Talk:Revolver

This article never says "hangun" (as compared to a shoulder-held firearm such as a rifle). Are there non-handgun revolvers? Even if so, "revolver" is almost always used in the sense of a handgun, a fact that should be put into this article - but by someone with more certainty and knowledge than me. DavidWBrooks 16:16, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• • • May 12,2004

Yes there are non-hand gun revolvers called revolving rifles (there is no technical reason why a shot gun could not be made the same way.) The handguns are much more common but if you look in something like a "Shooters Bible" you can find them. I am sure you can also find info and a picture if you do a web search ( I did but not being sure if they are in the public domain won't post them. )Because some of the hot gas escapes from a revolver in front of the cylinder, one can't put there hand there for support with out risk of it being burnt. Mostly they are now sold as novelties. There much more practical replace ments for firearms of that type.

The revolving rifle has been dead for over a century now. Back before cartrdige arms, a revolving rifle was one of the only practical ways to have a mutli-shot, rapid fire rifle. There weren't many made, because there is always a risk with muzzle loading revolvers of a "cross-fire", where the gas escaping from one cylinder will ignite other cylinders, causing a catastrophic failure in the form of an exploding cylinder. Not too big a deal with a revolving pistol, as you're likely to survive with only minor injuries; you might loose a finger or two, but that's about the worst. With a revolving rifle, the cylinder is right in front of the shooter's face. A cross-fire in that case could result in the loss of one or both eyes, and could even be fatal.

That's not entirely correct. There are in fact modern revolving long arms; fore example there is a modern Russian revolving shotgun, MTs-255, manufactured by the TsKIB SOO Central Design and Research Bureau of Sporting and Hunting Arms. Incidentally, the term "cartridge arms" is misleading; it could refer to the paper cartridges used by percussion cap weapons such as the Colt revolving rifles, such as the Model 1885. Granted in most cases it is understood to mean modern metallic cartridges; even Wikipedia defines a "Cartridge" as being metallic in the first paragraph of the article. The first cartridges were made of heavy paper, though, and were invented by Egyptians (no seriously, in the late 1200s). My understanding of crossfires however is that the eyes were in no danger. It was the hand on the forestock that was at risk. Atypicaloracle (talk) 10:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

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)

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)Reply

Can someone please confirm the date of the patent on Colt's revolver ? It says February 24th in the article right now. User:68.225.74.155 wrote on Talk:February 24 that "Samuel Colt received his patent for the "revolver" on Feb. 25, 1836 by almost every other source I checked. You might want to revisit this article. " Is it February 24th or February 25th ? Thanks. -- PFHLai 01:25, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)

I'd guess that the 24th is a typo. If you can find another reference to the 24th, I'd list it as disputed, otherwise, go with the 25th. You might also find an e-mail address at colt.com and see what they have to say--Colt does have an historical department for tracking down information on old guns. scot 15:07, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll go with February 25 for now. -- PFHLai 23:09, 2005 Feb 22 (UTC)

The re-issued patent 138, released on Oct 24, 1848 as RE124, confirms that the original 138 patent was issued on Feb 25, 1846. Yaf 16:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm going to yank Walther and FN/Browinng from the list of well known makers. I've never heard of any of the three marketing a revolver, nor does my copy of Fjestad's "Blue Book of Gun Values" list a revolver by any of them. scot 15:07, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My apologies, I was simlutaneously looking at both revolvers and pistols and included them where they shouldn't have been.GraemeLeggett

In fact FN did distribute FN BARRACUDA-revolver with .357 Magnum / 9x19mm Parabellum drums between 197?-198?, thou it was possible manufactured by spanish Astra. http://www.securityarms.com/20010315/galleryfiles/1400/1496.htm --81.197.218.62 02:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I just want to bring to your attention that in Europe, Smith and Wesson revolvers are marketed under the Walther name. --Mfree 02:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

there is a point in the article which references that most revolvers only lock at one point, at the rear of the cylinder. This is true for such arms as Colt, Ruger, and Charter Arms; but one of the hallmarks of the modern S&W revolver design is that there is a secondary lock found at the nose of the ejector rod, which is disengaged by an internal piston pushing the locking bolt out of the hollow rod when the cylinder release is pressed. This design is also in use by Taurus, who take things one step further in some of their large caliber revolvers by integrating a third lock at the top of the crane. Furthermore, S&W was at one time producing a triple-lock revolver with those three locking points, and it is a common modofication to at a spring-loaded ball to the top surface of the crane of a S&W revolver for additional locking surface and to aid in crane alignment. Do bear in mind that the purpose of the clause in the article, that "snapping" a cylinder open and closed by a flick of the wrist will bend the crane and do irreparable harm to the revolver (and perhaps the shooter, if done just right) is still an accurate assertion. --Mfree 02:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

The S&W Triple Lock action, which really did lock the crane, was discontinued in 1915. S&W's current "locks" (on the models that have them; note absence on, say the 629-2[1]) are spring loaded balls that lock into detents in the crane, which serve merely to remove slack (this is true even of the X-Frame[2]). This does help, as it promotes a positive cylinder alignment and keeps the cylinder from moving under recoil, but it's not that strong. Whack the cylinder with a hammer and it won't do you any good, as the impact will force the ball back down. The detent at the end of the ejector rod is a bit more positive than that, since it is cylinderical for a distance, but it's still not going to hold up to rough handling, it'll just bend the ejector rod.

Rugers, on the other hand, have used a much more aggressive crane lock based on the old Triple Lock deisgn since the Redhawk came out, and it's incorporated into all current Ruger DA designs (GP-100, SP-101, Super Redhawk; [3] part 25). It's similar to the crane lock on the Triple Lock, with a pivoting bar in the crane that locks into a slot in the frame--the only reason it's not a triple lock is that Rugers always shroud the non-rotating ejector rod on these guns, so locking the rod is pointless. The Dan Wesson crane lock[4] is similar, but must be operated with the off hand, since the latch is on the crane. Taurus went the cheap and simple route, putting separate locks on front and rear[5], requiring two hands to operate--no worse than the Dan Wesson, really, but costs less. scot 15:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

The stuff about the automatic revolver and silencers needs sources. (section 1.4)

I can probably find that, but it's pretty obvious that the cylinder gap leaks--having been personally burned by escaping partially burned powder, I can testify to that...

Most modern automatic pistols will work perfectly fine with "silencers". Otherwise, the military and spec ops would not use suppressed automatic pistols. The US Spec Ops troops did make use of special auto-pistols that used a slide-lock mechanism, preventing the slide from moving after firing, but this was to make them quieter. I believe the modified pistols were Smith and Wesson automatics, in either 9mm or .45 caliber.

On the contraray, recoil operated pistols (i.e. just about anything greater than .380 ACP caliber) will ONLY work with correctly designed suppressors intended for use on recoil operated firearms. The mass of the suppressor will otherwise slow down the slide velocity to about half of the intended velocity, which will result in a failure to eject or failure to feed. Recoil enhancing designs use a movable baffle in the rear to give the slide and barrel and extra push backwards to make up for the mass of the suppressor. An alternate route, used by the Colt JSOC entry (a modified Double Eagle) mounted the suppressor via a bracket to the frame, not the slide/barrel, and the barrel locked up into a bushing on the back of the suppressor. Upon firing, the barrel and slide moved backwards, but the suppressor remained stationary relative to the frame. See this for more information.

The Nagant revolver is an antique, and not practical for modern combat/service.

Just because it's old doesn't mean it's no good. The 12 gauge pump shotgun is still the most effective combat weapon ever made--the only functional difference between the current mil-spec riot shotgun (the Mossberg 500) and the 1897 Winchester trench gun is the concealed hammer. Twice the hit probability out ot 75 meters as an assault rifle, and 50% greater than a submachinegun. My only complaint about the Nagant is that the round is woefully underpowered, but no more so than any suppressable .32 caliber handgun cartridge. scot 21:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

--Your comparison between a Mossberg 500 and Winchester M1897 is a gross generalization. Until you provide sources for your claims, I will continue to correct section 1.4. Your info about the recoil-operated auto pistols and silencers was interesting, but not particularly relevent to the discussion. There are a plethora of silencers for recoil operated pistols.

Yes, it is a gross generalization; so is the statement that most modern pistols will work with suppressors, since recoil operated firearms must have suppressors designed specifically to work with recoil operated firearms (i.e. ultra-light or with Neilsen devices and the like). Nagants are unique in that they are a revolver that can be suppressed; there is an example of a suppressed Nagant revolver cited in the Nagant M1895 article, and here are more sources:

• [6]
• [7] with picture
• [8] mentions Russian article on Nagant suppressors

I don't object to eliminating the bit about Neilsen devices and recoil operated pistols, that belongs in the supperssor article. However, the Nagant's unique gas seal does deserve to be mentioned here because it does allow it to do what other revolvers cannot (movies don't count). With the addition of a swing-out cylinder and a more potent cartridge in the .357-.45 caliber range, the Nagant's gas seal design would be perfectly practical as a military arm today, assuming you could build it tough enough and cheap enough. Tough shouldn't be a problem, today's steels are MUCH better than 100 years ago, but it's hard to beat the price of cast plastic and stamped steel parts in modern autos. scot 20:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

--I heard somewhere that some very well-designed, well-made and well-maintained fixed barrel and top-break revolvers can be silenced, because the cylinder is fitted against the barrel snugly enough to prevent gases from escaping. Confirm or deny? User:Kalaong 17:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

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)Reply

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: [9] (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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

I edited the sidebar about the LeMat Revolver to reflect the fact that it holds 9 rounds plus the center shotgun round, not 9 total.

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)Reply

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)Reply

In computer games, revolvers are normally touted as being a more powerful, slower version of the "regular" pistol. Does the increased power have any basis in reality? me_and (talk) 11:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

In short, yes, there is a basis in reality. Typical handgun calibers are 9x19mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP, all of which produce under 500 ft. lbs. of muzzle energy in their standard loadings. Typical revolver calibers are .357 Magnum and .44 Magnum, which generate between 500 and 1000 ft. lbs. of power. Now you can get semiautomatic pistols in these large calibers (such as the Desert Eagle), and bigger, but they are bigger, heavier, and much more expensive. Since the typical large revolver these days is chambered in magnum caliber, many companies are making super-magnum revolvers, in calibers such as .454 Casull and .500 S&W Magnum, plus various wildcat cartridges, like those of John Linebaugh, which are based on the .45-70 case, cut down to a shorter length (the .480 Ruger is a downloaded version of the .475 Linebaugh). These start at 1500 ft. lbs. and go up to over 3000 ft. lbs. in some loadings. This is nearing the power levels of rifle cartridges such as the .30-06 Springfield, although with much heavier bullets and lower velocities. Semiautomatic pistols cannot practically fire cartridges in the .500 S&W Mag class, because nearly all semiautomatic pistols feed through magazines in the grip, and these big cartridges are too large to fit; the Desert Eagle's .50 AE is about as much as you can fit in a grip, and even that grip is too large for many people.

However, this is all "typical" cases; when you look at the atypical cases, things get more confusing. If you want the esoteric details, read on...

There is one major limitation of the revolver, which is that it cannot practically chamber bottlenecked cartridges. Bottlenecked cartridges taper significantly from the base to the bullet, and allow a fat case for lots of gunpowder capacity to be used with a small, light bullet, for lots of velocity. However, upon firing, the shoulder of the cartridge pushes against the front of the chamber, while the rear pushes against the frame, and the cartridge actually stretches slightly. This happens in all firearms, hence the need to resize the cartridge as one of the first steps in handloading fired cases. However, in most other firearm actions, the bolt that holds the cartridge in place during firing moves back to unlock, so a slight stretching of the cartridge is not a big deal. In a revolver, the cylinder must rotate sideways, and a stretched case can bind the action and prevent the cylinder from rotating. There have been a few bottlenecked cartridges for revolvers, and even fewer successful ones; the .38-40 has been around for over a century, but it has such a small shoulder that setback isn't really a problem. The .22 Remington Jet, introduced by S&W in the model 53 revolver in 1960, is basically a .357 Magnum necked down to .22 with a long, shallow taper. The cartridge was a failure, because any trace of oil on the case or in the chamber during firing would allow the case to set back, and lock up the cylinder. The modern 5.7x28mm is similar to in concept, though less powerful, than the .22 Jet, and it functions easily in a semiautomatic pistol.

Semiautomatics aren't without their function problems, however. The long, skinny .22 WMR case has caused problems in blowback actions in the past; the Automag II and the Grendel P-30 both used specially designed chambers which tapped powder gas and routed it back into the chamber to "float" out the brass. The .17 HMR has been chambered in a number of revolvers with some degree of success; Gun Tests tested S&W, Taurus, and Ruger revolvers a while back, and the Taurus and S&W gave them setback problems, but the single action Ruger functioned flawlessly. High Standard bought out all the AMT designs when they went out of business, and they are starting to make the Automag II design again. Since the .17 HMR is based on the .22 WMR case, they have plans to chamber the Automag II in .17 HMR as well as .22 WMR, and there is a least one other gunmaker building a .17 HMR semiautomatic pistol, so only time will tell which path, revolver or semiautomatic, becomes the most successful for that cartridge. scot (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

 

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Well, I was inspired to do it myself tonight. Done. — ¾-10 23:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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) ——— By the way, I just realized that my recent edit summary might have angered you if you thought it was directed at you. But it wasn't; I was just justifying a type of small deletion that many people on firearm articles don't like (i.e., I say "make the criminals learn the hard way"), and I wanted to duly justify my edit. I do realize that the sentence was not coming from you, but was simply moved down and clarified by you. Sorry if that was just a misunderstanding. — ¾-10 15:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

Agreed; nice move. — ¾-10 01:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I took out one "citation needed" after "A revolver can be kept loaded and ready to fire without compressing any springs (which weaken over time with continual load)" -- I don't believe general knowledge physics needs a citation. Just a heads up, though it likely wont be missed (also, first Wikipedia edit, and though I read up, hopefully I didn't break anything). Jdan318 (talk) 08:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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; ISBN 978-0-595-08873-7), 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)Reply

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)Reply

From pistol article:

Before handguns could evolve from rotating-barrel designs to the semi-automatic, revolvers dominated. Originally, most revolvers had five or six round capacities. These are the types of handguns featured in most 'Western' movies, the most famous of which is the Colt Single Action Army.

A type of revolver requiring the hammer to be drawn back manually to rotate the cylinder and bring a fresh cartridge into battery for each shot.

A type of revolver that can be used as a single action, but also one in which the pulling of the trigger cocks the hammer, rotates the cylinder, and releases the hammer to strike the cartridge directly in older designs; or to impact a striker which fires the cartridge in newer designs. Examples of the system include the Colt Model of 1917 Substitute Standard Revolver, the Smith & Wesson Model 10 (aka the S&W Military & Police Pistol), and the Smith & Wesson Model 29 made famous by the Dirty Harry films.

A type of revolver in which the pulling of the trigger cocks the hammer, rotates the cylinder to bring a new round into battery, and releases the hammer to strike the cartridge directly (in older designs), or to impact a striker which fires the cartridge (in newer designs). In many cases, such as the Smith & Wesson Ladysmith j frame revolver, the hammer is completely contained within a shroud and cannot be accessed by the shooter. The advantages to this system are the speed of cycling and simplicity of use, as there is no safety to disengage. The disadvantage of shooting double-action-only is the much heavier trigger pull required to cycle the action, which can result in decreased accuracy on the part of the shooter.

Has anyone ever designed a revolver to include a rounded prominence that would hide the forward-facing apertures of the cylinder from your opponent's view, thereby preventing him from knowing the level of ammo remaining? Since it seems to me that most revolvers permit the opponent to see four cylinders, including the cylinder that will be the next to rotate under the hammer for the next shot, if that chamber and the one beneath it appear empty, and the hammer is not already cocked (in which case it might be believed that you had a live round ready to fire), then your opponent knows that you are out of ammo under normal circumstances. Conceivably, under very strange circumstances, and with the hammer uncocked, there could be two bullets hidden at the 12 and 6 o'clock positions, but, with the 12 rotating harmlessly away from the firing pin with the next actuation of the mechanism, opponents will know you are two pulls of the trigger away from the 6 o'clock hidden round, which will not be hidden after the first pull, as would also be the case for the 12. With an automatic you can at least present a weapon that an opponent will have to assume is loaded.

It seems such an easy modification, I feel that perhaps there is a technical reason that it has never (?????) been done before. Any thoughts?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackronner (talk • contribs) 07:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

The most likely reason is cost. Adding a bit of metal to the sides of the gun in front of the cylinder would add, if not a noticeable amount of weight, a few cents to the cost of producing the gun. This adds up pretty quickly when you're producing hundreds of these guns, and if something isn't necessary for the gun to function safely, you can bet they're going to eliminate it to save on money.

Another possible reason is that, with swing-out cylinders being the most popular today, it wouldn't be possible to effectively conceal any chambers on the side of the barrel the cylinder swings out towards without that not-cost-effective addition also being likely to just break off if you aren't careful with it. A top-break or fixed cylinder wouldn't have this problem, though. Woodrow Buzard (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

You would have to be at very close range with the gun pointed directly at your eye level to see clear down the chambers. 99% of the time, this is not a factor that would play into anything. Bones Jones (talk) 08:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

The section on swing-out cylinders makes reference to swinging the cylinder closed with a flick of the wrist being a Really Bad Idea™. I'm curious as to whether this is the same case for a top-break revolver, but there's no mention of it here or anywhere else on the Internet that I can find. Woodrow Buzard (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Can you "flick" a top break revolver? Have you felt the weight of a Webley? It's twice the weight of most modern revolvers. You can use it as a trench club, but it doesn't "flick".

Also, and more to the point, the rounds either fly out, or at least unseat themselves so that you'd be trying to close the break onto their rims.

It's also good practice with a Webley and its stirrup latch to hold the latch open manually when closing, then release it. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

https://www.metmuseum.org/pubs/journals/1/pdf/1512825.pdf.bannered.pdf

http://www.peashooter85.com/post/64602424400/17th-century-six-shot-wheel-lock-revolver

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=T9e37mYzuNIC&pg=PA200&lpg=PA200&dq=%22Flintlock+Revolver%22&source=bl&ots=FuvJgvrBDY&sig=9gYvp2mdXVFM8dVYXLMDtYQ1LJs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=vLkXVd_kNZLoaJL0gYgP&ved=0CCwQ6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=%22Flintlock%20Revolver%22&f=false

Francis, Peter (2014). A History of Guns. Absolute Crime. p. 34. GGKEY:WUY0PFZU907.

americansocietyofarmscollectors.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/B024_Bedford.pdf

http://www.peashooter85.com/post/112271227992/the-annely-flintlock-revolver-invented-by-a

http://web.prm.ox.ac.uk/weapons/index.php/tour-by-region/oceania/europe/firearm-386/index.html

https://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/7137767_a-very-rare-revolving-flintlock-blunderbuss

http://www.peashooter85.com/post/61066596637/rare-3-shot-flintlock-revolving-blunderbuss-late

http://russianrevolvers.com/rp3a.html

http://www.peashooter85.com/post/92008073881/a-flintlock-revolver-crafted-by-ivan-polin

a b Pauly, Roger A.; Pauly, Roger (2004). Firearms: The Life Story of a Technology. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 87. ISBN 978-0-313-32796-4.

http://www.invaluable.com/auction-lot/an-outstanding-percussion-revolving-rifle-by-le-l-529-c-5a9747ee9a

http://www.peashooter85.com/post/60239418821/an-outstanding-percussion-revolving-rifle-crafted Revolving rifle by Le Lyon using percussion ignition.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TO2mx314ST0C&pg=PA815&dq=Revolver+History&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDYQ6AEwBGoVChMIh5uGgdnIxwIVDBjbCh0JGgAq#v=onepage&q=Revolver%20History&f=false - Samuel J. Pauly invents a breech-loading revolver in 1812.

http://americansocietyofarmscollectors.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/B004_Gerber.pdf Contains details of a hand-rotated flintlock revolver by James Gorgo.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by SQMeaner (talk • contribs) 07:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

I was very surprised to be educated in reading this article that Colt Manufacturing both invented the very first revolver, and went on to single handedly invent the "revolutionary" modern SAA and the first modern swing-out cylinder revolver. For some reason, I had this funny idea in my head that there was some little company called "Smith & Wesson" which invented the modern revolver, with bored-through, rear-loading metallic cartridge cylinders, and that they enjoyed exclusive production for years while Colt was left behind, until the patent expired. But that can't be true, because if it was, I'm sure I would have found the term "Smith & Wesson" somewhere in the "history" section, and I didn't. That is a huge piece of information to totally leave out of an article like this. It reads as if Colt both invented and developed the early, middle, and modern revolvers, and everyone else is just copying Colt. That is ridiculous. Colt and S&W have been neck and neck in revolver design since the late 19th century, each one-upping the other. The "classic" modern revolver, a .38 snub or .44 Magnum is generally a Smith & Wesson, not a Colt. This reads like it was written by a Colt fanboy who can't stand the idea of giving anyone else any credit.

Also, what about European revolver development? It mentions the Lefechaux, and that's it. Yet Europe was building double-actions long before the US was. They were selling DA percussion revolvers to US troops in the Civil War. Does that not merit mention? There were modern DA revolvers being made by European makers and sold on both sides of the ocean while Colt was selling SAA's in the US. When Colt finally made a DA, the M1877, it was an abysmal attempt, still legendary for having just about the worst trigger design ever. It doesn't say anything about that at all. One gets the impression that not only did Colt lead the way in every step of revolver development, but that all revolver development happened in the US, except for one single guy in France who got lucky once. Ridiculous. European arms-makers were in hot competition with Colt and S&W from the beginning.

Additionally, the SAA is NOT "revolutionary". What features about the SAA were "revolutionary", exactly? Nothing. It was not the first revolver, it was not the first metallic-cartridge revolver, nor the first rear-loading revolver. It didn't have the first swing-out cylinder, nor was it the first double action. It was the final perfecting of features that had already appeared in other weapons before it. That is not "revolutionary", it is evolutionary.

There were probably 100 SAA's sold to storekeepers, teamsters, travellers, farmers, and typical criminal types, for every one that was sold to a "rancher, lawman or outlaw" (not to mention the 1,000's bought by the US govn't). Not every criminal in the West was an "outlaw". That has a very specific definition. There were only a handful of US Marshals and other law officers in the West at any given point, and there were plenty of SAAs sold on the East coast as well. Real life wasn't like you see in Westerns or on TV. There were plenty of inhabitants besides cowboys, gunslingers and gunfighters, and those inhabitants are the ones who bought the most guns, because of the sheer numbers of them, if nothing else.

Anyway, I'm going to try and dig up some references; I got books all over the damn place. It's going to take some looking to find them..45Colt 01:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Colt neither invented the first revolver nor the metallic cartridge revolver. The former goes back centuries and the latter was invented in 1854 by Eugene Lefaucheux. At best Colt updated a pre-existing design for use with a new ignition system.SQMeaner (talk)

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

  Done 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. GMG^talk 14:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

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))Reply

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))Reply

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))Reply

I've provided the French text below, which dates Fischer's pistol from March 1824 and mentions a long-barrelled pistol which uses one long barrel and several smaller barrels which rotate behind the long barrel, clearly a revolver in my opinion but I'd like to get some opinions from other users on here as another editor has taken issue with my edits. I believe this gun also uses a priming magazine but it's not clear to me whether this is a flintlock or percussion type of ignition. Anyway, I've reproduced the relevant text below so other editors can weigh in on this topic.

LINK: https://books.google.co.uk/books?newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&output=text&id=NwEwAAAAYAAJ&dq=pistolet+à+cinq+Coups&jtp=721

' Pistolet à cinq coups. - M. Fischer, fils du membre de la Société helvétique des sciences naturelles, qui présidera la session de cette année, vient, de fabriquer un pistolet qui tire cinq coups de suite. Cette arme a un canon long, et cinq autres petits qui tournent autour du premier au moyen d'un ressort et d'un bouton de pression, qui les amène, l'un après l'autre, devant l'ouverture inférieure du canon long. On tire de cette manière les cinq coups de suite, sans qu'il soit besoin d'autre chose que de tourner le canon et d'armer la batterie. Celle-ci est plus épaisse que les batteries ordinaires : elle est creuse, et contient suffisamment de poudre pour amorcer sept ou huit fois. Lorsqu'on arme le pistolet, un ressort fait ouvrir le magasin à poudre, d'où il s'échappe la quantité de poudre nécessaire, qui tombe dans le bassinet. Quand la batterie est frappée, un ressort fait fermer le magasin, de manière à empêcher toute communication avec le feu. Dans le cas même où la jointure ne serait pas assez exacte pour empêcher le feu de prendre à la poudre du magasin, une ouverture, ménagée dans le haut, donnerait issue à l'explosion, qui, dès lors, ne présenterait aucun danger.'

Also, the German text, also produced below, makes reference explicitly to a cylinder 'behind the barrel'. How could this be anything other than a revolver?

Link: https://books.google.co.uk/books?pg=PA1213&dq=fischer+gewehr&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&id=wrpeAAAAcAAJ&output=text

'Entdeckung: Schießgewehre, welche mit Schieß-| fabrikant zu Schaffhausen in pulver geladen und durch Lunte, Schlagröhrchen, der Schweiz. Wohnh. in Wien pinen, Steinschloß oder durch Percussion mit den ver: auf der neuen Wieden Nr. 20, schiedenen Knallpulverarten und ihren Einhüllungen losgefeuert werden können, so zu verfertigen, daß man jedes Gewehr mittelst eines hinter dem Laufe (der keine Bodenschraube oder Bodenstück babe) angebrach-ten um eine Are sich drehenden Cylinders, mit fünf oder noch mehreren von einander unabhängigen Schüs sen laden und versehen, dann diese Schüsse einer nach dem andern, in weniger als einer halben Minute mit gleicher Sicherheit des Losgehens und des Treffens wie bey einem gewöhnlichen Gewehre, und indem der Cylinder mit keiner Bodenschraube verse-hen sey, sondern aus einem Stücke bestehe, mit nch größerer Sicherheit für den Schießenden abfeuern fonne, wodurch solche Gewehre sowohl für die Jagd als auf Reisen und im Kriege im Vergleiche mit den gewöhnlichen weit größere Vortheile darbieten. Uebrigens haben Se. Majestät rücksichtlich dieses Privilegiums insbesondere anzuordnen befunden, daß der Johann Konrad Fischer seine Gewehre mit der Aufschrift: Patentirte Schießgewehre des Johann Konrad Fischer" zu bezeichnen und die Ladungsma gazine immer aus einem Stücke ohne Löthung zu verfertigen habe.' SQMeaner (talk) 00:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The problem is that these are non-English sources whose English translations are ambiguous as to whether they're referring to a cylinder, or a barrel. For instance, one such translation: "This weapon has a long barrel, along with five smaller barrels that rotate around the first one by means of a spring and a pressure button, which brings them, one after the other, in front of the opening at the bottom of the long barrel." and "In this way, five consecutive shots can be fired, without needing anything other than turning the barrel and cocking the firing mechanism." So what the patent mechanism -- which itself is repeating a primary source claim from Fischer, and is not independently evaluated -- appears to be describing is a Gatling gun in the format of a pistol. It does not use the phrase "revolver", "revolving pistol", or "revolving cylinder". The other translation repeatedly mentioned "Rifles" ("Rifles that are loaded with gunpowder and fired by means of a fuse, percussion caps, flintlock, or percussion systems using different types of explosive powders and their casings can be manufactured in such a way that each rifle can be loaded and equipped with five or more independent shots.") While that translation *does* mention cylinders, it also mentions that the requirement that "Johann Konrad Fischer to mark his rifles with the inscription: "Patented Rifles of Johann Konrad Fischer" and to ensure that the loading magazines are always made from a single piece without soldering." So the same source interchangeably appears to be using "magazines" and cylinders" to describe the loading apparatus. Entirely ambiguous. So what we have is synthesis based off of a primary source, in support of a questionable claim. I would have no problem with it if there were an acceptable secondary source that unambiguously stated "Fischer patented a revolver in 1824". But we do not appear to have that, and a cursory search turned up no immediate sources making such a claim either. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 00:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Again, the fact it's non-English is irrelevant. The description in the French text of 'five smaller barrels', which I believe are chambers, rotating around a long one is a common description from the era of revolver type weapons as the terminology of revolvers was still in its infancy at this point. Admittedly 'turning the barrel' is somewhat ambiguous but I believe it means turning the chambers by hand or by some mechanical contrivance and the wording is just somewhat clumsy because, again, the terminology for revolvers wasn't well-established at this point. Also, what do you make of the German text?SQMeaner (talk) 00:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The fact that it's non-English is very relevant. Per our policies, English translations are preferred over non-English sources, and editors need to be reasonably certain that the translation is accurate and the source is appropriate. Neither one of those things has been established here. You just said you "believe" that "barrels" means "chambers" -- that's your opinion, but my point is that is not our call to make; that is for reliable secondary sources to decide. There's no point in us arguing over something that is, on it's own, insufficient. We should either be looking to find a reliable secondary source making the claim that Fischer patented a revolver, or we should refrain from including the material at all. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 00:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Where does it say on Wikipedia that English sources are preferred over non-English? I'm also pretty sure secondary sources are a nice thing to have but they are not completely necessary if the primary sources are clear enough, as I believe they are in this case. Again, what do you make of the German text?SQMeaner (talk) 00:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources says: However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they are available and of equal quality and relevance.. And per WP:RSPRIMARY: All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. and I've edited my thoughts on the other translation above into my original comment (it was there before, just got edit conflicted). Again, if there were no question -- or even robust debate over -- whether Fischer patented a revolver, there should be no problem finding multiple reliable secondary sources that make and support that claim. If the only sources available in support of this are based on interpretive translations of a primary source, these are red flags and we absolutely cannot use that material. So please kindly self-revert until said sources can be provided. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 00:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

That source says English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they are available and of equal quality and relevance. It doesn't say anything about non-English sources being inherently unreliable or verboten in some way on English Wikipedia. Again, I believe the language in the sources I've provided is clear enough that no secondary sources or analysis is needed and so therefore isn't synthesis. If it bothers you this much, why don't you invite some Wikipedian with more knowledge on the German and/or French languages to weigh in on the topic and ask them whether or not the language is clear enough to justify using as a reference on the main revolver page? Also, with regards to your interpretation of the German source, magazines are commonly used to refer to revolver cylinders even today, so I don't believe there's much cause for confusion there.SQMeaner (talk) 01:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I did not make any claim that non-English sources were inherently unreliable or verboten in some way. Please constrain yourself to addressing only the arguments discussed here. I said that it conflicts with English translations that do not appear to unambiguously support the claim that it is a revolver. Your personal opinion that secondary sources are not needed is not supported by policy, period. And you are mistaken; the burden is on you to show that the cited source clearly supports the material as presented in the article. Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. The material lacked such direct support, and you have failed to provide an adequate replacement. The claim that "magazines are commonly used to refer to revolver cylinders" is wildly untrue -- it simply has no basis in fact. You're now simply arguing that you don't want to abide by our reliable sourcing policies; that's not going to work. I asked you once already to self-revert; if you will not do so, I will do it for you in accordance with our policies -- if you continue to reinsert the same material without additional reliable sourcing, you'll have clearly crossed into the realm of edit warring. I strongly suggest you stop, and reconsider what you're doing. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think the English translations of both sources are quite clear though. Just because it seems unclear to you doesn't mean it's unclear to everyone and just because they're primary sources doesn't mean they're inherently unreliable and can't be used on Wikipedia either. Also, I have provided several links below in which revolver cylinders are referred to as 'magazines'. Again, I think this conversation would really benefit from inviting someone with more knowledge of the French and German languages to weigh in on it. If we can find someone with a working knowledge of French and/or German who agrees that my sources are too ambiguous to be used then I will withdraw my edits without further debate but I would appreciate it if we could wait for that to happen before either of us takes further action on the main page.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Nz1EAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA81&dq=Revolver+Magazine+Patent&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiw98Lt4b6IAxVXQ0EAHffpGtEQ6AF6BAgIEAI#v=onepage&q=Revolver%20Magazine%20Patent&f=false

https://www.nrawomen.com/content/is-it-a-magazine-or-a-clip

https://en.namu.wiki/w/리볼버

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/simple-effective-5-most-dangerous-revolvers-planet-earth-34772

Please bear in mind I'm not trying to argue that this is the official terminology, just that it's a common mistake people who aren't familiar with revolvers make.SQMeaner (talk) 01:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Of those sources, your first one has a single reference to a magazine and none to a cylinder. It never states directly that a revolver cylinder is a magazine. The second says that a cylinder "acts as a type of magazine", not that it is *is* a magazine. They are stating that it performs a similar role -- which it goes on to say is holding the ammunition, often in a moon clip which the article goes explicitly out of it's way to state is NOT a magazine. Your third source is a wiki (unreliable), and your fourth a listicle from a blog (unreliable). It's not a "common mistake" -- it's a fringe usage with no mainstream support whatsoever. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

That's my point, it's not the correct term, just a mistake or 'fringe usage' as you put it by people unfamiliar with revolver terminology. Also, apologies for the ninja edit but I've found a US patent from 1833 in which the patentee also confuses the cylinder of the revolver with a magazine. I think it's not the only one too.

https://patents.google.com/patent/USX7620I1/en?q=(Magazine+Gun)&before=priority:18401212&after=priority:18050101&sort=oldSQMeaner (talk) 02:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply