Corpral_Agarn
Member
I was hoping to snag one in 45acp to keep things simple.
Why did we move away from Top Break Revolvers?
- Thread starter Aim1
- Start date
- Status
Corpral_Agarn
Member
Pat Riot
Contributing Member
“If you have to ask...” $9,313.00
https://www.all4shooters.com/en/shooting/pistols/anderson-wheeler-mk7-357-magnum-revolver-replica/
Man they went down almost ~$700 the last I looked...“If you have to ask...” $9,313.00
https://www.all4shooters.com/en/shooting/pistols/anderson-wheeler-mk7-357-magnum-revolver-replica/
FlSwampRat
Member
I don't have anything chambered for .45 ACP. And as for keeping things simple, I don't have a .38 anymore (ever since the goblin burglar stole my Dad's Colt Official Police from me) but I buy .38 Spl rounds for my .357's. For which I also buy .357 rounds.
Right now I have guns and bullets in:
.22
.380
9mm
.38
.357
.44
Soooo..... Maybe a Webley in .38 Spl?
Pat Riot
Contributing Member
That article I posted is from 2016. I didn’t look at the date when I posted it.
FlSwampRat
Member
British automotive and motorcycle electrics company.
Corpral_Agarn
Member
You don't... have... anything... chambered in... 45acp...??????
I don't... I don't understand... how?
That would actually be pretty great
whughett
Member
I have an H&R 999, does that count. I even shoot it a few times a year. It’s actually quite accurate.
I also have an Iver Johnston. In 32 caliber. I’ve shot 32ACP in it, not frequently but it does shoot.
On my short list is an Uberti Schofield, the stimulus check maybe.
I also have an Iver Johnston. In 32 caliber. I’ve shot 32ACP in it, not frequently but it does shoot.
On my short list is an Uberti Schofield, the stimulus check maybe.
Has anyone actually seen a review of his alleged product?
Would there be any reason to choose one over a Colt, a Korth, a Manhurin, a Ruger, or a Smith?
Speedo66
Member
A notoriously bad manufacturer of all electric parts for the entire British automobile and motorcycle industry, forever.
It was amazing how a company with products that bad continued to be used, aside from all the other shortcomings of British vehicles.
Just how bad were they? And what else was wrong with British vehicles?
BobWright
Member
The other thing is once they start to wear, especially the latch, they can open up on you while you’re firing it..
When I was very young we could buy worn top breaks for $1.00 ~ $2.50 from antique shops, and sometimes even were given to us. The vertical lugs were worn which allowed the barrel latch to "jump" over the lugs. The service station down the block would build the lugs up for us, free of charge, with a brazing rod. We could dress that down with a file and have a working revolver worth five or six dollars. These mostly Iver Johnson, H&R or Marlin five shot .38 S&W guns.
Bob Wright
Jim Watson
Member
"Lucas, Prince of Darkness."
"Why, when Britannia rules the waves, will her automobiles not cross a rain puddle?"
Dick O'Kane.
"The Jaguar is a fine English auto. Occasionally everything works perfectly."
"I quit worrying about it when I got it to not leak any more hydraulic fluid than it burned oil."
I would love to see someone make a practical, modern, top-break revolver. There are some issues that would need to be dealt with.
For one thing, you don't want to use auto-pistol cartridges because of the ejection issues. But decent power revolver cartridges are long, and that's not ideal for a top-break revolver ejection system. I think that the first step would be to come up with a modern revolver caliber loaded like a modern autopistol caliber. Minimum space for the powder required to achieve the desired performance level.
If I were doing it, I'd start with something similar to a rimmed 9mm--maybe along the lines of the defunct 9mm Federal, but optimized more for the 130gr bullet range. The side benefit is that if you make it dimensionally a true rimmed 9mm, it would be useful in 9mmP revolvers to avoid the use of moon clips.
Another good option would be to come up with a rimmed .40 cal. The added benefit there would be an absolute certainty that it wouldn't chamber in any of the old .38 caliber revolvers that shouldn't be fired with anything as hot as a 9mm.
Another option would be to make it for use with moon clips and just make it in 9mmP. With automatic ejection and the wide-open cylinder face, reloading with such a revolver would be very fast, even with only a little practice.
It's true that a top-break design won't be as strong as a solid frame, but I really don't see the issue with making a sufficiently strong setup and latch to provide a good service life. We have durable break-open shotguns and rifles and they have to withstand much more pressure and thrust. If you really wanted to be innovative, it would be an "upside-down" design like the Mateba or the Rhino. That would put the recoil force/thrust at the bottom of the frame window where it has less mechanical advantage and also have the benefit of a more straight-back recoil force for the shooter.
For one thing, you don't want to use auto-pistol cartridges because of the ejection issues. But decent power revolver cartridges are long, and that's not ideal for a top-break revolver ejection system. I think that the first step would be to come up with a modern revolver caliber loaded like a modern autopistol caliber. Minimum space for the powder required to achieve the desired performance level.
If I were doing it, I'd start with something similar to a rimmed 9mm--maybe along the lines of the defunct 9mm Federal, but optimized more for the 130gr bullet range. The side benefit is that if you make it dimensionally a true rimmed 9mm, it would be useful in 9mmP revolvers to avoid the use of moon clips.
Another good option would be to come up with a rimmed .40 cal. The added benefit there would be an absolute certainty that it wouldn't chamber in any of the old .38 caliber revolvers that shouldn't be fired with anything as hot as a 9mm.
Another option would be to make it for use with moon clips and just make it in 9mmP. With automatic ejection and the wide-open cylinder face, reloading with such a revolver would be very fast, even with only a little practice.
It's true that a top-break design won't be as strong as a solid frame, but I really don't see the issue with making a sufficiently strong setup and latch to provide a good service life. We have durable break-open shotguns and rifles and they have to withstand much more pressure and thrust. If you really wanted to be innovative, it would be an "upside-down" design like the Mateba or the Rhino. That would put the recoil force/thrust at the bottom of the frame window where it has less mechanical advantage and also have the benefit of a more straight-back recoil force for the shooter.
Driftwood Johnson
Member
Howdy
This question gets asked so often there should be a sticky about it.
No matter how well designed, no matter how strong the steel, you still cannot get around the basic fact that a revolver with a two piece frame will never be as strong as a revolver made of the same material with a one piece frame.
Period!
With a two piece frame, such as a Top Break, the impulse of recoil will be applied differently to one piece than to the other. Generally speaking, with a Top Break, the impulse of recoil slams the lower part of the frame, where the recoil shield is, straight back. Then, the barrel section, which is firmly latched to the lower frame section, plays follow up and recoils back too. Over time this stretches the top strap of the barrel section. I have seen this many times.
That is all there is to it. The more powerful the cartridge, the quicker this will happen.
Yes, somebody may be making a Top Break chambered fro 357 Magnum, but I guarantee you that if you shoot it long enough with full power loads, eventually the frame will stretch.
I bought this Smith and Wesson 44 Double Action Top Break about 15 years ago or so. This is a big, belt pistol sized Top Break, chambered for the 44 Russian cartridge. The 44 Russian was the predecessor of the 44 Special, which in turn was the predecessor of the 44 Magnum. Each new cartridge was more powerful than its predecessor. The 44 Russian is not a tremendously powerful cartridge, the recoil is quite mild compared to the 44 Magnum. Still, over the years the frame had stretched exactly as I described. Yes, it was not made with modern steel, but many, many mild 44 Russian loads managed to stretch it. When I bought it the latch had a little bit of play because the Top Strap had stretched over time. The play was not terrible or I would not have bought it. Still, when I latched closed there was enough play that the barrel could rotate up and down a few degrees.
Luckily I knew a crackerjack gunsmith at the time who was very familiar with the problems with Top Break revolvers. He drilled a pair of holes in the legs of the latch, and press fit some hardened steel pins into the holes. When he was done pressing the pins in place, they stood a little bit proud of the surface of the legs seen here. Then he very carefully filed down the surface of the pins until the latch slid over them and locked everything up tight. What he had done was make up for the amount the top strap had stretched over the years. I don't shoot this old revolver very often, and when I do I only shoot my Black Powder 44 Russian reloads in it. But if I were to shoot it a bazilion times, the top strap would stretch some more.
Pretty much the same solution Bob Wright mentioned above, but instead of building up the metal by brazing some more on, my friend solved the problem in a different way.
This question gets asked so often there should be a sticky about it.
No matter how well designed, no matter how strong the steel, you still cannot get around the basic fact that a revolver with a two piece frame will never be as strong as a revolver made of the same material with a one piece frame.
Period!
With a two piece frame, such as a Top Break, the impulse of recoil will be applied differently to one piece than to the other. Generally speaking, with a Top Break, the impulse of recoil slams the lower part of the frame, where the recoil shield is, straight back. Then, the barrel section, which is firmly latched to the lower frame section, plays follow up and recoils back too. Over time this stretches the top strap of the barrel section. I have seen this many times.
That is all there is to it. The more powerful the cartridge, the quicker this will happen.
Yes, somebody may be making a Top Break chambered fro 357 Magnum, but I guarantee you that if you shoot it long enough with full power loads, eventually the frame will stretch.
I bought this Smith and Wesson 44 Double Action Top Break about 15 years ago or so. This is a big, belt pistol sized Top Break, chambered for the 44 Russian cartridge. The 44 Russian was the predecessor of the 44 Special, which in turn was the predecessor of the 44 Magnum. Each new cartridge was more powerful than its predecessor. The 44 Russian is not a tremendously powerful cartridge, the recoil is quite mild compared to the 44 Magnum. Still, over the years the frame had stretched exactly as I described. Yes, it was not made with modern steel, but many, many mild 44 Russian loads managed to stretch it. When I bought it the latch had a little bit of play because the Top Strap had stretched over time. The play was not terrible or I would not have bought it. Still, when I latched closed there was enough play that the barrel could rotate up and down a few degrees.
Luckily I knew a crackerjack gunsmith at the time who was very familiar with the problems with Top Break revolvers. He drilled a pair of holes in the legs of the latch, and press fit some hardened steel pins into the holes. When he was done pressing the pins in place, they stood a little bit proud of the surface of the legs seen here. Then he very carefully filed down the surface of the pins until the latch slid over them and locked everything up tight. What he had done was make up for the amount the top strap had stretched over the years. I don't shoot this old revolver very often, and when I do I only shoot my Black Powder 44 Russian reloads in it. But if I were to shoot it a bazilion times, the top strap would stretch some more.
Pretty much the same solution Bob Wright mentioned above, but instead of building up the metal by brazing some more on, my friend solved the problem in a different way.
Driftwood Johnson
Member
Modern shotguns, such as modern Over and Under shotguns are specifically designed to be able to account for wear. The locking lugs are tapered. As more wear sets in, the locking lugs set in further, making up for the wear. Take a look at the top lever of a Side X Side or Over and Under shotgun sometime. When they leave the factory, the lever comes to rest a bit to the right of center. As wear happens, the lever eventually comes to rest to the left of center.
This old Stevens hammer gun was made around 1908 or so. Notice the top lever is a bit to the left of center.
It probably looked more like this when it left the factory in 1908. Over time as the locking lugs wore, the lever shifted more to the left of center on closing to make up for the wear.
Modern shotguns, with the most modern materials, are still designed this way. Anybody buying an old shotgun knows to see where the lever sits when the action is closed to get an idea of how much it has been shot.
Engineer1911
member
Made in India is bad, manufactured from Titanium is an absolute metallurgical joke. They can't get their electrical grid to work, now we have precision titanium firearms?
Yup. However, if people would pay for it, revolvers frames could be made of much stronger materials than they currently are. And, even without being super-strong material, as long as the cartridge doesn't stress the gun too much, a reasonable service life should be possible. I mean, they make small, light magnum revolvers with frames that don't stretch at all with many tens of thousands of rounds--so going with a lighter round in a heavier, beefier top-break, even with a design that isn't theoretically as strong could be made strong enough to provide a good service life.
I think people get concerned about the fact that the design isn't as strong as a solid frame design (true) without considering that it doesn't NEED to be as strong, it just needs to be strong enough. It also doesn't have to mimic an antique design--it can be updated/improved and can use stronger materials. It also doesn't have to be a magnum round throwing heavy bullets. I think people would be more than happy with something in a light .36 caliber cartridge like 9mm.
Sure. And they do it very well. And break-open rifles are also designed to tolerate a lot of recoil and thrust and still provide good service life. No top-break revolver in a reasonable caliber would need to provide that kind of strength.
Driftwood Johnson
Member
Howdy
This rather odd looking Top Break is a Smith and Wesson 38 Double Action Perfected Model. Chambered for the 38 S&W cartridge, they were made up until 1920. This one left the factory in 1917.
This is a Smith and Wesson 38 Safety Hammerless, 2nd Model, chambered for 38 S&W. Double action only, the hammer is concealed in the frame. This model was made from 1887 until 1890. However the 38 Safety Hammerless 5th Model was the last Top Break revolver that S&W manufactured. Also chambered for 38 S&W, they were produced from 1907 until 1940. Very similar in appearance to this one.
Monac
Member
I like top breaks, but I recognize their limitations. Still, if I were to win a good sized lottery, I would like to contract with a reputable gun company to have some made. I would not go beyond 38 Special +P, 32 Magnum, or 45 ACP in power though. And If I were worried about actually making a profit on sales of the gun, I would stick with 22 rimfire / 32 Long / 38 Special wadcutters. I would also use a Webley stirrup lock on the first group, and a Hopkins & Allen scissors lock on the second.
One big problem I can see right off the bat, though, is that I never buy lottery tickets.
One big problem I can see right off the bat, though, is that I never buy lottery tickets.
silvermane_1
Member
You do know that 9mm and 357 Mag operate around the same PSI right?, besides I would take 357 Mag in a break top over 9mm hands down, in fact not too long ago someone posted a link to a modern breaktop in 357 Mag.
Draw the load paths. The stresses are nowhere near comparable, due to the different geometry.
- Status
Similar threads
