Does a modern top break have a place in today's concealed carry world?
- Thread starter TruthTellers
- Start date
The above is absolutely correct except that it isn't just a "risk" but a real probability. Under the stress of being shot at people do not "rise to the occasion", rather their fine motor skills deteriorate significantly. If you shoot nice 3" groups @ 7 yards on the range, in the mean streets you will be lucky to keep most of your shots on a silhouette.
Many years ago Jeff Cooper preached a balance of accuracy, power, and speed, other wise known as DVC (for the Latin translation). An accurate shot that lacks sufficient power or comes too late will fail. A powerful shot that misses or comes too late will fail. A lightning fast shot that is not powerful enough or misses will fail. And what will they fail at...saving your life.
For 10 years after I retired from law enforcement I trained civilians to qualify for concealed carry permits. I was constantly saddened and dismayed at the lack of seriousness the students brought to the subjects of concealed carry and self defense. Threads like this one remind me of those days.
Dave
They made it. The 9mm Federal round.
I think the real problem was that they found out it would chamber and fire in old 38S&W guns and they were afraid of disasters and blood letting.
A friend bought an old top break, I don't remember what brand in 38 S&W but couldn't find any ammo for it. He took it to the gun store and some guy that worked there figured out that 38 Super would fit and the semi rim held the round in place. So thats what he shot out of it. And no, it didn't blow up. I shot the gun myself. I guess the way undersized bullets kept the pressure down enough that it did no harm.
But I don't know what a top break would do any better than my 442. Or 431PD in 32 mag that only weighs 15oz loaded. And I have a 2" model 30-1 that with my reloads gets a chronographed 850fps and its not loaded to full power yet. I just decided that was enough. But top breaks are cool. No doubt about it.
TruthTellers
New member
9mm Federal failed because Charter Arms went out of business within a year of introducing it. No one else was making a 9mm Federal revolver at the time, so Federal stopped making the ammo and because they stopped making the ammo, no one made a 9mm Federal revolver.
http://www.ammo-one.com/9mmFedRim.html
http://www.ammo-one.com/9mmFedRim.html
TruthTellers
New member
Again, my thought was a revolver that was significantly smaller and lighter than a J frame, but was not hindered by a slow reload with the swing out cylinder, so top break immediately came to my mind. I figured a .22 or .32 or shorter .38 would be best for keeping recoil down to not strain the revolver.
For all the focus you put on insufficient power when a bullet hits the target, what's worse is bullets that miss the target or don't get fired at all because someone said, "Meh, that gun's too much trouble to bring with me."
I think your comment demonstrates a problem in the gun community where we all become such "experts" in things that we forget those who aren't experts, aren't concerned about ballistic data, and are looking for what works best for their needs. For some that's a .22 or a .32 that's as light as an LCP but simpler to operate.
What you are saying proves the points made. If we allow a granny to carry a .22 and give our blessing to it, if she dies, we are partly culpable.
A person who is ethical and careful about his recommendations will tell granny "no, granny, this is like making your seatbelt out of kite string."
years ago I was asked to train granny so she could have a gun in the house, but she didn't want to shoot it, just know how to keep it safe from the kids. She just knew that the guys would run if she pointed it. I told her that I wasn't going to sign off on her suicide.
If you are going to own and carry a gun, you must take it seriously. Taking it seriously means not buying a gun just because It fits the pocket or has low recoil or heaven forbid, comes in pink. A gun is purchased because it can fulfill a person's needs. Do you need defense? No, that .22 derringer is not going to fulfill a person's needs, and all arguments that say that it will are just nonsense. Arguments that a gun is too big, loud, powerful, etc, are almost always just excuses.
Those who are not experts have no excuse. Should they learn how to drive before they buy a car, or read the label on the chainsaw before starting it? Of course.
If they don't know enough about guns to understand some very, very simple ideas, then they must learn or be taught.
They don't know anything about guns or ballistics or so forth, so consequently, they have not the slightest idea what their needs are. They heard on the radio that alka seltzer fixes tummy issues and they are taking it for their colon cancer.
We are bound by honor to take these uninformed people under our wings as far as can possibly be done, and explain to them some of the simple facts about armed combat.
Use a big enough cartridge. carry it even if it's a pain. Work with it. Above all, adapt yourself to the needs you have to keep yourself safe. Don't try to adapt the equipment to your needs. The bad guy who needs a 9mm hit to the chest isn't going to care if the only gun that would fit in a shirt pocket was a .22 caliber derringer. Wow, two shots of .22 lr fired from such a pistol that missed at ten feet is just as useless as useless can be. Maybe a life could be saved if the person was carrying a 7 round .380.
As adults, they get to make their own decisions and, as adults, they are responsible for making informed decisions and also for the results of those decisions.
We should provide the best advice we can but the decision is, and should be theirs.
Push someone to buy something they don't want and they won't practice with it or carry it. There's a lot of truth to the old proverb that says a person convinced against their will isn't really convinced at all. And that doesn't even get into the ethics of coercing another adult to do something they really don't want to do.
Anyway, it doesn't take a lot of research to determine that citizens who defend themselves with guns tend to do so very effectively, on average. Notice that there's nothing in that statement about the caliber used. In fact, the reality of the situation is that in something like 80% of successful self-defense gun uses, the gun is never fired.
If you want to talk about what is really likely to save a life, it's getting someone to carry consistently and to learn how to use their gun. Pushing them to buy a gun that's "a pain" or that they can't use unless they "adapt to it" or that they won't carry because it won't fit the carry method they are willing to employ is far more likely to cost a life than letting someone pick a gun or caliber that they are comfortable with and will use and practice with but that might not be a mainstream self-defense cartridge.
Caliber only has a chance to make a difference in something like 8% of self-defense gun uses. I'm not advocating that we give people false security or try to make them feel good about picking a caliber that's not generally recommended for self-defense, but we do need to keep some real-world perspective. The idea that caliber choice makes a huge difference in typical self-defense gun uses just doesn't play out in the real world. Having a gun and knowing how to use it is far more important than the type of gun or the caliber.
It's up to us to provide good information, without drama, and based on all the facts that we can find. It's not up to us to drive people to make decisions that they are unhappy with on the basis of what we think is best for them.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”
-C.S. Lewis
-C.S. Lewis
Bill DeShivs
New member
People generally don't like being shot with anything, and the odds of them wanting to be shot twice are extremely low.
There is an implication here that current duty rounds rise to a level to be dependable in creating physiological stops QUICKLY. Not the beloved 9MM, not .40, not .45, and not 10MM. Most stops are psychological in nature, at least in the near term. Since most of us are not attempting to tote around .460s, .500s, and the like I am going to go with the idea that we have accepted some type of balance. The major danger would be not realizing the compromises you have made to not be carrying around a 12 gauge and believing that the firearm you are carrying will create quick and reliable physiological stops.
You have to carry X or its not enough gives X this magical talisman effect that simply does not exist in the common carried calibers of today.
Last edited:
Yep, that's where the problem lies. Grandson tells granny "yep, that .22 will drop a guy like a rock" or says "no, you got to use a .45" We can't give people bad advice based on our own prejudices, but we can't just turn away from the person who is ready to carry completely inappropriate when a different and far better alternative is available and useable. Let granny keep a bigger pistol in her night stand instead of a combat shotgun in the closet, or a .32 in her purse instead of a .22. While it is true that only a few encounters result in shots fired and fewer still resulting in blood, and even fewer still that result in the death of the victim, it is very probable that every victim death is because the victim was badly unprepared and hadn't equipped or trained himself beyond buying the gun and bullets.
Real world perspective is what everyone needs to keep. Advisors should not press granny to train with Jerry Mikulek and a .45, nor should they willingly agree with a poorly chosen setup just because it's what the defender wants.
I see many adults who can't make well-informed decisions on their own. Part of our responsibility is to provide the information to make that decision. Maybe we can give better advice than they have read on the internet? This doesn't mean bossing them around or making their decisions for them.
I believe that you are missing my point. A person who hasn't done their due diligence may make terrible decisions without having a solid reason for making those decisions. If a person chooses a gun only on low recoil or super compactness, that person may be capable of making a better choice if someone will only suggest it. You are right, ordering granny to buy a bigger, harder to deal with gun isn't useful. What is important is that she understand her options and make her decision based on need instead of convenience.
This is slightly akin to my wife's cooking. She always picks the mixing bowl that is too small. With no reason to choose the wrong size, she always starts with the wrong one and then has to get a bigger one. All I have to do is say. "that bowl is probably too small" and she will get a better one. Maybe granny can use the .380 with no problem, maybe she can't, it's something that should be explored and her informed decision can be truly informed.
We don't disagree. There needs to be good advice given and the buyer must eventually get what they want and need based on good decisions of their own, not from what the guy at walmart said.
In addition to the initial certification training for concealed carry permits I did renewal qualifications as required by our state. Most of the renewals were people who had gone through my certification classes. Time and again over 10 years I would have someone proudly tell me they hadn't fired their gun since taking the original class, 4 years before. I always pointed to their target and said I could tell. Most of these had to re-shoot, sometimes more than once, to be qualified.
In all my classes I tried to instill a sense of seriousness and commitment to the idea of carrying a concealed weapon. I doubt if 10% of the over 1400 people I trained ever did so.
In my experience those who want the smallest and lightest gun to carry because a more serious gun is too much trouble, soon get tired of the whole idea. Too much to bother with. I see people on this forum saying things like they will carry a bigger, more powerful gun when they think they need to. My question is always: how do you know when you will need to?
And when I speak of taking it seriously I primarily mean practicing on a regular basis and even getting additional training. A big problem with the tiny guns is they are difficult to shoot well, and in some cases even painful. I offered self defense classes that went beyond what was required for our state's concealed carry permit. The few people who availed themselves of the opportunity for additional training never did well with mouse guns (22s, 25s, 32s). They either switched to a more serious gun or quit.
Dave
In all my classes I tried to instill a sense of seriousness and commitment to the idea of carrying a concealed weapon. I doubt if 10% of the over 1400 people I trained ever did so.
In my experience those who want the smallest and lightest gun to carry because a more serious gun is too much trouble, soon get tired of the whole idea. Too much to bother with. I see people on this forum saying things like they will carry a bigger, more powerful gun when they think they need to. My question is always: how do you know when you will need to?
And when I speak of taking it seriously I primarily mean practicing on a regular basis and even getting additional training. A big problem with the tiny guns is they are difficult to shoot well, and in some cases even painful. I offered self defense classes that went beyond what was required for our state's concealed carry permit. The few people who availed themselves of the opportunity for additional training never did well with mouse guns (22s, 25s, 32s). They either switched to a more serious gun or quit.
Dave
This is a contradiction in terms; there is no such thing as a modern top break. I have a couple of Webleys and love to shoot them, but I don't kid myself that they are modern.
Even if you manage to talk yourself into believing that a 32 ACP type cartridge is the way to go, a revolver isn't. Compare an S&W I frame revolver with a Kel-tec P32:
The semi is lighter and far thinner. You can literally concealed carry the semi in a shirt pocket. And you can reload it faster than any revolver.
I don't see any reason why a top break made with modern steel would be considerably cheaper than a swing out made with modern steel.
Last edited:
Two questions, first what is the "slow reload" of the swing out cylinder being compared to?
Second, do you have, or have personal experience with a top break revolver?
I do, and they have a couple of "disadvantages" in operation, compared to a swing out DA. Not talking about strength, or durability, but the way they have to be worked. The swing out DA has its own quirks, but there are significant differences.
One point people will make about the top break is how much "faster" it is ejecting the empties. The top break automatically ejects all the empties at once when you open it, right?
Yes, but only if you do it "right". It is actually rather easy to "short stroke" a top break revolver. Not only do you need to open them ALL the way, you need to do it at a certain minimum speed, or you could have problems. AND, the gun has to be held the right way, or you could have problems. Especially if you are not using clipped together rounds.
The gun works better reloading if held so gravity works for you. And it needs to be opened "briskly" enough that the empties are actually ejected not just extracted. This is IMPORTANT, because if you don't, you can jam the gun.
When you break open the top break the extractor rises on a cam, as you pivot the barrel "down". When the barrel is almost at its full travel, the shaft of the extractor passes over the peak of the cam, and then the star snaps back into the cylinder under spring tension.
IF the empties are not "thrown" clear, (too slow an opening) and do not fall free due to gravity, they CAN get caught UNDERNEATH the extractor star when it snaps back, and MAY even wind up back in the chamber, underneath the extractor, and HELD there by the extractors spring tension. Jam!
And, unlike the side swing DA, there is no ejector rod for you to push on. So your only option for clearing that jam is to close the revolver enough so that the extractor rises again when you re-open it, and then HOLD the extractor up, so it doesn't snap back in, while you try to pluck out the fired case with your third hand...
If this happens, there is no "tap, rack, bang" with a top break. Now a similar jam can happen with a swing out, a case under the extractor, BUT the manual rod on a swing out lets you push, and hold the extractor up, making clearing that jam simpler and faster than a top break.
If you're looking at a top break because of its "speed advantage" in reloading you need to be aware that it goes away completely if you don't work it just right, and in that regard it is less forgiving than the swing out cylinder. Easier to screw up, and more time consuming to clear if you do.
People will tell you how much faster it is to reload the top break, especially using clips. Faster than individual loose rounds, absolutely. Faster than a speed loader? a tiny bit. How long does it take you to twist the knob of an HKS speedloader? 1/3 of a second? a half?
For me, the biggest advantage to using clips is they make it easier to find and pick up your empties off the ground when you're finished.
I get it, top breaks are cool, I like mine, a 1917 Webley Mk VI. They let you be Alan Quatermain searching for King Solomon's mines, or a Scotland Yard detective chasing Mr Hyde over London rooftops. But I think their advantages over a swing outs are over hyped and their disadvantages mostly ignored. Mostly by people who haven't actually used them.
Onward Allusion
New member
If someone conceal carries but doesn't train regularly, it doesn't necessarily mean they're not taking carrying seriously. Carrying a 32 ACP doesn't mean one isn't taking CCW seriously. Tiny guns have their place. Not everyone lives in a RED State. Some folks have to effectively hide their CCW piece or risk people freaking out.
These days I shoot 3 times a week, both indoors and outdoors. I have memberships to 2 different clubs. I can probably out shoot most people who have their CCW's and I carry a BUG. However, I will never accuse anyone of not taking their CCW seriously just because they don't train as much as I do, carry a mouse gun, or carry gun chambered in 22LR. Making such an accusation is akin to saying that everyone must receive 16 hours of training and qualify at 5, 7, & 10 yards. Such an elitist attitude...
Last edited:
Onward Allusion
New member
...but, how many folks who carry a 5 shot J-Frame carry reloads? Tiny guns have a place. For me, as a BUG or times when I can't carry anything bigger.
Part of the answer yes. But not all of the answer.
http://john1911.com/9mm-federal/
http://smith-wessonforum.com/reloading/237952-9mm-federal-rimmed.html
If I wanted a top break I wouldn't hold my breath waiting on a new one to be made. I would buy a decent top break S&W made for smokeless powder and work up a safe load in it that exceeds the factory 38S&W ammo geared for old top breaks that are weak and use that. I still don't know what I would gain over my new made 442.
The 38S&W has the potential to be loaded to higher power but it will never be done because of all old guns floating around. Same as the 38 Special could be shortened because as pointed out earlier it has way more case that needed for the powders it uses. But it will never happen. Especially since revolvers have a hard enough time now competing against autos.
Last edited:
How many people who carry a gun are capable of defending themselves if a gun is not the answer? Shall we mandate a certain proficiency in unarmed combat, retention, etc? Since this training, from qualified and reputable sources, is not cheap shall we just go ahead and place an income qualification on it? How about a doctor signing off to verify someone is in appropriate physical health?
Driftwood Johnson
New member
Howdy
Like this?
This is a S&W 38 Single Action, 1st Model, popularly known as the Baby Russian, because the ejector rod housing was similar to the housing on the full sized #3 Russian Revolver. The Baby Russian was only made in 1876 and 1877. This one left the factory in 1876.
The Baby Russian was followed by the 38 Single Action, 2nd Model. This model lacked the longer ejector rod housing of the 1st Model. The 2nd Model was made from 1877 until 1891. This one left the factory in 1877.
By the time the 38 Single Action 3rd Model came out in 1891, a trigger guard had been added.
I had to look twice when I came across that 3rd Model. At first I thought I was looking at a New Model Number Three. The 38 Single Action 3rd Model is pretty much a smaller version of the larger 44 caliber New Model Number Three.
Did somebody say Merwin Hulbert? I'm not sure exactly when this Merwin Hulbert 38 Pocket Model left the factory, probably in the late 1880s or maybe the 1890s. Notice the distinctive folding spur on the hammer.
This is one of the biggest problems both we and the uninitiated have.
We sometimes suggest things that will work for another individual if it is done "right". We may suggest inferior equipment because it will be "right" most of the time. We count on the individual to understand the idea of "doing it right" and following through. we sometimes expect those folks to take their LCP or whatever out and practice once in a while, clean it regularly, run enough ammo and defensive ammo through it to make sure that it will work, and in other words, do everything "right".
Those other guys, however, believe that they know what is "right" and believe that they are doing it right. They believe that in a crisis they will do what is right.
I had a guy thinking about an M&P and he said that it was too short to shoot accurately and the sights were terrible.
"hey, guy, are you getting that to shoot at paper, or to carry it? Regardless of why you want it, being good with a short barrel is more a matter of skill than whether the sight plane is short. I can get accuracy out of a pocket pistol that's almost as good as what I get from my glock. Not absolutely as good, but pretty close. Just practice. If you want to shoot paper, though, you would be smart to just get a different gun that you can shoot paper with."