Ruger VS S&W newb questions.

I wasn't able to find any information on your use of the term "bolt cut". I wasn't aware that revolvers even had bolts per se. Muzzle, forcing cone, throat, and breech seem to me to be primary directional points of reference for a modern revolver.
 
I wasn't able to find any information on your use of the term "bolt cut". I wasn't aware that revolvers even had bolts per se. Muzzle, forcing cone, throat, and breech seem to me to be primary directional points of reference for a modern revolver.
Click to expand...
The bolt (Colt), also called a latch (Ruger) or cylinder stop (S&W), engages a notch in the cylinder. That notch is where cylinders typically fail because it is the weakest area. Maybe your Google-fu needs some work.
 
Had better luck with "locking notch" and "stop notch". Using Bing search from Windows 10 and Edge browser got no formalized hits on "bolt cut". Seems to be just forum lingo. But at least I know what you meant now and that by some definition revolvers have "bolts".
 
The official term that Colt has used for that part for at least 150yrs is "bolt".

As I said, Ruger calls it the "latch" and S&W calls it the "cylinder stop".

Not everybody learns everything they know about this subject by Googling.
 
The official term that Colt has used for that part for at least 150yrs is "bolt".

As I said, Ruger calls it the "latch" and S&W calls it the "cylinder stop".

Not everybody learns everything they know about this subject by Googling.
Click to expand...

But we're talking about the cut in the cylinder, not the bolt. I have the Colt parts list and exploded drawing, and it refers to the bolt but not the "stop notches" in the cylinder.
 
Why would a parts list note the bolt notch? Does it denote the flutes or the ratchet? Are you testing me?
Click to expand...

Not meaning to. I was defending how it is that I was supposed to know or find out what a "bolt cut" was.
 
All you had to do is ask, rather than infer that I pulled the term from my posterior orifice, just because you'd never heard it used before. I think I've gone back and forth over "bolt cut" quite enough. Moving on. . . . . . .
 
I did ask, as you certainly know. For the record, we still have not discovered a prior reference for the term "bolt cut".
 
For the record, we still have not discovered a prior reference for the term "bolt cut".
Click to expand...

If you mean a reference to the term "bolt cut" prior to this thread, you simply are not looking in the right places.

And, possibly not everything ever in the world is on the Internet to be searched.

I have heard and seen used in print the term "bolt cut", bolt notch, cylinder stop notch, cylinder stop cut, and other variations since the 1950s, although I cannot give you any specific links or references, nor, would I, if I could. ;)

Gun writers have used the term in various forms, always referring to the machined recess (notch, or cut) in the cylinder that the locking bolt aka cylinder stop fits into. Usually directly over the chamber, and so the thinnest spot in the metal, and the most likely failure point because of that.
 
Maybe your Google-fu needs some work.
Click to expand...

Now I'm told it may not be on the internet and that I should have gone to the library. There are no references, but some seem to recall running in to the term before. That is not the usual form of a credible reference to validate ones use of gun terminology. But I understand now what was meant by "bolt cut". I would just never use that term in the future. I would be inclined to favor a term used by gun manufacturers.

Should I not have asked?
 
The terms and their definitions used in firearms have evolved with the evolution of the arms themselves. As far as I know, there is no "Blackstone's legal dictionary" of gun terms.

There are many glossaries, none of which is, or could be all inclusive.

The terms come from many sources, over a lot of time, and there is an inextricable mixture of use in both technical discussions and regular conversation.

There are terms defined by the military.
There are terms defined by individual gun makers.
There are terms accepted as "industry standard"
There are terms defined by their general use in the shooting community.
There are terms defined by their use and misuse in casual conversation.
There are terms defined by the common use, despite having a different definition in technical use.
There are even terms defined by anti-gunners.

Ordinary dictionaries are of little use, despite being the traditional standard reference for most things. And they even say so, if you read the right part.

Dictionaries state that their definitions are what is found in common usage.

When discussing any technical field, common use of a word may or may not be relevant.

And, to further muddy the issue, a technical misuse of a term can become the "commonly used" definition.
Various examples include...

Motor vs. Engine (automotive)

Clip vs. Magazine
Revolver vs. Pistol
Assault Weapon

there are many others.

Asking about a term you've never heard, or heard used that way is fine. Assuming it's not a valid term because you couldn't find supporting evidence immediately, and arguing about it,...not so much.
 
I would be inclined to favor a term used by gun manufacturers.
Click to expand...
Like the term "bolt", that Colt has been using for +150yrs, yet you had never heard of? I mean really, Colt is only one of the oldest and most historically significant firearms manufacturers in the United States. If you had known what a "bolt" was you would've known exactly what I was talking about. I'm curious, do you do this every time someone uses a term you're unfamiliar with? That is, do your damnedest to prove that it's the term that's incorrect, rather than your lack of knowledge? Wouldn't it be easier, more productive and a more efficient use for our time to just own the fact that you had a tiny little void in your knowledge base and chalk it up to another minor detail learned? Are we not ALL here to learn something?

Do you think that everything there is to know about guns (or anything else) exists on the internet and if it doesn't come up on Google, then it must not exist??? It's a strange time we live in.


Asking about a term you've never heard, or heard used that way is fine. Assuming it's not a valid term because you couldn't find supporting evidence immediately, and arguing about it,...not so much.
Click to expand...
Agreed!
 
As far as I know, there is no "Blackstone's legal dictionary" of gun terms.
Click to expand...


Really? One would think as much as gun terms are argued on the internet, someone would come up with one to validate/contradict the many terms used. Seems JM may have already assigned himself to the position of head of TFLs Linguistics department. Me, I have found that folks use a multitude of terms for even the simplest of things, much of the time this is a regional or background thing. Simple explanations given politely and informing would seem to be the rational solution when someone asks a simple question.

Also seems, some folks on these types of gun forums want to argue about the smallest of things, even when it takes away from and goes far of topic of the OP. Folks ask a simple question and then get chastised by folks that feel they have some sort of superiority. What's that all about anyway?
 
Asking about a term you've never heard, or heard used that way is fine. Assuming it's not a valid term because you couldn't find supporting evidence immediately, and arguing about it,...not so much.
Click to expand...


But....taking the word of a random stranger on the internet is valid, even without supporting evidence? If it's on the internet, it must be true, eh? Yeah, try that in the reloading section.

Over the years I have been a member of many gun and motorcycle forums. One of the most common and most disturbing things I see at both is folks new to the sport, jumping in with eyes wide open and asking questions only to be admonished and chastised for asking....or not taking the word of a complete stranger as gospel. Generally this is given to them by someone who somehow thinks his belittling makes them somehow seem superior. IMHO, this is the main reason we see so many "dumb clerk at the LGS" and "dumb guy at Wal-mart" threads. The poster is trying to make us all aware that they are more intelligent/more informed than some other random person at Wal-mart........as if that takes a form of superiority. Problem is, with many of these newbies, being chastised for asking a simple question turns them off and drives them away from a forum that otherwise is a great source of information.
 
Here's a concept, if you don't like the quality, tone or speed with which you get free answers on a web forum; if you're going to scrutinize and critique the answers you get to your questions, do your own damn homework!

Superiority??? This is where I wonder if we're all reading the same thread. I give up. :rolleyes:


... being chastised for asking a simple question...
Click to expand...
I'm going to speak up so you can hear me clearly. NO ONE IS BEING CHASTISED FOR ASKING A SIMPLE QUESTION. THEY ARE BEING CHASTISED FOR QUESTIONING THE (CORRECT) ANSWER. IF YOU HAVE TO ASK THE QUESTION IN THE FIRST PLACE, HOW ARE YOU QUALIFIED TO QUESTION THE ANSWER???????
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top