Let the Record show that Gray Guest on or
about Fri, 30 Sep 2011 03:12:24 +0000 (UTC) did write, type or
otherwise cause to appear in talk.politics.guns the following:

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 take it then you're not a student of history?

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?

I accept this as confirmation you know next to nothing about history.

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?


Considering what an education costs today, WTF are they teaching? A good
case of malpractice and/or deceptive practices lurks here.

"Why should a fool have the price of knowledge in his hand, seeing
as how he has no wisdom?"
--
pyotr filipivich
Most of the intelligentsia haven't studied history, so much
as they've absorbed the Correct Position on "History".

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



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOhfi1AAoJEGQ2h+1OL/AcFGoH/0dgutIffC2MvLIiVBQgK39m
7bJIqdnJkoOqE+TuImNQ3uPVIc8Wgzpi2lUH2bLijsDEplotIP wOf7uQvTq6Txre
9W/IYaejK9GV4Axo89GBxjfgwDf+09ko/JulMQTngl57S1TevsWRcYPpL83SmFBY
6pU21tni3gdz6tn8DPKUKGNjImZZsAmxAcbYgRVx/Rm/IqGXEYk1YJ+IOVC97KxM
ZTrBVqAUyThe6HQOGsTtMNY5VX1r/iXkdeb1QqvMd91c8uHsnzH8btXcfylY9aC6
7lrOd2jF2Tb64FsMcmIOwhA/G9KunLMZD7ETnolftch3xY7j5gU6AYKYcvb9OdM=
=p3zS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 11:13:15 -0600, m II 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.

"SaPeIsMa" wrote in
:


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

To overcome this, I kind of 'invented' a concept, I call 'tribes':
imagine 'Indians', but young, modern, western people, equipped with
computers and other electronic means, that mimic Indians to some
extend
(wear a feather or alike).


Actually, you are coming across as a pedantic idiot who seems to really
solely on book knowledge...

Didn't you mean "incorrect" book knowledge?


No
I meant "rely"
But "incorrect" also applies.



Zing, missed that. 8)

--
Words of wisdom

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

On Sep 30, 10:13*am, m II 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

*signature.asc
1KViewDownload

Mike [M II] and . . .
Your Post Proves That You Are No Better
+plus+a+repeat+offender+too+

-see-Mike [M II]-Prior-Post-
"Stop the crap cross postings, Genius."
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...29343dbca8fc8a
Only geniuses cross post, right {Mike M II} Bachmann?

John Smith
The Donnor party, when caught in the winter, had to consume human flesh
....


Funny that!
LIBs intend to do the same thing,
NOT because their HUNGRY but simply BECAUSE THEY CAN...


What's so bad about Solyent Green?
Why shouldn't some be sacrificed that others may live?

http://contract.rebuildthedream.com/?rc=rtd_home
10 LIB Steps to Get Our Economy Back on Track



http://www.thepeoplescube.com/images...oker_Obama.jpg
JON STEWART DID IT FIRST, DID IT FUNNIER::
RESTORING SANITY, 'NUFF SAID!



One look and you can't disguise those Hungry EYES.

http://www.ectomo.com/wp-content/upl...ave_large2.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2704/...cf3249b7_o.jpg
http://www.ectomo.com/wp-content/upl.../10/people.jpg
http://images.ibsys.com/2005/0607/4579503.jpg
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=8306291&page=1


LIBS. What PRICE their VISION?
---
http://www.libertylive.org/Uploads/T...ebt%20Star.jpg

DEBTSTAR:: This is NOT the HOPE you have been Searching for.

http://www.devilfinder.com/find.php?...head+Chronicle
http://www.csa-dixie.com
cuhulin, in Dixie Land

"Scout" wrote in
:



"RD Sandman" wrote in message
...
"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...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...and
another trigger pull.....if one is up to it. Those derringers have a very
nasty recoil and not much to hang on to.

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

Both at close range would be effective to center mass....the edge
going to the .410.

Simply my point, the .410 derringer isn't automatically unsuitable as
Dudu asserted.

You still pay attention to his claims?

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.

Again, not per wiki on the .410 shotshell. Anyway, I have three
SP-101s (as you can tell, I hate them), two in .357 and one in
.327Federal. The latter holds six rounds.

True, but Dudu cited the .38/.357

Again, my comments weren't intended to address all the possible
combinations, only to challenge Dudu's immediate dismissal of the
derringer and the assertion that the SP101 would be drastically better
for self defense.

See above statement on Dudu's veracity....

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.

:-)

Not going to argue with you. You can see what wiki says as well as I
can.

Yep, and in this case it was wrong. Which is why I provided the cites
above for you.

Fair enough.......I have, as mentioned, three of the SP-101s and none of
the derringers.....although a friend of mine has about 10 of them. He
isn't thrilled about shooting them either.

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.

Dudu tends to run off half cocked over anything you say or suggest so
I don't pay much attention to him on those points. What got me going
was mention of the SP-101. It is one of the things he and I agree
on. It is an excellent gun.

It is, and I'm not challenging that. I'm simply challenging his
dismissal of the derringer as something far worse.


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.

Fair enough.

I thought so.
:-)





--
Sleep well tonight,

RD (The Sandman)

WINE - Does not make you FAT....it makes you LEAN....
...against tables, chairs, floors, walls and ugly people...

"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.

--
Sleep well tonight,

RD (The Sandman)

WINE - Does not make you FAT....it makes you LEAN....
...against tables, chairs, floors, walls and ugly people...

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



"RD Sandman" wrote in message
...
"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...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.

I've never said nine.....but let me check.....nope, closest I got was
stating you would fire 10 pellets with TWO pulls of the trigger.

"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."

I think a slight misreading on your end.

It happens.

Glad we could clear that up.


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...and
another trigger pull.....if one is up to it. Those derringers have a very
nasty recoil and not much to hang on to.

Hmmm... While the recoil is punishing, I've never dropped one when firing it
yet. Not even the first time.


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

Both at close range would be effective to center mass....the edge
going to the .410.

Simply my point, the .410 derringer isn't automatically unsuitable as
Dudu asserted.

You still pay attention to his claims?

Not really, just tend to slap him about when he makes foolish ones. Maybe he
will learn. Otherwise it's simple amusement.

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.

Again, not per wiki on the .410 shotshell. Anyway, I have three
SP-101s (as you can tell, I hate them), two in .357 and one in
.327Federal. The latter holds six rounds.

True, but Dudu cited the .38/.357

Again, my comments weren't intended to address all the possible
combinations, only to challenge Dudu's immediate dismissal of the
derringer and the assertion that the SP101 would be drastically better
for self defense.

See above statement on Dudu's veracity....

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.

:-)

Not going to argue with you. You can see what wiki says as well as I
can.

Yep, and in this case it was wrong. Which is why I provided the cites
above for you.

Fair enough.......I have, as mentioned, three of the SP-101s and none of
the derringers.....although a friend of mine has about 10 of them. He
isn't thrilled about shooting them either.

Oh, I agree they aren't a pleasure to shoot....but generally you're not
shooting them for enjoyment.

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.

Dudu tends to run off half cocked over anything you say or suggest so
I don't pay much attention to him on those points. What got me going
was mention of the SP-101. It is one of the things he and I agree
on. It is an excellent gun.

It is, and I'm not challenging that. I'm simply challenging his
dismissal of the derringer as something far worse.


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.

Fair enough.

I thought so.
:-)





--
Sleep well tonight,

RD (The Sandman)

WINE - Does not make you FAT....it makes you LEAN....
..against tables, chairs, floors, walls and ugly people...