I'm artist, I don't know what the difference between

File: c2841cb0b4df59e5195a7d55bb54c4b6.jpg (40KB, 736x492px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 736x492px

Let's clarify what you said since you say you don't know the diff. If this isn't what you mean about then please explain

Double action is when pulling the trigger both cocks and releases the hammer (single action only releases the hammer - it must be manually cocked)

Break action is a way the revolver opens. Pic related. As opposed to swing out cylinders or fixed cylinder.

>>31058042
>Break action is a way the revolver opens. Pic related. As opposed to swing out cylinders or fixed cylinder.
Yup. That's what i'm trying to say.

Is it possible for a revolver to do both? be a break action and swing-out.

File: 1470744932662.gif (971KB, 270x252px) Image search: [Google]

971KB, 270x252px

>>31058046
Lurk more and try to not sound retarded the first time then. A revolver thats both a break action and swing-out is unnecessary and possibly useless or would just be a broken one.

>>31058107
Oh, I agree with you 100% but it would look cool.

File: H&R_999.jpg (31KB, 560x307px)

31KB, 560x307px

>>31058025
>Whats to say you couldn't make a double action revolver that can also open like a break action?

Nothing, the H&R 999 is a 9 shot break action .22LR revolver which can shoot in single-action and double-action.
It's sort of similar to the old British Webley and Enfield revolvers that way.

Break-action revolvers aren't really done these days because they can't handle a whole lot of pressure, nor offer really any significant advantage over swing-out cylinders.

For the H&R 999 it's not an issue because .22LR is quite low pressure, it's perfectly alright for a plinker or what have you.
The Webleys were from the era of the black powder and were kind of retooled for smokeless powder, the .455 Webley isn't too high in pressure (less in pressure than the .45ACP of the 1911, which isn't a super fast bullet), the .38-200 used in the Enfield revolver is less in pressure than .38 Special, which is a pretty lukewarm load usually (less pressure than your average 9mm Luger cartridge).

There was a Russian revolver in .357 Magnum which was intended for export to the American market, changes in legality quashed that and nobody really knows how good they actually are.

Today, a company makes a repro of the old Webley Revolver in .357 Magnum, I have no idea how well it holds up to high powered loads, but they're very expensive and are made in very small batches, so I imagine they're the quality over quantity kind of production.

A reproduction of the Schofield revolver is made by Uberti today, in .45 Colt, rated for smokeless loads, this would have a much higher pressure curve than the original black powder .45 Schofield cartridge. This gun is mostly for collectors and Cowboy Action Shooters.
It's expensive, and I imagine it handles target loads just fine, but you probably couldn't feed it crazy hotrodded loads like you could for a Smith & Wesson M25 revolver, due break-action revolvers being inherently less strong than a modern swing-out cylinder 'hand-ejectors'.

>>31058046
Swing out and break action. I suppose it's possible, just redundant. Either one gives you access to the back of the cylinder.

>>31058046
Wait, you want a revolver which breaks open as well as swings out?

At the same time?

Why?

>>31058046
It is possible, but it would be utterly idiotic.

Break-action:
>ambidextrous(+)
>"automatic" ejection(+)
>weaker frame(-)
>more mechanically complex(-)

Swing-out:
>manual ejection(+/-)
>stronger frame(+)

Hybrid system:
>weaker frame than break-action(--)
>can choose between " automatic" and manual ejection, but why would you(-)
>much more mechanically complex(--)
>ambidextrous(+)

File: 615418.jpg (28KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 320x240px

>>31058107
>Lurk more and try to not sound retarded the first time then
You're an idiot. The guy clearly doesn't know much about guns and decided to ask first. It's because of the antisocial basement dwellers like you who that the liberals pass crazy legislation because they had no one from the gun community who wasn't a neckbeard to help them out in the first place.

>>31058046
>Is it possible for a revolver to do both? be a break action and swing-out.
There would be no point to this since they are both two solutions to same problem. You'd just end up with a floppy mess of metal when you try to reload. It'd be like having a phone that is both touch tone and rotary.

>>31058127
>but it would look cool.

You'll fit in just right here on /k/