handguns that made history...

[JimDandy]

Keep in mind also many of these events were long ago, and what we would consider "good" now isn't what we would consider "good" then. Not having been around in 1914, I can't say for sure, but I'd bet a .380ACP round was considered fairly potent as a man stopper relative to the times. McKinley and Huey Long were both felled by a .32

The other point to take from this general theory of under-powered firearms being so prevalent - a lot of these folks doing these assassinations aren't really gun owners. Many of them don't own one, and don't know much about them. What's a good caliber, or what's a good ammunition type.

 

[44 AMP]

a lot of these folks doing these assassinations aren't really gun owners.

This was my point. The people who commit these kinds of crimes are seldom well versed in weaponcraft. Any gun is good enough, and cheap is always better, isn't it?

All they are after is something they can get, conceal, and is expected to do the job. They aren't looking for what wins a gun fight, nor what stops the bad guy best. They are focused on other things, and literally any gun is good enough.

Also, note that there are several (two I can think of off the top of my head, so there must be more if one searches) instances where assassination attempts failed, entirely because the would be assassin wasn't familiar (enough) with the pistol they tried to use.

The FN 9mm Kurz (.380) used on the Archduke in 1914 was actually NOT in the plan. They tried to use a bomb. It didn't work. The FN did work.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

FWIW, I think only the Sarajevo gun and the I.J. revolver used to kill RFK really fit the OP's definition. The guns used in attempted assassinations don't count because they changed nothing. Other guns, like Patton's, might be interesting but altered nothing so far as history is concerned.

You don't think the assassination of Abraham Lincoln was of sufficient historical significance to be included here? The weapon was a handgun ...

 

[SHE3PDOG]

Guns used in attempted assassinations did indeed change history. I don't want to blow anyone's mind, so I'll try to avoid using alternate timelines. I'll just use an example instead. If the gun that was used to kill Abraham Lincoln had misfired and he had lived, history as we know it would have been altered, right? In that same way, it is still a historic event when high profile assassinations fail.

 

[Pond James Pond]

I think only the Sarajevo gun and the I.J. revolver used to kill RFK really fit the OP's definition.

Must have missed this the first time round...

Based on that remark you therefore feel that the assassination of Tsar Nicholas II lacked enough historical impact to qualify?!

Birth of the Soviet Union not significant enough?!

 

[jmstr]

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

 

[jmstr]

Seriously, i was thinking revolutionary design, like colt or browning, etc. Not used to spark a revolution.

 

[JimDandy]

Well, there's the duckfoot, and the Apache Revolver. Additionally the 1911, the Hi-Power, The Glock 17, The Colt Patterson, and the Model 27 all come to mind.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Thread drift. Steer back to the main channel.

Here's one that could have made history. I read that Annie Oakley had a prince of Prussia come to her show. She used to shoot a cigarette out of the mouth of a volunteer. The future Kaiser volunteered. She later said, that if she had known - she would have planted the round in his ear.