Why no revolver/pistol crossover calibers?


PDA






Hoffy
October 8, 2007, 10:30 AM
Could someone please educate me why there are few calibers that are used in both revolvers and pistols?

If you enjoyed reading about "Why no revolver/pistol crossover calibers?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Josh Aston
October 8, 2007, 10:48 AM
because revolvers generally use rimmed rounds and autos use rimless rounds.

For the most part rimmed rounds won't feed that well in autos and rimless rounds won't headspace well in revos.

Jim Watson
October 8, 2007, 10:48 AM
Most autopistol cartridges are rimless. So they require clips or complicated trick extractors to work in a revolver.

Revolver cartridges are rimmed, which makes them hard to feed from a magazine. Most revolver cartridges are longer than comparable autopistol cartridges and an auto with conventional butt magazine gets pretty unwieldy if made for a revolver cartridge.

The 1917 .45 ACP Colts and Smiths were wartime expedients that still have a fair following in the S&W 625 series. The various 9mm DA revolvers originated in response to French police interest. S&W 10mm, .40, and .38 Super revolvers were targeted at marketing niches. Which turned out to be too small to bother with. Ruger single action convertibles were meant to take advantage of rod ejectors to let non-handloaders shoot surplus ammo.

pinkymingeo
October 8, 2007, 11:06 AM
Generally there's not much need. Who wants a 32acp revolver? On the other hand, 45acp shines in revolvers. Much more versatile than in semi's. The handloader can use a big variety of bullets and OAL's. It can be a serious hunting round. Another "niche" caliber that really makes sense is 10mm. In a N-frame Smith heavy loads approach the power of .41mag, but are much more pleasant to shoot. 380? Forget it.

RPCVYemen
October 8, 2007, 11:30 AM
Different design parameters lead to different design choices.

Size Paremeters

Autoloader calibers have a strong size limitations - especially with regard to size, compared to revolvers. There is a limit on the length of a cartridge due to the fact that you need to wrap a grip around 8-15 of them, and that grip has to be usable for people with normal sized hands. For a revolver, cartridge length is not so important. I have friend who has a BFR in 45-70! An Autoloader in 45-70 would have a very large grip.

The classic revolver cartridges were designed at a time when black powder dominated, or are derived from those cartridges. Volume was very important - the 45 LC is an enormous cartridge because it needed to be when it was introduced. Even though black powder no longer predominates, since the cases were large anyway, revolvers were adopted by hunters. Hunters seek a lot of power out of a handgun. In fact, many autoloader loads are pretty wimpy when compared to their revolver compatriots. A standard 45 LC load (255gr@900fps) would be a pretty warm 45 ACP load, and a powerful 45 LC load (300gr@1300 fps) would be an extremely powerful 45 ACP load. Most 40 S&W or 10mm loads are a good deal lighter than 41 Magnum loads.

Power Parameters

Another design limitation of autoloader cartridges is that they need to cycle the action of a "standard" autoloader. That implies a "power floor" - a manufacturer tries to sell a 9mm round that is too weak to cycle most 9mm autos will be out of business.

Because revolver cartridges do not have to cycle a slide, they can also be extremely light. A manufacturer can sell extremely light 38 wad cutter loads and be confident that they will function properly in every revolver out there. The same manufacturer can produce fire breathing 357 magnum loads that will work fine in many of the same revolvers. At a hand waving level, the powered required by a revolve is pretty much bounded by "bullet must exit barrel" and "cylinder/top strap must survive intact". That's a pretty broad range of power when compared to an autoloader.

Different design requirements lead to different design choices.

Mike

MrBorland
October 8, 2007, 11:32 AM
The longer length of a revolver cartridge ought to pose problems in a semi as well; hard to feed, and long slide action.

Hoffy
October 8, 2007, 02:32 PM
All of these points make a lot of sense!

40SW
October 8, 2007, 02:38 PM
You should also realize that all revolvers are pistols and so are all semi automatics handguns. A pistol is any firearm that you can COMFORTABLY shoot , aim, and fire, with one hand. Doesn't have to be, but thats the overriding definition. Alot of gun rags make the distinction in only refering to semi automatics as pistols, nothing could be further from the truth.

critter
October 8, 2007, 02:47 PM
Yet somebody (maybe AMT) made a semiauto in .357 mag. The Desert Eagles are made in .357, .44 mag, etc. Could also consider that .22 rimfire comes in both semiauto, revolver and rifles too. Then you have revolvers using semiauto (rimless rounds) with moon clips. It can be done.

karlsgunbunker
October 8, 2007, 02:59 PM
.45acp and 9mm revolvers are readily available.
I have 2 .45acp Taurus Revolvers and they still make a 9mm as does S&W.

warriorsociologist
October 8, 2007, 03:26 PM
You should also realize that all revolvers are pistols and so are all semi automatics handguns. A pistol is any firearm that you can COMFORTABLY shoot , aim, and fire, with one hand. Doesn't have to be, but thats the overriding definition. Alot of gun rags make the distinction in only refering to semi automatics as pistols, nothing could be further from the truth.



Don't be so hasty to judge him and tell him what he "should" start doing. No offense, but just because you operate with that definition does not make it universal.

Personally, I must say the way I was trained (Military & Federal LEO), both "pistols" (semi-autos) and "revolvers" (well, "wheelguns") are commonly classified as handguns and fit your general definition (one-handed/non-shoulder discharge weapons)... It's a simple distinction, actually, but when I hear someone generally refer to a revolver as a "pistol" (vs. a revolver or a "handgun")...I immediatly liken it to someone calling a magazine a "clip." Again, it seems there are "different schools" of training...and this is just my experience.

Which of us is "right"...well, that's probbaly not too important...but it's also for neither of us to decide.

YMMV.

40SW
October 8, 2007, 03:31 PM
warriorsociologist.
Nobody is being judged. My definition is factual and correct. Thank you for your LEO and federal training, but it does not mean that a revolver is not a pistol. Federal and leo training does not make it correct.

Quiet
October 8, 2007, 03:35 PM
.45acp and 9mm revolvers are readily available.
So, are 10mm revolvers.

40SW
October 8, 2007, 03:37 PM
A 45colt and a 9mm are BOTH PISTOL CARTRIDGES., because there are pistols chambered for them.

rcmodel
October 8, 2007, 03:46 PM
And all these years, I thought a Model of 1847 Army Pistol (Colt Walker) was a horse pistol, not a Horse Revolver! :what:

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j219/rcmodel/KTOG/1224.gif
rcmodel

40SW
October 8, 2007, 03:51 PM
Rcmodel:
You are exactly right, the term pistol is about 500 yrs.old, obviously predates "revolver" by a FEW (sarcasm) years. (northern italian town: pistoia).
Beretta started making pistols a VERY long time ago.

warriorsociologist
October 8, 2007, 03:56 PM
Ok...well, for starters, thanks for being a NRA instructor...

warriorsociologist.
Nobody is being judged. My definition is factual and correct. Thank you for your LEO and federal training, but it does not mean that a revolver is not a pistol. Federal and leo training does not make it correct.

:rolleyes: And from what font of knowledge are you getting your information? 40S&W, I never claimed to have the "end all be all" answer. SInce you raised the "fact" claim though, all I can say is that in my experience dealing with how weapons are categorized at crimes scenes, my categorization scheme is what I have seem more often. Further, again since you now have me a bit amused by the energy you seem to be putting into the defense of your opinion (and your sarcasm has a little to do with it too) a quick internet search reveals the following from the GFT:

GLOSSARY OF FIREARMS TERMINOLOGY
http://comunidad.ciudad.com.ar/ciudadanos/efontenla/GLOSSARY.htm#Pan

Handgun / Arma corta: (n. sus.) A gun designed so that it may be held and fired in one hand. See pistol, revolver.

Pistol / Pistola: (n. sus.) Traditionally, a handgun not a revolver, e.g., a single-shot, multi-barrel, or semiautomatic. In current use the term includes revolvers. Tradicionalmente recibe este nombre aquella arma corta o de mano que no sea un revolver, puede ser monotiro, politiro, de uno o varios cañones o semiautomática, ocacionalmente tal definición puede incluir a los revólveres.

Revolver: (n. Sus.) A repeating firearm in which the ammunition is held in a multi-chambered cylinder, which is rotated to bring each chamber in line with the barrel. Most revolvers are handguns, although shoulder-fired arms have been made using this sort of mechanism. See a picture of a Colt SF-VI revolver.

Sure there are "more than one / two ways to skin a cat", but remember it was you who issued the claim to have THE aswer when you told another poster he should start thinking like you and that "all the gun rags" were wrong (again, because they didn't agree with you). Remeber, the same logic you apply to me & them also applies equally to you. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but please remember it is exactly (and no more than) that. Further, it's not exactly polite or wise to believe your opinion trumps everyone elses.

A 45colt and a 9mm are BOTH PISTOL CARTRIDGES., because there are pistols chambered for them.

:confused:
So by that logic, because I have a T/C Encore pistol in .308 (and one that can fire .410 shells..for that matter) makes the .308 a "pistol cartridge" too? Look, let's not get sidetracked here. This is about semantics and not worth leaving "The High Road" to dicker about.

I think this is where we are on this:

You --> Everything that can be fired with one hand = "pistol"
Me --> "insert same idea here" = "handgun" (of which, there are several "types" (revolvers, pistols, single-shots, etc). Just like there are many types of "rifles" (bolt actions, semi-autos, etc.) and "shotguns" (you get the point).




Heck, 40S&W, the very forum you founded & own (http://www.triggercontrol.proboards2.com/index.cgi)even suggests that you agree with my definition at some level since on it you maintain two sub-forums entitled:

SEMI AUTOMATIC PISTOLS
All Semi auto pistols, including 1911s and Glocks. Steel/alloy and polymer frames united.

and

REVOLVERS AND CYLINDER HANDGUNS
Revolvers, derringers, and all cylinder handguns.

...remind me again...what's the point of arguing about this????



SO...I sincerely don't want this thread to go downhill becuse of this issue so please, 40S&W, if you want to debate me on this point, start a new thread or send me a PM. I'm not going to contribute to the trashing of this thread by reply again about this here.

40SW
October 8, 2007, 03:59 PM
Warriorsociologist.:
I wish I could lay claim to the definition, but here is the source. My definition is verbatim from the below listed source. If you have a problem with it, please write the NRA.
The NRA Basic Pistol Shooting Handbook.
Page VII
Introduction.
Definition of Pistol.

savit260
October 8, 2007, 04:06 PM
Don't be so hasty to judge him and tell him what he "should" start doing. No offense, but just because you operate with that definition does not make it universal.

Personally, I must say the way I was trained (Military & Federal LEO), both "pistols" (semi-autos) and "revolvers" (well, "wheelguns") are commonly classified as handguns and fit your general definition (one-handed/non-shoulder discharge weapons)... It's a simple distinction, actually, but when I hear someone generally refer to a revolver as a "pistol" (vs. a revolver or a "handgun")...I immediatly liken it to someone calling a magazine a "clip." Again, it seems there are "different schools" of training...and this is just my experience.

Which of us is "right"...well, that's probbaly not too important...but it's also for neither of us to decide.
Deuling pistols
http://www.courts.ns.ca/history/images/DuelingPistols02.jpg

Revolving pistol.(revovler)
http://www.iar-arms.com/images2/paterson.jpg

Auto loading (automatic) pistol
http://www.remingtonsociety.com/photos/M1911A101.jpg
Pistols all, and all handguns. ;)

40SW
October 8, 2007, 04:08 PM
savit260:
excellent illustrations and 100% correct.

warriorsociologist
October 8, 2007, 04:12 PM
(OK, this IS my last post on this...really)

Thank you for demonstrating my point (which should be "our" point by the way) that there are multiple definitions (as it is a customary term, nothing more/less)...so, again, this is why I find it unbecoming when you claim to have "the only one" that should be used.

Anyway. I promised I wouldn't help in the ruin of this conversation, so unless you want to continue this elsewhere, I've had & said my piece.

40SW
October 8, 2007, 04:16 PM
Hoffy:
You might want to try the Taurus 9mm stellar clip snubbie. The one thing that I found is that stellar clips are sometimes cumbersome, although there are folks who swear by the S&W model 22 which uses full moon and half moon clips and folks love them. Its also chambered for the .45 AUTO RIM as well as the .45ACP.
As far as cartridges that are both shared by semi autos and revolvers, I would say go with the 9mm is you want to experience it in a revolver, but in the end, what real advantage are you gaining from a .38+P, both are almost equally effective with proper shotplacement. So regardless of which pistol you choose, ask yourself the main motivation in doing so.

RPCVYemen
October 8, 2007, 04:50 PM
I would say go with the 9mm is you want to experience it in a revolver, but in the end, what real advantage are you gaining from a .38+P, both are almost equally effective with proper shot placement.

Yeah, I never saw any point in shooting an autoloader rounds in a revolver or vice versa. I guess that if you have a lot of 45 ACP autoloaders and you want to try a revolver, you could get a 45 ACP revolver. You give up a lot in terms of the flexibility of the cartridge, but I guess it may make sense to simplify your ammo supply.

I can't see going the other way - I don't see much sense in sticking a big long revolver case in an autoloader. Other than bragging rights, I can't really see the point of a a Desert Eagle in 44 mag. I think if the Desert Eagle as a hunting weapon, but I don't see much of an advantage over a revolver for that. I'm not sure how many situations require a fast reload of a 44 magnum. The size of the Desert Eagle sort of makes the point about black powder derived cartridges in autolaoders.

On another note, I wonder if we could get a sticky topic for all people who feel very strongly about things like "magazine" vs. "clip" and "pistol" vs. "autoloader". The folks that feel strongly about those issue could rant to their hearts' content - and stop hijacking threads. The rest of us, who may prefer a descriptive (as opposed to a prescriptive) lexicography need never read it again.

Mike

40SW
October 8, 2007, 04:56 PM
Clint Smith made a similar point in American Handgunner when asked why ThunderRanch went with the Model 22 revolver S&W in 45ACP. His answer was that ammo is plentiful and its a natural crossover for the 1911 crowd. So your contention is correct.

Hoffy
October 8, 2007, 06:42 PM
On the semantic side, I guess I just picked up using the term pistol synonymously with autoloader from looking at the manufacturer’s websites. The following sites all have a navigational fork in the road where you can click "Pistols" or "Revolvers" and be taken either to semi-automatics or wheel guns, respectively:

Taurus (http://www.taurususa.com),
Colt (http://www.coltsmfg.com/cmci/home.asp),
Smith & Wesson (http://www.smith-wesson.com), and
Ruger (http://www.ruger.com).

Of course...the fact that the manufacturers use these terms one way or the other doesn't make the usage correct or incorrect.

Thanks again for all the information.

RPCVYemen
October 8, 2007, 10:17 PM
Of course...the fact that the manufacturers use these terms one way or the other doesn't make the usage correct or incorrect.

In point of fact, it may. There is a school of descriptive lexicography that would argue that it precisely the usage of word that determines its meaning. That would explain why, for example "flammable" and "inflammable" have the same meaning when they must have opposite meanings, or why aluminum is acceptable in American English when the proper form must be the British aluminium (as other elements sodium, helium, etc. end in "-ium" forms). Even though "in" as a prefix means "not", flammable and inflammable mean the same thing because people use them to mean the same thing. Even though the American usage of aluminum is clearly a spelling mistake, it's acceptable because that's the way Americans spell aluminium. In fact, it was an American manufacturer's miss spelling of aluminium that gave us the American spelling. :)

As much as I emotional prefer classic "prescriptive" lexicography (rational derivations from roots, etc.), I fear that it is really empirically indefensible with regard to English. English - particularly American English - is a very fluid language, words change meanings all of the time. The reality is that attempts to determine the "correct meaning" of an English work usually means "this is what it meant when my father used it." - and ignores that it may very well have meant something very different to you father's father, or your father's father's father.

I have noticed the same phenomenon that you have noticed - that in common usage, handgun is the common category with subcategories of pistol and revolver. I understand that at one time "pistol" may have been the common category, with subcategories of "autoloader" and "revolver" - thats' what I recall from growing up. However, in common usage today, if I hear "pistol", I am pretty sure that the speaker is speaking of an autoloader. Anymore, I head "1911 pistol" frequently, but I hear "Blackhawk revolver" or "S&W 625 revolver" much more frequently than I hear "Blackhawk pistol" or "S&W 625 pistol".

Could someone please educate me why there are few calibers that are used in both revolvers and pistols?

At any rate, your original question was absolutely clear - and interesting.

Mike

zinj
October 9, 2007, 12:43 AM
As said before, revolver is short for "Revolving Pistol." I suspect manufacturers use "Pistol" and "Revolver" on their websites to avoid using the word "Automatic."

why aluminum is acceptable in American English when the proper form must be the British aluminium (as other elements sodium, helium, etc. end in "-ium" forms).

Actually, while Aluminum was changed by the Brits to Aluminium it does fit in with several other -um elements, namely Platinum, Molybdenum, and Tantalum.

Even though "in" as a prefix means "not", flammable and inflammable mean the same thing because people use them to mean the same thing.

No, it doesn't. The "in" from inflammable is derived from the same root as the "in" as indoors. It means that the container holds a combustable substance.

buttrap
October 9, 2007, 03:58 AM
My understanding is though "pistol" was used for ages for any handgun and still generaly fits in todays age the term pistol tends to go with selfloading vs revolver so people can tell what the heck is the subject of the discussion. I aviod using the term as a Pistol could be a sex organ for a flower or the firing system in most anything that goes boom.

HeyJerr
October 9, 2007, 04:46 AM
critter
Yet somebody (maybe AMT) made a semiauto in .357 mag. The Desert Eagles are made in .357, .44 mag, etc. Could also consider that .22 rimfire comes in both semiauto, revolver and rifles too. Then you have revolvers using semiauto (rimless rounds) with moon clips. It can be done.

What's funny is that I didn't even think twice when I got a .22 semi-auto pistol but was surprised when I got a Desert Eagle in .44mag and found it used the same round as a revolver. For some reason, I couldn't fathom feeding a revolver round through a semi-auto (apparently in deep disregard of my .22).

The extraction of a round in the D.E. does, however, leave a noticeable drag mark on the casing of the following round in the clip/mag/feeding device. ;)

Elm Creek Smith
October 11, 2007, 10:26 PM
Coonan made a .357 Magnum semiautomatic pistol on the M1911 pattern.

On a lighter note, all I'll say is that as far as handguns go, all revolvers are pistols but not all pistols are revolvers.:what::cool:

ECS

If you enjoyed reading about "Why no revolver/pistol crossover calibers?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!