Why Are Pistols Larger Caliber Than Rifles?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Delta Force

Banned
Pistols tend to use larger caliber and heavier bullets than their rifle contemporaries. For example, .45 ACP bullets are much heavier than .30-06 Springfield bullets, and 9 mm Parabellum bullets are much heavier than 5.56 mm NATO bullets. The 5.7 mm pistol cartridge is somewhat unique in using a same caliber but lighter bullet than its rifle contemporary, allowing it to be more easily produced at facilities manufacturing 5.56 mm rifle ammunition (and this seems to have been the case with the .30-18 Auto cartridge designed for the M1903 Springfield Pedersen device modification), but obviously that approach isn't very commonly used.

Given the fact that it is much easier to modify something's length and that it requires a lot less retooling than changing diameter, why didn't a military or a company decide to produce ammunition to a standard caliber with differing bullets or case lengths?

Also, why do pistol cartridges tend to be short and fat anyways? Is it due to the ballistics involved, or is it a matter of it being easier to design a firearm around rounds that are short and fat instead of long and skinny (just like with naval ballistic missiles)?
 
I think its all about size. Imagine trying to fit rifle length bullets into a pistol's magazine grip it would be HUGE to the point that you'd not be able to close your hand round it and grip it. Pistols due to their short barrels have an inherently shorter range than rifles so a smaller heavier round can deliver the punch needed at the range a pistol fights at without having to load bullets as long as your forefinger.

Rifle length bullets COULD work in a revolver but in a butt loaded mag, no hope in hell.

Lets say that you're trying to feed a rifle length bullet into a pistol grip mag, each bullet is about the length of your forefinger (give or take) so take the length of your forefinger and add a bit more for casing etc and then you've got your pistol grips size. You can't close your hand round that and you would have to hold it two handed which defeats the object of most pistols with them meant to be fired from one hand (unless you get into the REALLY big caliber hand cannons and then you're in 2 handed territory unless you want cracked wrists).
 
Last edited:
I think its all about size. Imagine trying to fit rifle length bullets into a pistol's magazine grip it would be HUGE to the point that you'd not be able to close your hand round it and grip it. Pistols due to their short barrels have an inherently shorter range than rifles so a smaller heavier round can deliver the punch needed at the range a pistol fights at without having to load bullets as long as your forefinger.

Rifle length bullets COULD work in a revolver but in a butt loaded mag, no hope in hell.


Though I really would not try to load rifle rounds in a revolver either, to illustrate your point this image might help

173d47e61ccdd306cfcb64a412596715.jpg
 
...
Given the fact that it is much easier to modify something's length and that it requires a lot less retooling than changing diameter, why didn't a military or a company decide to produce ammunition to a standard caliber with differing bullets or case lengths?

Also, why do pistol cartridges tend to be short and fat anyways? Is it due to the ballistics involved, or is it a matter of it being easier to design a firearm around rounds that are short and fat instead of long and skinny (just like with naval ballistic missiles)?

Standardization can't be applied universaly. The long cartriges used in rifles can't fit in the pistol magazines since those are limited by shooter's hand. Thus the pistols use short but fatty cartriges, in order to achieve a meaningful energy of the bullet that impacted the human body. There is also recoil involved - a, say, .303 will be bursting the 1 kilo pistol if somehow people were firing it from it, while also wrecking the shooters hand(s) - not a thing when the same cartrige is fired from a 3-4 kilo rifle.
The trade off is that short & fatty bullets, fired with lowish MV will be efficient at 1/10th of the rifle's range, if not at 1/20th.
 
Pressure.

Pistol operating systems have far lower pressure capability than rifles.
a 22 rimfire short, and 45acp have similar chamber pressure.

the 45 has been noted as being a more effective round. The 45 has around 500J of energy, the 22 Short 125J
 
Gun cranks write whole books on this subject. I think initially, militarys did try to standardize rifle and pistol calibers. For example, the Russians adopted the 7.62x54R Mosin Nagant rifle cartridge in 1891, and the 7.62x38R Nagant revolver in 1895. The Austro-Hungarians adopted the 8x50R Mannlicher rifle cartridge in 1893 and the 8mm Gasser revolver cartridge in 1898. The French used the 8x50Rmm Lebel rifle cartridge and the 8mm Lebel revolver cartridge. The United States for many years used the .45-70 rifle cartridge as the primary rifle cartridge and the .45 Colt as the military revolver cartridge. So there was a lot of "standardization" in calibers between rifles and pistols, at least in the military. The problem with this approach, as I see it, is that in the 19th century, using straight walled smokeless powder cartridges adapted for revolvers, the power (energy, the velocity was the same) of the cartridge was relatively weak and ineffective as compared to their large bore black powder predecessors with their fat heavy bullets. Only with the adoption of bottle necked cartridges and automatic pistols in the early 20th century was it possible to get a more effective ballistic performance from small bore handgun cartridges with lighter bullets. e.g. the 7.63mm Mauser cartridge has only a little more muzzle energy than a .45 ACP. I think what it boils down to is terminal ballistic performance on man sized targets. A small bore light weight bullet flying at lower velocity, like the 19th century small bore (about 8mm) pistol cartridges are not very effective. A small bore light weight high velocity bullet (like 7.63 Mauser or 7.62 Tokarev) will completely and easily penetrate a person and then fly off leaving a very small hole in the target and a lot of excess energy wasted. Military's pretty quickly realized that they needed more a little more momentum to their cartridges and a little less pure muzzle energy. Thus the 7.65 Luger was necked up to the 9mm Parabellum cartridge and the 7.63 Mauser was necked up to the 9mm Mauser Export. Britain never gave up their .455 Webley until WW2 and the US, after experimenting with the anemic .38 Long Colt, went back to the .45 caliber in developing the .45 ACP, which was conceived as a ballistic twin to the old .45 Colt cartridge.

It's all a balancing act between the size of the handgun, the comfort in shooting the thing (if it's too powerful, most people are not able to shoot it effectively) and terminal ballistic performance on the target, i.e., when shot, does the target stop shooting at you and fall down.
 
Last edited:
There are many things that go into the differences. One is controllability. In WW1 the British standard was a heavy revolver (eg Webley) in .455. However users had negligible training or practice and investigation found that the sheer weight and size of the pistols made the inexperienced users unable to control the things so the performance on the target was irrelevant as they usually missed. Thus they decided to go to the low powered .38-200 or S&W .38 in a smaller and lighter revolver which allowed users to actually hit someone even if it was with less effect.

A pistol is necessarily smaller and lighter than a rifle and the recoil of the round going off affects the gun more than in a heavier rifle. I fire a full size 124 grains charge of black powder from my musket but the weight of it keeps it comfortable to use. In a pistol I would break something in my hand and/or wrist.

The pistol is used a short ranges (my old instructor advised no further than I could throw the gun and expect to hit the assailant) so only needs to send the bullet out at a speed to do the damage within 25 (more likely 10) metres but the rifle has to throw it out with enough speed to ruin someones day at hundreds of metres so at 25 metres it possesses far too much energy. However, it allows it to use a light bullet as it will arrive at high speed at most ranges. Casting aside questions about energy and momentum, the speed produces energy at the square of it's velocity but the mass in direct proportion to itself. We can spare ourselves debates about the validity of the many ways to calculate effectiveness but the forgoing is a reasonable generalisation in principle. So the lower speed from the pistol round is compensated for by having a larger calibre which has descended in repeating pistols from 15mm down to 7mm and now hovers around the 9mm area.

The pistol also has to be short otherwise it is unwieldy in one hand and hard to get out of the holster. The old long flintlocks were horse pistols held in holsters on the horse and even then needed to be fitted butt forwards to let the wrist and elbow bend suitably to quickly withdraw them. Being short they need short cartridges to keep the length and weight of the pistol down. With magazines now fitted into the butt/handle then they have to be short enough to fit inside the hand including the frame and magazine. Revolvers are less thus constrained hence longer rounds are used in some powerful civilian pistols.

So, putting another way, a rifle cartridge hand gun would be too heavy and long to readily use. Would be too powerful for the average user to control in recoil and, essentially would be a very bad rifle.

Another (see I said that there many things) point is that the effectiveness of the round is not a function of it's energy but a function of the energy it gives up to the target. If it passes straight through and disappears off into the distance the energy is has kept as it goes on it's way is useless. One that stops in the assailant has passed on all it's energy. With a .22LR that is not a lot and may not get that far in depending upon range and what it passes through to get to the body. The old .455 Webley was a low speed large diameter heavy bullet, originally in pure lead. That hitting a body at 10 yards would deform to widen the wound and give up all of that energy in the heavy bullet. Put that in a rifle and you are doing no more than really annoy the target at 100+ yards unless it has a lucky placement.

A practical example is the old Winchester 1866 lever action rifle which used a round common to the contemporary revolver, the .44 rimfire. At the battle of Plevna the Turks armed their soldiers with Peabody made Martini Henry single shot rifles with the powerful 450/577 cartridge. As the Russians advanced the Martinis were fired at extreme ranges from more than 1 mile until the Russians were within 200 yards or so of the Turkish trenches. At that point the Turkish soldiers swapped to the Winchester .44s and tore into the already reduced Russian ranks with rapid magazine fire. It was a notable defeat for the Russians and prompted the entire European military to rethink their weapons and tactics. It neatly demonstrates that the pistol cartridge and the rifle cartridge do two different tasks and need to be different. In another example sub machine guns are for close range high volume fire. A rifle cartridge would make them far too heavy to do the job. Compare the L4 LMG with the L2A3 SMG and imagine trying to use them the other way round.

My apologies for saying the same as Tomo above but in much longer form.
 
Think back to the American Civil War when most pistols and rifles fired .44 or .50 caliber (9 to 11mm) bullets with round noses. Pistol cartridges have not developed significantly away from traditional dimensions. Smokeless powders may have improved muzzle velocities, but muzzle velocity is still limited by short barrels. To compensate for slow muzzle velocity ( 800 feet per second, around 1/3 of modern rifles) they throw heavy bullets.
Pistol
Muzzle energy is limited by the recoil that a recruit can handle. If recoil scares a recruit - first time on the range - he will be never learn to shoot accurately.
IOW the perfect pistol is the largest you can shoot (hundreds of rounds) accurately.

While it is possible to load longer rounds into pistols: long cylinders, broom-handle Mausers or the current abomination of AR pistols, recruits are still limited by recoil.

OTOH rifle cartridges have evolved a great deal - for longer ranges and greater stopping power - with Spitzer bullets (pointy noses) for true supersonic velocities (2500 to 3000 feet per second). They also burn far more (smoke-less) gun powder requiring much larger volume, bottle-necked cartridges.
 
Thus they decided to go to the low powered .38-200 or S&W .38 in a smaller and lighter revolver which allowed users to actually hit someone even if it was with less effect.

The Mk1 .38/200 was a very effective round it was a long flat nose pure lead 200 grain bullet which deformed and tumbled causing horrible wounds. It was withdrawn quite quickly when it was realised it might contravene the Hague Convention and replaced with MkII which was a jacketed bullet weighing 180 grains. The jacketed bullet was slightly faster so had the same muzzle energy but didnt deform or tumble.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
This is a very much 20th Century onward issue. While smaller caliber pistols were produced for ease of carry, most pistols of the flintlock era were of the same caliber (or slightly smaller) than the muskets of the era (British dragoon pistols and "Brown Bess" muskets fired the same ball, the difference being the ball was intentionally undersized for the musket to help with reloading/fouling issues while the pistols was an actual 0.62 caliber). Percussion cap weapons were generally considerable larger in rifle caliber (usually 0.54" minie ball) with pistols being .32 up to .45 caliber.


The early metallic cartridge weapons used by civilians were frequently designed to use identical cartridges (usually .45 Colt) to ease purchasing and supply. This changed, however, when smokeless higher pressure powders became available. Modern rifle cartridges develop much more energy than can be successfully handed by most handgun users (there are, of course, exceptions; the .30 carbine round is docile compared to the .357 magnum). The extra energy produced by the heavier power charge of a long arm also allows far greater range, hence the spitzer (or spire point) aerodynamic bullet designs that replaced the traditional round nose designs for rifle calibers. The inherent short range for pistols (due to barrel length) meant that the more traditional "ball" design remained viable. Early experience with smokeless cartridges in .25 & .32 demonstrate that the calibers were insufficient for stopping an attacker in any reasonable manner (a wound that will cause someone to become disabled before they can run 200 yards is often entirely insufficient for someone 15 yards away). This fact led to the gradual increase in pistol caliber from the early .25/7.63mm to the later 9mm/.356-7 (which is the actual diameter for the .38 special & .38 Super, as well as the .357 magnum) standard and then to the American .45 APC and British .455 Webley when the 9mm size rounds proved to be insufficient in turn.

You can buy pistols chambered for "rifle cartridges" but those that are designed to fire hunting rounds are general single shot and considerably larger than the usual pistol. there are also an increasing number of "pistols" that are available in 5.56mm and 7.62x39 (these are the size of and similar in actual usage, to sub-machine guns).
 
For when you really really need to stop someone running at you with a pointy metal thing I give you the Lancaster 4 barrel hammerless double action pistol firing the .577 Boxer pistol round. The .577 was 450 grains of pure lead moving at 745 feet per second. For comparison that .45acp round next to it looks a bit puny.

cartridge.jpg

lanchester_4shot_7.jpg


Only problem it probably needed a man just to carry the gun and ammo.

Edit: I have done a quick Google and it seems the Lancaster .577 was a 2 barrel. The 4 barrel guns only went up to .476 calibre
 
Last edited:
FN asked that exact same question. The result was the Five-Seven, IMHO one of the best pistols on the planet.
 
Um, didn't Churchill, while an 'embedded correspondent' during Boer War, famously use one of those scary German pistols with a box-mag *in front* of the trigger grip ?

Mauser ??

You could fit a bigger, longer 'pistol' round into such and, IIRC, the weight distribution meant the gun did not 'kick up' much, needing less re-aiming between its dozen shots...
IIRC, had he wielded a 'Webley' when ambushed, it might have been a lethal POD...
 
Correct!
Winston Churchill carried a "broom handle" Mauser C96 pistol, one of the first viable, magazine-fed, semi-automatic pistols. C96 was big for a pistol: 1 foot long. C96s were widely used during the 20th century, despite numerous attempts to replace them with Lugers, Walthers, etc.
Some C96 pistols came with wooden holster/shoulder-stocks which quickly converted them to short-barrel carbines, dramatically improving their accuracy. This soon led to full-auto versions that proved popular with WW1 trench-raiders and set the stage for WW2-vintage SMGs.
 
This is my point of view as a physicist and previously a tank platoon leader:
It's all about getting enough energy to the target, with the main constraint being the pressure that the barrel can withstand.
Energy can be written as E=m*v^2/2, which many people who are into firearms already know, but it can also be written as, and is the same as
E=(Force on the bullet) * (length of the barrel)
where
(Force on the bullet) = (pressure in barrel)*(cross section area)
and all together:
E=(pressure)*(area)*(length)

Already we can see that if we want to have a shorter barrel, like in a pistol, and we can't really push the pressure too high since the barrel will explode, then our only choice is to increase the cross sectional area of the barrel.

Now, ture, I have made a fair few oversimplifications. Mainly, the pressure in the barrel is not constant, and changes as the bullet gains speed (which in itself depends on the mass...) and, conversely, as the powder continues to burn, so the real calculation would require, at best, a nasty integral, or, at worst, a numerical simulation. But ammo manufacturers try to design their ammo to match the firearm that will most likely use it, and they strive to keep the pressure as constant as possible and as close as possible to the maximum pressure the barrel will take (they do this by changing the size and composition of the powder grains, thus hastening or delaying their burn), so the assumption that the pressure is constant might not be as wild as might first seem.

Hope this helps! though I'm neither a gun designer or gun owner.
Triptin
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top