Why the fuck is there not a single top-break revolver in .357 mag? And don't give me the usual bullshit fudlore 'the latch would break, metal can't handle the power of .357!' The fucking russians already did it, pic related. They even had designs for a 12.7mm version but russia couldn't/can't export to the US and nobody but US civilians really wants revolvers so it failed. Why the fuck is s&w not making one?
how the fuck did swing-out cylinders become the standard over the faster to reload, more effecient, and more a e s t h e t i c top-break?
Because a solid frame is stronger than one with a latch. If you want a top break in .357 enjoy paying the bongs for a webley or enjoy a modern reproduction No.3 in .38spl.
Logan Martin
That is the answer. Or at least, it was the answer when smokeless powder was first being introduced, so the market shifted to swing-outs. By the time metallurgy caught up the revolver market was already kinda niche, and investing into a radically new design instead of selling what they know people will buy isn't that kind of niche. No, I'm not saying the revolver market is small by any means but like it or not, the mallninja glock cocksuckers are what most consumers are, and LE purchases only saturate the market more. I like top-breaks too, hopefully some company or some user decides to pony up the capital to buy tooling to make 'em.
Zachary Perry
there is a webly revolver in .357, it goes for $10,000
this, he asked yeltsin to shut it down and yeltsin did so as a "good will gesture"
Hunter Hall
There's a thread about revolvers up already.
Though I like the top-break revolver's aesthetics and simplicity, I can't shake the feeling that it weakens the design too much. Maybe a design that uses a slide-out system like a pistol slide would be better about that, or it could have another strange modification like moving the cylinder to a location where the break in the frame won't weaken the gun as much.
It's all about ensuring good contact and no slippage in the latch. This has already been solved, pic related is designed not only to hold a 300lb person up, but catch him falling, which is significantly more tension on that piece.
If you look closely at the webley latch you can see some of the similiarities between it and a sliding carabiner latch.
I made this thread specifically to bitch about how top-breaks are better and fuds are ruining everything for everyone yet again
When I was young, Trigun made a big impression on me. The main character carries a revolver of sorts, and I thought it was cool as fuck.
Many years later I found myself buying a .357 revolver (S&W 27) for the day of the rope tbh. In the middle of this process, I remembered Trigun and looked up Vash's gun. I was surprised to learn that Vash uses a break-action in the series, which my untrained eye didn't catch. And then even more surprising, that it's an exceedingly uncommon design IRL.
I agree with OP that there need to be more of these break-action revolvers. Sorry, $10,000 is 10x more than I'd be willing to pay; it's a rich man's gun that I'd be afraid to touch, let alone fire.
The metallurgy tech seems to be all caught up, so one or two of these companies need to say hey, we are gonna sell this design and hype it up/market it to all the folks who prefer cowboy aesthetic over tacticool. I think they would sell pretty well, and economies-of-scale would kick in eventually. They just need to take the first leap.
While finding those pics, I came across this interesting piece, the Mateba 2006M. You get top access to the cylinder without break-action, and recoil seems reduced with the lower bore axis.
Angel Collins
Kino
Noah Baker
This puts less stress on the locking mechanism. I imagine it's simpler to make tough hinge than tough lock.
What bothers me is automatic extractor that's powerful enough to launch all the spent casings upwards. If you own a revolver you gotta know that sometimes it takes a very hefty smack on the extractor to get the casings to eject. Otherwise they're all stuck in half-extracted position and your extractor doesn't do jack anymore, and then you have to pull them out one by one. Obviously that should be propelled by a very powerful spring. But then the fucking thing just retracts without any input. Also the hammer is clearly designed for top chamber action, not bottom chamber.
So the casings thing is the reason why I prefer swing-out revolvers. You can always just punch the extractor and that's guaranteed to instantly eject everything.
Joshua Roberts
+Ejectors like on a shotgun. Whoever designed that revolver knew his shit.
Brandon Reed
Thou poor and pitiable wretch, look well upon the holy grace of His Holiness St. Emilio Ghisoni and be delivered from thy deprivation.
Adrian Morgan
To have a top break revolver in an acceptable chambering, you'll need to design a good locking mechanism that takes stress off of the top strap when it's locked. Webleys have lots of bent top straps due to bullets hammering the forcing cone of the barrel, trying their damnedest to open the action. This could be alleviated by having a 6 o'clock barrel, however you run into some more problems - now you need an extractor and ejector. Because the barrel's in the way, you can't have the simple S&W or Webley methods - maybe a manual pushbutton that releases it?. Worse than that, you'll need to have a robust hinge - possibly around the barrel shroud to vaguely align it with the recoil force, though that's questionable for longevity.
There's a lot of time and money to be put into R&D, then getting a working prototype, shaving off excess, and getting it into production without it turning into the Remington R51. Dreams are nice and all, but making a new gun is where optimism goes to die.
William Gray
I still don't get the point of that at all. They can't sell it in the country they make it, and nobody seems to be importing it, making me wonder exactly why they did it.
I would gladly pony that money up to buy one if it were actually for sale in the states, but I've yet to see a single anything suggesting it is
Liam Allen
It's so the webley family and their fellow rich aristocrat freemasons can have a suitably opulent weapon for when they hunt people for sport on the Isle of Mann or something.
Evan Jenkins
Of course they can. Some people can own firearms in the UK. Just not plebs…
Asher Nelson
Except the latch on a carabiner is just there to keep your rope from slipping out, not to support the majority of the weight.
Ryder Cook
the reason (in my opinion) webleys have bent top straps is that the their peg is slanted down and back (in my post its difficult to see, but you can tell from the geometry of the hole) which, combined with the force pulling the whole thing forward, casuses the top to slide a tiny bit forward and up, bending the latch. This could be solved simply by changing the peg to be more steeply slanted and the hole to match. You'd think for 10,000 they'd have solved that already but noooope.
the majority of the recoil force doesn't go through the top of the frame, it goes through the rod the cylinder is mounted on into the handle.
Henry Barnes
The top strap bends because the barrel segment of the revolver is captive at two points that are not in-line, and the force attempts to open the action each time it's fired.
