Why no modern top-break revolvers?

[cluttonfred]

I came across this neat old Iver Johson snubbie for sale online and I just love the lines of it, which got me thinking (always dangerous)....

Why are there no modern top-break revolvers? I understand that a sold frame is stronger but it would still seem like there could be a market for a top break in something less than full magnum chamberings.

For example, take a look at that little Iver Johson and imagine a modern alloy and stainless incarnation along the lines of the S&W 642 but even smaller, perhaps loaded in .32 ACP with five-round moon clips.

From the point of view of shootability and reliability, I'd actually prefer something like that to most .32 auto pistols.

How about it?

 

[Kleanbore]

The subject came up recently on The Firing Line not long ago, and the answer is well put here.

The problems manifest themselves in loads much lighter than "full magnum chamberings". Any load that could meet FBI minimum performance standards would create problems in a top-break design.

 

[cluttonfred]

Thanks, that's a very clear explanation in your link. Still, I wonder if there would be a way to design around that, perhaps by designed in replaceable parts in the latch and hinge that would take the wear over time. The point about short cartridges and automatic extractors does bode well for my .32 ACP idea--the .32 ACP is only 2mm longer than the .32 S&W Short.

 

[Swing]

I'd buy a .32ACP top-break in a heart-beat. It isn't likely to happen though.

As to the original question, there is the Russian MP412 Rex in .38 Spl/.357 Mag. AFAIK, it was never imported into the US.



The is also, of course, modern reproductions of the Schofield, but they're single-action.

 

[urbaneruralite]

I think the Russians also did one of those in .50 cal. Shame we can't get the cool stuff like that here!

 

[Monac]

I don't know. Webley .455 revolvers converted to 45 ACP have been around a LONG time now, and I have never heard of one stretching into uselessness. Has anyone had direct experience of that?

 

[Nom de Forum]

The subject came up recently on The Firing Line not long ago, and the answer is well put here.

The problems manifest themselves in loads much lighter than "full magnum chamberings". Any load that could meet FBI minimum performance standards would create problems in a top-break design.

For the most part the explanation provided in the link to TFL is correct but not completely.

From personal experience I know the Webley WG series will easily eject six loaded .45 Colt cartridges with a flick of the wrist and by using the less problematic two handed method of opening a Webley.

I suspect the original loadings for .455 Webley will past the FBI minimum penetration standards.

With modern steels and manufacturing techniques I believe a Webley MKIV copy in .45ACP would hold-up well for the few thousand rounds most people put through a revolver. I have shot thousands of handloaded .45ACP/AR rounds in a MkVI and while it did loosen up more it is still more than accurate for self-defense. It was loose when I bought it and I still do not have a problem hitting a 10 inch plate at 35 yards. It should not be to hard for a modern engineer to come up with a way to design the barrel and frame lock-up so if it becomes too loose it can be easily and economically brought back to spec. Of course this probably will never happen because there is not enough demand, they would be expensive, and fear of lawsuits.

 

[Gaucho Gringo]

They are being made in India by Indian Ordnance Factory and cost $2,000.00. They are made of titanium and are not being exported.

http://ofbindia.gov.in/index.php?wh=Sporting+Arms

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Monac:

I don't know. Webleys .455 revolvers converted to 45 ACP have been around a LONG time now, and I have never heard of one stretching into uselessness. Has anyone had direct experience of that?

Experts advise against it and have for years, and Mark VI revolvers have known known to blow up with .45 ACCP loads. See this. One does not want to shoot 19,000 PSI loads in a revolver that was made for 13,200 PSI.

 

[BobWright]

Even when designed for modern ammunition, the wear point on top-breaks is with the two vertical lugs on the frame. These wear pretty quickly and allow the gun to jump open upon firing. Easy fix with older guns, but not real conducive to maintaining maker's reputation.


When I was a youngster, I repaired many toip-breaks by taking them down to my neighborhood service station and having them build up the lugs with weld metal, then taking the gun home and dressing the lugs down with a file.

Bob Wright

 

[Monac]

Posted by Monac: Experts advise against it and have for years, and Mark VI revolvers have known known to blow up with .45 ACCP loads. See this. One does not want to shoot 19,000 PSI loads in a revolver that was made for 13,200 PSI.

Yes, I know that, Kleanbore. And I very much agree. But the converted Webleys have been around since about 1946, and there must have been quite a few rounds through some of them. Has anyone seen a Webley stretched like James K's post described?

 

[Nom de Forum]

Even when designed for modern ammunition, the wear point on top-breaks is with the two vertical lugs on the frame. These wear pretty quickly and allow the gun to jump open upon firing. Easy fix with older guns, but not real conducive to maintaining maker's reputation.


When I was a youngster, I repaired many toip-breaks by taking them down to my neighborhood service station and having them build up the lugs with weld metal, then taking the gun home and dressing the lugs down with a file.

Bob Wright

After thousands of rounds through a Webley MkVI (some G.I. Harball mostly cast 230,200,185 somewhat lower pressure loads) I have never seen "the gun jump open upon firing". What I have seen is wear that results in a less tight lock-up but still fully locks the barrel and frame together. Are you are referring to S&W and other types of top-break revolvers? There are also pictures on the Internet showing blown cylinders and top-straps but I have never seen one in person. In fact I suspect there are more pictures on the Internet of blown Glocks, 1911s, and S&W revolvers than there are of Webleys.

 

[Monac]

I don't doubt Bob Wright's experience, either, but I think there is a substantial difference between a Hopkins & Allen, an Iver Johnson, an old H&R, and a Webley made for .455 (especially the smokeless Marks).

BTW, in cluttonfred's photo, is that an elk's tooth under the Iver Johnson? Was it the symbol of belonging to an Elks Lodge?

And to respond directly to his question, I think there are no 32 ACP revolvers that size because 32 ACP autos like the Kel-Tec P-32 can be made more cheaply, are flatter, and offer 7 shots compared to 5. A revolver would be simpler and, and least in the abstract, more reliable, however. And could be fired from inside a pocket, if that is actually something worth considering. But it would need some kind of trick extractor to deal with 32 ACP's semi-rim, and that runs up the cost.

Oh, and thanks for the link to the Indian Ordnance Factory website, GauchoGringo! I knew they were making a 32 Long Webley copy, but I had never seen the long barreled version before. And you're right about the prices! $1,335 for a 6 shot 32 Long revolver (82,650 rupees at 62 rupees to USD$1)! In terms of bang for the buck for home defense, you'd be better off buying several crossbows, I think.

 

[Jim K]

I wonder if any Webley revolver fans ever heard of the .455 Webley Automatic pistol. If so, you might be interested in knowing that the British War Department put out explicit warnings against firing the .455 Auto cartridge in ANY .455 revolver, including the Mk VI. The semi-rimmed auto cartridge will fit and fire in revolvers chambered for the .455 revolver cartridge, but the pressure is much higher and revolvers were regularly blowing up with the hotter .455 Auto round.

So, don't tell me that Webley revolvers are super strong and can't be blown up; tell the British War Department. They thought otherwise.

Jim

 

[Monac]

Jim K is absolutely right about 45 ACP and 455 Auto being overloads than can burst a Webley cylinder. A Google image search for blown up webley revolver turns up a couple of pictures right away - and a picture of a battered full-moon clip of 45 ACP rounds to boot. What I was asking about was frame stretching from that practice. That is something I have no experience concerning, and as I said, those converted guns have been around a long time now.

 

[Kiln]

The MP412 never entered full production from what I can tell. The only place it is actually used is in video games.

 

[Nom de Forum]

I wonder if any Webley revolver fans ever heard of the .455 Webley Automatic pistol. If so, you might be interested in knowing that the British War Department put out explicit warnings against firing the .455 Auto cartridge in ANY .455 revolver, including the Mk VI. The semi-rimmed auto cartridge will fit and fire in revolvers chambered for the .455 revolver cartridge, but the pressure is much higher and revolvers were regularly blowing up with the hotter .455 Auto round.

So, don't tell me that Webley revolvers are super strong and can't be blown up; tell the British War Department. They thought otherwise.

Jim

Jim,

I did not and I don’t think any one else wrote “Webley revolvers are super strong and can't be blown up”. What I wrote about was my personal experience. I get back to you later about what you wrote and my experience latter. Until then if you have a link to that has the full text of that British War
Department warning I am sure we would all enjoy seeing it. I am not doubting such a warning was issued.

 

[Swing]

I think the Russians also did one of those in .50 cal. Shame we can't get the cool stuff like that here!

The weird and massive RSh-12 in 12.7mm, perhaps? IIRC, it loads either way.

Has anyone seen a Webley stretched like James K's post described?

I've, personally with my own eyes, seen a converted Webley get busted up with regular, 230-grain, .45 ACP. Fortunately, no one was hurt, but the revolver was in bad shape. What had been run in that wheelgun from it's birth in 1915? I have no idea, but I do know what I saw that sunny day and it was standard pressure .45 Auto. The Webley is a fine revolver and does fine with the original .455 loads, but converted specimens are a gamble, to put it charitably. If one must shoot said, at least handload cartridges to the original specs.

They are being made in India by Indian Ordnance Factory and cost $2,000.00. They are made of titanium and are not being exported.

http://ofbindia.gov.in/index.php?wh=Sporting+Arms

I'd buy one. Maybe even at that wackadoodle price.

 

[Kleanbore]

The IOF revolver is called the Nirbheek. It has a frame mounted safety that prevents the hammer from being cocked and therefore the trigger from being pulled, but it has no hammer block safety, and it should not be carried with a loaded chamber under the hammer.

It is chambered in .320" (.32 S&W).

 

[Kleanbore]

An Interesting Aside

I recall seeing Robert MacNeil interviewing Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher several decades ago.

When MacNeil asked how the US might assist with the problems in Northern Ireland, Thatcher replied that she placed a high priority on removing the ban on supplying Revolvers to the British Government that had been imposed by the Carter Administration. She emphasized that the need was critical.

MacNeil asked if it were not the case that Great Britain produced very good revolvers, and why revolvers from the US were needed.

Thatcher replied that Britain had no source of revolvers.

MacNeil had been unaware that production of the Enfield No. 2 had ended in 1957.

I would take a Ruger over an Enfield No. 2 any day, but I would not choose .380 British.

 

[cluttonfred]

Following up on idea of a modern, top-break .32 ACP revolver, a little research showed that the .32 AC round is actually semi-rimmed, not rimless, which should make it possible to use without moon clips at all depending on how the extractor/ejector is designed. I still think it would make a great alternative for pocket carry, whether a top-break or a more conventional mechanism.

 

[rodinal220]

When I stopped at the Webley booth at SHOT I saw the MKVI C02 air pistol and commented to the Brit "too bad they don't make these anymore" he told me they are thinking of making NEW made,real firearm, Webley MKVIs if enough interest is shown.


http://webleymkvi.com/

 

[BobWright]

Admittedly, the revolvers of my young experience were the old top-break .38 S&W of various manufacture, many unmarked as to maker. These had the T-shaped latch typical of the time, and the snapping shut of the action did wear the lugs rounded.

Revolvers such as the Webley with its stirup latch, and the S&W Schofield, did indeed have a strong lockup.

The guns we bought from second hand shops were almost throw aways and sold for $1.50 ~$2.00. Repaired they brought as much as $5.00.

Bob Wright

 

[cluttonfred]

I wonder if it would be possible to make the wearable latch parts replaceable, problem solved.

 

[Kleanbore]

"New" Mk VI?

It looks as if 100 signatures and some deposits might bring out an anniversary model. No indication of price....

But it would not be a "modern top-break revolver", by any stretch of the imagination. Watch the video.

I don't think it would take very much more than a freshman course in static loads analysis to equip one to conclude that that is not the way to configure a revolver of any real power, no matter what alloys might be used. I don't know how much in the way of knowledge of mechanical engineering and manufacturing engineering it would take to enable one to quickly realize why they don't make anything like that any more. The obsolete chambering won't help, ether. And for me, the lack of a hammer block would be a show stopper.

If I wanted a big-bore revolver chambered for a lower-powered cartridge, and the idea does tempt me from time to time, it would be a Smith and Wesson hand ejector in .44 Special.

See this.

Posted by cluttonfred:

I wonder if it would be possible to make the wearable latch parts replaceable, problem solved.

What wears--and what stretches--are the major components of the frame.