Break Top Revolvers

Yes Lee Enfield you just can not hot rod them too much. The .38 S&W models from WWII will take a bit more as the latches are better as is the steel. I EDC several in .38 S&W and .32 S&W that are 100 years old and I have no concerns about kaboom.

My Speer #11 gives 14900cup for .38 S&W and shows 18900cup for .38 Special so yes a topbreak could be made to handle the pressure by several makers the question is why.....
 
Last edited:
I'm not the same person as Lee N. Field.

I didn't know that a similar handle was being used previously - I hope it's not too confusing and that Lee N. Field doesn't mind!
 
I'm not an engineer but I always figured the hinged frame guns wouldn't handle modern high pressure calibers.

I think the top breaks are a hoot. I have a couple of H&R 22s and and a WW II Enfield.

standard.jpg


standard.jpg


standard.jpg
 
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.
Click to expand...

No and no. I made sure to chime in first thing.

I'll play the part of the cynical, snaky old phart.
 
Okay, the part about the earlier Webleys not being proofed against .45 ACP pressures escaped me, but it makes perfect sense that they wouldn't last under full-pressure loads. Even so, it's not clear whether the metallurgy failed or the design failed. I suspect that proper heat-treating would cure a lot of ills.

I included the .45 Colt and other rounds as examples of rounds we consider adequate to the task of self-defense, today, without regard to their being chambered in top-break revolvers (even though their chamber pressures could probably be safely contained therein). Even the 185 gr. FMJWC round in .45 ACP provides considerable stopping power, and I'm not sure the median chamber pressure exceeds 10,000 psi. Ditto the cowboy action loads for the .44 Russian/Special and .45 Colt. None of these rounds (in Cowboy Action trim) would be my first choice for punching through a windshield or car door, but the sheer momentum of 200+ grain slugs might win the day. The point is, you don't need a chamber pressure that is unsafe to top-break revolver designs (especially with better heat-treating) to generate adequate incapacitation. Even the anemic (by modern standards) .41 Long Colt was a fair-to-middlin fight stopper (200gr. @ 700 f/s), and it was no high-pressure wonder.

It is true that the .45 Colt doesn't have a GENEROUS rim on it, but likely has an ADEQUATE one for the automatic ejector (though case length might be an issue). They make the cartridge feed through any number of lever and pump-action carbines, these days. Some engineering magic directed to the extractor might work wonders.
 
Well, some folks just like the idea of a modern top break revolver chambered for maybe .454 Casull, but realistically it is not going to happen unless someone can work magic. It is true enough that high pressure loads are not necessary for lethal effect (after all, the old .455 was fired at England's enemies for decades with few complaints from the recipients), but not many folks today are going to plunk down a grand or so on an updated Mk VI.

Jim
 
I don't remember advocating the manufacture of a break-top .454. I DO recall questioning the premise that a well-designed top-break double-action revolver of modern manufacture were no longer viable defensive arms because they would not withstand the rigors of 30000+ psi cartridges like 9x19, .38Super, .357 SiG, .357 Mag, .40 S&W, etc. So the ad hominum postulations probably serve no useful purpose in this discussion.

Would such a weapon be expensive? Probably. As expensive as an X-Frame S&W or a Python in Excellent condition? Probably not.

The IzMech MP-412 may not be up to withstanding .357 Magnum pressures (35,000 psi) for long stints, but it DOES provide "proof of concept" that the piece might be designed to withstand pressures in the .44 Special/.45 Colt range (14,000 psi) and probably in the .45 ACP spectrum (21,000 psi). Additionally, the use of polymer in various non-critical parts of the firearm might lower production costs even further.

Will it ever happen? No, sadly, probably not. More's the pity. We seem all a flutter about a sidearm that holds 30 rounds of .22 Magnum, or a PDW that holds 90 rounds of .22 Hornet (or the equivalent). Meanwhile, we yawn at the prospect of a top-break revolver chambered for a serious defensive round. <sigh>
 
What if you use a .38 in the IzMech instead of the .357? Pressure for the .38 I believe is around 17,000 psi.

Would that work out well in terms of reliability, durability, etc., to help offset the inherent problems of a break top?
 
My (my grandfather's) Break Top Revolver (S&W Model #3) hasn't broken yet, but it was made in 1876 and shoots he 44 Russian.

guns%20004.jpg


guns%20005.jpg
 
@Lee N. Field: I see where you're going with the Rhino - less direct force so less stress on the locking mechanism when the round is fired from the bottom cylinder instead. Maybe, assuming the force dissipates enough at the increased distance away from the lock, or is being redirected. Could work! But I digress to the experts on here.
 
I'M no expert, and I'm not an engineer. We need someone like Clark to get a better idea. I LIKE the idea of a lower more centered axis of force to take the load off the locking mechanism, but it could introduce other problems that we can't see.

From a sales standpoint, a top-break revolver is already "unorthodox" without making it a "bottom shooter". Could make it (more) difficult to market.
 
Okay, the part about the earlier Webleys not being proofed against .45 ACP pressures escaped me, but it makes perfect sense that they wouldn't last under full-pressure loads. Even so, it's not clear whether the metallurgy failed or the design failed. I suspect that proper heat-treating would cure a lot of ills.
Click to expand...

The early Webleys are all black powder gun. ONLY!!! Designed, proofed and used only with ammo loaded with black powder.

(Not sure about the Mk V)

The Mk VI is a smokeless proof gun. And they have "proper" heat treating for their designed round(s). What they don't have is spare extra strength to survive extensive (or even sometimes occasional) firing of higher than designed pressure rounds.


Webley Mk VI 1917 1943 holster and web belt.

To make them more "saleable" and to keep them going when supplies of .455 Webley ran out, many (possibly most) were converted to take .45ACP in half moon clips. The idea was to use .45ACP CASES loaded with Webley appropriate loads. Regular GI ball .45 auto is a proof level load for the Webley, and while guns will survive proof loads they won't do so indefinitely.

The English theory of stopping power in vogue at the time was a heavy bullet at low speed. The .455 Webley fired a 265gr bullet at 600fps.

According to contemporary reports, it worked rather well, and was fairly well thought of. When they went to the .380 revolver / .38/200 / .38 S&W, it was less well liked, even though the heavy (for caliber) lead bullet usually gave adequate performance. When they went to a pointed jacketed bullet the popularity of the .38/200 fell rapidly.
 
I recall that H&R did...

make top-breaks [as listed in late60 & early 70's Shooter's Bibles] but only in .32 S&W Lg and / or .38 S&W. Then stopped making them.
 
"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."

Every time someone brings up top break handguns, this "gap" thing gets the blame. That's not the issue, as pressure is pressure, and if the contact stresses are kept low enough, no deformation occurs. The problem is the top break design itself, which puts the fram pivot far below the barrel axis, forcing a nearly insurmountable bending moment into the top strap and latch. If the pivot is even a fraction of an inch closer to the bore, these forces fall accordingly.

If you put the break joint in line with the bore, you don't even need a top strap. As far as latch gap or looseness, the trick is to use a tensioning latch, like a break open shotgun. Once tensioned, static friction in a properly designed latch will keep it closed. Wear will occur and the latch will eventually run out of tension, just like break open long guns, but it is a slow process with quality parts (and a good design would be serviceable)

I have something on the drawing board, but it is a large Rube Goldberg hogleg, just like the original break top revolvers, and I have other projects I want to pursue first (ones that are far cheaper tha this would be). I do have a Ruger 44 and 357 mag cylinder & parts allocated, though.

TCB
 
The Mk VI is a smokeless proof gun. And they have "proper" heat treating for their designed round(s). What they don't have is spare extra strength to survive extensive (or even sometimes occasional) firing of higher than designed pressure rounds.
Click to expand...

Okay, I think you and I are more in agreement than you may think, but we keep jumping back and forth between the subject of OLD top-break revolvers and that of "new" top-break revolvers.
Yes, I agree that the Mk VIs were properly heat-treated for the demands of the cartridges for which they were designed. Yes, I agree that firing factory- spec .45 ACP from them would be ill-advised, and ultimately fatal to them. Yes, they should, at best, have only attenuated (or factory target wadcutter) rounds run through them.

My point about the proper heat treating was that, were we to build new Mk VI revolvers tomorrow, the better metallurgy and heat-treating available today, not 100 year ago, might very well result in a Mk VI Webley well & truly capable of handling .45 ACP Ball pressures without major changes in the existing design. Would the revolver be prohibitively expensive to produce? Probably. On the other hand, N-Frame S&Ws have an SRP hovering at around a grand. I'D pay that for a (NEW) Webley that would (SAFELY) shoot .45 ACP/.45 Auto Rim factory ball.
 
You can build a modern DA top break to hand the .45acp. No one has, yet, but it could be done.

Consider the S&W Schoefield is the ballistics the .45acp was meant to duplicate, it should certainly be possible.

I had a brief experience with a one of the foreign made Schoefields in .45 Colt.

That particular gun was NOT a good one. 12 rnds of standard .45 Colt 255gr factory (not cowboy, not hot loads). The second time the gun unlatched, I quit. The owner said "it hasn't been shot much..." I now know why. Pity....

With modern steels and heat treating, I think it should be quite possible to build a .45acp top break similar to the Webley, that would hold up to standard loadings. But at what price point, and what is the market, besides those who will go for the "neat" factor?

If you are going to settle for a large gun anyway, the solid frame's ability to handle much more powerful rounds dwarfs the small speed advantage reloading the top break has.

Top break is neat, its from an earlier era. Like the Single action poke them out one at a time system, it still works every bit as well as it ever did (better with half moon clips), but its greatest real world utility has passed.
 
This just proves that some folks like top break revolvers and are determined to believe that someone, somewhere, somehow, someday will build one that will be powerful and durable and prove them right. Nothing I can say will convince anyone, and I see no point in being attacked for being the bearer of news that no break top fan wants to hear.

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