The point is what? Would you prefer the Philly derringer in a life & death situation over an unmentionable that is multiple times more reliable & effective. Look at the OP's original question. This thread is not about arguing (which many people here seem to relish) about how fast a Philly derringer can shoot a lead ball but about what the OP should carry for self defense. OH! It makes a loud bang that others can hear. Isn't that wonderful! How on earth does that make for a better self defense weapon? I have already stated that these weapons were used because that's all they had back then. What exactly is your point? Arguing that the Philly derringer is "not anemic for it's size"????? So, your recommendation to the OP is that if you load the Philly derringer with enough 3Fg to get the ball up to 700 fps it would be a good choice for self-defense concealed carry & he should feel good about betting his life on it? Really? How does everything here end up getting "off topic". I'm done with this thread.I refer only to your comment that the Philadelphia Deringer is anemic. Compared to a Colt’s Dragoon it is. For it’s size it is not. Anyone who shoots a good high quality .41 with enough 3Fg in it to get the ball up to 680-700 fps will tell you right quick that it is a thundering handful that is a serious little pistol.
I guarantee you that all 1600+ people in Ford’s theatre knew when it went off. It rendered Lincoln unconscious instantly and did its gruesome job exactly as intended. In no way, shape, manner or form would anyone in this day and age carry one by choice. I simply state that in it’s day (1850-1870) there was a place for it. Note that Wilkes Booth carried a large sheath knife as a backup weapon and used it to cut his way out of the theater.