it's time".


Murph