+1 to the 10mm. I would also add the 44 magnum. Without comparing handgun ammunition to rifle loads...... just considering the available handgun choices. I would say that many of them are more powerful than I have ever used or would care to shoot. A 454 Casull or a 475 Linebaugh, a 500 S&W will take a grizzly or an elk down. For personal defense with CCW there are quite a few calibers that deliver the goods IMHO.
Are Handguns Underpowered?
- Thread starter 45ACPShooter
- Start date
the357plan
New member
I Voted No, Because...
You can get handguns that span the range from less than 60 through 2500+ ft-lbs ME. Just pick what you feel you need.
But it depends...
Upon what you're defending yourself against. I feel my 22 LR is just fine against those aggressive pesky squirrels. And if I see someone running through the mall with a rifle, I'll be headed the other way. But the only human aggressors I've ever faced were armed with water balloons, snow balls, paint balls or blanks. So it was only appropriate that I was armed in the same fashion.
You can get handguns that span the range from less than 60 through 2500+ ft-lbs ME. Just pick what you feel you need.
But it depends...
Upon what you're defending yourself against. I feel my 22 LR is just fine against those aggressive pesky squirrels. And if I see someone running through the mall with a rifle, I'll be headed the other way. But the only human aggressors I've ever faced were armed with water balloons, snow balls, paint balls or blanks. So it was only appropriate that I was armed in the same fashion.
In comparison to rifles and shotguns, the handgun is generally underpowered.
It's the nature of the beast. With a handgun, your constraints are size and maximum power limits. You could carry a handgun chambered for .308 or even 5.56mm, but it'd be large, heavy and awkward compared to even a 4-inch revolver or auto.
Handgun cartridges between .380 to .45 Colt in caliber are moderately effective. It'll be a 50-50 chance that an aggressor will drop within a second or two from any of those calibers and a good solid hit. But I don't know many who will survive a solid hit with a 12-gauge slug ramming them at 1300 fps.
The U.S. Army Surgeon General's office, in a manual, said close range shotgun wounds are often initialy indistinguishable from injuries inflicted by battlefield artillery! Having been to a few shotgun suicides and a few robberies with shotguns, I can't disagree.
It's the nature of the beast. With a handgun, your constraints are size and maximum power limits. You could carry a handgun chambered for .308 or even 5.56mm, but it'd be large, heavy and awkward compared to even a 4-inch revolver or auto.
Handgun cartridges between .380 to .45 Colt in caliber are moderately effective. It'll be a 50-50 chance that an aggressor will drop within a second or two from any of those calibers and a good solid hit. But I don't know many who will survive a solid hit with a 12-gauge slug ramming them at 1300 fps.
The U.S. Army Surgeon General's office, in a manual, said close range shotgun wounds are often initialy indistinguishable from injuries inflicted by battlefield artillery! Having been to a few shotgun suicides and a few robberies with shotguns, I can't disagree.
We don't know them, but they are out there
There is at least one documented case of a guy taking two (2) 12 ga slugs to the chest, and running away!
He didn't run far (around the corner of a building, and died), but he did run. Nothing you can hold and shoot is 100% (although I have my doubts about the 90mm recoilless rifle
)
I would put a 12ga slug up there at 99%+
Heck, it almost stops Terminators!
Saying handguns are underpowered compared to rifles is like griping because your corvette won't carry plywood like a pickup truck. They have what they need for the intended purpose.
OK, maybe not the .25 auto.....
There is at least one documented case of a guy taking two (2) 12 ga slugs to the chest, and running away!
He didn't run far (around the corner of a building, and died), but he did run. Nothing you can hold and shoot is 100% (although I have my doubts about the 90mm recoilless rifle)I would put a 12ga slug up there at 99%+
Heck, it almost stops Terminators!
Saying handguns are underpowered compared to rifles is like griping because your corvette won't carry plywood like a pickup truck. They have what they need for the intended purpose.
OK, maybe not the .25 auto.....
question
+1.
The question is unqualified. Without a reference point - a "compared to what" - the poll has no meaning. This is especially true when considering all of the different calibers for which handguns are chambered and the different uses to which these are put.
When you ask a question like "Are Handguns underpowered?" without any qualification, you are by default referring to all handguns in the same breath from a two inch barreled .22 rimfire snubbie to a 15" single shot Encore chambered for the .500 S&W.
Pete
+1.
The question is unqualified. Without a reference point - a "compared to what" - the poll has no meaning. This is especially true when considering all of the different calibers for which handguns are chambered and the different uses to which these are put.
When you ask a question like "Are Handguns underpowered?" without any qualification, you are by default referring to all handguns in the same breath from a two inch barreled .22 rimfire snubbie to a 15" single shot Encore chambered for the .500 S&W.
Pete
warningshot
New member
"Handguns...they're no-d*m-good I tell you."
"You trust your life to em, you put the rounds center mass and they will still let you down"
Author's name left out on purpose.
"You trust your life to em, you put the rounds center mass and they will still let you down"
Author's name left out on purpose.
Kreyzhorse
New member
Underpowered? Inadequate for self-defense? Seriously?
There are of course better options than a handgun for SD. I'll agree to that. A rifle would be better than a handgun in a SD situation. A tank would be better than a rifle. A jet would be better than a tank and so on.
However, since you generally can't pick the moment that you'll need to defend yourself, a handgun makes a very good SD weapon in that it combines ease of carry, can be used in small spaces (i.e. a hallway) and yet it still packs enough punch to end a fight quickly. Hell, the simple act of having a handgun may end the fight quickly without a shot fired. They are also a hell of a lot cheaper than a tank.
There are of course better options than a handgun for SD. I'll agree to that. A rifle would be better than a handgun in a SD situation. A tank would be better than a rifle. A jet would be better than a tank and so on.
However, since you generally can't pick the moment that you'll need to defend yourself, a handgun makes a very good SD weapon in that it combines ease of carry, can be used in small spaces (i.e. a hallway) and yet it still packs enough punch to end a fight quickly. Hell, the simple act of having a handgun may end the fight quickly without a shot fired. They are also a hell of a lot cheaper than a tank.
Do they make a 100% 'killer', no matter where you hit, handheld weapon? Nope.
People have been shot and lived with handguns,shotguns,rifles, stepped on mines, been in tanks and tank hit with LAW,s round(you get the point) .
When I get goofy looks from 'self proclaimed' gun/ammo experts for carrying my lowly S&W 442 loaded with 38 rds., I chuckle inside. Seems as though some think this lowly 38rd thats been around for ever and has been used effectively for S/D, today is no more than a BB gun. Either the same 38 ammo that's been used is not built the same today or human's of today are not made out of the same material they used to be
.
Granted, I could carry a multitude of guns and in the winter I usually switch to a .45 but I feel confident with a 38 in the warmer season's.
IMO, stopping a life threatening perp is the reason I carry. As long as the threat is stopped does it make difference what's used.
People have been shot and lived with handguns,shotguns,rifles, stepped on mines, been in tanks and tank hit with LAW,s round(you get the point) .
When I get goofy looks from 'self proclaimed' gun/ammo experts for carrying my lowly S&W 442 loaded with 38 rds., I chuckle inside. Seems as though some think this lowly 38rd thats been around for ever and has been used effectively for S/D, today is no more than a BB gun. Either the same 38 ammo that's been used is not built the same today or human's of today are not made out of the same material they used to be
.Granted, I could carry a multitude of guns and in the winter I usually switch to a .45 but I feel confident with a 38 in the warmer season's.
IMO, stopping a life threatening perp is the reason I carry. As long as the threat is stopped does it make difference what's used.
mrgoodwrench76
New member
I'd be willing to wager that the few of you who say that handguns are underpowered have never been shot by one. Sure didn't feel underpowered to me. If your lacking this experience and are willing to sign a waver, I'll be happy to forward you my address. I'll even let you choose the caliber.
Last edited:
I'll agree that the question is undefined, but I've seen the same comments. Heck, I've seen them here in this thread.
Handguns are a compromise? Mine aren't. Would a rifle be better in a fight? Maybe, but they're harder to carry, are awkward to use at very close range, and might be taken from a person easier than a handgun. Since SD is generally an up close and personal encounter, a handgun becomes the best tool to keep with you for such possibilities.
Underpowered? Hardly. We live in a less than perfect world where nothing is guaranteed. A handgun is just a tool that can be used for SD. Carrying one doesn't guarantee safety any more than carrying a wrench guarantees that your car won't break down. In each case, they do give you something to help you solve the situation...if you know how to use it.
I don't carry a handgun as a compromise. I carry a handgun because it's the best tool I can keep with me at all times in case of trouble. I could carry a shotgun, or I could carry a rifle, but both are to big and awkward to keep with me at all times, so I'm bound to set it down somewhere along the way. They're also too long for up close work in some situations. For ease of carry, and up-close defense, a handgun becomes optimal, rather than a compromise...as long as I know how to use it well.
How well that handgun handles the situation depends on my choice of tool, and how well I know how to use it.
Handguns are a compromise? Mine aren't. Would a rifle be better in a fight? Maybe, but they're harder to carry, are awkward to use at very close range, and might be taken from a person easier than a handgun. Since SD is generally an up close and personal encounter, a handgun becomes the best tool to keep with you for such possibilities.
Underpowered? Hardly. We live in a less than perfect world where nothing is guaranteed. A handgun is just a tool that can be used for SD. Carrying one doesn't guarantee safety any more than carrying a wrench guarantees that your car won't break down. In each case, they do give you something to help you solve the situation...if you know how to use it.
I don't carry a handgun as a compromise. I carry a handgun because it's the best tool I can keep with me at all times in case of trouble. I could carry a shotgun, or I could carry a rifle, but both are to big and awkward to keep with me at all times, so I'm bound to set it down somewhere along the way. They're also too long for up close work in some situations. For ease of carry, and up-close defense, a handgun becomes optimal, rather than a compromise...as long as I know how to use it well.
How well that handgun handles the situation depends on my choice of tool, and how well I know how to use it.
Here's my post on the subject from a related thread - the one about test shots on goats (seriously):
It has been my impression from reading this thread that animal tests record the results of a single shot - is that the case?
We are taught to shoot at the threat and to continue shooting at the threat until the threat is eliminated. Thus, the effect of a single shot is not unimportant but not necessarily conclusive as to the value of a particular caliber to a particular person.
Also, while a goat or person shot once may not have fallen down, the goat or person in at least some instances would be incapacitated to do any harm.
People are killed and not infrequently "stopped" every day from both single and multiple hand gun wounds.
A few days ago, local TV news showed a video of an attempted armed robbery of a convenience store. It was within about four miles of where I now sit. The person behind the counter grabbed a gun kept behind the counter and shot the perpetrator once, in the stomach and without any aiming apparent from the video. The perpetrator doubled over in apparent pain, and in that bent over posture ran (more or less) from the store. He died not far out of the door. Police arrived on the scene. The defending shooter was not charged with anything and was allowed to go home. The police said it was a very clearly justifiable shooting.
On the other side of the coin, a few weeks ago about five miles from where I sit now, goons with guns tried to rob an unarmed person who had just left a convenience store. He tried to escape by driving away. They chased after him in a car and shot him dead.
For my money, handguns are seriously deadly. They're easily carried and concealed. When the chips are down, I'd rather have one in my possession than not. Even a .22 is better than nothing, but a 9mm that I confidently can use is even better. Two shots are more deterrent than one, three are more deterrent that two, and so on, if you continue shooting (placement, placement, placement) until the threat is neutralized. YMMV
It has been my impression from reading this thread that animal tests record the results of a single shot - is that the case?
We are taught to shoot at the threat and to continue shooting at the threat until the threat is eliminated. Thus, the effect of a single shot is not unimportant but not necessarily conclusive as to the value of a particular caliber to a particular person.
Also, while a goat or person shot once may not have fallen down, the goat or person in at least some instances would be incapacitated to do any harm.
People are killed and not infrequently "stopped" every day from both single and multiple hand gun wounds.
A few days ago, local TV news showed a video of an attempted armed robbery of a convenience store. It was within about four miles of where I now sit. The person behind the counter grabbed a gun kept behind the counter and shot the perpetrator once, in the stomach and without any aiming apparent from the video. The perpetrator doubled over in apparent pain, and in that bent over posture ran (more or less) from the store. He died not far out of the door. Police arrived on the scene. The defending shooter was not charged with anything and was allowed to go home. The police said it was a very clearly justifiable shooting.
On the other side of the coin, a few weeks ago about five miles from where I sit now, goons with guns tried to rob an unarmed person who had just left a convenience store. He tried to escape by driving away. They chased after him in a car and shot him dead.
For my money, handguns are seriously deadly. They're easily carried and concealed. When the chips are down, I'd rather have one in my possession than not. Even a .22 is better than nothing, but a 9mm that I confidently can use is even better. Two shots are more deterrent than one, three are more deterrent that two, and so on, if you continue shooting (placement, placement, placement) until the threat is neutralized. YMMV
45ACPShooter
New member
I see people in this forum often refer to handguns as "underpowered" and "inadequate for self-defense". I've even heard people say things like "I know if someone was really serious about hurting me my handgun wouldn't work". I seriously wonder why some people even bother carrying around a handgun for defense if they really believe these things. Someone might not go down immediately from any firearm. Nothing says for sure someone is going to go down right away if they're hit with a rifle or shotgun either.
Last edited:
Its all relative. A 22 is overpowered for a squirrel or rat, but underpowered for bear or humans!!
For the most part, an handgun can provide all you need and then some for any given task.
Some people would say that 38 special is underpowered, however law enforcement used it for a very long time.
For those of you who think a handgun is underpowered, try being on the recieving end of one. I think you will change your mind!!
-George
For the most part, an handgun can provide all you need and then some for any given task.
Some people would say that 38 special is underpowered, however law enforcement used it for a very long time.
For those of you who think a handgun is underpowered, try being on the recieving end of one. I think you will change your mind!!
-George
shredder4286
New member
+1 we just had a discussion about how the 9mm was inadequate as a service round in the M9. i argued that if i shot him twice in the chest, and once in the face, he might change his mind...
underpowered is a term made meaningless without defined thresholds. Is a handgun underpowered for human harvesting? In general, it is hard to say no, when seeing things ranging from .25 to 9mm, but it is also hard to say yes to rounds even more powerful than these. Given a choice, I'd rather be firing a .308 with deer ammo at a human than even a .45 or .44 magnum. Not because the .44 is weak, but because the .308 is more likely to kill.
The problem with using "underpowered" is that first, you have no clear threshold. Second, power, even if you can define it and quantify a need, is notorious for not doing what it is supposed to do. Even the most powerful round in the world can and will fail to do what it is supposed to do. Again with the chaos theory, but when you are using a .25 auto, and depending on really good luck, that's kind of dumb. With a .38 or 9mm, your chances are better, but when you get into truly powerful cartridges, the odds are reversed. Your chances of failure with a single shot from a 10mm magnum are probably identical to your chances of success with a .25 auto.
The problem with using "underpowered" is that first, you have no clear threshold. Second, power, even if you can define it and quantify a need, is notorious for not doing what it is supposed to do. Even the most powerful round in the world can and will fail to do what it is supposed to do. Again with the chaos theory, but when you are using a .25 auto, and depending on really good luck, that's kind of dumb. With a .38 or 9mm, your chances are better, but when you get into truly powerful cartridges, the odds are reversed. Your chances of failure with a single shot from a 10mm magnum are probably identical to your chances of success with a .25 auto.
When you constantly watch actors getting blown off their feet (and sometimes even through walls!) from a single handgun hit, real world performance seems....inadequate.
Want a good, realistic scene? Watch the movie City Heat. Set in the 20's, so no hollowpoints! Ok, some of the gun stuff is just fun BS, but there is a great scene where a stocky mobster is coming up the stairs at Clint, he takes a couple hits COM, and staggers, then keeps on coming. Another couple, the same thing. A couple more, and he finally goes down.
Handguns aren't underpowered. Most of them are just lower powered.
Some of them are actually higher powered than light rifles. But those are not typical defensive handguns.
Want a good, realistic scene? Watch the movie City Heat. Set in the 20's, so no hollowpoints!
Ok, some of the gun stuff is just fun BS, but there is a great scene where a stocky mobster is coming up the stairs at Clint, he takes a couple hits COM, and staggers, then keeps on coming. Another couple, the same thing. A couple more, and he finally goes down.Handguns aren't underpowered. Most of them are just lower powered.
Some of them are actually higher powered than light rifles. But those are not typical defensive handguns.
Of course not. Anyone who says otherwise is stupid. You still got to put the bullet in the right place though. Same thing with boxing. I can hit you with a punch real hard in the arm and you likely won't go down but if I place it right and put it hard on your jaw down you go.
Sometimes. People vary and some folks buckle under what others can stand up to. As an extreme example, a coworker of mine knew a fellow who got shot in the head by a police officer. The lead bullet from the .38spl revolver didn't penetrate the man's unusually robust skull and he wasn't even dazed from the bullet impact. His substantial inebriation may have also had something to do with pain tolerance.
The bottom line is that even if you do everything right, you can sometimes come up against someone that is just too tough or too good. Platt (1986 FBI Miami shootout) is one example. Even though he was "killed" early in the fight, he didn't give up. Between the time he sustained the fatal injury and the time he finally died he killed and disabled several of his opponents in spite of being outnumbered.