Six For Sure.

[xl_target]

For instance, getting the same velocity from the same bullet from my Ruger in .45 Colt requires 8.5 grains of Unique, as opposed to 6.5 grains in my .45 ACP 1911. The Ruger has a 4.625" barrel and the 1911 a 5" barrel, but we must remember that the cartridge chamber in the 1911 is part of that 5"' but the cylinder and chamber of the Ruger is not included in the 4.625" measurement. If, as you claim, there amount of energy escaping from the cylinder gap of the Ruger is equal to the amount of energy the 1911 uses to function the action, why does the Ruger require ~30% more powder to produce the same results?

Have you factored in that a .45 Colt is loaded with a 325 - 200 grain bullet but a typical .45 ACP is only 230 - 165 grain?

Well at least this point can be empirically verified and I am not sure if this has been done before so it can be a first.

We need someone to use a chronograph to test bullet velocity of the same cartridge, preferably from the same brand and lot fired from a revolver and a semi auto pistol.

I suggest .45 ACP to be the cartridge of choice because both revolvers and pistols chambered in this round are easily available in US. This can be done with .22s also but rim fire rounds are not known to be very consistent, at least not as much as center fire ammo.

Everything else should be kept under control so factors like barrel length and so on should be same for the revolver and pistol.

It shall all come down to bullet velocity; the gun that has a few more fps at barrel will be better in this regard.

Anyone has the wherewithal to conduct this experiment?

Really no point in doing this as an experiment. It's been done, many times. Check out any reloading manual.

[xl_target]

Au contraire, the Gatling Gun is not an automatic or semiautomatic weapon at all. Every bit of energy used to extract, eject, load, cock, and fire the weapon is provided by the hand crank. In automatic and semiautomatic weapons, all of these processes (except firing, which is for automatic designs only) are powered by the energy of the expanding gasses that result from the burning of the powder in the cartridge.

Just as you say and I meant, the Gatling action (and also the revolver action) does not rely on the ballistic energy of a spent cartridge to cycle the next round.

So by this argument since a revolver is least efficient, and a semi auto is the next best but the Gatling is the most efficient pretty soon we must all be carrying mini Gatling guns in our holsters Timmy?

I'd carry an M1 Abrams tank in my holster if I could but since that is not practical, I'd carry something that actually fit in there.

[timmy]

Have you factored in that a .45 Colt is loaded with a 325 - 200 grain bullet but a typical .45 ACP is only 230 - 165 grain?

I believe I have, given the fact that I cast and shoot the same 230 grain round nose bullet in both guns.

Regarding tests and data, as I said, the facts as I have put them forth are well known and can be verified by anyone who wishes to study this issue by perusing reloading manuals and other ballistic data. Having done this myself, and having the weapons mentioned, I'm satisfied with the accuracy of the points made. If your mind is made up, I can't do anything about that, and if you want more proof, then I've laid out a path for you as a suggestion on that matter, as well.

Regarding the Gatling principle, it was discarded when Colt showed that a revolver was more practical for personal carry over designs that have a full barrel for each loaded round -- the pepper box that Two Rivers referred to previously.

The Gatling design makes sense whethe weapon must maintain a high rate of fire over a relatively long period of time. In this case, separate barrels allow the barrels to cool more between each firing. The famous 20mm Vulcan and derivatives are examples of this. Used in aircraft, they are turned by an electric motor that is built integrally with the weapon.

Perhaps, but then I do not know of any battle to have been won by semi auto pistols as well!

That is easy; I can help you with that data. Please view the famous World War I account of American Soldier Alvin York (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_C._York) a piece of which I have attached below. It is a well known fact that the Germans had a very healthy respect for the American 1911 semiauto pistol, which was a very effective weapon in trench warfare. The incident I refer to, in which Alvin York took 132 German prisoners and won the Medal of Honor for his actions.

Of the eight American survivors, Corporal York was the only noncommissioned officer still standing. He worked his way partly up the slope where the German machine-gunners were. For the gunners to fire at York, they had to expose their heads above their positions. Whenever York saw a German helmet, he fired his .30-caliber rifle, hitting his target every time.

Vollmer, the nearest to York, was appalled to see 25 of his comrades fall victim to the Tennessean's unerring marksmanship. At least three machine gun crews were killed in this manner, all while York, a devout Christian who did not want to kill any more than he had to, intermittently yelled at them to Give up and come on down. Meanwhile Lieutenant Endriss, seeing that Vollmer was in trouble, led a valiant charge against York. York used a hunting skill he learned when faced with a flock of turkeys. He knew that if the first soldier was shot, those behind would take cover. To prevent that, he fired his M1911 Colt .45-caliber semi-automatic pistol, targeting the men from the back to the front. The last German he shot was Endriss, who fell to the ground screaming in agony. York later wrote in his diary that he had shot five German soldiers and an officer like wild turkeys with his pistol.

Vollmer was not sure how many Germans were killed in that assault, but knew it was a lot. Worse yet, his wounded friend Endriss needed help. In the middle of the fight, Vollmer, who had lived in Chicago before the war, stood up, walked over to York and yelled above the din of battle, English? York replied, No, not English. Vollmer then inquired, What? American, York answered. Vollmer exclaimed: Good Lord! If you won't shoot any more I will make them give up.
York told him to go ahead. Vollmer blew a whistle and yelled an order. Upon hearing Vollmer's order, Lipp told his men on the hill above to drop their weapons and make their way down the hill to join the other prisoners.

York directed Vollmer to line up the Germans in a column and have them carry out the six wounded Americans. He then placed the German officers at the head of the formation, with Vollmer in the lead. York stood directly behind him, with the .45-caliber Colt pointed at the German's back. Vollmer suggested that York take the men down a gully in front of Humser Hill to the left, which was still occupied by a large group of German soldiers. Sensing a trap, York took them instead down the road that skirted Hill 2 and led back to Castle Hill and Châtel Chéhéry.

(Excerpt from this article: http://www.historynet.com/alvin-york-an ... ensive.htm)

[xl_target]

Also, the famous Colt Single Action Army ("Peacemaker," or whatever you want to call it) was hardly "The Gun That Won The West." If you have carried one around, you know that it is a big, heavy, clumsy thing, and added to that, it was expensive in the day. Most people packed more modest handguns, if they carried them at all, guns that were not as featured in movies and books about "Old Shatterhand." In other words, there's a lot of myth surrounding the Colt SAA. If any gun could be said to have "Won the West," it would be the Winchester Model 1873

Perhaps, but then I do not know of any battle to have been won by semi auto pistols as well!

....but some have been won by Assegais. Isandlwana comes to mind.