# More on Revolver Design......



## Bob Wright (May 10, 2006)

The ideas, or lack thereof, concerning a new revolver design reminded me of a quote, I believe of Thomas Edison:

When an experiment didn't work, someone commented about the "failure." Edison replied that, "We just discovered another way that didn't work." Or words to that effect.

But wasn't that one heck of a thread?

Bob Wright


----------



## skullfr (Jun 19, 2012)

yup,nothing better than stirring brain cells


----------



## DanP_from_AZ (May 8, 2009)

Bob Wright said:


> The ideas, or lack thereof, concerning a new revolver design . . .
> . . . But wasn't that one heck of a thread?


Yes it was !
Now I known this doesn't fit with your "ideal revolver", but for "top-break stuff", how did we miss . . . "the lemon squeezer" ?
I ran across this while hunting up an AR article on tactical riflescopes.

"The American Rifleman", September 2007, Page 120, Technical, I Have This Old Gun, "Smith & Wesson Safety Hammerless Revolvers".

Or,
Smith & Wesson Lemon Squeezer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, I know. Rather anemic caliber/cartridge.

Or, fill me in. It was already covered, and my short-term/medium term memory "acting up" ? Again.

A really good thread is hard to kill. Requires either a silver bullet with a cross, or a wooden stake. I forget which. :mrgreen:


----------



## Bob Wright (May 10, 2006)

The "Lemon Squeezer" idea was carried over to the early Centenial Models, a J-Framed hammerless revovler with grip safety.

But, we did sort of ignore those, as you said, they did not fit in with my original idea, whatever that was.

Also failed to consider the S & W Perfected Model top-break, which had a thumb release like modern Smith revovlers. As I remember, someone noted that a criminal could dis-arm a police officer simply by reaching over and unlatching the top-break's latch and pulling upward on the top strap. To prevent this, Smith added the thumb latch that had to be pushed simultaneously with opening the barrel latch.

And, admittedly, that's one idea we did not explore.

Bob Wright


And I believe its a wooden stake shot with a silver bullet.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

If you shoot a steak with a silver bullet, you'll make it more difficult to broil it properly.
Medium-rare will be the best I can do.

The supplementary latch on the Perfected model merely secured either the cylinder axis or the top latch. It didn't make the lockup any stronger.


----------



## Bob Wright (May 10, 2006)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> If you shoot a steak with a silver bullet, you'll make it more difficult to broil it properly.
> Medium-rare will be the best I can do.
> 
> The supplementary latch on the Perfected model merely secured either the cylinder axis or the top latch. It didn't make the lockup any stronger.


Admittedly that's true. But, what if the bolt were of a more generous size, such as in the Colt DA revolvers? Remember, we're talking about keeping the gun closed when fired, which the stirrup latch was all about.

Without a barrel, I believe an open top frame would contain the backthrust of most modern cartridges. Remember, I wasn't referring to .44 Magnum forces.

Bob Wright


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

OK, Bob, we're back to needing an engineer.

I really don't like the very inelegant solution of having two separate latches to manipulate simultaneously.
It's not a matter of practicality, since this thought experiment is about a non-self-defense pistol, but I really rebel against solutions which are not elegant.
There's got to be a better way.

I still recommend putting the closure under compression, as much as possible, rather than under tension.
I just don't know a simple way of doing it.


----------



## Bob Wright (May 10, 2006)

Well, I've about run out of counter-arguments. As to elegant solutions, maybe better to find a solution, then refine it to the point of elegance.

Bob Wright


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

Bob;
No need for "counter arguments." This is a discussion and an exchange of ideas, not a contest with a winner and a loser.
But I really do believe that we're at the point of requiring professional help.
We need a real engineer.


----------



## Bob Wright (May 10, 2006)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Bob;
> 
> But I really do believe that we're at the point of requiring professional help.
> We need a real engineer.


At least that!

As to "argument" I didn't mean argument as in arguing, but rather in a "point/counter point" way. You like on TV where.........no, that's not quite it.

It's like during a political campaign.........no, forget that.

It's, well, like think tank type of discussion. That's it!

Bob Wright


----------



## DanP_from_AZ (May 8, 2009)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Bob;
> No need for "counter arguments." This is a discussion and an exchange of ideas, not a contest with a winner and a loser.
> But I really do believe that we're at the point of requiring professional help.
> We need a real engineer.


All I can say is that in my long and on a few occasions a "somewhat illustrious" career,

I met more than a few engineers who REALLY needed "professional help" from an entirely different "discipline".

And WAY more than a few that could have used a few whacks from a "common-sense cluebat".

I'm sure all you'all would not be surprised to know that both of these above types "gravitated toward management". :mrgreen:


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

Form follows function...until it gets in the way of a really good-looking design feature.


----------

