What Top Break Revolvers To Look For

Status
Not open for further replies.

wcwhitey

Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2006
Messages
2,814
I would love to pick up an old top break. .32 S&W, Long .38 S&W doesn’t matter. I have never picked one up because I want a shooter (at least something that will shoot safely) and have no clue what to look for. What are the Models to look for that are safe with smokeless powder (other than Enfields or Webley).
 
Sorry to see you drop the two most substantial top breaks for smokeless powder.
Webley is on the list, these I have some knowledge of was the reason. Also, there is no concern about Smokeless powder in the WW2 Revolvers. I was looking for info in the H&R’s, Iver Johnson’s etc. I never know what the safe versions are when looking at them.
 
20211222_184335.jpg
S&W from about 1882, in 38 S&W.
I picked it up for $300. it's in excellent condition inside and out. Nickel plating is about 95%. I found 7 boxes of ammo locally and have seen it online as well.
From my understanding the modern factory loaded ammo is safe in these. However I plan to shoot only a couple of boxes and then use the brass to reload BP cartridges for it.
 
There is a lot of detail and nuance to look for with the different manufacturers to discern between older models and the later guns which would have been made for use with smokeless ammo, but in general look for positive locking of the cylinder while it is at rest. The Iver Johnson revolvers are among the most readily available at a decent price, either in .32 or .38 caliber. In the case of these you can always tell just at a glance if the model you are looking at is a pre or post smokeless gun by looking for square cut cylinder stop notches as opposed to the elongated notches of the older guns.

In this picture the upper revolver is an Iver Johnson 2nd model .38 Safety Hammerless which has the elongated and non-positively locking cylinder stop cuts, and the lower revolver is a S&W Perfected .38S&W from much later which has the square cut and smaller cylinder locking slots which do positively lock the cylinder in place to prevent rotation in between shots.

index.php


A better comparison would be the upper gun above compared to this one which is a third model I.J. Safety hammerless which was made after the transition to a smokeless capable design. Note the same smaller cylinder locking cuts as well as the owl on the grips facing a different direction as compared to the earlier I.J design.

index.php




As I said, other manufacturers will have different cues you will need to look for, but this covers the most common type of cheaper American top break revolver you will come across.
 
I have a couple of S&W's in 38 S&W that are OK guns in shooter grade condition. The Iver Johnsons and H&R's I've ran across have never been in good enough condition cosmetically or mechanically for me to consider purchasing. I have 1 S&W in 32 S&W. The timing is off on that one as the 32's are very small guns with very small components and notorious for going out of time. I wouldn't consider buying any of them unless able to inspect in person, you are willing to take a gamble, or can find one through a reputable and knowledgeable seller(generally these will cost much more).
 
I seem to remember on one brand the main spring was a leaf spring if a black powder model, and a coil spring if made for smokeless.

Can't remember if it was H & R or IJ.

I'm in the same boat, would like to try a break top, but don't know much about them, and never see them in person.
 
I seem to remember on one brand the main spring was a leaf spring if a black powder model, and a coil spring if made for smokeless.

Can't remember if it was H & R or IJ.

I'm in the same boat, would like to try a break top, but don't know much about them, and never see them in person.
I have run across a few lately, nothing so cheap I am willing to take a chance without some knowledge though. Something about free spinning cylinders is just counter intuitive to me.
 
View attachment 1065094
S&W from about 1882, in 38 S&W.
I picked it up for $300. it's in excellent condition inside and out. Nickel plating is about 95%. I found 7 boxes of ammo locally and have seen it online as well.
From my understanding the modern factory loaded ammo is safe in these. However I plan to shoot only a couple of boxes and then use the brass to reload BP cartridges for it.

Howdy

Lots of folks claim that modern 38 S&W ammo is loaded down enough to be safe in an old Top Break. I won't chance it. The problem is even though modern Smokeless ammo may generate relatively low pressure, it has a sharper pressure spike than Black Powder and the old steel might not be able to take the pressure spike. I'm not saying your revolver will blow up the first time you shoot some Smokeless ammo through it, it has probably been fired with Smokeless a bit over the years, but I won't chance it with any of my old Top Break Smiths. This 38 Single Action 2nd Model is not in as nice condition as yours. The nickel plating is flaking off quite a bit more. It left the factory in 1877.

poNVMMulj.jpg




The same with this 38 Single Action 1st Model, also known as the Baby Russian which shipped in 1876. I will not put modern Smokeless ammo through it.

pm2PF3Y1j.jpg




The only Smith and Wesson Top Break I am comfortable shooting Smokeless ammo with is the 38 Double Action Perfected model. These were the last Top Break revolvers that S&W introduced, they were made from 1909 until 1920. By that time S&W was using steel that could take the pressure spike of Smokeless ammunition. The Perfected model is a little bit strange, they had a thumb piece to unlock the action, and a latch at the top of the frame. The latch must be lifted at the same time the thumb piece is pushed forward to open the action.

pnBDmvQAj.jpg




I seem to remember on one brand the main spring was a leaf spring if a black powder model, and a coil spring if made for smokeless.

Can't remember if it was H & R or IJ.

I'm in the same boat, would like to try a break top, but don't know much about them, and never see them in person.

Iver Johnson

Around 1900 Iver Johnson completely redesigned their revolvers for Smokeless powder. They used better steel that could take the pressure spike of Smokeless powder. There are three ways to identify a smokeless Iver Johnson revolver. The little owl on the grips faced backwards, if you take the grips off the hammer spring is a coil spring, and the locking slots on the cylinder have a hard edge both top and bottom.

pnYHFfasj.jpg




This is one of the earlier style Iver Johnson that should not be fired with Smokeless powder. The little owl is facing forward, the hammer spring is a leaf spring, and the locking slots only have one hard edge.

pmONRDk1j.jpg
 
I would love to pick up an old top break. .32 S&W, Long .38 S&W doesn’t matter. I have never picked one up because I want a shooter (at least something that will shoot safely) and have no clue what to look for. What are the Models to look for that are safe with smokeless powder (other than Enfields or Webley).
I wonder what you mean by "old". There are Uberti top-breaks in .45 and .38 now being produced. If someone came across a 5-year old one, is that "old" enough? If Uberti offered one in .357 Mag., I would have no reason not to get one. (Just one of my secret desires.)
 
I wonder what you mean by "old". There are Uberti top-breaks in .45 and .38 now being produced. If someone came across a 5-year old one, is that "old" enough? If Uberti offered one in .357 Mag., I would have no reason not to get one. (Just one of my secret desires.)
I want punish myself and load and shoot an older caliber like a 32 Short or Long, .38 S&W etc. Had a Enfield years ago and liked it, if I saw a good deal again I would jump on it. But from what I have seen around like a $750 “Tanker” Enfield and a $900 .38/200 Webley it’s seems too much. I also would not mind an Old Pocket Or Police Positive if I ran across a deal. Thing is I know what to look for on those. The little turn of the century Top Breaks seem to be in a price range making it worth a try. Just lacking knowledge at this point.
 
I'd try to find an H&R 999. When I was able to buy my first handgun, I wanted a 22 and I wanted a top break, so I got a 999. I liked it a lot and still do, even though the trigger pull is nowhere near as sweet as a Colt or S&W. They were also inexpensive, which is not true anymore.

My S&W Perfected Model 38 was surprsingly accurate back when I could see the sights, but people want lots of money for them now, and they were never all that common.

The problem with many vintage top breaks is that they were made for self-defense, not target shooting or even plinking. That meant tiny sights, tiny grips (which you can do something about sometimes) and harsh triggers. Except for the Smith & Wessons and the Webleys, they were inexpensive, "working class" guns. High Point is the current day equivalent.

I'd probably try to find one in 32 S&W Long if I wanted to shoot a vintage top break. It is more available than 32 or 38 S&W, very pleasant to shoot, and not altogether useless (which is my opinion of 32 S&W, and I apologize to anyone my opinion offends). 38 S&W is more powerful, but harder to find. I think it is also more expensive, but it's been so long since I've seen any I can't really say.
 
I wanted a topbreak centerfire revolver in a caliber I wouldn't have to reload.

The Italian S&W clones are way out of my price range.

I did some research. According to what I found, some of the later H&R 32's were drilled through at the factory for 32 S&W long smokeless shells due to that being the up and coming 32 round at the time.

Don't take my word for it. Do some research.

Anyway, I bought two of the little H&R's for about $100 apiece. One works fine and one misfires, so I have a parts gun.

The trigger is stiff and the sights are tiny, but it's fun to shoot. I've put a few boxes of 32 S&W long range/cowboy loads through it with no ill effects.

I don't recall if this is the malfunctioning one, or the one that works.

 
Have a .45 Colt Schofield, and it's a ball to shoot; I use mild Trailboss loads. It's Uberti, and beautifully made.
Like the OP, really like break tops, and snagged a 188-something S&W (sorry, not at home at the moment to know the exact year, in .38 S&W. It is mint, excepting one spot of peeling nickel, and I'm not sure if it has been fired since the factory...no marks on the recoil shield, no flash markings on the cylinder face or at the forcing cone. Have a handful of .38 S&W cartridges of indeterminate vintage, and the thing has a hernia inducing trigger pull.
In any case, understand the desire to shoot such things, but the Schofield scratches that itch.
A previous poster suggested he'd like a .357 Mag Schofield; have my doubts the top break action would tolerate that kind of pressure, even with modern steel.
Did have a North American Arms top break in .22 mag, but had trouble with the top latch.
Moon
 
“Did have a North American Arms top break in .22 mag, but had trouble with the top latch.”
Moon I did see those and understand why the latch would be a problem, very cool though. Looks like they stopped making them for now. I also wonder why someone like Uberti would not make a copy of the Baby Russian or similar. I understand that it would be very popular in Cowboy Action.
 
I have an old H&R top break, timing was a little bit out, so I bought a new hand and then stretched it a little. I got it for $100 and spent about $40 in parts to get the timing working.

This one is in .32 S&W (not S&W long) made between 1906 and 1908

medium.jpg

d
 
Have a .45 Colt Schofield, and it's a ball to shoot; I use mild Trailboss loads. It's Uberti, and beautifully made.
Like the OP, really like break tops, and snagged a 188-something S&W (sorry, not at home at the moment to know the exact year, in .38 S&W. It is mint, excepting one spot of peeling nickel, and I'm not sure if it has been fired since the factory...no marks on the recoil shield, no flash markings on the cylinder face or at the forcing cone. Have a handful of .38 S&W cartridges of indeterminate vintage, and the thing has a hernia inducing trigger pull.
In any case, understand the desire to shoot such things, but the Schofield scratches that itch.
A previous poster suggested he'd like a .357 Mag Schofield; have my doubts the top break action would tolerate that kind of pressure, even with modern steel.
Did have a North American Arms top break in .22 mag, but had trouble with the top latch.
Moon


Howdy Again

I often see requests for a 357 Magnum Top Break. Trust me on this, the current replicas of the Schofield made by Uberti absolutely could not take the pressure and pounding of the 357 Magnum Cartridge. If they could, Uberti would have done so already, as they did with replicas of the Colt Single Action Army which are chambered for 357 Magnum.


Perhaps a refresher course is in order about Smith and Wesson Top Break Revolvers.

Starting in 1856, Smith and Wesson entered into a licensing agreement with Rollin White, who owned the patent for revolvers with cylinders bored through to accept metallic cartridges. It is commonly believed that S&W owned the patent, but that is incorrect. Daniel Wesson offered to buy the patent rights from White, but he would not sell. Instead a licensing agreement was worked out where S&W would be the sole licensee allowed to build revolvers that could be loaded with metallic cartridges. White would be paid a royalty of 25 cents on every revolver made. White would also be responsible for policing the patent to prevent patent infringements. S&W began manufacturing revolvers under this licensing agreement in 1857. Form top to bottom in this photo is the #2 Old Army, #1 1/2 Old Model, and #1. The top two were chambered for 32 Rimfire, the bottom one was chambered for what we would call today 22 Short. Interestingly enough, the order of manufacture was #1, #2, #1 1/2.


pmaUcEc5j.jpg




These revolvers were called Tip Up revolvers. In order to load them a latch at the bottom of the frame would be released and the barrel rotated up. The cylinder was then popped off the revolver, loaded with cartridges, popped back into the frame and the barrel lowered and latched into place. The rod under the barrel was used for poking empty brass out of the cylinder when reloading. It was a very simple, but effective system. S&W experimented with a 44 caliber Tip Up, but decided the design was not strong enough for a 44 caliber cartridge. These were the only cartridge revolvers that could be legally manufactured in the US, which must have irked Colt and Remington and all the other manufacturers no end. The big 44 caliber Cap & Ball revolvers of the day were more powerful, but because of the White Patent, S&W was the only revolver manufacturer that could legally make cartridge revolvers during the Civil War. The #2 Old Army pictured was popular with Union Army officers who purchased them with their own money. Not as powerful as a 44 C&B, but much faster to reload.

pnyiKQo5j.jpg




The White patent expired in 1869. Daniel Wesson believed all the other revolver manufacturers would have their own cartridge revolver designs ready for the market. So he came up with a revolutionary new type of revolver.

These were the Top Breaks.

There were five basic models built on the large, #3 sized frame. They were all slightly different, as can be seen in these photos, but they were all approximately the same size.

The first was the American Model. Manufactured from about 1870 until 1874. The American Model fired a 44 caliber cartridge that used a heeled bullet. The rear of the bullet was the same diameter as the inside of the cartridge case. The business end of the bullet was the same diameter as the outside of the cartridge case, just like a modern 22 Rimfire. The Army bought 1000 of these making them the first cartridge revolvers the Army bought. This is not an actual American Model, it is a 1st Model Russian. Identical to the American Model, but chambered for the 44 Russian cartridge instead.

Interestingly enough, although Colt made a number of cartridge conversion revolvers after the White Patent expired, they did not come out with the iconic Single Action Army until 1873, and Remington did not introduce their cartridge revolver until 1875.

pmfSXZsBj.jpg




Rather than rotating the barrel up, as with the Tip Ups, the barrel of a Top Break was unlatched and rotated down. An extractor would automatically rise up as the barrel was lowered, to eject spent cartridges.

poKJU3noj.jpg




Smith and Wesson entered into a lucrative contract with the Russian government, eventually producing over 150,000 Russian Models for Russia, as well as Turkey and Japan. The Russians specified several design changes. The cartridge would use a bullet the same diameter as the inside of the cartridge case. This meant grease grooves on the bullet could be placed inside the cartridge, reducing the possibility for the soft bullet lube to pick up dirt or other contamination. This resulted in a bullet of .429 diameter, which is the same as the later 44 Special and 44 Magnum cartridges. The Russians specified the large hump on the grip, believing it would reduce the tendency of the revolver to rotate in the hand in recoil. And the Russians specified the spur on the trigger guard. This is a 2nd Model Russian. I can speak with some authority how the large hump prevents the grip from rotating in the hand during recoil, but it also makes it much more awkward to reach the hammer spur with the thumb to cock the hammer.

poZxQVGxj.jpg




Not wanting to be left out of lucrative Army contracts, S&W produced the Schofield model in 1875. The distinctive latch on the frame was developed by Col. George Schofield as an improvement of the American model. This latch allowed a mounted trooper to open the revolver with one hand, sweep the barrel against his leg to open it, reload and close the revolver, all the time controlling his horse with the other hand. Schofield patented his latch design, and S&W had to pay him a royalty for every revolver made. Sorry, I do not know how much. Daniel Wesson set his designers to work to come up with a latch design that got around Schofield's patent, but this model was only made from 1875 until 1877 and an alternative latch never materialized. S&W had been making revolvers with cylinders 1 7/16" long since 1869, and was in the middle of the lucrative Russian contracts. The Colt revolver fired the 45 Colt cartridge, which would not fit into a 1 7/16" long cylinder. Rather than retool for a longer cylinder and frame, S&W persuaded the Army to accept a shorter 45 caliber cartridge that would fit into a 1 7/16" long cylinder. The resulting cartridge became popularly known as the 45 Schofield cartridge. Yes, there are meany theories about the wrong cartridges being sent to the wrong revolvers, I am not going to go into that here.

This is a 1st Model Schofield, it shipped in 1875.

plQNWEnoj.jpg




The best of the large S&W Top Breaks was the New Model Number Three. Cataloged from 1878 until 1908, it was available in a total of 17 different chamberings, although 44 Russian was the most common. There were two versions available with 1 9/16" long cylinders that could chamber the 44-40 and 38-40 cartridges. No S&W Top Break was ever chambered for 45 Colt.

pnIVU3B0j.jpg




The only double action revolver S&W built on the large #3 sized frame was the 44 Double Action. Typically chambered for 44 Russian, but there were two models with longer cylinders chambered for 44-40 and 38-40.

pl8SNg6Kj.jpg




I also wonder why someone like Uberti would not make a copy of the Baby Russian or similar. I understand that it would be very popular in Cowboy Action.

Not really. Cowboy Action rules dictate that all Main Match revolvers have a large frame, like a Colt Single Action Army, or any or the replicas. The four single action Top Break models pictured above are also legal for CAS competition.

The only use of a smaller 'pocket pistol' such as a Baby Russian in CAS is in pocket pistol side matches. These are side matches that only happen at the larger CAS matches, which means they do not happen very often. So there is no demand from the Cowboy Action community for a modern replica of a Top Break S&W Pocket Pistol such as the 38 Single Action 1st Model (Baby Russian) or 38 Single Action 2nd Model, pictured below.

pmZ77oI2j.jpg




I did use a 38 Double Action Perfected Model at a Pocket Pistol side match a bunch of years ago.

plEzybTlj.jpg




Some other S&W Top Break Pocket Pistols that would be legal at a Pocket Pistol side match;

38 Single Action 3rd Model.

pm2fFYfEj.jpg




32 Single Action 1st Model.

pn8aSIGPj.jpg




Of course, since Pocket Pistol matches are based on time, as are all CAS matches, double action revolvers would fare better.

Such as this 32 Safety Hammerless.

pmyDmOxTj.jpg




Or 32 Bicycle Revolver.

plOHvXcbj.jpg




Or 38 Safety Hammerless.

pmRJLRgLj.jpg




Or a 38 Double Action or 32 Double Action.

pngDB6blj.jpg
 
Last edited:
I am in love with these, but own only one, a fifth model S&W bicycle in .38 S&W very similar to Driftwood's .32, but with black plastic grips. I've posted a picture or two of it here once upon a time. I'd love a Schofield reproduction of one of the larger caliber guns for that matter, although I've never held one. Some day perhaps.

By the time mine was made black powder was pretty much obsolete, so I don't feel like I have to worry too much about shooting it with factory ammunition or my own handloads, mostly with Trail Boss but also Winchester 231 powder. .38 S&W bullets were available at reasonable cost from Matt's at one time, and dies from Lee, but I don't know what the current situation is. I don't shoot it all that much but would love a slightly rougher perhaps but more common longer barreled model just so I wouldn't feel as guilty shooting it. Mine is wonderfully petite and feels great.

Driftwood, if you happen to read this: is the procedure described on the inside box cover for your nickel-plated .32 also applicable to others like my fifth-gen safety hammerless? I've never had the cylinder out of the frame so I was curious about that.
 
Last edited:
This is my solid as a rock top break Webley in .38 S&W. I would love to get a S&W Schofield copy in .45 Colt but I have been told it will loosen up a lot with standard factory cartridges. Is this true? I don't mean Cowboy loads. IMG_1489.JPG
 
Driftwood, if you happen to read this: is the procedure described on the inside box cover for your nickel-plated .32 also applicable to others like my fifth-gen safety hammerless? I've never had the cylinder out of the frame so I was curious about that.


Howdy Again

The earlier models such as the Russian and Schofields had a slightly different procedure to remove the cylinder, but later on it was pretty much the same for all the S&W Top Breaks.

Here are a couple of photos for removing the cylinder from a New Model Number Three.

The cylinder is held in place by a tab on the underside of the barrel latch.

po1aTS8Sj.jpg




Raising the latch is the first step to remove the cylinder.

pnI7KqUwj.jpg




There is an interrupted thread at the end of the cylinder arbor. These photos are of the 32 Safety Hammerless. You can see the interrupted thread on the end of the cylinder arbor. I don't think I have ever studied the instructions on the inside of the box. I always open the action all the way, and rotate the cylinder counter-clockwise a few turns, pulling up slightly on the cylinder while rotating it. This allows the threads inside the cylinder to engage the interupted thread on the end of the arbor. Just continue rotating and the cylinder will rise up and come out in your hand. I'm sure this would work with your Bicycle Revolver. Your blued Bicycle revolver looks very good in that photo.

plDecbktj.jpg

pojQoE18j.jpg




They were called Bicycle Revolvers because they were very small and could easily be carried in a pocket while riding on a bicycle, in case one had to defend Daisy from ruffians. Bicycles were very popular at the end of the 19th Century, don't forget a couple of bicycle mechanics invented the airplane in 1903. This is an advertisement for S&W Bicycle Revolvers from that time.

pne8Zysrj.jpg




I would love to get a S&W Schofield copy in .45 Colt but I have been told it will loosen up a lot with standard factory cartridges. Is this true? I don't mean Cowboy loads.


It sounds like you were told that by someone who has never owned or fired one. ALL firearms manufactured in Italy are proofed in government proof houses to standards that are stricter than the SAMMI standards we use here in the US. As long as you restrict it to shooting with standard SAAMI Spec loads, you would not have to restrict it to Cowboy loads. There is no SAAMI standard for Cowboy loads anyway, they are what ever each ammunition manufacturer chooses to load. However because Uberti changed the design of the bushing on the front of the cylinder, their Top Break revolvers tend to bind up after not too many Black Powder cartridges.

Smith and Wesson knew how to design a revolver to fire Black Powder. Here is my pair of New Model Number Threes at the end of a CAS Match. Each one is still sooty from about 40 Black Powder 44 Russian rounds being fired through them. I could probably put a lot more BP ammo than that through them before they would begin to bind up.

pmvE1SeGj.jpg
 
If you reload then there is very little to worry about with any gun that is in proper working order and decent build materials. Some guns had wrought iron and cast iron parts which can be problematic, especially when those parts are the cylinder and/or frame latch. The no-name guns are generally the ones to look out for, but cartridge guns were still relatively new technology so mistakes were made by many makers. The early S&W guns were generally pretty well built as were the H&A, Iver Johnson, and Merwin Hulbert all had multi-piece frames that were well built, but each model and each gun were a bit of an evolution towards modern guns. Beware, but don’t be afraid. Loading black powder is by far the safest way to feed these old gals. Anything more is a risk you are taking upon yourself. I am not afraid to shoot my guns with very light smokeless loads, but I have been told i take unnecessary risk.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top