Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 29 of 29
  1. #21
    clance's Avatar
    clance is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    USA/SW Michigan
    Posts
    43
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Wright View Post
    Well, I didn't mean to use an old gun for the test and trial, sort of a one of a kind test model, using modern steels for a full size mock-up. Make the cylinder long enough to accommodate a .44 Special or .41 Special, sort of a rimmed .40 S&W. And using the Webley type stirrup latch, just to see what would happen.

    Such a revolver doesn't need .44 Magnum performance, just something in the way of a .40 caliber rimmed cartridge of moderate performance. Wouldn't expect such a revolver to be a hunting arm or long range. Just a modern, potent, "bulldog" type of thing.

    Bob Wright
    What about the .38WCF (aka: .38-40) which if I recall correctly had the same ballistics as the .40 S&W?

  2. #22
    clance's Avatar
    clance is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    USA/SW Michigan
    Posts
    43
    I don't have your experience or knowledge on engineering/design but what would happen as far as shear stress if instead of the revolver firing from the 12 o'clock position that you lower it to the 6 o'clock position? Just looking at the design of the Break Top revolver it would seem to me that by lowering the firing chamber to the 6 o'clock would greatly reduce the stress on the latch while the hinge should be more then capable to handling the pressures of modern loads.

    My thought revolves around the Chiappa Rhino design which just looking at it, I believe lends itself for a harder look in this purpose.

    I ask you, what is your expert opinion on such and would it be worth contacting Chiappa to see if they might be interested?



    Looking again at the Rhino as currently design, if fesible would require the revolver to be a double-action only (DAO) by my account, as the locking latch and cocking lever would interfer with one another.

  3. #23
    skullfr's Avatar
    skullfr is offline Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Beaumont,Texas
    Posts
    311
    thanks for a great informative post

  4. #24
    Bisley's Avatar
    Bisley is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    East Texas
    Posts
    1,435
    Quote Originally Posted by DanP_from_AZ View Post
    Ah, the sweet mysteries of an Internet thread. Who KNOWS where items can lead you. Damn, do I love to touch-type.
    Great story, Dan.

    My dad went the other direction - joined the Air Corp to get into the Sergeant Pilot program in the summer before Pearl Harbor. He was one of the 60% that 'washed out,' though he did make it to secondary training, and was sent to bombardier school. It turned out that he was tone deaf and could not receive Morse Code, so they sent him to mechanic school.

    He ended up spending three years in the CBI, flying the Hump, as Flight Engineer/Crew Chief on C-87s, C-109s, and made a few flights on the brand new C-54, albeit after the Japanese surrender. He had some amazing stories about those early days of high altitude flying in un-pressurized cabins, and the places and things he saw along the way.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chino Valley, AZ
    Posts
    518
    Quote Originally Posted by clance View Post
    I don't have your experience or knowledge on engineering/design but what would happen as far as shear stress if instead of the revolver firing from the 12 o'clock position that you lower it to the 6 o'clock position? . . . I believe lends itself for a harder look in this purpose. . .
    Could be interesting, but I punt.
    I don't have the software (it is VERY expensive for private use, unless you can deduct the cost for a PROFITABLE business).
    I don't have the hardware (we now have good PC's, but they are not up to the true "workstation/server" performance level).
    I don't have the real desire (meaning I'm lazy, unless it's something that I really want to do).

    Quote Originally Posted by Bisley View Post
    Great story, Dan.

    My dad went the other direction . . He ended up spending three years in the CBI, flying the Hump, as Flight Engineer/Crew Chief . . . He had some amazing stories about those early days of high altitude flying in un-pressurized cabins, and the places and things he saw along the way.
    I gotta admire that a LOT. Flying the Hump to supply the Chinese was as dangerous (a lot of times more) as combat flying missions.
    There are war stories. And, then their are REAL war stories. I know you treasure your Dad's as much as I treasure my Dad's.

    And, now, Bob W.'s correct. Time to end my endless involvement here, and jump to a new thread.

  6. #26
    Steve M1911A1's Avatar
    Steve M1911A1 is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Northwest Washington State
    Posts
    5,389
    I'm a mechanical designer, not an engineer. From that perspective, here's a "seat-of-the-pants" answer:

    I bet that the Rhino system would lessen the force and stress placed upon the top-break latch.
    The difference wouldn't be much, but there'd be a difference.
    It's a matter, I think, of angular momentum. If the recoil force were higher up, it would get a "running start" due to normal tolerance-looseness. Lower down, the force would have less starting room.

    What do you think, Dan?



    New Subject:
    Jean and I will be away visiting our brand-new, second granddaughter from June 29th through July 7th.
    Our daughter, the girl who swore that she would absolutely never reproduce, has delivered!
    Not only that, but the baby, little Moya, actually is quite pretty!
    We're very happy about the whole thing.
    Please keep everyone polite and factual for me.
    See you again on the 7th.

  7. #27
    Bob Wright's Avatar
    Bob Wright is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Memphis TN
    Posts
    1,548
    I'm not DAN, but the Rhino system would lessen recoil stress by minimizing the upward "whip" by virtue of placing the opposing forces more directly in line. The barrel whip of a revolver in recoil is caused by the rearward force of the fired round (directly rearward) being opposed by the resistance of the hand at the grip being much lower.

    Remember the old Russian "Hacksaw Pistol" of a few years back? Recoil was the same, but muzzle flip was lessened.


    Bob Wright

  8. #28
    Steve M1911A1's Avatar
    Steve M1911A1 is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Northwest Washington State
    Posts
    5,389
    Yeah, OK, but that "upward whip" of which you wrote would serve to help hold the break-action closed, not to open it.

    Nevertheless, the major force involved is the rearward shove from the being-expended cartridge, in Newtonian reaction to the forward-moving bullet.
    That tends to violently separate the break-action, and to rip it open. This is why the top-strap is in tension, all of it focussed upon the hole into which the upward projection of the frame fits.

  9. #29
    Bob Wright's Avatar
    Bob Wright is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Memphis TN
    Posts
    1,548
    I'm about to get in way over myhead here regarding the "upward whip", but here is my experience:

    I had a customized Colt Single Action Army .357 Magnum that had had a Smith & Wesson rear sight installed in the top-strap. I was firing some heavy .357 Magnum loads and noticed my groups were climbing out of the black at twenty five yards. I was puzzled by this as to why they should stray. Then, after reloading for another string, the hammer was nearly impossible to cock. I examined my gun and noticed the rear of the cylinder binding against the top strap, and further, the barrel angled down noticably.

    After I cleared my gun and left the range, I went to my gunsmith and we analyzed the problem. The inertia of the barrel makes it tend to stay on line with the target as the gun recoils. The top strap, weakened by the milling, stretched under the recoil forces. The standing breech still maintained its correct angle to the lower part of the frame, only the top strap and forward section of the frame "gave."

    I thought I had reduced my Colt to a parts gun, but my gunsmith was able to re-align the frame, and I no longer shoot heavy handloads in this Colt.

    That is why I assumed the top strap is in tension from "barrel pull" rather than back thrust from the case head.

    All of the foregoing is only my surmise, not any educated engineer's calculations.

    Sure would like some more authoritative input than I am capable of.



    Bob Wright

    P.S. Congratulations on that second grand daughter, and hope you have a very pleasant visit!

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

44 special top break revolvers

,
belgium 44 cal. pistol
,
belgium 44 remington top break
,

belgium top break 44 winchester pistol

,

belgium top break revolver

,
break top 44 caliber revolvers
,
chiappa rhino schematic
,

colt top break revolver

,
revolver blow up schematic
,

revolver structure

,
top break revolver exploded
,
top-break rhino
Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Springfield Armory

» HGF Sponsors

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v4.2.1