Anyone carry a top break?

[NateKirk]

So I was talking to my brother the other day about the advantages and disadvantages of different designs when it came to carrying and we got to talking about his revolver (S&W J frame). It's a great little revolver, but I feel like the reload process would require to much finesse to operate under pressure. Then I got to thinking about stuff like schofield revolvers; you fire your six shots, open it up, everything auto ejects like a breakaway shotgun and just pop another set of cartridges in. I figured that would be a lot easier. What do you guys think? Anyone ever carry a top break?

[Dragline45]

They lost popularity in favor of the swing out cylinders due to the top break being a weaker design. A one piece solid top strap is much stronger. I don't know of any companies that still make them except for a couple of Italian companies that make replica western style revolvers. I would still like to own one though, would make a neat range toy. Wouldn't carry one myself.

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy

I shoot Top Breaks in Cowboy Action all the time. I also shoot modern revolvers all the time.

There really is no advantage to how fast a Top Break ejects cartridges over a modern revolver. With practice, you hold the modern revolver in your left hand, pop the cylinder open with your right, and then with your left thumb you pop back the ejector rod to dump all the cartridges out in one quick stroke. With practice this can be done just as fast as dumping the empties from a Top Break. After that, loading either revolver is pretty much the same. In both cases the rear of the cylinder is completely exposed and you load in fresh cartridges. Speed loaders will help enormously with a modern side swing revolver.

The advantage of the Top Break in the 19th Century was it was much, much faster to reload than a conventional Colt. With the Colt, you had to put the hammer at half cock, and use the ejector rod to pop out the empties one at a time as you rotated the cylinder. Then you had to reload one chamber at a time as you rotated the cylinder. A Top Break was much faster than that, but the advantage pretty much went away when side swing revolvers came along. It just takes practice to empty and reload a modern side swing revolver quickly, it is no big deal.

Then there is the fact that other than the Big Number Threes, the largest caliber available for a medium frame Top Break was 38 S&W, not 38 Special. That modern J frame is going to be both stronger and more powerful than any Top Break of the same size.

Compare the lengths of these two Top Break 38 S&W cylinders to the length of the cylinder of the modern J frame Model 36. That is a good indicator of how much longer and more powerful the 38 Special is to the 38 S&W. Not to mention that 38 Special ammo is much, much more readily available.





By the way, it takes practice to reload a Top Break efficiently too.




P.S. I don't carry a firearm, but if I did, it would be a modern side swing revolver, not a Top Break.

P.P.S. Did I mention that S&W has not made a Top Break revolver since about 1940? Most of them were made long before that. The two pictured are antiques, made before 1899. Besides the fact that the modern design is stronger, modern heat treated steel is also much stronger.

[Magnum Wheel Man]

I used an antique single action top break to re-qualify for my CCW last time, & outshot about 1/2 the group of newbies with their autos... so it's all what you get used to...

in case you were looking for gun ****.... she just came back from getting the 1/2 covering of worn nickel removed, & a high polish blue...

[James K]

Adding to the difficulty of making a top break revolver in longer cartridges like the .38 Special or .357 Magnum is that it would be hard to design an "automatic" ejection system that would handle those long cases.

Jim

[ckpj99]

I'm a little surprised no one has mentioned this, but the vast majority of centerfire top breaks are single action guns (there are a few that are double action). This means you have to cock the gun between each shot. This is a pretty big disadvantage when it comes to defensive shooting.

[Deaf Smith]

Well my six shot Webley Pocket Model .38 S&W, with 3 inch barrel would do fine with Buffalo Bore .38 ammo. 125 gr. SWC at 1000+ fps would get you through the night.

I pack others but I would not mind the little Webley.

Deaf

[Webleymkv]

As my handle might suggest, I really, really like top-breaks and I personally own two: an H&R Model 999 Sportsman and a Webley Mk. IV. That being said, there are three main hindrances that I can see to a top-break that prevent them from being revived beyond S&W Model 3 replicas and such.

First and foremost, as has been mentioned, the two-piece frame simply isn't as strong as a solid frame and thus not well suited to high pressure cartridges. Nearly every cartridge for which top-breaks have traditionally been chambered including .22 LR, .32 S&W, .38 S&W, .44 Russian, .45 Schofield, and .455 Webley are low-pressure cartridges which started life being loaded with black powder. None of these cartridges develop 20,000 psi or higher pressure which, I suspect, is probably near the upper limit of the top-break designs which have been produced in large numbers.

Secondly, the mechanism of a top-break requires a relatively short cartridge in order to fully extract the spent cases. My Webley is quite illustrative of this because, when broken open, its extractor rises just barely high enough to clear empty cases (a neat effect of this is that, unless the gun is broken open vigorously, only empties will be ejected while loaded cartridge will simply fall back into their respective chambers). In order to ensure positive extraction of longer cases like .38 Special, .357 Magnum, or .44 Magnum, the mechanism of a top-break would have to be substantially redesigned.

Finally, cost is probably the biggest nail in the top-break's coffin. While with modern metallurgy and clever design the first two hindrances might not be insurmountable, the simple fact is that a top-break is a much more complicated and intricate gun and thus will be more expensive to produce than a solid-frame revolver. This is evident simply by looking at the prices of Schofield and Model 3 Russian replicas as compared to Colt SAA, and Remington M1875/M1890 replicas from the same makers. The top-breaks almost always cost about twice as much as a comparable solid-frame gun. Simply put, very few people are going to be able to justify doubling the price in order to get the relatively minor benefits of a top-break as opposed to a solid-frame revolver, particularly given the top-break's other limitations.

[Driftwood Johnson]

I'm a little surprised no one has mentioned this, but the vast majority of centerfire top breaks are single action guns (there are a few that are double action). This means you have to cock the gun between each shot. This is a pretty big disadvantage when it comes to defensive shooting.

That is incorrect. Smith and Wesson made around 258,000 single action Top Break pocket pistols. This included the 32 Single Action model, and the three models of the 38 Single Action.

They made over 1,350,000 double action Top Break pocket pistols. This included the 32 Double Action, 38 Double Action, three models of the 32 Lemon Squeezer, and five models of the 38 Lemon Squeezer.

Did you notice that the two Top Break Pocket Pistols I showed in my photo with the Model 36 were both Double Action?

Here is a 32 Lemon Squeezer I bought last year.




And here is an identical one I bought a few years ago.




Here is another shot of the 38 Lemon Squeezer.




It is true that with the big Number Three revolvers the only double action model made was the 44 Double Action.





All the other Number Threes, the American, Russian, Schofield, and New Model Number Three were single actions. But these were big belt pistols worn in the open in belt holsters.

But with Pocket Pistols, double action revolvers were much more popular than single action for the same reason they are today. Easily concealed and capable of rapid fire.



S&W was not the only company making double action Top Breaks. Here is an Iver Johnson Safety Hammerless I bought many years ago, before I started collecting Smiths.




While we're on the subject, here is a really nice little S&W Single Action 32 Top Break pocket pistol I bought just last week. Just for fun. Made in 1881.

[Magnum Wheel Man]

yep agree with Driftwood... won't bore anyone with pictures of my racks of top breaks, but actually most top breaks were double action

[Mike Irwin]

I used to occasionally carry an old Iver Johnson break top in .38 S&W loaded with Colt style 200-gr. flat point bullets.

[James K]

I have no figures, but my guess is that the vast majority of breaktop revolvers were double (DA/SA) action. Many more were DA only, while a minority were SA. In sheer numbers, I suspect they were all second to the ubiquitous solid frame DA/SA revolvers of the 1870-1920 period, when literally millions of such guns with fanciful names like "Tramp's Terror" and "Czar" were turned out by a half dozen or more companies.

Jim

[Colt46]

Did you ever hook that load up to a chronograph?
I'm thinking you might be able to see that bullet in flight.

[James K]

Mike doesn't say what that load was, but the British claimed that the .38/200, the .38 S&W loaded with a 200 grain bullet, was as effective as the .455 and with less expense and recoil, not to mention revolver size.

Of course, the .455 was not exactly in the .454 or .500 S&W class, but the .38/200 was not a toy. (The British ultimately went to a 178 grain jacketed bullet to conform to the Hague agreements, but the guns made for them by S&W continued to be designated by the company as the ".38/200 Model".)

Jim

[Mike Irwin]

The loads were purchased from a vendor at a gunshow, and were supposedly loaded to about 600 fps with a 200 grain bullet. I'm assuming that was out of a 5 or 6 inch barrel.

[micromontenegro]

IIRC, .38-200 made about 650 FPS. To further confuse things, the English called the jacketed ones ".380"

[Deaf Smith]

Yes, as I said, a Webly.



Either BB with 125gr. LSW or a 200 grain super police. 200 gr lead at 650 ought to do it.

I actually do have 100 slugs, super police 200 grainers that are soft lead, and Lee carbine .38 S&W dies.

But if you are wondering, I have my Glocks and S&W Js and will just keep using them, but I would not be afraid to use that little six shot pocket .38 if need be.

Deaf

[SaxonPig]

I haven't but I wouldn't hesitate to carry my Enfield. It was good enough for Great Britain in WW II. I have loaded 125 JHPS to 925 FPS which would be adequate if not spectacular. Shoots palm sized groups at 50 feet.

[pathdoc]

Oh for a .455 Webley and a dozen Prideaux speed loaders... one day, I promise myself. I would love to shoot IPSC with a rig like that, just for the hell of it, preferably dressed in khaki and a pith helmet.

[Dain Bramage]

Am I right to assume that the old S&W top breaks should be carried with the hammer over an empty chamber? I have a 3rd Model DA in .38 S&W, with some pitting and wear on the nickel finish, but in excellent mechanical condition otherwise. I haven't carried her ever, but it may strike my fancy some time in the future. She grouped just under 4" at 25 yards with Magtech 146g LRN, which I consider darned spritely for the old girl, since she was never designed for bench accuracy. You can feel the pride of the old S&W ghosts in her tight break latch and action.

[Magnum Wheel Man]

my old #2 pictured above, I drop the firing pin between the case heads... holds the cylinder from freely rotating & is not over a primer...

I'm not positive, but think the 3rd model has a firing pin block or hammer block ???