/k/ - Weapons

>>603385

> 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.

>>603385

>And don't give me the usual bullshit fudlore 'the latch would break, metal can't handle the power of .357!'

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 anon decides to pony up the capital to buy tooling to make 'em.

>>603385

>>603385

Clinton did it

>>603452

this, he asked yeltsin to shut it down and yeltsin did so as a "good will gesture"

There's a thread about revolvers up already.

>>600489

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.

>>603566

That picture is just way too beautiful.

>>603702

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.

>>603702

>6 o'clock barrel + top break

Kino

>>603715

This puts less stress on the locking mechanism. I imagine it's simpler to make tough hinge than tough lock.

>>603702

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.

>>603715

>>603702

+Ejectors like on a shotgun.

Whoever designed that revolver knew his shit.

>>603703

>just now learning about the 2006M

Thou poor and pitiable wretch, look well upon the holy grace of His Holiness St. Emilio Ghisoni and be delivered from thy deprivation.

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.

>>603414

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

>>603827

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.

>>603827

>They can't sell it in the country they make it

Of course they can.

Some people can own firearms in the UK.

Just not plebs…

>>603582

Except the latch on a carabiner is just there to keep your rope from slipping out, not to support the majority of the weight.

>>603774

the reason (in my opinion) webleys have bent top straps is that the their peg is slanted down and back (in my post >>603583 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.

>>603867

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.

>>603870

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKBTJnD65F0&feature=youtu.be&t=5m11s

>>603888

You point the gun upwards for ejection, so that all the shit just drops on the ground.

>>603827

I think you have to contact the company directly if you want one

>>603388

>modern reproduction No.3 in .38spl

https://www.uberti-usa.com/top-break-revolver.

>>604168

Interdasting

>>603385

>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?

Russian roulette?

>>604200

i was saying no modern top-breaks in modern calibers. .38 spl is not modern at all.