I recall when these came out nearly 15 years or so ago. I've never shot one. I have had a couple of Taurus revolvers. The 5 shot ultralight .38 with +P ammo has quite a snap to it. Of course, there are advantages and disadvantages to the .410 side of this. The advantages are you are likely to get at least a few pellets on target. The disadvantages are you're not likely to get "stopping power" at any distance, if at all. A review I saw when these first came out said they don't penetrate much, especially if the bad guy is wearing a jacket of any thickness. I believe the guy shot a scarecrow dressed in a shirt and a hunting jacket. The clothes stopped all the pellets. Here's a couple of short videos by a guy who shot at drywall (some pellets actually bounce off) and then at a "flesh simulating" material. There are always discussions of stopping power and the like, but the reality is that in a self-defense situation, no one is a soldier at war. The bad guy will not advance towards danger. This is why crime is lower where citizens are not deprived of the right to self-defense...criminals are after soft, unarmed targets, and don't bother engaging where there's a risk of encountering armed resistance. So [ignoring the PCP Effect] the bad guy's probably not gonna keep coming once the first shot goes off in a classic home invasion/burglary situation. And the .410 pellets shot out of this thing are not gonna penetrate the wall, which can be a major plus in many scenarios.
@Frank Sanoica The only counter-argument I would make regarding recoil of any gun is that you are not gonna feel it except on the range. If you are in a self-defense situation, you're not gonna feel it. And in such a scenario. the adrenaline effect is gonna kill accuracy way more than recoil will....you're probably aware of the very low "hit rate" of LEO and FBI agents when they are engaged in gunfire. And those guys are "experts" shooting their service guns.
As far as one shot to many shot gun. When I went hunting I had a single shot 22 by friend had a semiautomatic 22 we ran across some bob whites. When we were done he had five and I had 15. I went through 20 rounds and he went through 50. On any day he is just as good a shot as I am maybe a little better. but the idea of every shot has to hit it's target over I have more shots. He sold me his semi real cheap after that.
@Beth Gallagher Your argument is sound, to the extent that ONE intruder may be so dealt-with. What if there were several, perhaps 2 or 3, and you had only your own resources to respond with? See, we are always confident while discussing the very unlikely possibility of facing potential lethal threat, but for most it is impossible to enter into the mode of thinking used by one committing an act none of us would ever consider, or experience. Frank
Frank, it would never be my intent to kill anyone; I'm just "aiming" to run them off. I don't care how many of them show up, I'd hope that as soon as they realized we aren't that easy target they imagined they would run. There is no way to prepare for every possible situation, and I hope I never have to experience any of them.
@Ed Wilson Unknown to most other than the most hard-boiled of firearms fanciers, like me, is the fact that revolvers can and DO jam, more frequently than might be expected. This is usually the result of permanent deformation of the portion of the barrel comprising what may be thought if as a "pre-chamber", which extends into the opening in the frame containing the cylinder. The cylinder is often very close to this barrel protrusion, with only a few thousandths of an inch clearance. That clearance, closed up tight, effectively jams the cylinder against rotation. No more shots available if that occurs. How often? Unknown. Manufacturers do not advertise this fact. It happened to me. The tiny protrusion of the barrel into the cylinder opening is clearly visible. The tiny clearance between it and the center of the cylinder hub is also visible. That clearance squeezed against the cylinder effectively prevents it from turning. Frank
@John Brunner You may be right about the "heat" of the situation; but, ignoring the expected recoil may affect your ability to fire accurately...... Frank
@Beth Gallagher Here is the inherent fallacy present in "not intending to kill (or hurt) anyone. Career criminals are uncannily aware of resources open to them which places blame upon the innocent protector of property (or life). No matter the degree of harm inflicted upon a criminal intruder, the user of armed force WILL be burdened, in all but the most gun-conscious legislatures such as Arizona, with charges leveled by local prosecution implying that most gun-users are bent on trying out their firearms freedoms in self-defense. Especially if prosecution can provide testimony indicating the shooter was a "gun-nut". Frank
@Ed Wilson I expect since these dual-use pistols can use .45LC ammunition, which fires a single solid bullet, their barrels are rifled. This imparts spin to the bullet to stabilize it in flight. A cluster of small projectiles, like fine shot, fired from a rifled barrel, tends to spread out as though issuing forth from a funnel. So, "spray" would likely occur inherently with these guns using shotshells. Such drawback is often overcome by surrounding the bunch of shot within a sabot of sorts, a hollow tube which leaves the barrel surrounding the shot charge. No idea if such ammunition is being made specifically for the Judge. Another consideration not yet mentioned is structural penetration by expended rounds not stopped by an intended target: individuals present in other rooms have been hit unintentially by shots fired by another in self-defense. Such occurrence is far less likely using shot. Frank
I live in Texas, Frank. If someone breaks into my house, there will be no question of their intent as far as I'm concerned, and I will have no qualms about firing a gun to assist them in leaving. I don't foresee any consequences as I will be within the law in Texas. I am not a "gun nut" and I won't be walking around the neighborhood looking for targets. I am strictly interested in self defense in the event of home invasion.
@Beth Gallagher I fear I have made you defensive....I only want to expose all the possibilities.....Please remember that the Governor of Texas, Anne Richards, vetoed gun carry there (open carry?)......even after the "Luby's Massacre"? Did you live in Texas then? "The Texas State Rifle Association and others preferred that the state allow its citizens to carry concealed weapons.[17]DemocraticgovernorAnn Richards vetoed such bills, but in 1995 her Republican successor, George W. Bush, signed one into force.[19] The law had been campaigned for by Suzanna Hupp, who was present at the massacre; both of her parents were killed by Hennard.[20] She later testified that she would have liked to have had her gun, but said, "It was a hundred feet away in my car." (She had feared that if she was caught carrying it she might lose her chiropractor's license.)[18] Hupp testified across the country in support of concealed handgun laws, and was elected to the Texas House of Representatives in 1996." Texas was one of several states which vowed to secede from the Union if Bill Clinton's Crime Bill was passed....it passed, and ALL those states slunk away into the sunset, NOT seceded. Frank
@Frank Sanoica -- You have not made me defensive. I think you are over-thinking the whole thing. I'll take my chances with any Texas jury if I manage to maim or kill anyone who has willfully broken into my home. Yes, I remember Ann Richards quite well; she was a character. However there are open carry laws now that have nothing to do with this whatsoever. I don't plan to be packing "The Judge" to the grocery store.