Typically, the way I view damage is that the weapon is mainly irrelevant in regards to the character until they get into wounds, be it a fist in the face or melta in the chest. I tend to fluff it out that either the armour protected the individual resulting in some bruising and the like, or that in the case of no armour that the blow barely connected and leaves superficial wounds.
That all changes once they take a crit. I then describe the blow as an actual serious wound, that armour failed to protect or that the blow actually connects more directly. This ends up portraying the scenario in a manner consistent with the rules, and maintains the sense of reality. It fits the genre, the setting, and keeps the game playable. Wounds represent that notion of resisting the opponents attack (a common complaint that there isn't an opposed roll). As wounds typically increase as characters level it represents multiple things, notably resilience, but also ones skill at avoiding a serious blow.
One change I made to RAW is in a coup de grace. I break from the rules in that I don't have an attack roll, but simply have it max damage reduced by TB and armour as usual and then apply that damage as a critical bypassing wounds. This, I think, represents an unresisted attack quite effectively.
JM2C...