[StarSlayer]

Well functionality aside, aesthetically a revolver certainly is much more pleasing on the eye then a Glock.

[Dilmah G]

Oh, jeez, I dunno. I've always thought the semi-autos looked more 'tough' than a revolver, which in contrast appears antiquated to me.

That said, I wasn't brought up on Spaghetti Westerns like half of you lot.

[SpardaSon21]

Dirty Harry isn't a guy in a spaghetti western.  He just makes punks ask themselves if they feel lucky with his .44 Magnum revolver.

[General Battuta]

avada kedavra, *****es

[headdie]

Dirty Harry isn't a guy in a spaghetti western.  He just makes punks ask themselves if they feel lucky with his .44 Magnum revolver.

and what is Eastwood's ratio of westerns compared to non western movies

[StarSlayer]

Dirty Harry isn't a guy in a spaghetti western.  He just makes punks ask themselves if they feel lucky with his .44 Magnum revolver.

and what is Eastwood's ratio of westerns compared to non western movies

Probably split pretty evenly all together, and thats not even counting films he's directed.

[Herra Tohtori]

Thinks I hear people say and have no idea how the concept entered their heads:
-Revolvers are more powerful.  They shoot the same bullets.  Fire a 9mm round out of an M9.  Now fire the same type of bullet out of some kind of revolver.  There is zero differnece in stopping power.  Yes, higher caliber revolvers are more common than higher caliber automatics, but both exist.

Technically, if same cartridge and bullet is used in a revolver and a semi-automatic pistol, and energy losses from the inferior gas seal on the revolver are ignored, then the bullet fired with pistol will have slightly lower muzzle velocity.

Why? Because some of the energy of the gas expansion will be directed to cycle the weapon and chamber a new round, instead of propelling the bullet all the way through the barrel.

It's the same as with bolt action and automatic rifles. However, the energy lost to the cycling mechanism isn't significant enough to say that the "power" of the gun would diminish in any meaningful way.

- All automatics have higher recoil.  It depends on the caliber, size of barrel (length and width together), chamber seal, and the way the action cycles the weapon.

Expanding from the previous, comparing the same cartridge and round fired with revolver and semi-auto pistol, the revolver will have slightly more recoil simply because the bullet should theoretically achieve slightly higher muzzle velocity.

However, the matter is not as simple as that. Part of the recoil comes from the combustion gases shooting forward from the muzzle after the round, and that part of the recoil can be reduced with different muzzle brake configurations. A good muzzle brake can make a big difference in the amount of overall recoil a weapon produces, even though the muzzle velocity and mass of the projectile stay constant.

Mostly, though, you are correct - there's no distinct difference in recoil between one weapon type and another, if projectile mass and muzzle velocity are the same. Bigger differences come from the geometry of individual weapons, which cause secondary recoil effects like muzzle climb.

[MP-Ryan]

I prefer target shooting with semi-automatic magazine-loaded pistols, but I readily acknowledge that a revolver is a much more reliable weapon if ever reliability is a pre-requisite.  As all of my handgun shooting is done at a range, however, that isn't exactly a concern of mine =)  Also, I'm fundamentally too lazy to shoot a weapon that must be reloaded after 6 shots when I can shoot a weapon that instead holds as many as 16 or 17.

The more interesting question really is what calibre people prefer.  Since all I do is target shooting, all I shoot is .22 (Magnum).  It's cheap, reliable, and perforates the target nicely - and it's much easier to be accurate with it.

[Grizzly]

Well functionality aside, aesthetically a revolver certainly is much more pleasing on the eye then a Glock.

Beretta 92FS?

[Snail]

Don't know, never shot a handgun

[Scotty]

There are options for quickly reloading revolvers.

Nothing makes a revolver reload quicker than inserting a fresh clip into an automatic, barring user experience, which should be barred when objectively comparing the weapons.

They do offer a much bigger punch, maybe that's got something to do with it.

What, you going with a Nitro-Express .600 or something? 'cuz I'll bet an M1911 or a .45 chambered USP's stopping power against any reasonable revolver in existence.

Yes, ignore me why dontcha.  You can find (or make) any caliber that you see in a revolver (with the possible exception of .410 shotgun) in an automatic.  That also goes vice versa.  There are revolvers that fire .45 ACP.  I'd be willing to bet that there are automatics out there somewhere that fires a .600.

Herra does bring up good points, but even goes to admit that it's functionally identical.

Hmm, something I feel like I should explain for the non-gun afficionados in the thread.  An automatic, with regards to handguns, is a weapon that loads the next bullet automatically at the end of the last pull of the trigger.  A revolver doesn't do that.  You have to pull the trigger again, and it will "chamber" the next round as the pin is pulled back.  Just in case you guys thought I was talking about assault rifles or stuff.

[redsniper]

ITT: no one knows the difference between clips and magazines, and no one has heard of .50 AE.

[StarSlayer]

Well functionality aside, aesthetically a revolver certainly is much more pleasing on the eye then a Glock.

[lolshot]http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j42/gokyo/1858_new_army_lg.jpg[/lolshot]

Beretta 92FS?

Never much cared for the looks of the Beretta, as far as semi autos go the 1911 and its variants, especially the MEU SOC version, and the Jericho 941 generally appeal to my taste so far as looks are concerned.

@redsniper Garands take clips, M16s take magazines

[Kolgena]

Silencers. They work on most semiauto pistols. They work on like, 2 revolvers.

Not like silencers really do too much, but they're supposed to lower the sound enough so that you don't need ear protection.

Just random tangent about silencers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GbjXvH7xJA

I know the audio recording is pretty terrible, so it's impossible to tell the actual drop in volume, but that seems pretty effective to me (albeit from a ridiculously huge silencer)

[Scotty]

There are no such thing as silencers.  They are called suppressors.  But you are correct in that they lower the sound enough to not damage hearing during operations.  Along with dropping muzzle velocity enough to limit overpenetration, it's the only reason SWAT teams use them on stuff.

It also depends on what kind you get.  There are some that are designed to work on revolvers.  Most work on automatics.  Some don't.  It's really a nonissue.

[redsniper]

Yeah, suppressor is the proper term, since they don't come close to 'silencing' a weapon. They don't even make them that quiet. They're supposed to just reduce the noise enough that it's hard to tell where the shots are coming from AFAIK.

EDIT: Wait wut? How do they lower muzzle velocity? I thought the suppressor diameter was larger than the barrel diameter, so it doesn't actually contact the bullet.

[Kolgena]

I'm quite sure silencers usually do not themselves drop bullet speed, and that you'd get something else (like special ammo) to do that for you. Also, silencing revolvers requires seals on the revolver itself (which most revolvers lack, and those that do I think are less reliable), after which any silencer that fits should work. Almost all semis have a locked breech until the bullet's out of the gun, so in theory, you could silence any one of those.

[Scotty]

Suppressing (contrary to what hollywood wants you to think, they aren't silencers) a bullet involves allowing the gas to escape more slowly, as well as dropping muzzle velocity below supersonic speeds (cuz, you know, allowing the gasses to escape more slowly slows the bullet down).  If the diameter is any larger, it's a miniscule difference.



Kolgena:  You are correct that subsonic ammo also quiets the weapon, but suppressors try to accomplish the same goal.

[Kolgena]

cuz, you know, allowing the gasses to escape more slowly slows the bullet down

wat.

Go retake physics O.o

[redsniper]

But.... no. The bullet is still passing through the same barrel, so the gases are contained in the barrel and propelling the bullet for the same amount of time. In an unsuppressed gun, once the bullet leaves the barrel all those gases will expand all over the place and make a loud noise. In a suppressed gun, once the bullet leaves the barrel those gases have to go through the baffles in the suppressor, which absorb some of the energy and reduce the sound.... but either way nothing is propelling the bullet anymore, I think...

Wait, are you saying the bullet is in contact with the suppressor?