|WikiProject Firearms||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
Technically, isn't calling it a .410 incorrect? Putting a point in front of it implies it is in inches, but I think it is properly written 410 Gauge, no point. I'm not an expert on writing calibers properly but I'm pretty sure I'm right on this. - Gunmaster45 (not registered in Wiki, just on IMFDB)
- No. A "410 gauge" would be .22 caliber. There's no "implying" that it's in inches, the .410 measurement is the diameter in inches. .410 differs from all other common shotgun sizes in that it's not measured using the "gauge" system. I don't know why, maybe whoever invented it thought .410 sounded better than 67.5 gauge. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 02:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- The correct term is '410 bore' HarveyHenkelmann (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Commercial on Outdoor Channel
Has anyone else seen the bogus commerical on the outdoor channel advertizing the new 3" Magnum 4510 Judge? They show a women draw a Judge from her purse as two muggers creep from the shadows in a parking lot, and then it cuts to five watermelons being completely destroyed by the rounds. The thing is, even the buckshot and slug rounds wouldn't do anything close to this in real life, so the commercial is obviously false advertizing. Not to diss Taurus, but the Judge isn't really a good gun. The rifling in the barrel makes the shot pattern with buckshot and birdshot extremely inaccurate at anything less than 20ft, and the long cylinder to short barrel makes the .45 LC and slugs inaccurate too. Intimidating but ineffective for practical use. Anyway, I plan to make a video using a Judge to shoot a watermelon to compare with the commercial and disprove what the commercial shows. - Gunmaster45
The Winchester load with the three wadcutter bullets and 12 number 4 shot really acattered a watermelon. surprising given the moderate velocity of the round over the chronograph. At present there is a montage picture of the watermelon in the article. (Michael E. Cumpston (talk) 10:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)).
All handguns are compromises as far as personal protection is concerned. The most common scenario where a civilian uses a firearm in defense of self or another is at range under seven meters, and likely in a built-up area as well. At such short ranges, the mediocre accuracy is not a serious handicap. Additionally, many would-be violent criminals retreat upon the use of a firearm in defense whether they are actually hit or not. Taurus believe that they have created a weapon which is a suitable compromise between short-range power and overpenetration hazard. Whether they're right depends on the exact needs of the potential purchaser and probably depends heavily on the properties of the ammunition, but the rationale behind the weapon is mostly sound. As for exploding watermelons, it is probably an exaggeration, as well as a waste of produce. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 00:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
National Firearms Act
In addition to the rifled barrel, there's another thing that keeps the Judge from meeting the NFA's short-barreled shotgun definition: the NFA defines shotguns as having a shoulder stock, so even if the Judge had a smoothbore barrel it would only be an "any other weapon", not a short-barreled shotgun. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 02:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed, if it was a smooth-bore, it would been an AOW for NFA purposes.--Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 22:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Videos about this revolver
Features and Specifications for 3" barrel Judge section
The last sentence in the second paragraph in "Effectiveness" states: "A cylinder full (6 shells) of 3" shot shells..." Surely, this should read "(5 shells)..." ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7066:3000:8974:142D:C5EE:A738 (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Regarding the last paragraph in the "Effectiveness" section:
"While the Judge's cylinder bore is adequate for higher-powered single-projectile loadings such as the .44 Magnum or .454 Casull, the gun is not designed for the high chamber pressures that these cartridges generate and thus could explode if they are used with it. To prevent this, the cylinder bores are choked to prevent successful chambering of rounds larger in diameter than the .410 shotshell and longer than the .45 Colt."
I've read this 5 times and it doesn't make sense to me. How is the cylinder adequate for cartridges which could blow it up? 44 magnum is a smaller diameter cartridge. 410 and .45 colt are the same diameter, with the 410 shell being longer. So how is a round longer than the .45 prevented from chambering? Very confusing wording, I can't make heads or tails of it. Dustyattic (talk) 04:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, there's not a non-awkward way of putting it. In short, while you can *fit* a .44 Magnum or .454 Casull into the cylinder bore, the cylinder on the standard Judge isn't *strong* enough to take the higher pressure of those rounds. Apparently, .44 Mag and .454 Casull are a little larger at the bullet than the .45 Colt, from what the sources said, so they put in a choke in the front part of the cylinder bore so that there's only .41" of clearance, allowing a .410 shotshell to slide all the way in, but not allowing anything longer than the .45 Colt *and* bigger than .41 caliber to fit all the way into the chamber.
- Note that this is all moot on the Raging Bull Judge, since that's been beefed up to take .44 Mag and .454 Casull. rdfox 76 (talk) 04:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Additionally, the article says "Shot shells in .410 bore are not considered especially effective in personal defense; for instance, there are only three (2 1⁄2" shell) or five (3" shell) pellets in 000 buckshot, a common defense round; this compared to nine in the more common 12 gauge shell." This seems to need some work for two reasons - first, it compares apples to oranges. The 410 may be unimpressive when compared to other shotgun loads, but may be great when compared to other handgun loads (considering the other advantages a handgun brings). Thus, the 410 should be compared to other possible revolver options, unless there's a handgun that shoots 12 gage. Also, the citation doesn't really discuss efficacy as a defensive round, but simply disucsses the objective characteristics. Thus the entire judgement appears to be OR. Since this is possibly a contentious point, I'll wait a few days before editing it, to see what views others have. Izuko (talk) 14:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- No. Is there something wrong with you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 18:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Anon 69.171, refrain from personal attacks. Anon 98.24, the Judge is as legal as any other handgun. There's no difference in US law. Elmo iscariot (talk) 14:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, there's no difference in US law, but when someone hears about a shotgun revolver, this isn't immediately obvious. I would support inclusion of a sentence or two explaining how, because it can shoot .45 Colt, the Judge qualifies as a handgun, not a SBS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychlohexane (talk • contribs) 03:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)