"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...tNumber=533166

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.

On 9/29/2011 12:47 AM, Scout wrote:


"John Smith" wrote in message
...
On 9/28/2011 10:12 PM, Scout wrote:


"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 28.09.2011 23:05, schrieb Gray Guest:
Thomas wrote in news:9eh1fuFakeU1
@mid.individual.net:

Am 28.09.2011 01:29, schrieb John Smith:
.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!

Civil war in the US would be really terrible. (And I have doubt, that
such handguns would be the weapons of choice.)

Better would be to prevent havoc.

I think, that violence isn't the right way. People would better
try to
reacquire control about all elements of the society: the communities,
politics, education, health-care, nutrition, transportation, military
and even entertainment.

In all these fields, there are people involved, that do not want
their
country destroyed. But there are also 'bad guys', that like misery,
violence, sickness and dirt.

If you want nicer people, you had to clean your (personal!)
environment,
remove the rubble, overpaint the graffiti, disallow drug trafficking,
rethink education, watch less tv, cook your own food, walk, smile
- but
don't carry a gun around.

To regain control you need to start with local affairs and
reorganise,
what is in reach. Do not let any dubious character have any
influence on
any public office. To identify such persons is difficult, but some
characteristics you certainly don't want to have at - say - a
teacher.
For example membership in any sort of 'secret society' is definitely
not acceptable or massive tattoos, drug consume, sexual disorder,
known
violence or extremistic political opinions.

Such persons are generally a threat to more 'usual' people, because
they
are too boring for their sick brains.


TH


The resort to violence however is sometimes thrust upon people. The
evil,
the criminal and the aggressor has their own aganda. No amount of
conciliation can deter them, only answering kind with kind.

You are refered to the 1930s for an example of wooly headed peace with
honor stupidity and where it led. Had Europe stood up to Hitler any
time
between 1936 and 1938 the conflagaration of 1939 to 1945 could have
been
avoided.

Sometimes a small amount of preemptive violence is preferable to large
amounts of avoidable violence.


The armament of the American society is most likely the greatest
stumbling block for globalistic self-proclaimed fascistic elite.

But these arms are not to be used, because in a real fight, the
professionals are better off than you with a handgun.

That assumes many things which aren't necessarily true.




I don't know, personal experience has taught me that there are quick
fixes.

The biggest bully in the world, if I can get access to him, when he is
away from his gang, and I with the proper tool(s), can be fixed in
damn short order ... cut off the head, the snake dies, it may wither a
bit, but it dies ...

Like I said above, his comment makes a number of assumptions that aren't
necessarily true. One of which you just illustrated.

A gun is a fabulous tool, however, experience, cunning, stealth,
intelligence, purpose, motivation, etc., these are all equally
important ... a single man with the "righteousness of God" in his
heart and soul can be an amazing thing to witness -- a group of such
men brought the whole british empire to its' knees and established
America ... masters, in fear of their slaves, will always down play
the importance of even a single man, let alone the awesome powers
which exist in a group of such men, men who were not born to be slaves
simply ignore their whining ... most men know what they are, they have
already looked into the core of their being and know what exists there
... a coward, or not ...

More examples of what I was talking about.



Yes, I was agreeing with you, I didn't realize my statements could be
taken differently ...

Regards,
JS

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 28.09.2011 01:29, schrieb John Smith:
.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!

Civil war in the US would be really terrible. (And I have doubt, that such
handguns would be the weapons of choice.)

Better would be to prevent havoc.

I think, that violence isn't the right way. People would better try to
reacquire control about all elements of the society: the communities,
politics, education, health-care, nutrition, transportation, military and
even entertainment.

In all these fields, there are people involved, that do not want their
country destroyed. But there are also 'bad guys', that like misery,
violence, sickness and dirt.

If you want nicer people, you had to clean your (personal!) environment,
remove the rubble, overpaint the graffiti, disallow drug trafficking,
rethink education, watch less tv, cook your own food, walk, smile - but
don't carry a gun around.


That last one..
"..but don't carry a gun around.."
is where you demonstrate you're not clued in.
The so-called "Wild West" was a much safer place to be than cities on the
East Coast during the same period, and that includes the wild and wooly gold
and silver mining towns in Nevada and California.
And the difference is a simple one.
On the East Coast, the people were disarmed and defenseless
In the "Wild West" people were armed, willing and able to defend
themselves.



To regain control you need to start with local affairs and reorganise,
what is in reach. Do not let any dubious character have any influence on
any public office. To identify such persons is difficult, but some
characteristics you certainly don't want to have at - say - a teacher.
For example membership in any sort of 'secret society' is definitely not
acceptable or massive tattoos, drug consume, sexual disorder, known
violence or extremistic political opinions.


yawn
More ignorant and superficial bigotry.


Such persons are generally a threat to more 'usual' people, because they
are too boring for their sick brains.


What's your excuse ?

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 28.09.2011 23:05, schrieb Gray Guest:
Thomas wrote in news:9eh1fuFakeU1
@mid.individual.net:

Am 28.09.2011 01:29, schrieb John Smith:
.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!

Civil war in the US would be really terrible. (And I have doubt, that
such handguns would be the weapons of choice.)

Better would be to prevent havoc.

I think, that violence isn't the right way. People would better try to
reacquire control about all elements of the society: the communities,
politics, education, health-care, nutrition, transportation, military
and even entertainment.

In all these fields, there are people involved, that do not want their
country destroyed. But there are also 'bad guys', that like misery,
violence, sickness and dirt.

If you want nicer people, you had to clean your (personal!) environment,
remove the rubble, overpaint the graffiti, disallow drug trafficking,
rethink education, watch less tv, cook your own food, walk, smile - but
don't carry a gun around.

To regain control you need to start with local affairs and reorganise,
what is in reach. Do not let any dubious character have any influence on
any public office. To identify such persons is difficult, but some
characteristics you certainly don't want to have at - say - a teacher.
For example membership in any sort of 'secret society' is definitely
not acceptable or massive tattoos, drug consume, sexual disorder, known
violence or extremistic political opinions.

Such persons are generally a threat to more 'usual' people, because they
are too boring for their sick brains.


TH


The resort to violence however is sometimes thrust upon people. The evil,
the criminal and the aggressor has their own aganda. No amount of
conciliation can deter them, only answering kind with kind.

You are refered to the 1930s for an example of wooly headed peace with
honor stupidity and where it led. Had Europe stood up to Hitler any time
between 1936 and 1938 the conflagaration of 1939 to 1945 could have been
avoided.

Sometimes a small amount of preemptive violence is preferable to large
amounts of avoidable violence.


The armament of the American society is most likely the greatest stumbling
block for globalistic self-proclaimed fascistic elite.

But these arms are not to be used, because in a real fight, the
professionals are better off than you with a handgun.


What "professionals are those ?
And what makes you presume that we (allegedly) NON "professionals
- only have handguns ?
- are less capable that those alleged "professionals"
Not to mention that there is no guarantee that all those "professionals
would align themselves with an abusive government.


But people could 'take it back'. I mean 'the real life', the communities,
local affairs, education and so forth. It is all about people and how they
behave. People should know, that certain things are not allowed and should
not be done.


And what are those things are are "not allowed and should not be done"
Do give us a list..


Drugs of all sorts feed the 'bad guys', so you should try to avoid any
drugs - at least not pay for them. This because the money for the drugs
goes into the wrong canals and supports the criminals and unwanted
behaviour.

Any person without a shelter is a thread to public health. So it is
mandatory to allow every person access to soap and water, some sort of
housing and food.

Any kind of toxic waste should be removed from public places, to allow
kids safe play in their neighbourhood.

Public land should be accessible. Even farmland should be allowed to enter
for pedestrians, that just want to pass.

To create a strong society based on civil affairs, the industry and the
smaller companies had to be protected.

The Americans fought endless wars without apparent reason and without
apparent benefit.


Feel free to list those wars that Americans fought
"without apparent reason and without apparent benefit."

Many think, these wars are somehow good for America.

Who is "Many"
and HOW many are those "many" ???
Just so we can figure out what we're dealing with here ?

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
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...

Maybe you need to study up a bit before you come back to spout more of your
simplistic cant.

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
On 9/28/2011 4:40 PM, Scout wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 20:30:19 -0400, "Scout"
wrote:



wrote in message
...
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,

Which you get from one round of .410 triple aught buck (3" shell)

I can get 5 shots on target. And reload in about 2 seconds.

Get, the .410 can do the same thing in about 50ms, and do it again 50ms
later.



better reload time

Really? You think you can reload the cylinder of that revolver faster
than
you can fire the other barrel of that derringer?

A derringer is an inaccurate piece of junk. Ruger makes an infinately
better gun.

How accurate do you need to be at a typical distance of under 15 feet?

much more accurate.

I suspect the .410 would be suitably accurate for any reasonable self
defense range.

So unless you think you will have time to group your shots, The higher
accuracy is pretty much moot.

.357 or 38 P+ hollowpoints at close range you only need one or two
anyway.

At close rates the typical .410 takes only one.

The other 3 are extra.

Then they really aren't relevant.

The SP101 is truly a remarkably
accurate gun for a snubby.

Which means exactly nothing at close quarters combat since extreme
accuracy isn't a significant factor since you don't take the time to aim
properly anyway.

I can shoot the same size groups with that
as I can with any handguns.

Sure....do you suppose your attacker is going to wait until you get in
position, fix your stance, and line up your sights?




Do you realize you sound very negative here? ROFLOL!


Anyone who does NOT practice "point-shoot" techniques for self-defense is
doing the wrong thing
Self-defense shooting has to be instinctive point shooting.
You will not have time to get into the right position, bring your weapon to
eye-level and aim carefully..
You must literally point your weapon and pull the trigger.
That means practicing regularly UNAIMED shooting at distances under 10 yards

Am 29.09.2011 08:24, schrieb Gray Guest:
Thomas wrote in news:9ei6ptFeh9U1
@mid.individual.net:

Am 28.09.2011 23:05, schrieb Gray Guest:
Thomas wrote in news:9eh1fuFakeU1
@mid.individual.net:

Am 28.09.2011 01:29, schrieb John Smith:
.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!

Civil war in the US would be really terrible. (And I have doubt, that
such handguns would be the weapons of choice.)

Better would be to prevent havoc.

I think, that violence isn't the right way. People would better try to
reacquire control about all elements of the society: the communities,
politics, education, health-care, nutrition, transportation, military
and even entertainment.

In all these fields, there are people involved, that do not want their
country destroyed. But there are also 'bad guys', that like misery,
violence, sickness and dirt.

If you want nicer people, you had to clean your (personal!)
environment,
remove the rubble, overpaint the graffiti, disallow drug trafficking,
rethink education, watch less tv, cook your own food, walk, smile - but
don't carry a gun around.

To regain control you need to start with local affairs and reorganise,
what is in reach. Do not let any dubious character have any influence
on
any public office. To identify such persons is difficult, but some
characteristics you certainly don't want to have at - say - a teacher.
For example membership in any sort of 'secret society' is definitely
not acceptable or massive tattoos, drug consume, sexual disorder, known
violence or extremistic political opinions.

Such persons are generally a threat to more 'usual' people, because
they
are too boring for their sick brains.


TH


The resort to violence however is sometimes thrust upon people. The
evil,
the criminal and the aggressor has their own aganda. No amount of
conciliation can deter them, only answering kind with kind.

You are refered to the 1930s for an example of wooly headed peace with
honor stupidity and where it led. Had Europe stood up to Hitler any time
between 1936 and 1938 the conflagaration of 1939 to 1945 could have been
avoided.

Sometimes a small amount of preemptive violence is preferable to large
amounts of avoidable violence.


The armament of the American society is most likely the greatest
stumbling block for globalistic self-proclaimed fascistic elite.

But these arms are not to be used, because in a real fight, the
professionals are better off than you with a handgun.

But people could 'take it back'. I mean 'the real life', the
communities, local affairs, education and so forth. It is all about
people and how they behave. People should know, that certain things are
not allowed and should not be done.

Drugs of all sorts feed the 'bad guys', so you should try to avoid any
drugs - at least not pay for them. This because the money for the drugs
goes into the wrong canals and supports the criminals and unwanted
behaviour.

Any person without a shelter is a thread to public health. So it is
mandatory to allow every person access to soap and water, some sort of
housing and food.

Any kind of toxic waste should be removed from public places, to allow
kids safe play in their neighbourhood.

Public land should be accessible. Even farmland should be allowed to
enter for pedestrians, that just want to pass.

To create a strong society based on civil affairs, the industry and the
smaller companies had to be protected.

The Americans fought endless wars without apparent reason and without
apparent benefit. Many think, these wars are somehow good for America.
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.

TH


The "professionals" only prevail if you fight them on their terms.

Has no one heard of Sun Tzu?

'The art of war'
old Chinese philosophy of government.

But anyhow: there is a difference between a person and a country.

I have trouble to understand the idea, that people think, they have to
defend themselves against the own government.

I mean, not only with words, but with real guns. Ain't these
professionals the own soldiers? How could soldiers even consider to
fight against their own people?

They get brainwashed, for sure. But even zombies on drugs would
remember, were they came from. Or is that about money? Well, 'rip off
the pharao' was the favourite game of the Egyptian 'priests'.

Or are there religious motives?

TH

DOJ Says No Guns For Medical Marijuana Patents
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum=314024

Marijuana = Mary Jane.Mary Jane, do juana?
cuhulin

Am 29.09.2011 08:25, schrieb John Smith:
On 9/28/2011 10:12 PM, Scout wrote:


"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 28.09.2011 23:05, schrieb Gray Guest:
Thomas wrote in news:9eh1fuFakeU1
@mid.individual.net:

Am 28.09.2011 01:29, schrieb John Smith:
.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!

Civil war in the US would be really terrible. (And I have doubt, that
such handguns would be the weapons of choice.)

Better would be to prevent havoc.

I think, that violence isn't the right way. People would better try to
reacquire control about all elements of the society: the communities,
politics, education, health-care, nutrition, transportation, military
and even entertainment.

In all these fields, there are people involved, that do not want their
country destroyed. But there are also 'bad guys', that like misery,
violence, sickness and dirt.

If you want nicer people, you had to clean your (personal!)
environment,
remove the rubble, overpaint the graffiti, disallow drug trafficking,
rethink education, watch less tv, cook your own food, walk, smile -
but
don't carry a gun around.

To regain control you need to start with local affairs and reorganise,
what is in reach. Do not let any dubious character have any
influence on
any public office. To identify such persons is difficult, but some
characteristics you certainly don't want to have at - say - a teacher.
For example membership in any sort of 'secret society' is definitely
not acceptable or massive tattoos, drug consume, sexual disorder,
known
violence or extremistic political opinions.

Such persons are generally a threat to more 'usual' people, because
they
are too boring for their sick brains.


TH


The resort to violence however is sometimes thrust upon people. The
evil,
the criminal and the aggressor has their own aganda. No amount of
conciliation can deter them, only answering kind with kind.

You are refered to the 1930s for an example of wooly headed peace with
honor stupidity and where it led. Had Europe stood up to Hitler any
time
between 1936 and 1938 the conflagaration of 1939 to 1945 could have
been
avoided.

Sometimes a small amount of preemptive violence is preferable to large
amounts of avoidable violence.


The armament of the American society is most likely the greatest
stumbling block for globalistic self-proclaimed fascistic elite.

But these arms are not to be used, because in a real fight, the
professionals are better off than you with a handgun.

That assumes many things which aren't necessarily true.




I don't know, personal experience has taught me that there are quick fixes.

The biggest bully in the world, if I can get access to him, when he is
away from his gang, and I with the proper tool(s), can be fixed in damn
short order ... cut off the head, the snake dies, it may wither a bit,
but it dies ...

A gun is a fabulous tool, however, experience, cunning, stealth,
intelligence, purpose, motivation, etc., these are all equally important
... a single man with the "righteousness of God" in his heart and soul
can be an amazing thing to witness -- a group of such men brought the
whole british empire to its' knees and established America ... masters,
in fear of their slaves, will always down play the importance of even a
single man, let alone the awesome powers which exist in a group of such
men, men who were not born to be slaves simply ignore their whining ...
most men know what they are, they have already looked into the core of
their being and know what exists there ... a coward, or not ...

Well, I understand what you mean, but this is not, what I wanted to say.
(If you intend to fight a real fight against armoured vehicles, than you
need a little more 'punch' than a handgun.)
I do not understand the idea itself. How could people consider this
could be necessary?

I'm German, but I'm really interested in this question, because it seems
not very plausible to me, that people feel, they need to defend
themselves against the own government.

"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...tNumber=533166

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)

--
Words of wisdom

What does not kill you... probably didn't cause enough tissue damage.

"SaPeIsMa" wrote in
:

But these arms are not to be used, because in a real fight, the
professionals are better off than you with a handgun.


What "professionals are those ?
And what makes you presume that we (allegedly) NON "professionals
- only have handguns ?
- are less capable that those alleged "professionals"
Not to mention that there is no guarantee that all those "professionals
would align themselves with an abusive government.



One of Murphy's Laws for Grunts states:

"Professionals are predictable. But the world is full of amatures".

Meaning, I suppose, that you can predict what a professional will do based
on his training. But the amatures are unpredictable, which gives them a
certain advantage.

--
Words of wisdom

What does not kill you... probably didn't cause enough tissue damage.