Talk:Pistol/Archive 1

Why split?

This article needs some serious attention and/or be merged with (replaced entirely by a redirect to): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handgun —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.70.37 (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You're right, and it used to redirect there. Apparently someone felt the need to separate them recently, although I can't see why. I may not have time to investigate. There is not necessarily anything wrong with two articles, but if it is not done right, there is going to be an awful lot of needless forking (see WP:CFORK). Also, I remember someone providing 3 different WP:RSs for the fact that UK/Commonwealth usage does not refrain from calling revolvers pistols. Now it says "citation needed" here. That's odd. Well, we'll see what takes shape. I hope the editor who split this is still in the middle of construction. — ¾-10 01:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes shit is different from feces. Sometimes the military is different from the armed forces (see armed forces talk page merge discussion). The citations for the Commonwealth usage were WP:Synthesis. I'll try to find a citation but it won't be easy. Marcus Qwertyus 02:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Excellent point regarding "military" and "armed forces". I'm certainly no mergist—I guess what strikes me right off the bat about "handgun" and "pistol" is that merging them is just quicker and easier (from a triaging viewpoint) than developing the content in such a way that it is well de-forked and executes the strategy of WP:SUMMARY and WP:SPINOFF. So I leaned toward a mildly immediatist view in this case (despite my aversion to extreme forms of immediatism), because having them merged avoids forking (in the easy way, but not the only way), and then the article is "done" for now (as opposed to being "plainly not yet done" in a way that invites constant tinkering or complaints of forking). Sorry if this sounds academic—it's actually practical, just hard to communicate clearly. To cut to the chase, I've now realized that the project you're working on right now (i.e., de-merging them) is a project that I myself might contemplate doing but would avoid because it would take time and effort that I'm triaging to other to-do items. But if someone else (such as yourself) has this project as something of current interest to work on, then certainly it's great if they work on it. So your split is fine with me, although "to make it stick" I think you'll need to bring the content from sections like Handgun#Single-shot pistols and merge it into Pistol#Single shot, then leaving a {{main}} tag at the former, pointing the reader to an available click-through to the latter. The reason I would consider that worth prioritizing is to preempt what will happen if it's not done: I think if it is not done, then someone will come along and try to merge the articles back together again, citing over-forking of those sections. I could help, but I have other to-do triage queued. Consider my comments here as food for thought but not an attempt to stand in the way of your content development, by any means. Regards, — ¾-10 16:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll be darned—I just skimmed over the lede of m:immediatism and found that someone has already pithily summed up exactly what was driving my comments above: "However, immediatism is not wholly incompatible with inclusionism either; there may simply be a view that the page should appear to be complete and formatted properly at any point in time, even if one must delay the addition of content." — ¾-10 16:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Merge back?

I don't see the advantage of the recent split-off from Handgun, which contains much information about pistols not found here. I do see the advantage of not having to maintain information concerning pistols in two articles. It appears to me that a discussion is in order on whether this split is kept, or Pistol is merged back into Handgun.  --Lambiam 09:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Marcus, I think that "what to do on this topic" comes down to how much time and effort you have available to work on this currently. If they're going to stay un-merged, then the de-forking has to be done soon. Alternatively, you could let them be re-merged *for now* and then come back and de-merge them again later when you have enough time to devote to the de-forking. If you pick the latter option, you haven't lost any of your effort spent thus far, because you can always copy-and-paste it from the history later and pick up where you left off. Thoughts? — ¾-10 15:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I have time to work on it today. If this is merged to handgun, handgun would get moved to pistol per COMMONNAME. Marcus Qwertyus 18:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• Remerge sounds good. --John (talk) 08:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Remerge is one appropriate path, since not enough was ever done to address the problems discussed. We've already got an anon today doing some simplifying of both articles—which is OK; he's not overdeleting in my opinion—but as it stands right now, it's drifting back to [implicitly] cementing the old "a revolver is not a pistol" definition, which is prescribing a use of language instead of showing the reader both the linguistic prescription and the linguistic description, which is what Wikipedia should do per WP:NPOV. Given that Wikipedia article names are limited to emic names and thus implicit emic classifications, we have to explicitly mention etic overlaps. However, the splitting could be OK to stand as long as someone adds a little line to the "pistol" article lede, mentioning the nomenclature variants and giving a link (e.g., like "some people include revolvers in the pistols category"). Would have to think it through. I don't have time to pursue this today, but it may make my triage cut soon. It's not that I care deeply about the nomenclature; it's just that I don't like Wikipedia favoring one faction over another. WP needs to be the referee that says "it depends on whose definition you're talking about." — ¾-10 16:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Update: I added the little lede tweak that at least points via outbound links to the rest of the story. But this by itself will not be enough to prevent remerge beyond the immediate short-term context, because the WP:CFORKing with "handgun" will have to be systemically winnowed out / teased apart if "pistol" is to stay split off from "handgun". — ¾-10 17:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Pistols and Handguns are not the same thing. A pistol, is a semi-automatic handgun. Handguns include both pistols and revolvers but a revolver is not a pistol. --Zackmann08 (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

It depends on whose definition is being enforced. As discussed in recent years at pages like Talk:Handgun and Talk:Pistol, it is a newer, narrower, more technical sense of the word "pistol" that excludes revolvers. This exclusion was not widespread in 19th century America and still is not particularly hegemonic across the English-speaking world. That's why the debate has occurred on Wikipedia about whether the articles "handgun" and "pistol" need to be separate. In the end it can work either way, as long as the difference in word senses is explained. One of the factors at work is the number of people who don't know that the alternate senses exist. This is already covered in the article namespace at Handgun > Multiple senses of the word "pistol". — ¾-10 01:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to see a citation for the ridiculous notion that a revolver is NOT a pistol. This nonsense about the chamber and barrel being integral has never been part of the definition of the word "pistol," as five seconds with any dictionary will demonstrate; and out of the many dozens of people of my acquaintance who own and use firearms, NOT ONE uses the word in this absurd and restrictive sense. Cite the source for this definition -- or remove it, for the nonsense that it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.243.36.223 (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the above,a revolver is a pistol. Just ask my grandparents. Men have created the fictious distinction between the two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.125.88.80 (talk) 14:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

For those who insist upon citations, here are two citations for the definition of "pistol" which support the distinction between pistol and revolver. All handguns were pistols until revolvers were invented, wherein revolvers became a separate category of handgun. A revolver is not a pistol, regardless of what somebody's grandparents say. A pistol has a chamber integral with the barrel; a revolver has a revolving chamber. The difference is the design of the chamber. I fail to see how that concept can be so difficult to understand. Some people may chose to ignore the technical distinction, but that does not mean there isn't one. See definition number 1 at: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pistol PHD-teacher (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

That is ONE dictionary's definition. I can easily find many others which contradict it, such as this one: "pistol 1. a short firearm intended to be held and fired with one hand" (from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pistol?) -- and THAT is the definition used by the overwhelming majority of people on this planet. At the very least, this page ought to mention that the restrictive "integral chamber and barrel" definition is NOT the most common definition, instead of pretending that it's carved in stone and that everyone who uses the word in the broader sense is somehow wrong -- because they're NOT. FireHorse (talk) 23:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, the National Firearms Act (NFA), 27 C.F.R. § 479.11, defines "pistol" as: … a weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having (a) a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s); and (b) a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand and at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s). As can be seen from this definition, a pistol may have more than one barrel, as in a Pepper box, but if the barrels each have an integral chamber, the handgun is a pistol. If you want to call all handguns pistols nobody will care. But, we're not talking about common usage. We're talking about definitions, and definitions should be specific. Why disseminate incorrect information? http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/firearms-technology.html PHD-teacher (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)PhDTeacher

I point out that even that section is not unambiguous. It defines "Revolver" as "A projectile weapon, of the pistol type, having a breechloading chambered cylinder so arranged that the cocking of the hammer or movement of the trigger rotates it and brings the next cartridge in line with the barrel for firing." From https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/27/479.11 2620:15C:2C5:2:65A7:FC8F:8E85:C4B8 (talk) 00:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Much like the citation of a single dictionary's definition above (while conveniently ignoring all the other dictionaries that contradict that one), the National Firearms Act has nothing to do with the definition of the word "pistol" -- which is not determined by some paper-pushing government bureaucrat, but by the manner in which the word is actually used in common speech, which happens to be broad and general, NOT restrictive and specific. Your insistence that definitions should be specific is absurd, and only proves that you don't even know what the definition of "definition" is. FireHorse (talk) 23:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The epistemology of language is what's being missed when people argue here for one definition over another. It's the answer to the question that you mentioned—"I fail to see how that concept can be so difficult to understand." It's not that English speakers outside the U.S. find the concept difficult to understand; rather, it's that they don't accept the convention that the U.S. speaker is trying to enforce. There's no "one right answer" to the question of "what the words mean precisely"; there are only dueling conventions, in the form of varying word senses. It's important to understand how natural language interacts with controlled vocabulary. Legislation and regulation, by their nature, as well as science and engineering, need to declare precise operational definitions for terms, so that they can work with them (enforcing laws, designing and building things) with there being little to no ambiguity to their meanings. The way they often do this is to take existing words from natural language and declare operational definitions for them that will rule absolutely within the given sphere of usage. These become technical and/or legal senses of the word. But one must keep in mind that laws vary by country, and that Wikipedia's natural language usage reflects global variations (English is used around the world, including natively in many places, although it is not always American English). What the U.S. National Firearms Act and the U.S. ATF definitions cited above do is they ensure that within the United States, the mutually exclusive definitions (revolvers not being pistols) will be very widespread and will be the dominant senses. What they don't do, though, is force UK and Commonwealth usage to follow that same convention; and what several speakers of Commonwealth English have shown in these Talk page discussions over the years is that the American technical/legal senses have never entirely displaced the broader sense in global natural language usage. In fact, not even the cited Merriam-Webster entry does that. Right there within definition 1, it actually gives two senses, separated by a semicolon. The first is the narrower sense, the one enforced via legislation (NFA) and regulation (ATF) in the U.S.; and the second is the broader sense, in which "pistol" is synonymous with "handgun" (quote, "; broadly : handgun"). The question for Wikipedian purposes (pagenaming, lede-phrasing, cross-reference hyperlinking) is not "What are the Official™, Correct® definitions of the words?"; natural language doesn't work that way. It doesn't have Official™, Correct® definitions. It has consensus definitions, which occasionally (as in this case) involve dueling conventions (lack of global consensus). The concepts of linguistic description, linguistic prescription, and blends between them (such as reasonable advice for writers simply wishing to communicate efficiently) enter into understanding this topic of the epistemology of language. Rather, the question for Wikipedian purposes is "how should we communicate all of the above to the readers in the simplest, clearest way?" In my opinion, it is by having articles at all of the above pagenames (handgun, pistol, revolver), and simply explaining to the readers that the usage varies and that they can easily follow the links over to the other pages as needed. — ¾-10 21:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. It seems like encyclopaedic common sense that the handgun article should provide the general overview, while further articles should describe revolvers, pistol, derringers, machine pistols, etc. Still more detailed articles should detail various configurations and finally individual models. But someone who come to this page (as I originally did), with the intention of learning about the specificities of pistols and their various types, would be ill-served by having to sift through a generic handgun article. --92.147.116.199 (talk) 23:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment: UK law appears to define pistol as "a gun with a barrel shorter than 30cms and a total overall length of less than 60cms. " GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I sense a 'pants' vs. 'trousers' or 'fruit' vs. 'berry' vs. 'vegetable' kind of problem here. As in: _technically_ tomato and banana are berries, but everyone and their grandparents are free to call them vegetable and fruit, respectively or vice versa; outside strict botanical science context of course. I support _technical_ distinction of revolvers from pistols and definition of revolver with revolving chamber and pistol without it. As those word roots are used in their different respective meanings in other contexts than guns. But if in normal human speech, outside context where technical niceties are most important, it should be allowed to mess them up? BirgittaMTh (talk) 07:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Harmonica gun

Hi, Is the harmonica gun actually a pistol? It seems to have different chambers for the same barrel like a revolver, which is not a pistol according to the page. Thoughts? --Amendola90 (talk) 11:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2015

Whoever keeps editing this page and taking out relevant information is doing a great disservice, to change something because you do not like it is asinine at best, and should be considered vandalism. I know it asked for specific changes to be made, but it would be almost too much to add, but it seems the last beneficial addition was 20:14, 8 December 2014‎ Andy Dingley, and should be reverted to this edit, everything after that was a series of people detracting from the article, and removing relevant information. 23.27.249.175 (talk) 23:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• I will, however, answer this "request", which isn't valid at all, as the IP admits directly. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC).

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2015

I believe the user "Lukeno94" made incorrect changes to the page by removing the revolver section. While some may believe a pistol has an integrated chamber, that is not the accurate definition, and I must point out the harmonica pistol, which is listed on the page works the same a s a revolver, except the chambers are in line rather than in a circle. I would also point out a simple search for "define revolver comes up with: "re·volv·er rəˈvälvər/ noun noun: revolver; plural noun: revolvers

 a pistol with revolving chambers enabling several shots to be fired without reloading."

A simple search on google will confirm this. The page should be reverted to the content displayed before editeing done by Lukeno94.

The section Revolver should be included, with the original text "With the development of the revolver in the 19th century, gunsmiths had finally achieved the goal of a practical capability for delivering multiple loads to one handgun barrel in quick succession. Revolvers feed ammunition via the rotation of a cartridge-filled cylinder, in which each cartridge is contained in its own ignition chamber, and is sequentially brought into alignment with the weapon's barrel by an indexing mechanism linked to the weapon's trigger (double-action) or its hammer (single-action). These nominally cylindrical chambers, usually numbering between five and eight depending on the size of the revolver and the size of the cartridge being fired, are bored through the cylinder so that their axes are parallel to the cylinder's axis of rotation; thus, as the cylinder rotates, the chambers revolve about the cylinder's axis."

The page before editing can be viewed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pistol&oldid=643129837 193.109.199.7 (talk) 23:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Whilst I won't answer the request itself, I will point out that this IP is, at the very least, misrepresenting what I've done. The simple fact of the matter is we have two articles; one on pistols, one on revolvers. As such, having information about the revolver here is redundant (and if the harmonic pistol is more like a revolver, then perhaps it belongs in that article - and I see an editor above suggested that). Also, your dictionary definition only tells half the story; more dictionaries define the two as separate types of handgun than define a revolver as a subset of the pistol. Go ahead and read what I actually wrote - you'll see that in the references given, and that for the purposes of this article, revolvers are being treated as a separate entity (since they have their own article). Equally, I'd be well within my rights to remove the revolver section simply on the grounds of it being unsourced... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

If that were the case, you can also rule out semi-automatic pistols https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_pistol . The subsection is nothing more than a reference to the different types of actions for pistols. Your edit detracts form the article. 208.123.223.90 (talk) 00:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• Except there is absolutely no argument against semi-automatic pistols being a subset of pistols, whereas revolvers vary on exactly who you talk to. I fail to see how I have detracted from the article. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• Pasted from a request at my user talk:, because these repeated unilateral claims that "revolvers aren't pistols" are getting even more ridiculous. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

One of your previous edits to "Pistol"

It seems that you were one of the last competent people to make an edit to the "pistol" page, since December another user has been making changes, and having it locked to prevent people from making it correct instead of a page based not in fact, but only on his views. I do not know if you ar an "autoconfirmed" user or not, but if you are and can revert the changes back to when it had all the relevant information, it would be awesome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.87.192.43 (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• It's a poor article with little useful content and a serious problem with WP:UNDUE.

That said, Luke's deletion of "revolver" is ridiculous. As is his assertion that "we have two articles; one on pistols, one on revolvers". Not only does this ignore the older forms from single-shot muzzle-loading flintlocks to turn-off barrel percussion pistols, it very obviously ignores semi-automatic pistol: the contemporary counterpart to revolver. We cannot use presence of a distinct subset article as proof that it's a disjoint topic. That would be a logical fallacy, to treat WP as WP:RS (oh such a convenient gift to the wikilawyer), but most of all because we already have separate articles for each and every subset of pistols, a fact he's conveniently ignoring. There is nothing exceptional about revolver in this.

The solution to all this is obvious. The lead should be tiny, little more than the first sentence, and the pistol / handgun / revolver / automatic distinction given its own section. WP's NPOV on this is clearly to state that there are two interpretations current and to source both. It should then scope this (inherently vague) article as covering all. Whatever we agree the correct definition to be (which obviously we can't) there is no reason at all to start removing revolvers from this (a question of our chosen scope, not implying that we're siding with one definition).

I've had negligible involvement with this article, some past involvement with Luke. I have no desperate wish to increase either. His vociferous defence of an indefensible position is characteristically expected, but it doesn't augur well for achieving a sensible resolution that benefits the encyclopedia. I would suggest talking to MaterialScientist. I expect that he's actioned the protection from a purely administrative role, rather than any interest in the content, but they are at least a good and neutral admin. Feel free to quote my comments here. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'd be more than happy to discuss the topic with legitimate editors, like yourself. It's these IPs who have taken to following me around and vandalizing the encyclopedia that I have no time for (this isn't a reference to their actions here; check my recent contributions and edits surrounding me and you'll see what I mean). I fully agree that this article is an absolute mess, and I'd say that it may be easier to have one larger handgun article with all of the good bits from this page, and the individually notable variants in their own article; that would also clean up the issues with nomenclature, and remove some of the excess redundancy we already have. That said, I hardly think my position is as indefensible as you state, given the dictionary definitions, but I'm happy to be proven wrong by legitimate editors. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• Please don't use terms like "vandalise" to refer to edits that are restoring a "revolver" section to pistol, when there is very obvious (if not unanimous) support for such a section being there.

Please discuss edits, not editors. I know that in the Great Game of Adminship (Wikimania 2014, well worth watching that video) the reward points are for whacking individuals. Especially those ever-so-tasty socks. Everyone pats you on the head when you get to put another scalp in the sock drawer.

This is an encyclopedia. It's about content, not people. Especially not about egos. Yes, there is policy that says anyone who edits whilst not logged in is now EVIL!!! and can be consigned to outer darkness on sight. Unless they're an admin, or they have friends who are admins, or have an account on Wikipediocracy, or they're a Duke, or they're definitely-not-a-duke-no-sirree-don't-you-go-writing-no-wikipedia-articles-about-me. The hypocrisy here is regularly disgusting.

If you want to be a decent editor and focus on improving content (OK?) then do just that. What does this content say, how does it stack up against sources, how does it fit against our (usually good, but ignored) policy?

As noted above, we have sources here that would have it both ways. Yet again, WP wants to swallow a snippet of a general public audience dictionary definition to over-rule a technical meaning. Like that one ever makes sense. It's not even the OED with some hope of an etymological dictionary behind it. It is worth noting (it is worth printing this across WP:RS in billposter type) that the OED is an etymological dictionary and as such does not define a single word. As for how WP is also meant to operate, it only ever records other source's use of the word and would never attempt to prioritise or editorialise one of these as "correct" over the others. (If you look, the OED also clears up why 'pistolet' arrived here and where that came from.) Merriam-Webster OTOH cannot decide whether to be a dictionary or an encyclopedia - it defines words, but arbitrarily and without sourcing. This is why I give four foot of valuable shelf space in the study to my well-used OED and yet wouldn't wipe my arse on M-W or Chambers.

As to WP content here, it is stunningly obvious that revolver belongs here. Editorialise as much as you like and as much as you can source for how the scope is contentious (which so far isn't very far at all) or even go so far as to list pistol as a common misnomer for revolver, with sources. After all, "automatic" has a clear meaning in firearms and very few semi-automatic pistols are automatic in action. If you want to clear up commonly held handgun misnomers, why not start with that one?

I don't care what this article does. I care increasingly less about WP and the idea of going near a firearms article, where Randy will be loud, confident and also heavily armed, is unappealing in the utmost. But do something encyclopedically useful here, don't just dance around shouting "I caught a sock! Can I be an admin now?". Andy Dingley (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• Andy, please read my posts properly before jumping on me. I specifically stated that I was not considering the IP edits on this article to be part of the vandalism (I would agree that doing so would be bonkers). Likewise, I'm not condemning all IP edits, and it is daft to say so; however, there is at least one person is messing the encyclopedia up by reverting my edits in various places (some of my edits were removing vandalism, so the IPs are thus vandalizing; others vandalize my talk page or other users), and that is what I'm referring to. I don't quite see why you needed to go on a 3kb rant there, considering that you clearly read bits of my comment and jumped to conclusions about the rest. I'm more than willing to talk about a section that explains the misconception about revolvers, written with decent sources (again, I must point out that the revolver issue was 100% OR before; at least it is now sourced to reliable sources). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

This is ridiculous

What I read here is one person is forcing his views to be the only one accepted, and creating trouble with anyone who disagrees. I thought the purpose of the talk page was to come to a consensus, then follow it, not let one person feed their narcissism and ignore all that came before. With all the controversy surrounding the page, I think it should be deleted, and redirect to handgun, let each subsection speak for itself. Prodigy 16 (talk) 07:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• If that's what you read... then you didn't read things properly. At all. For what it's worth, I think that solution is probably best... and it is also the same thing that has happened two or three times in the past from what I can see. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• Also, considering you were undergoing a serious amount of block evasion and acting in a very inappropriate manner, you have no right to try and take the moral high ground. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• Making up lies to condone your actions does not make you right. All I did was put in a request to have the page reverted after a friend where I work pointed out it was being changed, and was locked. My request was not even answered, just erased and ignored. Both of us ended up banned, because you refused to believe two people could have a similar opinion differing from yours, and that your opinion may be wrong. I see above you said you would be willing to discuss this with "legitimate editors" (your reference to an editor with a user name, and not using an IP) yet when a "legitimate editor" put in a request, you delete it, and report that person as a sock puppet? Sounds to me like you need to grow up some son. Prodigy 16 (talk) 13:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• The timings of the edits simply do not match up with your explanation; also, even if I am wrong about the above, I wouldn't be lying (I would have misinterpreted what I saw as the facts). Add to the fact that you act in exactly the same manner of the IPs (not just the same opinion), and your story does not add up. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• So says you, I could claim you act in the same manner as the IP, and did so in order to create controversy, then picked a user to target as the perpetrator. And I how do I act like the IP? Because I made a request? Because I said I would report you? That is the correct procedure is it not? To warn a person before you report them for the constant reverts? Thus far in this topic, with the exception of answering your idiotic assertions, all I have done is try to get rid of controversy, and come to a consensus, I did not even name you in my original statement, as I find calling someone out like that uncouth. Now, can you please stop the personal attacks, so we can stop the pointless arguing that does not relate to the issue at hand? Prodigy 16 (talk) 14:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Prodigy, you can cut out the lies now. You've been seen resigning that very IP's posts as your own on JamesBWatson's talk page; as such, I don't see any point discussing this with you any further, because you're a blatant liar. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• That very IP? Really? You mean 74.83.68.15? That is an IP shared by roughly 37 of us here at work, including my friend who told me about the removal of relevant information on the pistol page (which I mentioned earlier). You are trying to connect the dots, but unless you connect them in the right order, what comes out is not the correct picture. If you want to continue with him, do so on his email <email address of another person removed> Meanwhile, I ask again for you to please stop the personal attacks, and going off topic here. Prodigy 16 (talk)

What is the point of this article?

I can see that this has been complained about already, but here goes. If we were to choose one definition of "pistol" and write an article about it, with short introduction explaining alternative views, I could understand the point of this article. AS it stand, however, I don't understand why this should be separate from "handgun". It basically says that "a pistol is a handgun. It can be either a semi-auto, a muzzle-loader, a single shot or a revolver". Sooo...apparently "pistol" means "handgun". Great. Why is there two pages on handguns with different titles? Doesn't make any sense to me. As far as the debate over what "pistol" means, there was what handguns were called before they became "handguns". A "pistol" was a gun held in one hand. A clever man invented a new type of pistol, a revolving pistol, an even more clever approach than, say, a pepperbox pistol. Nowadays, a revolving pistol is typically abbreviated as "revolver", and many people have adopted "pistol" as an easier phrase than "semiautomatic pistol". And this is primarily in the US. Wikipedia doesn't only cover the modern US views on things. I enjoy old folk music and blues, and I know of many phrases where the singer mentions a "pistol", in cases where a semi-automatic is very unlikely. I like history, and I've seen many Civil War anecdotes mentioning how a man was "shot through with a pistol", or how one "promptly clapped his Colt pistol to his head". I saw one the other day, a Vermont soldier writing home about how he had seen Jeb Stuart killed by a Union cavalryman who "took aime with his pistol and put a .44 ball thro his belly from 34 yards". Obviously, even in those days, when revolvers were novel and exciting, many people still called them "pistols" (i.e. handguns), although "revolver" was common as well. The modern use evolved as semi-automatic pistols became more prevalent, and one needed an easy way to differentiate between them. Thus (in the US, anyway), they began to more often specify that a gun was a revolver, as it was a phrase they were comfortable with, and abbreviations like "semi-auto" were uncommon back then. So, both guns are "pistols". One is a "semi-automatic pistol", and one is a "revolving pistol". Remember that "handgun" is a modern term. Back then, "pistol" meant "handgun", and a "revolver" was just one type of pistol. I mean, would you argue that a Revolver cannon is not an autocannon, just because it uses a different operating mechanism? Although, I've seen people argue that cannon-caliber Gatling guns "aren't autocannons, they're Gatling guns" (or worse, they call them all "miniguns"). They shoot cannon shells at a high rate and don't require you to load each shell in or manually pull a trigger each time it fires: it's an autocannon. But I should have known not to expect anything better from an article about firearms, a topic (like military equipment) that seems to attract an inordiynate amount of overly prideful on self-confident "experts" ready to do immediate battle with anyone who commits heresy in their sight, in order to spread The Word of Their Rightness to the waiting world..45Colt 00:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree, there should only be one article "handgun" which covers everything. Green547 (talk) 01:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

". As far as the debate over what "pistol" means, there was what handguns were called before they became "handguns"."

No, the most cursory historical look will show you that "handgun" (or "handgonne") is by far the older term, and it applies to things that are far from pistols. At the other end of the timescale, there are a variety of firearms for use one-handed, including small sub-machine guns and machine pistols, that class as handguns but not as pistols.

"Pistol" is a common term and clearly WP:Notable. We need an article on that topic. Overlapping to handgun would not be a good scope to choose and even with a single article for such, "pistol" would be the better title than "handgun". Andy Dingley (talk) 01:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Very simple: pistols are hanguns, and other stuffs are also handguns. So why not have one article "handgun"?? covering everything, and with a redirect pistol to that article. If handgun is the older term but used in modern times in a universal sense, then it is ideal for the one article's title. Green547 (talk) 02:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Cars are road vehicles, trucks are road vehicles. Why have articles on each?

"Pistol" (as defined here) is a hugely notable topic. As are revolvers, flintlock pistols, .45 Colt M1911s, derringers, machine pistols and handguns (broadly). We have a lot of articles to get through. Each one needs a scope that's defined, has a clear name for it and has a pre-existing concept in the mind of readers such that they're looking for it to be explained. Pistol meets all of these. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Pistol is NOT a synonym for handgun. A pistol is handgun having one chamber integral with the barrel. A pistol is a semi automatic. A revolver is not a pistol and a pistol is not a revolver. Its a misuse of pistol to claim otherwise. Just try going into any gun store and asking for a pistol. They will not show you revolvers. And if you ask for revolvers they will not show you semi automatics. And by the way you load a pistol with a magazine not a clip. A clip is a device for loading a rifle magazine. 40.131.162.194 (talk) 01:52, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

According to the oxford dictionary you are wrong about the definition of a pistol. Even with your definition not all pistols are semi-automatic. ~ GB fan 02:22, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

"Type of handgun where the firing chamber is integral to the barrel"

I see this has just been added to the shortdesc and will probably be in Wikidata before long. It would be better at List of popular misconceptions.

There is nothing to support this "revolvers are not pistols" canard, certainly not for international use of the term. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Range

What is range of a Pistol Shot? Wimbledon32 (talk) 00:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)