Talk:Handgun/Archive 1

Archive 1

Old Talk:Handgun discussion (2004)

Aren't there some single-shot target pistols? I wasn't sure, which is why I removed the Derringer link. Lefty 17:12, 2004 Mar 2 (UTC)

I just wanted to provide some sort of example. If you know of one, please add a better example. RadicalBender 17:15, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Some changes I just made:

Clarified the definition of handgun (primarily any small arm not shoulder-mounted).

Removed the part about the definition of pistol being "disputed" - I think what the writer was trying to say was that the term is often incorrectly used, not that the meaning is in dispute.

Removed the part about a derringer being a single-shot weapon. Not to confuse things more, but most modern derringers are two-shot weapons.

My recommendation for this article, to avoid stubhood, and avoid being redundant, would be to merge pistol, handgun, and revolver together - that strikes me as being an article of about the right scope. -CrucifiedChrist

Usage of the word "pistol"—historically and today

Shakespeare used "pistol" in a sense comparable to our modern "live wire". Thus one recalls that Falstaff was a "pistol". That is, Falstaff was a creative and unpredictable jokester, a constant source of entertainment and surprises. This sense of "pistol" seems to have all but disappeared from modern English; one is likely to find such only in those special glossaries compiled as study aids for students of English literature.

Pistol is still used in this context occassionaly in the vernacular in Englend, although I admit it is rare and usually used sardonically. Epeeist smudge 11:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

This use of pistol is still very common in the southern United States. It usually is used in reference to a small boy who is bright, alert, and very active. Yaf 17:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Revolvers vs semi-auto pistols for civilian self-defense

I changed the line referring to revolvers being the more common weapon for a civilian to carry for defense; by far the semi-automatic pistol is more popular with civilians. ChronoSphere 06:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

acttualy civilians prefer revolver becuase the lack of thing needed to be done,with a revolver you just point and shoot but with an auto you have to chamber toggle saftey and aim then fire, im speaking of expieriance... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.90.242 (talk) 02:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

gunfight statistics

Most policemen fight less than two such fights in a thirty-year career, and most police fire three bullets or less per gun fight.

Anybody got a citation for this statistic, and, more important, what police does it apply to? Here in Australia, if a policeman fires a weapon (outside of training, of course) it makes the statewide news. --Robert Merkel 08:48, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd give you odds it was the US. Seriously, the tactics section of this article is bordering on the incoherent. Some of it is about knife fighting, and general police combat. DJ Clayworth 6 July 2005 19:54 (UTC)

These stats have almost nothing to do with pistols what so ever. If you want an article on gunfights, make an article on gunfights. They shouldn't be in the pistol section at ALL. --JMiller 17:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Massive cleanup...

This article needs a massive rewrite - I have started by doing some rearrangement but the entire section on tactics needs a massive gutting and starting again. --Robert Merkel 07:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

About owning pistols...

When you purchase pistols, do you need to get your picture taken? If so, when the chief or the judge looks at your picture, does their mind change whether to allow them or not allow them to carry a pistol? For example, there is a U.S. citizen that is born in America, but is an Asian when you look at their face. And there is another citizen, who was born in America and therefore a citizen. Does the judge or the chief more likely to choose a citizen with the face of the American and not the citizen that has the face of the Asian? Or, are the judge or the chief fair and not care about the face?

I can only speak to US Federal law, since the state I live in has very little additional restriction on firearm ownership. By Federal law, to purchase a handgun from a licensed dealer you must present a photo ID and sign an affidavit that states that you are not prohibited from possessing a handgun. A call is made to the FBI's national instant check system, and your record is searched for any warrants, restraining orders, or prior felony convictions. Usually the response is given in less than a minute, but if, for example, someone with the same name and general description as you is in the system as ineligible, they FBI may take additional time (up to 3 days as I recall, but it's been a few years since I've done this) to complete the check. If the FBI cannot find cause to deny the sale, then the dealer can then deliver the firearm.

As far as what is required to own a firearm, you must be a permanent, legal resident (you don't need to be a citizen), over the age of 18 for a rifle or shotgun, 21 for a handgun, have no felony convictions (misdemeanor domestic violence may have been added to that), not be adjudicated mentally incompetent, and not be an illegal drug user. Carry permits are a different matter. Most US states now have "shall issue" permit laws, which means that if you can pass the background check for a handgun purchase, and you're over the minimum age (which may be over 21-some states go as high as 25) then the state cannot deny you a carry permit. Other states have "discretionary" permits, which means that if the CLEO (cheif law enforcement officer, either sheriff or chief of police) doesn't like you, for any reason, then you can't get a permit. One would assume that the CLEO is going to be fair, but since they can deny the permit for any reason, without explanation, proving that they were being discriminitory would be extremely hard. Gun control laws were originally passed in many US states to keep guns out of the hands of "undesirable" elements, typically blacks (in the South) and immigrants (on the coasts--see Sullivan Act). scot 14:28, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I live in Oklahoma... is there any other restrictions about permit in Oklahoma?

Also, I recently heard that the shall issue states are turning into may issue state as the time pasts.

The best place for info on carry permits in Oklahoma is the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation webpage; they are in charge of issuing the permits. Check out http://www.osbi.state.ok.us/PublicServices.htm for the text of the law, the application forms, and FAQ.

I haven't heard anything about shall-issue laws being restricted, other than in a couple of states where courts overturned the laws on technicalities. Concealed weapons permit holders have a phenominally low rate of involvement in serious crime--a fraction of a percent of permit holders have had permits revoked. Just judging by the number of discreditied politicians, preists, teachers, and even Boy Scout leaders (such as BTK) that you hear about in the news, it seems to me that there's no safer group of people to be around than concealed weapons permit holders. It would be interesting to run some stats on that one... scot 14:45, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

>Also, I recently heard that the shall issue states are turning into may issue state as the time pasts.

Actually, this is precisely the other way around. Most states have moved toward shall-issue in the last 20 years. See Carrying concealed weapon and check out the timeline map. Lumbercutter 02:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hunting Pistols

the person who wrote this page obviously never heard of hunting pistols. they are often used for hunting small game such as rabbits. Dudtz 8/25/05 6:06 PM EST

Well, I'll be, such things do exist. Why don't you write about them here, seeing you obviously something about it? I note that they seem to have much longer barrels than your average personal defence weapon. And perhaps you can answer me this - Why the hell would anybody voluntarily go hunting with such a device rather than a rifle? --Robert Merkel 22:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes it's as simple as being easier to carry. Sometimes, it's the law. For example, where I live, it's illegal to hunt deer with a rifle, but legal with certain handguns. Friday (talk) 23:23, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

This is getting off topic somewhat, but what the heck would be the point of such a law? Is it because of the risk of hitting other people? If so, aren't some of these mini-blunderbuss hunting pistols subverting the intent of the law with their ability to kill deer (and, thus, people) at very long ranges? --Robert Merkel 02:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

There are several pistols that can be used for hunting. First, the Thompson Center "Contender" and "Encore" pistols. Over at [1] These pistols are frequently chambered for RIFLE calibers. Also, let's not forget about the remarkable .500 Smith and Wesson Magnum [2] or the Magnum Research "BFR" [3] These pistols are almost identical to rifles power wise, they just have lower velocity and greater recoil due to a shorter barrel. --JMiller 17:30, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Pistols and gun control section

I'd previously tried to remove the assertion that pistols are only useful for certain things, which to me sounds like anti-gun POV. Do we have sources for this? The notion that guns have particular uses "designed" into them isn't generally true, and it's frequently used by the anti-gun crowd to try to divide guns into "good" and "bad" categories. In real life, it's not that simple. Pistols and long guns that use the same ammo, for example, would generally be "useful" for nearly identical purposes. Friday (talk) 23:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

If weapons weren't designed for specific purposes, why is there such a huge range of them available?

Shotguns are designed for short to medium-range shooting and are good for moving targets. Rifles are accurate, particularly over long ranges where nothing else would possibly be effective. Pistols are light, easy to carry, and concealable, but (with the exception of these "hunting pistols" which are radically different to a concealable weapon) not very accurate. At least in Australia, the idea that you'd ever need or want a pistol to go rabbit shooting wouldn't pass the laugh test - and that's from people who *do* go shooting regularly, not just the anti-gun crowd. --Robert Merkel 02:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

You make a good point.. I wasn't speaking very accurately. It's certainly true that guns are designed with various tradeoffs in mind, and some guns are indeed designed with (sometimes very specific) purposes in mind. What I meant to say was that the notion that those tradeoffs make a particular gun suitable or unsuitable for shooting people is inaccurate.

Around here, shotguns are required for deer because high-powered rifles are considered unsafe due to their longer range. However, they also allow muzzleloaders and certain handguns, which are also considered safer than rifles. I'm not sure what you meant by the blunderbuss comparison, but the handguns used around here for deer are quite accurate, for handguns. Modern shotgun technology has helped extend ranges also. Around here, a good shotgun, muzzleloader, or handgun is probably effective on deer out to the 150-200 meter range or so. Not long range like a rifle, but not bad either. Friday (talk) 04:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Getting back to the point, which was gun control. While any firearm is lethal, a concealable pistol has certain abilities that a rifle or shotgun doesn't - that is, to be carried round without other people being aware of it. They are also, with the noted exception of these hunting pistols which aren't concealable (and seem to be single-shot?) - inferior to rifles and shotguns for hunting things in most situations, while still retaining the ability to kill people at short range. I don't think those two things are contentious.

Where it does get contentious is that in many jurisdictions is that the combination of these two properties are taken as justification for placing much heavier restrictions on pistol availability than long guns.

Is that a fair characterisation? --Robert Merkel 06:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Probably. My own opinion is that it's the concealability, not the percieved lack of "legitimate" uses of pistols that make them more convenient for crime. But our speculation about the reasons why pistols are singled out by the law don't help much, we'd want a citable source if we were going to discuss that in the article. Specifically, the sentence I most objected to was this: Unlike rifles and shotguns, which are used for hunting, pest control, and sometimes livestock destruction, most pistols are useful only for competitions or for shooting at people (for self-defense or otherwise). I'm removing it for now and attempting to reword in hopes of more NPOV. Friday (talk) 14:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtfulness. I'm going to look into this issue further for working on the Gun politics in Australia article, but I think what we have now on this topic right here is a pretty reasonable short summary. Nice working with you. --Robert Merkel 03:37, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

The gun politics section seems to be completely out of place - very little of it is relevant to pistols in particular, and it doesn't seem to have a NPOV to me. Just a link to the gun politics and concealed carry articles would be enough, I think. 152.78.191.14 15:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Just a few of points I thought I'd make here.

1) A pistol firing a rifle cartridge wont be as useful for shooting as a rifle and will be useless for home defence.

2) Trade offs can make a pistol (or any weapon) less suitable for shooting people (im talking home defence) E.G. As a small calibre round while potentionally being more accurate upclose and being easier to shoot, will not carry as much force as a larger round so may require more shots to the same area to incapacitate. I could go on with other reasons but sha'nt

3) Friday you are right about the concielability being thier main benefit crime wise. Unfortunately I do not have a citable resource for this so...

Trying to clean it up

I've given it a go: I got rid of:

-'projectile weapon' because unless you throw a pistol, it fires a projectile.

-'defensive weapon' which seems pretty close to a contradiction in terms to me.

-I nixed the section on using a pistol, because I believe wikipedia does not generally do 'how-tos'. I may be wrong, though.

-I cut the bit on two fights in a 30 year career; this does not seem even close to true around here (Toronto) and smells like plagiarized material to me (see the book cited at the end of this section).

-I killed the bit on knife fighting because it's off topic.

-I cut the part on where to shoot people, because it's off the topic 'pistol', and because it's a how-to (albeit one of the strangest I've ever read: how to kill people).

-I cut much of 'stopping power' because it was conjectural, likely incorrect, and uncited.

-Ditto for 'handguns are more often used for committing gun crimes' (or thereabout) Of course, this is political, but I'm anti-gun and it still seems wrong to me. The issue is: what's a crime? In Canada, where I live, likely the most common 'gun crime' (having an unregistered gun) is surely much more common for rifles, as rifles are much more common than pistols. Anyway, his/her comment seems conjectural, regional, and uncited.

-I suspect that many of the links are commercial and strange. Mateba? Never heard of them. How about Colt?

Baffledexpert 22:03, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Off the head of my head, I agree that the stuff you removed was mostly junk. Thanks for being bold. Friday (talk) 22:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Forget Mateba, they've made 1 or two pistols that had a very small impact on the market. Smith and wesson [4]deserves to be placed there, as well as Beretta [5] among other popular pistol companies.(Browning, SIG, Glock, Kimber, Springfield Armory, etc.) But a more USEFUL link would be to "World of Guns" [6] who have brief facts on almost every pistol ever made. --JMiller 17:39, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion on forth pistol variety

The O'Dwyer VLe gun uses metal storm technology and is technically a multiple-shot muzzle loading selective fire weapon. And so is not a single shot, semiautomatic or a revolver. should this be a classed as a forth variety of pistol?Joey jojo 14:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it until they actually make production--currently they're still in the prototype stage. The concept of stacking charges actually dates back to the flintlock era; there are a number of extant samples of flintlocks with two locks on one barrel, firing stacked charges; the only significant change O'Dwyer made was updating the technology to match modern caseless rounds. The cast propellant resists pressure better than granular, allowing a deeper stacking of rounds, and electric primers allow the rate of fire to be computer controlled. The problems with the concept are also quite significant: engineering, safety, ballistics, logistics, and potential legal issues abound. My guess is that you might see it used in some limited military capacity (John Ringo's use of 105mm Metal Storm packs for AA fire seems possible, given that the system is not signifcantly more complex than an MLRS), but it will be decades at least before there is any acceptance of the smallarms. scot 15:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Merge with "Side arm"?

• Merge with Side arm- same topic with a different name SirIsaacBrock 11:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

This is no longer the case (i.e., equivalence), so no merge is required. Side arm now explains succinctly that the term "side arm" has sometimes referred to edged weapons and now mostly refers to handguns, and it gives a link to here, so it is fine the way it is. — Lumbercutter 17:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but there's more to do

Some of the previous posters to this page have done good work cleaning up this article, but it's still just awful. I mean AWFUL. The de facto definition of pistol is wrong. The stopping power section is a mess, out of place in this article, and lacks even the most basic cites to the Moro conflict, the Thompson-LaGarde tests, or all those French goats that were shot about 10 years ago (and if you don't know about that study, you shouldn't be writing about stopping power). The organization is terrible, illogical, hard to follow. This is just one of the worst articles I've ever read. I've begun a rewrite but, frankly, it's not coming out as a rewrite. It's a complete gut-and-replace. Before I commit changes, does anyone think this is a bad idea? If anyone is committed to fine-tuning this article until it's good, I'll keep hands off. However, I'd rather burn it down and start over; it's that bad. If there are no convincing objections, I'll commit the edit within a week. Benenglish 18:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

First, let me point out that some reputable people (such as Fackler) consider the Strasbourg Goat Tests (which were cira 1992) to be completely fabricated[7]. Even if they aren't, the certainly aren't a reputable source, since they are anonymous and therefore cannot be verified--even if the tests did happen (and I'm skeptical on that) they data may well have been doctored (who paid for those tests?). I agree that all belongs in another article, and there is a stopping power article.

Other than that, I agree that this article needs serious work, and a ground-up re-write is probably the way to go. I'd personally recommend putting together a coherent outline first, and then moving existing information into the new format, re-writing, citing, and correcting as needed. Anything that's left over that doesn't fit in the outline can probably be tossed. If you'd like to start the outline, I'd be happy to review it and provide comments. scot 19:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

My intention was to toss the stopping power section entirely. I only mentioned the Strasbourg tests obliquely to point up how the stopping power section was not just out of place and poorly written but terribly incomplete. As for doing an outline, that's exactly how I wanted to proceed. I'm having more than a little trouble categorizing things, however. I spent several hours on the problem yesterday and wound up with a nearly opaque little guide to the differences between pistols and revolvers; autoloaders, selfloaders, semi-automatics, automatics, fully automatics, machine pistols and submachine guns. Once I actually tried to explain what the words mean as used by someone who knows what they're talking about vs. how they are misused commonly by the media and non-enthusiasts vs. how they are understood in casual conversatioin even among enthusiasts, the result was a self-referential mess. I'm struggling and I can appreciate how this article wound up as it now stands. Thank you immensely for the offer of help, but since I'm not an experienced editor in this environment I don't know how and where I would put/send the outline for you to review. Should I just post it here?Benenglish 14:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Putting the outline here would probably be a good start. I know you can also create articles with a "/" in them to create a pseudo directory structure, such as my ballistics information storage at User:Fluzwup/Ballistics and archives of talk pages. You could create, for example, a Talk:Pistol/New Outline page and put the outline there until it's finalized, then drop it into pistol and begin moving the text into the new outline. And yes, it is going to be a complex outline; it might be best to start with a list of topics to be covered first, and then start grouping those and maybe the structure will begin to assert itself. scot 15:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed new outline

(breaking this out into a new section scot 19:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC))

Below is the outline I'm currently using. A very strong case can be made that "Pistol" shouldn't have a separate article; it should be a subsection of "Handgun." However this issue ultimately works out, I think this outline could drop into either section.

Definition

General

Colloquialisms and confusion - not a revolver

Word history

Alternate meanings

Types of pistols - autoloading vs. single shot

Autoloading pistols - semi-automatic vs. automatic

Semi-automatic pistols

Common mechanisms

Examples

Automatic pistols (brief)

Progressive examples, pistols to submachine guns

Single shot pistols

Definition

Mechanisms

Examples

Miscellaneous (very brief, just for completeness)

Non-cartridge - Definition and examples of Air, AirSoft, and Muzzleloading

Stacked charge - Definition

Pistol Users

Law enforcement officers

Description of need

Military personnel

Description of need

Civilians

Defense

Shooting sports

Hunting

Pistol Power (brief, deferring to other articles)

Legal, cultural and political perspectives (brief, deferring to other articles)

See also

Outside links

Comments are solicited. Please be brutal.  :-)Benenglish 17:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

A polite masochist, eh? Alright then: Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type makes me puke! You vacuous, toffee-nosed malodourous pervert! Was that brutal enough?  :)

Now that that's out of the way, it looks good. I do have a few nits I could pick:

• Automatic pistol or just an automatic or an auto is generally taken to be synonymous with autoloading or semi-automatic, with the term machine pistol being reserved for the relatively rare selective fire/full auto variants. Only when referring to rifles is the term automatic generally assumed to mean selective fire.
• A lot of people collect handguns for various not strictly sporting reasons; you might include them under "users". In addition to the fairly common militaria collector, handguns differ from rifles in that many people want to have "the biggest". After all, the second most in demand T/C Contender barrel (after .22 LR, which everyone wanted for plinking) is the .45-70. It's sort of the shooting sports "extreme sport", to have a handgun capable of pushing a full ounce of lead out the barrel with over a foot ton of energy, and nothing quite matches the adrenaline rush you get when pulling the trigger kicks your entire body back several inches, and the 5 gallon bucket you were aiming just below goes flying 20 feet in the air on the geyser of dirt the bullet kicks up.
• I'm not sure I'd put airguns and airsoft guns here; implicit in the definition of "pistol" is that it's a firearm; an air pistol or an airsoft pistol is referred to in that way, with an explict modifier indicating that it's not a firearm.

I can probably come up with some more upon further reflection. If so, I'll be sure to add them. scot 19:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Your feedback firmed up my impression that air guns don't belong here. I needed a way to acknowledge their existence yet exclude them from the article, proper. I decided to add a section defining the scope of the article in which I could briefly mention other "pistols" and point to other articles without trying to exhaustively cover them here. That, I think, is much of the problem with the current article - it tries to do too much.

Having made that decision, I realized that it might help to also put machine pistols in that section. The single biggest problem I've had with the wording is recognizing the commonly accepted meanings of applicable words (both by knowledgeable and ignorant users; their impressions are quite different) with technically correct (or at least defensible) definitions. By putting machine pistols in the paragraph limiting the scope of the article, I can sidestep this problem to some degree; I no longer have to come up with a classification system (i.e., autoloaders beget semis and fully) that accounts for them and reconciles with common useage. Is this just laziness? Perhaps, but it will also bring the article in line with the way real people use these words in a manner that's far more applicable to the real world.

I am reminded of a conversation I overheard many years ago when a middle manager at my company was making his requirements for a new computer known to the IT staff. He stressed that it must be equipped with a Hayes-compatible modem. Obviously, he had been reading up on the subject, saw that modems were often referred to as "Hayes-compatible," assumed that this could be a point of confusion, and stressed the requirement. The IT staff, of course, laughed at him behind his back. For PC-class computers, by that time, there were nothing but Hayes-compatible modems. The terminology was a holdover that knowledgeable folks dismissed automatically but that a newbie might actually mistake for something of significance.

This article has the same problem. Knowledgeable gun owners know the difference between semi and fully automatic arms. They even understand why the term "automatic" might mean different things at different times, i.e. it means semi when talking about pistols and fully when talking about rifles. But making those distinctions clear to someone with no experience is awfully difficult without creating that self-referential mess I referred to earlier. By marginalizing the machine pistol section, I can make the article fall into line with useage by knowledgeable gunnies.

At this point, I'm making a judgement call that the definitions used by knowledgeable gun folks should hold sway. That point is highly debateable. There are far more people out there that don't know what they're talking about than do. To the majority, a bullet is the same as a cartridge and calling a revolver a pistol seems perfectly fine. I can't sanction such errors, but I also can't write an article with some sort of strict classification system that would appeal to tech-head gun dorks...like me.

With all that in mind, here's my next outline draft.

Definition

Generalized definition

Colloquialisms and confusion; pistol vs. revolver

Word history

Alternate meanings

Article scope limits, briefly covering non-cartridge/machine/exotic design pistols and deferring to other articles

Types of pistols

Semi-automatic pistols

Common mechanisms

Examples

Single shot pistols

Mechanisms

Examples

Pistol Users

Law enforcement officers

Description of need

Military personnel

Description of need

Civilians

Defense

Shooting sports

Hunting

Collecting/historical purposes

Hobby/leisure

Pistol Power (brief, deferring to other articles)

Legal and cultural perspective (brief, deferring to other articles)

See also

Outside links

Better or worse? Comments are again solicited.Benenglish 13:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Pistols and Gun politics

Parts of this section strike me as somewhat unencyclopaedic and POV. My major issue is with this -

"It is somewhat accepted wisdom that wide legal ownership of pistols, including the right to carry them concealed, actually deters crime rather than increases it. While it can be difficult to separate demographics from gun ownership rates for this purpose, there is a goood deal of data that supports the conclusion that there is a lower occurance of violent crime per capita in areas with higher legal gun ownership rates. Common sense would also suggest that a criminal is less likely to victimize a person who may be armed."

This is completely unobjective and no definitive sources or statistics are given. I thought it would be best to comment on this instead of just changing it, in case it had been discussed before, but I do feel that it needs to be changed. NakedAndroid 06:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed it. The claim is very heavily contested. --Robert Merkel 06:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Good-oh, thanks. NakedAndroid 09:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Dealing with the "handgun"/"pistol" terminology issue

The recent edits by User:Wolverine06 are touching on a larger issue of nomenclature variation that this article should deal with more thoroughly. Basically, the following is a way to go about it:

• This article should be renamed "Handgun";
• "Pistol" then becomes a redirect to "Handgun";
• this article then is revised to discuss the fact that the word "pistol" has two senses, in that the general sense meaning "any handgun" predates revolvers, and has persisted as a laypersons' non-technical sense to the present day; that after the widespread dissemination of practical revolvers (19th century), the word "pistol" was then restricted by gun-knowledgeable people in a technical sense to handguns whose chamber is integral with the barrel;
• this article then is further revised to discuss the earliest handguns, the coverage of which is still mostly lacking.

I may begin working on this soon. Would have already done it, except that time is such a scarce commodity to come by. Will try to address this soon. — Lumbercutter 01:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I see that Users Benenglish and scot already broached this topic in 2006-05. What they talked about is basically the same kind of thing as what I have in mind. Maybe I can do an imperfect version soon that will nevertheless be better than nothing. — Lumbercutter 02:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought the same thing; I tentatively agree that this article should be at handgun and should cover everything (pistols, revolvers, etc.). Handgun is the more precise term, and I don't think it's much less common than pistol in terms of general usage. I just got a lot of books on the history of handguns from the library with the goal of expanding this article; I was planning to work on it next week. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 02:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds great. By all means go ahead with working on it; I may not get a chance immediately anyway. I am going to do the redirect switch today. — Lumbercutter 16:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

"Pistol" now redirects to "Handgun", as discussed above; organizational changes underway

These are issues that people have been tripping over for a while; see the merged talk page content above for details. Changes now underway; more to come. — Lumbercutter 17:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Pistol/Revolver/Handgun

I've added a minor clarification to the effect that a distinction between "Pistol" and "Revolver" is generally only drawn in American usage- in Commonwealth usage, "Pistol" can refer to revolvers, semi-automatics, and black powder handguns. If you read old adventure stories written by British (or British Empire) writers, you'll see references to "revolver pistols", "service pistols" (in any story set before WWII, referring exclusively to a revolver), and so on. Even the official military nomenclature drew no distinction (as outlined in the article). I know, it's all thoroughly confusing, but in many parts of the English-speaking world, "pistol" is a synonym for "handgun" no matter how you look at it, even on a technical level. --Commander Zulu 16:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The pistol/revolver argument in regards to proper noun usage has always been interesting. Here's my whole take on the situation. A revolver is a revolver is a revolver. The term revolver is indisputible as it describes a weapon with a revolving cylinder. Only a revolver can be called a revolver.

A revolver revolves, period. You wouldn't call a pistol a revolver, so why call a revolver a pistol? I acknowledge that in england they like to call revolvers pistols, but I wouldn't consider the English to be experts in regards to handguns as ownership of handguns in England is essentially limited to the government.

But at the same time I wouldn't mock someone just because they called a revolver a pistol. However I do feel it's kind of like calling a VHS a DVD when it's not even a disc.

Bear in mind that handgun ownership in England has only been "essentially limited to the Government" since 1997. Up until the 1950s or so handgun ownership in the UK was fairly widespread, and in the time that "Pistol" was decided to apply to both revolvers and semi-autos handgun ownership was very common. Also, Australia and New Zealand also use the "Pistol= Any Handgun" definition, too. So, in the UK/Australia/NZ, all revolvers are pistols but not all pistols are revolvers; and that's not any more or less correct than the situation in the US. Commander Zulu (talk) 02:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

More powerful cartidges available

"The largest and most powerful handgun rounds are rimmed rounds for revolvers only". Is this still true when there are gas operated pistols such as the Desert Eagle that are capable of firing large rounds? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socrates2008 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably - there are definitely rounds more powerful than the .50 Action Express, such as the .454 Casull Arthur 01:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This may be true for strictly-handgun rounds, but from what I have seen, the most powerful pistols are not revolvers, but single-shot and chambered for centerfire rifle rounds (.50 BMG is the largest I have seen). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.142.190 (talk) 02:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Advantages

The whole advantages subsections as they currently stand are unsourced and POV. Does anyone have good sources for any of these? Let's get the factual ones listed and get the POV, OR ones removed. Arthur 01:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

We could just (a) delete the "Advantages" subheadings entirely and let the paragraph under the heading "Semiautomatic pistols vs. revolvers" be the end of it; or (b) preface all the revolver "advantages" as being what people who prefer revolvers often *think*, and preface all the semi-auto "advantages" as being what people who prefer semi-autos often *think*. For example, it is factual to say that there is a popular perception that the most powerful rounds are all rimmed revolver rounds. The perception is probably not *true*, however.

I think option (a) is fine. The only problem with it is that random users new to the article will forever be trying to add the "advantages" in bits and pieces onto the part that we leave standing. Perhaps we could solve this by devising a standard edit-summary boilerplate that we paste in the edit summary each time we delete the additions. It could say, "Deleted—We've tried having lists of advantages, but they end up bloated with POV."

— ¾-10 22:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a minor point of contention among sources that I can find over whether storage of magazines loaded is a source of long term failure due to fatigue of spring material. There is what seems to be anecdotal evidence that some do indeed fail early due to the design choices made in a specific model. At the very least I think the wording should be softened, or perhaps remove that line under revolver advantages completely in the absence of authoritative reference to it existing. Xiterion (talk) 08:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Physics teaches that springs don't fatigue by sitting there compressed, but by a cycle of compression and decompression. As long as corrosion isn't an issue, magazines loaded in WWI should and will work just fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.108.8.5 (talk) 20:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the comparison section is really bad. It's all original research, unsourced, POV, and of dubious merit. A lot of the "advantages" don't seem to matter in most practical situations. I recommend removing the entire section. ScienceApe (talk) 00:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The "advantages" sections could use some cleanup, but I wouldn't just throw all the text out. I'm sure there are dozens of comparison articles from magazines like Guns & Ammo (archives) and the like that should suffice to satisfy WP:RS. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 02:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Pistol changed to Handgun in the article itself

Recently I took the time to change all usage of the word "pistol" to "handgun," except in special cases like Machine Pistol and Automatic Pistol (see below), since those are popular terms and nobody can change them by pressing the Edit button. Of course the links were also left untouched. These changes were reverted without explanation. I think we've discussed this before: this article seems to have been grounds for some lively debate but I believe by reading the above text that the general consensus is that the term pistol should be defined, but phased out as much as possible from the article. I propose to change every "pistol" in the article to "handgun," unless it is used in a link, or in any of the following exceptions:

• auto or automatic pistol
• machine pistol
• self-loading pistol
• muzzleloading pistol
• air pistol
• electric pistol

If someone would second this and none oppose I believe the change is right. If anyone would like to oppose the change I'd be glad to argue my case. --RavenStorm (talk) 04:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to assume this means I can do it. If anyone complains, remember I gave you a week to respond. RavenStorm (talk) 07:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Ireland

Its my understanding that a civilian in ireland can own any type of handgun aslong as he/she can get permission and a licence for it from their local garda superintendant.I could be mistaken so im open to correction. Shambosse 14:47 15,January 2008 (UTC)

Looking here, I see regulations for shotguns, rifles, airguns, and starter pistols; nothing about handguns. And firearms in Ireland my only be held for sporting purposes, self defense is NOT grounds for obtaining a permit. scot (talk) 15:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Mottos

one time on google i saw this picture sawing instead of "in God we trust" it said "in GATs we trust —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.210.27 (talk) 01:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Some minor readability edits

I didn't change much- just some rewording and adding some links. Hope you like it- no probs if you change it back. Starstylers (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Objectivity

I don't know either revolvers or automatics, but reading the article with comparisons it seem to be very revolver-biased in its style (as if anyone reading a generic article would care). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.252.205.102 (talk) 13:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Whoever has worked on the section seems to have a blatant bias toward revolvers over semi-automatic guns. That entire section, to be honest, could easily be scrapped and relevant information inserted throughout the article. 65.42.26.190 (talk) 13:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

A good suggestion, but I recommend against it because the section serves as an organized cruft magnet. If you take it away, people will start trying to pump their biases into random nooks and crannies of the article. Easier for us to referee if kept in one spot. It's true that the cruft is not needed in the article at all, but one of the constraints of our medium is that you can't keep people from supplying it, you can only channel it into a sandbox. Let the baby have his bottle. That's how I view it, anyway. Cheers, — ¾-10 02:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Explaining a reversion of a good-faith revision

I ended up reverting to the original way of phrasing the discussion of multi-barreled pistols. There is a good reason why this was necessary which I will summarize here (further explication upon request). Basically it can be summed up as "the discussion was already as far down the spectrum from abstract to concrete as you can go without passing a fork in the logical hierarchy." This has to do with the fact that cartridges, in and of themselves, were not the only path to presenting new loads to one barrel quickly. The revolver concept, in and of itself, also accomplishes this, even if the cylinder has to be loaded with separate powder, balls, and caps. Of course, revolver concept + cartridge concept = even better. But the older draft here is still the best for combining accuracy with simplicity, via (the appropriate degree of) abstraction. Cheers, — ¾-10 19:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

tip up barrels

we need to include the barrels where the front end flips up for the shell to be removed.--Krasilschic (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Italy

The section on Italy looks too long compared to the rest; it duplicates some content of the article Gun politics in Italy - I suggest shortening it a bit --Itemirus^{Message me!} 13:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree wholeheartedly, but when the shortening is done, there should be a {{See also|Gun politics in Italy}} link at section top. If we're going to reduce info here based on duplication, we should at least point the reader to where related information can be found. {{See also}} is better than {{Main}}, though. I would do the shortening myself, but I have miles to go before I sleep. — ¾-10 01:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

too many images?!

I would contest there being too many images on this article,as a tag on top says.I would think that there are enough,but not too many,as I would think it important to provide many examples in image form to see dissasembly,the many types of handguns,a broad topic.Actually,perhaps more could be used.any contests to this,let me know.Keserman (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Cutting images out of this article would be a step backward, not forward, in development. — ¾-10 02:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yup, it's talking about pistols, your going to need lots of pretty pictures. Wastedgrunt36 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.106.202.84 (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The talk page discussion has long since fizzled out with a consensus in favor of "keep". Tag removed from article. — ¾-10 19:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Gun Laws

So gun politics ends at Kenya? Does that imply that guns are free and unregulated in every country with a name that is further down the alphabet than "Ke"? I threw in a Main|Gun politics template, but this section needs expansion, especially since firearm laws are a constantly-debated issue in far, far more countries than 6. IRSpeshul (talk) 21:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Some of the subsections had been wiped out by vandalism that had not yet been fixed (done now). But your point still is valid—Wikipedia could have coverage of gun politics in every country on earth—the only problem standing in the way of that eventual outcome is that no one has volunteered to write it yet, except for the countries listed so far. Most of us have no clue about the specific gun laws in any countries except our own and a few others. So it takes an informed resident of that country to provide that information to us, and not too many of them have shown up here yet. But we've been lucky enough to get contributions from Kenya, Pakistan, and a few others, so a beginning has been made. One trouble is that some of those country residents will not be English-speakers, so they may write the info on their own language's Wikipedia but not here at the English Wikipedia. But this problem will be mitigated in the coming decades due to the newly acquired and still growing awesomeness of tools like Google Translate, which promise decent-quality machine translations on-demand, for free. So I suspect that we will see some decent growth in instances like this one. — ¾-10 20:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

diction

A revolver's cylinder does not revolve, it rotates. The chambers revolve about the cylinder's axis of rotation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.192.242.52 (talk) 11:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

No history of handguns?

I came here looking for some historical backgroun on handguns, such as when they first appeared on battlefields. Disappointed. 69.224.51.195 (talk) 04:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Etymology for handgun

Is there etymology for handgun? In the article Hand cannon, the name was also "gonne" and "Hand gonne". It's not the romance languages root, but seems close to the name today. Can this be included? Manytexts (talk) 22:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster Collegiate gives the etymology of modern English "gun" as "Middle English gonne, gunne; Date: 14th century". Often when a word goes back that far without reference to Romance influence, it's native to the West Germanic trunk from which English grew. "Handgun" then comes from compounding "hand" + "gun" (which is also very typical of Germanic languages, although of course not specific to them). HTH, — ¾-10 23:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

that's very cool - can it go in the article? it seems fitting since the article is "Handgun" but pistol gets the only etymology. Manytexts (talk) 05:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

A character in Shakespeare called "Pistol"

Isn't there a character in Shakespeare's Henry V called Pistol?

Yes there is. DJ Clayworth 6 July 2005 19:54 (UTC)

The character Pistol also appears in the Merry Wives of Windsor as well as Shakespears' Henry IV. He is a less-than-cavalier soldier and close companion to Falstaff; it is Pistol who captures the French nobleman le Fer at the Battle of Agincourt.

Problem that needs addressing: "Handgun" and "Pistol"

The title of this aricle needs to be changed to HANDGUN. A revovler is not a Pistol, but both are handguns. Then perhaps pistol needs its own article.

== Usage of "pistol"

In the late 20th century, a few gun writers in the US began to insist that the word "pistol" should refer to a semi-automatic handgun and that a handgun with a revolving action should not be referred to as a pistol. This is contrary to centuries of usage of "pistol" throughout the world to refer to any handgun and is not in general use even in the US. This is the English language Wikipedia and not the American Wikipedia. It should use words as they are used by English speakers worldwide. http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/british/pistol? pistol, a small gun that is held in and fired from one hand

B A Andersen (talk) 02:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

History

In addition to correcting grammar and citations, a "History" section should be added. The History of Weapons page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_weapons), which was what brought me here, states that handguns were used during the Hundred Years War and links to this page. I come here, and there's nothing about the history of the weapon. That seems easily fixable. 00:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yadojado (talk • contribs)

I went and sifted through some possible sources culled from a quick Google search. Manufacturers provide some of the best information on the history of their products since they make them. Most of the news articles that I found were focused on the history of gun control, which only talks about that particular portion of the weapon's history. I've included both sides here for consideration. Perhaps the sources on the history of gun control would be better suited for the Gun Control page?

- PBS' gun timeline

- GunsAndAmmo.com's history on the FBI's use of handgunsHistory.com's write up on Samuel Colt

- WaPo's "A History of D.C. Gun Ban"

- GunsAndAmmo.com's Historical section

- A gun history timeline sourced from H.B.C. Pollard's work, "History of Firearms"

- Brittanica.com's article on Shooting

- Gun Digest's "Most Popular Police Handguns, 1900-1999"

- MSNBC's "A look back at gun control history"

- USA Today's "Glock: The Rise of America's Gun"

- WSJ's "Joyce Lee Malcom: Two Cautionary Tales of Gun Control"

- The DOJ's "History of Federal Firearms Laws in the United States"

- AP's "Richard Nixon Wished for Total Handgun Ban"

- LiveScience's "5 Milestone's in Gun Control History"

- Browning's "The History of the 1911 Pistol"

- SightM1911.com's "Background Information on the United States Pistol Caliber .45 M1911"

- Field & Stream's "A Brief History of Handgun Hunting (With Whitetails in Mind)"

- NPR's "[The Glock Became America's Weapon of Choice]"

- NYT's "Washington's Gun Past Affect's Arena's Future"

- Guns.com's "A Brief History of America's Police Sidearms"

- History News Network's "New York Banned Handguns 100 Years Ago ... Will We Ever See that Kind of Gun Control Again?"

Yadojado (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

This article needs alot of work

To be honest, this is the most poorly-written Wikipedia article I've seen. I'm completely behind Robert on this-- it does need a massive rewrite. The grammar and sentence structure is of a low quality, and much of the information the article provides is more than questionable.

I agree with whoever posted above... I suggest the M1911 pistol and Revolver pages as possible templates and sources of information. Yadojado (talk) 01:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

South Africa

Cant believe SA got left out that handgun policy is news day and night. And a lot is written on it, even on Wikipedia. --Inayity (talk) 10:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Then do the research and write about the SA handgun policy instead of complaining it got left out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.178.180.6 (talk) 11:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

mounted to vs. braced against, which is more correct?

I noticed there has been an edit war for the past few days regarding which is the more correct term, so I think it's best to discuss this as edit wars get us nowhere.

So which is more correct? As for me, I don't know. But I made this section so there will be a proper discussion as I don't like edit wars. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 16:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

New section: criminal use

In the the United States, most killings and other gun crimes are committed with the use of handguns. Handguns comprised 72.5 percent of the firearms used in murder and non-negligent manslaughter incidents in the U. S. in 2011, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

References

• Support as proposer. Neutral summarization of relevant reliable sources on a noteworthy aspect of the subject. 173.165.99.233 (talk) 22:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

That's not the edit I undid You added [8] which included "Further information: Gun violence in the United States". Clearly your intent was to discuss gun violence in the United States, and I undid it as not being appropriate to have a section devoted just to the US. I still think that. If instead you wish to propose a section on gun violence worldwide then we can discuss that. I'm inclined to think that we don't need it in this article but I 'll wait to see your justification. Meters (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

The above IP address is likely a sock of blocked editor HughD [[9]] Springee (talk) 03:48, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Contested projects

{{WikiProject Law|class=C |importance=Low }}

The article includes a section Overview of gun laws by nation.

{{WPMED|class=|importance=Mid|emergency=yes|emergency-imp=High}}

The subject is relevant to emergency medicine.

This article belongs to Wikipedia, not to WP:GUNS or WP:MILHIST. 173.165.99.233 (talk) 21:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the actual addition of the two projects since that is what I am contesting. I have also changed the header.

I don't believe this article should be under the Medicine project. Yes, handguns cause injuries that need to be treated, but that does make the subject a medical one, any more than car or bicycle crashes make Car and Bicycle medical articles, or falling out of trees makes Trees a medical article. I'll post this to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine for more input

There's a bit more justification for making this part of the Law project, butI don't believe the small "Overview of gun laws by nation" section warrants making this article part of the Law project. I'll post to Wikipedia:WikiProject Law for more input. Meters (talk) 22:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand what the comment This article belongs to Wikipedia, not to WP:GUNS or WP:MILHIST means. Meters (talk) 22:30, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Since there are four articles which are likely to have overlapping discussions, the discussions are being consolidated at Talk:Gun violence in the United States#Contested projects. Meters (talk) 02:33, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to the attention of WikiProject Medicine; sometimes a good-faith effort to help out means that things get mis-tagged.

I know that it seems a little strange to some people, but as a matter of Wikipedia's rules, whether to tag this (or any) article as being supported by any group of editors is exclusively the decision of participants in that group. It doesn't matter if if seems "relevant" to the group's name (and, indeed, it's not required to be relevant). The only thing that matters is whether the editors in that particular group actually want to support a given article. See WP:PROJSCOPE if you want to read the official rules. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:26, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• The IP editor is a sock of blocked editor HughD. Springee (talk) 11:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 1847Colt Walker.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• 1847Colt Walker.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)