As far as I know, there are no top-break revolvers of modern design, apart from the Russian one that never got past the prototype stage. Is this because they are inherently obsolescent, because of institutional conservatism on the part of firearms companies (ie not wanting to go out on a limb and risk making a Bren-Ten or Automag), or for some other reason that I haven't considered?

The reason I ask is because the main advantages of a top-break design potentially outweigh the main disadvantage. You are getting a weapon that offers significantly faster reloading and is inherently ambidextrous in exchange for said weapon having a frame that is not as structurally robust as a comparable swing-out revolver. While this downside may have been a serious consideration in the past, the advent of modern metallurgy, modern ammunition, and modern manufacturing methods would likely ameliorate the problem to a large extent.

What do you guys think? Could a 6-shot top-break revolver of modern design with an alloy frame at least handle .38 special?

__________________
Possum—The other white meat!

Well, that may be comparing a very fast apple to an orange .

I think on average a top-break could be reloaded faster than a swing-out revolver. In this day and age, however, revolvers are already relatively low production number items and a major company would be unlikely to make one. A small company might but at great expense, and with an unclear market size it would be a risky investment.

__________________
Alan
SWCA LM 2023, SWHF 220

NO they are obsolete for a reason. Today's cartridges are too powerful as are the powders.

Also mechanically more complex. If the ejector/extractor doesn't work you don't get to reload.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Handguns that do fast reloads are called bottom feeders.

Detonics had a stainless top-break prototype around 1980 they were showing around. Judging from the pictures, it looked massive. Lots of steel. I imagine that's what they had to do to get the needed strength, but it must have weighed a ton.

My mistake. 1983.
Detonics Modular Top-Break - Mythic Armory

With a 5" barrel, in .45 Colt, it was 53 ounces.
That's Super Redhawk weight.
I'll say again, I bet it had to be that big. Interesting, and I'd love to have one for a couple of days just to examine, but can't see it being a big seller.

I have a Gun Digest that has a shooting test of the Detonics top-break, and there's also this Russian prototype evidently never put into production:

MP-412 REX - Wikipedia

The tooling and production costs for a new design would be very expensive, and most end users wouldn't be willing to pay what the finished product would have to sell for.

North American Arms makes/made a top break minigun, but of course it was only in rimfire calibers.

North American Arms is working on new top-break mini revolver. Hopefully it makes it to market one day. AFAIK it's .22 Mag only, though. At least they're keeping the idea alive. It's a significant improvement to the NAA mini revolver concept, since reloading their current revolver is VERY slow and tedious.

American Rifleman Blurb

__________________
~ S&W aficionado in training ~

I thought NAA already introduced and discontinued these? The Ranger? I wanted one, but never could find a shop that would even try to order one. Now I occasionally see them pop up on gunbroker for a couple grand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here you go:

Anderson Wheeler | Facebook

I have a pair of Navy Arms S&W Schofield clones in 45 Colt that I acquired for cowboy action shooting. The cylinder and charge hole geometry matches a Model 25-5 cylinder, so my HKS 25-5 speedloaders worked perfectly with it. For the few times I packed them in the woods, I carried extra ammo in speedloaders. Used them with speedloaders in a tactical match once, but the slowness of the single action offset the fast reloads.

At one time S&W made a transitional top break .38 on a double action .32 hand ejector style frame. This is the .38 Double Action Perfected Model. There is a photo of an engraved one in Jinks' "History of S&W" book on page 127. It's a beautiful gun. I've often thought it would be cool if S&W made a top break version of the Model 17.

How modern is modern? Is "Cartridge, ball, .380 Mk IIz" stout enough for you? These remnants of the British empire are still in service in some of remote corners of a few former Crown colonies. The Ordnance Factory Board of India still manufactures .380 Revolver Mk IIz cartridges for use by those military and police agencies in Asia and Africa that still use them.

Ordnance Factory Board

Attached Images

	Webley_MKIV.jpg (238.7 KB, 42 views)
	enfield-no2-mk1-.38.jpg (169.3 KB, 34 views)

NAA was showing prototypes like 4 years ago. I thought it was dead, too, but then American Rifleman "blurbed" it last year, so maybe there still some hope.

__________________
~ S&W aficionado in training ~

I have one of those. It is pretty fun. The trigger pull isntbtoo bad in SA or DA. K frame .38/.357 speedloaders work. It isn't any too strong, but strong enough for the .38 S&W it was made for. Since it can make the IDPA 115 Power Factor I have thought about shooting it in an IDPA match just for fun. I need some quick reloading practice first to make it worth doing, but being done for more or less a one-time stunt, that never seems to get done.

Mine is a commercial/police version and has a crossbolt safety, so I suppose I could make bets with people on revolvers having a safety as in some of the old mystery and detective books.

H&R made the 999 up to 1986.

__________________
I've still got it made.

That would have been a very cool handgun, especially with the interchangable single shot barrel.