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...

More Guns Means More "Gun Deaths"

I saw that someone posted this little bit of relatively useless information on facebook. Now, naturally, many folks will interpret this to mean that anyone having a gun is likely to use it to kill someone else. But, let's look a little deeper into this bit of folk 'wisdom'.

Firstly, I would note that if in fact there are more 'gun deaths' and also an increase in the number of guns, it is logical that an increasing number of people killed by the gun were shot by a legal gun owner defending his or her life and or property. That is a good thing.

It is also logical to think that many of the possessors of "more guns" are bad guys, criminals and crooks who are busy doing each other in. This is also a good thing.

A good argument can also be made that with an increase in the number of citizens owning and legally carrying guns for self defense, the number of citizen (read: good people) deaths have decreased since criminals are less likely to rob, assault and try to kill someone whom they suspect is armed. This fits nicely with the notion that the bad guys are doing themselves in more frequently.

On the other side, let's say that there were far fewer guns, that citizens were prohibited from owning or carrying guns. Then, I'd agree that the number of "gun deaths" might decrease overall, but would definitely increase for the poor, defenseless public.

Making bald, unsupported and ambiguous statements like "more guns equal more gun deaths" is like saying "more cars equal more car deaths". Maybe, but getting to what that really means, if it is true at all, requires honesty, research and an unbiased desire to get at the truth.


Like Mark Twain said, there are "Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics".

Here are a few facts, not biased in one way or the other, just facts that can be checked for accuracy. From "Gun Control Facts." By James D. Agresti and Reid K. Smith. Just Facts, September 13, 2010. Revised 12/28/12.

A note about the research by Agresti and Smith:

This research is based upon the most recent available data in 2010. Facts from earlier years are cited based upon availability and relevance, not to slant results by singling out specific years that are different from others. Likewise, data associated with the effects of gun control laws in various geographical areas represent random, demographically diverse places in which such data is available.

Many aspects of the gun control issue are best measured and sometimes can only be measured through surveys, but the accuracy of such surveys depends upon respondents providing truthful answers to questions that are sometimes controversial and potentially incriminating. Thus, Just Facts uses such data critically, citing the best-designed surveys we find, detailing their inner workings in our footnotes, and using the most cautious plausible interpretations of the results.

Particularly, when statistics are involved, the determination of what constitutes a credible fact (and what does not) can contain elements of personal subjectivity. It is our mission to minimize subjective information and to provide highly factual content. Therefore, we are taking the additional step of providing readers with four examples to illustrate the type of material that was excluded because it did not meet Just Facts' Standards of Credibility.

See the link below for the source of the facts to follow and to see more for yourself:
 http://justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp:


In 2011 the US had a murder rate of 4.7 per 100,000. Chicago alone (known for their strict gun laws, even banning handguns) had a murder rate of 15.9. The last time our murder rate was below 4.7 was in 1963. State of Vermont allows anybody who can legally own a firearm to be able to carry it without a permit. Their murder rate is .4 per 100,000

According toBureau of Justice Statistics numbers, each year between 1987 and 1992 about 62,200 victims of violent crimes used guns to defend themselves, while another 20,000 annually used guns to protect property. According to the National Self-Defense Survey conducted by criminology professor Gary Kleck of Florida State University in 1993, Americans used guns 2.3 million times a year to defend themselves between 1988 and 1993.

A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]

• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]

A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19]

Carry Holster Torture Report

Well, not 'torture' exactly, but significant. I want to report on my experience over the last five days in which I was traveling, working a convention with thousands of people, living in a hotel, up, down, walking around, unloading boxes, going out to dinner with groups of people, etc. All of those things you normally do in a normal month of life, but amplified and crammed into five days.

As my usual mode is to carry whenever legally permitted, I knew I would be packing for all of the time except crashing out in my hotel room, so I needed a good holster that was secure, comfortable and unobtrusive. I took three for the LC9 - a Bullard Belt Slide leather OWB, a pjholster IWB and a basic, plain-Jane Remora.

The short version is that except for one day, when I wore the Bullard with a loose, tropical short-sleeve shirt all day, I ended up with the Remora. The pjholster didn't work for me because I tend to carry appendix style IWB and all of the bending, stooping, carrying, sitting for ten and twelve hours is not comfortable with a kydex holster. At least for me. I do like pjholsters if I'm going with kydex, which I often do around the town, but for this intensive, active period, I found the kydex too uncomfortable.

It's an SR9c in the Remora, but the LC9 is basically the same. (I'll post a photo of the LC9 and the Remora when I get the chance later today.)

The Remora did shift, but really not to any large extent. I never had to re-adjust it or worry about it coming out or being loose.

So, what the week's torture test told me was that the basic Remora worked as advertised and became my almost constant companion. If I had taken a model with a sweat shield, it would have been almost perfect.

Cleveland IWB Holsters Review

Cleveland Comfort Cut for the Ruger SR9c/LaserMax Micro

Bobby Cleveland and company make IWB holsters that are a cut above most of the other holsters of this type - the hybrid (leather backing and kydex shell) double clip, in-the-waistband holsters for concealed carry. I may be wrong, but I believe the type was made popular, if not originated, by Crossbreed. The idea is basic: use a wide leather backing to provide comfort against the wearer's skin, attach two clips, also widely spaced to take up the weight and attach a kydex shell moulded to fit a particular handgun. Shazam! You have a very odd holster that works very well for its intended purpose. There are quite a few hybrid holster makers offering their designs and variations off this theme. I received a couple of Cleveland holsters made for the LaserMax Micro, rail mounted laser and the Ruger SR9c handgun, and for the LC9 equipped with the LaserMax CenterFire unit to test and report on here. My thanks to Cleveland holsters for the chance to evaluate and write about my findings and opinions

Cleveland holsters take the basic Crossbreed concept and move it into a higher level of design and execution. But before getting into the details, here is what you get when the holsters arrive in the mail.

For the LC9 with a custom cut.

Holster for the SR9c with comfort fit.

Reverse of the package.

 The packaging is good and contains an informative sheet on how the holsters are made and how to adjust the ride height and cant to your liking, and a warning to use the included thread locker material to ensure the screws, once adjusted to your preference, don't move.

The holsters are a quality product throughout. Where some makers use basic cowhide for their backing, Cleveland sports premium tanned leather, as you can see from the closeup below. Other makers' backings are not as smooth, flexible and well finished. In fact, Cleveland even hand bevels the edges for comfort and an excellent finish.

A close look at the leather quality and finish of the backing, and the type of round nuts used to hold the screws.

Another look at the leather finish, kydex and clip attachments.

Below is the custom cut on the LC9 holster. The rear of the slide is protected by the leather backing, but the grips are exposed permitting a good and rapid access to the pistol.

LC9/LaserMax in the custom cut holster.

The reverse side shows the adjustment holes for the two clips and the brass round head screws Cleveland uses to keep the clips and the kydex shell in place. Each of the screw and nut combinations trap a rubber O ring between them so that any slack that may develop between the kydex or clips and the backing can be taken up with a few turns of a screwdriver. This is a good feature, not possible with holsters that are bradded to the leather.

Reverse side of the holster.

The comfort cut, the one supplied for the bigger Ruger SR9c/LaserMax combo, is basically the same holster but with the leather left higher to shield the wearer completely from contact with the gun. It was obvious that the SR9c and 10 round magazine would be completely covered by the backing, but I wanted to see how it would work with the longer 17 round magazine installed.

Comfort cut for the SR9c/LaserMax combo.

The same holster showing how the pistol equipped with the longer magazine fits.

Reverse of the custom cut and Ruger with the longer magazine.

 As you can see, no problem with the long magazine.

Another feature that sets Cleveland holsters apart from the competition is the detail they mould into the ends of their holsters. Rather than simply cutting the kydex off at the muzzle, they wrap it around the end of the weapon, moulding it in place there as well. And the kydex is brought higher up on the slide. This offers more comfort and security to keep the gun in place.

Detail of the muzzle end.

Wearing and using the Cleveland holsters.

 A good design and several quality steps above the normal, these holsters are obviously quality built equipment. The big aspects are comfort, ease of use, adjustability and security of the weapon.

Quality: I would put Cleveland holsters in the top tier of quality hybrid IWB holsters. I had an opportunity to compare the Cleveland holsters with a Comp-Tac Minotaur hybrid. I discuss this in more detail below. In my experience, these two are at the top of the hybrid IWB game but have very different design and manufacturing philosophies.

Comfort: These holsters are certainly very comfortable. The two Cleveland holsters were comfortable right off, without a break-in period. As you wear them more and they mould and conform to your own body type and contours they will fit better and become even more easy to wear for extended periods.

Ease of Use: I had a set of the kydex clips to try out with these holsters. I generally like kydex over steel clips as I find they are most often easier to use. However, the kydex clips Cleveland supplies don't work for me. The steel clips worked as advertised, but I could not get the kydex clips to attach snugly to my 1 1/2" gun belt. I measured the clips inside area and found they were 1 5/8", which should have been big enough, but no. I could force one over the belt, but not the other. I think the issue was that the clips were not big enough on the inside to accommodate my belt and the thickness of the material in my Wranglers. Switching to the steel clips solved that problem. Even so, I have always found the twin clip hybrid holsters difficult to get on properly, and the Clevelands were no exceptions. I think this a personal idiosyncrasy. Your mileage may vary.

Security: The guns snap nicely into the kydex when properly adjusted and can be drawn with little effort. The pistol is not coming out of that holster accidentally. At first I expected the comfort cut holster to be more difficult on the draw, but with some practice to familiarize myself with getting a grip between the leather and the grips, I came to the conclusion that this is not really an issue, and I think as the holster breaks in, it will be even easier. I certainly appreciate the leather between me and that long grip. The custom cut is comfortable enough with the smaller LC9 and access is no problem at all. All in all, I think I prefer the custom cut, but, again, that's a purely personal decision. Like any other carry system, train well with what you use and you will be proficient with it.

The Cleveland and the Minotaur

I previously did a review of Comp-Tac's AIWB Minotaur for the SR9c here on this blog. See it for details. It is important to remember that the Minotaur I use here to compare with the Cleveland holsters is not an AIWB, but an IWB designed for strong side carry, as is the Cleveland. In this post I want to point out the differences between these two holsters that clearly show the design differences and philosophies between the two makers.

Right away you can see that the Minotaur is smaller overall and shaped nothing like the Cleveland. Perhaps the most striking difference is in the clips and their arrangement on the two holsters. The Cleveland has traditional metal clips adjusted by means of a series of holes in the leather backing. The Minotaur's clips are thinner kydex with multiple adjustment holes in the clips themselves. Depending on their positions, the ends of the Minotaur's clips may protrude below the bottom of the leather backing. I haven't found this to be an issue. Some users will trim the clips - easily done because they are kydex, not metal - once they have arrived at the positions they like. Unlike all twin clip hybrids, I found the Minotaur to be very easy to put on and remove.

Below you see the reverse (body side) of each holster. The Cleveland is wide and smooth providing a larger surface area to distribute the load. Cleveland uses round, smooth screw heads here which do not impact the holster's comfort. Some holsters of this type use a three-pronged star type of nut that digs into the leather instead of screw heads. This works, but moving these nuts to different positions is a trial, leaving puncture holes behind. The prongs usually are bent and have to be straightened which is difficult as they are thick metal points, and small. This is not an issue with Cleveland's holsters.

The Minotaur's mounting hardware is permanently fixed in place and covered by a thin, smooth leather lining. Even though smaller, the shape of the Minotaur's backing handles the load and delivers a surprising level of comfort. Even though they are radically different in shape, I would say the two are equally comfortable for me. If you have a different body shape, you might prefer one over the other. I am tall and relatively slim: 6' 3", 200 lbs.

The biggest difference between the Minotaur and the Cleveland holsters lies in the ability to attach different kydex shells to the Minotaur to fit different pistols. The kydex shells are available separately for the Minotaur to fit many popular carry guns. Remove four screws, slide in a different holster shell, reinstall the screws and you have a holster for a different gun, but with the same backing broken in to you.

A direct comparison of the two holsters:

Although both holsters offer a wide range of adjustments for ride height and cant, neither are suitable for appendix carry. This style is becoming more popular for CCW owners, and for good reason. There are a number of professional trainers who have debunked the "danger" of appendix carry, especially as compared to the more common strong-side carry method. Both have their risk points and with either the shooter must be aware of them and train to minimize the risks. But to say that appendix carry is inherently more dangerous than the other styles is not correct.

This style of Minotaur might be adjusted for a "straight drop" but the shape of the backing is not designed for appendix carry so I doubt it would be acceptable in that configuration. Comp-Tac does offer a Minotaur designed specifically for appendix carry. I reviewed it here earlier.

The Cleveland is really designed for carry with a cant. I tried to adjust the custom cut for the LC9 to the appendix carry configuration, but with the built-in cant of the kydex shell, it was not possible. So, with that in mind, the Cleveland and the Minotaur can be adjusted for your strong-side carry preferences.

Conclusion: Cleveland makes the best traditional design hybrid, leather backed, dual clip concealment holsters. They have taken the standard design and elevated it to a much higher level with attention to materials, details of construction and the better moulding and 'wrap around' of the kydex. Cleveland offers a thirty-day guarantee, as does Comp-Tac.

My opinion is that Cleveland and Comp-Tac, although following very different design philosophies, offer the best in hybrid, concealed carry holsters available today. The Minotaur is obviously different and has staked out it's own design path. The Cleveland is a more traditional design, but with deep attention paid to the details, comfort and differences between their product and the also-rans. You really can't go wrong with either.