Governor (no, not fois gras)

[Shane45 807]

Let me be the dissenting voice. But this may be primarily from a bit of assumption on my part. I think the pistol absolutely has a defensive role. Now I will admit to having viewed none of how this pistol is marketed. But based on its configuration I just assumed it was for dispensing rattlesnakes and things like that when your out on the trail/camp etc etc. And in that role I could see it being useful

[Newtonian 453]

As a defensive tool it's a terrible choice.  It's marketed to civilian shooters who know their marksmanship and skills are inadequate, and are suckered by the notion that by using a handheld shotgun that requires little aim or accuracy they can skip all that difficult and time consuming training.

Did you watch the video or read the article in the link? Each pellet has the same energy as a .380, and four pellets with each trigger pull. Are you saying that the equivalent of 24 rounds of .380 is insufficient for home defense?

 

Also, the notion of a gun "marketed to ... shooters who know their marksmanship and skills are inadequate" is ludicrous. Who told you that? Where did you read it? And what if someone actually practiced with this firearm? 

[LorenzoS 100]

And what if someone actually practiced with this firearm? 

 

OK, that's a good question.  So go ahead and use one of these things at a defensive pistol class at MDTS or GFH and let us know how well you perform with it.

[Newtonian 453]

OK, that's a good question.  So go ahead and use one of these things at a defensive pistol class at MDTS or GFH and let us know how well you perform with it.

Hmmm. I see your point. They have strict rules about what types of guns you can use. 

[John3754 0]

Are you saying that the equivalent of 24 rounds of .380 is insufficient for home defense?

 

I certainly wouldn't want to be shot with .410 buckshot, and if you were to unload this thing into someone you are absolutely going to ruin their day, anyone who says otherwise is an idiot.  However, I don't see the advantage of having 6 rounds of .410 buckshot over say...my Glock 19 with 15 rounds (plus another 15 in the spare mag) of 147 grain Federal HST that I can drive tacks with.

 

I think it's inaccurate to say that a .410 revolver is "ineffective" or "insufficient" for personal difference, but I think it is accurate to say that it's not the best choice.

[Newtonian 453]

 I don't see the advantage of having 6 rounds of .410 buckshot over say...my Glock 19 with 15 rounds (plus another 15 in the spare mag) of 147 grain Federal HST that I can drive tacks with.

30-round gun fights are extremely rare. I read about home invasions all the time. The bad guys usually run at the sight of a gun; almost always after the first shot. And a revolver is always more reliable. 

[John3754 0]

30-round gun fights are extremely rare. I read about home invasions all the time. The bad guys usually run at the sight of a gun; almost always after the first shot. And a revolver is always more reliable. 

 

That doesn't answer the question.  Saying "bad guys usually run at the sight of a gun", true or not, is irrelevant, and saying "a revolver is more reliable" just argues for a revolver in general, not a .410 revolver.

 

What is the advantage of having 6 rounds of .410 buckshot over 15 rounds of highly accurate 9 mm JHP?.

[Newtonian 453]

That doesn't answer the question.  Saying "bad guys usually run at the sight of a gun", true or not, is irrelevant, and saying "a revolver is more reliable" just argues for a revolver in general, not a .410 revolver.

 

What is the advantage of having 6 rounds of .410 buckshot over 15 rounds of highly accurate 9 mm JHP?.

I'm not an expert on any of these topics. My views were formed by reading and watching videos, not through experience. I know what the experts say, the guys who teach the home defense classes. I know.

 

There's nothing wrong with questioning, however.

 

If a scientific study was conducted on how many rounds it takes to end the proverbial "threat" 95% of the time, I'd bet the number would be closer to 2 than 15, and for 99% perhaps 5 or 6. The only times I've ever hear of 40 rounds being discharged it's been police doing the shooting, and the threat was probably dead or incapacitated after the second shot.

 

(Yes I'm aware that generally, defensive shooters empty the magazine or cylinder).

(Cops don't get prosecuted for putting 40 holes into someone, but we do. Something to think about.)

 

I'm not in any shape, manner, or form suggesting magazine capacity limits. 

 

As for type of gun, again I'm no expert. But I'd prefer one that goes off 100% of the time to one with a documented failure rate, however small. If the Judge and Governor were really horrible choices we'd have heard and read about it by now. 

[John3754 0]

I'm not an expert on any of these topics. My views were formed by reading and watching videos, not through experience. I know what the experts say, the guys who teach the home defense classes. I know.

 

There's nothing wrong with questioning, however.

 

If a scientific study was conducted on how many rounds it takes to end the proverbial "threat" 95% of the time, I'd bet the number would be closer to 2 than 15, and for 99% perhaps 5 or 6. The only times I've ever hear of 40 rounds being discharged it's been police doing the shooting, and the threat was probably dead or incapacitated after the second shot.

 

(Yes I'm aware that generally, defensive shooters empty the magazine or cylinder).

(Cops don't get prosecuted for putting 40 holes into someone, but we do. Something to think about.)

 

I'm not in any shape, manner, or form suggesting magazine capacity limits. 

 

As for type of gun, again I'm no expert. But I'd prefer one that goes off 100% of the time to one with a documented failure rate, however small. If the Judge and Governor were really horrible choices we'd have heard and read about it by now. 

 

I understand what you're saying, you feel 5-6 rounds is enough for the vast majority of defense situations, and you prefer the reliability of a revolver over a semi...still though, even if you take all of that as a given it simply argues for a revolver over a semi, it doesn't make a .410 revolver a better choice than say, a .357.

 

Regarding capacity, and this is my own personal opinion, in the unlikely event that I'm faced with multiple assailants, (I happen to know someone personally who was the victim of a home invasion and there were three assailants), I want more than 5-6 rounds, and I find my Glock, with the proper training, to be a reliable platform.

[BlueLineFish 615]

Like everything else there are tradeoffs and one has to make a decision based on what you are comfortable with. Revolvers are super reliable with limited capacity. Semis have higher capacity but can have malfunctions. Personally I am big on capacity. I would rather have more ammo because of likely misses and multiple assailants. I keep my glock 20 in my dresser. 15 rounds of 10mm will handle most situations

[Newtonian 453]

I understand what you're saying, you feel 5-6 rounds is enough for the vast majority of defense situations, and you prefer the reliability of a revolver over a semi...still though, even if you take all of that as a given it simply argues for a revolver over a semi, it doesn't make a .410 revolver a better choice than say, a .357.

 

Regarding capacity, and this is my own personal opinion, in the unlikely event that I'm faced with multiple assailants, (I happen to know someone personally who was the victim of a home invasion and there were three assailants), I want more than 5-6 rounds, and I find my Glock, with the proper training, to be a reliable platform.

I totally agree. The .357 is my choice, and I have two handguns in that caliber. My second choice is my CZ82, 12 rounds, which like my Ruger revolvers has never had any sort of failure whatsoever  

 

I have a lot more to learn more about this stuff. When I take my home defense class you can be sure I'll have a lot of questions.

[specopsscout 26]

Just as an observation...I don't own a Governor/Judge, so no dog in this fight, but...

 

Most truly knowledgeable individuals agree that handgun stopping power is, for want of better definition, inconsistent at the best of times. Report after report has documented humans taking repeated, many times lethal shots with quality ammunition, only to continue to fight until blood loss ultimately shut the machine down...

 

Most experts also seem to agree that the best way to improve the lethality/stopping power of handguns is to fire multiple shots, creating multiple impacts, creating multiple wound channels, to increase the blood loss and systemic failure.

 

I fail to see how a handgun that has the capacity to create four or more solid wound channels(I'm not referring to the lightweight shot loads) with each pull of the trigger is a bad thing. Admittedly, this is at relatively short range, but so are most gun fights, and especially those that use it for home defense making this nearly a moot point.

 

The arguments against the handgun seem to universally compare it to a high capacity semi auto. This argument works to discount any revolver, and has been used to discount them for decades...Many of those arguing so strongly against the .410 revolvers are less vehement when arguing against a more traditional revolver, which seems odd when the issues are similar.

 

Regardless of all the internet chest thumping, reality has shown that very few shooters, and I use that term loosely, are really capable/skilled/talented enough to pull the trigger of their quality semi auto with the speed and accuracy to place four or five shots in a fist sized group at seven yards in under two seconds from the holster. Someone using one of these handguns can, since they aim and shoot one time.

 

Ammunition seems to be a big point of contention. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that loads designed for an eighteen plus inch barrel are going to perform poorly out of a two inch barrel. That no longer seems to be an issue as ammunition companies have invested in the design. So, this argument too, is dated at best, and moot at this point as better designs have come on line and continue to develop...

 

Shoot what you like, own what you like. As an example, I see a lot of folks who build frankenguns, many times out of the least expensive parts they can find, or a mingling of good and bad, regularly recommend these guns as the penultimate tactical whatever...fewer still correct them on the true quality of their hobby guns, but damn if many of the same, won't join the dog pile one someone with a .410 handgun, since it's "not practical"...

 

Sure...

[DTtuner 21]

Relax folks. No need to get bent out of shape of opinions.

 

I think the governor it definitely interesting, and fun to shoot from what I've been told.

 

Personally, wouldn't spend my money on one, but it's all personal choice.

That's what makes 'merica, 'merica. 

[Contrvlr 17]

Excellent post specopsscout

[John3754 0]

I fail to see how a handgun that has the capacity to create four or more solid wound channels(I'm not referring to the lightweight shot loads) with each pull of the trigger is a bad thing.

 

The number of holes made tells you little about the terminal performance of the round.  Forgetting about semi-autos, I'd be interested to compare the terminal performance of .410 buckshot out of a 3 inch barrel vs .357 mag JHPs.  Making a bunch of holes may or may not mean anything if the .357 mag JHP makes bigger, deeper holes and therefore does more terminal damage to vitals.

[specopsscout 26]

"There are three classes of people: those who see, those who see when they are shown, and those who do not see."

 

Leonardo da Vinci