Why isn't anyone making top-break centerfires??????
- Thread starter JohnKSa
- Start date
Sir William
New member
There was a rumour of Cimmaron importing one. They were actually going to clone a Merwin-Hulbert design. I would like to see Webley-Scotts made myself. 32, 38 and 45 would be my choice.
Dfariswheel
New member
The reasons why the swing-out cylinder revolver has supplanted the top break are several.
A solid frame will out shoot and out last any top break.
A solid frame is simply stronger size for size, and weight for weight.
The top break's frame is a two piece affair joined by a relatively weak hinge and a necessarily small, weak latch.
The weak link in a top break is the hinge and the latch, and there's only so much that can be done to fix those.
A solid frame has proven to be a more accurate pistol than the top break whose hinge and latch allow the frame and barrel assemblies to shift.
Bottom line is, under head to head competition, the solid frame, swing out cylinder revolver just out performed the top break.
Keep in mind that competition wasn't only against cheap top break guns.
Remember, S&W and Colt competed against Webley, and Webley's weren't cheap junk.
In order to be competitive today, a new top break would need to have something to offer other then being an oddity.
The top break design just doesn't have enough to offer.
A solid frame will out shoot and out last any top break.
A solid frame is simply stronger size for size, and weight for weight.
The top break's frame is a two piece affair joined by a relatively weak hinge and a necessarily small, weak latch.
The weak link in a top break is the hinge and the latch, and there's only so much that can be done to fix those.
A solid frame has proven to be a more accurate pistol than the top break whose hinge and latch allow the frame and barrel assemblies to shift.
Bottom line is, under head to head competition, the solid frame, swing out cylinder revolver just out performed the top break.
Keep in mind that competition wasn't only against cheap top break guns.
Remember, S&W and Colt competed against Webley, and Webley's weren't cheap junk.
In order to be competitive today, a new top break would need to have something to offer other then being an oddity.
The top break design just doesn't have enough to offer.
Sir William
New member
I could see a modern Webley. I like my 1918 large frame. The thumblatch is strong enough. Ejection of all 6 cases at once in moonclips and dropping another loaded moonclip in while closing the action would seem fast to me.
Howdy:
In the old day's most top break revolver's were made for Black powder. it has no where near the pressure that smokeless does. Given that I would venture to say that most companies would not market one as fear of "EXPLOSION"...The old styles like this were common to be called a Saturday night special.. This gives one and impression of they were a cheap throw away revolver and it would be hard to market that with the cost's of production in today's world.. Regards, Hammer It.
In the old day's most top break revolver's were made for Black powder. it has no where near the pressure that smokeless does. Given that I would venture to say that most companies would not market one as fear of "EXPLOSION"...The old styles like this were common to be called a Saturday night special.. This gives one and impression of they were a cheap throw away revolver and it would be hard to market that with the cost's of production in today's world.. Regards, Hammer It.
John,
Does this strike you as a crowd hung up on innovation and new designs?
Sure, you could build a break top as strong or stronger than a swing out. It would probably be more resistant to certain types of common revolver ailments, like bent cranes and ejectors. But who's going to buy it? There are dozens of new things that could be done with revolvers that have either never been tried, or didn't catch on, despite working very well. When people think of revolvers they're only thinking of two basic formats, and that's all they want.
I think the implication that the old Webley .455s were fragile is kind of funny.
Does this strike you as a crowd hung up on innovation and new designs?
Sure, you could build a break top as strong or stronger than a swing out. It would probably be more resistant to certain types of common revolver ailments, like bent cranes and ejectors. But who's going to buy it? There are dozens of new things that could be done with revolvers that have either never been tried, or didn't catch on, despite working very well. When people think of revolvers they're only thinking of two basic formats, and that's all they want.
I think the implication that the old Webley .455s were fragile is kind of funny.
Properly done, a top break should be MORE accurate than a swing-out cylinder model. The sights, the barrel and the cylinder on a top-break are all rigidly mounted together while the cylinder on a swing-out is essentially a separate unit that must be locked in at least two places (cylinder latch & bolt) to become "part" of the rest of the gun.
As far as the hinge, we have hinged rifles and shotguns which seem to hold up well under far more stress than any handgun would have to withstand. The latch would clearly take some thought, but it's not an insurmountable engineering problem by any means.
I'm not suggesting that it be introduced in 500S&W--a revolver capable of handling .38spl +P should be very easily doable with modern materials and technology. I think it could be made as durable as any other modern revolver of similar quality.
The last time a decent sized company sold top-break centerfires, metallurgy wasn't nearly as well understood or controlled as it is today. I don't think that the lessons learned then apply today when you consider the advances in metallurgy we've experienced in just the last few decades
As far as the hinge, we have hinged rifles and shotguns which seem to hold up well under far more stress than any handgun would have to withstand. The latch would clearly take some thought, but it's not an insurmountable engineering problem by any means.
I'm not suggesting that it be introduced in 500S&W--a revolver capable of handling .38spl +P should be very easily doable with modern materials and technology. I think it could be made as durable as any other modern revolver of similar quality.
The last time a decent sized company sold top-break centerfires, metallurgy wasn't nearly as well understood or controlled as it is today. I don't think that the lessons learned then apply today when you consider the advances in metallurgy we've experienced in just the last few decades
Part of the problem is several thousand(s) of the enfield .38SW that have been imported since way back in the 1960's. So, although a weaker round, for a new model it would be hard to compete on a price basis.
Also, break tops are well suited to low pressure rounds, Likely any big company would want to market a .38 spl to the assumed +p market.
Although personally, have always liked the Webley system. Much less likely to get a spent case stuck under a extractor star.
Russians developed a .38/357 breaktop with a partial polymer frame. But it seems to have disappeared.
So likely any market for breaktops will be for the retro-shooters market.
Best guesses anyway...
Also, break tops are well suited to low pressure rounds, Likely any big company would want to market a .38 spl to the assumed +p market.
Although personally, have always liked the Webley system. Much less likely to get a spent case stuck under a extractor star.
Russians developed a .38/357 breaktop with a partial polymer frame. But it seems to have disappeared.
So likely any market for breaktops will be for the retro-shooters market.
Best guesses anyway...
There are some funny import/export restrictions between the U.S. and Russia. I think there's some sort of agreement that Russia won't export handguns and certain classes of rifles to the U.S. I think the revolver's still around--I just don't think any will make it to the U.S. market.
Wondered what had happened to it.
Strange, that the Russian's designed it in the first place. Seems the major market would be the US, central and south America. But maybe, excepting us, that's where its going.
Too bad, although they lack a bit of comestic finish, Russian firearms are usually very reliable.
Strange, that the Russian's designed it in the first place. Seems the major market would be the US, central and south America. But maybe, excepting us, that's where its going.
Too bad, although they lack a bit of comestic finish, Russian firearms are usually very reliable.