JAB

  At least yours is a good song.  Yeah, I liked The Cure.  I still like The Cure.  And some folks think that Goth and Emo are new things.  Please.

Oh, and notice in the Brassfetcher tests that the only FMJ tested pretty much overpenetrated - 20 inches in bare gelating and 18.4 through heavy clothing and into gelatin.  Those results also match with other tests I have seen.  That is why I would not be comfortable carrying FMJ in a .380.   A fellow going by the handle of GoldenLoki did a test of several .380 rounds, too.  He has since shut down his site but thankfully his results are still archived, somewhere.  His results showed that there are actually a few .380 hollowpoints that will expand and still meet or exceed the F.B.I. penetration requirement.  His tests also indicated that FMJ could be prone to over penetration (he got around 16 inches with the ones he tested.)  All of his .380 tests were from a P3AT.   http://web.archive.org/web/20121007184825/http://www.goldenloki.com/ammo/gel/380acp/gel380acp.htm   A .380 is not a .45, a .357, a .38 or a 9mm Luger.  That said, I really don't understand (given the results of tests such as the ones I have posted) why so many still look at the .380 with good, modern ammo as such a marginal round.  I know that Dave TN is a former police officer and that he has likely seen real life shootings with various calibers which have helped him form a real world opinion and I respect that.  That said, I would respectfully suggest that - due to the recent .380 craze and the ammo companies taking a fresh look at the .380 as a result - ammo development in the .380 may have advanced significantly since his time in the field.   The bullet diameter is considered a 9mm (it is called 9mm Kurz or 9mm short in other parts of the world..)  If it can expand and penetrate to 12 inches with the right ammo then what is so 'marginal' about it?  I do not mean that as a rhetorical question - I am far from an expert on the subject and really want to know why some folks consider a round that, with the right hp ammo, can expand and meet the F.B.I. penetration requirement to be 'marginal'.    The only thing 'marginal' I can think of is that ammo selection is very important in .380 - especially a small .380.  Much more important than in larger or 'heavier' calibers.  In more powerful handguns, just about any old hollowpoints might work (not necessarily but hopefully you get the point) but in .380 that is not the case - some work well and some do not.  You have to find one that works well in ballistics testing and functions well in your gun.

Yet another great looking piece.

  Everyone has to make their own choices but you have actually hit on the big reason, behind reliability and consistent functioning, that I stick with Hydrashok.  I am not comfortable using FMJ for self defense in any caliber larger than .32acp (if I had a .32 I'd likely carry Fiocchi FMJ in it.)  Every test I have ever seen indicates that Hydrashok from a .380 actually does expand - but usually only a little.  The amount of expansion seems pretty consistent across the tests, though.  The other side is that, probably due to the minimal expansion, HS in .380 (again, based on the tests I have found) consistently gives good penetration - even from P3AT and LCP sized guns.  By 'good' penetration I mean right around the F.B.I. minimum, between 11.5 and 13 inches.  I figure that some expansion - even a little - coupled with adequate penetration can only be a good thing.  Here are links to a few of the tests that illustrate what I mean.   From Brassfetcher.com   Bare 10% gel: http://www.brassfetcher.com/380ACP/380%20ACP%2010%25%20gelatin%20results.pdf   Heavy clothing over 10% gel: http://www.brassfetcher.com/380ACP/380%20ACP%20Heavy%20Clothing.pdf     This fellah apparently did a series of tests comparing various .380 SD ammo from different manufacturers to that ammo's 9mm counterpart from a similarly sized gun.  His main purpose was to see if it was 'worth it' to go with a 9mm in such a small gun but I think the .380 results are useful in and of themselves.  Be aware that he said he used a Sim Test block that was 'closely calibrated' to ballistics gelatin so this isn't technically a 'ballistics gel' test. However, his results do closely match those that Brassfetcher got from actual ballistics gel.  He says that the test was through a couple of layers of denim into his Sim Test block.   http://mousegunaddict.blogspot.com/2012/04/another-realistic-380-acp-vs-9mm-test.html   Anyhow, the results from those, two sources pretty closely match with results of other ballistics gel and wetpack tests that I have seen.

  I have seen it here and there, lately.  I sometimes see Hydrashoks or Winchester PDX1 at Walmart.  Unfortunately, you are getting into the game at a time when ammo, in general, isn't as readily available as it normally is - although much of the centerfire stuff is starting to show up again.  Don't get 'sticker shock' if you do find some - it usually comes in 20 or 25 round boxes at about $1 (or a little more) per round.   If I were you, I'd start out checking the Walmart there in Athens.  If you strike out there, try across the highway (in the K-Mart shopping center) at Dunham's.  I personally think their ammo prices were high even before the current 'shortage' but if they have it and you need it then that must be taken into consideration.  If there is still no joy and you don't mind a bit of a drive (not too awfully far from Athens), call Benton Shooter's Supply to see if they have any.  Their prices are also, generally, high IMO but they sometimes have stuff that I have trouble finding elsewhere.  There used to be a place called 'Guns America' over on Congress Parkway but as I don't seem to find myself in Athens during their business hours I have only been in there once I can't say much about them good or bad and I'm not sure if they are still in business or not.   Getting a little further away, you might check the two Academy stores down Chattanooga way (one at Hamilton Place and one in Hixson) as well as Sportsman's Warehouse down there if you start getting desparate.   Just FYI, here is the web address for Benton Shooter's Supply:   http://www.bentonshooters.com/

  Well, a 'lot' more experience is a relative term but I - and most other folks on this forum - am glad to help if I can.   Also, I believe there is a subforum on at least one Ruger forum devoted to the LCP.  There are some LCP owners on TGO and, as I said, members here are usually happy to help but you might get a higher 'concentration' of specific info on there.  If you decide to check it out, though, don't let that stop you from hanging out here, too!

  Well, then, everything I said above about the P3AT pretty much applies to the LCP as it is, in many ways, Ruger's clone of the P3AT.  Good choice for concealed carry, I think, and the 'pocket .380' craze of a couple years back resulted in quite a bit of new R&D going in to .380 defensive ammo.   Most people recommend running a couple hundred rounds through one of these small semiautos in order to break them in and get used to them.  You will certainly want to test whatever ammo you decide to carry to make sure it will function 100% (forgive me if I am telling you things you already know.)  Personally, I like Federal Hydrashoks.  They were the only premium SD ammo I could find when I first started testing out the P3AT and, as they have always functioned reliably (for me) I have stuck with them.  These are now considered 'older tech' but in pretty much every test I have seen, both formal and informal, they give good penetration and consistent (although not a great deal of) expansion.  Some folks also really like the Hornady Critical Defense .380 ammo.  Based on what I have seen, it doesn't give the most penetration and even Hornady doesn't generally claim that it will meet the F.B.I. '12 inch' requirement.  Then, again, we aren't the F.B.I. and - as Hornady says - civilian self defense needs can differ from LEO needs.  One advantage to the Critical Defense stuff is that it has a polymer 'tip' inside the hollowpoint cavity.  This likely helps in feeding, especially in small guns, and is also intended to help prevent clogging of the hollowpoint and aid in expansion.    If you find that you have trouble holding/controlling the LCP, there are rubber, slip on grip sleeves made for them.  I have used such grip sleeves on my P3AT and find that they add just enough width and grippiness to improve shootability without negatively impacting the ability to pocket carry.  People who want to make the surface a little more 'grippy' without adding much bulk sometimes simply cut a section from a bicycle innertube and slide it over the grips.  I have also tried this and it does help keep the grips from slipping around in your hand.  Something else that I have on the main carry mag of my P3AT (as can be seen in the pic, above) is a 'pinky extension'.  In my hands, that little plastic extension really adds a lot of control.  Of course, having held but never fired an LCP, it might already have grips that are more 'controllable' in the first place.   Believe it or not, especially with one or two of the minor modifications I mentioned, these little guns can be fun to shoot.  In fact, Even though I like the 642 better for carry  I have to grudgingly admit that my P3AT is sometimes fun to shoot while, as I mentioned, my 642 is not.  The only problem might be finding enough ammo, right now, to really have fun with it.   Congrats on finding your (first) concealed carry gun.  Enjoy it and carry safe!

  I do agree with that.  I am not someone who automatically thinks that the family is necessarily to blame for bad seeds.  I have a couple of cousins who are brothers.  They are very close in age, were raised in the same house with the same parents.  One is a 'regular', working guy.  The other is a meth-head who has been in prison and has a couple of kids by different moms and, apparently, doesn't do much to take care of either of them.    My paternal grandfather was pretty big into going to 'trade days' (the term folks used to use for what are now commonly called 'flea markets'.)  He would set up a booth at various trade days and largely bought/sold/traded knives, especially pocket knives and most especially Case pocket knives.  He showed me part of his collection (of, probably, hundreds of knives) once - there were some nice and even a few rare ones among them.  He also had a few handguns (this was back when it still wasn't uncommon to see handguns bought and sold at trade days.)  Well, when he died my aunt (the mother of the two cousins mentioned, above) took his van to her house so it would be 'safe'.  The idea was that, eventually, all of his sons would get one of his handguns and all of his grandsons would get at least one of his nicer pocket knives.  Well, 'someone' broke in to the van - in her yard - and stole the whole kit and kaboodle.  Guess who most of the family figure did it?  Yep, I and most of the rest of us figure my cousin stole it all and sold/pawned it for drug money.  So if I were being interviewed after the death of my cousin in an incident like that in the OP, my response would be, "I'm sorry those folks had to go through that and am glad no one else got hurt."  Heck, I might even be tempted to offer to pay for the CCW holder's next meal at Waffle House.    I know of too many, other examples where one or even several siblings is/are a good person/good people while one is a hellion to think that a bad person automatically equals a bad family.   That said, for a family to come out after one of their members has, beyond a doubt, attempted to commit armed robbery and refuse to see that their family member wasn't the 'good boy' they may have thought he was and for that family to want to blame the victim of their family member's crime is definitely telling.  For them to act like the CCW holder was wrong to defend himself and others against an armed robber says, to me, that in the least his family probably 'enabled' his behavior by making excuses and blaming others for his misdeeds throughout his formative years.  I mean, if I walk up and slap you and my family tries to claim I somehow 'mistakenly' slapped you and then tries to claim it was at least partially your fault for putting your face in my way then I think the family does share some of the blame.

  And why does legally owning and carrying firearms automatically turn us into bloodthirsty vigilantes, to hear the media tell it, but people who are illegally carrying firearms and using them in criminal activities are often presented as 'good kids who wouldn't hurt a fly' and 'victims of circumstance'?  My favorite is, "He just fell in with the wrong people."  Well, all the other folks in his group would probably say the same thing - meaning sooner or later some of them didn't 'fall in' with the wrong people but, instead, are the 'wrong people'.  To me, someone who walks into a restaurant and points a gun at the customers and staff without provocation is one of the 'wrong people' no matter how deep his family shoves their heads in the sand in claiming he was a 'good boy.'       Sure, your family might see your best behavior while your friends and peers see your worst.  Still, I would warrant that there are few among us whose 'worst' behavior meant armed robbery and the like.  Maybe some stupid pranks or even some mildly delinquent behavior, sure, but threatening strangers with a firearm and armed robbery go a ways beyond 'youthful indescretion'.  Even if the family really had no idea that the teen would be capable of such a thing, the very fact that he was committing this crime in the first place should be enough to illustrate for the family that their perspective of the kid was not the truth.  This incident, alone, should illustrate for them that he wasn't the 'good boy' they thought he was.   Of course, the family isn't willing to admit that he might not be the perfect, little gentleman they claim:       I hate statements like that.  Putting your underwear on backward by mistake is a 'mistake'.  Mistakenly picking up the wrong set of keys on your way out the door is a 'mistake'.  Walking out of a restaurant without paying because you really, truly (but mistakenly) forgot that you hadn't already paid is a mistake.  Walking into a business with an illegally possessed, loaded firearm, terrorizing the staff and customers and attempting to commit armed robbery is not a damn mistake.  You don't mistakenly walk into a restaurant waving a gun around and threatening people.  The only 'mistake' he made was in the victim selection process.  There is no, "Oops - where did this gun come from?  I didn't mean for all you folks to be down on the floor," here.  He did it on purpose and he died for it.  No further details (or CCW training) needed.

Here is something I am wondering about the new law:   My nephew is 19.  He can legally own and possess a handgun.  Will this law allow him to carry one in his car?  I know that the law states, in part:       and that is the part that I think is unclear.  A person who is 18 or older is not 'otherwise prohibited' from possessing firearms, including handguns.  That person, however, is ineligible for a carry permit and therefore generally prohibited from carrying a handgun as such a permit is required for a private citizen to carry in TN.  As this law effectively waves the 'carry permit' requirement when carrying in a car, however, I think it is unclear as to whether or not a person who is over 18 but under 21 is still 'prohibited' from carrying in their (or another) privately owned vehicle - or even if they might be okay having a loaded long gun in their vehicle but not a handgun.

I have a Smith and Wesson J-Frame - a 642. It is one of the airweight models and is DAO as the hammer is completely enclosed (because hammers can snag when pocket carried.) It is not fun to shoot - especially with +P rounds - and I would be ashamed for anyone to see my results when trying to hit a bullseye target from any, real distance. That said, the 642 is my most often carried handgun. I am confident that I could use it to defend my life at 'typical' SD distances. It fits in the right, front pocket of most pairs of pants or shorts I own and when I am wearing jeans with a 'watch pocket', the speed strip I cut down (to hold five rounds instead of six so it is shorter - the j-frame only holds five, anyhow) will slide right in that watch pocket. I have dry-fired a couple of LCRs and have to say that they have an amazingly smooth, nice DAO trigger. I don't know what the recoil is like but they have a little 'cushion' built into the grips (right about where the web of the hand hits) which is supposed to help absorb some of the recoil and make firing them more pleasant. I have been told by folks who own them that the cushion does work. I might have chosen one of them instead of my 642 but I am just not sold on polymer for a revolver. If they made a lightweight, metal version I'd be sorely tempted. I also have a P3AT (.380 semiauto) that makes a good pocket gun. In fact, before I got the 642 it was probably my most often carried. The reason I prefer the 642 is that, in my mind, when you get down to truly small guns but are still trying to run a decently powered cartridge I think semis in that category are really kind of pushing the envelope - and walking the fine edge of functionality. The little semiautos also can be very ammo picky - which is not to say that all of them are but such is more likely than with a larger semiauto and a whole lot more likely than with a revolver. In the interest of full disclosure, I will say that I like revolvers better, in general. Even if that were not the case, I think that with really small/light guns I would still trust wheelguns a whole lot more. Of course, that is simply my opinion. On the other side, I will say that I wouldn't give up the P3AT, either, because there are occasions - although rare - where even the 642 won't conceal very well. Due to its very thin, flat nature the P3AT can usually hide even in those situations. Those small guns are also nice when you want to belt carry but don't want to have to wear a cover garment, etc. Some folks would say, "If I am going to belt carry then it is going to be a bigger gun." I see their point but the thing is such small guns can be worn OWB and hide pretty well under nothing more than a loose t-shirt or polo type shirt - especially in this day where people have cell phones, Ipods, etc. causing bulges on their belts under their shirts. I don't like having a bunch of stuff in my pockets and, since I won't put anything else in a pocket that has a gun in it, pocket carry means putting everything else in my other pocket. Also, a gun carried in a pocket isn't always easily accessible - especially when sitting or driving/riding in a car. For that reason, I sometimes belt carry one of the little ones - although not all that often. You know, depending on your body style and with the right holster and attire, you could carry the GP-100 'casually' concealed. By 'casually' concealed, I mean something like OWB with a tucked in t-shirt and an unbuttoned, untucked shirt over the gun. That is the way I usually carry when I go for something besides pocket carry. You would probably want something that holds the gun high on your belt. I thought it would be impossible to carry my Ruger P-95 (a 9mm semiauto that is as 'overbuilt' as Ruger's revolvers) with any kind of concealment until I found that a belt slide holster that holds it with the trigger about even with my belt-line, fairly tight to my body and with a slight forward cant does make it possible. I haven't gotten around to making a holster for my GP-100, yet, but I am thinking something along the lines of a pancake holster that will hold it in a similar position as the belt slide holds my P95 would probably work best. Take a look at holsters like the Simply Rugged Sourdough Pancake to get a general idea of what I mean. I am certainly not suggesting that the GP-100 is the best choice for concealed carry - I am just saying that, with the right holster, it could be carried until you get something a little easier to carry or conceal. To illistrate my point, here are some pics from a few years ago when a guy on another forum was wondering if it would be possible to carry a similar gun concealed. At the time, I had a Taurus 66 (which I recently traded for a GP-100.) The 66 was pretty much as 'big' as the GP-100 but not quite as heavily built. Anyhow, I used these pics just to show what can be hidden under just an unbuttoned shirt. Notice that the 66 was in a FOBUS holster which really isn't the best for concealment and isn't really all that great a carry holster (I didn't carry it much except at home and in the woods so really didn't need a good concealment holster.) I do plan to carry the Gp-100 some - more often than I carried the Taurus, anyhow, so that is why I plan to make a better holster for it. Also, as you can see from the pic, I ain't exactly svelte so that probably helps me hide stuff. Also, this is in no way 'deep cover' but you would be surprised how little attention people pay. Also, a printed shirt - especially something like a Hawaiian shirt with a fairly 'busy' and somewhat irregular print/pattern - can be very thin and lightweight but still do a good job hiding things. This was what I had 'on me' at the time. As I said, I was going for the idea of showing how much could be hidden in that mode of dress so I went with the Taurus in not-that-great a holster. This was before I had the 642 and the P3AT is in the pic in my home-made pocket holster.

This story popped up on Bing's current stories bar at the bottom of their home page this morning.  A missing three year old boy found safe and sound - largely because his dog stayed by his side, apparently even using its own body to shield the boy from a thunderstorm.   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/07/dog-protects-missing-boy-carson-urness_n_5282408.html   Good dog!

  Back in the early 1950s, an Inuit woman named Bella Twin (not to be confused with the Bella Twins) dropped a grizzly from a few yards away by shooting it in the side of the head with a single shot .22 rifle.  The bear was so large that it was the world's record for several years.  It wasn't charging her at the time but it did seem to be following her and her friend who were grouse hunting.  The two had hunkered down by a brush pile hoping the bear would go away but when it came close to them, she shot it.  Some accounts I have read claim the shot went in the bear's ear.  Whatever the case, I think she and her friend were incredibly lucky.  If it had been charging and she had been forced to try and stop it with her .22 then I imagine the outcome would have been quite different.   Heck, I have a crazy-assed cousin who lives in Georgia who has hunted and killed at least one black bear with just a big knife.  However, in that situation he uses dogs to keep the bear at bay while he comes in from behind and dispatches it.  That is a hunting situation where he is more or less in control - not a sudden bear attack where the bear has the element of surprise on its side.   What I think of is that bears are said to be able to run at speeds of 30-35 miles an hour.  That means by the time I realize the bear is charging me, I might have time to draw and fire one shot - maybe two if I am lucky - under a great amount of stress firing at a wild animal moving at a relatively high rate of speed.  Then the bear would be on me and even if I were still able to shoot at that point, I wouldn't be able to concentrate my fire on its face.  That is why I, personally, would not feel comfortable with the idea that several .22 rounds - or even a few 9mm rounds, for that matter - would stop the bear because chances are that if the animal is really posing a threat then I am not going to have time to fire several rounds.  Sure, a black bear might not be as hard to stop/kill as a grizzly but I once shot a possum that was in my chicken coop three times in the head - right in the brain - with a .22 before it finally died (and I am not talking about death throes - after the first, two shots the thing fell over then sat back up, hacked out some blood and just looked at me.)  These weren't cheapo, bulk pack .22s from a pocket pistol, either - they were Stingers fired from a S&W 22A with a 5.5 inch barrel (and that is why I now use a .22 Magnum or a shotgun with #5 shot to take care of possums and raccoons that invade my chicken coop.)  That being the case, I want whatever I am carrying to make the one or two rounds I might get off count.  If I have time to empty a magazine in a tight group into the animal's face - and especially if I have time to reload and continue shooting - before it begins mauling me then the animal probably wasn't posing all that great a threat in the first place.   I saw a show on one of the outdoor type channels back when I had cable that talked about what to do if you had to use a firearm to stop a bear attack.  The show was in grizzly country so they recommended a .44 Magnum as the minimum but I figured the other advice they gave made sense with other species of bear.  One thing they talked about is that the top portion of a bear's skull is very thick - so thick that even a higher powered round might not adequately penetrate the cranium in a direct, front-on shot.  Also, they showed (using a bear skull as a visual aid) that a bear''s brain sits 'lower' that you might think.  This added up to mean that your best chance of penetrating to the brain would be to aim at the bear's nose.  They went on to discuss how unlikely it would be to hit such a small, moving target area while a large, wild animal was coming to have you for dinner.  They also discussed how if the bear is charging you aren't likely to get a broadside heart/lung shot as you might if you were hunting from cover, etc.  All this added up to an interesting bit of advice.  The person with whom they were consulting recommended aiming for one of the bear's front shoulders.  They pointed out that the shoulder is a bigger target area that would be easier to hit when moving.  The reason shooting the shoulder would work, according to them, is that if you manage to destroy the joint or break one of the bones in that area then that shoulder/leg won't support the bear's weight - meaning the bear won't be able to keep running toward you.  Chances are good that the bear will fall when its weight lands on that shoulder/arm at running speeds.  At that point, you would have a much better chance of dispatching the attacking bear before it could munch on you.  Of course, that means you would need a gun/ammo combination that had enough power to penetrate the shoulder muscles and do sufficient damage to the shoulder structure.

  I hardly think that shooting a wild animal - any wild animal - that is posing a threat of death or serious, bodily injury to the shooter makes that person a 'wannabe criminal.'  If such a threat justifies using deadly force against another human being I hardly think that use of such force against a threatening, wild animal would be viewed as unjustified.  We are discussing options for a firearm to use as protection from such, potential threats not the best firearm for illegal poaching.

  I seriously doubt that.  At least I hope that most game wardens have more sense than that.   When someone I knew used a cage trap to catch a raccoon that was messing in his garden he called the 'game warden' to find out how to deal with it.  The answer was that it is illegal to transport wildlife so it couldn't be relocated.  Further, he said that they don't deal with such things.  His recommendation was to shoot the thing and be done with it.  This was not during raccoon hunting season so the raccoon would not have been legal to hunt.  Sometimes a little common sense has to be applied.  Of course, one might also need to have the common sense not to go bragging to a 'game warden' about killing a nuisance snake in one's own yard.  On the road, I won't swerve to hit a snake but I'm probably not going to swerve (and risk an accident) to miss it, either.

  Good bratwurst, grilled or else boiled in beer, on a pretzel roll > regular, ol' hot dog no matter the toppings or condiments.

  I noticed that right off and thought the same but then I remembered that I have seen such a thing.  Sorta.  On YouTube.  I saw a posting on there, once, by a guy who lived in some country where semi-auto is illegal.  He was showing off his rifle which I believe, iirc, was a SKS that he said was legal for where he lived.  The 'semiauto' functionality had been disabled so he had to operate the charging handle after each shot to chamber the next round.  Sort of like a toggle-bolt setup, I suppose.

  No problem.  What I was saying, though, was that I don't believe that the description of the law on that site actually is the law - it is simply the (extreme) interpretation of the law that site wants to present based on their biases and opinions.  That is all I was getting at -but that, of course, is just my opinion.

  Ah, as long as we are dreaming just go ahead and go for one in the 1.21 Gigawatt range.  The beam will go back in time and kill the assailant before he threatened you.  Or it might make Michael J. Fox disappear.  I'm not really sure which.   But back to 'reality', I think that the .32 (was it .32 H&R Magnum?) break top pocket revolver that NAA was going to make a few years back sounded interesting.  I guess I wouldn't be 'inventing' that as I believe NAA actually built a couple of prototypes.  Kind of the same with the 28 gauge revolver that Taurus was going to produce - although I am not sure if they got as far as making prototypes or not.

  I am definitely not a lawyer but I think that site takes a pretty extreme view of what the law really says.  In my reading, I would say it is more like it is illegal to go hunting snakes to kill in Tennessee out in the wild.  I don't think that killing one in your yard is going to bring the herpetoswat team down on you.  I'd bet you could even get away with killing one in the woods on private property or maybe even killing an immediately threatening one on public land.  I don't have a 'terminate with extreme prejudice' view of snakes but also don't freak out when someone mentions killing them.  To me (from a 'moral' standpoint), killing a nuisance snake is no different than killing a nuisance possum, a nuisance raccoon or any, other varmint.  My belief is that isn't hunting.  It's pest control.

Duke's isn't bad but JFG is my favorite.

Krykie!  That's nice - and a nice size.  Mind if I ask you a question?  Well, I guess I am gonna ask and you can choose to answer or not.   What is the difference between 'jimping' and 'file work' on the spine of a blade?  I know what jimping is, I think, but can't figure out how file work differs.  Would you not use a file to create the jimping?

  Well, they do make the 'double badger' but it isn't in 'survival' or 'pack' gun trim and it is only available in .22LR/.410.  I am with you on .22Mag and 12 gauge.  The Mag barrel could also fire WRF if you needed something without quite as much punch for smaller game (or just use Winchester Dynapoint WMR with is intended to closely match the old WRF loads.) 

  Only what you see, pal.   (K191145, it is a line from the original Terminator movie.)

  I had never heard that, before, but can see the logic.  Pretty swift!   I will say, too, that I think handgun accuracy for me has as much or nearly as much to do with the grips as the barrel length.  My P3AT and my S&W 642 are both pretty small guns with short barrels.  Recoil is similar - at least when shooting standard pressure .38 (not +P) from the 642.  With larger guns, I generally shoot revolvers at least as well as comparably sized semiautos and, being a revolver fan, I prefer carrying the 642 and can shoot it well enough, I think, for a close range SD situation.  That being the case, however, I have to admit that I shoot the P3AT much more accurately at 10 yards or so than I shoot the 642 whether aiming or front sight/point shooting.  In this case, it has nothing to do with the trigger - they are both DAO.  I don't think it has much to do with barrel length as they are both pretty short - 1.875 for the 642 (according to the S&W catalog on their web page) and 2.7 for the P3AT (per the Kel Tec web site.)  So, what is the difference?  I have a 'pinky extension' on my P3AT carry mag which allows me to get a more secure grip.  Before adding the pinky extension, I wasn't quite as accurate with the P3AT.  Because of that, I am considering getting some slightly longer (probably 'combat' style) grips for the 642.  I hope to find something that will give me at least a slightly longer/more secure grip but that will still work for pocket carry.  I still would consider the realistic range with those, little pocket guns in my hands to be about 10 or 15 yards.