Why do people choose to use revolvers?

Factual Questions
61

I think the problem is more that CGI isn’t as intuitive for people as messing with jello and pancake mix. CG is an incredibly, incredibly complex field with a large variety of techniques and hacks that range from intuitive to absolutely absurd and fascinating (to people who know what they’re doing). Modelling skin, for instance, is an incredible uphill battle because it’s semi-translucent, but computers are completely unable to realistically simulate light due to a variety of reasons. The solution is basically a bunch of weird trigonometry that in no way approaches how real light acts at a physical level but somehow looks right enough that you don’t notice.

Modelling and simulating the fluid dynamics required to render that breath in the cold? While there’s probably a tool for it now, getting that tool in the state it is now probably required man-years, if not man-decades of mathematical and technical breakthroughs.

Pixar spent a long time just developing the insane interlocking spring mechanics governing Merida’s hair in Brave. And most of these probably aren’t even close to accurate simulations, they’re a bunch of bizarre ad-hoc computationally cheap hacks that look very good, but would be useless to a physicist studying physical mechanics in any depth (some things are reasonable, if coarse, simulations, but there are so many hacks).

The Wildebeest Stampede in The Lion King required a new custom-made computer and brand new software to do what’s known as a flocking simulation and it still took like a year to compute. (Yes, I know the last two were animation, but live action CG and animation have a lot of overlap in tooling)

That said, it’s hard to have an appreciation for the huge variety of techniques and skillsets involved in developing CG tools unless you’ve gone so far as dabbling with GLSL, Pixar’s Renderman, read up on computer graphics, and know other things about simulation programming. It’s still a fascinating art, but it’s more like painting where nobody really cares about how so and so artist used drybrushing to get that texture, because it requires a lot of foreknowledge to know why certain techniques are used. It’s less intuitively fun that hearing someone Macguyvered gore or a sound effect, but I still feel like it’s a shame that peoples ignorance of the field ruins it for them compared to practical effects. I’m not using “ignorance” as a value judgment, the amount of knowledge you need to understand a lot of it is immense, it’s an unfortunate ignorance there’s no tractable way to disabuse anybody of.

62

Pepperboxes had an annoying tendency to chain fire or just plain explode in your hand.

Other than that, they were great weapons. :slight_smile:

To be fair, early revolvers had a tendency to chain fire as well, though not as often as a pepperbox. At least with a pepperbox there’s nothing stopping the bullet from coming out. If a revolver chain fires, there’s only one round that’s behind the barrel. The rest of the rounds are blocked, which makes a chain fire much worse. Still, a chain fire on a pepperbox could break your wrist or make you accidentally shoot one of your allies standing next to you.

If they had been smart enough to put partitions between each barrel where the caps were (yes, it’s called a nipple, keep your jokes to yourself, please), then the risk of chain fire would have been dramatically reduced, but most pepperboxes had nothing blocking the flash from one cap to the next.

Another great design was the revolving rifle. A couple of folks tried to make those. In a revolver, there’s a small gap between the cylinder and the barrel. Hot gases and small bits of lead shoot out of this gap at high velocities when the gun is fired. For a pistol, this is no biggie since both hands are behind the cylinder gap. With a revolving rifle though, your left hand is in front of the gap, which means that the weapon tends to spray hot gases and bits of lead and powder at high velocity into your left forearm. Revolving rifles didn’t last long. The ones that were made for the Civil War were sold off for scrap value after the war was over.

There have been a few revolvers like the 1895 Nagant that move the cylinder forward when fired and seal off the gap. Most revolvers, even modern ones, don’t do this though. Don’t ever hold a revolver in such a way that your fingers are anywhere near the cylinder gap or you could end up in a world of hurt.

I guess that’s one more for the negative list for revolvers.

To be fair, you can hurt yourself holding a semi-auto pistol wrong as well. Don’t put anything behind the slide because the slide moves back very quickly and with a heck of a lot of force.

63

Oh, believe me, I get to hear my brother go on about it. I know exactly what goes into it. The point is more that if you study a film where the FX are mechanical, you can see artifacts of them sometimes. One of 20 different techniques may have been used to get a different CGI effect, but there’s no way to study the end product and tell which one.

A long Steadicam shot is beautiful if it’s well-done. A CGI shot meant to duplicate a steadicam shot may represent 1,000 man hours just to develop the technique, but in the end, lacks, literally, the human touch.

Now, I’m as big a fan as anyone of things that CGI can do which just aren’t going to happen any other way, like some of the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park, and I appreciate that my brother has to story-board everything he does before he sits down at the computer, but my brother himself will tell you that directors are getting lazy, and not reshooting things when they change their mind about something, like the color of a character’s costume, or the time of day or the temperature they want to to appear, and just send it to the CGI lab, They even do things like not using stage blood anymore when a character is shot, so they don’t have to have multiple costumes, or clean the set up in order to have multiple takes. They do several bloodless takes, then send it to CGI to add the blood to the take they like.

64

Yes, this.

I’m tired of having to pick up all the shells when I bump someone off.

65

You need more time at the range.

66

To answer the OP’s question: it’s the same reason some people buy cars with stick shifts and others choose automatic transmissions. Or why some people buy Apple phones and others Android. Or why some people have dogs as pets and others have cats. There are reasons to choose either way, both imagined and real. But it’s nice to have the choice.

What a strange thing to be taught by a firearms trainer. “Keep you firearm in a not-ready-to-use state just in case the person you should be shooting grabs it.” I hope you asked for your money back.

I have both revolvers and semi-auto pistols, and I never carry a revolver with an empty chamber and I never carry a semi-auto without a round in the chamber. They both possess sufficient safety features that doing these things renders them far less useful and more confusing.

Thank you for that. That was very entertaining.

67

Agree.

For a handgun that is carried for self defense, there is no logical or rational reason to not carry a round in the chamber. In addition - and IMO - there is no logical or rational reason to have an external safety.

68

The case can be made that revolvers are inherently safer, particularly in the hands of the inexperienced or law enforcement. There is an infamous video of some idiot with a Glock in a holster in front of school kids claiming that he is the only one in the room qualified to handle a firearm. BANG!! He shoots himself in the foot, and then attempts to pass it off as a learning experience.

This was probably due to the whole business of removing the magazine and the person thinking the weapon is now unloaded, with one round still in fact loaded in the chamber. This “feature” has resulted in more than one death.

69

Some semis won’t fire with the magazine removed.

70

Not even if single action semi?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am-Qdx6vky0 (not really graphic)

71

Curious. While I knew that there were customized rounds (like the .500 Linebaugh) that were only used in revolvers, for the most part, that’s just because they’re only used in custom designed weapons. I’ve always thought of the .50AE as the gold standard for big rounds in handguns.
I presume that the reason you see some these higher velocity rounds in revolvers but not in semis is because they’re just lengthened versions of normal rounds (the .454 Casull, for instance) and it’s increasingly difficult to make good cycling actions for longer bullets. Several of those have a case length well over an inch and a half!

72

[thick Russian accent] Is gun. Is not safe. [/TRA]

73

[TRA] Da! [/TRA]

74

Yeah, you never know when out riding when you might have to pull your gat!

:dubious:

75

“Why do people choose to use revolvers?”

Take our word for it, Russian Roulette is a lot less fun with anything else.
:wink:

76

:rolleyes:
As a rider, I say that it is much more likely than if you are driving a car but a lot less than a johnboat in a swamp. How much have you ridden motorcycles? How many times have you had drivers try to knock you over while you are on a bicycle or motorcycle? :smiley:

77

I’ve ridden motorcycles a lot (I averaged 10K miles per year for a number of years) and I ride a lot of bicycle (3K/year over the last many years). Never once have I felt the need to pull a gun while riding. No one has intentionally tried to “knock me over” while riding. Now unintentionally, yes, but I don’t feel the need to shoot people over it. I’ve been hit twice (once on motorcycle, once on bicycle) and neither person deserved to be shot even thought they were in the wrong. Maybe the northwest is nicer than the south where it appears you might be from due to your swamp comment.

78

I used to ride a motorcycle a lot. I never felt the need to pull a gun on anybody. There were times I wished I had a pellet pistol to shoot dogs who chased me.

79

Now that IS a good point. I ride my bicycle in rural areas a lot (often mountain bike down gravel and dirt roads) and the dogs are a different story. Maybe I should be packing heat? Or, is bear spray a better alternative? Does anyone know if bear spray is as easy to use as a revolver? :smiley:

80

This myth that revolvers are somehow simpler than semi autos needs to die.

Cut away of a .38 revolver. All of those little parts need to work in time with each other, like a clock.

The major parts of a semi auto are a lot larger and less finicky.

That being said, I would still choose a revolver for self defense. If you watch security cam footage of self defense situations (on YouTube, etc) the defender is almost always fending something off with one hand while readying their weapon. I could see stovepiping a shell and then fumbling with the slide while I was eaten by a grue.