A modern Top Break revolver for IPSC standard revolver class.

V

Visaman

New member
Hi,It seems to me that there is not a lot of producers that makes top break
revolvers.

Top break revolvers can be loaded more rapidly than fixed-frame revolvers,
especially with the aid of a speedloader or moon clip.
The problem with swing out tun revolvers is that if it is handled fast (as
in IPSC standard revolver class) is that the cylinder Crane gets a
good deal of mechanical stress. This can lead to a misaligned tun,the
chambers does not line up in respect to the barrel throat. This has the
consequences of a stuck bullet and explosion of the tun due to
overpressure.


The locking mechanism and the hinge bolts was under dimensioned, and
caused problems. The opening levers is also to small and fiddly on say
a Webley MK.IV.
Parts for the famous Webley is hard to obtain.

Id like to see break revolvers with 8" inch and 5.5" inch barrels with adjustable sights in cartridges like:
.22LR
.38 special/.357 magnum
.223 rem
.30 Herret.
.45 acp ( the tun needs provisions for moon clips, or special extractor mechanism)
.45 LC
.44 special/.44 magnum
.44-40 Winchester
.40 S&W

I have mailed chiappa, and they forwarded my mail to the tech office for their evaluation for future projects.

What about a changeable barrel, like the system on the Dan Wessons, and a changeable tun ?

Any opinions ?
 
Due to the quality of todays metal,and heat treating,I think a fairly powerful top break would be feasible,but not any faster to operate than a current double action,swing out cylinder revolver.
I have had top breaks,and altho neat,were never any faster reloading,due to the hand position change that you had to do.
"popping" the bbl,and cyl open would be much harder on the pivot,than pushing the cyl out would be on the crane.
 
Would be that much faster,or less stressful on the gun to reload a top break?

Steps:
1. flip the catch to "break" the revolver.
2. spin it in you hands and open with the cylinder facing down. To let gravity assist in the eject of the empties.
3. flip it back over into one hand while the other hand goes for the reload.
4. load and snap it close.

I know the auto eject would speed up a bit, but what happens when a case falls under the ejector? With the hand ejector I can keep working it until all the cases fall out.
 
they have no interest in usa

thats the problem, the gun companies understand that their IS a demand for a topbreak, but due to the limited number of people who would actually buy it from that group of possible buyers, they arent going to spend money on blue prints or on new machinery.


its a break open, to change a caliber all you would need to do is have one basic style of frame and barrel assembly. if you want to shoot 32 long instead of 44 special, just swithc the barrel assembly NOT hard to do. I have some pretty good lockup ideas on sketchpads in my closet somewhere.
 
I wouldn't call the barrel latch on any Webley small and fiddly. In fact, that's probably the most outstanding feature of that line of revolvers. But you will note that Webley was the only producer of break-top revolvers in the last 100 years with a chambering larger than .38 S&W, excluding modern reproductions of the old S&W large frame revolvers. And as a matter of fact, during that same period, I think maybe only H&R and Iver Johnson made break-tops but even then not exclusively. Some were solid frames. Earlier, there other makers of very similiar revolvers. I don't think Colt ever made any, though not all of their revolvers were solid frames either.

Still, I've heard the same comments before but how many times have manufacturers heard a call for some product that didn't sell so well after it came out? In this case, it may not be the break-top design that is the problem but rather that we're taling about revolvers. Even when H&R was still selling their interesting line of .22 revolvers, Colt was selling their Woodsman series and Hi-Standard their own line of target .22 automatics. Then along came Ruger, who started his business with a .22 automatic.

In the 1950s, for instance, S&W had a nice lineup of big bore revolvers but try to find one today. Dedicated target shooters apparently chose .45 automatics over .45 revolvers more often than not. I did watch a bowling pin match once, however, in which one competitor used a .45 revolver. He reloaded that thing as fast as any of those using a .45 auto. There were even speedloaders for Weblys during WWI.
 
You can find .455 Webleys that were converted to .45 ACP that use full moon clips. A proper Zulu gun, by jove.

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=272105481
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=272472292

Probably done for Great Britain's emergency of 1939.
I have one with a short barrel and birdshead grip that shoots surprisingly accurate. How these old guns hold up to heavy use I don't know. They have lots of screws that can come loose you need to be aware of or loctite.

Great gun for a lefty which is why I had to have mine.
 
As my screen name would suggest, I love top-break revolvers and own a couple myself (H&R 999 Sportsman and Webley Mk. IV). However, there are certain weaknesses inherent to a top-break that simply aren't present with a solid-frame gun.

First and foremost, a hinged frame simply is not as strong as a solid frame is. Even the Webley Mk. VI, which is probably among the strongest top-breaks, if not the strongest top-break, ever made in large quantities cannot stand up to high-pressure ammunition. Many, many .455 Webleys were converted to fire .45 ACP with moonclips by importers decades ago due to the scarcity of .455 Webley ammunition. The problem is that .45 ACP, which isn't a particularly high-pressure cartridge, is still roughly equivalent in pressure to a .455 Webley proof load and so-converted Webleys will shoot loose in short order if used with factory .45 ACP ammo or equivalent handloads. Owners of .45 ACP converted Webleys are usually advised to fire their guns only with handloads which duplicate the pressure and ballistics of the .455 Webley cartridge.

The second issue is the length of cartridge that can be effectively used in a top-break revolver. The length of cartridge which can be used in a solid-frame gun is limited only by the length of the frame, cylinder, and ejector rod. Top-breaks, on the other hand, must use relatively short cartridges in order to ensure complete extraction of the cartridge cases from the cylinder. This is why the majority of top-break revolvers use relatively short cartridges like .22 Long Rifle, .32 S&W, .38 S&W, .44 Russian, or .45 Schofield.

Finally, there is the issue of cost. A top-break revolver is inherently more complex and thus more expensive to produce than a solid-frame gun. Currently made reproductions of top-breaks like the S&W Model 3 Russian or Schofield typically cost $800 or more for a new specimen while solid-frame Colt SAA replicas from the same makers can be had for several hundred dollars less.

As I said before, top-breaks are fascinating revolvers and I love them, but there are very good reasons why they've been relegated primarily to collector interest or cowboy action shooting.
 
Hi,It seems to me that there is not a lot of producers that makes top break revolvers.
Click to expand...

Top-breaks are an obsolete design that died out for a reason over the last 100 years. The modern swing-out cylinder "hand ejector" won the battle and settled the issue. Anyone who made a top-break today would have nostalga as a selling point, and not much else.
 
length of the cartridge is pretty easy to over come with an extractor type used in the S&W Russian, rather than the short cam used in most of them ( however I'm sure that design could also be modified to work for a longer cartridge )

of course they could also be hand ejectors like my pair of old H&R's which were said to be prefered by "real" gunmen of the era, because of more positive extraction

one of my H&R hand ejector top breaks ;) think this is my 38 S&W, but I also have one in 32 S&W Long

attachment.php
 
The Russian MP-412 is very interesting. Polymer frame and it fires 357 Mag. Not a fan of plastic on a revolver but just goes to show that a top-break can certainly use long cartridges and is strong enough to handle magnums.

Too bad they can't be imported because of Clinton. :mad:
 
Origninally posted by kcub
Swing out sucks for lefties.
Click to expand...

Actually, depending on your reloading technique, a traditional swing-out cylinder may be easier for a southpaw in may ways. Because most revolvers have their cylinder swing out to the left side, a left-handed person doesn't have to cross over in order to reload with his/her dominant hand. Also, there have been a few revolvers with cylinders that swing out to the right side such as the Charter Arms Southpaw and the French Lebel M1892.
 
185 grain
780 fps

Surely this ought to be safe in the old Webley .45 ACP conversions, don't you think?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't count on it. Pressure and velocity don't necessarily correlate so, without knowing the maximum pressure of that particular loading, you don't really have any way to know how it compares to that of the .455 Webley cartridge.

There are other issues that need to be considered as well. First off, before shooting anything in a .455 Webley, you need to know whether or not it is suitable for the smokeless Mk. II cartridge or the older black powder Mk. I cartridge. No Webley prior to the Mk. IV (the .455 version and not the .38 version) should ever be fired with anything but black powder or a BP substitute. The Mk. IV was beefed up to handle early smokeless powder (cordite) but even it is marginal for it and I personally wouldn't shoot smokeless powder in any .455 Webley but a Mk. V or Mk. VI. If you have a Mk. I-IV, you're looking at a handloading proposition because no company that I'm aware of makes .455 Webley Mk. I ammunition.

The scary thing is, I've seen BP-era Webleys, including Mk. I's, shaved for .45 ACP. Given that a steady diet of .45 ACP ammo will shoot a Mk. V or Mk. VI loose in short order, I shudder at the thought of what it would do to a Mk. I.

Also, even if the loading in question is low enough pressure for a Mk. V or VI, you still have an undersize bullet that is substantially lighter so both accuracy and POI will be negatively affected. The .455 Mk. II cartridge uses a .455" diameter bullet of 262gr at approximately 650fps. The .45 ACP loading in your link not only uses a bullet 77gr lighter and 100fps faster, but also has a diameter of .451-.452".

Were I handloading .455 Webley ammo, the bullet I'd be using would be a Remington 250gr LRN intended for the .45 Long Colt cartridge. Not only are these bullets reasonably close in weight to that of the Mk. II cartridge, but they are also .455" diameter and have a hollow base which will obturate to grip the rifling. On top of all that, they're also quite inexpensive.

http://www.midwayusa.com/product/1601446981/remington-bullets-45-colt-long-colt-455-diameter-250-grain-lead-round-nose
 
Doesn't Uberti make a schofield knock off or two?
Click to expand...

Indeed they do as well as a Model 3 Russian replica, but none of them are double action and all of them are fairly expensive (going price for a NIB example seems to be $800+).
 
Looking at my 1932 dated No.2 Mk I Enfield, I see:
1. A lot of hand fitting and finishing done by a long time employee who took pride in his work-and knew it was subject to careful scrutiny by flinty eyed inspectors and:
2. A lot of careful hand fitting and finishing by a worker grateful to have a job in the Depression-wracked UK of 1932.
And as others have noted, a modern top break designed for modern cartridges-let's say 44 Special or 44 ACP or Colt to keep a strictly "defensive"
design would probably require a bit of R&D for a modest Return On Investment. Merely scaling up an existing design, even with more modern steels and heat treament, would not be enough, I read that S&W ran into the
Law of Unanticipated Consequences when they designed their M645 and it was not merely a matter of scaling up their M639. Modern techniques such as video taping let them observe the function of their prototypes and cut down the correction time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top