My Wikipedia article on Handgun Effectiveness!

[dodging230grainers]

Took me 40 minutes to type, here it is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handgun_Effectiveness

Input and feedback would be great, I plan to update it periodically. 100% of the info was retained from almost a year's worth of browsing informative gun boards like these. I inlcuded two reputable sources in the article on wounding.

 

[chopinbloc]

not bad, but there are several minor grammatical and spelling errors.

 

[Mannlicher]

which only points out that anyone that uses Wikipedia as a reference source is not too bright. Since there is no vetting of the entries, anyone can post anything. Nothing is checked for accuracy.
Much the same could be said of those that glen all their gun knowledge from gun boards.

 

[RyanM]

Dunno if it's really necessary. See Stopping power, my pet article.

On temporary cavity, there's no real velocity requirement. Around 1800 to 2000 fps is the general velocity where temporary cavity starts to play a large part in wounding, but a better figure is 5-6" temporary cavity.

Also, some Wikipedia articles are checked against sources frequently. Stopping power has gone through a pretty enormous number of changes, and has a pretty good number of sources now.

 

[Michael Courtney]

You say that it is generally agreed upon that most intermediate calibers perform similarly. However, you fail to identify "intermediate calibers." This could be dangerous for the uneducated who ends up believing that a .380 ACP will perform similarly to the .357 Magnum.

You need to make the distinction between cartridges and calibers. Most service cartridges (9mm, .40 S&W, .357 Mag, .45 ACP) will perform similarly if loaded with readily expanding JHP bullets with similar penetration characteristics.

The way you stated the idea is open to wrong interpretations.

In addition, the temporaty cavity can be a significant wounding factor for bullets at 1500 FPS if they penetrate 12" and lose half their mass to fragmentation, but this is a relatively minor point.

Michael Courtney

 

[Spec ops Grunt]

which only points out that anyone that uses Wikipedia as a reference source is not too bright. Since there is no vetting of the entries, anyone can post anything. Nothing is checked for accuracy.
Much the same could be said of those that glen all their gun knowledge from gun boards.

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/15/1352207

 

[Nightcrawler]

Frankly, a lot more people are apt to see an article on Wiki than on Brittanica. A simple Google search often references articles on Wikipedia.

And, as a pop-culture encyclopedia, Wiki is hard to beat. If I want to know the history of conflict in the Spanish Netherlands, I'll..well, I'll take a long, boring college course, supposedly world history. Here the Prof spends more time blathering about the Revolt of the Spanish Netherlands and the Duke of Orange and all that than he does discussing both World Wars...combined.

If, however, I want a consice list of all Godzilla movies, I turn to Wiki.

Besides, even supposedly "expert" references can be riddled with errors. Anyone been to the Federation of American Scientists' small arms page?