Quote:
Originally Posted by TruthTellers
I was thinking about the venerable J frame/LCR snub revolver and how they're still an effective option for concealed carry, but it got me to thinking if a modern design top break wouldn't be a bad alternative option. Top breaks may not be as strong, but I think the opinion among experts is that shooting whatever you shoot best with, even if it's a weaker ammo (like .22 LR, .32 Long, .38 S&W) because it's shot placement that matters and faster follow up shots is always good.
The swing out revolvers can shoot weaker ammo too, but my thinking is that if a top break can be made very small (think NAA Ranger but a bit larger, yet still smaller than a J frame) and still be faster to reload and have a more positive extraction/ejection of cases. Since there's no clearance issues with the grips, all the cases would be ejected and using a speedloader wouldn't have space issues either.
Clearly most of my thinking is about reloading a revolver and making it faster and better. Reloading isn't common in a defensive gun use, but then it becomes a question of the size of the revolver. If a top break smaller than a J frame can be done using modern metals and manufacturing, would it have an appeal? What if the price of such a top break was considerably less than today's J frames and LCR's?
What do you people think?
|
The Internet Gunsphere buzz I'm seeing right now has folks saying smaller caliber snubbies (.22, .22 Magnum and .32) have a place in self defensive use, as long as the smaller diameter bullets is getting you commensurately more of them, and penetration is good.
So, in that sense, yeah, a modern top break might work.
Could an equivalent quality top break be made as inexpensively as a swing out cylinder one?
How much would it get you, in terms of speed, over a (now) conventional swing out cylinder gun? You still have a lot of 2 handed manipulation you need to do.
Assuming there's much difference in reload speed, is it even needful?