What is the difference between a pistol and a revolver?

Both are handguns. A revolver contains a revolving cylinder in which bullets are loaded. Revolvers
usually hold six shots. The ATF defines a pistol as any handgun that does not contain its ammunition in a
revolving cylinder. Most pistols have a removable magazine into which bullets are loaded. The magazine
is then inserted into the hollow handgrip of the gun.

Pistols and Revolvers are both Handguns.

Handguns are essentially smaller guns which are meant to be fired with one hand, and can be concealed
or carried easily. Earlier handguns did not have the rifling in their barrels either, but more modern ones
(both pistols and revolvers) have rifling (spiral grooves inside the barrel), which spin the bullet on its way
out of the barrel, for better aerodynamics, accuracy and damage.

Handguns can be classified into Muzzle Loaders, Revolvers and Pistols, in that chronological order. Other
than Captain Jack Sparrow, I have not heard much of the 2-century old muzzle loader handguns, and
shall pass discussing on that.

REVOLVERS:

Revolvers were the first type of handguns after the muzzle loaders. There were a couple of revolver type
rifles a long time ago, but they did not last.

The categorical difference between the two is that in Revolvers, there is a barrel loaded with ammo,
which ‘revolves’ to bring the next live cartridge in place after every shot. Hence the name ‘Revolver’.

PISTOLS:

In Pistols, ammo is fed thru a magazine which is inside the grip, and a ‘piston’ powered by the
combustion of the fired cartridge moves back and front which ejects the empty shell of the fired round
and allows for another live cartridge to be placed into the breach from the magazine. The magazine
itself has a spring beneath the ammo which push the live round to its place. hence the name Pistol.

Which is better- is an argument going on for ages. While the revolvers came much earlier, greater
moving parts, barrel ply, time to load and other problems saw a great appreciation in the slimmer and
sleek shape of the pistols.

Some shooters prefer the revolver for its unique style and age-old acceptance.
Others love the pistols for reasons like more weight nearer to the hand allowing better control, faster
loading by just changing the magazine (which hold anything between 6 to 13 rounds, depending on the
caliber), closer aiming line to hand and several other aspects.

Therefore all handguns in today’s world are either pistols OR revolvers, depending on the mechanism as
mentioned above.

A revolver is a multishot firearm, usually a handgun, in which the rounds are held in a revolving cylinder
that rotates to fire them through a single barrel.

Pistols are smaller, lighter, easier to conceal, faster to bring to bear, and sometimes may have more
safety features than other firearms. Generally being an emergency self-defense weapon for use under
25 meters, a handgun bullet neither has the energy of, nor the accuracy of, a bullet shot from a rifle.

Pro: Guns are a form of self-defense.

While pepper spray and karate skills can be used in minor cases, a person needs to be able to defend
themselves if an armed criminal comes after them or the people that they love. Even if you don’t kill the
enemy, it will give you time to escape and find help.

Con: Irresponsible gun usage.

The government does the best that they can to ensure only responsible, law-abiding citizens receive
guns. However, the system is not always successful. For example, the shooter in the Las Vegas massacre
was said to have no criminal record. He is someone who probably passed the background check with no
problem. On October 1st, with his clean record, he managed to kill almost 60 people and injured more
than 520 others. What I am trying to say is: you never truly know what people are capable of.

Pro: Security will be improved.

While criminals may get their hands on weapons, trained officers and military officials will always have
more. These men and women are certified to use weapons in order to protect United States citizens.
This protection can be expanded, if necessary, should the threats to Americans increase.
Con: People are constantly nervous.

You can never be sure which gun owners have and have not passed a background check. They may have
stolen the gun, bought it illegally, or even built it themselves. In the city setting, people are consistently
on edge because shootings are so common.

There are far too many pros and cons to list in this forum, My main goal of this article was to show that
stricter gun control may be warranted given the environment that exists currently in the united States. I
know people want to be able to protect themselves against physical threats. However, think about a
world with no guns and how relaxed the atmosphere would be that we live in. What are your thouhts on
guns and stricter control?