Why no modern top-break revolvers?

[natman]

It's funny how threads drift here. I started this one with photo of a .32 S&W top break, an admission that a top-break was inherently weaker than a solid frame, but wondering if there could be a market for a small top-break in a modest cartridge like .32 ACP. Perhaps it would take this thread in a more useful direction if we could talk about how to mitigate the weaknesses of a top-break to keep it safe while retaining the charm and handiness of that style of revolver?

I own an S&W I frame, a 22LR Model 34, that's made on the old tiny I frame that was used for 32 caliber S&W revolvers. I thought it might be interesting to compare it to a Keltec P32.



The S&W is somewhat bigger than the Keltec in profile. The Keltec is about the length of the S&W frame. Even with a snub nose the S&W would be longer.

The I frame window is 1.5 inches long. The 32 Long or 32 ACP would fit.

There is a significant difference in width.





Due to the cylinder width the S&W is a lot wider, an inch and a half vs. 3/4 inch for the Keltec.

The biggest difference is weight. The Keltec unloaded with magazine weighs 8 ounces. The S&W unloaded weighs a pound and a half, which is three times as much. Now there is room to lighten the S&W; if the barrel and chambers were opened to 32 caliber and the barrel were shorter and it was made with alloy / plastic it could be a lot lighter, maybe enough to get the weight down to a pound.

In which case it would only weigh twice as much.

IMO the only reason to use a cartridge in the 32 ACP class for defense is if you need a gun you can really conceal. That's much easier with a semiauto than a revolver. I can easily conceal the Keltec in a shirt pocket. There's no 32 caliber revolver that can do that.

So in summary, I don't think it's likely that anyone will be making 32 caliber breaktop revolvers anytime soon because the 32 caliber self defense market has been thoroughly preempted by light, thin 32 caliber semiautos.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Kleenbore - As a matter of fact, though I did not get into it, the hand ejector turned out to be a lot stronger than the Webley Mk. VI, too.

So what. The Ruger Super Redhawk is a lot stronger than a S&W Model 29. Why on earth are people still shooting S&W Model 29s? Could it be that they are strong enough for some people's needs and have design features preferred over the Ruger SRH?

Kleenbore - First, it would have to work--hold up to endurance testing.

O.k., so you are implying the fact that Webley MkVIs made in 1915 are still being shot in 2015 and many of them have not blown-up or had their frames stretched to the point of inoperability from tens of thousands of people shooting .45ACP/AR is not enough of an endurance test to indicate that modern materials and techniques could not produce a sufficiently durable revolver. I have to disagree with you.

Kleenbore - That a solid frame would hold up better, however, is pretty well established.

Brilliant statement of the obvious. I guess that is why nobody likes to shoot the Colt 1860 and everyone prefers a Remington 1858. A revolver's frame only needs to be strong enough to meet the needs of the user. A firearm being the very strongest design is not required for it to be sufficient for practical use or commercial success. There are many firearms on the market today that the preceding sentence applies to and they are to numerous to list.

Billy Shears - Not really. There's really no advantage to the top break, even in a low powered cartridge. The speed advantage of the automatic ejection is negligible. With practice, you can open the cylinder, point the revolver muzzle upward, and push down on the ejection rod very fast -- the difference would be a matter of a fraction of a second slower than a top break. And with the swing out cylinder, with the muzzle pointed up, the empties will fall down and away, with zero chance that they can fall back down under the ejector star, which that can very easily do with a top break, which will have the muzzle pointed downward with the frame broken open, especially if the revolver isn't broken open smartly. Also, with the cylinder in line with the wrist, instead of at a 90 degree angle to it in an open top break, I expect the very slight time lost in ejection would be made up for in slightly faster reloading.

No advantage? You must not have much experience shooting a Webley in competition against S&W, Colt, and Dan Wesson revolvers. I do, so I will explain the advantage. With a Webley the time necessary to learn to become fast and sure with a reload is much shorter. Furthermore the time needed to maintain proficiency is minimal. Reloading a Webley using your right hand only with a snap of the wrist nearly eliminates the possibility of the very short cases falling under the extractor. The technique for a fast reload of a Webley is both hands moving simultaneously for different purposes. The left hand is reaching for the speedloader/moonclip at the same time as the strong hand is actuating ejection. The speedloader/moonclip is vertical when inserted in the cylinder. The left hand moves down after loading, slaps the the underside of the barrel to close the action then returns to shooting position.

My experience 30 years ago shooting a Webley MkVI in one of the largest IPSC leagues in the country leads me to believe:

The Webley reloading technique makes it possible for a shooter who spends very little time practicing to defeat all but the fastest of solid frame revolver shooters. I spent 99% of my time practicing with a Colt Series 70 Pin Gun.

It is far easier for even the best solid frame revolver shooters to make a mistake reloading than a Webley Shooter. This is especially true when making the reload while in a less than optimal stance. I just did not blow reloads anywhere near as often as even the best and fastest of S&W and Colt shooters. It is much easier to avoid an alignment error dropping short .45ACP/AR cartridges vertically into a cylinder than longer .38/.357 cartridges from any other cylinder orientation.

I was shooting a slightly modified (extended latch lever and lighter trigger pull) Webley MkVI with heavier recoiling .45ACP/AR loads against guys with L-frames and Pythons shooting lighter recoiling .38Specials. It was easier for those guys using revolvers with better trigger pulls and weighing the same or more than my Webley (MkVI = 38 ounces) to shoot a little faster shot to shot. At close range it was not much of an advantage. Beyond 15 yards they could DA fire accurately much faster. It was not that much slower to use the Webley in SA to engage targets beyond 15 yards.

It was not a problem hitting 10” stop plates at distances as far as 35 yards so the inherent lessor accuracy of the Webley was not an issue.

That in a life or death situation that requires a reload, a person who buys a revolver for home defense but rarely or never practices speed reloading, will have far less of a chance of failing to make a life saving reload.

For at least the first six shots and probably all shots in a typical short range self-defense situation a person shooting a Webley MkVI has just as good a tool as any other revolver.

There are few things in life more amusing to look at than the dumbfounded look on the face of Colt Python shooter who has been outshot by a guy shooting a “Wobbly” .

Most importantly, it appears that based on their comments very few people posting to this thread have much experience shooting Webleys and especially shooting them fast and accurately with multiple reloads under the stress of competition. I'll bet if they did they would have a greater appreciation of the Webley as a weapon for self-defense.

barnbwt - Break actions are inherently weak; just see all those double rifles in Nitro chamberings. The break open revolver concept is not the problem, but the latch designs, which have been very cheesy up to now. Use a self-tensioning latch, and this "gap" problem goes away altogether, the shift the pivot joint closer to the barrel axis or put the barrel at 6 O clock, and stresses at the latch fall to nearly zero. In fact, if you put the joint about the bore axis, you don't even need a top strap.

Its about time you weighed in on the subject. This thread needs people with your gun design and building experience to comment. “Break actions are inherently weak; just see all those double rifles in Nitro chamberings” is pretty funny and perfect for illustrating a gun only needs to be strong and durable enough to do the job. I don’t think you need to go as far in design as some of your comments to create a sufficiently strong and durable top-break revolver for shooting a more than sufficient cartridge for self-defense. It sure would be great if someone did though. How much is it going to cost me to get you to make one ? I don’t recall ever reading any comments about the old .455 Webley 265 grain bullet or the .45ACP 230 grain bullets that have been shot in so many Webley MkVIs being insufficient for self-defense.

 

[BobWright]

JSH1 said:

That makes sense to me. My understanding is that the .44 Special was designed to replicate the performance of the .44 Russian using smokeless powder instead of black powder

.

The earliest .44 Specials were loaded with black powder. Revolver cartridges of the day did not handle smokeless powder very well. In fact, this was the reason for the development of semi-smokeless powder, Les Smoke being the one that comes to mind.

Bob Wright

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Nom de Forum:

[In response to "the hand ejector turned out to be a lot stronger than the Webley Mk. VI, too"] So what.

The hand ejector can safely digest the .455, the .45 ACP, and hot .44 Special hand loads, while the Mark VI is only safe with the .455 or loaded down .45 cartridges.

O.k., so you are implying the fact that Webley MkVIs made in 1915 are still being shot in 2015 and many of them have not blown-up or had their frames stretched to the point of inoperability from tens of thousands of people shooting .45ACP/AR is not enough of an endurance test...

Tens of thousands of people shooting .45 ACP? Really? How may rounds have they fired? That "many have not blown up or had their frames stretched to the point of inoperability" tells us nothing--some have failed, and to my knowledge, no one knows how much "testing" has been done. That some have failed shows that it has been "enough of an endurance test" to indicate against using those rounds in the Mk VI. The experts advise against it and consider it foolhardy:

The Webley Mk VI cylinders were turned on a lathe to shave off enough metal on the rear face to permit the necessary thickness for the rimless .45 ACP cartridges when snapped into half-moon clips, as had be used with the Model 1917 Smith & Wesson and Colt revolvers of the same vintage as the Webley. However, these pistols were designed for the higher pressure of the .45 ACP cartridge and the Webley was not.

What this means is that if standard .45 ACP loads are fired in a Webley Mk VI revolver they greatly exceed the proof test pressures, being 38% over the MAP, and are potentially dangerous. Most unreformed .45 ACP users in the Webley Mk VI note that a "steady diet" of such loads will "loosen things up". Read that as "will produce yielding in the metal of the cylinder and frame with every shot fired". Steel can be a very forgiving material, but not always. In some cases, the cylinders have been catastrophically destroyed, with injuries to the shooter.

The writer goes on to discuss loads that are safe.

Link​

.... to indicate that modern materials and techniques could not produce a sufficiently durable revolver. I have to disagree with you.

The techniques would make little difference--the Webleys were rather well made. Modern techniques could reduce the cost, perhaps significantly, if sufficient quantities were produced.

The materials could make a difference, but to credibly assert that they would sufficiently eliminate the weaknesses, one would have to do some very detailed stress analysis--and if the results were encouraging, some extensive testing. I cannot prove that it would not suffice, but I would not trust my life and limbs to an unsubstantiated assumption that it would. And the burden of proof would be on proving the safety and durability.

 

[Jim K]

I say there is no market and the idea is impractical with modern cartridges. Others say that with modern steels and designs, those are not problems, and a new breaktop gun would be a very popular product.

So, why don't the breaktop fans just make one? It would not have to have a cylinder and the complex lockwork that entails. A gun like the S&W breaktop single shot with a "cylinder" like that of the Camp Perry Colt would serve as "proof of concept" with no need for a true cylinder. If the latch and hinge hold up after, say, 10,000 rounds of full house .357, patent the new ideas. I think S&W or Ruger just might be interested.

Cost? Maybe $10k-20k if the S&W single shot can be copied. Work out a royalty deal and there could be serious money to be made. That is, IF a modern breaktop really would be as universally accepted as the breatktop fans insist it would be.

Jim

 

[RugRev]

ignore

 

[Kleanbore]

That would be a relatively low cost, low risk way to go about it, Jim.

Do a market survey, run the business case, put together a design (3D models), prepare a cost estimate from the design, perform high resolution strength and loads analysis, and, if the idea still shows promise, build a hinged frame, construct a non-rotating chamber block, and perform testing for proof of concept and endurance.

I too am dubious about the market and necessary price point.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Posted by Nom de Forum:

The hand ejector can safely digest the .455, the .45 ACP, and hot .44 Special hand loads, while the Mark VI is only safe with the .455 or loaded down .45 cartridges.

Absolutely correct if it is an original MarkVI. Not necessarily true if a MarkVI was made with modern materials and modern techniques were used to improve design strength.

Tens of thousands of people shooting .45 ACP? Really? How may rounds have they fired? That "many have not blown up or had their frames stretched to the point of inoperability" tells us nothing--some have failed, and to my knowledge, no one knows how much "testing" has been done. That some have failed shows that it has been "enough of an endurance test" to indicate against using those rounds in the Mk VI. The experts advise against it and consider it foolhardy:

Ya, really. Considering the large number of cut-down Webleys in the country that have been passed around for decades, it is not an exaggeration that well over 10,000 people have shot one and many using .45ACP.

If you review my previous posts you will see that multiple times I have not recommended shooting full power .45ACP.

The techniques would make little difference--the Webleys were rather well made. Modern techniques could reduce the cost, perhaps significantly, if sufficient quantities were produced.

Perhaps modern techniques was a poor choice of words, and applying different techniques for improving the strength of a modern version would be more appropriate.

The materials could make a difference, but to credibly assert that they would sufficiently eliminate the weaknesses, one would have to do some very detailed stress analysis--and if the results were encouraging, some extensive testing. I cannot prove that it would not suffice, but I would not trust my life and limbs to an unsubstantiated assumption that it would. And the burden of proof would be on proving the safety and durability.

No one is asking you to trust you life to my speculation that modern materials would make a MarkVI or MarkVI inspired revolver would be safe and durable. You may think my opinion is not a credible assertion but it is far from being an incredible possibility. Why is it so hard for you to imagine that a revolver design made with 100 year old steel technology that has withstood .45ACP could be strengthened enough with modern steel to routinely fire .45ACP with of catastrophic failure of the cylinder and without becoming inoperable due to frame distortion? Of course anyone planning on making an new top-break would need to do some very detailed stress analysis for safety and durability and I don't believe I ever indicated it should not be done.

 

[Billy Shears]

No advantage? You must not have much experience shooting a Webley in competition against S&W, Colt, and Dan Wesson revolvers. I do, so I will explain the advantage. With a Webley the time necessary to learn to become fast and sure with a reload is much shorter. Furthermore the time needed to maintain proficiency is minimal. Reloading a Webley using your right hand only with a snap of the wrist nearly eliminates the possibility of the very short cases falling under the extractor. The technique for a fast reload of a Webley is both hands moving simultaneously for different purposes. The left hand is reaching for the speedloader/moonclip at the same time as the strong hand is actuating ejection.

You have three hands? What are you breaking the action open with? The vast majority of people will use their support hand to lever the barrel down.

The speedloader/moonclip is vertical when inserted in the cylinder. The left hand moves down after loading, slaps the the underside of the barrel to close the action then returns to shooting position.

And the support hand on a solid frame revolver simply pushes the cylinder back into the frame and returns to shooting position. I see no speed advantage here.

My experience 30 years ago shooting a Webley MkVI in one of the largest IPSC leagues in the country leads me to believe:

The Webley reloading technique makes it possible for a shooter who spends very little time practicing to defeat all but the fastest of solid frame revolver shooters. I spent 99% of my time practicing with a Colt Series 70 Pin Gun.

It is far easier for even the best solid frame revolver shooters to make a mistake reloading than a Webley Shooter. This is especially true when making the reload while in a less than optimal stance. I just did not blow reloads anywhere near as often as even the best and fastest of S&W and Colt shooters. It is much easier to avoid an alignment error dropping short .45ACP/AR cartridges vertically into a cylinder than longer .38/.357 cartridges from any other cylinder orientation.

What does that have to do with the price of eggs? That may be all well and good for a specific and very specialized application like competition shooting. But the vast majority of revolvers out there are not used for this purpose, and are not chambered in a short, fat auto pistol cartridge -- especially a large caliber one that will make a bulky gun with a wide cylinder. These days the revolver market is overwhelmingly oriented toward self-defense weapons for concealed carry, or large, powerful sporting handguns for which the top-break design is very unsuited. Gun makers have to orient their products toward the market, not a tiny niche thereof. Once you move away from the short, fat, .45ACP to longer, narrower revolver cartridges like the .38 special, you are going to lose whatever tiny advantage you have here.

I was shooting a slightly modified (extended latch lever and lighter trigger pull) Webley MkVI with heavier recoiling .45ACP/AR loads against guys with L-frames and Pythons shooting lighter recoiling .38Specials. It was easier for those guys using revolvers with better trigger pulls and weighing the same or more than my Webley (MkVI = 38 ounces) to shoot a little faster shot to shot. At close range it was not much of an advantage. Beyond 15 yards they could DA fire accurately much faster. It was not that much slower to use the Webley in SA to engage targets beyond 15 yards.

It was not a problem hitting 10” stop plates at distances as far as 35 yards so the inherent lessor accuracy of the Webley was not an issue.

That in a life or death situation that requires a reload, a person who buys a revolver for home defense but rarely or never practices speed reloading, will have far less of a chance of failing to make a life saving reload.

For at least the first six shots and probably all shots in a typical short range self-defense situation a person shooting a Webley MkVI has just as good a tool as any other revolver.

The hell they do; the Webley's trigger is god-awful. I own a Mk. VI in original .455. You simply cannot tell me that it is in the same class with the trigger on an S&W or Colt. Not even close. And yes, I know a really good shooter can learn to shoot a Webley quite well in DA mode. I have no doubt of it whatever. But again, whatever tiny advantage you may have in reduced training time on reloading, you're going to more than make up for by the extra difficulty and time needed to train yourself to shoot the Webley well despite it's heavy trigger.

There are few things in life more amusing to look at than the dumbfounded look on the face of Colt Python shooter who has been outshot by a guy shooting a “Wobbly” .

Most importantly, it appears that based on their comments very few people posting to this thread have much experience shooting Webleys and especially shooting them fast and accurately with multiple reloads under the stress of competition. I'll bet if they did they would have a greater appreciation of the Webley as a weapon for self-defense.

The British certainly used it with much success. But if I had been a British or Canadian officer going to serve in the trenches of WWI (and they bought their own sidearms, which simply had to be chambered for the issued .455 cartridge), I wouldn't even have looked at a Webley. I'd have bought an S&W hand ejector.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Nom de Forum:

Why is it so hard for you to imagine that a revolver design made with 100 year old steel technology that has withstood .45ACP...

You keep missing the point that it has failed to withstand .45 ACP.

If the keel of an experimental fighter breaks once in a normal carrier landing arrest, all previous successful landings mean absolutely nothing until the cause of the failure is determined. And if it turns out to be a design flaw, all of the planes are founded until the design has been changed and validated,

...could be strengthened enough with modern steel to routinely fire .45ACP with of catastrophic failure of the cylinder and without becoming inoperable due to frame distortion?

Was the metallurgy in the Mk VI inferior to that in the Triple Lock?

Metallurgy isn't everything. You have to look at the design.

The structure of a new 2015 Jeep Cherokee contains 65% hot stamped, high-strength, and ultra-high-strength steel, but one could not just make a CJ-2A out of those things and pass the crash tests.

 

[Nom de Forum]

I say there is no market and the idea is impractical with modern cartridges. Others say that with modern steels and designs, those are not problems, and a new breaktop gun would be a very popular product.

You may be right. We will have to see what happens with the proposed commemorative Webley MkVI. Who needs so called modern cartridges? Is not .455 Webley, .45 ACP, .44 Special, .45 Colt, .38 Special, 9mmP sufficient?

So, why don't the breaktop fans just make one? It would not have to have a cylinder and the complex lockwork that entails. A gun like the S&W breaktop single shot with a "cylinder" like that of the Camp Perry Colt would serve as "proof of concept" with no need for a true cylinder. If the latch and hinge hold up after, say, 10,000 rounds of full house .357, patent the new ideas. I think S&W or Ruger just might be interested.

Lack of individual skills to make one and expense of hiring someone else to do it would be a reason why most fans who may want to do would not. Why do you throw the .357 Magnum in the mix? For heavens sake a Webley MkVI is in the K-frame class as far as size and weight and not as strong. We all know what happens to K-frames that shoot 10,000 rounds of full house .357. How about we be reasonable and use .38Sp and .45ACP for testing? S&W and Ruger regardless of results would probably never be interesting in the design because of low profit margin compared to their existing designs.

Cost? Maybe $10k-20k if the S&W single shot can be copied. Work out a royalty deal and there could be serious money to be made. That is, IF a modern breaktop really would be as universally accepted as the breatktop fans insist it would be.

I do not recall anyone making the assertion that "a modern breaktop would"..."be universally accepted". I do think there are many people who would buy it for no other reason than the novelty and fun of shooting something so different. Some would buy it for its utility and some because they like the ergonomics.

 

[Nom de Forum]

You have three hands? What are you breaking the action open with? The vast majority of people will use their support hand to lever the barrel down.

You clearly have not understanding of the technique. Three hands are not necessary. You need only you right hand to open the latch and eject the cases. There is not need to use the left hand to lever the barrel down.

And the support hand on a solid frame revolver simply pushes the cylinder back into the frame and returns to shooting position. I see no speed advantage here.

Before the support hand ever pushes the cylinder back into the frame it must be used to eject the cases. While the solid frame shooter is using his support hand for ejection, my left hand as already reached the speedloader/moonclip, while the solidframe shoot is reaching for the speedloader my speedloader/moonclip is on the way or in the cylinder. Economy of motion makes the Webley very fast for less experience shooters. I have no idea if someone with Jerry M.'s physical and mental attributes could learn to reload a Webley as fast as he does a S&W. I do know that with the same amount of training time given to non-revolver shooters the Webley shooter will be faster at the end of the training.

Buddy I am not making this stuff up out of thin air. I've done it.

What does that have to do with the price of eggs? That may be all well and good for a specific and very specialized application like competition shooting. But the vast majority of revolvers out there are not used for this purpose, and are not chambered in a short, fat auto pistol cartridge -- especially a large caliber one that will make a bulky gun with a wide cylinder. These days the revolver market is overwhelmingly oriented toward self-defense weapons for concealed carry, or large, powerful sporting handguns for which the top-break design is very unsuited. Gun makers have to orient their products toward the market, not a tiny niche thereof. Once you move away from the short, fat, .45ACP to longer, narrower revolver cartridges like the .38 special, you are going to lose whatever tiny advantage you have here.

Whatever. A simple to use .38Special or .45ACP revolver is still a very good option for many people to chose for a pistol by their bed.

The hell they do; the Webley's trigger is god-awful. I own a Mk. VI in original .455. You simply cannot tell me that it is in the same class with the trigger on an S&W or Colt. Not even close. And yes, I know a really good shooter can learn to shoot a Webley quite well in DA mode. I have no doubt of it whatever. But again, whatever tiny advantage you may have in reduced training time on reloading, you're going to more than make up for by the extra difficulty and time needed to train yourself to shoot the Webley well despite it's heavy trigger.

No one said the Webley trigger was in the same class as a S&W or Colt. What was communicated was it did not need to be for hitting IPSC "5" zones at IPSC distances with adequate speed. The main complaint about Webley triggers is they are heavy. They can be lightened. You do not need to be a "really good shooter" to shoot a Webley well enough to be effective in SD or lower levels of IPSC. Consistently lower reloading speeds with the Webley beat lower level S&W/Colt/Dan Wesson shooters. Hell, I hardly practiced with the Webley and I was beating them. I shot the Webley so I could do more than stand around waiting for the revolver shooters to finish stages. I did not take shooting the Webley too seriously. When I shot IPSC thirty years ago "AA" was the highest class in our league. I was an "AA" auto shooter using a 1911 and an "A" revolver shooter using a Webley".

The British certainly used it with much success. But if I had been a British or Canadian officer going to serve in the trenches of WWI (and they bought their own sidearms, which simply had to be chambered for the issued .455 cartridge), I wouldn't even have looked at a Webley. I'd have bought an S&W hand ejector.

Jeff Cooper considered the Webley to be the best combat revolver ever created and said so several times. From Cooper on Handguns "The top-break, as exemplified in the Webley service revolvers, is the best revolver action ever used for continuity of fire. I am told that it is not strong enough for modern breech pressures, but I have no doubt that a good engineer could solve that problem if he had sufficient reason to do so. There is not sufficient reason if the revolver concept is to be phased out, but since it keeps hanging on, someone is missing the bet by not reviving the top-break for use in a modern service weapon." No S&W is going to function under the adverse environmental conditions of WWI combat as well as a Webley. That is an opinion that many in the past and present agree with me on.

 

[Billy Shears]

No one said the Webley trigger was in the same class as a S&W or Colt. What was communicated was it did not need to be for hitting IPSC "5" zones at IPSC distances with adequate speed. The main complaint about Webley triggers is they are heavy. They can be lightened. You do not need to be a "really good shooter" to shoot a Webley well enough to be effective in SD or lower levels of IPSC. Consistently lower reloading speeds with the Webley beat lower level S&W/Colt/Dan Wesson shooters. Hell, I hardly practiced with the Webley and I was beating them. I shot the Webley so I could do more than stand around waiting for the revolver shooters to finish stages. I did not take shooting the Webley too seriously. When I shot IPSC thirty years ago "AA" was the highest class in our league. I was an "AA" auto shooter using a 1911 and an "A" revolver shooter using a Webley".

They can only be lightened so much, and the result still ain't all that great. I had my Webley's trigger worked on by David Chicoine (who also replaced the recoil shield -- a part I was very lucky to get). It still was nowhere near as easy a gun to shoot accurately as my rough, military-grade M1917 S&W or M1917 Colt (despite the big Colt having a rather long trigger reach for hands the size of mine), my rough Model 28 Highway Patrolman, to say nothing of the gorgeous, nicely fitted and finished 1962-vintage S&W .44 magnum I have (complete with coke bottle grips -- uh huh!). All these guns are just far, far easier to shoot DA thanks to the vastly better triggers, even for combat type shooting, not bulls eyes.

Jeff Cooper considered the Webley to be the best combat revolver ever created and said so several times. From Cooper on Handguns "The top-break, as exemplified in the Webley service revolvers, is the best revolver action ever used for continuity of fire. I am told that it is not strong enough for modern breech pressures, but I have no doubt that a good engineer could solve that problem if he had sufficient reason to do so. There is not sufficient reason if the revolver concept is to be phased out, but since it keeps hanging on, someone is missing the bet by not reviving the top-break for use in a modern service weapon." No S&W is going to function under the adverse environmental conditions of WWI combat as well as a Webley. That is an opinion that many in the past and present agree with me on.

Jeff Cooper also taught a Weaver stance for combat shooting that nobody teaches anymore. He was not the end all and be all of shooting. What you are engaging in is a classic appeal to authority fallacy -- so and so said it, therefore it must be true; here endeth the discussion.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not denigrating Col. Cooper. On the contrary, I have great admiration for the man, and he was certainly a great shooter and teacher, and a man who thought longer and more deeply on the subject of combat shooting that most will ever do. That said, he was just a man, and one with less actual combat experience than a lot of shooters who disagree with him about a lot of things. His opinion on the Webley is his opinion, one that carries a bit more weight than most people's opinions, given his credentials, nevertheless, it's not holy scripture. No one man's opinion is. William E. Fairbairn -- a man with a lot more actual gunfight experience than Cooper ever had -- advocated an M1911 with the thumb safety deactivated, and carried with an empty chamber, requiring shooters to rack the slide and chamber a round before shooting. Does that make his advice on the matter unassailable? I wouldn't carry an autoloader that way, nor would many people today either, despite Fairbairn's experience and qualifications.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Posted by Nom de Forum:

You keep missing the point that it has failed to withstand .45 ACP

.
I am the one missing the point? Not at all, we just don't agree what the point is.
If a MkVI does not blow-up after firing even one .45ACP round it has withstood the pressure of a .45ACP. I did not say it would always withstand that pressure, but did relate it has withstood it many times in many revolvers. Why would it not always with stand .45ACP pressure if a cylinder using much stronger steel was available? As far as the frame withstanding .45ACP pressure we have a difference of opinion of how many rounds it need to withstand while remaining functional. Again modern steel should increase this round count.

Was the metallurgy in the Mk VI inferior to that in the Triple Lock?

I never said it was and do not know if it is but of course the frame is not as strong. My point is a MkVI made with modern steel would only need to be closer in strength, not even as strong, to a century old Triple Lock to be sufficient for .45ACP

Metallurgy isn't everything. You have to look at the design.

You are right, I am looking at the design, and understand that the design may or may not need some minor improvement.

The structure of a new 2015 Jeep Cherokee contains 65% hot stamped, high-strength, and ultra-high-strength steel, but one could not just make a CJ-2A out of those things and pass the crash tests.

Not even close to being a good analogy.

 

[JSH1]

I say there is no market and the idea is impractical with modern cartridges. Others say that with modern steels and designs, those are not problems, and a new breaktop gun would be a very popular product.

So, why don't the breaktop fans just make one? It would not have to have a cylinder and the complex lockwork that entails. A gun like the S&W breaktop single shot with a "cylinder" like that of the Camp Perry Colt would serve as "proof of concept" with no need for a true cylinder. If the latch and hinge hold up after, say, 10,000 rounds of full house .357, patent the new ideas. I think S&W or Ruger just might be interested.

Cost? Maybe $10k-20k if the S&W single shot can be copied. Work out a royalty deal and there could be serious money to be made. That is, IF a modern breaktop really would be as universally accepted as the breatktop fans insist it would be.

Jim

Sounds an awful lot like this: http://www.heizerdefense.com/par1.html

$500 novelty .223 break-top pistol from Heizer Defense.

EDIT: There is also the Double Tap in 9mm or 45 ACP or Bond Arms Derringers in .38 Special, .357 Mag, 9mm, 40 S&W, 45 ACP, and 45 LC.

 

[Nom de Forum]

They can only be lightened so much, and the result still ain't all that great. I had my Webley's trigger worked on by David Chicoine (who also replaced the recoil shield -- a part I was very lucky to get). It still was nowhere near as easy a gun to shoot accurately as my rough, military-grade M1917 S&W or M1917 Colt (despite the big Colt having a rather long trigger reach for hands the size of mine), my rough Model 28 Highway Patrolman, to say nothing of the gorgeous, nicely fitted and finished 1962-vintage S&W .44 magnum I have (complete with coke bottle grips -- uh huh!). All these guns are just far, far easier to shoot DA thanks to the vastly better triggers, even for combat type shooting, not bulls eyes.

I don't disagree about the better triggers of S&Ws and Colts. What I communicated was the Webley trigger was sufficiently good to do what I needed to do. That was to win trophys and have aggregate match scores that averaged high enough for me to pass from "C" class to "A" class.

By the way did David Chicoine do anything with the mainspring?

Jeff Cooper also taught a Weaver stance for combat shooting that nobody teaches anymore. He was not the end all and be all of shooting. What you are engaging in is a classic appeal to authority fallacy -- so and so said it, therefore it must be true; here endeth the discussion.

That is hilariously funny! It is also ironic. Anyone reading on THR the numerous comments I have made about John "Jeff" Cooper knows I am not a fan of his. The point of quoting him is to get you to wake-up and smell the coffee. Hit the books and you will find the opinion that the Webley is the finest combat revolver ever made has been expressed for decades by many of the most respected firearms authorities. They hold this opinion because the design and tolerances of the Webley keep it operating in muck that tends to stop up S&W and Colts and the action parts are far more tolerant of abuse and lack of maintenance. Nobody ever bent a crane on a Webley. What do you think opens up for loading easier when covered in frozen mud? What about actuating that S&W/Colt ejection rod when it locked up by debris? Do you see where the basis for this opinion is coming from?

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not denigrating Col. Cooper. On the contrary, I have great admiration for the man, and he was certainly a great shooter and teacher, and a man who thought longer and more deeply on the subject of combat shooting that most will ever do. That said, he was just a man, and one with less actual combat experience than a lot of shooters who disagree with him about a lot of things. His opinion on the Webley is his opinion, one that carries a bit more weight than most people's opinions, given his credentials, nevertheless, it's not holy scripture. No one man's opinion is. William E. Fairbairn -- a man with a lot more actual gunfight experience than Cooper ever had -- advocated an M1911 with the thumb safety deactivated, and carried with an empty chamber, requiring shooters to rack the slide and chamber a round before shooting. Does that make his advice on the matter unassailable? I wouldn't carry an autoloader that way, nor would many people today either, despite Fairbairn's experience and qualifications

.

Yadda, yadda, yadda, I completely agree with your last paragraph.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Nom de Forum:

If a MkVI does not blow-up after firing even one .45ACP round it has withstood the pressure of a .45ACP. I did not say it would always withstand that pressure, but did relate it has withstood it many times in many revolvers.

What does that tell us? No one would assert that the original Walker Colt was okay simply because they did not all blow up very time they were fired.

Why would it not always with stand .45ACP pressure if a cylinder using much stronger steel was available?

I do not know--it might--it would depend on the changes in metals and upon what they weak points are.

As far as the frame withstanding .45ACP pressure we have a difference of opinion of how many rounds it need to withstand while remaining functional.

Well, you do not know my opinion, but here it is: If users start noting issues in normal usage, that's not good. Converted Webleys, S&W Combat Magnums with magnum loads, Aircrewman .38 revolvers with aluminum cylinders, and Rugers in .357 Maximum come to mind.

My point is a MkVI made with modern steel would only need to be closer in strength, not even as strong, to a century old Triple Lock to be sufficient for .45ACP

I do not see how anyone could conclude that.

Let's first accept that the original is not sufficient for .45 ACP--because they fail--not every time they are fired, but they do fail. They could not be sold, nor would they be issued, with that shortcoming.

Would "closer in strength" make it "sufficient"? That would depend upon how much closer, and, of course, on what kind of service life would be deemed sufficient.

How much improvement could be gained solely by substituting materials, we do not know.

We do know that top-break revolvers fell out of favor long ago, and that after S&W dropped the No. 3 115 years ago, they never made a top-break for any cartridge more powerful than the .38 S&W. Webley kept going and so did Enfield, for a while, both with anemic chamberings, but consider that the needs were immediate and that the Empire was impoverished.

For some reason, the Indians are making a .320 top break with a frame safety that does not block the hammer.

 

[Drail]

Yeah well, the Indians make motorcycles too. Ever rode one?

 

[JSH1]

My friend had a Enfield Bullet 500 for a while. Nice motorcycle for cruising the back roads. Dead simple to work on, great gas mileage. The new ones even have electric start!

 

[Nom de Forum]

Posted by Nom de Forum:

What does that tell us? No one would assert that the original Walker Colt was okay simply because they did not all blow up very time they were fired.

Modern replicas of the Walker made with better steel appear to be holding-up well enough. I have not asserted an original Webley is okay to shoot with full power .45ACP. In fact I posted it is not okay.

I do not know--it might--it would depend on the changes in metals and upon what they weak points are.

That's right, "it might", and based on my experience and knowledge (both far from extensive) of Webley's and improvements in metalurgy I think it might be more probable than not.

Well, you do not know my opinion, but here it is: If users start noting issues in normal usage, that's not good. Converted Webleys, S&W Combat Magnums with magnum loads, Aircrewman .38 revolvers with aluminum cylinders, and Rugers in .357 Maximum come to mind.

I do not see how anyone could conclude that.

Let's first accept that the original is not sufficient for .45 ACP--because they fail--not every time they are fired, but they do fail. They could not be sold, nor would they be issued, with that shortcoming.

Would "closer in strength" make it "sufficient"? That would depend upon how much closer, and, of course, on what kind of service life would be deemed sufficient.

How much improvement could be gained solely by substituting materials, we do not know.

That fact that Webley MkVIs are close to being sufficiently strong for .45ACP based on observation makes it easy to believe they could be improved with better materials and tweaks.

I don't know and you don't know and we will never know unless someone at least does an engineering analysis and possibly tests a prototype. I can't do that and I am not willing to pay for it. I think you and I are going around in endless circles about mechanical feasibility until someone does make that analysis.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by nom de forum:

That fact that Webley MkVIs are close to being sufficiently strong for .45ACP based on observation....

The only "facts" we have are that .45 ACP pressures far exceed those of Webley proof loads, some converted Mk VI revolvers have failed with .45 ACP loads, some have not (at least yet), and some deformation has been observed. "Observation" has not told us how many rounds have been fired through each example, how many failures have occurred or why, or how much deformation has occurred. We cannot assess what "close" means.

I would not begin to conclude that Webley Mk VI revolvers are "close to being sufficiently strong for .45ACP" pressures.

... makes it easy to believe they could be improved with better materials and tweaks.

It is very easy to believe that they could be improved with better materials and tweaks, but no one knows either how much improvement would be needed or how much improvement could be achieved.

...we will never know unless someone at least does an engineering analysis and possibly tests a prototype

That's a fact.

It is unlikely that anyone will ever do it. What would the likely market for a Webley in .45 ACP be?

 

[Jim K]

Hi, Nom,

"Why do you throw the .357 Magnum in the mix?"

Because it is the cartridge most folks consider THE modern SD cartridge, even though it is 80 years old. You do throw in .38 Special and 9mm, and who mentioned the latter?

You are the one whose experience and knowledge have convinced you that a modern breaktop would be accepted. I am the one who is skeptical.

FWIW, the Webleys wrecked with .45 ACP didn't shoot loose at the latch; the cylinder walls let go.

I have given you a way to prove your contentions and make money to boot if you are right. If you won't or can't build a prototype, then none of us will ever know if you are right or just beating keys for the sake of an argument.

Jim

 

[Nom de Forum]

Hi, Nom,

"Why do you throw the .357 Magnum in the mix?"

Because it is the cartridge most folks consider THE modern SD cartridge, even though it is 80 years old. You do throw in .38 Special and 9mm, and who mentioned the latter?

You are the one whose experience and knowledge have convinced you that a modern breaktop would be accepted. I am the one who is skeptical.

FWIW, the Webleys wrecked with .45 ACP didn't shoot loose at the latch; the cylinder walls let go.

I have given you a way to prove your contentions and make money to boot if you are right. If you won't or can't build a prototype, then none of us will ever know if you are right or just beating keys for the sake of an argument.

Jim

Jim,

I've seen the pictures of blown cylinders. I have even read your posts about Webleys going back a decade of so. I have shot a MkVI until it was sloppy at the hinge and latch, out of time enough to be retired, and still not blown-up at the cylinder. Thirty years ago for several years I shot a Webley once or twice a week in weeknight and weekend matches. Occasionally since then.

I am going to guess that like me, another old man, you and I both know that if we had accepted every challenge to spend our own money on proving an argument we would be foolish and far poorer. Just because I am not willing to spend the money does not mean I am "just beating keys for the sake of an argument". The mere fact that this discussion has gone on as long as it has is good publicity for the idea of a new Webley or Webley type revolver. You know there was a time that nobody thought there was much interest or money to be made making Wild West era pistols and rifles. That changed. Perhaps the time will come for the Webley.

 

[JSH1]

Hi, Nom,

"Why do you throw the .357 Magnum in the mix?"

Because it is the cartridge most folks consider THE modern SD cartridge, even though it is 80 years old. You do throw in .38 Special and 9mm, and who mentioned the latter?

You are the one whose experience and knowledge have convinced you that a modern breaktop would be accepted. I am the one who is skeptical.

FWIW, the Webleys wrecked with .45 ACP didn't shoot loose at the latch; the cylinder walls let go.

I have given you a way to prove your contentions and make money to boot if you are right. If you won't or can't build a prototype, then none of us will ever know if you are right or just beating keys for the sake of an argument.

Jim

Here is a 4 shot break top pistol chambered in .357 Magnum. It obviously is possible to built a break top that can handle the loads generated by a .357 Magnum. Can we put the argument to rest now?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COP_.357_Derringer

 

[Billy Shears]

Hit the books and you will find the opinion that the Webley is the finest combat revolver ever made has been expressed for decades by many of the most respected firearms authorities. They hold this opinion because the design and tolerances of the Webley keep it operating in muck that tends to stop up S&W and Colts and the action parts are far more tolerant of abuse and lack of maintenance. Nobody ever bent a crane on a Webley. What do you think opens up for loading easier when covered in frozen mud? What about actuating that S&W/Colt ejection rod when it locked up by debris? Do you see where the basis for this opinion is coming from?

I'm well aware of the numbers of people over the years who have extolled the virtues of the Webley. But I don't consider the ability to survive abuse and neglect to be the end all and be all of what makes a great combat pistol. All things being equal, it's a highly desirable feature to have, but accuracy, human engineering, etc. are equally important. The Kalashnikov is almost universally acknowledged to be more durable and tolerant of neglect and hard use than an AR-15; I'd still take an AR over an AK any day if I were taking one into combat. The AR is far more accurate and ergonomic, and people who maintain them properly (which is not at all an arduous or difficult task) tend to find them more than sufficiently reliable.

I've always wonder how people using pistols in the armed forces are apparently always getting them jammed up with debris and filled with freezing mud and all that. I was in the army, and an infantryman no less, and somehow I always managed to avoid ever doing such things. I'm aware pistols do get dropped, get dirty, etc., especially in wartime, but I think some of the fears of these things are just a wee bit overblown. For example, the Luger is often cited as finicky, with an action dangerously open and exposed, and prone to let dirt, debris, mud, sand, etc. get into the works. Yet the Germans used it in two world wars, and on the whole it served them quite well. When they finally replaced it with the Walther P-38, it wasn't because the pistol was found to be inadequately reliable or overly prone to getting jammed up with gunk, it was because it was an old-fashioned design that was simply too expensive to manufacture. Two or three Walthers could be made in the time it took to finish one P-08.

I'm convinced that any officer carrying an S&W Hand Ejector or Colt New Service in the trenches of WWI, kept as it was in a full flap holster that protected it from the elements until it was drawn, and who gave the weapon the simple, regular maintenance that any handgun should get, would have had a weapon that was every bit as reliable in actual use as the Webley top break, and was a damn sight easier to shoot well besides.