Okay, as regards the grips looking small in his hands...
I've participated in Cowboy Action Shooting. I have owned ivory handled '51 Navys (consecutive serial #s, hand carved to resemble Hickock's), and Colt model 1873s. I've even had a chance to fire a genuine double-action Lightning (very rare, and used by Val Kilmer in Tombstone). So, I have a bit of experience with these guns.
I've fired a replica 1858 Remington. They have awfully small grips, especially when compared to the Colt Navy. And, like in "Pale Rider", the entire cylinder drops from the frame and a new one is easily (if you do a little filing) popped in. The "web" under the barrel is the ramrod for the unmodified cap and ball loading mechanism; when converted to fire cartridges the web just drops down (you can see the spring loaded catch under the end of the barrel), exposing the small metal axle the cylinder rotates around. Pull that out, and there is nothing to keep the cylinder in place. Let it fall, drop a new cylinder in, pop the pin back in place, and slap the metal rib back into place and you're ready to rock.
I've seen guys that practice that particular move and can do it INCREDIBLY fast. The design of the frame doesn't lend itself well to a loading gate, and most shooters just go with the cylinder swap. Do that, and you don't need an ejector. And can carry many cylinders, like the picture shows. I'm 100% certain those are complete cylinders. Damned heavy and bulky, but efficient enough.
Since the books mentioned that the hot shells left burnt-in circles on Roland's fingertips, we can safely assume that the revolvers used in the books are NOT Remington-based. Yet one more reason I'm thinking that this movie will 1) suck and 2) be a standalone. Of course, why the shells would burn his fingers when he doesn't need to touch the newly-fired ones (they drop out, you only have to push in new ones!) always puzzled me...
I've participated in Cowboy Action Shooting. I have owned ivory handled '51 Navys (consecutive serial #s, hand carved to resemble Hickock's), and Colt model 1873s. I've even had a chance to fire a genuine double-action Lightning (very rare, and used by Val Kilmer in Tombstone). So, I have a bit of experience with these guns.
I've fired a replica 1858 Remington. They have awfully small grips, especially when compared to the Colt Navy. And, like in "Pale Rider", the entire cylinder drops from the frame and a new one is easily (if you do a little filing) popped in. The "web" under the barrel is the ramrod for the unmodified cap and ball loading mechanism; when converted to fire cartridges the web just drops down (you can see the spring loaded catch under the end of the barrel), exposing the small metal axle the cylinder rotates around. Pull that out, and there is nothing to keep the cylinder in place. Let it fall, drop a new cylinder in, pop the pin back in place, and slap the metal rib back into place and you're ready to rock.
I've seen guys that practice that particular move and can do it INCREDIBLY fast. The design of the frame doesn't lend itself well to a loading gate, and most shooters just go with the cylinder swap. Do that, and you don't need an ejector. And can carry many cylinders, like the picture shows. I'm 100% certain those are complete cylinders. Damned heavy and bulky, but efficient enough.
Since the books mentioned that the hot shells left burnt-in circles on Roland's fingertips, we can safely assume that the revolvers used in the books are NOT Remington-based. Yet one more reason I'm thinking that this movie will 1) suck and 2) be a standalone. Of course, why the shells would burn his fingers when he doesn't need to touch the newly-fired ones (they drop out, you only have to push in new ones!) always puzzled me...