Might I remind you that a revolver does not 'eject shells'.
We both know of revolvers that have an ejector.
Might I also add that in target training with a semi-auto pistol, one has to move about while concentrating on a single object.
Would that be as far as a shooter who opened the cylinder of a revolver, activated the ejector and dumped all the shells on the ground in the one spot?
Not sure why you are arguing the point or that I even get your point, so I will defer to agreeing to disagree.
Good idea Mark. I fully agree that you don't get my point. I'll abandon responding to you in this thread.
To Monty's point above (must have been speaking of this) -
It seems that in response to Mr. Samuels' agreement to disagree, Mr. Gard is of course free to abandon as he will, of course - but in the interest of positive discourse I will offer that such election should be made with a bit more civility, please.
---
For the record, I'm not sure I get Tim Gard's point either. Some revolvers have 'ejectors', some don't; ejectors, when present on revolvers, are merely a means of pushing the empty shells or cartridges out of the open cylinder and either into a receptical, or simply into some random pattern on the ground or floor in close proximity to the shooter's feet. They in no way resemble the 'ejector' on a semi-automatic pistol but are hand-powered typically by pressing a pin which in turn forces the ejector against the flanges of the empty shells, pushing them from the cylinder.
A semi-automatic, on the other hand, necessarily ejects each empty shell immediately following the shot - and often with significant velocity away from the weapon (and normally to the side - the right, in the case of a right-handed weapon). This may result in a more random placement of empties, often some feet away from the shooter - and perhaps over a wider area than might be the case of the revolver simply dropping empties near one's feet.
Not sure, but perhaps that is a fair summary of Tim Gard's point and if so, may clarify things a bit.