Thanks for posting the video. All the proof i need for carrying one.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Bird shot + Judge = boo-boo
- Thread starter BehindBlueI's
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Ballistic gel evidence gets posted and the nay sayers scatter. Lol
BehindBlueI's
Grandmaster
- Oct 3, 2012
- 26,608
- 113
I've laid out my arguments and you can accept it or not, so I don't see much point to continue to repeat myself unless there is a specific question. I'll continue to carry ammunition proven to defeat heavy clothing, break bone, resist deflection off of round bone, and that doesn't have such strict range limitations. I will continue to recommend others do the same based on what I've seen in real shootings. If amateur gel tests are what you base your carry choice on, that's your call. Odds are you'll be fine.
Just out of curiosity, what would make you change your mind on a judge/governor being a viable self defense tool? Do you need to see a dead body shot with one? I see the logic, but i dont think any proper testing can be done using that method. The fbi uses this gel testing as their standard and even though it is not perfect, its all we can really use to test a bullets performance.
My earlier post was to everybody saying it was close to useless in a sd situation, and then when someone posted data to the contrary, not one of you admitted that you may have been mistaken or that your opinions could have been missinformed. It just went silent.
My earlier post was to everybody saying it was close to useless in a sd situation, and then when someone posted data to the contrary, not one of you admitted that you may have been mistaken or that your opinions could have been missinformed. It just went silent.
Common occurrence, failure to respect the 2 pump rule.
BehindBlueI's
Grandmaster
- Oct 3, 2012
- 26,608
- 113
Well, we can clarify a bit. If you haven't looked at my post on stats from random violent crime, head on over there. The relevant part is that only 3 people killed their attacker, 6 won by display or by firing and missing, and 3 won by injuring but not killing their attacker and the attacker giving up or being too injured to continue the fight. So, a starter pistol would have won the day in roughly half of them. Does that make a starter pistol a viable self defense tool? Targeted crime looks different, but let's assume no one is targeting you. Is a starter pistol viable?
Seeing a dead body is not of much relevance. I've seen dead bodies shot with a .25. I've seen way more living and walking around bodies shot with a .25. Is a .25 a viable self defense tool?
Do amateur gel tests equate to FBI testing, which is more than just gel testing btw. DocGKR, google him if you don't know who he is, is in the position to know and he says it is not.
To me the question comes down to, what does this gun do better then other options, and what does it do worse. The supposed benefit of the .410 revolver is more wound tracts. I suppose if you look at a single shot, perhaps. I can run a 7yd Bill Drill from the holster with a .45 in about 3.0 seconds, say 2.8-3.2 depending on holster and if I've had my Wheaties that morning. With the gun in my hand, about 1.9 seconds. Figure .4 second reaction time to the beep, and that's 6 shots of .45 in the "A" zone in 1.5 seconds. Do you doubt that 6 shots of 230 gr .45 will penetrate deeper, make larger wound channels, have a better chance to penetrate through to the spine, or to break large bones then any size shot from a .410? Do you think in that same time I could put as many pieces of buck shot on a target at 7y? Do you think I can place my shots more or less accurately with a bullet designed to be rifling stabilized or with a shot cup being spun down a rifled barrel?
In short, the Judge does nothing a quality 9mm, .40, .45, .357 can't do. The only supposed advantage of multiple wounds disappears pretty quickly when you look at how fast you can get multiple shots on a target from a standard handgun. With that advantage come the cons of rapid spread, shallower and less consistent penetration, projectiles that deflect and deviate from their path easier, etc. as I've laid out.
In short, why would I carry a Judge over a Glock 26? Why would I carry it over a Sig P220? Why would I carry it over a GP100? Why would I carry it over a S&W Shield?
How about this? The judge can do this.
Im not saying the judge is the pefect all around pistol but it does have a place. The judge can be used for home defense and edc.
Somewhere around the time people said the gun was useless not the round. Bird shot is not viable for sd in any caliber.
It is like saying a 870 is not practical because it can shoot birdshot and birdshot is ineffective.
I watched the "gel test," but remain unconvinced that a Judge/Governor offers any advantage over a quality semi/revolver in a standard caliber.
indiucky
Grandmaster
Awwww.....You said "advantage over a quality semi/revolver in a standard caliber"......That brings a tear drop to my eye brother...Go ahead and bring up the .44 snub and the deer grenades on Saturday...We will only shoot the 9 mm CZ after our hands start bleeding...
BehindBlueI's
Grandmaster
- Oct 3, 2012
- 26,608
- 113
...and the funny thing is that's a .45. One that failed to meet FBI specs in unknown quality ballistic gel, and I can tell you from first hand observation that the super light/super fast rounds fare very poorly when they hit bone.
x
Last edited:
You'll shoot your eye out
Master
- Jan 21, 2011
- 1,781
- 48
I'm still not completely clear. I understand the complaint about shot as self a defense round. Leaving aside that many experts disregard ANY snubnose gun, as a snub-nose .45 colt, is it horrible when compared to a Ruger snub-nose .45 colt for instance?
As for advantage over other quality .45 colt goes, how come the 3 inch chambers don't give better velocity to .45 colt than another gun chambered specifically chambered for .45 colt with standard chamber dimensions? It's like a snubbie barrel even before the flashgap, then it has barrel beyond that!
Will somebody say specifically why if I wanted a cheap snub-nose .45 colt revolver, why The Judge should be avoided?
Seems like some people have 20/20 vision yet are still blind. But but my stats are perfect. His are less impressive and not professional enough thus must be flawed. Show me a pile of dead bodies riddled with buckshot holes from a Judge so I can make some charts and graphs to show that it couldn't have possibly have been the cause of their demise.
I would not buy it as a snub nose .45 Colt unless it was the only gun that fit that niche and I felt the need to own one. The reason is the rifling in the barrel is a compromise. Why is it a compromise? It is designed to not totally destroy the .410 shot column while still imparting some spin to the .45 round. The worst thing you can do to a shot column is spin it.
So in other words there are better choices for .410 and there are better choices for .45 Colt.
So in other words there are better choices for .410 and there are better choices for .45 Colt.
Wait until you see what a 3 inch 410 Slug shell can do out of one of these with the rifling. It's nasty and very accurate.
Blame the ammo choice, not the gun. a long gun 410 wouldn't have done much better
You'll shoot your eye out
Master
- Jan 21, 2011
- 1,781
- 48
There you go. I do like The Judge, especially the long cylinders. If the rifling is suspect though then for my purpose that's no good
BehindBlueI's
Grandmaster
- Oct 3, 2012
- 26,608
- 113
Seems like you're taking it personal.
Google Dr. Fackler ballistics. Google FBI gel and the precision used in making it a good analogue, as verified by shots in real tissue. Clear gel is not the same, and that's per folks like Dr. Gary Roberts. I would suppose that industry experts saying clear gel has no analogue to real wounding is relevant in determining if it's flawed or, at best, unproven.
