Break Top Revolvers

L

Lee Enfield

New member
Just curious ... I hear a lot about how break top revolvers are prone to fail and thus unsafe, which is a lot of the reason why they aren't being used widely. But, aren't break top shotguns common and generally safe (at least relatively speaking)? Is that safety assumption incorrect, or is it a different locking mechanism?

Thanks in advance!
 
Interesting user name.

:D

Different locking mechanism.

And, from that "the G00gle" (YMMV) is telling me, much lower pressures involved.
 
First, decide if we are talking about the idea of a top break revolver in principle, or about the actual guns that exist?

"Prone to fail" can mean a lot of things. Within their design limitations, top break revolvers are no more prone to fail than anything else.

Now, if you are talking about bottom of the line, cheaply made 100+ years ago, then yes, those are very prone to fail.

Break action shotguns use different locking systems, and the physical size of the locking parts is much larger.
 
The break top system is not used in many modern revolvers because the joint creates a weak point where battering of the metal can begin and eventually loosen the gun until it becomes unserviceable. There is no way to avoid that and still leave enough clearance for the gun to open. Solid frame revolvers can and do stretch under high pressure, but without a built in weak point, they will last a lot longer than a break top revolver.

That means that break top revolvers are usually confined to relatively low power cartridges (and no, Webley fans, Webleys are not strong - the cartridges are weak). Another problem with the break top system is that it usually is combined with an "automatic" extractor, which extracts/ejects cartridge cases as the gun is opened. That works OK for short case cartridges, like the .455 or .38 S&W. It is hard to make it work with .38 Special or .45 Colt.

Break open shotguns, like all shotguns, use relatively low pressure cartridges but even so, break open guns that depend on bottom locking do eventually batter and become useless. Top locking, like a dolls head breech, help a lot, but even those eventually will fail.

Jim
 
Ahh I see, so it has more to do with the round, and the pressures that cause wear/failure on the locking mechanism. What if it was a lower pressure round - it would theoretically be "safe", right?

@Lee N. Field: Nice name ;)

EDIT: Looks like some of you answered this next question already before I finished typing.
 
I just wish I had the wherewithal to either BUY one of the Webleys, or manufacture my own. Wicked expensive, but they look TOO fun to shoot!
 
Last edited:
Flare guns are one (bad) example - I'm sure the pressure is much less and it's not a revolver...

Here's one I was looking at specifically, the IzMech MP-412 in .357:

1287753538.jpg
 
True, but it is hard to find a middle point. Most of the cartridges we consider adequate to self defense today (.38 Special, .357 Magnum, etc.) simply are too strong for any reasonable life expectancy of a top break system. And of course, both are too long for ejection in most such systems.

Jim
 
Yes, I am aware of the Izmech; I have seen reports that in spite of hardening the latch surfaces, it still has the same problems inherent in a top break system, though they are delayed.

The reason is simple. Any time a gap exists (and it must to allow the gun to open), every time the gun is fired, the two parts are "pulled apart" striking each other. Even if the gap is tiny, that will still happen. And even if the surfaces are hard, at some point there will be softer metal to which the force is transferred and which will compress. That will continue until the gap becomes too large and the gun stops working. Making the surfaces larger will help, but that means adding size and weight. As someone said, "free lunches are not cheap."

Jim
 
@Kosh75287: I wish I knew someone that could manufacture one.... May as well go all out with the custom work at that point, and make it function with a silencer, like on this (non-top break) 1895 Nagant revolver below... assuming it could be done.

I'm sure it will be SUPER expensive though.


Begins at the 0:30 second mark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvF4yurWSc0
 
Last edited:
Due to the movable cylinder, the Russian Nagant can be suppressed; that just might be its only saving grace, since it is otherwise a rather poor (though very rugged) revolver. Of course the suppressor will work only if the revolver is used with original ammo, with the case mouth inserted into the barrel.

(FWIW, the idea of a cylinder moving forward to seal the barrel-cylinder gap was not that new, even in 1895 - the American Civil War Savage revolver did the same thing, with countersunk chambers that fit over the forcing cone.)

Jim
 
Most of the cartridges we consider adequate to self defense today (.38 Special, .357 Magnum, etc.) simply are too strong for any reasonable life expectancy of a top break system.
Click to expand...

Gee.... Y'mean like .45 ACP, .44 RUssian, .44 Special, .45 AutoRim, .44-40, .38-40, .45 Scofield, .45 Colt, and the rest? The mind boggles...
 
Would a lower pressure .45 ACP round in a break top revolver, at least theoretically, cause less stress enough for the locking mechanism to be durable enough for regular use (though probably not as durable as a non-break top)?
 
A great many of the Webleys were converted to fire .45 ACP and (I think) .45 Auto Rim. So the reduced pressure load might not be necessary.
 
I am not sure which top break revolver you are referring to that handled .45 ACP and .45 AR. The S&W New Model No. 3 Frontier was made in .44-40, and the DA top breaks were made in .38-40 and .44-40 (both low pressure cartridges), but I can't think of a top break in 44 Special or .45 Colt though of course the Schofield handled the shorter .45 Schofield. All were (orignally) low pressure cartridges.

Jim
 
Yes, .455 Webleys were converted to use .45 ACP with half-moon clips. Few were fired enough to cause a problem at the latch, but some had another problem, as cylinders have blown out when firing .45 ACP factory ammo. .45 ACP working pressure exceeds proof load pressure of the .455 Webley, and anyone firing one of those guns should reduce the load to moderate .45 Colt levels.

Jim
 
So they are more or less reliable for regular use in the lower pressure rounds is what I'm hearing (!), as in the break top examples in the last two posts.
 
First, I was thinking of top breaks made for .45 ACP and .45 AR, not guns converted to use those cartridges, so my bad on that.

There are two basic limitations in top breaks. The first is that they won't handle high pressure cartridges for any length of time and they won't handle long cartridges without sacrifice of the automatic ejection feature.

If you use/make a strong top break (like the NM No. 3) for something like the .44 Russian, you would probably be able to shoot it indefinitely. But, as I said at the beginning, most folks consider cartridges at that pressure level inadequate for practical use today. That means that a new gun in .44 Russian, say, wouldn't sell. (.45 Colt has a separate problem in top breaks, the small rim giving extraction problems, as it did in the Schofield; the Colt SAA, with a rod ejector, had no problems, of course.)

Jim
 
Hi, Lee Enfield,

Just curious, but there is a poster using the name "Lee N. Field"; are you the same person? If not, I wonder about the confusion factor or if the other Lee minds.

Jim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top