We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Monday, February 18. 2008
A reader mentioned that she liked this rather unique .45/410 revolver for home defence. Makes sense to me. A splash of #6 birdshot to the face will indeed leave a scumbag "learning Braille in jail" - if he is lucky.
Here's a review of the revolver, whence the photo.
I tend to like this basic handgun. I prefer revolvers for the same reason that I prefer breaking shotguns: fewer moving parts, and easier to keep track of your ammo.
Related, quoted in full from Insty:
Also, No Looking Back on gun-free zones (which should be called "Defence-free Zones," or maybe "Helpless Victim Zones.")
Here's the argument against The Judge. thanks, reader.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
I can't believe we have no comments on this post. I'd expect everybody to have a critique or better suggestion.
Going to be moving to mountain lion territory, and beyond the basics of clearing brush from walkways, stay away from blind ambush sites, make sure overhangs are not accessible or 'occupied' and vary walking habits, that will just leave personal/home defense... and carrying a long gun will not be much of an option (although at home, yes).
Still lots of options... probably just have to ask when I get there.
This thing is a terrible choice for home defense. The guys at the box o' truth http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot41.htm
tested the "judge" and concluded it's great for snakes and little birds, but not much else.
I dissagree. I have had mine for year and a half and love it. I have never had to put it in anyone's face and realy dont want to. I am a fireman and getting up in the middle of the night is part of the job. I know that if I can yawn packing up to go into a fire, When i do have to get out of bed half asleep to deal with some trash. the simple fact is it is a hallway cannon. that birdshot will it will at least put the bum on the ground. with a 45 LC hollow point behind little old birdshot. I can effectivly remove limb and life! A 45 wad cutter at about 15 feet went though a concrete block and left a hole big enouhg to push a nickle though. Even if I'm totally crosseyed. I as well as the scumbag will be deaf. this thing is loud as hell. I raipid fire five shots with out ear protection and my ears rang bad!! all day. I wouldn't shoot it in a car unless i had no other choice. Yeah I'd get the Bastard good but may possibly blow out my eardrums. I'm shure that if even one little old pellet didn't leave the dogs a trail they could follow the smell of his poo stained britches would.
I have shot clays with it and stood next to guys with 12 guages and must admit it is wierd holding a pistol next to long barrels. I can't reach out near as far but it is absolutely fun shooting. The grip takes some getting used to but all in all this good weapon. I just wish I could find a speed load that would work with it!
That test wasn't really very good. First, he didn't have the right shot shells, second, he was at a greater distance than its intended use. Third, how would you like 3 .32 sized rounds hitting you all at once even if they do only go in 2 inches at that distance. Now imagine a closer distance of say 10 to 15 feet like it was designed for and imagine a shot to the face with many pellets and then one to the body of many .32 loads. I think it is a great gun.
Sadly, these're illegal in CA, or I'd have gotten my wife one to go along with her Ruger.
Oh, my brother, who teaches community college in TX (lucky b@stard has a CCW) refers to them as "Federally Mandated Victim Zones".
Jail? Aren't you supposed to kill them? And if they fall back out of the window, you're supposed to drag their carcass back in?
I try to stay away from 'gun free' zones. As noted, they seem to be mass-murder magnets. 'Shoot me, Mr. Nutjob' zones.
I like revolvers AND pistols. Bought a nice old Model 10 a few years ago (actually, pre-model 10. And old M&P from the late 40's) in good shape, at a really good price. Prices on these have gone up somewhat, but they're still in the $250-300 range locally. I'm fond of 'fixed sights' and 'old skool' point shooting, these are just the ticket.
A few links from my 'Model 10/Revolver' file
The reviewer downgrades the shotshell loads for lack of penetration -- but that could also be considered a feature for home defense. The reviewer complains that the buckshot flattened out and only penetrated a few inches -- heck, that sounds pretty damn incapacitating to me. And you get a spread, too.
five 3' .410 buckshot shells with five .41 caliber balls per shell = 25 bullets with five trigger pulls.
and as for the penetration, as the .45 vs 9mm debate shows, a big slow lo-penetration bullet vs a hi-penetration fast bullet is better -- stopping power is priority against close & immediate threat. The 9mm (with, what 50% more muzzle velocity?) apparently can zip right through an enemy, dumping much of the energy after exit, where the .45 dumps energy right near the impact. Result, bad guy more likely to quit coming at ya.
also, a single trigger pull firing a spread of five .41 balls of course much decreases the odds of a miss. Could be real important in a home-invasion.
and of course you can load the .45 Long Colt, too, in the same cylinder-- I'd probably load, in order, a cartridge for a first shot (more flexibilty) followed by three of the shotshells, with another cartridge last.
Fired in that order, a bad guy would be in a world of hurt, and quite unlikely to bother you again.
"Gun free zones" is a misnomer. They're nothing more than target-rich environments.
The thing about these last TWO shootings, is that both of the perpetrators WERE NOT LEGALLY ALLOWED TO PURCHASE A FIREARM, but the feds didn't enforce their own rules! Both of them had been adjudicated mentally ill, yet neither were denied the right to purchase when the dealers made the required call in checks to the feds! WHY wouldn't the feds enforce their own rules? Maybe they want more anti-gun hysteria so it will be easier to subjugate us.