Are Handguns Underpowered?

Are Handguns Underpowered?

  • Yes

    Votes: 63 39.6%

  • No

    Votes: 96 60.4%
  • Total voters
    159
  • Poll closed .
4

45ACPShooter

New member
I often hear that handguns are underpowered. I am wondering how that is so. What makes them underpowered? I think it's a mistake to say that because shot placement is still very important with rifles or shotguns. There may be more of a margin of error but still handguns can be very lethal. Also I hear people say that handguns are inadequate for self-defense. Obviously, a rifle or shotgun would be more effective but in the same way a .50 caliber machine gun would be more effective than a rifle, doesn't make a rifle inadequate for self-defense.
 
Yes, handguns are underpowered. We have to remember our firearms are about compromise. To get a nice, portable, convenient package, we sacrifice power (aka handgun versus rifle). To get more power in a handgun, we sacrifice capacity and controllability.

Realistically, if you want effective one-shot stopping power, you have to be slinging bowling balls and baseball bats. Everything else is a maybe.

Remember, most people will agree that a .357 Magnum is a light hunting round from a handgun. Yet it is considered an excellent fight stopper against humans. Of course, the same applies to the .223 round from rifles as well.

I fall into the camp of anything from .38 Special to .44 Magnum is adequate out of a handgun. Bigger is probably better, to a degree, but confidence and skill matter more.

Edited: And don't think any handgun is going to act as an instant-death ray. It may or may not, and it's better to hedge toward worst-worst case if worst-case happens, IMO.
 
Handguns are not underpowered. They are simply a different tool for a different job. Sure, when you compare a 9mm handgun to say a .308 rifle, the rifle is going to win in killing power. However a .308 rifle isn't the easiest thing to use when your target is 5 feet away from you, and they don't really conceal all that well. By the same token a handgun sucks at taking out targets a few hundred feet away.

Rifles make great offensive weapons. They also make great defensive weapons for targets that are far away from you or when you are out in the open. However their size and weight are a hindrance in cramp quarters and very close range situations, and you can't bring one with you everywhere you go. That's why we have handguns. Their small enough that we can easily carry them on our person at all times, and they work great when its up close and personal, or when your in a tight space. Sure, the pistol rounds they fire will never be as good at killing as rifle rounds, but its all part of the compromise for their smaller size and lighter weight
 
I voted yes just because handguns are underpowered in comparison to long guns. If you're looking for one-shot-stop capability, it does not rest in handguns where 80% of people shot by handguns live to tell about it. Roughly 80% of people shot by 12 gauge 00 BK do not live to tell about it. Don't have any numbers on rifles, but if you look at the ballistics it's going to be a lot higher than handguns.

Handguns are great tools for self defense. Why? Because carrying a Remington 870 everywhere you go would just be foolish even if it was socially acceptable and legal everywhere. Handguns are concealable and portable, much more so than long guns.

Yes, shot placement is important in any firearm class, but you can't aim for organs or arteries unless you have x-ray vision, and if you have that you probably have other powers that are more lethal than .50 BMG machine guns anyway. So the only way to get good shot placement is TRAINING, both for accuracy and quantity of rounds in center mass.

So to answer your baisic question:

Are handguns underpowered?

Compared to decent calibered rifles and shotguns... YES

Compared to yelling and screaming... NO
 
You have created a poll in which the question is undefined and the results meaningless. Much like the polls that show slightly less than half the population thinks Obama is doing a good job. (gotta wonder about those folks :) )

Anyway, its just like everybody else said. A Garand is a pretty dandy fight stopper, so is a 12 GA Ithaca Stakeout, but, you look silly trying to carry one around all the time, you become "That guy" the neighbors always talk about, so we carry pistols. Its a sight better than screaming, crying and begging for mercy, no matter how underpowered they are.

Anyway, the answer to your question is simple. Its 42.
 
I believe people may say handguns are, generally, underpowered compared to what's available for a given situation. It's been argued, for instance in home defense, that a shotgun or even an AR15 is better suited. Obviously, one isn't going to be lugging around a rifle chambered in .50BMG to protect oneself in their home. I honestly think everyone has different and unique parameters. While one person may think a handgun is underpowered for their application may be just right for another. The layout of my home, the number of individuals in my dwelling, level/type of training, and preferred tactics have rendered my decision to use...well...I'll keep that to myself.
 
Yes handguns are underpowered, it's because of the ammunition they fire.

There's a reason why deer rifles are not chambered in .45 ACP. If I'm going to shoot a 200+ lb. whitetail, I want a round that will drop it in a few seconds with any good hit to the heart/lung area. Most hunters would choose a 12 Ga. shotgun or a rifle in something between 30-30 and .300 Magnum.

I'm not saying a .45 ACP deer rifle wouldn't be lethal, but a lot of the animals you hit would run so far back into the swamp before they flop over that it would be hard to find them. Because it's so underpowered, if I did use one on a deer, I would try to be very close and wait for the best possible shot. If I were shooting this ammunition from a handgun, the situation would be even more difficult.

You didn't say, but you may be thinking of shooting a man rather than a deer. I wouldn't recommend this except as a last resort.

Now I'm not saying that a handgun is inadequate for self defense. There are many situations where carrying a shotgun would be impractical. Also, in close quarters it would be more likely for your foe the grab the long barrel and wrestle it away. If you end up wrestling on the ground, a shotgun would be very difficult to use.

Overall, I think a handgun is much more useful.
 
It definitely is about compromise. Is a .32 acp underpowered? Eh...yes for some situations, but it comes in a tiny package that you can put in your front pocket, it's better than a sharp stick in the eye and with accurate shot placement it will probably do the intended job in a defensive situation which is ultimitely to get yourself out of harms way. Is a .44 magnum underpowered? No, but it's large and very very loud indoors, hard for some people to control, the muzzle flash might temporarily blind you and the bullet might go through your target and potentialy harm someone or something you didn't intend to shoot. I preffer a hand gun cartridge in the middle for self or home defense like 9mm. Easy to control, with good bullets and shot placement it will do the job and you can be pretty sure your bullet wont go through the target, the wall, your car and Hugo the neighborhood dog. Are rifles underpowered? No, by most they are considered overpowered for defensive situations. So you have compromise my friend.
 
It's nearly impossible to answer this question and I expect the poll results to be split 50/50. A handgun is a very useful tool for CQC situations and is obviously a lot easier to carry around. You are more likely to have a handgun at your disposal than a rifle. A handgun is good enough in most situations.

With that said, yes, a handgun is drastically underpowered compared to a rifle. Anybody who says otherwise needs to lay off the drugs. A COM hit with a 308 Win or 223 Rem is undoubtedly going to be more effective than a 9mm or 45 ACP. Rifles don't just punch holes in things. They devastate a large amount of tissue even out to 200+ yards. Yes shot placement is important with anything but a rifle simply leaves a much more devastating wound.

Lots of people survive well placed hits with handguns. If someone gets hit well with a rifle they are going down and going down quick. You simply don't survive a COM hit at close range with rifle. The most devastating self defense load is buckshot. From what I've seen rifles definitely do more damage than shotgun slugs. The slugs pretty much punch a large hole while rifles fragment and destroy large areas of tissue. Big game animals routinely display 2-3" exit holes after being shot at much longer distances than any self defense situation would entail. The difference between a handgun and a rifle is huge.
 
What "most people will say" doesn't change the facts

Remember, most people will agree that a .357 Magnum is a light hunting round from a handgun. Yet it is considered an excellent fight stopper against humans. Of course, the same applies to the .223 round from rifles as well.
Click to expand...

Times, and opinions change. 70 years ago, the .357 Magnum was a powerful cartridge "recommened only for men of exceptional physique". Today, its almost a wimp. Because that's what "most people say".

And there is still a lot of argument about the .223, except from those folks who make military policy.

Americans, in particular, are afflicted with "magnumitis". More power is always better, more of everything is always needed. We have handguns today that match the buffalo rifles of yesteryear for energy!

And the reason so many people shot by handguns today survive is not because of the lack of power of the handguns, its because of the medicine available. A hundred years ago, being shot with anything, anywhere was 50% fatal, although it might take a couple weeks or more for the infection to kill you.

What most people say is what they have been taught to believe. It doesn't make it right. Remember that every election, the candidate most people choose is the winner. And just look how happy we often are with that!
 
People carry handguns because they're small and light, not because they have a lot of power.

They have enough power to get the job done, but not enough to achieve the spectacular results that Hollywood has taught many to expect.
 
Are handguns underpowered?

I've never been shot in my vital organs with a handgun, so I can't give first hand opinions on that. But I'm willing to bet that just about anyone that has been shot where it counts, would answer a resounding "NO" to your question, if they happened to still be alive.

Are handguns good self-defense tools? Yup.
 
Repeat after me:
For my first year on this board, this will be my mantra.
Read a lot, post a little.
Both of us will benefit from this approach. Trust me.
 
45acpshooter, don't let posts like the one above stop you from asking questions. The search function is a good tool as is reading all the posts. But you don't need to spend a year on the board before you ask questions. We are here and discuss firearms and to help not to reprimand. The staff will let you know if you are out of line.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top