"RD Sandman" wrote in message
...
"Scout" wrote in
:



"Gray Guest" wrote in message
44.100...
"Scout" wrote in
:



"Gray Guest" wrote in message
44.100...
"Scout" wrote in
news:j6182n :



"Gray Guest" wrote in message
44.100...
"Scout" wrote in
:



"RD Sandman" wrote in message
...
"Scout" wrote in
:



"BDK" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
says...

On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 16:29:19 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

.410 buck (or a choice), .357/.38 ....

good obama blaster, criminal public servant controller,
etc.
Could
stop 'em from stealing you SW radio, golf clubs, other
guns, or save your arse when you wake up to the conspiracy
and the conspirators want you silenced!

http://bondarmsusa.com/

(make sure you watch the video!)

Would even fit in the san fransicko boys' purses!

Regards,
JS

**** that. This is a much better weapon.

http://www.ruger.com/products/sp101/index.html

Five shots, better reload time, much more accurate.

Leave it to Johnny Kook to pick a POS like a Bond Arms 2
shot.

Dozens of better guns out there.

Depends on what you're after.

On a shot per shot basis, the .410 is going to deliver more to
target.

effectively ten 30 caliber pellets to target in the time it
takes to pull the trigger twice.

A .410 handgun round contains 8 or 9 pellets if it is a #4
shot.

That's about right, the problem is you lose space because the
pellets are staggered. Thus a lot of the shell capacity is empty
air.

It
contains 3 pellets if it is 000 which is approximately .36
caliber.

Maybe a few brands, but if you look around even in 2.5" you can
get 4 pellets.

http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct...roductNumber=5
3316 6

and in 3" (which I believe I mentioned somewhere) you get 5
pellets.

http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct...tNumber=170759

and .36 matches up nicely with the .357 caliber of the .38 and
.357.


A
12ga shoots about 9 pellets in 00.

Again, with the 12, you lose capacity because the pellets are
staggered.

In the .410 they are neatly lined up, making maximum use of the
available space.

Use a buffered shot and you will get a nice tight group at close
ranges.

Whereas the Ruger is going to take 5 trigger pulls, a reload,
and
than
another 5 trigger pulls.

Nope. Go back and revisit the .410 load fired by a Judge.

Are you talking the regular Judge or the 3" Judge?

One gives you 4 pellets of triple aught, the other gives you 5.

The Bondarm's Century 2000 derringer, the gun under discussion,
accepts up to a 3" .410 shell.

Hence the 5 pellets discussed.

Of course, you could also load in a .410 with 5 pellets of 0000
buck (0.375). Of course, you're probably going to need to mail
order those, and I think only a few manufacturers even make
them.

:-)

That's not to say that one is a better gun than the other, but
as in so much it depends on what you're looking for it to do.

Also the .410 loading is generally reported to have a fairly
high 1 shot stop percentage, since you are usually effectively
hitting the target multiple times in 1 shot.

Three, if all impact and you are shooting 000 buck.

Actually even if more than 1 hit, you will still be hitting the
target multiple times. :-)

However, if that's the case, odds are you didn't hit much of
consequence
unless you're talking the head.


You need to fire
both barrels in a Bond 2 shot to equal the number of rounds in
an SP-101.

Uh, an SP-101 in .38/.357 only holds 5 rounds. That's equal to
the number of pellets of triple or quad aught buck in a 3"
shell.

So you would have to fire until empty, reload, and then empty
again, your SP101 to get an equal number of lead pieces headed
downrange to match those produced by 2 pulls of the Bond's
trigger.

:-)

Based on reports and testing, the rounds that produce the best
one shot stops are those that produce a nice hydrostatic shock
wave in
the
blood pressure that effectively shuts down the brain for a
period of time. Now that's not to say they are going to stay
down, only that they are going to drop on the first shot and
stay down for a bit. Shotguns do this quite effectively since
they tend to dump a large part of their energy to a broad
section of the body inducing such a hydrostatic shock. This,
of course, depends upon a reasonably direct impact to center
mass.

So it all depends on your preferences, choices, and so on.

This is true.

My biggest objection would be the weight of the piece which
IMO makes it less of a carry piece. On the other hand it's
flat which again IMO makes it easier to conceal than a
revolver.

True with the Bond derringer, not so with a Taurus Judge or the
S&W.

Well, I wasn't intending this to be an in-depth review of all
the variations, only contesting Dudu's immediate and apparently
arbitrary dismissal of the Century 2000 as being unsuitable for
self defense, and challenging each of his talking points to
establish that.

About the only point that was really valid was the accuracy
issue, but at self defense ranges a gun doesn't need to be
particularly accurate hence my noting it as pretty much a moot
point.






Honestly, after several years of looking at derringers and some
of the absurd calibers they come in, I find it hard to fault the
choice of any lightweight J frame. The more serious calibers are
often as wide and nearly
as long and always weigh more. Mine hides very well and while
reloading isn't really an issue at close range (IMO) reloading a
derringer can be
a
PITA. I bought some Speed Strips and I can carry the J-Frame and
2 Speed strips very comfortably. I really only would carry it if
the 908 or G-19 was impractical for some reason, though.

Different strokes for different folks. Doesn't mean a derringer in
.410
is
the automatically bad choice Dudu tried to assert.

You have your preferences, I have mine, Dudu has his, and John has
his.

But a .410 is a proven performer.



Undoubtedly, I have merely stated my preference.

Dogmatism amongst gun owners is amusing and frequently annoying.
Especially
when paired with innaccurate information. 8)

Which I think is the point I'm trying to make. We all have
preferences, and just because John has one preference and Dudu
another, doesn't justify his assertion that this derringer isn't
suitable.



Well, would you truly expect Doodoo to be rational or even courteous
about anything?

A very valid point, I will grant you.


I assume you guys have noticed that he has deserted the thread.

He usually does when he getting bitch slapped hard enough.

On Sep 30, 12:15*pm, RD Sandman wrote:
"Scout" wrote :











"RD Sandman" wrote in message
.. .
"Scout" wrote in
:

"RD Sandman" wrote in message
. ..
"Scout" wrote in
:

"BDK" wrote in message
.com...
In article ,
says...

On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 16:29:19 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

.410 buck (or a choice), .357/.38 ....

good obama blaster, criminal public servant controller, etc.
Could stop 'em from stealing you SW radio, golf clubs, other
guns, or save your arse when you wake up to the conspiracy and
the conspirators want you silenced!

http://bondarmsusa.com/

(make sure you watch the video!)

Would even fit in the san fransicko boys' purses!

Regards,
JS

**** that. *This is a much better weapon.

http://www.ruger.com/products/sp101/index.html

Five shots, better reload time, much more accurate.

Leave it to Johnny Kook to pick a POS like a Bond Arms 2 shot.

Dozens of better guns out there.

Depends on what you're after.

On a shot per shot basis, the .410 is going to deliver more to
target.

effectively ten 30 caliber pellets to target in the time it takes
to pull the trigger twice.

A .410 handgun round contains 8 or 9 pellets if it is a #4 shot.

That's about right, the problem is you lose space because the
pellets are staggered. Thus a lot of the shell capacity is empty
air.

It
contains 3 pellets if it is 000 which is approximately .36 caliber.

Maybe a few brands, but if you look around even in 2.5" you can get
4 pellets.

http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct...ctNumber=53316
6

and in 3" (which I believe I mentioned somewhere) you get 5 pellets.

http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct...tNumber=170759

and .36 matches up nicely with the .357 caliber of the .38 and .357.

*A
12ga shoots about 9 pellets in 00.

Again, with the 12, you lose capacity because the pellets are
staggered.

In the .410 they are neatly lined up, making maximum use of the
available space.

Use a buffered shot and you will get a nice tight group at close
ranges.

Whereas the Ruger is going to take 5 trigger pulls, a reload, and
than another 5 trigger pulls.

Nope. *Go back and revisit the .410 load fired by a Judge.

Are you talking the regular Judge or the 3" Judge?

Both seem to contain the same number of pellets in 000. *The
difference is in the powder charge, apparently.

Check the links given. You can get 5 pellets in a 3" shell, and 4 in a
2.5" shell.

See yesterday's statement further down.









One gives you 4 pellets of triple aught, the other gives you 5.

Not per wiki.

Midway sells them.

Maybe wiki is wrong?

There, corrected it for you. 2.5" shell holds 4, not 3

per
http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct...tNumber=533166

The Bondarm's Century 2000 derringer, the gun under discussion,
accepts up to a 3" .410 shell.

Hence the 5 pellets discussed.

Perhaps of 00.......but the heavy load mentioned was 000.

Yep, and as cited above in a 3" shell even according to wiki it's 5
pellets of 000

Not nine as originally stated. *That was the reason I mentioned 12ga.


Of course, you could also load in a .410 with 5 pellets of 0000 buck
(0.375). Of course, you're probably going to need to mail order
those, and I think only a few manufacturers even make them.

:-)

That's not to say that one is a better gun than the other, but as
in so much it depends on what you're looking for it to do.

Also the .410 loading is generally reported to have a fairly high
1 shot stop percentage, since you are usually effectively hitting
the target multiple times in 1 shot.

Three, if all impact and you are shooting 000 buck.

Actually even if more than 1 hit, you will still be hitting the
target multiple times. :-)

Same with two trigger pulls on an SP-101.

Yea, but 2 trigger pulls take longer than 1.

- Yes, but not as long as one trigger pull,
- a search for the damn gun...

That's the One-Shot {inside-a-room} scenario.
-female-using-both-hands-on-one-knee-in-a-corner-

and another trigger pull.....if one is up to it.

*IF* that One-Shot missed or did not stop him
-then- The Last Shot [#2] is to Shove the Gun
in his Gut as he come to you and Pull the Trigger.

On 9/30/2011 12:17 PM, RD Sandman wrote:


...
I assume you guys have noticed that he has deserted the thread.


Maybe he got bogged down in deep dudu?

Regards,
JS

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 29.09.2011 17:04, schrieb SaPeIsMa:

But - for example- what kind of benefit do you expect from the
invasion of Afghanistan, Somalia, Irak? It always ends like Vietnam:
with a lot of dead soldiers and no real gain.


Afghanistan was to attack and destabilize the Taliban
At the time, becoming a major force force in creating radical
Islamofascists.
Somalia was at the time supposed to be an aid mission that was badly
planned and executed

Somalia was one of the poorest countries of the world in that time. The
Americans managed to make things even worse, since now there are pirates
from that country, that threaten the ships coming from the Suez Canal.

Really
And naturally, other than making a fatuous and unsubstantiated claim, you
can provide a CAUSAL explanation to support that claim ?



It is hard to believe how these people could be a thread to the US
military, since there wasn't even a government, hence no real army - only
tribal forces with not much more than a self-made mortar.


Your stupid strawman
I'll leave you to feed it..

Why did the US forces failed to create at least a little bit stability?


Because
1) They didn't go there in large enough numbers to control the whole
country
2) They were sent to take out a specific warlord
3) They project was undermanned and poorly planned by the powers that be
4) They then ran into a serious problem (Blackhawk Down)
5) The politicians then got cold feet and pulled out..

Why do you have to demonstrate such abyssal ignorance
And since you are so ignorant, maybe you should stop making stupid
allegations about what happened and what followed.

Iraq was a multiple level play
a) limit and ultimately get rid of Saddam
b) Send a message to Iran and others that they are NOT invulnerable
because they are far from the US
c) an opportunity to destroy a whole bunch of jihadists
d) curb local mullahs
e) Come to the aid of the Kurds and southern Iraqis who were being
massacred wholesale by Saddam.
Just to name a few...


Actually the Kurds had more problems with the Turks, which is a country
the Americans support.


Diversion noted
Don't change the subject to avoid facing data you did NOT know..

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...


"SaPeIsMa" wrote in message
.. .

Good points
I believe he's already read De Tocqueville
(But clearly, I need to read him).
So we need something more recent.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kind of nice to see that there are at least some folks who admit they
don't know everything, and are willing to learn.



My grandfather's rule was that the day you stop learning is the day you
start dying.
And life is short.

U.S.Troops in Somalia asked for more Helicopters.Colin Powell refused,
with diastrous results.

http://www.devilfinder.com/find.php?...Colin+P owell
cuhulin

On 9/30/2011 4:39 AM, SaPeIsMa wrote:

...
Good points
I believe he's already read De Tocqueville
(But clearly, I need to read him).
So we need something more recent.



You can read a lot of stuff, and it is good, indeed, the sum total of
what any individual is, is based, mainly, on what they have learned from
the world and others.

However, some point along your educations, after you have crossed over
the very simple, been wham-boggled by the overly complex, and had the
con men of the world teach you their lessons ... you finally have a
complete enough picture to be able to create a model of the world in
your mind.

For me, there are some very simple and basic truths, they were all
available early on, but I could not see their importance ... now the fog
is beginning to clear ...

Family is important ... today, more important than ever, and with the
droves of children removed from their families, used as a source of
income for foster families and then dumped, in many cases like trash,
out on street with no support, this becomes staggeringly apparent --
indeed, we have created a whole army of these "citizens" to now fill our
prisons -- and far into the future -- and we continue to do so at an
alarming rate.

Friends are important, and in a world full of morons, imbeciles and
idiots, never has the importance been more apparent. My grandmother
once said to me that if, over the course of a lifetime, you were able to
gather a mere small handful of friends, you were fortunate beyond belief
.... I am embarrassed I took exception with her wisdom, back then ...

The realization that no less than this planet, the trees, the stars, the
oceans, etc. YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO BE HERE! Your creator provided land,
water, food, resources for you, to support your life, the family you
would create, the rights for you to enjoy, the diversions to entertain
you ... but, evil men and women were created to prevent you from
enjoying your birth rights -- and it is a forever battle and takes your
commitment to ensure you secure these, for yourself, your family, your
friends, etc.

Today, there are strong attempts by criminals, and even by criminals in
high places who illegal hold positions which were created to look out
for people, to help and assist people, to push further the betterment of
mankind, his pursuits, his rewards, the quality of his life, etc.
Indeed, these institutions which were created by man, for man have now
taken on a seeming life of their own -- they now attempt to enslave
other groups of men, to control other groups of men -- even down to the
control of others thoughts, actions and activities -- they now carry the
actions of criminals because they are being run by criminals.

As you get caught up in the complexities, plans, schemes, contrivances,
aspirations, goals, etc. of other men, it is easy to loose a grip on
what is real, what is important, what has real meaning ... the time has
simply come for men who have fallen asleep to awaken, to claim what is
theirs, to do the right thing, and to restore sanity to an insane world
.... actually, these are the best of times to live in, exciting, and like
I have said, a time when there is ample opportunity of men of great
worth and caliber to step forward and become the type of heroes which
are immortalized in history ... each waking day advances us one small
step towards the time of real men, again ...

Regards,
JS

On 9/30/2011 10:28 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 11:13:15 -0600, m wrote:

Brenda Ann wrote:

Kind of nice to see that there are at least some folks who admit they
don't know everything, and are willing to learn.

No, they're not.

John Smith and his moronic cross posting entourage are too stupid to
even try limiting their responses to their own groups.

They are idiots all, and Smith is their leader.


mike

Truer words were never posted.

Truer morons have never been agreed with!

Regards,
JS

On Oct 1, 12:25*pm, John Smith stamped out:

Cross posting MORONS...

"What a Maroon!
Will ya get a load of this Maroon?"
--Bugs Bunny

ROTFLMAO!!! ;D

Hey, numbnuts; it's YOU who started this Cross-posted thread in:

rec.radio.shortwave, talk.politics.guns, rec.sport.golf,
alt.conspiracy

Q. Does Usenet help stamp out ignorance?
A. That depends on whether by `stamp out' you mean
`eliminate' or `reproduce rapidly in great quantity.'
-- Dr. Roger M. Firestone

"If Ignorance is Bliss, then Liberalism must be Nirvana"

Am 01.10.2011 16:46, schrieb SaPeIsMa:

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 29.09.2011 17:04, schrieb SaPeIsMa:

But - for example- what kind of benefit do you expect from the
invasion of Afghanistan, Somalia, Irak? It always ends like Vietnam:
with a lot of dead soldiers and no real gain.


Afghanistan was to attack and destabilize the Taliban
At the time, becoming a major force force in creating radical
Islamofascists.
Somalia was at the time supposed to be an aid mission that was badly
planned and executed

Somalia was one of the poorest countries of the world in that time.
The Americans managed to make things even worse, since now there are
pirates from that country, that threaten the ships coming from the
Suez Canal.

Really
And naturally, other than making a fatuous and unsubstantiated claim,
you can provide a CAUSAL explanation to support that claim ?


(Sorry, but I do not understand, what you want. Maybe it's a question of
language. But could you please repeat your question with some other words.)

I didn't understand, what the US forces wanted to achieve in Somalia.
Maybe something like aid (for whom ??). Somehow they didn't get what
they came for (my guess), but I don't know, what that was.

In any case Somalia was (and is) an extreme case of 'third world' and
these 'war lords' had no real army. The greatest thread was - maybe- a
Toyota pick-up with a AK47 mounted on top.

Somehow the US forces managed to loose a few of their high-tech
helicopters, because they were shot down. (with bow and arrow?)

Then the US lost interest in that country and left it, worse then before.

So: where is the 'aid'? and what is the benefit for America from this
adventure?

It is hard to believe how these people could be a thread to the US
military, since there wasn't even a government, hence no real army -
only tribal forces with not much more than a self-made mortar.


Your stupid strawman
I'll leave you to feed it..


??? What ???
'Strawman' ? The translation 'Strohmann' in German is a person, that
pretends to be an independent individual, but is secretly a puppet for
somebody else (hidden).
'Your strawman' would mean, I had somebody in control????

Why did the US forces failed to create at least a little bit stability?


Because
1) They didn't go there in large enough numbers to control the whole
country
2) They were sent to take out a specific warlord
3) They project was undermanned and poorly planned by the powers that be
4) They then ran into a serious problem (Blackhawk Down)
5) The politicians then got cold feet and pulled out..

Well, Somalia is larger than you think and is full of deserts and
mountains. It could be real hard to find a certain individual,
especially since they don't use all these electronic gadgets,
individuals could usually be identified with.
But you don't want to tell me, the US army/navy/air force went there, to
find a specific war lord. (?)

Why do you have to demonstrate such abyssal ignorance
And since you are so ignorant, maybe you should stop making stupid
allegations about what happened and what followed.


sorry, but this thread is a bit out of my usual range of subjects and
meandered somewhere even more remote. But I don't think my statements
are that wrong. But if you are interested, I can do a little bit of
research.


TH