Revolver, pistol, and handgun

[22-rimfire]

As Tipoc said, I think the change in usage occurred around WWII. But that doesn't change the fact that a revolver (as in revolving cylinder or chamber) is a type of pistol.

[44 AMP]

and there is no such thing as an "assault weapon".

Sadly, there actually is such a thing as an "assault weapon". The term was created in law in 1994, and refers to SEMIAUTOMATIC rifles, pistols, & shotguns with the features listed in the 1994 law.

Assault weapon is NOT a term created by the shooting community or gun makers, it was created by the anti-gun forces in the media and Congress.

Assault rifle IS a term used in the shooting community, and is a translation of "Sturmgewehr", the name given by Adolf Hitler to the MP 44 rifle.

Assault is used here in the military sense, as in assaulting (storming) an objective, NOT the common US legal sense of one person assaulting another.

[tipoc]

As Tipoc said, I think the change in usage occurred around WWII. But that doesn't change the fact that a revolver (as in revolving cylinder or chamber) is a type of pistol.

I just quoted a document from about 1946 from the U.S. Army. That book was handy. I looked further and documents from the U.S. military back to WWI (and maybe earlier) used "revolver" to refer to revolvers and "semi automatic pistols" to refer to pistols or semis. Sometimes they just used the term "pistols" to refer to semis.

Fact is the divergence in terms begins soon on the heels of the divergence in firearms design. Back around the late 1890s.

The Germans and Austrians called their semis "Self Loading pistols". That's "selbstladepistole" in German. Nice, all one word. But too much work in English.

They are all pistols. None of the terms are incorrect or wrong so long as we know what we're talking about. There was also no one date the transition began or ended. It's still underway. There is no agency that has the authority to make a change. The terms just evolved.

tipoc

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by tipoc

In Walter Ropers 1945 book "Pistol and Revolver Shooting" Roper makes the modern distinction of dividing handguns into three groups...single shot pistols, revolvers and semiauto pistols. He often refers to the latter as automatics for simplicity's sake.

He doesn't refer to semi-autos as "automatics" for simplicity's sake. He does so because that's what they were called at that time in our history. The "automatic" part referred only to the loading, not to the entire firing cycle, but Colt ran numerous ads in the early part of the 20th century for "automatic" pistols in calibers from .25 ACP up through .45 ACP.

All handguns are pistols. Some are single shot, some are revolvers, some are semi-automatic, and a few are automatic.

[Jim Watson]

Yes, but do you know what "bore diameter" measures? A lot of Internet Experts don't.

[James K]

I first saw the "pistol/revolver" argument in print around 1942, and that was in a magazine article from 1920-something. Any chance of ending it sometime in the next century or two? (Unless the gun control folks succeed in banning all mention of guns under penalty of death!)

Jim

[deserted]

StG44, not MP44. Sturmgever44.

[tipoc]

All handguns are pistols. Some are single shot, some are revolvers, some are semi-automatic, and a few are automatic.

This point has been made many times. It's correct. It goes hand in hand with calling semis "pistols" in order to distinguish them from other types of handguns. It is perfectly correct to do so.

And yes, when folks began to use terms other than "semi-automatic pistols" or "automatic pistol" or "self loading pistols", and began to use shorter variations of those terms like "automatics", or "semis" or simply "pistols" it was for simplicity sake. We still use many of these terms.

It's an example of dogmatism to insist, against all the evidence, that "they are all pistols" and that no other term is correct. It's perfectly correct and common for a person to walk into a gun store and ask to see a Sig P236 Pistol. Or for a fella to say "I like revolvers more than pistols".

Some folks will argue that Elmer Keith was wrong to call his classic work "Sixguns by Keith" because it was incorrect! Dogma tells us it should have been "The Revolving Pistol by Keith". Poor Elmer he even titles Chapter XI "Revolver vs. Auto Pistol"! What a Loser, the dogmatists imply!

tipoc

[Buzzcook]

Yes, but do you know what "bore diameter" measures? A lot of Internet Experts don't.

Bore diameter measures internet expertise. The smaller the number the larger the bore or the greater the expertise.

[Mike Irwin]

MP44 is a correct, early, designation for the gun. That's what it was called before the official designation was changed to Sturmgewehr 44, ostentatiously at Hitler's personal order.

The initial production test versions were officially known as the MP 43.

The earliest prototypes were known as Mkb 42s, the Mkb standing for Maschinenkarabiner.

[tipoc]

"Bore diameter" the extent to which me leaving long posts bores people.

tipoc

[jetinteriorguy]

Mike Irwin is correct about the MP44 designation for the Sturmgewere. They used this name for a Machine Pistol to help disguise the actual purpose of this new weapon while being developed.

[SonOfScubaDiver]

I didn't know this was even an issue. In Spanish, a gunman is called a "pistolero", and "pistola" is used to refer to a handgun. So, for me, "pistol" has always meant a handgun, not any specific type of handgun.

[darkgael]

This^^^^^.
And a caliber is not a cartridge.

[ShootistPRS]

You buy pistol ammunition for handguns. It doesn't matter if it is for a revolver or an auto-loader or a single shot. It is all referred to as PISTOL ammunition. Unless of course your pistol is chambered for a rifle cartridge then you buy rifle ammunition for your pistol.

[SIGSHR]

Our British cousins usually refer to pistols as revolvers.
My idea of an assault weapon is a M1888 in 45-70. I carried one up San Juan Hill in 1898

[buck460XVR]

Originally Posted by Targa

To me, it's petty garbage. There will always be those that ask a legitimate question or make a statement only to have someone respond with a worthless comment about what they think is the correct terminology of something based on their Google search (yep, we are all genius's and experts with the internet at our fingertips). It's right up their with the grammar police, irritating at best.

^^^This. Clip/Mag, Bullets/Boolits, hunt/harvest......Folks just want to argue over nuttin'. No one here is confused, still some want to cloud the issue and insist they are the correct one. 'nuf said.

[JohnKSa]

Originally Posted by buck460XVR

No one here is confused, still some want to cloud the issue

Correct.

Learning about things takes time, and really understanding a subject and covering all the bases is a serious endeavor.

But everyone wants to appear to know something of importance.

The result is that some simple topics get overemphasized by those who want to appear knowledgeable but don't want to expend the effort (or don't have the capability) to gain in-depth knowledge on more difficult topics.