Driftwood Johnson
Member
Interesting idea. It would be very expensive. Much more expensive than doing all the milling on the parts independently. Much more labor intensive.
Any room for improvement in revolvers?
- Thread starter Flechette
- Start date
- Status
Interesting idea. It would be very expensive. Much more expensive than doing all the milling on the parts independently. Much more labor intensive.
beag_nut
Member
As Driftwood Johnson said:
"no Top Break of any kind is going to be as strong as a solid frame revolver. Period."
No kidding! Basic engineering!
But, that doesn't mean that some inventive hotshot, with perhaps novel design ideas, and using modern metallurgy, cannot design a mid-range- powered revolver which is top-break, and totally able to handle modern cartridges and their pressures.
I personally love some of the other suggestions we folks have been suggesting here. In my bones I am convinced there is (somewhere) a genius in mechanical engineering who, if given the task, could satisfy many of the ideas so far posted.
"no Top Break of any kind is going to be as strong as a solid frame revolver. Period."
No kidding! Basic engineering!
But, that doesn't mean that some inventive hotshot, with perhaps novel design ideas, and using modern metallurgy, cannot design a mid-range- powered revolver which is top-break, and totally able to handle modern cartridges and their pressures.
I personally love some of the other suggestions we folks have been suggesting here. In my bones I am convinced there is (somewhere) a genius in mechanical engineering who, if given the task, could satisfy many of the ideas so far posted.
JRH6856
Member
Something like the Dan Wesson Pistol Pak, but along with barrels of different lengths, also offer barrels and cylinders of different calibers. One frame, many calibers. Almost sounds like something T/C might make.
BCRider
Member
Of all the cylinder release latches I've used I like the simple Ruger push button style the best. So I'd like to keep that.
I've never shot the Rhino and the one I dry fired in a store had such a terrible feeling DA pull that I just handed it back with a sigh. The concept of a bottom firing gun is one I really like. But the grip area didn't fit me all that well and the trigger pull made it a non starter in my books. But it would be interesting to see more work done on bottom or low bore shooters.
To add to that list of things from the various makers to keep for the "ideal" revolver I would most certainly add the post style main spring housing from Ruger and DW and slip over one piece grips. It allows for far more freedom of grip shaping.
Having a top break .22 H&R that I enjoy I'd suggest that it's a "six of one, half dozen of the other" sort of deal when comparing them to a side opening hand ejection style.
Also there's a LOT of fiddly bits in the hinge to make the ejector work. The need for the room taken up by those bits and pieces cuts into the supportive surface area on the main hinge parts and pin. That and the need for a secure latch and the need for VERY tight tolerances to avoid sideways play means that such guns will be tough to make and even tougher to build to the degree of accuracy needed. And although this can be done it all comes with a price.
I've never shot the Rhino and the one I dry fired in a store had such a terrible feeling DA pull that I just handed it back with a sigh. The concept of a bottom firing gun is one I really like. But the grip area didn't fit me all that well and the trigger pull made it a non starter in my books. But it would be interesting to see more work done on bottom or low bore shooters.
To add to that list of things from the various makers to keep for the "ideal" revolver I would most certainly add the post style main spring housing from Ruger and DW and slip over one piece grips. It allows for far more freedom of grip shaping.
Having a top break .22 H&R that I enjoy I'd suggest that it's a "six of one, half dozen of the other" sort of deal when comparing them to a side opening hand ejection style.
Also there's a LOT of fiddly bits in the hinge to make the ejector work. The need for the room taken up by those bits and pieces cuts into the supportive surface area on the main hinge parts and pin. That and the need for a secure latch and the need for VERY tight tolerances to avoid sideways play means that such guns will be tough to make and even tougher to build to the degree of accuracy needed. And although this can be done it all comes with a price.
Driftwood Johnson
Member
Oh, absolutely, no question there are plenty of modern trained mechanical engineers who could design such a thing. Well, I take issue with the 'modern cartridges and their pressures' part, but there are plenty of skilled tinkerers out there. But there is a huge difference between making onesie twosies in your garage and going into full commercial production. Bringing a new product to market, no matter what it is, requires huge amounts of cash. I have been part of start up companies and know how much cash it takes. Just look at the disastrous effort to recreate the old Merwin Hulbert revolvers just a couple of years ago. We're not talking about a new design here, just recreating an old one. Absolute disaster. Never happened. A newly designed product is even harder, and more expensive.
Saleen322
Member
It is hard to get folks to agree on what is an improvement. I really like Freedom Arms revolvers even though I don't have one.....YET! 
One thing Freedom does that I like is keep the capacity to 5 rounds with most of their revolvers even with at least one 22 LR I believe. What this does is reduce the chances of any misalignment between a chamber and the barrel as there are fewer to align. Also part of what you are paying for is the hand work in getting the barrel fitted just right without over-torquing. Smith and Wesson with their 2-piece barrel system has come up with a way to get that accurate installation without the very high labor costs of extensive hand fitting.
Why I started out saying it is hard to get agreement is that for many, if not most, they view more rounds as an advantage and improvement. While I am not opposed to higher capacity, I would much rather keep the round count down to increase the likelihood of good accuracy. Right now, there are some good choices out there once you decide what you prefer.
One thing Freedom does that I like is keep the capacity to 5 rounds with most of their revolvers even with at least one 22 LR I believe. What this does is reduce the chances of any misalignment between a chamber and the barrel as there are fewer to align. Also part of what you are paying for is the hand work in getting the barrel fitted just right without over-torquing. Smith and Wesson with their 2-piece barrel system has come up with a way to get that accurate installation without the very high labor costs of extensive hand fitting. Why I started out saying it is hard to get agreement is that for many, if not most, they view more rounds as an advantage and improvement. While I am not opposed to higher capacity, I would much rather keep the round count down to increase the likelihood of good accuracy. Right now, there are some good choices out there once you decide what you prefer.
garyhan
Member
A top break revolver has been manufactured in .357 mag in recent years in Russia. It was known as the MP 412 Rex. Since they could not be imported into the US, there was little market and it was discontinued. Detonics had a prototype of a .357 to break in (I believe) the 1980's. I would have loved the chance to try these out.
gary
gary
Driftwood Johnson
Member
Again I have to ask, what is the perceived benefit of a Top Break 357 Mag revolver? I firmly believe a handejector is quicker and easier to operate as I outlined earlier.
BCRider
Member
I have to agree with DJ. A top break still requires two hands to open the gun far enough to eject the empties. And loading with a speed loader isn't any faster either way. And in fact if the whole idea of an "improvement" with the top break is to be able to keep your hand on the grips then that means you need to do the critical job of putting the noses of the bullets in the speedloader into the holes quickly and under stress. Meanwhile your far more dexterous strong hand is just simply holding the gun steady. Not a great combinations of job functions in that.....
Vern Humphrey
Member
I've made that suggestion before. In fact, you could have a T/C style switch on the hammer, so you could fire either centerfire or rimfire. Imagine having a revolver in .22 LR, .327 Mag, .357 Mag, and .44 Mag, all on one frame -- and you could pick up other calibers as you wanted them.
Vern Humphrey
Member
There is another point -- the proper way to reload a conventional revolver with speed loaders is to turn the revolver so it is pointing straight up, then hit the ejector rod. The reason for this is that if the muzzle is pointed down partially extracted cases can lean sideways, escape the ejector star, and fall back into the chambers, under the ejector star -- at which point, you're out of action.
Top break revolvers typically eject automatically -- like a shotgun. If you break the gun in the natural, instinctive manner, you wind up pushing the barrel down, so the cases are ejected up -- a perfect setup to have a case escape the ejector star and fall back into the chamber.
So the proper manual of arms for a top break revolver is to turn the gun over and break it in the inverted position. To do that, you have to release your grip on the butt.
Driftwood Johnson
Member
Proper Manual of Arms for a Top Break? I don't take shooting Top Breaks quite that seriously. As I said earlier, when I empty a Top Break, I point it sideways, so the empties will fall out to the side. Then I point the barrel down and load the chambers one at a time with separate rounds. I don't use a speed loader, I am not concerned with reloading quickly.
Top Break revolvers do not eject automatically like a shotgun. The ejectors on a shotgun are springloaded and forcefully throw the empty hulls out when the gun is broken open. A Top Break is just the opposite. The ejector rises mechanically as the gun is opened, and then when the ejector is tripped, the spring pops it back down again into the cylinder. The spring does not eject the empties, it withdraws the ejector.
In this photo, I have opened my New Model Number Three partway, and the extractor has risen about half of its travel. If I keep opening the gun, the extractor will continue to rise until the spring snaps it back in. Then all the empties will fall back into the chambers, unless I open it vigorously enough to make the extractor rise quickly and throw out the empties. When it pops back, if the barrel is pointed down, the empties will fall back down into the chambers unless I point it someplace else and snap it open smartly. In CAS, at the unloading table I open the gun sideways and allow the empties to fall out onto the unloading table, so the unloading table officer can see the empties fall out. Then after he is done admiring the gun, I close it again.
Top Break revolvers do not eject automatically like a shotgun. The ejectors on a shotgun are springloaded and forcefully throw the empty hulls out when the gun is broken open. A Top Break is just the opposite. The ejector rises mechanically as the gun is opened, and then when the ejector is tripped, the spring pops it back down again into the cylinder. The spring does not eject the empties, it withdraws the ejector.
In this photo, I have opened my New Model Number Three partway, and the extractor has risen about half of its travel. If I keep opening the gun, the extractor will continue to rise until the spring snaps it back in. Then all the empties will fall back into the chambers, unless I open it vigorously enough to make the extractor rise quickly and throw out the empties. When it pops back, if the barrel is pointed down, the empties will fall back down into the chambers unless I point it someplace else and snap it open smartly. In CAS, at the unloading table I open the gun sideways and allow the empties to fall out onto the unloading table, so the unloading table officer can see the empties fall out. Then after he is done admiring the gun, I close it again.
If the Russians can make a top break .357 mag, so can Colt/Ruger/Smith.
One that takes moon clips would eliminate the possibility of cases getting caught under the ejector star.
When I've shot top breaks, I didn't break the barrel.
I held the barrel at an upward angle, holding it with my weak hand, and broke the frame open forward.
One that takes moon clips would eliminate the possibility of cases getting caught under the ejector star.
When I've shot top breaks, I didn't break the barrel.
I held the barrel at an upward angle, holding it with my weak hand, and broke the frame open forward.
788Ham
Member
I don't know, I like my Colt Trooper and my S&W model 15 just the way they are, wasn't anything wrong with them when they came out. Thats pretty evident that they're all sold out, and everyone who's trying to find one has to pay extra now days. What the newer revolver makers are trying to do, is improve on something they'll never accomplish, they know the older models have what they currently don't have, better craftsmanship ! Plain and simple.
RealGun
Member
Retro top breaks are not really improvements. At what point does the topic get hijacked?
As noted Detonics had a prototype top break revolver but I seem to recall it was a 7 shot .44 magnum. Guess they did not see a market for it relative to the cost. At one time High Standard made a Crusader revolver in .357, .44 mag and .45 Colt that had a segmented drive. Never had a chance to try one to see if it offered a marked improvement. A lot of the "improvements" would add complexity, cost and create more chances for reliability to suffer along with increase size and weight.
Vern Humphrey
Member
You are correct. I mis-spoke. Top break revolvers automatically extract. Which for our purposes is worse than ejection -- since a strong ejection spring would preclude cases falling back into the chamber under the extractor star.
For military use, cavalrymen of nations that used top breaks opened the barrel by pressing against the thigh, which let the gun open more or less down, rather than up.
oneounceload
member
Quality issues are one thing, but that does not have anything to do with design. Personally, IMO , the revolver is about as well designed as it is going to get. Having dual locking points is nice, and certain features are nice, but the basic design premise is sound.
Last edited:
Vern Humphrey
Member
The revolver is kind of like the bicycle -- mature technology with no real breakthroughs on the horizon, other than different materials and improved manufacturing techniques.
hAkron
Member
Should list this in your 'I would take from the Dan Wesson' list.
Kaeto
Member
One thing that nobody has mentioned about top breaks is that they are naturally ambidextrous. As far as I know there is only one side swing revolver that is made for the left-handed, and that's the Charter Arms Undercover Southpaw. (which I have one of)
RealGun
Member
Quality has everything to do with the topic, "room for improvement".
whughett
Member
Driftwood:
Got a feeling you know more than me on this subject. What I can't get my head around is the pressure problem you are speaking. All of the pressure is contained by the cylinder so what would be the difference in a break open revolver or a double action where the cylinder swings out from the frame. The crane and latch assembly, on a double action top strap frame, may be able to better withstand the recoil and therefore function more reliable than a break open but can't understand why peak pressure would be different in the two designs. Wonder if it more a generated recoil problem.
Modern gun steels now allow for thinner between chambers walls and thus more rounds in a cylinder of the same diameter.
Guys, I really do think Taurus have brought the revolver to perfection...>
...with this model
But seriously, one thing that always strikes me about revolvers is the grip. Some are much better than others, but the ergonomics never seem to really approach that of semi-autos. I like revolvers, and shooting them, but if they fit my hand better that wouldn't go astray. I see the more unusual models like the Matebas and Chiappa Rhinos have grip designs that look quite different to the norm for revolvers, but I've not had the opportunity to try any of them.
...with this model
But seriously, one thing that always strikes me about revolvers is the grip. Some are much better than others, but the ergonomics never seem to really approach that of semi-autos. I like revolvers, and shooting them, but if they fit my hand better that wouldn't go astray. I see the more unusual models like the Matebas and Chiappa Rhinos have grip designs that look quite different to the norm for revolvers, but I've not had the opportunity to try any of them.
- Status
