Latch design in top break revolvers

We must have some sort of misscommunication here due to my bad English... because I don't get how you want me to fasten the latch parts without an insert... Maybe an insert is not what I think it its, because I certainly intend all the functional parts of the latch being made of at-least steel, but they still have to attach to the frame in some way, and that's what i call an insert...

As I said, "there are other good ways to protect against this" and I would always have stainless steel for the functional parts the primary reason to use titanium was always weight. Though no endore is correct in the fact that Stainless steel sometimes don't cut it in a saltwater spray environment because they can be really trying on steel (I could tell horrorstories about the M2 HMGS on our combat boats, not that they are stainless, but damn they corrode fast in the saltwater spray), I am led to believe that with nitrocarburization it should do good

I agree with you, but I don't know the difference in powder burn rates, so Muzzle energy served as a decent approximation of recoil. Do you think 2.75 .20 gauge would be doable with say a 1.3-1.2 kg revolver, individual users also have the option of using lower recoil loads but the gun should still be able to take full power ones. Two ways out if I want to shave of even more weight is .410 and porting but I'm not to keen on any of those two (for different reasons).

question:
Finally I would like to hear some input on locking around the shotgun barrel instead of on the topstrapp, one obvious problem with that would be sight alignment of the iron sights...

There are different grades of stainless steel, ranging from only a step above ordinary corrosion-resistant steels (stainless always includes a significant amount of Cr and often Ni), to being usable in saltwater day in and day out.
Assuming your people don't go out of their way to mess up their guns it shouldn't be a major problem.

Recoil-wise it should be OK, just don't go even lighter than that if you want that option to remain useful.

By insert, do you mean the pin? As in small axle or shaft over which it rotates?

I'm not exactly sure about your locking idea, a diagram might explain it.

By insert i mean a big chunky bit fastened as good as possible into the frame, and it is this part that holds the different smaller part of the lock. But I am all ears when it comes to other ways of fastening the latch parts to the titanium frame.

OK should be enough since if someone actually ended up using the thing in self defense I assume they would be using the .357 anyway.

I don't have a concrete idea as such but something along the lines of extending and adding catches to the shotgun barrel and then having the "latch assembly" on the lower frame.

This is not trivial. You need a diagram to explain how you're going to do it.
Not a piece of art, a diagram. At least to make sure it can actually fit, because I'm not sure.
While at that point out where specifically would inserts you want be located.

As to making a lock on the shotgun barrel, that is just a general idea, I don't have a thought out design (I was sort of hoping to get to know a possible way to do it from this board ), but whatever it could be it will be tight with the hammer and trigger group.

The "inserts" would be on both ends of a top strap latch (though there would be plenty of other functional parts of the gun made from steel) One possibility is also making the entire top strap steel, sort of like an extension of the upper barrel and then having an equivalent frame embedded "bottom strap" running from the steel rotation-point that is attached to the shotgun barrel.
(It would not surprise me if the REX contains something like this since the lower frame is polymer. Unforgettably its quite hard to find good info on that gun due to its limited production run,)

Corrosion resistance is but one of many attributes of a steel. Take 321, for example. It's nice and rust-resistant, but its yield is functionally identical to 2024. (which really makes you wonder why you didn't just go with ALCLAD 2024 in the first place)

Increasing corrosion resistance tends to greatly reduce the physical properties you want. Keeping those properties constant tends to make the stuff bloody impossible to work with, and crazy expensive.

Everything except for the barrel can use 2205.

The problem with substituting steel parts for something else is that you have to then substitute ALL the steel parts. There's no point making everything except the barrel more resistant than 2205 if the barrel is less resistant than 2205.

At that point you're getting into exotic territory, mixing up alloys with associated galvanic and thermal expansion issues, making the thing complicated beyond, really, any need for it to be.
Better to avoid going diving with your revolver, putting it over the suit when cleaning up spills, and give it a good clean, or at least some freshwater and WD after taking down those beach bullies.

The issue with top break revolvers isn't that they're suddenly going to blow up in your hands if you put high pressure rounds in them. Rather they'll shoot loose after a while. Webleys, which weren't exactly lightly built, had problems with .45 ACP. .357 is something like 50% more pressure but I don't really feel like looking it up. As V10 has noted this will be exacerbated by titanium.

Centerfire LeMats weren't top break, by the way.

I don't know why people are talking about gas seals. Non-weird revolvers need a certain cylinder gap clearance anyway, which will be even more with titanium cylinders or you'll get nasty binding and scoring of the front of the cylinder.

Wiki says top break revolvers have faster reload times, of course. That's wrong and silly.

Titanium probably isn't a good choice for a presentation weapon just because of the color.

Nobody has said they will blow up, basically the entire thread from the OP to now is about them loosening up, and how to decrease that. Titanium has never been intended for the parts that can start to play with time (well technically all parts can, but you know what I mean).

Though top break is a worse starting point than solid frame It is far from impossible. We have two modern examples that unfortenetely never reached full production, supposedly not due to flaws in the top break design. First of we have the gamer REX chambered in .357 mag, and than we have the much beefier 7 shot Detonics top break with the stolen prototypes chambered in .451 Detonics Magnum and .44 Magnum.

*edit* I found the patent for the detonics one.

I never said they were, Centerfire (and pinfire) LeMat's swung the breech of the shot barrel up and left to reload, while the regular rounds still used the loading gate.

No one here said they did reload faster?

Mazara Palani brought that up but no one considered it an issue...

Now were talking aesthetics, but I personally think that the two tone interaction between the steel parts and the titanium frame.

In the end this is a back story to give me the opportunity of designing a modernized, full power, no expenses spared version of this:


This post has been edited by Trinary on Oct 8 2012, 08:38 AM

Oh. If you're just shooting blanks you shouldn't have any problems.

That's why I said full power. (Giving out movie prop guns to the bravest men in the country doesn't really cut it) Since the pictured gun is a conversion it is not scaled appropriately the hinge and topstrap is puny and that "lock" could probably open up with a slight shake. The picture merely illustrates the allure of the project.

Check the patent in the previous post (you might have missed it since I edited it in while you posted)