Are Handguns Underpowered?

Are Handguns Underpowered?

  • Yes

    Votes: 63 39.6%

  • No

    Votes: 96 60.4%
  • Total voters
    159
  • Poll closed .
I think the notion of handguns being underpowered originates from combat zones, in which the battle rifle is the primary tool and is the cause for the most deaths.. but where the handgun is also occasionally used. Basically saying that if you use a rifle for defense most of the time, but have to use a pistol every once in a while, you will probably consider the pistol to be underpowered. But for civilian carriers, the pistol is the workhorse and can't practically be compared to a rifle because rifles aren't an option.

Home Defense is another situation though, because a rifle or shotgun IS an option.
 
underpowered

I don't think they are at all. I can tell you that a handgun is used in close range. I can also tell you that if you are 5 or 10 feet away from me and i shoot you with my 45 ACP and a 260 grain bullet or if i shoot you with a 308,30-30,7MM, it is not going to matter,,you are going down or you are going to be in such a world of hurt that at that point in time you are now less than 30% the threat you were. People talk about hitting the right spot(leathal area). It is important when a death hit is needed,most time,barring high on crack or something else,even a wound is going to give your attacker a second thought about persueing this game any farther. Attacker well knowing that you have 8 or so more of these little kisses for him if he would like to keep playing the game. To those of you that have been hit by a bullet (god bless you) You know what i am talking about, That burning painfull feeling that you have kinda zappes the fight out of you. So in answer to your question i would have to say a very big no. Only in the movies does a gun shot throw you 5 feet backwards,in real life it does not.

Live Long and Play Safe
 
if you are 5 or 10 feet away from me and i shoot you with my 45 ACP and a 260 grain bullet or if i shoot you with a 308,30-30,7MM, it is not going to matter
Click to expand...

I have never been shot, and you alluded to having been shot.. so I will not pretend to know more about it than you. However, common sense and logic tells me that the situation you used as an example is misguided. Most agree that handguns are not underpowered because they are their own compact class of firearms. But you are saying that they aren't underpowered even when compared to rifles!

Many more people have walked away from a hit with a 45 acp than with one from a 7mm or 308. If pistol caliber rounds are just as effective as huge hunting rifle calibers, why doesn't the military just supply the troops with their beretta M9s and send them on their way??
 
Yes, handguns are under powered when compared to rifles or shotguns. It's a compomise between portability and power. No one is going to thow a shirt over an M4 or 870.
 
My first response to this was Yes and I still believe that. My basis is that compared to a rifle or shotgun a hand gun is very weak. But some valid points have been brought up that make the line a little more fuzzy. One point is compared to what? It would take a mall ninja to think that a hand gun offers the same power that a shotgun or rifle would have. More than likely the same crowd that thinks a ball bat or knife is a better SD weapon than a mouse gun. But does that mean it's underpowered? I wouldn't feel under gunned with a .357 even though it doesn't do nearly the damage a rifle does.

What it comes down to is I don't want to be shot or shot at with a rifle, handgun or shotgun. I fear those equally, so do bad guys.

All platforms (rifles, shotguns, handguns) have their advantages and disadvantages but that was not the question. The question was power and in that a handgun comes in a distant 3rd place.

LK
 
Funny. Right before they go explaining exceptions, the first answer in nearly every response is YES.

For some reason, however, they feel the need to expound on their simple answer, muddying the water.

The .357 has the best record because they have more data points, not because it's as good as a rifle.

In any situation where you've failed to be aware of your surroundings or are simply surprised in some way you couldn't anticipate and GOD HELP YOU you've arrived in a situation where you are forced to SHOOT SOMEBODY to save your life, you're not going to be all that worried about over-penetration or excessive force. You're going to want all the power you can get. AND, for any given shot you are able to achieve, more power is BETTER. FASTER stop. FEWER follow up shots required. Less time for YOU to get shot at. (remember why you're shooting at a person here-- YOU ARE IN IMMEDIATE DANGER!)
You want all the power you can get, and any handgun is insufficient to make you satisfied at that point!
 
An S-10 pickup truck with a V-6 is underpowered when compared to a Peterbilt with a catipillar diesel, but if you are just going to the corner store which one are you going to take.

Any hand gun is powered just right for the job it is intended to perform, they are just NOT designed to perform the jobs that you should be using a rifle to do.
 
underpowered

Let me clarify.They are not underpowered when used as intended. They do not compete with rifles and i did not want to make it sound tha way,But i do want to say at 5 or 10 feet,yes thay are just as deadly as a rifle. A pistol moving at a much slower speed than a rifle is going to do some serious damage as it goes through you. Like i said it will take the zip out of your step allowing the victim,to in most cases get away. I do not beleive in killing and hope to god i never have to, I will wound,leg,arm, first and attempt a get away.
 
I separate handgun calibers in three categories...

POCKET PISTOL: (.22lr up to .380ACP & .38SPL) Not adequate for SD, but can be used when it's all you have....

SERVICE PISTOL: (.38SPL+P & 9mm to .45ACP & 10MM) More than adequate...actually, intended for SD....

MAGNUM PISTOL: (.357MAG to .500S&W and beyond) Excellent choices for SD...if your neighborhood is troubled by gangs of rhinoceruses....maybe a little much for smaller BG's....

All (or at least most) handguns are underpowered when compared to all (or at least most) rifles and shotguns....that's why the most successful handguns are repeaters....multiple shots are often necessary and desirable...unless you're packing a sawed-off 12ga. or howdah pistol...then you're probably OK with two shots....that'll probably be all your hand can take, anyway....

To paraphrase an acknowledged expert in the handgun field, you'd never go wrong if you know how to "ride, shoot straight, and tell the truth"... :cool:
 
Handguns are not underpowered for their intended purpose. The deer that I killed with my .44 revolver were dropped in their tracks at about 50 yards. If I was going after cape buffalo or rhinocerous, the same gun would be woefully underpowered.

If we extend the logic, a 50mm cannon is underpowered compared to an ICBM.
 
Well, this depends on the context. If comparing handguns to shotguns (12 gauge, for instance) or most "high power" rifles, then yes, one could conclude that handguns are indeed inferior in overall [inherent/initial] effectiveness. It does not take much to see why. But, does this mean that handguns are necessarily inferior as a whole, for instance, when it comes to personal defense (stopping capability)? Not at all.

Outside of sheer "effectiveness" comparisons, there is also "practicality" to consider. When it comes to personal defense, the handgun does indeed seem to be the most "practical" choice...based on circumstance, of course.

When comparing handguns to handguns, things such as caliber and ammo selection will inevitably become somewhat of an issue. Regardless, most "popular" self defense calibers/loads are certainly effective enough at doing what they do.

Besides, regardless of which "hardware" is most effective, IMHO the "software" factor is where things truly start...in terms of effectiveness; along with having a sense as to when a particular weapon platform [handgun, shotgun or rifle] would be the most "appropriate." But, this is another topic entirely.

Either way, I did not vote as there are several variables to consider here...outside of sheer power.
 
Last edited:
Speaking of "underpowered", do you think it was really necessary to stop production on the .480 round?
Click to expand...

I think it was a business/financial decision more than a utilitarian decision. According to the specs, the .480 was a good caliber and it provided a large, heavy bullet with enough power for hunting and use as a woods sidearm. On the other hand, it didn't do anything better than other cartridges that were already on the market. The .454 Casull is more powerful and can be interchanged with .45 LC. Smith & Wesson provided us with the .460 revolver that could handle .460/454/.45. That pretty much killed the .480 since it did not have a lower power alternative over the counter loading. Companies are profit driven and they won't dedicate productive capacity to products that don't have the sales revenue to back it up. I think Hornady was the only major ammo supplier that loaded .480 and that made ammo a specialty item. When you're staking your life on a wilderness survival handgun, you want to be able to beg or borrow ammo from any other hunter if yours is lost or damaged. You want to be able to drop into just about any sporting goods or department store and pick up a box or two. That's where .44 Magnum/.44 Special really shines.

I think the main thing is that Ruger wanted a caliber with their name on it. When they introduced the .204 Ruger rifle cartridge, that allowed them to cross that off their list of things to do.

Sure it was a good cartridge but Ruger had issues with wall thicknesses on their first batch of revolvers and they seemed to be deciding whether to make the gun a 5 shot or a 6 shot and they ended up making it a 5 shot. I'd rather have the six shot which I could get in the .454 Casull or .44 magnum. When you look at all of this, it was a good technical idea but not a particularly appealing business prospect.
 
How could a handgun be underpowered?

They're designed to shoot a hole through soft tissue, and they do that just fine. Use a big enough cartridge, or at least load the gun with the right ammo, and it'll put a hold all the way through a BG.

Power has nothing to do with it. Situations also have nothing to do with it. The size and design of a handgun allow it to be easily carried. That's why it's a top choice.

Is it as useful as a shotgun? Nope, but it's handier.

It it as accurate as a rifle? Nope, but it's easier to keep with you at all times.

Their design may not make them optimal in a firefight, but that has nothing to do with being underpowered. A good handgun load will shoot a hole completely through a bad guy, so what else in power can you ask for?

It's the carrier's abilities with that handgun that limit it's usefullness; not it's power.

Daryl
 
Power has nothing to do with it. Situations also have nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...

I somewhat disagree; particularly with the second statement. Think about it for a moment.

Lets not forget, speaking specifically of personal defense here, merely "putting a hole" in the BG is not the point as this alone could hardly be considered a standard for "effectiveness." Heck, even a .22 can put a hole in someone. The whole point here is to STOP a violent attack as quickly as possible, period.

Hence, shot placement notwithstanding, the handgun simply seems more weak when compared to a shotgun or large caliber rifle. Ineffective? Certainly no. But, less effective (given the comparisons)? Yes. Is the handgun ideal for personal defense? Yes and no. This is "situational" based.

Nothing against handguns...I use several. But, it is what it is.

Irregardless, generally speaking, when handguns (as a group) are said to be "underpowered," it is usually underscored by a direct comparison to the likes of a 12 ga. shotgun or large caliber rifle. Therefore, it is not really a matter of one being ineffective vs effective. Rather, it is about which one could be construed as "most effective." Again, this is taking aim out of the equation and simply focusing on sheer "power."

So, again, we must use the term "underpowered" within the proper context.
 
Last edited:
Being that "underpowered" is a 100% subjective word as used in this context, the correct answer, the absolutely no-argument, 100% certified FDA approved answer to your question/poll is:

yes and no

period.
 
I voted that they are not underpowered, but only because I am considering the role they play. Highly portable, concealable. I don't think they are underpowered for their mission, but that doesn't mean they are sufficiently powered to be a reliable, short-order manstopper.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top