Besides the image above, there is also an excellent video and article.
Besides the image above, there is also an excellent video and article.
There are a few handguns which are marketed as being perfect for self defense, but which don’t catch on in that role. One of these is the Taurus Judge.
This strange looking handgun is actually a tiny shotgun, one chambered for the .410 bore. Besides being the smallest and weakest shotgun ammo you are likely to find in your friendly neighborhood gun store, the .410 is also the only popular shotgun which is known by its diameter instead of the gauge. That is probably for the best.
The .410 shells most widely available for sale are loaded with bird shot, which are teensy tiny pellets designed to kill very small animals without tearing up the carcass too much. Limited numbers of people have purchased this type of handgun for concealed carry in recent years, and it is now possible to occasionally find ammunition which is loaded with more potent buckshot. Even so, such defensive ammunition is far from common.
That was extremely fortunate for a college student named Christopher Moeller. He was shot four times by an assailant wielding a Taurus Judge, at a range of about 25 feet. All four rounds seem to have been solid hits, but the young man survived due to the fact that the criminal had loaded his gun with bird shot. Even so, he almost didn’t make it due to blood loss.
What is my take on the Judge? There are certainly smaller and lighter revolvers that fill the role of an emergency defensive arm, and some of those smaller and lighter guns are chambered for extremely potent calibers. Add in the fact that all of those other calibers are easier to find in the gun store, and usually have a lower price tag, and I would have to say that the Taurus Judge is a solution in search of a problem.
Ask any person from the United States who is involved with the shooting sports and they will tell you that the very first Magnum handgun put into general production is the .357 Magnum revolver.
The three-fifty-seven has long been admired, and for good reason. It is an extremely powerful handgun, certainly powerful enough to harvest all but the largest game in North America. So far as self defense goes, it has a proven track record of effectiveness. One could do worse when choosing a caliber to fit a wide variety of roles.
But there is a problem with the claim that the .357 Magnum, introduced in 1934, was the first handgun of its type to be manufactured in great numbers. That honor goes to the Russian military handgun most commonly known as the Tokarev, which was issued to the troops beginning in 1931.
Also known by the official name as the TT-30, this military handgun was developed to replace the rather odd revolver that the Russian armed forces had been relying upon since 1895. It is certainly emblematic of Soviet design philosophy in that it is robust, powerful, ugly as sin, and uncomfortable to use.
The TT-30 was chambered for the 7.62x25mm Tokarev cartridge, a bottleneck design that was loaded to some very high pressures.
The most powerful loadings offered by the Soviet war machine launched a teensy tiny .30 bullet at a blistering 1600 fps, which is just as fast as some of the modern defensive loads available for the .357 Magnum. Such high velocity, with such a small bullet, meant that penetration is extremely good. The bottleneck design also has another advantage in that it is very friendly to autoloading mechanisms, with the chances of fail-to-feed jams much less likely than with straight wall cartridges. The gun itself is well designed for ruggedness, with the improved TT-33 withstanding extreme abuse during WWII and still functioning.
But that pretty much is all the good points for the design I can find, as there are some serious drawbacks to the gun as well.
There was no trigger block safety or safety catch in the original design, making the gun unsafe to carry with a round in the chamber. Magazines had a tendency to drop free without warning if there were damaged in any way. The sights were very dark, and hard to make out in anything other than well lit conditions. The simple grips, as well as the squared off beavertail, meant that many shooters find it to be uncomfortable when firing.
But there is one overriding advantage, and that is the very low price asked for fully functional versions on the surplus handgun market. One can find a perfectly good gun for about 20% to 30% of what it would take to buy a shiny new .357 Magnum from one of the better known manufacturers.
Can I recommend a Tokarev for concealed carry? Not really, as the lack of what I consider to be adequate safety features in original models from Communist countries gives me pause. Guns imported into the United States are required to have a trigger block safety installed, but crappy workmanship in the extra parts means that many collectors disassemble their guns and return the guns to their original condition in the interest of improving reliability. In other words, you won’t know if you bought a gun which can safely be carried with a round in the chamber unless you know how to pull it apart and check to make sure the extra parts have been correctly installed.
The reason why I am mentioning this particular gun is because a Tokarev might just be the perfect handgun for those looking to enjoy the vast wilderness areas in North America. They are rugged enough to be reliable in extreme conditions, as well as have the punch to deter most aggressive animals. The small bullet is a concern, but it shouldn’t be a problem as long as bears or moose are avoided. If you should find that your Tokarev has developed some rusty spots while you were backpacking in the Rocky Mountains, who cares? Just sand it down and apply some oil. It looked like a piece of Soviet era crap before you left, the shiny spots just lend it some character.
Ed Harris was kind enough to share his experiences with the 7.62x25mm Tokarev round, and he also sent us some pictures! Thanks, Ed!
“What did the groups look like?”
If my faulty long term memory serves, the first round looked something like this.
(Please click on the picture for a larger version.)
The target was two feet across, and set 35 feet or so from the firing line. The center hole was made by the projectile with the traditional bullet shape, and the other four by the light wadcutters. I didn’t actually hit the exact center of the target, of course, or even the ten ring. But I figured you would forgive me a little poetic license in the interest of clarity.
I can’t say what the pattern looked like for any of the subsequent 49 rounds, as I was just firing at the paper to get rid of them. There were more holes than paper hanging downrange by the time I was done, so at least we know that ammo like this does a bang up job of tearing apart targets!
One would think that the lighter bullets would tend to rise above the point of aim, not fall below. So why did things turn out this way? Dunno. Maybe it has something to do with the turbulence caused by the projectile out in front.
When it comes to handguns issued to the military, the very first autoloader that I am aware of which found its way into holsters worn by soldiers was the Mauser C96.
The Turkish government bought 1,000 of the guns in 1897. Hardly enough to equip all of their officers, it is true, but you have to start somewhere.
It took a lot longer for civilians and police forces to join the late 19th Century. I remember a lot of old wheelgun aficionados back in the 1970′s who would deride the popularity of autoloaders, holding forth whenever anyone seemed to be listening on how only revolvers were reliable and jam proof. I suppose they were lucky to have never suffered a poorly seated primer.
Nothing wrong with revolvers, of course. I’ve carried them myself for my defense, and never felt less than adequately protected. I just never saw the need to give anyone else grief if they didn’t see things my way when it came to choosing their own defensive tools.
But, all that aside, there were people who bitterly opposed the rising reliance on semi-automatic handguns. Revolvers or nothing for them, and anyone who didn’t agree was a fool!
One could say that I affectionately called these people “The Revolver Boys” for their lack of acceptance of the choices of others. Except I wasn’t really being all that affectionate.
There was one problem that the revolver boys kept coming up against, and that was a matter of firepower. Autoloaders beat revolvers every day of the week when it comes to putting a large amount of lead downrange in a hurry.
Was there a way to increase the number of shots in a handgun that could only hold five or six rounds? Actually, there is!
Most people are aware of the standard bullet shape.
(Please click on all pictures to see a larger version.)
It is so common, such a well known touchstone in our culture, that things which have nothing to do with firearms are described as “bullet shaped“.
The shape provides superior aerodynamics over traditional round ammunition, allowing modern bullets to travel further than a simple lead ball. But is that why they started to shape ammo like this?
I have no idea if it is true or just a legend, but the story is that the bullet shape was hit upon by cannon designers in order to get a heavier shell while still using the same diameter barrel. The obvious advantage in reduced air resistance was just a happy surprise.
Bullets shaped like this have several advantages, but punching clean holes in paper targets isn’t one of them. The nose of the bullet splits the paper, allowing it to tear open in a ragged shape. The edges are ill defined and sloppy.
This isn’t a subject of concern if you are working on improving your self defense skills, as a round striking a tiny fraction of a millimeter off center just doesn’t matter. It does matter a great deal when people are competing in handgun bullseye matches, however.
If a bullet should strike on one of the lines, the judges have to be able to carefully measure the hole made in order to see where the majority of the projectile landed. That one extra point awarded, or one point less in the score, might just determine who goes home with the trophy that day.
And that is why we have the wadcutter bullet.
Completely flat nosed bullets. There is no pointy nose, so the paper is snipped off very cleanly and precise. The holes produced are very clear and sharp.
Please click on the pictures for a larger version.
It had only been a few decades since they had appeared, and most handguns up to that time were single shot affairs. But now you had six shots before reloading! Amazing!
It must have seemed to the people at the time as if they had Thor’s hammer in their holster.
The biggest problem with cap and ball revolvers, however, is that it took a great deal of time to reload. Loose powder had to be measured and poured into each chamber, with a round lead bullet forcibly pushed down on top. After all of the chambers were stoked up, then percussion caps would have to be fitted to the rear of each.
Sometimes the caps would not want to stay put, and so they would have to be carefully crimped. Even so, it was common for percussion caps to come loose. This would not only mean that one of the loads would not go bang, but the cap could also work its way into the mechanism of the revolver and jam the cylinder to a stop.
That is why the introduction of cartridge technology was greeted with joyous glee by anyone who used a handgun.
The powder, bullet, and primer all in one convenient package? Just slip a new one into the chamber to reload, instead of measuring powder and forcing bullets into cylinders? And, what is even more amazing, no percussion caps going walkabout in the guts of your gun so it doesn’t work? Give me some of that!