I'd agree if you said seldom rahter than never. During the time when wheellocks pistols were in common use the pistol was the primary armament of some cavalry. As we've discussed during the period from roughly 1835 to the latter part of the 19th century the hand gun was again an important and thus significant part of the armament of cavalry and to a lesser extent support troops. It continued to be a signifcant arm as far as officers and support troops were concerned for some time. I find it hard to believe that there would have been a cry for a hand gun with more stopping power if it were completly insignificant and such a cry lead to the development of the M1911.Sid Guttridge wrote:Hi Schyarf,
My proposition is that there never has been a "combat hand gun" of any military significance and that any list of the top ten therefore has no real meaning. The ACW diversion was illustrative of that.
It's utility has declined as alternatives have proliferated (submachine guns, carbines, and such) however it still has signficant military value:....The handgun is little more than symbolic weapon in the military. It is really a civilian weapon of very little practical military value, and this has almost always been the case. ....
1) It's often a moral builder for the troops carrying it. At least if they trust it.
2) There are some places and times when it is supperior to most other weapons. In particular in very close quarters.
If you are looking at say WWII and what's causing most of the casualties you could say similar things about rifles. IE artillery, machine guns, mines, and such caused the vast majority of the casualties. That however doesn't mean that rifles were ineffcitive or of no military signfigance.