Functional "classification" of handguns

S

simonrichter

New member
It might be a rather odd and general question: While gun people seem to differentiate their stuff according to its function ("range gun", home defence", "CC", " hiking gun"), I couldn't very mich find such distinctions when scrutinizing the various statements objectively. The very same guns that are praised as ideal for home defence in one thread are described as the perfect tool for, say, backpacking in the next. Apart from obvious specifications like "small guns for CC" or ".22lr for plinking", I don't see much difference between the main product lines of semiautos and revolvers as far as their potential use is concerned.
Interestingly, not even the marketing guys seem to be interested in more specific categories as the categories in which handguns are commonly put for sale (size; self-defense vs. targe) are not very specific either.

So is this all a matter of individual preferences or ARE there guns that are better for very specific roles than others?
 
Last edited:
So is this all a matter of individual preferences or ARE there guns that are better for very specific roles than others?
Click to expand...
Both and neither.

I have no plans to ever put my 7.5" bbl .44Mag Super Redhawk into service as a self-defense gun. I have other guns that fill the bill much more efficiently than that revolver. In that case, I would say that some of my guns are definitely better for the specific role of self-defense than others.

Similarly, I would never think of putting my Walther PPK into service as a hunting handgun. I have other handguns what would obviously be better choices for that role.

But on the other hand, some choices are based on preference. When I choose between two similarly sized autopistols in the same caliber and generally identical in function, and call one a self-defense gun while the other is used only at the range, that's just because of preference.

And sometimes it's neither about which one is better or personal preference. For example, I have two identical pistols, one of which is a range only gun while the other is a self-defense pistol. It just happens that I purchased the self-defense gun first and put it into that role. Later I purchased an identical pistol but it fell into the role of a range-only gun since I had already filled the self-defense slot with the previous purchase.
 
Certainly there is specialization of design at the fringes, but in the middle range of handgun application there is a great deal of advertising, Internet Expertise, and peer pressure.

The Internet Term "Range Gun" is kind of foreign to me. Since I don't hunt and I have thus far avoided gunfights, everything is a "range gun" in that sense. But my range shooting is focused. Either I am practicing with what I consider a suitable self defense weapon for concealed carry or home placement, or I am practicing or competing with a gun suitable for a particular form of competition.

But a lot of range guns are kept and used for no such clear purpose. "One ragged hole at seven yards" seems to be a common objective.
 
We shouldn't be surprised to see some overlap in what "functions" any particular gun might have. Nor should we be surprised if marketers (and fanboys) spread the word "ideal" around like soft butter.

Categories like "CC" are pretty broad. It could cover anything from Glock 20s and Beretta 92s to Seecamps and Kel-Tec 38Ts. Not surprising that a CC like a Glock 20 or Glock 29 could also be described as a home defense gun or a woods guns.

simonrichter said:
I don't see much difference between the main product lines of semiautos and revolvers as far as their potential use is concerned.
Click to expand...
Not sure what you mean.

Any given company's "product line" will naturally try to fill all the niches from pocket SD gun to maybe-too-large-to-carry home defense gun. And revolvers vs. semis, well, each has their own particular areas of strength and weakness.
simonrichter said:
So is this all a matter of individual preferences or ARE there guns that are better for very specific roles than others?
Click to expand...
I will suppose you don't mean something like, "So, are a Seecamp .32 and a Redhawk .44 equally good for bear defense; and also equally good as pocket-carry SD guns?"
:)

So, if you mean (for example): "Does the difference between a S&W 340 and a Ruger LCR .357 just boil down to personal preference?", then I'd say largely yes.
 
Last edited:
The hardware store sells many different types of hammer. Some hammers are better at some tasks than others. Some hammers are large and heavy, some light and small. But in the end, the buyer gets to choose how the hammer is used.
 
PSP, nailed it. Almost any handgun can be put too any use. Some just do a better job at a specific task than others.
 
simonrichter said:
Interestingly, not even the marketing guys seem to be interested in more specific categories as the categories in which handguns are commonly put for sale (size; self-defense vs. targe) are not very specific either.
Click to expand...
A marketing guy who would classify his product in any one niche wouldn't have a job for very long. Certain guns probably are better suited to one role than others, but the manufacturers don't want to limit potential sales so they leave it to the buyer to decide what product is best suited for each purpose.

simonrichter said:
So is this all a matter of individual preferences or ARE there guns that are better for very specific roles than others?
Click to expand...
Yes. But what's best for me may not be what's best for you.

For example, I'm a "1911 guy." I carry 1911s, I competed with 1911s, and I take 1911s to the range. If I should get involved in bullseye shooting, I will use a 1911. For self-defense carry and concealability, I prefer an Officers-size ("compact") pistol (3-1/2-inch barrel) or smaller ("subcompact"). The largest 1911 I would want to carry is a Commander size (4-1/4" barrel). But there are many, many people on the gun forums who routinely carry a full-size (5" barrel) 1911 for daily, concealed carry.

At home, a full-size will provide a better sight radius and higher muzzle velocity, so it's arguably a better choice for home defense. For me, the Commander balances better for me and points more naturally. To me, the Commander is the best all-around 1911, and if I could have only one that's what I would choose. I suspect that most 1911 owners would stay with a full-size if they were limited to one and only one pistol.

How can a manufacturer fully characterize a gun without writing an encyclopedia? I stand 6-feet tall and I weigh 225 pounds. Someone my size generally can conceal a full-size or Commander size 1911. A woman who stands 5-foot two-inches tall and weighs 100 pounds soaking wet doesn't doesn't have enough physical body to conceal a full-size 1911. She very well might have difficulty concealing an Officers ACP. Should a manufacturer say that a Commander is a good carry gun for men but not for women? Or that it's good for hefty people but not for thin people?

The choice of a handgun involves far too many subjective variables to even attempt (IMHO) to classify guns for purpose.
 
Last edited:
The functionality of handguns is so variable.

Even with larger hunting calibers such as 44 Mag and above, the distinction of ammunition is specific to intended purpose, self defense, small game, large game, and dangerous game.

It is the end user that should determine what is best to their abilities and pockets/wallet/billfolds.

For personal defense out on the street, I've heard, seen and read about anything from a 22Lr/WMR to 44 Magnums.

For home defense, handguns, AR pistols, shotguns, rifles. Size of house, density of population, local laws, and budget lead to variable decisions. Certainly, my Super Magnums (44/454/460/500) wouldn't be my first choice, but if the need arose, and it was in my hand at the time, well that's another story.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
There are some handguns...based on characteristics or design that are more versatile than others.../ and to a large extent, it depends on what size, weight and style of gun fits your hands the best..

Example...a medium to large frame S&W revolver in a 4" is pretty versatile...it can be carried, good range gun as well. K or L frames are ok to me ... N frames fit me a little better. A new model of S&W 627's ...are 8 shot revolvers...and I have a 2 5/8" and a 5" model...the 2 5/8" is a little lighter and pretty easy to carry ...but the 5" is only a few ounces heavier, in same holster with a good belt, its no big deal to carry it either...and its longer sight plane makes it a better range gun than the 2 5/8". But I have no issue carrying an older model 28 in a 4" either ( 6 shot, N frame). While I have 2 1/2", 4" guns in K and L frames...I tend not to carry them because I like the weight and feel of the N frames a lot better..

Semi-autos ....I don't care for any double stack guns ( just seem too wide and clumsy to me ) ....so a single stack 1911 suits me a lot better. Slimmer than a double stack to carry ...good range gun especially in a 5" barrel..available in a lot of calibers but common in 9mm and .45 acp ..so very versatile. I like a 1911, 5", all stainless, as my carry gun ..and a great range gun. I have 4" 1911's with alloy frames...so a little lighter and shorter but I don't shoot them as well...so I carry the 5".

It always comes down to what fits your hands the best, what controls you like, length, weight, width, etc...
 
A marketing guy who would classify his product in any one niche wouldn't have a job for very long. Certain guns probably are better suited to one role than others, but the manufacturers don't want to limit potential sales so they leave it to the buyer to decide what product is best suited for each purpose.
Click to expand...

This was my thought while reading the 0P.
 
Both of my pistols serve multiple duties.
1911 Springfield Armory Champion 45ACP
First gen Walther PPS 9mm Luger

Both are used in concealed carry, open carry (usually while hunting), and range pistols.

For home defense I like a shorter pump action shotgun, either 12, or 20 gauge.
 
Manufacturers often provide a guide as to how each model
may be used. Smith & Wesson is one example.

To use a particular model in a category not specified by the
manufacturer, again for instance S&W, the warranty will be voided.
 
^^^

So if I buy a Smith & Wesson handgun that's designated for personal defense, I take it to the range and it breaks -- it's not covered by the warranty?
 
Aguila,

If you took said S&W to the range just to have fun, yes the warranty would be voided. It's in the fine print of your owner's manual, section 8, sub paragraph 22.
 
To use a particular model in a category not specified by the
manufacturer, again for instance S&W, the warranty will be voided.
Click to expand...

If you took said S&W to the range just to have fun, yes the warranty would be voided. It's in the fine print of your owner's manual, section 8, sub paragraph 22.
Click to expand...

Please use the smilies :rolleyes::D:p (or a direct statement) when you are being sarcastic.

The most recent S&W manual I could check was copyright 2011, but has neither section numbers nor paragraph numbers, and contains NOTHING about specified uses for the pistol, or how an unspecified use will void the warranty.

If you aren't being serious, please say so, or show so. If you are being serious about this, please provide proof. If you don't "smile when you say that" people will think you are serious, even if what you say is ridiculous tripe.
:D
 
The Internet Term "Range Gun" is kind of foreign to me. Since I don't hunt and I have thus far avoided gunfights, everything is a "range gun" in that sense.
Click to expand...

True.

‘Range gun’ can also be perceived as a gun that might be very accurate and fun to shoot but not very reliable or picky about ammunition – a gun that can’t be counted on for self-defense.
 
I feel the same about "target pistols"; every pistol I own is used to shoot at targets, even those that are very specifically for "defense" have never actually been shot at anything but targets, so every gun I own is a "target" gun.
Even the .32 and .380 "pocket pistols" that have never been in a pocket are shot at targets.

That said, there are certain characteristics that make guns broadly more suitable for certain tasks, and less so for others.
I know some people who would no more own a gun without adjustable sights - a surefire indicator of a "target pistol" - than without a barrel, but I find that after adjusting them once, I rarely ever touch the adjustments again, even after many years.

Guns with long barrels are usually considered "target" or "range" guns because they are more difficult to conceal than is desirable for a "defensive weapon", but I've seen a gun, intended very specifically for defensive use, with a six-round capacity in the very short grip frame, but a five-inch barrel.

Most of us will never shoot a handgun at anything but paper or cardboard targets, regardless of the manufacturer's or marketing department's intent, and that's a great reason to never get caught up in the gun control arguments about what a specific gun is for.
 
It would seem to me that the most blatantly obvious answer is that so many of us, myself included, feel the need to justify some of the toys we purchase by "classifying" them as filling a very specific need, purpose or role.

Are we convincing ourselves or a significant other of a classification or role because doing so is more palatable than "it is neat and I want it" ?

I can say that I have found myself inventing new roles... either for guns that I have or guns I feel I need to chase down.

Also something I find myself doing is to take a gun that is almost universally agreed upon for a very specific role and using it in a completely different role. The most obvious that comes to mind was when I wore a S&W Model 52-2 on my hip for three days of a prairie dog hunt last year. In previous years, that sidearm was my EDC, there simply for social work or as another tool on the belt.

Now a 52-2 is NOT a good defense gun. Anyone who attempts to argue that it is simply wishes to argue. And I'm not sure that anyone has ever classified a 52-2 as a hunting handgun either, but it made for the cherry on top of a great trip. (and made three one-shot kills.)
 
I remember well...

Sevens said:
"it is neat and I want it"
Click to expand...
...The first time I was standing at the gun counter trying to figure out how to justify buying the gun I was looking at...

When it suddenly dawned on me that "it is neat and I want it" was all the justification I had, and all the justification I needed.

I count that day as the day I became a collector. Every once in a while, I hear the term "legitimate, bona fide collectors" come up, usually in connection to some new gun-control proposal (and the few people that will be exempted--you know, the rich, the connected, politicians, police, and a few others) and the question comes up, "Who exactly is a collector?"

Anyone who buys even a single gun, just to have it, without any other "use" in mind--that's a collector.

(BTW: I still have that gun. It's still neat!)
lefteye said:
Does shooting a S&W handgun in self-defense, regardless of the results, void the warranty?:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Reminds me of:

"Prior to the introduction of the LWS .25, firearms manuals did not address the issue of self-defense. It was pretended in the manufacturers' instruction manuals, no doubt on the advice of high priced lawyers, that every pistol was a target pistol. Extensive sections of our first manual were reprinted in gun magazines because a manufacturer officially acknowledging self-protection as a legitimate reason for owning a firearm was a completely novel concept at the time. It was almost as shocking as bringing out a pistol without sights. "
--L.W. Seecamp Company, Company History
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top