Any room for improvement in revolvers?

[JRH6856]

If a top break is not strong enough, I suspect a "tip-up" design like the S&W Model 1 would have problems as well. After all, S&W did move from tip-up to top-break before finalizing on the swing-out cylinder. But maybe not. What are in inherent weaknesses (and strengths) of the tip-up design?

 

[Bezoar]

Smith and Wesson improved the top break revolver in the ww1 era. the perfected model. Very nice gun, thats what they should bring back. Nice little 38 sw and 38 special. 44 russian even.

No one really wants to make a big run on top breaks is because the companies only see it as a limited need item ONLY FOR COW BOY ACTION SHOOTING> and because of that perceived lack of need, they only focus on cowboy guns for that small small small market.
THen the companies redesign the guns to the point that the guns arent accurate replicas.

 

[valnar]

Based on the famous Miculek video alone, I'd say moon clips are ideal. What other gun can you buy 'magazines' by the boatload for dirt cheap, and not care if you lose one or two? My Smith 625 is one of my favorite guns for that reason alone. I have over 50 moon clips that cost next to nothing.

No other gun I own has even close to that many magazines, rifle or pistol.

 

[Jim K]

Pressure has nothing to do directly with recoil. Pressure moves the bullet, and it is the movement of the bullet and gas forward that causes recoil in the opposite direction. You can have all the pressure you want, but if the bullet doesn't move, there is no recoil.

But recoil is irrelevant to the beating on the top latch of a top-break revolver. The pressure is pushing the barrel one direction and the frame the other. For the gun to open there has to be some play in the latch. And every time the gun is fired, that play allows the latch to batter, maybe only a small amount, but it will batter. And over time, the latch will loosen. Enlarging and hardening the latch will help; if the latch is made big enough, and the cartridge is weak enough, the latch will last a long time. But if a top break is made in, say, 44 Magnum and of a normal size (N frame), the latch will not last and the gun will loosen up.

Jim

 

[goon]

Technically, *breech pressure* has nothing to do with the latch integrity. It is the *stress* through the latch mechanism that limits the design.

A 12 gauge shotgun may have less breech pressure than a .357 but it has a lot more *stress* to be distributed through the latch mechanism. Shotgun designers have come up with beefier designs and they work.


This is a problem that can be solved by good design.

Not to mention, double rifles in those insanely powerful Holland and Holland rounds. Or even NEF Handi-rifles firing .308 and rounds in that class. I think the problem is probably one of cost as much as anything. Those Holland and Holland rifles aren't for the faint of heart...


Also, one thing I wish S&W would stop doing is putting those damn locks in ALL their guns. I was looking at a little J-frame airweight .38 the other day and I think one of those will be my next gun. But I'm so glad they've started making some without that horrid safety. The gun store employees and I were able to get the J-frame with the safety lock to bind up dry firing but not one of the newer ones without the safety.

I would say more modern cartridges would be an improvement, but then I think of something like the .357 Herrett or the .22 Remington Jet in the revolvers they were chambered in. Why didn't they catch on? I don't know... but I don't think the 5.7 will catch on in any revolver either.

On the idea of reviving the old Dan Wesson style guns, that's not a horrible idea. If they could be made with interchangeable barrels and cylinders in different calibers so you could switch and fire several cartridges on the same frame, that might be cool.

One other thing - how about we try some of the old style tapered barrels again? Sometimes a full underlug or a heavy barrel is good, but sometimes it isn't. The old school S&W's with tapered barrels point so well.

 

[Elkins45]

I am thinking that a composite cylinder with steel inserts for the chambers would be durable enough to 'drop' on the ground like an auto magazine.

I don't think you even need a special material. What I think might make a good solution for LE is something along the lines of an N frame S&W using the 8 shot cylinder, but without the traditional ejection system of a DA revolver. There are tensioners that hold the cartridges in place (like the 9mm revolvers) and the cylinder slides over the yoke and isn't fixed. When reloading the yoke swings out and the entire cylinder assembly slides off and is replaced by the spare.

So you would have 8 shot capacity (like a 1911), revolver reliability and the ability to select ammo regardless of bullet nose profile. You could also use inexpensive practice ammo in 38 special or low-powered target ammo without having to be concerned with minimum slide velocity to function the action.

This would probably only be financially feasible for large police agencies and the like, and I don't know if modern manufacturing techniques can make truly interchangeable cylinders, or if they would need to be hand fitted. Certainly it's easy to make interchangeable auto pistol magazines, but the hand to ratchet fitting of a revolver is a good bit more delicate I would assume.

As a consumer, I might see buying a set of a revolver with two spare dedicated cylinders...depending on cost, of course. They could market it as "24 for sure!"

 

[JRWhit]

Many probably won't agree, but I would like to see the gas seal incorporated into some of the smaller frame defense revolvers. Help reduce the blinding flash out of the cylinder gap. It would add complexity to the double action trigger pull, probably making it quite heavy, but I'm sure modern techniques could ease that quite a bit.
I'm not sure if this could be done with a swing out cylinder to any reliable extent, so the sacrifice may very well be reload time.

 

[RugRev]

"On the idea of reviving the old Dan Wesson style guns, that's not a horrible idea. If they could be made with interchangeable barrels and cylinders in different calibers so you could switch and fire several cartridges on the same frame, that might be cool."

All in one:

http://www.jtl.de/english/revolver/revolver_e.htm

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Nice -- but I didn't see a price on that page.

 

[antiquus]

There's something more to be done with revolvers. The one area that occurs to me is materials - look what happened to autos when materials were considered anew,

The revolver frame absorbs stress probably a couple of orders of magnitude more than auto frames, however there's all kinds of materials that are stronger than steel now, with even slower failure when the tensile is exceeded. Carbon fiber frame, ceramic insert for flame cutting, carbon fiber sleeved barrel, then rethink the mechanism (I like gears too) and figure out what to do with the weight saved in the order of capacity. we might get back to the Lefaucheux again for a 20 shot revolver.

 

[RealGun]

There's something more to be done with revolvers. The one area that occurs to me is materials - look what happened to autos when materials were considered anew,

The revolver frame absorbs stress probably a couple of orders of magnitude more than auto frames, however there's all kinds of materials that are stronger than steel now, with even slower failure when the tensile is exceeded. Carbon fiber frame, ceramic insert for flame cutting, carbon fiber sleeved barrel, then rethink the mechanism (I like gears too) and figure out what to do with the weight saved in the order of capacity. we might get back to the Lefaucheux again for a 20 shot revolver.

When I read that, I was thinking that the weight is critical to a good shooting experience with a serious caliber. Barrel length is important too.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Webley misconceptions and possible improvements from a modern top break revolver

Webleys are not heavy and clumsy. A MkVI with a 6” barrel at 38 ounces is comparable to a K-frame. Webley’s are not wobley when they are in good condition. Most of the “Wobley Webley” reputation is from revolvers that have high round counts, especially with .45ACP. They get loose from use just like any revolver. What they usually don’t get is maintenance to correct the looseness. Webley MkVIs have been used in IPSC matches that were accurate enough for the targets at all ranges. What they significantly lacked compared to other revolvers competing were good sights, good DA trigger pull, and lower recoil of revolvers shooting lighter .357 bullets. These three factors made it non-competitive against top ranked revolver shooters.

It may not be possible to make a modern top break revolver as strong and tight as a solid frame hand ejector type, but it may be possible to make it strong and tight enough for high intensity pistol cartridges without too much bulk. The wear in the hinge, cylinder retention, and stirrup latch areas that causes “Wobley Webleys” could be redesigned for greater wear resistance and ease of adjustment/repair/replacement, none of which would make it too heavy and clumsy.

I don’t think a Webley MkVI can be reloaded as fast as Jerry Miculek can reload a S&W solid frame hand ejector type revolver. I do know that with very little practice a person can learn to reload a Webley MkVI consistently without error shot to shot in 2.0-2.5 seconds using .45 AutoRim in speedloaders. This was done using the firing hand only to eject the cases with a snap of the wrist. I have never seen full moon clipped .45ACP used but imagine it would be much faster. I do think that a modernized design of a top-break revolver using a Webley style stirrup latch might be capable of being reloaded as fast or nearly as fast as a S&W. It would be interesting to see if someone with Jerry Miculek’s physical and mental attributes could do it. Even if it is not humanly possible to match or exceed the speed of a S&W hand ejector type; I think a shooter could learn to reach the maximum reloading speed possible for a top break design much sooner than they could learn to match it with a S&W hand ejector type revolver.

What would be the improvement gained in creating a modern top break revolver? Faster and easier reloading for the average shooter who does not rigorously train to speed load. Easier and more comfortable to reload in cold weather. Is much easier to reload with one hand. An ejector rod that is far less likely to be bent and no yoke to warp. Easier use for southpaws if fitted with an ambidextrous stirrup latch. Increased “coolness” factor.

There is probably not enough interest to make an American gun maker design a modern top break revolver. It sure would be interesting to see how much current technology could improve a design that has not been improved in a century.

 

[beag_nut]

I already previously commented on this thread about top-break design, but early on. Now, after reading SO MANY references to top-break (and favorable wishes for them), it looks like that's the most-commonly wanted design, at least by a company which knows what it's doing.
Considering Scandium, new metallurgies, other new materials, potential design hotshots, et al, I think that there's a real and marketable niche for a new modern top-break revolver. Why, they could even use footage from the "Hellboy" movies as advertisng (check out the fantastical oversize top-break being used by Ron Perlman)!

 

[snooperman]

I would like to see some new small lightweight pocket double action revolvers in 32 H&R. About 5.25" to 5.5" in length, weighing about 10oz, with a 1.5" barrel and six shots. With scandium and Titanium it could be done.

 

[TRX]

I'd like to see a modern interpretation of the Nagant revolver in some high power cartridge, like .357 Magnum or Maximum.

Most people are familiar with the m1895 Russian variant, with its necked "shotgun shell" ammunition, but Nagant and imitators had a wide variety of designs, with and without the "gas seal" brass. Some models had swing-out cylinders and conventional ejection stars, others were available in calibers as large as .44.

The standard firing mechanism used a hinged breechblock protruding through the standing breech. As the trigger was pulled, a cam plate pushed the breechblock forward, which then moved the cylinder forward against a light spring. The front of the cylinder was spigoted against the back of the barrel, ensuring perfect alignment; no conventional cylinder lock was needed. In 1873, the basic design had a rebounding hammer and double action.

With the hinged breechblock it should be possible to chamber the cylinder in a bottlenecked case without concern about case head set-back locking the cylinder, which would let you reliably use something like the .357/44 Bain & Davis for some impressive ballistics.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

If a top break is not strong enough, I suspect a "tip-up" design like the S&W Model 1 would have problems as well. After all, S&W did move from tip-up to top-break before finalizing on the swing-out cylinder. But maybe not. What are in inherent weaknesses (and strengths) of the tip-up design?

Howdy

There really were no 'strengths' to the Tip Up design. It was a weak design, and that is why S&W eventually came up with the Top Break design. Just like the Remington double barreled derringer, the pivot screw at the top was a weak point. Very easy to damage the screw and the pivot point in the frame. It is very easy to find Tip Ups today with damaged pivot screws. The latch arrangement was not particularly strong either. You pulled the latch up to release the barrel to swing up. But the latch would not stand up to much in the way of heavy concussion from large calibers. S&W only made Tip Ups in 22 and 32 calibers. They made some prototypes in 44 caliber, but decided the design was too weak for 44 caliber. The first Top Break that S&W made was the 44 caliber American model.




The neat thing about the Tip Ups was the bolt. It was a very elegant, simple design. The bolt was mounted in the top of the frame, not the bottom. It was held down in the engaged position by a simple leaf spring. The bolt was split and was made of spring steel. There was a bump on top of the hammer. The bump was rounded at its rear and wedge shaped at the front. When the hammer was cocked, the rounded portion of the bump lifted the bolt clear of the cylinder so the cylinder could rotate. When the hammer fell, the wedge shaped front of the bump split the two halves of the bolt apart, so that the bolt stayed in the downward, engaged position. Really a very simple, elegant design. The strap protruding to the rear at the top of the frame in these photos is the bolt.





Really though, the Tip Up design left a lot wanting for strength, so when the White Patent expired out around 1869, S&W came up with the radically different Top Break design.

 

[RealGun]

I would like to see some new small lightweight pocket double action revolvers in 32 H&R. About 5.25" to 5.5" in length, weighing about 10oz, with a 1.5" barrel and six shots. With scandium and Titanium it could be done.

Should we encourage, directly or indirectly, people to carry calibers that do little more than impart a false sense of security? The popularity of 9mm at .356 is already cause for concern. We should rather be encouraging people to dress for concealment.

 

[Sam1911]

Should we encourage, directly or indirectly, people to carry calibers that do little more than impart a false sense of security? The popularity of 9mm at .356 is already cause for concern. We should rather be encouraging people to dress for concealment.

The market should make what people will buy, and let people figure out what they trust for personal security. MANY, many private individuals, cops, and even some soldiers have carried .32s and if that's what someone WILL carry, then it is better than what they WON'T. Federal tried another .32 recently, and it seems the market has decided that .32s really aren't "IT" these days. That's fine.

The popularity of 9mm is not a "cause for concern" for anyone. If it concerns you, you need to find more important things to spend your concern on.

(Maybe try global warming. That seems a popular worry. And whether it exists or not, it is a more important thing to be "concerned" about than the popularity of 9mm.)

Having said all that, we aren't going to turn this thread into a caliber/cartridge war.

 

[goon]

I didn't think the poster above who'd like to see some new .32's desired them only for defense anyhow. The .32 H&R Mag could be a pretty neat kit gun cartridge. And in a world where .22LR is so expensive and hard to obtain, a reloadable alternative that doesn't use much powder or lead doesn't sound like such a bad idea.

My desire for some kind of Webley clone in a more common American round and with more modern metallurgy is only because I think one would be huge fun and a lot of enjoyment to own.

"Improvements" can be largely subjective.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Should we encourage, directly or indirectly, people to carry calibers that do little more than impart a false sense of security? The popularity of 9mm at .356 is already cause for concern. We should rather be encouraging people to dress for concealment.

I carry a full-size M1911. But many people carry something smaller.

So the question is, should we -- like the Obama Administration -- try to limit people's choices on the assumption we are smarter than they are, and wind up with a lot of people not carrying?

Or should we encourage a wide choice and let people make their own decision about what is best for them?

 

[JRH6856]

What others carry for their personal safety does not concern me as I don't depend on what they carry for my personal safety. They may carry whatever they want...and so shall I.

 

[goon]

Though I question its utility, I think a slightly upsized NAA single action chambered for .32 ACP might be pretty cool. A version with stag grips would look very cool and another made like the Pug would be at least as useful for defense as the current .22 Mag version.

If they engraved Swamp Angel on the barrel, I'd really want one one. If they engraved Fallen Angel and a risque image of a curvy woman on the cylinder, I don't think I could resist.

Improvement? You be the judge.

 

[tomrkba]

The purpose of recommending 9x19mm is because of the mild recoil, performance that meets or exceeds the performance of 38 Special +P, options for smaller guns for carry and the lower cost of ammunition for frequent practice. S&W just released the 986 and 929 revolvers. They will be just fine for defensive and recreational shooting. I see this as an improvement because of ammunition interchangeability with common semi-autos.

Another improvement could be a full auto revolver. It would have two barrels and the hammers would strike in sequence. The bottom barrel would go first for a straight back recoil impulse and would be closely followed by the top barrel. Chamber it in 44 Magnum for three, two round bursts...

 

[goon]

On revolvers chambered for semi-auto cartridges, a 9mm revolver could be more compact because the 9mm is a shorter round than say .38 Special. A small CCW revolver specifically built around 9mm should be even more compact than a J-frame.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Another improvement could be a full auto revolver.

Interestingly enough, Brian Pearce did an article on that in Hamdloader.

The revolver was a pre-war Colt Single Action in .357, Those revolvers had the old .45 Colt firing pin and firing pin bushing, and the pressure of the .357 pierced a primer. The escaping gas blew the hammer back to full cock, and since his finger was still on the trigger, the hammer fell and the second round fired.

He said years ago, a man being threatened fired into the dirt at his attacker's feet and claimed the gun, a .45 SAA, went full auto on him, killing the man.

In the police lab, the gun went full auto again while being tested. The firing pin bushing was missing, and it would blow the primers out and cock the hammer.