• EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    It’s not even over-analyzing. A revolver does not take shells; they use cartridges, which are not shells. That’s just a simple fact.

    • ZephrC@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Uh, no. No it’s not. You can have a cartridge that fires a shell instead of a bullet. That is totally a thing.

      • EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        One that is designed for revolvers, not shotguns? (And yes, I know about revolver shotguns, but those are mainly just a gimmick and not really ever used in most contexts. I’m talking about handgun revolvers.)

        • ZephrC@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          Okay. I see the problem here. Shell doesn’t mean shotgun round. Bullet and shell are technical terms for the bit of a round that comes out of the business end of a weapon at high velocity. A bullet is a single, simple solid mass that follows a ballistic trajectory and just imparts kinetic force into whatever it hits. A shell is anything more complicated than that. Shotguns are just the small arms weapons that are most likely to use shells, but anything can, and it doesn’t have to be buckshot to be a shell. Even something as simple as a tracer round is technically a shell.

          • EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            …You know, thinking about it, I think you’re right. After all, artillery uses shells, and they’re not exactly buckshot, those things. Lol.