Solid frame vs Hinged frame Revolvers.

[james]

Under all practical situations which is the best mechanism for revolver, break open type like IOF or side shift type like Colt and S&W .DO post your openion on this. Cheers, James

[cottage cheese]

Under all practical situations which is the best mechanism for revolver, break open type like IOF or side shift type like Colt and S&W .DO post your openion on this. Cheers, James

Well both have their pros and cons. But if you let numbers speak, the side swing type is the dominant one. It ensures structural integrity of the frame because the contiguous nature makes sure there is no interruption anywhere along the frame. It also contributes to a more solid barrel-frame fit and thus(At least theoretically) better accuracy.

[HSharief]

It also contributes to a more solid barrel-frame fit and thus(At least theoretically) better accuracy.

I'da thunk that the swing out cylinder "breaks" from the axis of the bore and can possibly twist in either or both directions away from the barrel throat and may introduce some loss of accuracy whereas, the top break's cylinder being always aligned with the axis of the bore would have an edge in accuracy. This is just my theory.

[Grumpy]

The problem with hinged frame revolvers is that they are necessarily expensive to produce if a quality product is required. As far as the barrel/cylinder relationship is concerned it should be remembered that a hinged frame revolver maintains that relationship at all times which is an advantage. The Webleys were excellent but would cost a packet to build nowadays. It has to be said that most hinged frame revolvers were cheap and nasty.
The problem with Webleys is that the last models were built during WWII so are over 62 years old. The last commercial models were built in the 1930s
Structurally the solid frame revolver has definite advantages - it is inherently stronger ( although the Webleys were definitely not weak ) and is easier and less expensive to make. Modern machining facilities allow for very tight tolerances and the metalurgy has to be superior to the Webleys.
Early Colt percussion revolvers were open frame, with no top strap.
Single action revolvers such as the Colt Army ( `Peacemaker` ) and Ruger Blackhawk are solid frame but do not have a crane - the cylinder does not swing out but is loaded via a gate at the rear of the cylinder.
The best revolver made is the Korth ........ which is phenomenally expensive. I happen to think that the Manurhins are just as good ..... and a lot less money - although still very pricey. Then there are the Smith & Wessons, Colts and Rugers, all of whom make fine guns. Other than those there`s not much worth considering.
Remember that old, well used revolvers are prone to timing problems because of the wear and tear on parts. Modern revolvers by those five makers are made of better steel than pre-war examples and should last longer if well maintained.
If a revolver is demonstrated in single shot mode you can be pretty sure that the timing is buggered and you shouldn`t touch it with a barge pole.
To sum up, buy a modern swing-out clinder by one of the five makers listed above...........if you can afford one at Indias crazy prices !

[HSharief]

I also like how the top break operates. On some TV show, they were showing how the Schofields revolutionized the way cowboys reloaded their sixguns while on horse back and riding. They would use their thumb to break the latch, tip the barrel over on their thigh, ejecting spent brass, reload and slap the action shut back on their thigh.

I also like the looks of the Schofields (S&W No3). Now that the Italian companies are making replicas with modern steels and processes, they are hard to beat too.

[Grumpy]

In its time the S&W Schofield was one of the best pistols around. It was never particularly popular in the US though.........the cost might have had something to do with that. S&W certainly sold plenty to the Russians though. Nowadays it`s an antique......and looks it !

[james]

From the above post as of date , it is inferred that solid frame is better mechanism , do revolver lovers agree with it James

[Grumpy]

You`ve got it, James.

[Vikram]

Just remembered these pics in my laptop.Abhijeet will recognise these.

This is a Webley& Scott .38 hinged frame Mark VI revolver



This is the .455 version


See how the big .455 dwarfs the .38


Best-
Vikram

[Grumpy]

I thought that particular Webley was a .455 ?

[Vikram]

Hi Grumps, there were two revolvers. One .455 and the other .38,both Mark VI.

Best-
Vikram

[penpusher]

The .455 Webley's seem to hold up much better than the .38's.Even the abused .455 revolvers are in a much better condition than the .38 Webley's that I have seen.Any idea why?

[Grumpy]

Bigger, better, tougher perhaps ?
The .38 Webleys are of WWII vintage and were , perhaps, not so well made.
.38 Enfields are definitely not as good as the Webleys.

[penpusher]

I have seen a couple of Enfields in .32S&W Long(the IOF .32 traces it's ancestry to these and not the Webley) that were absolutely crap.As compared to the Webley .32 and .38's the no. of Enfield's .32's and .38's in private ownership in India are however pretty limited.