What Top Break Revolvers To Look For

Just because Uberti cannot (or won't) design and make a top-break to handle .357 Mag. does NOT mean that no-one can. It simply means that no one else wants to invest the time and money in coming up with the proper materials and design to do the job. I can understand that. But my eyes will always be alert for the company, wherever they are, which takes the "plunge".

beag_nut said:

Just because Uberti cannot (or won't) design and make a top-break to handle .357 Mag. does NOT mean that no-one can. It simply means that no one else wants to invest the time and money in coming up with the proper materials and design to do the job. I can understand that. But my eyes will always be alert for the company, wherever they are, which takes the "plunge".

Click to expand...

Google Anderson-Wheeler for your .357 break top revolver, 7 shot no less.

Be sure to make an appt. with a loan officer.

WestKentucky said:

Some guns had wrought iron and cast iron parts which can be problematic, especially when those parts are the cylinder and/or frame latch.

Click to expand...

Howdy

A bit of a correction is in order here. There is a big difference between wrought iron and cast iron. Cast iron, also known as pig iron, is cast into ingots, often in sand molds. When it cools, cast iron is chock full of impurities. Because of this, cast iron does not have much strength in tension. It is great for compression, a blacksmith's anvil was usually made of cast iron, it could take the pounding of a blacksmith's hammer all day long, but not very good for gun barrels. Wrought iron, also known as malleable iron, has had most to the impurities removed, so it is much better for gun barrels. The Colt Single Action Army had frames and cylinders made of malleable iron up until mid 1883. After that, steel was used for frames and cylinders, until 1900 when Colt felt the steel in use could take the pressure spike of Smokeless powder. The frame of the 1st Model Schofield in 1875 was made of malleable iron. The frames of the first Henry rifles, made in 1862 were made of malleable iron. I'm sure other manufacturers were using malleable iron too, but I do not have any references. I'm pretty sure the cylinders of the Colt Cap & Ball revolvers were made of malleable iron too, particularly the Walker Colt, which had a habit of blowing up, partially because the powder charge was huge, but also because of the metal used in the cylinder. Cast iron was never used for major parts of any firearms that I am aware of during the late 19th Century.

beag_nut said:

Just because Uberti cannot (or won't) design and make a top-break to handle .357 Mag. does NOT mean that no-one can. It simply means that no one else wants to invest the time and money in coming up with the proper materials and design to do the job. I can understand that. But my eyes will always be alert for the company, wherever they are, which takes the "plunge".

Click to expand...

Howdy

Your statement has a contradiction in it. Uberti is in the business of making reproductions of 19th Century revolvers. The frame and latch design of the Schofield simply will not stand up to the punishment of the pounding of the 357 Magnum cartridge. Take a look at that Anderson-Wheeler revolver, in particular take a look at the latch that locks the frame shut. Much more massive than the latching system on any of the old S&W Top Break revolvers.

https://revivaler.com/anderson-wheeler-mark-vii-357-magnum-revolver/


That is the traditional design of the old Webely revolvers used.

Compare that to the latch on a Schofield.






Or a New Model Number Three.






I know a gunsmith, retired now, who fitted a Webley latch onto a Schofield replica many years ago, just for the fun of it. It worked quite well, but I don't think he tried to shoot any high powered loads through it.

The bottom line is, Uberti is in the business of recreating 19th Century firearms, not redesigning them to take the pounding of more powerful cartridges.

Driftwood, my understanding, the Army finally settled on the .45 Schofield, to avoid supply screwups. Seem to recall the Schofield also used a lighter charge. This also led to a more recent, speculative, argument about calling the current cartridge a .45 Long Colt. Uberti has, of course, made current production accept full size .45 cartridges. Still of the opinion that Uberti is venting some pressure in their Schofields, perhaps with a larger cylinder gap...the guns would, of course, be proofed with this arrangement, but it would protect buyers from themselves.
Yeah, the latch will eventually wear, with enough use, and it's just not that strong a system. Not every load has to be WFO fire breathers; punkin rollers are fun too. WC, you are spot on.
Driftwood, you would perhaps know, long wondered, what was the purpose of the extra loop on the trigger guard on the S&W Russian?
WCWhitney, yeah, had troubles with a NAA top break; had a short barrel that worked fine, but couldn't let well enough alone, and swapped it for a somewhat longer barrel...latch wouldn't stay put, even after a trip back to the mothership. It was a beautifully made little thing; wouldn't mind another.
Moon

halfmoonclip said:

Driftwood, my understanding, the Army finally settled on the .45 Schofield, to avoid supply screwups. Seem to recall the Schofield also used a lighter charge. This also led to a more recent, speculative, argument about calling the current cartridge a .45 Long Colt. Uberti has, of course, made current production accept full size .45 cartridges. Still of the opinion that Uberti is venting some pressure in their Schofields, perhaps with a larger cylinder gap...the guns would, of course, be proofed with this arrangement, but it would protect buyers from themselves.

Click to expand...

Because the 45 Schofield case is shorter than the 45 Colt case, it carried less powder. The original loading of the 45 Colt cartridge was 40 grains of powder under a 250 grain bullet. The original loading of the 45 Schofield cartridge was 28 grains of powder under a 230 grain bullet.

The two cartridges on the left in this photo are 45 Colt, the two on the right are 45 Schofield. The two in the center are original copper cased, Benet primed cartridges, the two on the outside are my reloads. Modern brass does not have as much powder capacity as the old cartridges, I reload 45 Colt with about 35 grains of FFg powder under a 250 grain bullet, I reload 45 Schofield with about about 27 grains of FFg powder under a 200 grain bullet.






Because empty 45 Colt cases were ejected by an ejector rod that poked them out from the inside, 45 Colt rims did not have to be very wide. The Schofield revolver used an extractor to eject empties, so Scofield rims were always larger diameter than 45 Colt rims. The current standards are .512 for 45 Colt rim diameter, .520 for Schofield rim diameter.

There are those who think that because the rims are larger in diameter, 45 Schofields cannot be loaded into a Colt without the rims over lapping.

That is untrue. This 2nd Gen Colt cylinder has room for 4 modern 45 Schofield rims and two of the old Benet primed rims.

halfmoonclip said:

Driftwood, you would perhaps know, long wondered, what was the purpose of the extra loop on the trigger guard on the S&W Russian?

Click to expand...

I can tell you the Russians specified the spur on the trigger guard. There are several theories as to why they wanted it.

Some believe it makes for steadier shooting, with the middle finger resting in the spur. I have tried that and find it is more awkward to shoot the revolver that way. Others believe it was so a mounted cavalryman could parry the blow of a saber. I find that explanation to be questionable. Still others speculate that the spur allowed a shooter to hang the revolver on a belt or sash.

My own personal opinion is it was just a stylish modification the Russians wanted. I have seen photos of a few European revolvers with trigger spurs like that.

It has been reported that when Russian models made their way onto the American frontier, the spurs were often sawed off. I suspect the owners felt the spur was as useless as I do.

Also, the spur was available on special order on the New Model Number Three. I have seen a few of these over the years.

If money isn't the issue:

#1 Webley WG, with bird-head grip. IMHO this revolver has the best ergonomic of all revolvers. You have to take it in your hand to appreciate its design:



#2 Beretta Laramie:



No personal experience with Laramie, but it has safety mechanism that allows all 6 chamber to be loaded, and according to many, the best quality of all S&W top break clones. I hope one day...

Onty said:

No personal experience with Laramie, but it has safety mechanism that allows all 6 chamber to be loaded, and according to many, the best quality of all S&W top break clones. I hope one day...

Click to expand...

The Laramie is/was a replica of the S&W New Model Number Three. Marketed by Beretta, but actually made by Uberti. In my humble opinion the best of the large #3 Top Breaks. Mostly because the grip shape was better than any of the other #3 Top Breaks. You can scroll back to the photos I posted earlier to see the different grip shapes. Notice the Laramie has a target style rear sight, adjustable for windage only, but a half moon shaped front sight like my New Model Number Three.






This is a target model New Model Number Three. Notice the windage adjustable rear sight and the tall target style front sight. I had a chance to buy this revolver a number of years ago and I am still kicking myself for not buying it.







Good luck finding a Laramie, I'm pretty sure they have been out of production for some time now.

Yes, I believe the Laramie had a sliding hammer block inside making it safe to fully load with 6 rounds.

Taylors does list one, they call it the Frontier. Their version is only available chambered for 44-40. It is listed as out of stock.

https://taylorsfirearms.com/hand-guns/cartridge-revolvers/schofield-revolvers/frontier-rev.html


I have no hands on experience with the Laramie or the Taylors Frontier version, but as I said, in my opinion the New Model Number Three was the best of the 5 different types of large frame, #3 Top Break revolvers.

Interestingly enough, the originals had a rebounding hammer. In this photo I am pressing the hammer all the way forward. This is the position of the hammer the instant it fires a cartridge.






In this photo the hammer has rebounded and the sear has popped into a tiny notch on the hammer.






This is what was known as the half-cock position. The upper end of the hammer has retracted enough to allow the barrel latch to open, and the bolt has popped down, allowing the cylinder to turn freely. This is the position the hammer must be in to break open the revolver for loading and unloading.






This is the full cock position.






Now go back to the photo showing the hammer in the rebounded position and notice how tiny the notch on the hammer is. Also, notice how tiny the sear is. I would NEVER trust this arrangement with a live round under the hammer. The cross sections of the parts are just too thin, and I would be afraid something would shear off if the revolver fell on its hammer. Yes, I do shoot this revolver with 44 Russian cartridges loaded with Black Powder, and I ALWAYS let the hammer down on an empty chamber.

Driftwood Johnson said:

Good luck finding a Laramie, I'm pretty sure they have been out of production for some time now.

Yes, I believe the Laramie had a sliding hammer block inside making it safe to fully load with 6 rounds.

Taylors does list one, they call it the Frontier. Their version is only available chambered for 44-40. It is listed as out of stock.

https://taylorsfirearms.com/hand-guns/cartridge-revolvers/schofield-revolvers/frontier-rev.html


I have no hands on experience with the Laramie or the Taylors Frontier version, but as I said, in my opinion the New Model Number Three was the best of the 5 different types of large frame, #3 Top Break revolvers.

Click to expand...

Thank you Sir for your contribution. Just awesome knowledge!!!

So, as far as I understand, Taylor's Frontier is in fact same as Laramie, just different brand name.

I had noticed that listed is also model chambered in 44 Special.

Yes.

The Beretta Laramie and Taylors Frontier are the same revolver.

Uberti is the actual manufacturer. Uberti also makes replicas of the Schofield Model and the Russian Model. Again refer to my earlier photos to see what they look like.

As to your comment about the Laramie has the best quality of all the S&W Top Break replicas, as far as I can tell all three have the same quality.

Uberti is owned by Beretta, so the Laramie was marketed under the Beretta name, but it was actually made by Uberti.

The original New Model Number Three was cataloged from 1878 until 1908, although all frames had been manufactured before 1899, so as far as the BATF is concerned, they are all antiques.

Chambered for 17 different cartridges, 44 Russian was the most common.

Most of this model had cylinders that were 1 7/16" long. Not a problem with the standard 44 Russian cartridge, but 44-40 and 38-40 were too long to fit into that cylinder.

The New Model Number Three Frontier model had a cylinder 1 9/16" long and was chambered for 44-40. That is probably where Taylors got the idea to label theirs Frontier. Interestingly enough, Colt Single Action Army revolvers chambered for 44-40 were always referred to as the Frontier Six Shooter. Anyway, the 44-40 Frontier model was fairly scarce, only 2072 were made.

Even scarcer was the New Model Number Three 38 Winchester. This one also had a 1 9/16" long cylinder and was chambered for 38-40, also known as 38WCF (Winchester Center Fire). Quite rare, only 74 are known to have been made.

As with the other Uberti replicas of the S&W Top Breaks, Uberti lengthened the cylinder to accept longer cartridges such as 45 Colt. Uberti did this by shortening the collar at the front of the cylinder that shielded the cylinder arbor from powder fouling blasted out of the barrel cylinder gap. If you look carefully at the photo of the Laramie that you posted, compared to the photo of the New Model Number Three that I posted, you can see mine has a shorter cylinder and a longer gap between the front of the cylinder and the frame.

This photo shows the collar pressed into the front of the cylinder.






This photo shows the relationship of the collar or bushing on the front of the cylinder directly underneath the barrel. That is what Uberti shortened in order to make the cylinder long enough for 45 Colt or 44-40 without lengthening the frame. This design works very well when shooting cartridges loaded with Black Powder because the collar shields the underlying cylinder arbor from BP fouling blasted out of the cylinder gap. The Uberti version, not so much.






I consider myself lucky to own 2 New Model Number Three revolvers. The blue one shipped in 1896 to Taketa & Co. Yokohama, Japan. I found it at a gun show a few years ago and was all over it. I found a flaw in one of the chambers but the dealer said he doubted if anyone was going to shoot it. He did not know me very well. I have always wondered if it came back to the US in a GI's duffle bag at the end of WWII. The nickel plated one shipped in 1882 and was refinished at the factory in 1965. I have factory letters for both of them.






Parting Shot: Smith and Wesson never chambered any of their Top Break revolvers for 45 Colt.

this is as close as I can get:

It would be nice to have Frontier in 45 Schofield. I always felt that (unless loading to "Ruger only" level), 45 Colt has somewhat to much powder space.

I am actively searching for .a nice 455 Webley, and first thing I will try to locate second cylinder that will be modified to 45 Schofield, see: https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/webley-455-ammo-another-aproach.902100/#post-12220712

wcwhitey said:

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).

Click to expand...

Any IVER JOHNSON SAFETY AUTOMATIC REVOLVER that has three main guard pins just above the trigger guard. These are the model 3s (1908-1941). Also the model 3s have a coil spring under the grips/stocks, The models 1&2 have a flat spring under the grips/stocks. THE MODEL 3s ARE SAFE WITH SMOKELESS POWDER CARTRIDGES. The two pictures with the yellow tags is one of my IJSAR evolvers.

ca13860 said:

Any IVER JOHNSON SAFETY AUTOMATIC REVOLVER that has three main guard pins just above the trigger guard. These are the model 3s (1908-1941). Also the model 3s have a coil spring under the grips/stocks, The models 1&2 have a flat spring under the grips/stocks. THE MODEL 3s ARE SAFE WITH SMOKELESS POWDER CARTRIDGES. The two pictures with the yellow tags is one of my IJSAR evolvers.

Click to expand...

Finally found the picture I was looking for.

S&W Safety Hammerless in .38 S&W
Everything is tight and shoots well.

H&R made break top 38 S&W model 925's into the 1970's, I think? Seems that would be my choice...if it couldn't be a 999 in 22lr.

I find it easier to tell a smokeless H&R over a smokeless Iver Johnson: simply look on the side of the barrel for the caliber. If it's there, it's smokeless, if not, it's black powder.

I haven't had any issues with the 6 shot .32 HR I have and I do suggest if the OP wants a top break that's a shooter and safe, the 6 shot .32 HR's are the ones to get because they are built on the .38 frames, so you basically are getting a revolver that is overbuilt for the caliber.

That's perfect because the latch will last longer and that is the weakest part of the revolver.

Alternative options are the more modern H&R 925, it's a .38 S&W with larger grips and an adjustable rear sight. Another is the Uberti Schofield, they will last forever.

Tallball said:

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.

Click to expand...

The only. 32 I know of that H&R bored the chamber straight thru is the Young America and it can only shoot .32 Long wadcutters, which thankfully are common.

I dont think H&R ever made a 5 shot .32 top break with bored thru chambers because I dont think they could have taken the extra recoil force. The Young America can as it's a solid frame.

WC,

I would pass.

I have had 3 top break revolvers and all were disappointing. I have 2 H&R top breaks, a 999 in .22lr and a 925 Defender in .38 S&W. Both have gone out of time and may shoot or may not. I had to align the cylinder of the Defender by hand during my last trip to the range with it. I was only shooting a few more rounds, so no big deal, but it was disappointing anyway. The 999 was worse.

I recently posted about a British military revolver, an ALBION, made by ALBION motors in SCOTTLAND during WW II. It works well, but has the worst grip design I have run across in a while. It was painful to shoot 25 rounds of .38 S&W through it. I can easily shoot 90 rounds of .38 Special +P or .357 magnum through my RUGER Security Six, which is similar in size, so it is definitely the grips.
The gun is well made, strong enough to last when shooting factory .38 S&W, but it is not work getting custom grips for this gun when I already have a much, much more satifying gun like the S&W model 15/Combat Master to shoot. Also, while the ALBION is almost useless for self defense, I can get useful, effective ammo for defense and usually cheaper practice ammo as well because the model 15 is a .38 Special.
Until I can get a pair of HOGUE or PACKMAYR grips for the ALBION, is will grace my safe most of the time.

If I wanted to shoot some .32 S&W Long or .38 S&W, I would buy a solid frame revolver. I have two .32 S&W Long H&R revolvers and the 4 inch barreled model 732 is quite pleasant to shoot and is failry accurate. It has a better trigger (read smoother and lighter) than a COLT Police Positive I used to have. So I sold the COLT and kept the H&R. These guns are still inexpensive and mine seems quite durable. I would not say that about many of the top breaks I have handled.
If you do not like H&R, you may be able to find a nice S&W or COLT, but good luck with the collectors prices.

I understand if you have a top break bug, but what is available does not impress me much for use as a shooter.

Jim

.

This one is labelled for 32 S&W, but the longs go into the cylinder easily. I've fired a couple of boxes through it with no ill effects.

I bought it expecting that the longs would fit, having read about it.

I too like Taylor's Frontier, 45 Colt and 44 Special:



See more here https://taylorsfirearms.com/hand-guns/cartridge-revolvers/schofield-revolvers/frontier-rev.html .

golden said:

...I recently posted about a British military revolver, an ALBION, made by ALBION motors in SCOTTLAND during WW II. It works well, but has the worst grip design I have run across in a while. It was painful to shoot 25 rounds of .38 S&W through it. I can easily shoot 90 rounds of .38 Special +P or .357 magnum through my RUGER Security Six, which is similar in size, so it is definitely the grips.
The gun is well made, strong enough to last when shooting factory .38 S&W, but it is not work getting custom grips for this gun when I already have a much, much more satifying gun like the S&W model 15/Combat Master to shoot. Also, while the ALBION is almost useless for self defense, I can get useful, effective ammo for defense and usually cheaper practice ammo as well because the model 15 is a .38 Special.
Until I can get a pair of HOGUE or PACKMAYR grips for the ALBION, is will grace my safe most of the time.

Click to expand...

When I was looking for top break revolver some 25 years ago, I also considered British 38-200 (38 S&W with 200 grain bullet) Enfield and Webley. Those Webley Mk IV marked "WAR FINISH" were only I could find at that time. I wasn't impressed:



.455 Webley Mk VI from WWI era were better made revolvers.

Than I looked at Enfield revolvers in 38-200. The first one I took in my hands was No. 2 Mk I*, so called "Tanker Model", made by Albion Motors. First, I have no use for DAO revolver, and second, those Albion revolvers I had seen were ROUGH.




Later on, I stumbled upon Enfield No. 2 Mk I, made in 1930-ties, like this one:



Those are quite nice revolvers, fit and finish way better than those two above, no comparison. I almost purchased one. Just didn't want to bother with such obscure caliber.

BTW, I had seen some years later Webley Mk IV post WWII production, but still, Enfield No. 2 Mk I looks nicer, better quality.

Too bad Enfield company never produced same style revolver in 38 Special, or in larger caliber. As a matter of fact, Enfield did make after WWI copy of .455 Webley Mk VI, and from what I've heard, they are well made revolvers, comparable to commercial .455 Webley Mk VI made between two wars:



Notice, no usual Webley markings on the frame just bellow cylinder front end.

You might consider a late model H&R Defender .38. They have solid cylinder lockup and adjustable sights. They are all .38 S&W caliber.

Onty said:

When I was looking for top break revolver some 25 years ago, I also considered British 38-200 (38 S&W with 200 grain bullet) Enfield and Webley. Those Webley Mk IV marked "WAR FINISH" were only I could find at that time. I wasn't impressed:

Click to expand...

Here's a point to consider about the Webley Mk. IV, as opposed to the Enfield No. 2. The Webley front sight blade is integral with the barrel, whereas the Enfield front sight blade is pinned on (replaceable). This is important because examples found today often have the front sight filed down, to regulate the point of impact with modern (commercially available) .38 S&W ammunition. Restoration of such a Webley would involve welding material, to raise the height of the front sight blade. Better to find one that has been untouched.