The Bond Arms Snake Slayer

After more thought and research into Bond Arms, I decided to purchase a Snake Slayer and give it a thorough testing as my primary carry gun.

Now, being that I also own and carry 9 mm and .380 semi-automatic pistols, why would I look to make a change to a two shot, single action derringer? Some explanation of my reasoning is in order.

First, I think there are two main theories, or schools of thought, regarding how an average citizen can approach how, what and when to carry a concealed weapon. The how and the when questions are easily answered:

How

• a method that is comfortable, so the pistol will be readily accessible given the fact that the gun will be under some kind of covering garment, 
• secure so there is no danger of the gun becoming accidentally dislodged from the holster and is secure from an unexpected grab or discovery,
• safe, so that the trigger is always covered to protect against negligent discharge,
• keep it concealed. 

When

• at all times where legally permissible. This requires that you know the law in the state where you are carrying. For example, I live about an hour's drive from another state, which I visit frequently. My carry permit is valid in both states, but the laws are somewhat different. In one, for example, I must be aware of which restaurants are compliant with the carry laws - in essence, an establishment must derive the majority of their income from food, not liquor. I wouldn't carry in a bar. Period. In one state, if the merchant posts a "No Guns" sign, the only force of law is regarding trespass. If an employee or manager knows you are carrying he or she can ask you to leave. That's it. If you don't, you could be charged with trespass.

What

This is usually where the controversy comes in, where gallons of ink (virtual and real) get spilled, tempers sometimes rise and some members have been banned from internet gun forums for letting their passion overrule their reason. As my old Company Commander in boot camp said, "Opinions are like ****, everyone has one."

In brief (and I'm not trying to cover all of the arguments, just a few of the main ones) the arguments run like this: 

Carry as big a gun as you can handle. 

This seems to be based on the old "stopping power" idea, being that one needs a large caliber, big bullet traveling at a high velocity to "stop" a man-sized, meth-crazed, 250 lb. biker assailant. Good luck with that. I don't know about you, but I have never even seen a meth-crazed, 250 lb biker and if I were attacked by one, I doubt that pistol "stopping power" would do much immediate good.

This notion of "stopping power" probably derived from tales coming out of WWI in the Pacific. While it is true that a 1911 .45 semi auto might drop a 100 pound, weak, starving, disease riddled Japanese soldier with one shot, a .22 would probably have worked about as well. The stories I heard while in the service in the 1960s about the "crazed" (insert an Asian enemy here) being shot six times with a .38 then slicing off the shooter's head with a samurai sword/machete/bayonet before collapsing is mostly b.s. Sounded good at the time though.

Modern ballistic studies, as well as studies based on actual law enforcement shootings, disprove this idea. Many assailants have been shot with many bullets of various calibers, including large ones beginning with a "4", and remained active and dangerous for some time.

One major problem with a big caliber gun firing large bullets at high velocities is their tendency to punch through a human torso, arm, leg, hand, neck, etc. and slam into something else. Like, through a sheet rock wall or door, or two. A car door, window, building. An innocent person who just happened to be in the vicinity. Missing your target with one of these big guns is bad. Who knows where those stray .44/.45/.357 rounds are going to end up when you miss?

The other problem with the "big as you can handle" gun is just carrying it. From my reading, and the people I know who have big pistols, most of them don't carry those guns regularly. They are too big and too heavy to strap on and carry all day, everywhere. And, if you have a carry permit and don't carry, what's the point? I've had people say to me, "I only carry when I'm going to need it." "I didn't know you could see into the future," I say. 

An average loaded model, 1911 .45 weighs about 45 oz. or 2.8 pounds. Think about carrying around half of a five pound sack of sugar attached to your belt. Make that three pounds with the holster, and a little more with a spare loaded magazine. Even so, you still get comments on the gun forums like, "The 1911 does weigh a little more, but it is a better gun in every other way. No one would ever or has ever disputed that." Not.

Even a more "modern" pistol, like a Glock 21 weighs 40 oz. loaded. That's 2.5 pounds. No big savings over a 1911.

I often wonder, really, how many of those Glock owners actually carry those guns regularly.

(There must be a reason why small, compact, lightweight guns like the Ruger LCP are so wildly popular...)

Shot placement

This old saw pops up with alarming regularity on the gun forums. (Again, a word of caution about gun forums. They are like men's gossip groups. There is a disproportionately large population of self-styled gun experts who post regularly in some forums but are basically opinionated jerks with little practical or actual knowledge of the subjects they pontificate on. Don't rely on gun forums to provide accurate, real and unbiased information. While there are knowledgeable, helpful people out there, it's very difficult to tell the phonies from the real ones, especially for those new to guns and self defense carry.)

The idea behind shot placement is that any caliber is effective when one shoots accurately and at a vital "stopping" area. There are more than a few things wrong with this notion. First, for 98% of the people who shoot hand guns, shooting with repeatable accuracy is not possible. Even then, the accurate and consistently good shots do their shooting on a range, at a target using techniques that have no bearing in a charged, adrenaline-fueled, self-defense shooting episode. Good sight picture. Steady trigger squeeze. Breath control. Steady hands. All of this goes out the window when someone threatens to take your life. Thinking that the average person who carries for self defense, who seldom gets to the shooting range and even more rarely practices rudimentary self defense shooting drills will be able to put his or her shots accurately on a vital target area when fighting for their lives is ludicrous. Remember that the next time your read or hear some fool promoting shot placement. 

The other fallacy behind shot placement is the idea that there are "vital stopping areas" that will drop an assailant dead in their tracks. Works pretty good on TV shows like "Justified", but in the real world, leaving aside the question of actually hitting one of those areas, who knows where and what they may be, or where to aim to get to them? Theoretically, maybe, but practically? There are documented cases of bad guys being shot in the head (surely, common gun wisdom knows this is a vital stopping area) who don't go down, but keep on shooting.

A caveat regarding laser sights
I have to note that the acceptance and use of laser sights on handguns has a direct, and positive bearing on the notion of shot placement. Many respected authorities on handguns and self defense, such as Jeff Quinn of Gunblast.com, recognize the usefulness of laser sights for the average shooter. In short, lasers make one a better shooter. Not just at night or in places of diminished light, but across the board. While it is true that an accomplished and practiced marksman or markswoman can shoot as well, perhaps better, than you or I using a laser sight, you and I will never be shooting at that level. Not unless we have the time, money and inclination to train hard enough to be a master. Most of us don't. So, it can only help with most guns like the semi-autos and revolvers being carried for self defense to buy and use a laser to improve one's marksmanship. It is also a safer thing to do for the general public. We need all of the help we can get to be sure to hit only our intended target. I have reviewed a number of lasers in this blog. I like the LaserMax variety. If you are interested, read my reviews, and others', and decide for yourself.

Carry plenty of rounds

Most modern semi-autos carry more than enough rounds for self protection. Many carry more than necessary. I have a Ruger SR9c with a seventeen round magazine. With one in the chamber, that's eighteen shots. Now, I can imagine a scenario in which I might need eighteen shots, but the odds of that actually happening are remote, to say the least. Yes, people will cite instances in which a self defense shooter needed a large number of rounds, but the odds of that happening are very slim. 

The unstated assumption behind carry plenty of rounds is that one could easily be in a situation where there are a number of assailants or it takes multiple (like four, five, six, or more) shots to stop the threat. But, if one does enough digging through reported self defense incidents that involve the person being threatened resorting to a gun you'll find that a very large number of these incidents never involve a shot being fired. The potential assailants flee at the sight of their intended victim drawing a gun. Of those in which the potential victim does fire, it usually involves only one or two rounds before the threat is stopped. The bad guys run away, sometimes uninjured, sometimes ending up at a hospital where they are usually arrested. Sometimes they are killed.

Often when multiple shots are fired, only a few find their target. The rest find unintended targets, thankfully most of them in an inert object. But not always.

The question becomes, how many rounds are enough? This is, of course, an unanswerable question. As I leaned in project management school, the real answer is "it depends."

And so we come to what I think are the real questions. Why do I legally carry a gun for self defense? And, what does that actually mean, and what am I willing to do, and not do, because of that? And, given the answers to those, what, when and how should I carry?

I carry because bad people also carry guns (and knives, and clubs, and chains, and some are much bigger, younger, and meaner than me) and until they don't, I refuse to be a victim who can't fight back.

I carry because I feel a responsibility to my family and my fellow citizens. I'm no cop, but I am a citizen and believe it is my responsibility to protect the lives of innocent people when there is no other choice.

Carrying a gun for self defense means that I am capable of using it effectively, and I will use it without hesitation if forced to do so in defense of my life or that of others. This also means I am prepared to be injured or killed in so doing.

I am not willing to risk the lives of, or injury to innocent people by firing my weapon in a manner that may do so. I must have a clear shot, even if it means exposing myself in order to shoot safely in a violent, self-defense situation.

I will choose and use a weapon that is, as much as possible, consistent with the above. 

It seems to me that many people choose their handguns with the idea that they are good shots, can hit their targets regardless of circumstance, that they require a larger and more powerful weapon that will carry enough ammunition to stand off an assault by a crowd of assailants.

I don't subscribe to those ideas. My thinking has changed to this. I want a small, reliable gun that I can carry comfortably, all the time; that is powerful enough to quickly stop an attacker, but not so much that it is a danger to others nearby; that I can shoot accurately enough at close range but its effectiveness (lethality) falls off quickly beyond that distance. At this point, my thinking is that a small, hand-held shotgun is one answer to these requirements.

Those are my reasons for choosing a Bond Arms derringer as my primary carry weapon. Firing a .410 shot shell with large diameter shot, such as 000 or 00 buckshot, or perhaps the self defense rounds that use a combination of three or four disks and BB pellets, the little gun should be very effective at short range, even with not-so-good shot placement, and will be less of a danger to others.

Two shots should be enough for the vast majority of situations I might encounter. If not, I will have the option to reload, or to resort to a small backup gun.

The Bond Arms derringer should be very reliable. It is a single action pistol with little to go wrong. No springs, slides, or revolving parts. It is designed with built in safeties using both the single action cocking and rebounding hammer.

It is small enough to carry, but large enough to do what it is meant to do.

So.... I have a Bond Arms Snake Slayer on order. Perhaps it will arrive this week. I'm putting my money where my opinion is so I can test out my theories and this innovative firearm. I will be looking at how it shoots, how it conceals, how it carries from day to day. I will be testing its reliability and use factor - how easy is it to draw from concealment, cock and fire? What kind of ammunition and shot patterns work best in self defense situations. How is the best way to carry spare rounds and reload quickly. And, anything else that occurs I think you'd want to know about.

I will report back here after I get my Snake Slayer and begin to apply some reality testing to it.

The Two-Shot Question

Bond Arms Snake Slayer IV

Bond Arms Texas Defender

Bond Arms Mini .45

I had heard of Bond Arms but, until recently, I knew little about the company or the handguns they make. I saw that D.M. Bullard makes holsters for them and the photographs on his site, with a Bond Arms derringer holstered in various holsters made me curious. Then, recently, I got involved in the question of what to carry while at home.

Given that bad situations can develop very quickly, I have always considered it good practice to carry something at home on the theory that a rapid response is better than having to run into another room for a gun. The rub comes in with deciding which gun is the best all around home carry self defense weapon. I've opted for small and light. After all, you'll be wearing the thing around all day. This has meant, up until now, the Ruger LCP. It is certainly small and light. It's also in .380 caliber. I've accepted the fact that a modern self-defense load, like the Hornady Critical Defense hollowpoint load in .380 will be effective enough under most conditions. But two factors have moved me to reconsider.

First, is the onset of winter. I live in a small town at over 7000 feet altitude. It gets cold. Most people are wearing heavy coats and often layers during the fall, winter and early spring months. There is some question in my mind about the penetration characteristics of a .380 hollow point round fired into three or five layers of heavy clothing.

Second, is the unpleasant fact that small semi-automatics are not the most jam-free pistols in the world. There is always the small, but disconcerting, chance that you can pull the trigger and it won't go "bang". The problem is that you can shoot a lot of rounds at the range, but you really don't know if the next time you pull the trigger the gun will shoot. That is just an inherent factor with semi-automatics. Some are undoubtedly better than others in this respect, but given the nature of the beast - hammer fired or striker fired, slide, springs, loading ramp, the cartridge and bullet shapes,... you just can't be 100% certain. This is one reason why revolvers are still popular, besides their obvious cool factor.

But, although it is very unlikely, revolvers can also fail to function at that critical time. Poor maintenance. An actual mechanical failure with the cylinder or trigger or hammer. It's possible to prevent a revolver from firing by grabbing the cylinder so it will not turn and index when the trigger is pulled, just as it is possible to 'jam' a semi-auto by grabbing the slide and forcing the gun to go out of battery.

Now, enter the single action, multiple-barrel, non-revolving handgun. The classic design for this kind of weapon was the creation of Henry Deringer. His model, now dubbed the "Derringer" overcomes those potential limitations, as discussed above, with a simple, single-action, hammer fired design with no extra moving parts. The hammer, trigger and firing pins. That's it. But, as with anything, there is a catch.

Having no other moving parts like cylinders or slides, the derringer is limited to the number of rounds it can fire without reloading. In this case, two.

But, there is a flip side to this as well. Those two rounds can be very powerful and effective if the design of the gun is made strong enough and well enough to handle powerful loads.

Back in 1995, Greg Bond began Bond Arms with the express intent of making the better derringer design pistol. Today, Bond Arms is known as the only company to produce and sell an all-American made derringer pistol that is built to be a precision handgun that will shoot large and powerful loads and not unduly punish the shooter. Today the company is owned and run by Greg's brother, Gordon.

I don't have a Bond Arms pistol, nor have I ever shot one, but when my thinking turned to what might be the best around the home carry weapon, without the potential limitations of a small semi-auto or revolver, the Bond Arms pistols moved quickly to the top of the consideration pile.

After a few hours research I have come to some preliminary conclusions. Be advised though, that plowing through the internet sites to weed out objective and accurate information is a chore. The Bond Arms site is very useful for a good introduction to their guns, with facts, figures and statistics backed up with photographs and input from other sources. They provide links to articles and reviews by others so that you can get a more widespread look at what others think. Going afield of this, looking through the results of various Google searches also turns up some of the gun whacko's out there. As you might suspect, gun forums are a very mixed bag. Having moderated a couple I know this from long experience. One example is a forum, that will remain unnamed, in which I found a long, multi-page thread of discussions about the Bond Arms pistols. Many of the posters there had obviously never seen, held or shot a Bond Arms gun, but they were free with advice, advice that bore no relation to reality whatsoever.

So, at this point I can make a few observations. I'm still researching and learning about Bond Arms, especially from the perspective of using one of them as a carry gun around the house, and maybe in general.

The Bond Arms double-barrel pistol reflects Henry Deringer's timeless design, but, really, the resemblance ends there. The modern Bond Arms pistol is a heavyweight, precision American made hunk of steel. Where the older derringer design had various shortcomings and inherent safety problems, the modern Bond Arms design has eliminated these and incorporated state-of-the art safety features as well. Where the older derringer designs allowed the hammer to rest adjacent to the firing pins, which could cause an unintentional discharge if the gun was dropped while loaded, the Bond Arms design uses a rebound locking hammer. According to the Bond Arms manual:

Think of the rebounding hammer as an automatic half cock. The hammer automatically rebounds to a
blocked position off of the firing pins. This allows for safer reloading compared to other derringers. The rebounding hammer is an exclusive patented feature for the Bond derringers.

In a conversation I had with Gordon Bond, he related that some Bond Arms owners, when ordering new grips, reported that they had accidentally dropped their pistols and none had fired as a result. This is undoubtedly due to the rebounding hammer.

The Bond Arms pistols also incorporate a sliding "cross bolt safety" mechanism which renders the hammer incapable of striking the firing pins if the trigger is pulled on a cocked pistol with the safety engaged. Interestingly, the safety can be easily moved to the "off safe" position while holding the pistol in one hand. Nice, for self defense use.

Another feature I like, although it is not strictly a safety feature, is the spring-loaded, thumb operated barrel release mechanism. Once can quickly and easily unlock the barrels for reloading with a short movement of the shooter's right thumb. This is a one-handed operation for right hand shooters, and an additional step for lefties.

A word about the trigger. Do not be concerned with the occasional internet forum post that claims the trigger pull is extremely difficult. Aside from the fact that many internet posts are made by people with little or no knowledge of what they are talking about, a quick look at the Bond Arms manual will give you all the information you need concerning the trigger. One, due to the design of the derringer itself, the trigger easily actuates with a more downward pull than, say a semi-auto or revolver. Also, putting any pressure on the cocked hammer with the shooting hand will dramatically increase the pressure necessary to pull the trigger. I suspect that most people who report heavy trigger pull do not own a Bond Arms pistol, have not read the manual and don't realize they are creating their own problem.

The Bond Arms pistols appear to be dead-reliable. Once loaded and locked up, just pull back the hammer and pull the trigger and one of the two barrels goes "boom!". Repeat, and the other one fires. No worries about slides, safeties or cylinders doing their thing correctly.

The Bond Arms pistols shoot some heavyweight self-defense loads - .410 buckshot, .45 long colt, .45 ACP, .38 special +P, .357 Magnum, 9mm, etc. Much more potent than my .380 hollow point rounds.

And, seeing that you can get other barrel sets in many different calibers that will fit any Bond Arms frame, you can have essentially a number of different guns that all feel the same and shoot the same for very little money.

Of course, the down side is the two-round limitation. But, for self defense, it's only a limitation if you need more than two shots, and you can't reload in a hurry. As for any self defense handgun application, serious and regular training on how to use, operate and shoot your carry gun, or guns, must be a part of your commitment to carry. This goes for reloading any gun you carry, not just Bond Arms pistols.

I can't speak to the reloading procedure since I don't have a Bond Arms to put through those paces, but I'll manage to work that out sometime and report back on it. From what I have seen, the procedure is quick and relatively easy, but again, as with all things of this nature, it requires commitment and practice.

Bond Arms makes an intriguing, rock-sold, small handgun that fires some awesome rounds and I think it deserves a serious look as a self-defense carry gun.

More later...

Shooting

With the weather like it's been, and the loss of my friend's shooting area - some kind of stupid social falling out that caught me in the fallout - I've not been out shooting for a long while. Now, this isn't so important if you are into target shooting, but I'm not. At least not yet. My focus now is on self defense tactics and in order to get competent and stay that way you have to practice. A lot.

So, I found another piece of land on which I could shoot and there was about a week between snow storms, melt and the attendant mud, so on a kind of dry day I drove out to the land and packed my handguns. LC9, LCP and SR9c. Yes, I'm a Ruger fancier for reasons I will probably go into in another post. I packed along some 9 mm FMJ and .380 FMJ practice rounds and an innocent cardboard box for the target. Walked, sluged through snow and mud mostly, about a mile to a good spot and set up.

Then commenced the lesson showing me (once again) that I am not such a good shot, especially not having been to the "range" for too long. Even more interesting is that each of these guns has a different trigger, meaning that the LCP and LC9 are "double action" with long trigger pulls before the gun fires. The LCP, being so small, seems like it has an overly long pull. It's long, but it just takes getting used to. You can't jerk this gun and expect to hit much. Anything less that a yard or two away will require some concentration on the grip and trigger action. This is something that must be practiced to get muscle memory involved because in a hurry-up self defense action, you don't have time (and probably can't) to think slowly and deliberately.

The LC9 also has a long pull, but being bigger and heavier, and fitting my hand better, is more manageable. Some story though. Practice. A lot.

The SR9c is a real sweetie when talking about triggers. It has a kind of Glock-like safety on the trigger and the pull is probably around 5 oru 6 pounds and short. Compared to the other two guns, way short. But with that, the great ergonomics and weight of the gun, it shoot fast and stable.

I had fun. Seriously wounded the cardboard box, and an innocent sandstone boulder nearby and shot up a few dollars worth of ammo.

That brings up my second point. Ammo. I worked out a minimum practice schedule and routine for  the year. At the absolute minimum number of trips out and rounds fired, I would still be sending about $300 worth of lead down range each year. I thought about reloading. Then, I thought about shooting more cheaply and more often so that I could hone my shooting skills without going broke. That's when the light dawned that the answer is another Ruger! 

Of course! What I really need is a new Ruger SR-22 Pistol so that I can buy carloads of .22 ammo and shoot ten times as much at less cost that I would need to even with reloading my own ammo.

Hell, I don't know why I didn't think of this before....