Defensive Carry banner
81 - 100 of 152 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,133 Posts
Of course, pistols were being called pistols, before there were revolving pistols.
I'm not sure why you're trying to make that point in response to my comment, as it's immaterial to my comment.

My point is that while revolvers are handguns, they are not pistols. Specifically, pistols are handguns with one or more stationary chambers. Revolvers are handguns that use multiple rotating chambers. Pistols and revolvers are mutually exclusive terms. They are both handguns, but pistols are not revolvers and revolvers are not pistols.

Handguns:
  • Revolvers
  • Pistols
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,174 Posts
That depends on which dictionary you look up the word pistol in. A revolver is first a pistol...has been since I was in high school. Later dictionarys have begun to describe them as you do, but some still don't.

Samuel Colt Revolvers have commonly been referred to as pistols or revolving pistols...not just by laymen, but by their inventors and historians...that was the point Rexter was correctly making.
Revolvers are first pistols...then, when you break pistols down into types...one type is revolver, one is semiautomatic, one is black powder single shot, etc.

When they say "your experience may differ"...it do may!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,559 Posts
Discussion Starter · #83 ·
That depends on which dictionary you look up the word pistol in. A revolver is first a pistol...has been since I was in high school. Later dictionarys have begun to describe them as you do, but some still don't.

Samuel Colt Revolvers have commonly been referred to as pistols or revolving pistols...not just by laymen, but by their inventors and historians...that was the point Rexter was correctly making.
Revolvers are first pistols...then, when you break pistols down into types...one type is revolver, one is semiautomatic, one is black powder single shot, etc.

When they say "your experience may differ"...it do may!
We live in a time when all definitions are being challenged.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,174 Posts
Yeah, like I got a pink bunny by my name in third grade for knowing all the nine planets' names in order from the sun...now they've LOST one of them and say there's only eight!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,302 Posts
I'm not sure why you're trying to make that point in response to my comment, as it's immaterial to my comment.

My point is that while revolvers are handguns, they are not pistols. Specifically, pistols are handguns with one or more stationary chambers. Revolvers are handguns that use multiple rotating chambers. Pistols and revolvers are mutually exclusive terms. They are both handguns, but pistols are not revolvers and revolvers are not pistols.

Handguns:
  • Revolvers
  • Pistols
I reckon that we will just have to agree to disagree.

The word “pistol” existed long before a bureaucrat in the ATF was tasked with providing a definition for the various firearms.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
19,034 Posts
I'm not sure why you're trying to make that point in response to my comment, as it's immaterial to my comment.

My point is that while revolvers are handguns, they are not pistols. Specifically, pistols are handguns with one or more stationary chambers. Revolvers are handguns that use multiple rotating chambers. Pistols and revolvers are mutually exclusive terms. They are both handguns, but pistols are not revolvers and revolvers are not pistols.

Handguns:
  • Revolvers
  • Pistols
Exactly when was it decreed that revolvers were no longer to be considered to be pistols and who was the first nitwit who decreed it so?

Revolvers are pistols.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,174 Posts
We were young, and now we are old, but we still gotta do our homework. When I don't check facts, I get teethmarks on my cheeks.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,133 Posts
Revolvers are pistols.
No, bmcgilvray. They are not. Yes, I saw your poster for the Colt. Yes, I observed the error in nomenclature made by the graphic artist who drew it up.

359062



A revolver's chamber is not integral with the barrel, ergo, it's not a pistol.
A revolver's chamber is integral with the cylinder, ergo, it's a revolver.

We would be wise to not allow a 100-year-old mistake to perpetuate.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,133 Posts
Just because a term is commonly misused in no way negates the fact that it's misused.

Nowhere is this more painfully evidence than the confusion over wheel, tire, and rim. People commonly refer to the rim as the wheel, but it's not. It's a rim. When you mount the tire, specifically the rubber tire, onto the rim, you have what the technical manual states is a "wheel assembly," or "wheel," for short. You bolt the wheel to the hub. The "wheel" is the complete assembly upon which the vehicle rides and includes both the tire and the rim.

When you see advertisements for "wheels" and only rims are depicted, such as this page with Discount Tires, it's because some marketer thought "wheels" sounded better than "rims" and it stuck, in part because it may have been a national chain and in part because it might indeed sound better. Doesn't make it right, though.

In racing, if a tire shreds, the announcer says the driver lost a tire. If the entire wheel (rim + tire) pops off the vehicle, the announcer says the driver lost a wheel.

Bottom Line: There are no revolvers present in this long list of pistols.

Again, let's please not perpetuate incorrect terminology just because of its prevalence.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
19,034 Posts
Let's do perpetuate it since9.

And, who are you to declare that the graphic artist erred in his description? Were you proofing his copy 148 years ago? There's a better than even chance that Colt Patent Firearms Manufacturing Company itself proofed that advertising, given how fiercely they controlled everything about the revolver market that they could during that time period.

Wikipedia lists notwithstanding.

Revolvers as an appropriate description for a particular type or design of pistol has nothing to do with wheels, tires, and rims.

If Colt who first marketed successful revolvers could call its revolvers "pistols" in 1873 advertising then who are we to argue that it is, or ever was incorrect terminology? Semantics police stand on quicksand trying to ram through the notion that revolvers are not pistols.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OD*, airslot and JD

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,174 Posts
I guess Oxford proofread wrong, too? dictionary definition of revolver - Google Search


Wiki is not quite as established as an authority as is Colt OR Oxford. Now, to be fair...the wiki list are all pistols. However, the list doesn't include ALL pistols.


Some folks get plumb livid at THIS dictionary entry...but it's not a proofreading mistake. Definition of CLIP
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,068 Posts
I am sure that many of us have been down this road, but I think I may have finally reached the end. It took me a long time (12 years) but I have been reflecting back to where I am now (funny how you do more of that the older you get).

A little over 12 years ago, I started training in firearms with a police firearms instructor in Ventura, California. The first pistol he had me shoot was a Gen 3 Glock 17, and I thought it was great (and I still think it is a remarkable pistol in terms of the engineering behind it). I bought one from my instructor (he had an FFL and at the time sold firearms, too). I did not know or understand that there were other Glock models.

Probably three months into my training I began to realize that there were a lot of other choices in the Glock world. It was also the time my wife started to train, too (she had taken a full semester of police firearms at a community college 38 years prior). We needed a second pistol, so I purchased a Glock 22 Gen 3. I shot it worse than I did the G17, but since it was the pistol of the day, and .40 caliber was popular, I persisted.

It was perhaps a few months after that I decided to try a Glock 27, because it was more concealable, which in California is a definite concern for CCW holders. I couldn’t shoot that any better than I did the G22; actually I definitely shot it worse. I traded it in short order for a G26.

I continued to carry the G26 for the rest of the time we lived in California (improving very slowly), but shortly before we moved had the opportunity to shoot several full size Sig P220s in both DA/SA and DAK models. I was amazed at how well they shot (or how well I shot them), but did not pursue the issue at the time.

We moved to Utah in 2014 and one of the main reasons I wanted to move was to be in a more firearms friendly state, and to have opportunities to hunt, which I initially pursued in California.

In the first couple of years after we moved, I purchased a Colt Commander, a G19, a G19 MOS with a red dot, and a Sig P938 for pocket carry. About three years ago, I purchased a Sig P229 more because I wanted to learn how to shoot DA/SA than for any other reason. I was surprised at how easy it was for me to learn how to run this pistol, and it became my regular carry weapon. I shoot the P229 as well as anything I own or have owned.


View attachment 358591


This year, I bought a Wilson Combat EDC X9, for several reasons. The reviews on it were very good, I thought the pistol was especially good looking, and I wanted one really high end pistol. Now, after carrying it for several months, I realize that I shoot it no better than I do a P229, despite the EDCX9 having a single action mechanism.

This is a long story that has been a very roundabout way of realizing that I can shoot just about any 9mm pistol about just as well as any other 9mm pistol or .38 special revolver I own. Could I shoot a .44 magnum or .454 Casull as well? Probably not. Essentially I have reached the point where I recognize that I have no reason to buy another pistol, unless of course there is some quantum leap in ballistics or other related technology that would make it important to stay on an even footing with other armed good guys (or bad guys).

Please don’t tell my wife about what I have written!
Just do what the rest of us married males do….
359092
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
19,034 Posts
Colt called it a pistol in his patent application...https://www.ammoland.com/2017/02/day-history-samuel-colts-u-s-patent-no-138/#axzz6zrQF4AXp
Good on ya' Snub44 for pointing out that tidbit. I'm sure I encountered the patent information in print in the past, but hadn't thought to use that argument in debating the topic.

Here's another link to that site.


But wait!

There's more!

Another article referring to Samuel Colt's patent.

I have my own theory on what gave rise to the assertion that revolvers are not pistols. It must be added that this "revolver is not a pistol" claim is relatively recent and has been much amplified since the rise of the internet forum where all and sundry who want to look clever try to impose contrived handgun terminology onto the rest of the shooting fraternity.


Anyway, it was also Colt who termed their new self-loading pistols as "Automatics." It says so right on their early automatics ( also says so on current Colt automatics - see image above from their website), on Colt pistol boxes of all kinds, and in early Colt advertising. Since it was Colt who first domestically marketed American made automatic pistols, first successfully produced Browning automatic pistol designs in America, Colt ought to have some say in terminology.

After the introduction of the Colt automatics in the year 1900 the use of the term "pistol" for revolvers fell into disuse by Colt in their marketing, ads, and correspondence. Nobody decreed it to be incorrect usage to call a revolver a type of pistol though. Not suddenly on a given date, then or now. Of late it has become fashionable in some circles to bludgeon any who resort to the use of the term "pistol" when describing revolvers. These same sort also deride those who call self-loading pistols "automatics" and that includes yours truly. These sort try to steer handgun users into all sorts of contrived descriptive terms as has been seen down through the years: self-loading, semi-automatic, semi, auto pistol, and what not. Oh, let's not forget the revolver.

So which is it guys? That's fodder for a new Forum topic.

In my house it's "pistols" to be divided further into automatics, revolvers, and otherwise and otherwise includes single-shots, derringers etc. It's always been so, among family, friends, even regionally. I care not if the entirety of Firearms Forum-Land laughs derisively at me. That's the way I use the term. I'm in good company too. Both GunBroker and Guns America use the all encompassing term "Pistols" to be further subdivided into the selfsame terms I use for the various categories of pistols. They manage to auction off lots of guns.

Kleenex is a brand and not a proper description of a facial tissue, but there's not a person on this forum who won't pull a tissue from a box of Puffs if I was to have snot running down my upper lip and ask you to please hand me a Kleenex. Band-Aid and Coke are also originally trademarked terms effectively understood in the same way. At the very least the term "pistol" is understood in the same way only "pistol" is correct usage to this day and Kleenex and allies are more recently generally understood.

If I was standing amidst rifles and shotguns leaning against a gun counter having revolvers lying on that counter and requested a pistol, you'd look a proper nitwit if you didn't know I wanted a revolver. You'd be worse than that if you tried to be a smarty-pants and take me to task for my use of the term "pistol" in making my request.



As far as "clip" goes. I used to use the term "clip" when I was a kid referring to the M1 Carbine's magazines. My dad had a Carbine, served in the World War II US Navy, had friends who were in the military during that conflict who called them clips, one in particular who waded ashore on Omaha Beach with the first wave and who lost his best Army to a nearby hit from a German 88. "Son" Wilkey had to "rinse" his friend off of himself in the surf as he continued to wade ashore after the impact. He would not be induced to speak of his wartime experiences in my presence. I only heard later through my dad.

That said, they all called them "clips," whether referring to Carbine, 1911, M1, or in the Remington Model 740 my dad's older brother used for deer hunting. Only later was I hounded to use the term magazine. I ain't gonna be hounded at my age. To bring this post back to a tortured finish touching on the thread's topic: If I want to load clips into my 1911 guns, one of my personal notions of a perfect pistol, I just might do it.

And that's a pontification for the day.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,174 Posts
I've seen too many very good threads blasted by someone who, knowing full well what the poster meant, interrupted to shame and correct the contributing poster, then fly away without having contributed anything worthwhile. Such sniping reminds me of my ex-wife. There's fun, and there's humor...and then there's that crap...benefits nobody. Let's stick with the fun plan.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
19,034 Posts
Whoa Dave! That's way too succinctly said for me!
 
81 - 100 of 152 Posts
Top