"Scout" wrote in
:



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

"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.

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

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.

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.

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.


I never understood the whole "weight" thing. A half pound or so more
than a lightweight gun never bothered my at all. I carried a S&W 28
6+ 1/2" at work for 40 hours a week and they don't come a lot heavier
than that. Give me steel always. No plast...er polymer, for me.

All depends on the manner of carry. Weight can be a factor.


Particularly in a poor holster. A good holster tends to negate that
factor.

--
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 news:j60gjn
:



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



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



wrote in message
om...
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.

If one still has control of it after the first BANG!!!

Hence the weight we were discussing earlier.




Perhaps on that particular one. Many derringers are quite light hence
more vicious recoil.

--
Sleep well tonight,

RD (The Sandman)

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

"Gray Guest" wrote in message
44.100...


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.


I followed the same pattern as you, with one additional step
I moved to the Colt Agent and Cobra snubbies.
They offer one more round than the S&W J-frames for the same weight.
I also find their triggers much better (very personal taste)

On 9/29/2011 8:11 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
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


In America, the citizens are the government, of course we would not
fight against a majority consensus of our citizens, the government ...

You have this confused with the relatively small group of criminal
public servants, from the president on down, who are attempting to usurp
the peoples powers and become "our leaders", this is simply out of the
question. They are now engaged in wholesale criminal behaviors and
actions without respect for the Constitution, it takes time to put down
such widespread and powerful criminals.

If you owned a company, would you let the employees become criminal and
take over the company? The answer is NO! Indeed, it is "HELL NO!"

They, the criminals in government, simply need the prison cells which
they are entitled to and replace them with proper public servants ...
however, they may not be willing to go peacefully ...

Regards,
JS

On 9/29/2011 8:51 AM, Gray Guest wrote:
Thomas wrote in news:9ejg58Fmr8U1
@mid.individual.net:

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



Another illiterate moron sticks his head up and announces himself.

Adopted by Congress on July 4, 1776
The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to
dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to
assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to
which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect
to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes
which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,
that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to
secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of
government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people
to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its
foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to
them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence,
indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be
changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath
shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable,
than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are
accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing
invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute
despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such
government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has
been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the
necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of
government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history
of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the
establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let
facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the
public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing
importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be
obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to
them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts
of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation
in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants
only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable,
and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole
purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly
firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to
be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have
returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in
the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and
convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that
purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to
pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions
of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to
laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their
offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of
officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the
consent of our legislature.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil
power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our
constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their
acts of pretended legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which
they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing taxes on us without our consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province,
establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries
so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing
the same absolute rule in these colonies:

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and
altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

For suspending our own legislatures and declaring themselves invested with
power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and
waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and
destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to
complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with
circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most
barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to
bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their
friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to
bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages,
whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages,
sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the
most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by
repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act
which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have
warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an
unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the
circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to
their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties
of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably
interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to
the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in
the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold
the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in
General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world
for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority
of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that
these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent
states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown,
and that all political connection between them and the state of Great
Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and
independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace,
contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things
which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this
declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence,
we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred
honor.

New Hampshi Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton
Massachusetts: John Hancock, Samual Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine,
Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery
Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver
Wolcott
New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris
New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John
Hart, Abraham Clark
Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton,
George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross
Delawa Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean
Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of
Carrollton
Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin
Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton
North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn
South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr.,
Arthur Middleton
Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton
Source: The Pennsylvania Packet, July 8, 1776




Those words have never been more important than this very day ...

Regards,
JS

On 9/29/2011 8:14 AM, J R wrote:
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


Well, I may not care for daves whacko politics as he tokes on his bong,
but I see no problem in his owning/possessing/using a firearm for
protection ... indeed, everyone who has never committed a crime using a
firearm should be required to own one and keep it in good working order,
and have completed a course in high school on its' proper operation and
safe carry and use ...

Regards,
JS

On 9/29/2011 11:25 AM, RHF wrote:
On Sep 29, 8:14 am, (J R) wrote:
- 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

Hey - Someone should tell M4* Mania Dave
to turn-in all his Handguns -cause-
Smoking Dope and Packing Heat Don't Mix !
-hash-oil-&-gun-oil-a-deadly-mixture-

* Mucho Medical-Marijuana Madness [M4]
.
.
Firearms are regulated by the Treasury, not DOJ.

"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...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)

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.

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
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 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?

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
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.)

Depends on how you fight them.

Apparently you seem to feel the only way to fight against armored vehicles
are on their terms.

I do not understand the idea itself. How could people consider this could
be necessary?

Lessons from history.

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.

I take it then your knowledge of your own country's history starts around
1950?