Talk:Handgun effectiveness

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

[edit] Reason for Article

What is the purpose for listing this article by itself? Isn't most of this information better rolled into the pistol article? --Askaggs 06:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opinion?

It seems to me that a lot of the "information" here is just opinion/speculation. 68.188.231.29 07:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


I agree, this article draws upon speculation, and vague research which bears little scientific foundation or merit, particularly the notation on blood loss, citing a decapitation statistic RELEVANCE?!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.63.122 (talk) 21:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons and content

I think the comment made in the second section is a good explanation for the question in the first section. No one argues that most handguns carried for defensive purposes are marginal for that purpose; a rifle or shotgun is vastly superior in accuracy, power, and ease of use, but these are just to bulky and heavy to be useful as a defensive weapon. The exact choice of handgun ammunition to maximize the terminal performance isn't an exact science. Statistical analysis is not practical because every shooting is different, and the data isn't there to make predicitons with any confidence. Correlating experimental results, such as ballstic gelatin tests, with actual performance on living tissue, isn't much help either. Does stretch cavity matter, or just permanant cavity? How much impact does that have on real wounding effectiveness? One thing that most people will agree to is that shot placement is infinitely more important than tissue damage. Hit someone with a 12 pound cannon shell, and sure, it might cut much of their leg off, but it still might not be enough to stop them, but a .22 Short to the central nervous system will drop them in their tracks. The issue then is what happens when you miss vital organs; how much can that bullet do in non-ideal conditions?

One of the things I've noticed is that like most things that require a compromise (in this case, energy vs. penetration vs. expansion vs. recoil vs. capacity), there are different schools of thought, and trends over time. In the early 80's, the .45 ACP and the .357 Magnum were king; they began to be displaced by the high capacity 9mm. With the federal ban on magazines >10 rounds, the .40 S&W and .45 ACP came back, with the 9mm loosing ground. The Brady Bill, and the resulting passage of shall-issue permit laws in most states, brought out a whole new array of compact handguns with shorter barrels. The .380 ACP came out strong at first, but then the subcompact 9mm started to appear, and the .380 faded while the 9mm made a comeback. There have also been trends to slow heavy bullets, light fast ones, prefragmented, solid copper, different jacket designs, the infamous "Black Talon" that got the AMA up in arms...

I'd say that this article probably does deserve to remain independent, primarily to keep the documentation of these issues contained. The article does need more work, so far there has only been one significant contributor, and I think some more editing will help split fact from speculation and clearly document the sources of different information. scot 15:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, you've convinced me that there is enough material for a unique article. However, the problem still remains that the article is at best an essay about the subject without any significant references. If it remains in Wikipedia it needs a much more objective tone and facts with references from primary sources. Does anyone out there want to take up that challenge? --Askaggs 16:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)