Why did we move away from Top Break Revolvers?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Speedo66 said:
This always comes up with these break top discussions, the Anderson Wheeler Webley pattern 7 shot .357 Magnum.

Finely made, top British quality, your choice of best London blue or coin finish. Engraving available.

Price? If you have to ask....

http://andersonwheeler.co.uk/the-gun-room/revolver/

Hopefully they're not like my English automobiles: "The parts falling off this vehicle are of the finest British quality".
Click to expand...
I really want one of those!
 
Folks, it is NOT that top breaks cannot be made to handle powerful cartridges or high pressure cartridges or any other cartridge! It is how big the gun would be, and how expensive the gun would be. You could make a top break revolver as strong as Magnum Research's BFR, but you couldn't make it as strong AND as small as the BFR (or a S&W X-frame).

Wait, did I just say "small as the BFR"?

Kleanbore said:
Entirely different load path geometry.
Click to expand...

Okay, now I'm the confused one here. Would you mind explaining this one a little bit? I considered a break action rifle an apt comparison of the frame strength needed, so if you could expound just a touch for me I'd appreciate it.

Now, if we were going to use the break action rifle as a comparison...

Grab your break action rifle (or shotgun, for that matter) and take a look at the size of the hinge in that rifle as compared to grandpa's S&W Lemon Squeezer in .32. Also, take a look at that locking piece! Beefy piece of steel right there! The projectile still "wants" to take the barrel (front of frame) with it, and the recoil still "wants" to push the breech face back, stretching the hinge. But the hinge is huge this time.

Break action rifles are compact (shorter) because they don't have to have a bolt that cycles the whole length of the cartridge, not because the actual action is a more efficient use of the various mechanical properties of various materials than bolt actions are. Now if we were talking falling blocks... But we aren't.

It's kinda on my bucket list to build a top break revolver, by the way. I'm still unsure whether I'll do one in something simple like .38 Special, or go big and straight for .44 Magnum, but I do hope to build one someday.
 
Mauser lover said:
I considered a break action rifle an apt comparison of the frame strength needed, so if you could expound just a touch for me I'd appreciate it.
Click to expand...
It has to do with t moment arms.

The moment arm of the hinge loads on a break action long arm is very short---the load path is very close to the hinge, and the upward force on the latch is not enough to break it open.

On a revolver, the force exerted by the bullet as it is forced down the barrel is in a line that is much higher the the hinge (or where the hinge would be if we area speaking of a solid frame). That longer moment arm exerts a much higher upward force at the rear of the top of the frame than on a break action long arm.

On a top break revolver with a hinge, all of that force must be counteracted by the latch.

On a solid frame revolver, the load is spread throughout all of the elements of the frame.
 
Kleanbore said:
The moment arm of the hinge loads on a break action long arm is very short---the load path is very close to the hinge, and the upward force on the latch is not enough to break it open.
Click to expand...

Greener said that on a GOOD break action shotgun or rifle, the longitudinal load was on the underlugs, not the hinge. They don't look like they are doing anything because they are radiused or beveled to rotate into position freely. But they resist the thrust. He said that the barrels could be held closed by "a turn of common cord" and all the fancy "holding down" bolts were largely for show.
 
Jim Watson said:
Greener said that on a GOOD break action shotgun or rifle, the longitudinal load was on the underlugs, not the hinge.
Click to expand...
Makes sense.

In any event, the latch is not greatly stressed by loads in a perpendicular direction.
 
Jim Watson said:
Hamilton Bowen found that out. He could not get a "sporting purpose" exemption for .577 Ruger. Never said if they let him keep his first one but definitely could not make them to sell.
Click to expand...
Probably had to get a special permit from the ATF and pay the Tax to keep the first one...
 
Johnm1 said:
The sealed 8 models were pretty cool. I have a Sealed 8 Supershot made in 1953 or 54. I can't read it real well, but it looks like the picture is of a supershot (side of barrel) I find the sights are a bit difficult for me to use. There just isn't enough space in the rear notch to easily see an even amount of light on both sides of the front sight. I need to work on either the front or rear sight to fix that. The trigger pull isn't the best but I don't want to start fooling with that until I have the sight issues resolved. Keep in mind, my eyes are 59 years old (I'm not that old, but my eyes are) and someone with younger eyes could probably use the sights as is. I have even resorted to using my Merit Optical Attachment (removable diopter) on my shooting glasses to get a better view of both the sights and target.

I don't know if the standard Sealed 8 has it, but the Supershot Sealed 8 has an adjustment on the mainspring to adjust the hammer strength. I didn't notice this until after my last outing where I had miserable day with over 40% fail to fire. Duh, I'll see how well it does now that I know I can adjust it. I think the sights on the Supershot are nicer too.

Overall I think you will like the Sealed 8. If you can, get the Supershot. It just looks really cool. The latest version comes with a smooth cylinder.

Edit to add photo:

View attachment 919592
Click to expand...
Thanks for all that info. Awhile back there was quite a slew of Sealed 8's on gunbroker. Haven't checked lately. I wasnt aware of a Supershot sub-model. I think some of them weren't top-break. I dont know when or why they changed it, but I guess that makes the 8 a prime example for the topic.
 
Kleanbore said:
It has to do with t moment arms.
Click to expand...

Okay, I'll take that. I'm not sure you and I have the same definition of "entirely different" as stated earlier but the height over the hinge (due to the diameter of the cylinder) is a big deal, and I should have mentioned that in my previous post.

Whether or not it is a "good" break action and it might be able to be held shut by "common cord" is all fine and dandy, but there is still going to be some energy tending to force that action open that needs to be held by some sort of latch.
 
Offhand McFlan said:
Thanks for all that info. Awhile back there was quite a slew of Sealed 8's on gunbroker. Haven't checked lately. I wasnt aware of a Supershot sub-model. I think some of them weren't top-break. I dont know when or why they changed it, but I guess that makes the 8 a prime example for the topic.
Click to expand...

Mine has taken some work to get to be 'accurate' enough. I started with groups that were in the 3-4" at 11 yards but found that the 'arbor' the cylinder rotates around was slightly bent. It took some 60 grain cartridges to make it shoot the best. That story is here https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/iver-johnson-supershot-timing.866056/#post-11472045

The firearm was one of the best firearms fit and finish wise that Iver Johnson ever put out. The same could be said about the H&R 999 Sportsman though it was made up until the 80's. It was a 9 shot top break.
 
I wanna say India Ordinance Factory produces a .32 S&W top break based on the Webley. I want one just for the heck of it.
 
Corpral_Agarn said:
strength of frame, I'm guessing.
Click to expand...
So they can make the frame beefier to support the top break feature. They make top break shotguns, so why not revolvers, unless the beefier frame would make it unreasonably bulky, but I don't think that is the problem. Perhaps it just went out of style. My dad had a top break H&R Defender (Model 925, caliber 38 S&W) he bought in the 1950s. I never saw the gun, only the receipt. It would be a fun one to have in my collection, but it was not present when he passed.

Here is a photo of a H&R Defender 925. It looks like a pretty beefy frame to me. Maybe I need to buy a used one! :)

proxy-image?piurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gunsamerica.com%2FUserImages%2F3784%2F975602236%2Fwm_2301270.jpg

Apparently the H&R 925 was one of the last top breaks made and into the 1970s. Here is a great video that goes through the special features of this gun, such as an easily removable cylinder and a dual trigger):


Big questino: Can I get ammo for one of these?
 
Last edited:
aaaaa said:
That'll do it. Now I just need to buy the gun. I guess lead bullets is all I'll find, not FMJ, soft point, and certainly not HP. But it is more a toy than a serious SD gun.
Click to expand...
Fiocchi and a few others still make the 100 grain Wadcutters. I see them around occasionally. .32 Long is still used in Target Competitions. Be easier on a nice old gun also.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

iLikeOldgunsIlikeNewGuns
  • Locked
Modern Top-Break Revolver!?
2
Replies
28
Views
46K
Flechette
Flechette
F
  • Locked
Why no modern top break revolvers?
Replies
19
Views
3K
MrAcheson
M
cluttonfred
  • Locked
Why no modern top-break revolvers?
2 3 4 5
Replies
105
Views
9K
JSH1
J
O
  • Locked
I Want a Top-Break .22 - H&R 925/6 vs Iver 66 Trailsman
Replies
7
Views
368
Frulk
Frulk
Monac
  • Locked
Top Break revolvers and Steel
2 3 4
Replies
87
Views
4K
TTv2
TTv2
Back
Top