Why no modern top-break revolvers?

[silicosys4]

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

That is not a break top revolver. The forces enacted on the frame are completely different. The analogy is not applicable.

 

[JSH1]

That is not a break top revolver. The forces enacted on the frame are completely different. The analogy is not applicable.

No it isn't a revolver. It is a break action handgun with the latch on the bottom instead of the top. It uses the tried and true method employed on break-action rifles and shotguns.

There is nothing to say a modern break-action revolver couldn't be designed with the latch on the bottom instead of on top of the cylinder. Of course that is if the question to be answered is: "Is it possible to build a modern break action revolver". If this is just a debate about old Webleys converted to 45 ACP then, you are right, the gun I linked doesn't apply.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by JSH1:

There is nothing to say a modern break-action revolver couldn't be designed with the latch on the bottom instead of on top of the cylinder.

I cannot picture what you have in mind.

The latch on a top-break revolver does not contact the cylinder at all. It engages the top strap.

I can see two ways to keep the recover closed: lock the top strap, or hold the cylinder pin in place. The former seems more practical. Also, since the path of the load generated by the recoil is above the center line of the cylinder, it would seem to me that the most efficient way to hold the frame closed would be to lock the top strap.

 

[Kleanbore]

Let's Go back to the Original Question

Posted by cluttonfred:

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?

(Emphasis Added)

The question was addressed rather well in Post #51. Since a .32 semi-auto would be shorter, thinner, and lighter, it is unlikely that a .32 revolver would compete today.

In addition, with a capacity of 7+1, the Keltec P32 has a capacity that is 60% higher than that.

No, I do not think there would be a viable market.

To my knowledge, the only .32 double action revolver in production today is made in India, and only because nothing larger is permitted. That surely is due to market considerations.

 

[Billy Shears]

Posted by JSH1:
Quote:

There is nothing to say a modern break-action revolver couldn't be designed with the latch on the bottom instead of on top of the cylinder.

I cannot picture what you have in mind.

The latch on a top-break revolver does not contact the cylinder at all. It engages the top strap.

I can see two ways to keep the recover closed: lock the top strap, or hold the cylinder pin in place. The former seems more practical. Also, since the path of the load generated by the recoil is above the center line of the cylinder, it would seem to me that the most efficient way to hold the frame closed would be to lock the top strap.

He may be thinking of something along the lines of the early, S&W "tip up" revolvers, which had the hinge where the latch would be on a top break. Though that system was, I believe, even less strong than a conventional top break, and S&W abandoned it for the top break after the 1860s

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Billy Shears:

...something along the lines of the early, S&W "tip up" revolvers, which had the hinge where the latch would be on a top break. Though that system was, I believe, even less strong than a conventional top break, and S&W abandoned it for the top break after the 1860s

It appears to me that the hinge, the size of which would necessarily be quite limited, would be stressed by tensile loads, and that the latch would have to deal with a combination of loads. Weak!

Mighty tedious to reload, too.

 

[JSH1]

Posted by JSH1:I cannot picture what you have in mind.

The latch on a top-break revolver does not contact the cylinder at all. It engages the top strap.

Current designs have a latch on the top strap. That doesn't mean that is the only way to hold the action closed. I'm not talking about having a latch on the cylinder. I'm talking about having the entire latch mechanism located below the cylinder.

Posted by JSH1:
I can see two ways to keep the recover closed: lock the top strap, or hold the cylinder pin in place. The former seems more practical. Also, since the path of the load generated by the recoil is above the center line of the cylinder, it would seem to me that the most efficient way to hold the frame closed would be to lock the top strap.

That assumes the gun fires out of the top of the cylinder instead of the bottom.

I've attached a (poor) sketch of what I was thinking.

 

[Kleanbore]

That would result in an interesting and rather simple load path. How one would incorporate an external latch would be something to work on.

I do not think I would like a really tall front sight, but more importantly, I see no way to have automatic ejection.

 

[beag_nut]

Did I miss it, or did no one mention the current Uberti offering of the Schofield, in a few not-hot calibers?
http://www.uberti.com/top-break-revolver

I don't want one of them, at least until a .357 mag offering is made.

 

[JSH1]

That would result in an interesting and rather simple load path. How one would incorporate an external latch would be something to work on.

I do not think I would like a really tall front sight, but more importantly, I see no way to have automatic ejection.

Yes, it is a very simply load path. I'm sure that is why it is used on lots of break action rifles and shotguns.

The derringers that use this latch system usually use a simple sliding release. (See attached picture)

The sights would be accomplished with a vent rip like the Chiappa Rhino uses. I drew it without a sight just to make it clear the barrel is on the bottom.

Automatic ejection isn't mandatory for a revolver. Again, I'm not looking to replicate the Webley. I'm simply pointing out that given modern materials, and a clean sheet of paper, someone could make a break action revolver that is capable of shooting modern cartridges.

Is there a market for such a weapon? I really, really doubt it.

 

[BobWright]

JSH1:

That assumes the gun fires out of the top of the cylinder instead of the bottom.

I've attached a (poor) sketch of what I was thinking.
Attached Thumbnails

Your sketch reveals a weak point as it is: The inside corner of the barrel assembly, just below the lower forward point of the cylinder, represents a concentration of stress point that would likely lead to early failure.

Revolvers exert tremendous tension stress on the top strap when fired, or on the locking lug in your sketch.

Bob Wright

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by JSH1:

Automatic ejection isn't mandatory for a revolver.

True. But it is often cited as a primary advantage of the top-break design.

As has been said here, the advantage may not be that great. But without it, what would the advantage be?

Bu one would certainly want simultaneous ejection.

But for the shorter cartridge and the supply issue, the Army might well have stayed with the Schofield rather than with single-eject SAA.

But when the Colt New Army came out, they switched instantly.

 

[cluttonfred]

Current designs have a latch on the top strap. That doesn't mean that is the only way to hold the action closed. I'm not talking about having a latch on the cylinder. I'm talking about having the entire latch mechanism located below the cylinder.



That assumes the gun fires out of the top of the cylinder instead of the bottom.

I've attached a (poor) sketch of what I was thinking.

That would be funny-looking (Chiappa Rhino) but could work just fine. The latch could be internal, say operated by ambidextrous Webley-style thumb levers, and the front sight carried on a tall ventilated rib. I'd just as soon have that Iver Johnson snubbie, though. Stopping power be damned, no one wants to get shot, even with .32 S&W. ;-)

 

[cluttonfred]

Posted by JSH1:True. But it is often cited as a primary advantage of the top-break design.

As has been said here, the advantage may not be that great. But without it, what would the advantage be?

Bu one would certainly want simultaneous ejection.

But for the shorter cartridge and the supply issue, the Army might well have stayed with the Schofield rather than with single-eject SAA.

But when the Colt New Army came out, they switched instantly.

I don't know the history behind the adoption of the SAA, but it wouldn't be the first time that a gun was adopted for reasons other than being the best design--conservatism (in the sense of resisting change), economics, politics, corruption, etc.--especially when it comes to government contracts.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by cluttonfred:

The latch could be internal,...

Don't forget to leave room for the lockwork!

 

[Kleanbore]

I don't know the history behind the adoption of the SAA, but it wouldn't be the first time that a gun was adopted for reasons other than being the best design...

In 1873, the SAA represented a tremendous advance over its predecessor, the 1860 Army. The Army first adopted the S&W No. 3 in .44 American, which was less powerful than the .45. The Army preferred the Colt.

They later adopted the Shofieldd in .45, which had an improved method for loading, to use alongside the SAA. I remembered my history incorrectly. The Army continued to use both the Colt and the Schofield, after having standardized on a cartridge that could be used in either, until the New Army was adopted.

 

[Billy Shears]

Originally Posted by Kleanbore View Post
Posted by JSH1:True. But it is often cited as a primary advantage of the top-break design.

As has been said here, the advantage may not be that great. But without it, what would the advantage be?

Bu one would certainly want simultaneous ejection.

But for the shorter cartridge and the supply issue, the Army might well have stayed with the Schofield rather than with single-eject SAA.

But when the Colt New Army came out, they switched instantly.

I don't know the history behind the adoption of the SAA, but it wouldn't be the first time that a gun was adopted for reasons other than being the best design--conservatism (in the sense of resisting change), economics, politics, corruption, etc.--especially when it comes to government contracts.

Actually, for what the army wanted at the time, they felt the Colt was the better design. You have to remember that speed of reloading wasn't something they considered all that important. That may seem strange to us today, but you have to remember when this was -- all the officers on the review board that adopted the SAA were around when revolvers were only a couple of decades old, and they could remember a time when single shot pistols were the only game in town -- especially since a lot of those single shots were still around; they didn't just go away overnight. It wasn't all that uncommon for troopers to go though entire battles without shooting their pistols empty (though it did happen often, of course, and during the Civil War many cavalrymen carried multiple revolvers to deal with this). They genuinely thought that the rounds in the chamber, which represented a huge increase in firepower over what was available just a few years earlier, was enough for nearly any engagement. And they were also thinking in terms of fire discipline. They didn't want to encourage soldiers to blaze away and use up all their ammo.

What counted for more was that the Colt had a simpler mechanism that was less likely to get out of order, and was easier to fix when it did. And most importantly of all, perhaps, was that it was possible, one way or another, to make a Colt SAA fire with any one of its parts broken. If the trigger spring broke, for example, you could thumb back the hammer and simply let it go. If the ejector rod broke, you could poke the cartridges out with a stick (or pull out the arbor pin and use it), and so on. This wasn't possible with the Schofield, so the Colt was felt to be the better sidearm for service on the frontier where quick access to an armorer or gunsmith might not always be available.

 

[kBob]

I think market is the main reason followed by a fear or lawyers.

That said my first and almost only IPSC shoot was in the revolver class with a Webley VI with cut cylinder. I was shooting Lead SWC and using full moon clips about 1980. I cleaned the clock of the more experienced revolver shooters ( I are a semi auto kind of guy for the most part) despite their own speed loaders only because of the speed of my reloads. Sure was not because of a smooth light trigger pull and short hammer throw!

One time a long time ago but I thought it interesting.

I can not imagine that anyone on this side of the water would take the effort to work up a usable design that would then have to compete for sales with crunch-n-tickers and conventional revolvers.

On the other hand made elsewhere, say Italy, is possible. Look at that pencil sketch above.... now think Chiappa Rhino. Hope I did not just give folks night mares.

-kBob

 

[Swing]

Did I miss it, or did no one mention the current Uberti offering of the Schofield,

Mentioned in post #4.

 

[45_auto]

Revolvers exert tremendous tension stress on the top strap when fired,

Not much point in trying to discuss the basics of mechanical design on a general forum. The stress in the top strap of a revolver is entirely dependent upon the load path due to the design of the gun. How much tension do you think there is on the "top strap" of a design similar to the Colt 1860?

 

[beag_nut]

Mentioned in post #4.

Thanks, Swing.
I had thought that the mere existence of the Uberti offering would have at least cut short some of the more long-winded posts to this thread. That post #4 was easy for me to overlook, having seen the revolver as a (somewhat) viable alternative. In fact, the Schofield, if not the Uberti one, is the favorite revolver choice of Jeff Quinn (I'm pretty sure).

 

[Kleanbore]

Though hardly modern, the Uberti does have a somewhat larger top-strap than the original--for additional strength.

It is also slightly longer. S&W would not do that for the Army.

The Uberti has a hammer block in the frame, but Uberti advises carrying it with five chambers loaded. I do not understand that.

Colt dropped the SAA before WWII--they considered it obsolete. Demand created by TV and movie westerns brought it back. They even sold 1851 Navy revolvers under their name for a while.

S&W dropped the No. 3 more than a century ago. The Hand Ejector had made it obsolete. For a while they, and then Uberti, brought back the No. 3. I would attribute the necessary but limited market demand to Cowboy Action Shooting , which in turn came about because of movies and television.

If handgun sales were permissible in the UK, I would imagine that the anniversary model of the Webley would very likely be produced. I think there are probably enough British movies about the Great War and WWII, and enough detective movies, to fuel the demand.

In a similar vein, Luger production has come back from time to time, but never in any numbers.

 

[barnbwt]

"Current designs have a latch on the top strap. That doesn't mean that is the only way to hold the action closed. I'm not talking about having a latch on the cylinder. I'm talking about having the entire latch mechanism located below the cylinder."

JSH1,
Though it is fairly low on my list of project priorities (mostly because each and every part of a revolver is kind of a pain in the rear to visualize and make), I am working towards this exact concept for my "Stampede*" design. The design a forked "upper" receiver that hinges about the chamber like a cannon trunnion and locks into seats on either side of the trigger area. The only reason the latch is as beefy as I have it is to allow the user to safely slap the thing open and closed (we all know we wish we could do this without jacking up the guns). The latch does not carry significant load (mainly just resists the torque of recoil). The attached image is based on my 44mag Blackhawk Parts kit, which is the planned source of barrel, cylinder, etc. (I also have a GP100 kit that may work if 44mag proves too stout an undertaking, but I have it slated for a further evolution of this idea; breaktop autorevolver). Blackhawk parts aside, it's still a big 'ol hawgleg, but it's nearly Dragoon sized in this current incarnation.

Comically enough, I do not feel the reason these guns are unpopular for new offerings is due to design, demand, or engineering. For a modern cartridge of any power to be contained, the hinge and its attached frame, not necessarily the latch, must be pretty beefy. It rapidly gets worse as the bore axis height increases, like with a Webley. The real solution is a bottom-firing layout, but this design option quite simply cannot be made to look presentable. The void above the barrel is substantial, and sighting offset concerns aside, a designer is practically forced to "fill in" the area with needless bulk to appease the eye.

This link is to an earlier sketch I made trying to come up with an aesthetically 'pleasing' (in the old-school Fudd sense, not the cyber-punk Rhino sense) concept. Even turning the ejector rod housing into an "over lug", you still need a 1/2" or so rib sitting on top get the lines right. One nice benefit, is that the sight height can be in line with the top of the cylinder, so overall height is reduced by 1/4" or so. A lot of people say the Rhino would sell better with more classical aesthetics; it quite simply cannot be done, and the present design is about as pretty looking as you're likely to get. The "flow" of the fat grip to tapered muzzle does not work unless the barrel is high up (which is why the Rhino tapers from fat muzzle to narrow grip). My 'solution' for my "Stampede" concept is to mount a laser or "periscoped" red dot in a hollow tube squatting over the ejector rod housing, that way the added bulk won't be completely useless**.

TCB

*yes, it's a veiled reference to Trigun
**yes, this is why Vash's revolver had this exact same design feature (slash plot device) seated over the barrel --it looked really stupid without it

 

[Monac]

I don't want to stir the pot pointlessly, but this:

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=471157592

reminded me of Jim K's suggestion of a single shot high power test pistol for trying out a top break design made of modern materials. This gun is not made of modern materials, but it sure is high-powered - 8mm Siamese Mauser!

I realize these were probably seldom, if ever, shot. For all I know, it is actually some Khyber Pass gunsmith's fantasy piece.

 

[Billy Shears]

Comically enough, I do not feel the reason these guns are unpopular for new offerings is due to design, demand, or engineering. For a modern cartridge of any power to be contained, the hinge and its attached frame, not necessarily the latch, must be pretty beefy. It rapidly gets worse as the bore axis height increases, like with a Webley. The real solution is a bottom-firing layout, but this design option quite simply cannot be made to look presentable. The void above the barrel is substantial, and sighting offset concerns aside, a designer is practically forced to "fill in" the area with needless bulk to appease the eye.

You've got a worse problem: as someone else already pointed out, I can't see how you're going to make automatic ejection work with this design, and without it, what's the point? That's the only (slight) advantage the top break configuration has over the solid frame, hand ejector design that revolvers have used for over a century now.

Possibly you could find a way to make the cam actuated auto eject work by widening the frame and hinge to fit the mechanism in there, but that's going to be a mighty odd looking revolver. Also, with longer cartridges, the barrel is going to have to swing through a longer arc to make the cam raise the extractor star high enough to pull the cases completely free. The Webley is as fast to reload as it is because the barrel only needs to swing down about ninety degrees to accomplish this, and the only reason the distance is that short is because the .455 cartridge case is so short. The Uberti Schofields, firing the much longer .45 Colt have to swing the barrel down through about a one hundred twenty degree arc to accomplish the same task.