Top break revolvers

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

top break revolvers have always interested me but they aren't common any more, i've heard that they can't take high powered rounds because of its design, can someone provide more insight on that matter?

I also want to see pictures of these revolvers, post em!

 

[Acera]

Cimarron Arms has a couple in their catalog with nothing said about not using the normal rounds. They come in .45 LC, .38 Special, 44-40, and .44 Russian.

http://www.cimarron-firearms.com/Specialty/Russian.htm
http://www.cimarron-firearms.com/Specialty/Schofield.htm

There are probably others, but since I found these so easily, I did not continue to look.

 

[Jim K]

Those copies of the old S&W's are all for low power ammo.

The problem is simple. With a top break revolver, there is a gap in the top strap. No matter how small you make it, no matter what materials are used, every time the gun is fired (with any load), there is some amount of battering. With low power loads, that is small and tolerable, creating no problem for thousands of rounds. But as the power increases, the battering increases, the gap increases, and ultimately the gun shoots loose. The hinge is also a weakness, though less of a problem than the latch.

Yes, top break fans insist that with modern materials, or this or that steel, or some special latch, or anointing with bat wings and lizard tails, the problem can be overcome. It can't, not without increasing the size and surface area of the latch so much that the gun would be heavy and awkward.

Jim

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

I like the idea of top breakers just that one problem of the gap, i would be all over a modern day top break in something like .357 but oh well.

those cimarron revolvers, are the SA? or DA/SA?

 

[Gunfighter123]

those cimarron revolvers, are the SA? or DA/SA?

They are SA only.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

i see, were any DA/SA top breakers made other than S&W (and clones) and the 412?

 

[jsg]

"i see, were any DA/SA top breakers made other than S&W (and clones) and the 412?"

H&R 999 - .22 but it was double action.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

the H&R 999 is now a .22 i want, looks like a webley in one of the best calibers ever made and its a cheap gun. might get one now.

are there any othe top break .22s?

 

[rockstar.esq]

I too love the concept. I have to admit I might be one of "those guys" who's REALLY skeptical that somehow the gun's going to fall apart owing to a single latch design issue. One could make the argument that SA's with loading gates like the Ruger Blackhawk are significantly stronger than DA's with the swing out cylinders. Yet the mighty 500 S&W was brought to market with a swing out DA frame. Obviously S&W did some re-engineering between the .38 special M&P's of yore and the modern X frame. My point is that DA's are substantially more popular than SA's which is why S&W brought the 500 out with a swing out cylinder. I'll go on record saying that it's not impossible or destined to be awkward - it's simply not as marketable which is why it hasn't received any engineering attention. It's really a shame since the top break is a truly ambidextrous revolver and the poor lefties out there have had mighty slim pickings on the revolver front since the beginning.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

i never thought about the top breakers as ambidexterous but thats because i never really thought about it. if thats the main thing thats advertised when marketing these, i think there could be a market for them.

 

[rfurtkamp]

I own one of the Beretta-imported ones - the fit and finish was far above the other imports to a point they saddened me by comparison.

I've shot everything from cowboy loads (and a box of 45 Schofield just for the hell of it) to Gold Dot JHPs through it, no issues, lockup is still 100%.

Would I feed it a constant diet of stupid handloads? Nope.

But there is zero ammunition warnings with the gun and Beretta customer service has never mentioned it in my dealings with them.

 

[4v50 Gary]

No Webleys yet?

 

[Oyeboten]

3rd Model Ivor Johnson 'Hammerless'...Factory 'Snubby', in .38 S&W...circa 1931.




Personally, with all the genuine accomplishments of 'Modern Metalurgy', the various Manufacturers really should be able to offer 'Break-Tops' in Cartridges which would be peppier than the old .38 S&W or .44 Russian.


I think they could...and all would be well, but, their marketing-consultants are not able to envision it or to realize that people WOULD buy them.

 

[KaceCoyote]

MP-412 Rex. .357 steel and polymer hybrid the russians developed for the US market. Clinton shut them down.

If memory serves, these were gonna cost about 200-ish

 

[rfurtkamp]

No Webleys yet?

Honestly had forgot there was one in my safe, I don't consider it a gun in my mind for some reason - I haven't really shot it since getting a box of shells with it when I first bought it. Accuracy is alright, but the double action is so godawful terrible I never shot with it outside of single action, and frankly, for what .38 S&W goes for these days, I have other stuff to shoot.

It's a neat historical piece and all but I'd feel undergunned with it given the anemic caliber (speaking in terms of the self-defense comments above), and the .455 versions are just too damn big and again are firing a pretty anemic round for the size of the beast.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

i'll buy the webley for $20 if you don't want it

 

[Jim K]

The Webley and Enfield revolvers all fired quite low power ammo, and do not "prove" that a powerful top-break is a good idea. There is another problem, and that is the way the ejector works on top break revolvers. The activating mechanism is in the hinge and the result is a short ejector throw, far too short to fully eject a cartridge case of the length of the .357 Magnum or even the .38 Special. Some top-breaks have gotten around that problem by having a manually operated ejector rod under the barrel, but that negates one of the advantages of a top-break revolver, the automatic ejection.

Of course contrary to there being few DA/SA top breaks, the fact is that there were millions of them made; they were one of the most popular systems almost up to WWII. Incidentally, the term "automatic revolver" often used mistakenly or thought to apply to guns like the Webley-Fosbery, originally meant an automatic ejecting top-break revolver. When S&W went to the swing out cylinder, they called it a "hand ejector" to distinguish it from their previous "automatic ejector" revolvers.

Jim

 

[eight433]

my little .32 Hopkins & Allen

 

[Carl N. Brown]

1897 Sears Catalog, Department of Revolvers, proudly advertised the "Harrington & Richardson Automatic Revolver" with an illustration showing the empties automatically ejected as the top-break action was hinged open.

Webley-Fosbery automatic revolver was a whole 'nother critter (the top revolver barrel and cylinder recoiled in the grip frame to rotate the cylinder and cock the hammer). The Webley-Fosbery also had automatic ejection too, so by Sears and Roebuck Department of Revolver standards it would be an automatic automatic revlover.

 

[rockstar.esq]

Jim, you've got a point about the ejection however I see the potential for a scissor type actuator to make the ejection stroke longer. Failing that a spring loaded ejection rod would be a viable option. After all it works in double barrel shotguns and last I checked every 12 g shell I've ever seen was longer than a revolver round. I'd absolutely love one of the berettas but oddly they only make them in .38spl and .45lc. it just seems rather odd that the .44spl/russian is ignored considering the origins of the piece.

 

[cane]

rockstar.esq, Uberti does make the No 3 "Russian", as I recall it was the first "top break" they imported. http://www.uberti.com/firearms/top_break.php

 

[don95sml]

The top break revolvers certainly reek of the old west. I have a Uberti "Wells Fargo" version with a 5" barrel, chambered in .38 spl. Accuracy is lousy because of the non-adjustable sights. I should have waited for the introduction of the Beretta Laramie, which does have adjustable sights. The problem with any top break revolver is the cost, since if you want a new one it will cost you $800 or more. It apparently has very limited market appeal.

 

[Bigkahunasix]

Google "Detonics top break revolver", they had a good idea. Too bad it was in development during either the second or third bankruptcy.

dang shame.

 

[jamesjo]

Here's just a few of my favorite topbreaks, all H&R Sportsman

Pair of 4" 999's 1980


6" 999 1980


Model 777 Ultra Sportsman 1939

 

[Acera]

You guys have a lot of nice revolvers. Can any of you actual owners substantiate the claim that they can't fire normal loads? Any reference in the manual to such a thing, or is it just one posters opinion?