What was the point of adopting semi auto pistols over revolvers in the early days (1890s to WWI)? Most designs were fixed magazine so no reload advantage and double stack mags didn't become popular until like the 70s so pistols like the 1911 only held like 1 more round than a six shooter.
1. New and shiny gun firing new and shiny cartridges.
2. While stuff like speedloaders and moon clips technically existed that far back, no one used them. So you could reload an autoloader much, much faster than you could a revolver.
>why is holding more ammunition, carrying more ammunition conveniently, and simplying reloading an advantage?
Revolver tards never cease to amaze me.
>>why is holding more ammunition,
i need less bollit by using a .44 magnum
>carrying more ammunition conveniently,
dont need em all
>and simplying reloading an advantage?
double action and speedloaders
44 mag didn't exist until like 50 years later. There was no decisive power advantage with revolvers until Elmer Keith made it so
>What was the point of adopting semi auto pistols over revolvers in the early days (1890s to WWI)?
None really, the cartridges were relatively anaemic and the guns were less reliable. This is why you see the British Webley revolver continue on into ww2 etc. The fact is handguns are not that useful in conventional warfare. Most were only issued to officers for primarily use against their own men. Even though Colt was the master of getting government contracts, the M1917 revolver was just as popular with troops in ww1 and continued on into ww2. You don;t really see the revolver fading at all until the 1980s when it indifferent forms it was still *the* police gun. The reason it was replaced? Not function, but the fact that while they were inferior for purpose to revolvers, semi autos were cheap and so was 9mm.
>Revolver tards never cease to amaze me.
The colt 1911 had a seven round capacity but was typically only loaded with six. You don't own any guns and you don't know anything about the,. Do you think that if the magazine says 30 on the specification people put 30 in? Get out of bed and go and get a gun
>Do you think that if the magazine says 30 on the specification people put 30 in?
Holy frick, either you are a europoor or the ultimate boomer.
Anyone not putting 30 rounds in a 30 round magazine is a fricking moron
>30+1
>Do you think that if the magazine says 30 on the specification people put 30 in?
yes, always have and always will.
>the M1917 revolver was just as popular with troops in ww1
Only if they couldn't get a 1911. Everybody wanted a 1911. The M1917 revolvers only exist because their production lines existed when the US entered the war.
Those things are obviously an advantage, but early semiautos had terrible reliability. After WWI when you had more reliable revolvers on the market like the 1911, P08 Luger, etc, then there was a point to be made with a semiauto. But something like a Bergmann, Borchardt, Salvator Dormus, Mars, etc, was a crazy expensive unreliable POS compared to a revolver at that time.
C96 had a fixed 10 round magazine that could be quickly loaded with stripper clips and the Luger came very shortly after with 8 round magazines.
Instead of a long creep filled trigger pull your guys now had crisp single action triggers. Basically you're a homosexual and a Ukraine thread died for your question that you could have figured out with Google
>a Ukraine thread died
so no harm done
A israelitekraine thread dying is always a good thing
Autoloaders are dramatically more reliable. Cope and seethe.
Basically good as a detachable magazine
Out of all the WWI memoirs that I've read, not a single one of the soldiers recounts an instance of reloading a magazine as part of his duties. Not even the more detail oriented ones, like Poilu.
Makes me think soldiers were probably getting loaded magazines and stripper clips delivered to them during resupply, because dumping loose ammo off at a trench seems like it would be a disaster.
Handguns were mostly status symbols for officers, so newfanlged overly-complicated designs played into that perfectly.
>ctrl+F
>no results for 'cavalry'
Cavalry units drove most of it in many armies, since squeezing a few more shots into a gun reduced the frequency of reloads. If you can imagine, reloading on horseback at a good pace is - while doable - not a simple exercise. It is worse with revolvers, since speedloaders were not as common or cheap as they are now. Some types, like the Colt SAA, couldn't even benefit from such a device. It's also why some early military handguns got away with using stripper clips and fixed mags, it was relatively quick to reload and required less movement to conduct. Omitting magazines was a cost and reliability consideration for manufacturers, and a convenience one for cavalrymen. Why would you want to fumble with re-stowing a magazine into a pouch? Why deal with partial magazines? Still a horrid mess for horseback shooting, but much better than the old horrid mess.