Joined
·
13 Posts
As far as I can see, most modern regulations regard "pistols" and "revolvers" as two distinct sets of handguns.
However, in Wild West times and beyond, revolvers have been regarded as pistols, and honestly: What else should they be?
Is there an argument to declare an ancient flintlock muzzle-loading pistol and a modern semi-automatic pistol to be more closely related to each other, than either is to a revolver?
I think the explanation for the current usage is:
1. Historically and logically, a revolver is a pistol.
2. BUT: As semi-automatic pistols became the default (and almost only) version of pistols used, for simplicity the term "pistol" became assigned exclusively to them. So, for practical reasons, revolvers are no longer regarded as pistols, as otherwise you need more terms to be distinctive!
Do you agree? Or is there a design-related, meaningful answer to the italic question above?
However, in Wild West times and beyond, revolvers have been regarded as pistols, and honestly: What else should they be?
Is there an argument to declare an ancient flintlock muzzle-loading pistol and a modern semi-automatic pistol to be more closely related to each other, than either is to a revolver?
I think the explanation for the current usage is:
1. Historically and logically, a revolver is a pistol.
2. BUT: As semi-automatic pistols became the default (and almost only) version of pistols used, for simplicity the term "pistol" became assigned exclusively to them. So, for practical reasons, revolvers are no longer regarded as pistols, as otherwise you need more terms to be distinctive!
Do you agree? Or is there a design-related, meaningful answer to the italic question above?