What do you guys think about that derringer that shoots 1 single

>>31794572
Modern day liberator pistol.

>unburned powder

>>31794584
And? It's a barrel, it's not like it's going to jam up.

>>31794628
>barrels can't jam

>>31794648
Do you know how stupid you come off as?

>>31794572
pretty cool

>>31794572
I would rather the x39

>>31794736
They do have easy swap barrels and is multi cal. Pretty nifty.

>>31794723
>what is a squib load

>>31794787
>Inspecting your rounds before you use them

>>31794580
>ww2 garbage
>modern garbage
yeah that's about right

>>31794803
He's saying the round doesn't have a chance to gain a whole lot of velocity in that tiny ass barrel.

>>31794840
It's a pistol. It isn't going to perform to the rifle standard anyway.

Besides, if people want to spend money, who am I to stop them?

File: IMG_6299.jpg (1MB, 1616x2156px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1616x2156px

>>31794572
>single-shot derringer
>using anything smaller than .45-70
It's like you want to get stabbed and raped.

>>31794572
>>31794857
>what do you guys think about
The entire purpose of this thread is to voice opinions. And anon has a very valid opinion that such a tiny ass barrel is going to have shit velocity, even compared to a typical AR pistol.

>>31794857
Yeah I know. It would make more sense to have it in 7.62x39 though

>>31794572
>Miss shot
>Die

>Hit them
>Die anyways while they are laughing at you because .223

>>31794572
Heizer is just a tryhard company in it for a buck or two.
As for the pistol it has about the same effect as a 22lr.
Unless you mean muzzle flash and noise. They're fun as fuck for that

>>31794874
>.30 cal slug vs .22 cal pebble

Yeah, I can see your reasoning there, even if you only get a couple hundred fps. It seems like a gun that you have just for shits n giggles, really.

Speaking of shit velocity, what kind of speed are we looking at here? 4, 500? 700, MAYBE?

And of course a fireball the size of a watermelon. That nearly goes without saying.

>>31794862
better stabbed and raped than gettin' hooked on toilet brittle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iWFL53E0zk

>>31794874
IIRC the same company actually makes one in that caliber

>>31794572
loud, 5.56 is bad enough out of a 10" barrel

>>31794572
Don't miss

>>31794572
sounds painful

File: Beautiful gun - EAA Tangfoglio Thor Raptor single shot.jpg (88KB, 1280x667px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 1280x667px

>>31794572
I prefer the Thor that shoots 1 single:
.223 Remington,
.270 Winchester,
.30-06 Springfield,
.300 Winchester Magnum,
.308 Winchester,
.375 Winchester,
.44 Magnum,
.45-70,
.500 S&W Magnum,
7mm-08_Remington,
7mm Remington Magnum

>>31795015
or brenda

>>31797219
What....the fuck?

File: 1447107757319.jpg (49KB, 436x467px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 436x467px

>>31797219

>>31794648
exactly. they can't.

File: 1474502899160.png (97KB, 340x340px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 340x340px

Find me one that fires 300 weatherby mag. Wrist breaker.

>>31798551
>>31797219
As in - it can shoot any one of those.

>>31798594

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDKDp3nbe-Q

>needs to use brass hammer and punch to open action

>>31797219
All at once?!

>>31794572
A stupid toy.

If I wanted a single-shot .223 pistol for funsies I'd rather get a Contender.

>>31794580
The Liberator was designed to be cheap though.
.45ACP is reasonably subtle to shoot, compared to .223 from a snub barrel, which will sound like a tiny bomb going off, and make a huge flash. Also ballistics will be better, the .223 will not stabilize from this barrel and it'll penetrate like dogshit.

>>31794787
Would a .223 squib even have the bullet stick in the barrel? I mean this is like no barrel AT ALL.

>>31794862
.38 Special is better for a Derringer, .45-70 will be a thundering fireball that blinds you, and the bullet will keyhole like mad, along with probably below .45ACP tier ballistics

>>31794874
>It would make more sense to have it in 7.62x39 though
Barely, you'd get a really loud and keyholing .38S&W from a barrel this short

Rifle caliber Derringers are inherently insipid.

>>31794572

It's a neat concept but

>shooting rifle ammo through a short as fuck barrel

I'd assume a .223 from such a short barrel would be ballistically similar to like a .22 mag

>>31799810
Imagine a heavier .22 Mag which will keyhole no matter what.

>>31799744
>7.62x39 has a unique habit
>unique

>>31799824

Would it be accurate at 7 yards?

>>31794572
It would be better to get one in .45 ACP or a magnum cartridge. Or, just get an M1911 compact. Doesn't look like an M1911 would be much thicker than what's in that pic, yet would offer, what, 6+1? 7+1 or 8+1 with standard M1911 mags which is likely what you'd carry as back-up mags?

Still, better than nothing, but I just think .223 from a pistol-sized barrel is foolish. The casing is 45mm long. 9x19 has a 19mm long casing. 26mm difference, so you would LITERALLY gain 1" of barrel by using 9x19 instead. .45 ACP is probably, what, 11.5x23 or something? Over 4/5th of an inch gained in barrel length by using .45 ACP instead, not to mention you've got a bigger/heavier bullet that will probably have more energy in it and won't be so likely to keyhole or overpenetrate. At FAR less than 2600 ft/s, .223 has pretty much ZERO chances of fragmentation so you can forget about that. 5.45x39 would be better because the shorter casing would allow for slightly more barrel, and I trust 5.45 to reliably tumble more than a .223 or 5.56. Without tumbling, you're looking at similar wounds to a .22lr or .22 Magnum. Not very significant. .45 ACP will be better, or even 9x19mm. .45 JHP would be the best though, in my opinion. At one shot at a time, you don't really have to worry about recoil, about the ammo being nearly twice as heavy restricting how much you can carry, or stuff like that, so might as well use something that's going to cause the largest wound channel... especially if you only have one shot at a time, as mentioned.

>Using a rifle cartridge with slow burning powder in a stupid 2-3 inch barrel.
Absolutely retarded.

>>31799744
>shoots steel case
>is surprised when it doesn't extract from a break action
Fucking brilliant

>>31794572
alot of people seem to be under the impression its being marketted as just some higher calibre derringer.

I see it more as just some pocket gun that hardly weighs anything and is easy to keep in a rock or pocket, and if your primary fails you, for some reason that you cant fix or cant figure out, even with your secondary you still have an option to use any remaining ammo you have left. Because its better than a fucking knife or your bare hands in an emergency.

File: 46545.jpg (30KB, 630x354px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 630x354px

>>31797219
>no .224 fireball

single shot, can JFK you from blocks

>>31799834
Maybe.

It could also hook like a fucker and tumble into something between you and the target.

>>31800178
This, and ported to boot, what a surprise the velocity is dogshit

>>31794899
Pretty much. Ones claim to fame shouldn't be a more expensive, lighter derringer. Derringers are already uncomfortably light and available in stupid calibers. If it we're a tiny T/C Contender that may be cool but fuck this noise

File: tmp_13544-13d665e3918ec7a6d7694455500b0110-1900109049.jpg (655KB, 2125x1145px) Image search: [Google]

655KB, 2125x1145px

>>31797219
Fuck off Ocelot

>>31794572
Because neutering the .223 to the point of being worse than a pistol round is fun, right?

>>31800432
You realize that whole paragraph does nothing but validate your first sentence? That all it is. A modern derringer, which is only ever worth a shit for deep carry and laughs

>>31801154
Is that one of those rediculous .308 pistols? 'The Highwayman' or whatever? Better off getting a .357 Magnum revolver. Perhaps a S&W 686-P? I've wanted one of those since highschool. A revolver with 7 chambers in .357? Fuck yeah.

There are reasons why cartridges are designed the way they are. Even see a necked cartridge in a pistol? No? There is a good reason for it. In a short barrel, most of the powder just burns off. A 22 mag would probably be just as effective.

>>31801291
Probably more, since it won't tumble in flight.

>>31801276
it is a single shot pistol and yes they can take rifle cartridges

no you would not be better getting a .357 magnum revolver as these are two different beasts, this is specifically made for distance shooting and you can use single shot pistols like it with a scope at several hundred yards while a .357 is shit at that distance

>>31801291
kek, there are multiple successful necked pistol cartridges

>>31794572
mile long trigger pull

>>31801276
The 686+,627,and TRR8 are 7,8 and 8.

>>31801291
>There are reasons why cartridges are designed the way they are.
Yeah because pistol cartridges have to rely on fairly large projectiles for reliable wounding without high pressure or excess blast.
>ever see a necked cartridge in a pistol?
Would you like to see a list of them? One of which has been in service for over 50 years, itself born of an even older cartridge.

I know you're stupid but try not to ignore the free pressure and improved feeding

I have a .357 Magnum derringer, and it is an absolute bitch to fire. Also, it's pink. I usually cheat, and wear a glove when I fire it.

How bad is the recoil from .223 in one of these things?

>>31797219
LIQUIIIIIIIIID

>>31794572
Derringer
Dumb
and
Desperate
all start with the letter D,
but only one of them has 4 letters.

File: Cobra Big Bore .38 Special.jpg (59KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 800x600px

>>31799949
The .223 and 7.62mm ones are really novelty models.

Their standard model is in .45 Colt and .410 bore (can shoot both), not terrible for a light single-shot.
Personally though, if I were to carry a Derringer, it would be a two-shot .38 Special or 9mm

>>31801658
All of them would perform better in a package this size vs .223