Talk:Handgun effectiveness

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)

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)

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)

Merge w/ stopping power?

Oppose Merge - The proper scope of this article is limited to handguns. In contrast, the "Stopping Power" article has a much broader scope that also includes shotguns and rifles. The "Stopping Power" article potentially covers all of wound ballistics; whereas, this article is limited to handguns. There is sufficient notability and sufficient verifiable material available to support keeping two separate articles, though there is a lot of room for improvement in both in terms of improved organization and citing verifiable sources.Michael Courtney (talk) 14:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Handgun effectiveness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060320123511/http://www.thegunzone.com/quantico-wounding.html to http://www.thegunzone.com/quantico-wounding.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)