Talk:Revolver

message: I would also like to comment about the revolver having "one barrel" as stated in the article. There was a revolver  that had a cylinder that revolved around  another barrel. This was a shot barrel. Therefore one had 2 barrels. That appears to be the picture  of the fire-arm in the photo for this article. I believe it was a William Tranter patent.
--Pistol Paul
:The LeMat revolver, invented in the US and made mainly in Britain and France during the American Civil War, is the only example of a revolver with more than one barrel.  It is a 9 shot .42 caliber revolver that had a huge "cylinder pin" that it revolved on.  This "cylinder pin" was a ~.60 caliber smoothbore shotgun barrel (roughly 20 gauge) that was usually loaded with buckshot.  To fire the second barrel, a switch on the hammer was flipped, which caused the hammer to strike the percussion cap for the shotgun barrel.  The defining characteristic of a revolver is a revolving chamber that fires mutiple shots through one barrel, so the LeMat qualifies.  Multiple revolving chambers with their own barrels makes a Pepperbox or Gatling, multiple chambers/barrels that are fixed makes a derringer or organ gun, and multiple chambers/one barrel with a non-revolving setup is a harmonica gun.  scot 15:07, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My late father-in-law, in England, left me a single-action percussion-cap revolver with (I think) 7 barrels. In operation it was very close to a modern revolver. To my everlasting regret I left it behind when I moved to the US and I have no other information about it. I realise that this is not suitable for the formal Wikipedia entry, but it might interest the sort of people who read these comments! John C Kay (talk) 20:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Multiple Barrels

message: The weapon used primarily at the time was a single shot rifle.  A revolver could shooter 6 bullets before being reloaded.  Sure there were issues of range, but at least they could have carried both (considering how small a revolver was).  So why not?
:Power, accuracy, cost, and conservatism.  While a revolver had a far higher rate of fire (take a look at the Civil War era LeMat Revolver, which had 8 shots of .42 caliber around a roughly 20 gauge shotgun barrel), revolvers suffered from many disadvantages.  Perhaps the biggest of these was cost--for the cost of one revolver, you could equip several men with rifled muskets.  The musket was also more powerful, had a much greater effective range, and was a lot easier to shoot.   In addition, while the initial rate of fire of a revolver was much higher, the sustained rate was much lower.  It only took a few seconds to reload a rifled musket using a paper cartridge and Minie ball; cap and ball revolvers required tight fitting balls that had to be swaged into place, loose powder, percussion caps on all cylinders, and, to prevent catastrophic cross-fires, you had to pack the front of each cylinder with grease.  This meant that a revolver took far longer than 6 times as long to reload.
:The few units that were equipped with revolvers in the Civil War were primarily cavalry.  These were the special forces of the era, so cost was of little consideration, and the reload time was also less significant given the hit and run tactics that cavalry tended to employ.  Now when the cartridge revolver came out, the Army was much more aggressive about obtaining them--the Colt 1873 was built specifically at the request of the US Cavalry (prior Colt revolvers had open tops).  The 1911 was also a cutting edge design, built to meet exacting requirements of, again, the Cavalry units, who wanted an equivalent to their .45 caliber 1873s.
:The last factor was conservatism.  Army weapons procurement was traditionally suspicious of new things; they turned down such cutting edge ideas as lever action rifles, Gatling guns, the Thompson SMG, and probably a lot more I don't know about.  It wasn't until WWII that the US started to show an advantage in infantry weapons, with the wide fielding of the semiautomatic M-1 Garand (which still used an inefficiently loaded cartridge--see .30-03).  On the other hand, being too aggressive with procurement can get you into hot water as well--look at the problems the Army had when they adopted the  M-16, then started to fiddle with the ammo.  scot 15:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's also the ammo issue.  A poorly trained recruit with six rounds in a fast-shooting weapon will shoot all six very quickly, then be shot themselves. As was also found with the M-16, high rates of fire require good training and fire discipline. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not issued to infantry during the civil war? 

message: I have had to delink the Astra listing in revolver manufacturers as there is no relevant listing in the disambig page it went to. I know that they made revolvers since my brother owned one (9shot .22 target revolver), and I believe they were manufactured in Spain. If the firearms company was anything to do with the fireworks company (both involved with powder explosives) then I believe they went bust in the 1980's. Perhaps someone with more knowledge can check this out?LessHeard vanU 21:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Astra revolvers 

message: Does anyone else think that this article needs more information on revolving rifles? I have a picture of one which could be used in the article, but I've never been very good with the whole copyright business. Here's the picture, by the way:  (Taken from here). Also, does the DAO-12 deserve a mention, specifically as an example of a revolving shotgun using double action operating principles? The Jackhammer got a mention as an example of an autorevolver shotgun, so should the DAO-12 be given a mention in the Double-Action category?CeeWhy2 11:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revolving rifles 

message: I was just thinking, how about including a diagram? I have many, of revolvers and practically any handgun ever made, and I believe it'll add incredible enciclopedyc value, since none of the gun articles I've seen sport diagrams of any sort. Let me know what you think.Vicius 07:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, we might run into copyright problems. Unless your diagram is old enough to be in the public domain (entirely possible), it'd probably be very difficult to find the copyright holder. If you can find a suitable image, though, by all means add it; it'd be a great addition! --Eyrian 07:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the perfect source is a diagram from a patent.  From http://www.uspto.gov/main/ccpubguide.htm:  Patents are published as part of the terms of granting the patent to the inventor. Subject to limited exceptions reflected in 37 CFR 1.71(d) & (e) and 1.84(s), the text and drawings of a patent are typically not subject to copyright restrictions.  The restructions are that a copyright notice MUST appear directly below the drawing in question for it to be copyrighted--any patent NOT bearing that notice is NOT copyrighted, but is public domain.  scot 15:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A diagram? 

message: We should probably make mention of flintlock revolvers. AllStarZ 01:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mentions

message: I was a little surprised that there is no mention of reliability in this (informative) article. I expected some form of review
regarding the reliability of the revolver, for example, relative to the automatic. I am not sure if this is an urban legend but I have heard that many of the British Royalty Protection Department of the Met. Police carry or carried revolvers after Princess Anne's bodyguard had an automatic jam during an attempted kidnapping. Might be a myth but I've heard it several times and thought it relevant.130.237.175.198 08:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reliability

message: A museum called Maihaugen in Norway has a revolver made by Hans Stopler in Nürnberg in 1597. It was owned by Georg Reichwein who had his name engraved on it in 1663. In the article printed in Vi Menn the museum gun expert explicitly states it is older than the revolver kept in the Tower of London.Inge 20:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Older gun 

message: There is no picture of a revolver at the top of the picture. I just added this one, showing off the cylinder that distinguishes revolvers from other pistols.
-M.Nelson (talk) 05:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main Picture 

message: This photo is used twice in the article, along with the caption "Example of a swing out cylinder on a revolver". I think the first instance is less relevant to the adjacent text, and should be removed or replaced with a different image.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.190.152.7 (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate picture & caption 

message: This edit, since reverted, was not wrong; but neither is the idea, currently in the article, that DAs can be fired either SA or DA. They are both right; and the term "double action" refers to what  64.245.88.146 said, rather than to the dual SA/DA capability. So what I am saying is that the spirit of that edit should be worked into the article, even if the letter is not; the whole section should be reworked to first explain the term "DA" and *then* mention the dual SA/DA capability. I would take a shot at it, but I have too much other ground to cover. Hope someone can give it some time. Cheers, — ¾-10 01:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I was inspired to do it myself tonight. Done. — ¾-10 23:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:   64.245.88.146 was not wrong; we just would need to rework the section 

message: The 'Design' heading contains quite a bit of extraneous material, and much that really doesn't fit under design.  I just completed a very basic edit removing one paragraph, but much more of it needs to be reworked.    For example, two long paragraphs are devoted to Double and Single action types, all of which is later repeated in 'Actions.'  Subjects in this section do not seem to be arranged in any particular order.  There is two places where revolvers are compared to auto-loading handguns, separated by two and one-half paragraphs.  Language needs to be rewritten, such as "such guns" in the third paragraph.  Finally, the discussions on how auto-loaders are replacing revolvers and on revolver technology in other military applications do not seem to fit into the theme of "Design."  70.188.34.103 (talk) 14:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No doubt you're right. I've always thought that WP's coverage of handgun actions was probably forked and otherwise ripe for improvement, but it's never yet made it into my top priorities. I welcome anything you can do along these lines. — ¾-10 01:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding your recent edit summary, just because you've never read the phrase "mode of carry" doesn't mean that I made it up myself (Googling it with quotes included gives examples), or that it isn't useful nomenclature in the work of people who design protocols, such as modes of carry. Also, just because there was no reference on the previous version about court bailiffs carrying on an empty chamber has nothing to do with whether it is true or false. It simply implies that the person who contributed it to Wikipedia was a court bailiff or cop who didn't cite any book when he wrote what he knew from personal experience to be true. You may already know these points, but your recent edit summary sounded pretty mocking to me, like "I can't believe these fools". Slow down; not everything is due to foolishness as much as might appear to you on the surface. Also, you called my sentence "meaningless". My sentence in fact meant exactly what it said. Maybe I just need to figure out a different way to say it, one that avoids the limited-audience terminology. — ¾-10 15:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

text: You are right. Parallel would be the right word. I changed it. — ¾-10 02:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Design Section

message: The section on swing-out cylinders says "The cylinder is mounted on a pivot that is coaxial with the chamber..." Shouldn't that say "a pivot that is parallel to the axis of the chamber"? "Coaxial" means that the two axes lie along the same line. For example, in coax cable the center wire runs down the center axis of the round outer (usually braided) conductor. if the pivot and cylinder were coaxial, the cylinder would not be able to swing out. MikeCiaraldi (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right. Parallel would be the right word. I changed it. — ¾-10 02:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swing-out Cylinders 

message: Hi, IMHO for an article as long (and important) as this, citations are very few and apart. Will tag appropriately. Regards, DPdH (talk) 14:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed; nice move. — ¾-10 01:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources? Citations? 

message: I don't know if it's real, but there have been scenes in movies with revolvers where the firing is done purely by the shooter using their flat open second hand to whack the hammer back, causing the hammer to slam back and fire the next bullet. Is this a special gun? Is there a name for this practice? Does it work with single or double action or both? - 174.46.204.210 (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This type of firing is called "fanning". It does in fact work on many or most single-action revolvers. It doesn't work on most double-action revolvers, which are designed to require a trigger pull for every shot. The idea (as spread by old western films) that people in the "Old West" fanned their hammers in actual firefights with any regularity is considered a caricature. It was done in shooting shows (where trick marksmen entertained crowds with shooting tricks) and by many a curious target-practicer clowning around and wasting ammo just to see what it was like; but it was probably not common in actual firefights, because it doesn't lend itself to most real-life tactical situations, in terms of accuracy. One longtime firearms instructor, George L. Tooley, in his book George Tooley's Beginner's Book on How to Handle Firearms Safely (2000; ), said, "Fanning is hard on the revolver, in addition to being inaccurate, and is not recommended" (pp. 80–81). I believe that fanning only works if the trigger is kept depressed while the fanning hand is fanning. — ¾-10 18:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shooting by pulling the hammer 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:German revolver 15th century.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: Mention in article ?, see http://collectorebooks.com/gregg01/pinfire/Lot-2166.htm  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.44.4 (talk) 08:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Knuckleduster revolver

message: This is a list of links to revolvers made before Colt.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=P1wWAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA289&dq=Abridgments+Firearms+1858&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi2hpuZk9jOAhXESRoKHfSPDecQ6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&q=Abridgments%20Firearms%201858&f=false Interesting list of patents.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2mUFrAt0x54C&pg=PA212&lpg=PA212&dq=John+Dafte+Revolver&source=bl&ots=e4KX8JJ2cK&sig=QACPsnGfzmozauhXNdhDL87PjG0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CC0Q6AEwBWoVChMIxp_kuZz7xwIVS1cUCh2k9w1H#v=onepage&q=John%20Dafte%20Revolver&f=false John Dafte revolver.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SQMeaner (talk • contribs) 09:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-Colt revolvers 

message: I'm surprised that the mention of pepperbox guns does not currently link to the page for those guns. I'm also surprised at how difficult it now is to make edits or even comments on this Wikipedia page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sah2000 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Link 

message: The Article “Revolver” is not an article about wealthy or poor men, social problems, but one describing history, development and technique of firearms. -- hmaag (talk) 13:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, but the sentence you keep changing is pointing out the substantial drop in price from the hand-made flintlocks (and even the simple turn-off percussion cap pistols) to the factory made revolver, thus its easier availability across society. You are changing a sentence to lose its original meaning, and to invent some new meaning that is barely grammatical and makes no sense whatsoever. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social problems? 

message: Is there a typical direction for the cylinder to turn? --Badger151 (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which direction does the cylinder turn? 

message: The cylinder of a revolver is not the barrel, and the revolvers are not loaded by pouring powder and ball down the muzzle of the barrel. These are not "muzzle loading". They're just revolvers whose cylinders have to be loaded with loose powder, ball and cap. I.e., "front-loading" cylinders or just "cap and ball" revolvers. Even if it's colloquial, I don't think the term "muzzle loading" should be used as a synonym for a revolver using a front-loaded cylinder. The revolvers are still technically breech-loading (rounds are loaded from behind the barrel—no matter how impractical it would be to reload the weapon in the middle of an engagement). 100.40.6.156 (talk) 08:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Front loading" = Muzzle loading? 

message: Wow!  This is such an old article to have such persistent, technical errors... Here's an egregious one:
The article says, "Revolvers are a subset of handguns, distinct from pistols, which are defined as handguns with an integral chamber-barrel assembly."
That definition is incorrect.  The term "pistol" dates from the mid 16th century.  It was a term used primarily to cover the category of firearm for which we now use the term "handgun."  While the word "handgun" is etymologically older, its usage did not become common until the mid 20th century.  "Pistol" most definitely covered "handguns" that utilized revolving cylinders (as opposed to shoulder-fired weapons such rifles or shotguns that used revolving cylinders).  This is further evidenced by the fact that people who made their living by carrying "handguns" such as Colonel Colt's Revolver professionally were often known as "Pistoleros."
I am aware that the ATF has promoted a definition similar to the one listed above; unfortunately, the ATF has brought the same level of expertise to their technical definitions that they bring to their overall rulemaking.  They felt they needed a term to cover handguns other than revolvers, so they hijacked "pistol" and bent it to their needs.  While a number of online "dictionary" sources have altered their definitions to be congruent with the ATF version, a quick check of vintage Meriam Webster ("Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged" / Second Edition / 1973 / Page 1368) shows the following definition,"Pistol, n. a small firearm made to be held and fired with one hand; most pistols are now either revolvers or magazine-fed automatics."  (emphasis added)
If you want easily available (id est: online) evidence, check out: https://ctstatelibrary.org/RG103.html  There you will find commentary on "U.S. Patent No. 138 in 1836 for the first revolving cylinder pistol" -- indicating that "revolvers designed to be fired from one hand" were considered to be, and called, "pistols" right from the first!
199.127.114.221 (talk) 14:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, in common English, there is as far as I am aware, no real difference between pistols and handguns. Maybe at least until you get into things like whatever that new stand-alone grenade launcher is that the US Army has been integrating. I can't think of the name for it, but it is replacing the M203. The article seems to recognize this, citing multiple examples of muzzle-loaded pistols. GMGtalk 14:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Pistol Definition

message: Please justify the use of "achieved" in this string of words: "The hammer cocking in nearly all revolvers are manually driven, and can be achieved . . ." Thanks.  This may need re-writing. 
The above is what I thought, but after looking at it again, I think that achieved should be changed to cocked and took the liberty of changing the word. (TerryKave (talk) 23:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Achieved diction 

message: This piece says: "This was similar to loading a traditional single-shot muzzle-loading pistol, except that the powder and shot could be loaded directly into the front of the cylinder rather than having to be loaded down the whole length of the barrel. Importantly, this allowed . . . ."
Since it may be difficult to know what the antecedents are of these 2 pronouns (this . . . this), it is suggested that this section be re-written using some clearly structure or "this X". (TerryKave (talk) 00:04, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  this ... this: suggest that this be replaced 

message: This piece contrasts revolvers with semi-automatics. But IMHO revolvers are semi-automatics. There should be a word for non-revolver handguns, but I can't think of one, except that commonly (if erroneously) it seems that the word pistol is used that way. I suppose that one could call most of the non-wheel-gun handguns, spring-loaded magazine guns, but that is awkward. And I think that an editor will not want to designate them as SLMs, pronounced slums. (TerryKave (talk) 00:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revolvers & Semi-automatics