>One of these guns is dead simple, the other is more complicated. >One of these guns is like clockwork, the other has very few moving parts.>One gun is fragile and can suddenly fall out of spec, the other is very durable.>One gun requires all parts to be hand-fitted, the other has all drop-in parts.These statements have been repeated for ages and they’re all false, but what causes people to still act like guns are complicated machines?For my whole life, I’ve heard revolver guys say that they're simpler than the complicated semi autos, but it’s the same basic parts functions only spread out. Conversely, there’s no shortage of people who believe revolvers contain an intricately crafted spiderweb of parts, but it’s the same basic parts functions performed by equally mass-produced parts, but in a smaller package. To illustrate this, I highlighted each major component of two common handguns.Both of these have six primary moving parts with every trigger pull, and half of them are essentially the same thing:>Firing pin (Hammer/Striker)>Chamber (Barrel/Cylinder)>TriggerAnd all six of those parts are only ever going to sit there doing their one little job until debris jams them up or they physically break. Even a gun like the USP, which has a separate sear, firing pin block lifter, and disconnector that move every time it’s fired isn’t necessarily more complicated for it. It's not another revolver vs. semi auto thread, I used that example because it’s notorious for people who have never fully disassembled either keeping old misconceptions on mechanical complexity spreading to new gun owners. If you can buy it at your LGS it’s not magic, give or take a few parts, guns haven’t changed much in over 100 years, so take something apart and learn something new.TL;DR: Guns are very simple machines. And if you have any good knowledge to share or want to break down some other firearms misconceptions, this is the thread.
Its a machine that contains repeating explosions to launching a projectile. It will be complex. Both of your examples are.
still feels like the revolver has fewer mechanical points of failureplus you can't limp-wrist or half-rack or have feeding jams etcit's more idiot-proof in its design for both operation and maintenance
>>65333763I guess it depends on what people consider to be complex and if added complexity automatically translates to more potential issues. A car engine also contains repeating explosions, is much more complex than a gun, but most of them out there are still very reliable. So I wouldn't consider a gun to be complex when it has as many moving parts as a Lego Technic set that an 8 year-old can put together.
It's pretty cool that it took until decent metal cartridges could be made to make semi autos, which happened in like less than 50 years after centuries of muzzleloading.
revolvers are still way more complex than autoloaders. compare fitting a match barrel on a 1911 to timing a new cylinder on a s&w or fitting a rebound on a python.
>>65332322Wtf is this, babbys first 4chan post? Anyone who owns both knows everything you no doubt took an hour to carefully type out, and you are just retarded for figuring it out only now and thinking you're so far ahead of the curve that you need to share with everyone else on the internet.Kill this thread, reassemble one of these complicated pistols and kill yourself.
