Modern top break revolvers?

Status
Not open for further replies.
whm1974 said:
... And why is it made in country that doesn't allow it's citizens to own handguns?
Click to expand...

A webley is as british as possible ...

Btw ... after the UK banned handguns a few years ago ... for almost 1 year the criminals werent able to buy handguns anywhere in europe from the black market ... every unregistered handgun went to criminals in the UK and burglars didnt care anymore if the homeowners were at home or not

UK is strong in tactical shotgun competitions ... guess why ..

(Handgun refers only to pistol and revolver, not rifle or shotgun?)
 
But why no modern double-action top-break revolvers. I would love a modern Webley Mark VI inspired replica top break in 45 ACP.

This is my Webley Mark IV is 38/200

D3dOdVgm.jpg

Schofield, S&W, Iver Johnson and several other makers made double action versions of their top breaks but I don't believe anyone makes a replica. They only make replicas of the single action versions.

Moonclips and a top-break would be pretty sweet.
 
The top break revolver does have some real ergonomic advantages in reloading, probably a speed advantage but I have seen moon clip reloads in solid frames that were lightning fast. But I think the real problem is cost. You can just look at the prices of S&W top break replicas to see that top break revolvers are more expensive to make than solid frame revolvers.
 
Russians had a top break that almost made it to market. Basically the US stopped taking imports in Russian guns so they decided against marketing the revolver.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP-412_REX

The answer I've been able to get as to why top breaks are so rare any more is the lockup is weaker and so to make the gun strong enough to handle modern chamberings requires a bunch of reinforcement. That translates directly to increased cost. That all being said if I could find a top break center-fire I could run in one of the action shooting sports I'd be all over that. Maybe we should pester Ruger since they seem to be the ones with the reputation for both strong and different style (LCR) revolvers.
 
There have been a couple attempts at modern top-breaks- Detonics had a prototype .44 Magnum back in the mid-80's, and there was the Russian design mentioned above. I love top-breaks, and have a lot of antiques. I even carry them occasionally. People have listed several reasons they aren't made above, but I'll recap-

They are inherently weaker than a solid-frame gun. They can certainly be made strong enough, but that strength comes at the cost of weight. To be strong enough to fire modern cartridges they would have to be significantly heavier.

S&W and others abandoned top-breaks because they are more expensive to produce. They don't require greater precision to make, but there are more areas where precision is critical, and that translates to expense. This is the main reason the Ranger 2 is twice as much as most of the solid-frame models.

Contrary to what you might expect, reloading an auto-ejecting top break is not actually faster than reloading a conventional revolver with a swing-out cylinder. It seems like it ought to be, but I've timed this again and again. It just isn't. Yes, moon clips speed things up in both cases, but it's a wash. Here's a video of me shooting my Webley Mk1 in and ASI match. The reload is quick... but no faster than I can do with a S&W model 25.


Basically a top-break doesn't offer any advantages that offset it's deficits, so no one bothers.
 
somethingbenign said:
Russians had a top break that almost made it to market. Basically the US stopped taking imports in Russian guns so they decided against marketing the revolver.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP-412_REX

The answer I've been able to get as to why top breaks are so rare any more is the lockup is weaker and so to make the gun strong enough to handle modern chamberings requires a bunch of reinforcement. That translates directly to increased cost. That all being said if I could find a top break center-fire I could run in one of the action shooting sports I'd be all over that. Maybe we should pester Ruger since they seem to be the ones with the reputation for both strong and different style (LCR) revolvers.
Click to expand...
Well the modern cartridges I'm thing of are .22 Magnum, 9x19 +P AND .45 ACP +p.
 
Kleanbore said:
Strength
Click to expand...

Strength is far less of an issue with modern metals. At the peak of the top break revolver popularity the steels were good but no where near what they are now. An original Webley Mark VI (shaved) is quickly shot loose using full power 45ACP in it due to its dated metallurgy. If we made an exact copy of that revolver using some of the higher end alloys avalable now in a few critical areas I bet we could make a revolver hold up to a steady diet of 45 ACP +P. If we did some redesign utilizing modern engineering techniques and modern materials we could probably up the power level even more. Yes, it will never be as strong as a closed frame revolver made of similar materials but we could certainly make top break revolver for all the popular self defense calibers fairly easily with modern metals and engineering.
 
Last edited:
Howdy

This question has been asked and answered many times. A Top Break revolver cannot be made that is as strong as a solid frame revolver. With a solid frame revolver, the top strap and bottom of the frame are all integral. With a Top Break the top strap is part of the barrel and is separate from the rest of the frame. No matter what material you use, you cannot get around the fact that the two separate pieces will eventually change shape from the repeated blows of recoil, the barrel pivot joint will wear, and the latching mechanism at the rear of the Top Strap will eventually wear. The main problem with most old Top Breaks was that eventually the latch did not function any more because the top strap had stretched. Trust me on this.

Uberti is the only company making replicas of the large frame Smith and Wesson Top Break revolvers today. There were five distinct models S&W built on the large, #3 sized frame.

The American Model (actually this is a 1st Model Russian, but they are visually the same)

pl6Wef70j.jpg




The Russian Model

po79otSDj.jpg




The Schofield Model

plXhSAeNj.jpg




The New Model Number Three

plfqz6z6j.jpg




And the 44 Double Action.

pl8SNg6Kj.jpg




Uberti has produced modern replicas of the top four, they have never produced a replica of the 44 Double Action.
 
The two usual answers to "why are there no top break revolvers today?" are 1) they cannot be made strong enough, and 2) they would cost too much to make today.

Answer 1) assumes that the main demand in revolvers is to shoot heavy loads, like 357 Magnum. Yet top breaks have proven adequate for 45 ACP, given the large number of people who have gotten away with shooting 45 ACP loads in converted 455 Webleys for decades. (I am one of them. I fired 45 ACP factory ammo in a converted Webley for a while about 35 years ago. In a Mark 1, no less. No explosion, fortunately.) This means there are a wide variety of popular cartridges, like 22 LR and 38 Special, that top-breaks would be adequate for.

I am not qualified to comment on answer 2, cost of manufacture. And the high price of the one type of top-break revolver that is made today - the Schofield replicas - bears that argument out. It is still hard to believe that with modern methods of precision casting or CNC machining that cost is an insuperable obstacle, but probably the tooling-up cost vs. the potential sales do not make profitable sense.

I think some people also argue that top break revolvers cannot be made for cartridges as long as 38 Special. But S&W made top-breaks in .44-40 and 38-.40, and as I understand it, the Schofield replicas use ordinary 45 Colt ammo, not the short Schofield version.

I like top-breaks a lot, and I think they would be a nice alternative for lightweight target revolvers. But there are a lot of things that would be nice but that can't pay their way, as they must in order to exist.
 
Last edited:
Monac said:
The two usual answers to "why are there no top break revolvers today?" are 1) they cannot be made strong enough, and 2) they would cost too much to make today.

Answer 1) assumes that the main demand in revolvers is to shoot heavy loads, like 357 Magnum. Yet top breaks have proven adequate for 45 ACP, given the large number of people who have gotten away with shooting 45 ACP loads in converted 455 Webleys for decades. (I am one of them. I fired 45 ACP factory ammo in a converted Webley for a while about 35 years ago. In a Mark 1, no less. No explosion, fortunately.) This means there are a wide variety of popular cartridges, like 22 LR and 38 Special, that top-breaks would be adequate for.

I am not qualified to comment on answer 2, cost of manufacture. And the high price of the one type of top-break revolver that is made today - the Schofield replicas - bears that argument out. It is still hard to believe that with modern methods of precision casting or CNC machining that cost is an insuperable obstacle, but probably the tooling-up cost vs. the potential sales do not make profitable sense.

I think some people also argue that top break revolvers cannot be made for cartridges as long as 38 Special. But S&W made top-breaks in .44-40 and 38-.40, and as I understand it, the Schofield replicas use ordinary 45 Colt ammo.

I like top-breaks a lot, and I think they would be a nice alternative for lightweight target revolvers. But there are a lot of things that would be nice but that can't pay their way, as they must in order to exist.
Click to expand...
Considering that there is a modern Webley MK VII that capable of handling .357 Mag(nevermind ~$10,000). And the Russians were working on one around ~early 90's, modernized Top breaks with stronger latches and materials, are capable of such then 19Th to Mid 20Th designs are.
 
Driftwood makes an excellent point.

Managing loads delivered from one piece of a mechanism (latch, hinge, bearing, etc.) to another requires a whole lot more strength than would be needed in a solid mechanical or structural element.

Engineers could size the parts so they could withstand a few proof loads, but the parts would stretch and wear during repeated lfiring. A solid frame design would be far, far preferable.

Some old publicity about British and Russian prototypes does not prove anything.

One other thing: the geometry works well for the .380-200, the .455, and the .45 S&W, but has anyone considered how far the gun would have to open to handle .357 Magnums?
 
Hey, Kleanbore - you just made an argument for a rimmed 45 Gap! Gaston, get on it. The Glock 55? I toyed with the idea of a 38 SPL from Uberti and then said no. Same with getting a LeMat. Well, if I did get one I could post why it is my EDC as the shot barrel would make it like Judge!

Sorry, going stir crazy.
 
I am a HUGE fan of the break top.

I have no real reason for that,just came from being a kid that was raised in NYC ?.

I do know that if there was a modern LOW PRESSURE wheel gun made in break top = count me in !!.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
What are the engineering barriers to making a modern break top revo?
Replies
13
Views
1K
Nightcrawler
N
F
  • Locked
Why no modern top break revolvers?
Replies
19
Views
3K
MrAcheson
M
Swing
  • Locked
Contemporary, domestically-available, top-breaks?
Replies
11
Views
821
Swing
Swing
O
  • Locked
Why no modern top break revolvers?
2
Replies
25
Views
4K
MCgunner
M
iLikeOldgunsIlikeNewGuns
  • Locked
Modern Top-Break Revolver!?
2
Replies
28
Views
46K
Flechette
Flechette
Back
Top