From Bond Arms . . .
Bond Arms is well-known for its compact yet powerful personal protection pistols. Now, after years of research and development, the Bond Arms team released the Stinger – its lightest, smallest derringer ever. It has the familiar fit, feel, function and reliability of other Bond double-barrelled pistols in an ultra-concealable and super-comfortable size and weight configuration. The Stinger is currently chambered for either 9mm or .380 auto. It’s made from advanced modern materials and engineered for durability.
The Stinger uses a slim aluminum frame precision milled from a billet of 7075 aluminum, known industry-wide for toughness. A black hard-coat anodized finish further shields the frame in use. A generously sized integral trigger guard protects the trigger yet allows easy access. Slim high-impact Zytel composite grips pair with the wasp-waisted pistol’s narrow profile, making it perfect for concealability. The Stinger also includes standard rubber grip panels for those who prefer a larger grip.
A stainless steel firing pin block inset into the aluminum frame strengthens the receiver and allows firing +P rounds. The release lever, cross-bolt safety, hammer and trigger are also stainless steel; adding steel parts in these critical areas enhances the Stinger’s durability.
The Stinger’s 3-inch barrels match the frame’s narrow 0.55-inch profile and are interchangeable with other Stinger barrels. Currently, the Stinger is available in 9mm and .380 auto with a .22 long rifle model on the horizon.
Bond Arms created the Stinger for customers wanting a lightweight, slim pistol chambered for powerful defense rounds. Like all of Bond’s full pistol lines, the Stinger is safe, durable and reliable – perfect for self-defense. The company’s newest derringer is shipping now in limited quantities.
Bond Arms Stinger Features:
- Lightweight (12-ounces)
- 7075-T6 Aluminum, Type III Hard Anodized frame is both lightweight and tough
- Stainless steel double-barrel
- Passive and manual safeties (3)
- Integral trigger guard
- Stinger Barrels are interchangeable with other Stinger barrels
- High impact nylon, slim grips (also includes standard rubber grip panels)
- Size is compatible with many aftermarket holsters
Bond Arms Stinger Specifications:
- Cartridge: 9mm; 380 auto
- Weight: 12 Oz (with Slim Grips)
- Dimensions: Length 5″; Height: 4″; Width: Less than 1″ (with Slim Grips)
- Barrel: 3″ Heat Treated Stainless Steel
- Passive Safety: Rebounding Hammer
- Manual Safety: Crossbolt Safety & Safety Locking Device (SLD)
- Action: Over/Under, Tip-Up Barrel, Single Action
- Frame: 7075-T6 Aluminum, Type III Hard Anodize
- Trigger Guard: Integral w/Frame
- Interchangeability: Compatible with other centerfire Stinger barrels, but not with existing Bond derringers
- Grips: High Impact Nylon Slim Grips (standard rubber grips included)
- Hinge Screw: 7/64″ Allen Wrench
- MSRP: $379
Pass.
I have two, older Bonds capable of firing 45/410 and a handful of other calibers due to the collection of barrels I have. It’s a fun range toy and, when hiking, I actually carry either the 45/410 or the 357M since my concern out there trends toward snakes and coyotes.
Trimming the size down so that it can only handle 380 or 9mm takes away what made the Bond derringer worthwhile: Two rounds, but two outrageously powerful rounds. Now it is just two meager rounds and there are several guns in this pricepoint (Ruger LCP2 immediately comes to mind) that offer a faster reload and more rounds to begin with. In the classic “two bad guys” scenario, the Ruger can easily put “two at center of mass and one to the head” and still have one round left without reloading. The Bond is “one each and run like hell”. It’s going back to it’s garter belt carry roots.
The one saving grace about the Bond derringers is the sheer mass they have, taking the worst of the recoil ‘bite’ out of them.
That thing negates that outright… 🙁
True, the LCP/P3AT/TCP class of micro .380s make more practical sense. Still, this looks like fun. Heck, even the little 10+1, 9mm guns like the P365 aren’t much bigger.
“Trimming the size down so that it can only handle 380 or 9mm takes away what made the Bond derringer worthwhile: Two rounds, but two outrageously powerful rounds.”
Exactly so!
I have been thinking about the 45/410 for more than a year. But a rifle and a stockpile of ammo have taken precedence. Next, a revolver for my wife. So, maybe the Bond Arms 45/410 will be a Christmas present.
I would imagine the most practical use for the Stinger would be as a BUG. Probably more reliable than a lint packed semi-auto pocket pistol – 2 shots are a hell of a lot better than one or none. If you carry a 9mm as your primary weapon one of these in 9 would make a lot of sense.
A small gun with an aluminum frame means only one thing –
What my obsessed, apparently brain-damaged and mentally-ill demented troll experiences every morning when he looks in the bathroom mirror.
Pain, when he realizes the loser in the reflection is him, and always will be, no matter how much he wishes it wouldn’t be so, for the rest of his bitter disappointment of a life.
(Seriously, can you imagine what his ‘wife’ thinks when she sees herself? The best years of her life wasted on a sad, cruel joke of a human being… 🙂 )
Lol. Queeeeeer!
Parasite.
Lol. You first, loser 🖕!
A Proud New Jersey Resident Do us all a favor and go play in the muck, speaking of loser…isn’t that your picture along side the word in the dictionary?
Unlike you, I’m not afraid of people knowing who I am.
I have a Bond Arms derringer in, of course 45/410, and an additional 357 magnum barrel set. It is a range toy, pure and simple. The design dates to the mid 1800’s and was intended for arm’s length defense then. Why would I trade 5 shots of 38 special+P or 6-10 shots of 9mm+P that I can draw and fire RIGHT NOW for 2 shots that I have to cock the hammer and manage a tiny grip? If I think I need something this small, I’ll carry a NAA 22 magnum.
I can’t see the point. A kel tec p38 t and a s&w bodyguard 380 are virtually the same footprint . The kel tec , with after market laser weights 11.2 oz loaded with 7 rounds. The s&w, with integral laser weights 14 oz loaded with 7.
Shopgun,
“I can’t see the point.”
Neither can I. A Ruger LCP is the same size, thickness, and weight and holds 6 1 rounds of .380 ACP. And because the LCP is semi-auto, it slightly reduces the recoil.
I only see three potential advantages of a derringer over a small semi-auto pistol:
1) The derringer will be able to shoot twice even if you are pressing that derringer into your attacker’s stomach, whereas your semi-auto pistol will likely jam after the first shot if you fire it while pressing it into your attacker’s stomach.
2) All ammunition will go “bang!” in the derringer whereas some types of ammunition may jam in a semi-auto pistol.
3) A derringer will always be able to shoot twice whereas a semi-auto pistol is decidedly more prone to various mechanical failures, including magazine failures, magazine seating failures (such as unintentionally pushing the magazine ejector button), and recoil spring/guide rod failures.
Oh, and I suppose some people struggle to rack the slide on a semi-auto pistol–which is obviously not applicable on a derringer. And then there is the fact that a derringer does not leave brass casings on scene.
At any rate I personally believe the benefits of a micro-compact semi-auto pistol outweigh the drawbacks when comparing to a derringer. If I was for some reason going with a derringer over a semi-auto pistol, then I would carry three of them–one in front left and one in front right pants pocket and one in an ankle holster.
If someone wanted to use one as a murder gun, it could be machined to take a 9×18 rd – no brass around would confuse the issue. And it could still be used for .380 or 9mm, since it is just a belly gun.
I dont know if a 9×18 would squeeze through a 9mm barrel?
I suppose it would however the pressure would rise.
Unless you were talking of reaming out the barrel also.
Anyone who’s ever shopped at a Walmart knows that you can stuff a 0.365″ bullet through a 0.355″ barrel if you only have enough lack of self awareness / shame.
@Gov
So you know someone who’s put a 9×18 in a gunm chambered for .380 or 9mm without modification . I’m interested, what brand of pistol was that.
I have shot .380 out of a pa63 without modification, however there were occasional misfires.
‘1) …your semi-auto pistol will likely jam after the first shot if you fire it while pressing it into your attacker’s stomach.’
This is incorrect. If you press your semi-auto pistol into the flesh of your assailant it will likely push the slide out of battery and you won’t get any shots off until you push it back manually, either by using your hopefully free hand or by loosening your grip and pushing it forward with your thumb. Neither is a good option if you’re getting your head slammed into a sidewalk.
While I’m a revolver guy (and this is a significant advantage to revolvers), I’m also a Beretta 92 guy and I’ve often wondered why no one has emulated their extended barrel design that (theoretically) eliminates the out of battery problem. And since I’m bitching about handguns, my favorite 92 is the compact, but they reduced the amount the barrel extends past the slide and not only does that make an out of battery situation more likely, but with a 4-1/4″ barrel and a ~ 4-1/8″ slide it makes holster selection practically non-existent.
On the other hand, the upside for semi-autos is that if your assailant gets his mitts on your gat you’ll at least get one shot off. With a revolver you won’t even get that unless you’ve already thumb cocked the hammer back for SA. Of course, if you’re really concerned about these things you’d probably be better off getting your cholesterol checked, or maybe your prostate specific antigen or send off one of those Cologuard tests.
Governor,
All good (and accurate) points.
It slipped my mind that you probably will not even get one shot with a semi-auto pistol pushed into your attacker’s stomach (as pointed out).
It depends on the semi-auto. Some will at least let you get one shot off – they don’t all go out of battery like glocks do. However, if you have a light or something that gets past the barrel just a smidge it can mitigate that and . . . there is an aftermarket part for glocks that prevents the out of battery situation. With other semis you mileage will very but the principles are still the same. I believe the Hellcat does not go out of battery like glocks. On all, if you get enough interference on the slide (varies on the gun, cartridge, and your grip) then it will not chamber another round.
On a positive note, derringers do not do that for all their drawbacks. However, if this one is like the other bond arms handguns it is SA. The other positive is that with no cylinder gap and no gas bleed off to work the action one should (in theory) get a little bit more velocity out of the same cartridge compared to a revolver or semi w/ the same barrel length.
There are quite a few guns made that leave someone asking what the point is.
Custer didn’t see any point in a Gatling gun.
What’s the point in a Bren Ten if you can’t get a magazine for it?
What’s the point in a .50 caliber Desert Eagle?
Well, sometimes the point is just to have it.
I STILL NEED GRIP LIKE MAMA OR PAPA BEAR , YEAH JUST TWO ROUNDS , THAT DON’T EJECT WHEN OPEN CHAMBER , STILL BETTER THAN A FIST FIGHT OR KNIFE FIGHT
More belly guns? (Shaking my head)
I kinda like it. Price is good, stainless steel and aluminum, hammer fired.
Something I would take camping or fishing.
I hope they make one in .38, derringers just dont seem darringerly with an auto rim.
“I hope they make one in .38,…”
They do, their .357 mag version chambers .38 SPL just fine, all it’s own… 🙂
I meant in the Stinger configuration.
Ah hah, I see the Bond Arms Roughneck is what you were talking about, yep yep.
I understand they’re well made two shot handguns. I’ve handled them. I’ll stick with a J frame or a 7-9″ Bowie. I’ve handled them too. They’re fun.
Gadsden Flag,
“I’ll stick with a J frame …”
I would tend to agree. Having said that, I really dislike how thick j-frame revolvers are–especially their cylinders. And they kick like a mule even in .38 Special (standard pressure). (Shooting them feels like someone is hitting the palm of your hand with a decent whack from a framing hammer.)
And then I had an idea: a revolver similar to the j-frame series, chambered in .327 Federal Magnum, and with a four-round cylinder. That would be super thin and it would allow you to shoot the various .32 caliber loads at lower pressures if the recoil of .327 Federal Magnum was too harsh.
I really like that idea. You get the thinness of micro-compact semi-auto pistols. You get the simplicity and reliability of a revolver–including the ability to shoot multiple times when pressing it into your attacker’s stomach. You don’t leave brass on scene. You get two more shots than a derringer. And you can shoot double action–versus being limited to single action with a derringer. Bonus: you can shoot full wadcutters (for maximum effectiveness with respect to terminal ballistics) which you most certainly cannot do with a semi-auto pistol.
Finally, imagine carrying two of those 4-shot revolvers (one on your left side and one on your right side). You get redundancy as well as a “New York reload”. And eight shots of .32 caliber with full wadcutters would tend to seriously ruin any attacker’s day.
I can see them saying “4 rounds? What’s the dang point of a 4-shot revolver when a 5-shot is just a bit thicker?”
Now, a 6-or-7 shot .327 Mag has me interested… 🙂
Geoff PR,
Of course there is a LOT of utility in a 7-shot revolver chambered in .327 Federal Magnum–however those tend to be medium size and larger than a classic j-frame revolver. Therein lies the rub: how do you get the benefits of a revolver without the large size and especially the large bulbous thickness of the cylinder?
I was thinking about a very small platform where total thickness is about 3/4-inch and yet you get the simplicity/reliability of a revolver without the 2-shot limitation of a derringer. Hence my idea.
And the key to that idea was chambering it in .32 caliber with the full range of options from old-school .32 S&W and .32 S&W Long, all the way up to .32 H&R Magnum and finally even .327 Federal Magnum if you can stand the recoil. If local gun stores started selling those, I would be first in line to buy two of them.
You need to actually calculate the cylinder diameter. Five rounds is about optimum for cylinder thickness verses number of rounds. Colt made his revolvers as six shot because that simplified the layout and machining jigs.
I just calculated the cylinder diameter–it should come in close to 3/4-inch thick assuming .32 caliber.
And shooting 110 grain full wadcutters would produce significantly less recoil than .38 Special shooting 150 grain full wadcutters. Plus you get the same penetration. (A .32 caliber full wadcutter bullet weighing 110 grains would have the same sectional density and hence the same penetration ability as a .38 caliber full wadcutter bullet weighing 150 grains assuming the same muzzle velocity.)
The more I think about this, the more I like it–A LOT!
As I stated above, load that with full wadcutters and that will seriously mess-up any attacker. And given how small and light it would be, I would carry two of them (one each side). Thus a total of eight shots of .32 caliber, 110 grain full wadcutter bullets would be a decent self-defense platform.
If you are serious about j frame recoil, you should not shoot a 9mm derringer. My Airweight .38 is not at all unpleasant to shoot, nor is the .357 Model 60.
They must have stopped minting men at some point.
In bayou waters or on dry land
EricB,
“They must have stopped minting men at some point.”
First of all, why would you assume that I am a man? And with respect to women, j-frame revolvers are a preferred self-defense platform for many women. Do you have a snide remark for the women who carry j-frame revolvers, object to their harsh recoil, and wish there was a similar platform without the harsh recoil?
As for me, I shoot just about every handgun caliber and platform spanning the entire gambit of size, caliber, and recoil from .22 LR all the way up to .44 Magnum and .45 ACP.
I know people who have shot every one of those platforms and they all agree that the 16-ounce j-frame .38 Special revolver is clearly the most uncomfortable handgun to shoot. And they all agree that shooting it feels like someone is hitting the palm of your hand with a hammer. Good for you if you have a different experience. The rest of us, not so much.
Gadsden:
“And (J Frame revolvers) kick like a mule even in .38 Special (standard pressure). (Shooting them feels like someone is hitting the palm of your hand with a decent whack from a framing hammer.)”
I agree; a J Frame with factory scales can be brutal, but I put a Hogue (nylon) Mono Grip on my S&W 642-2. The Mono Grip mitigates felt recoil by increasing width and surface in the area that impacts the palm of your hand, which makes even .38 Special. +P loads tolerable but is still not as wide as the cylinder.
Dave G.,
Oh, good tip on putting Hogue Mono Grips on a S&W model 642. I will have to look into that type of solution.
I have a large .44 Magnum revolver with aftermarket grips which create a wide and properly contoured surface against the palm of my hand–it is very comfortable shooting even with medium-power Magnum loads. (Full-power Magnum loads start to get, shall we say, exciting even with those fantastic grips.)
I put a Pachmyer rubber grip on mine and it made all the difference in the world. I could actually deliberately put rounds in the black as opposed to the occasional lucky shot with the standard grips. I think the standard grips were designed by someone who used to work in the torture department of the KGB.
I seem to recall that Hedley Lamarr was armed with one of these in Blazing Saddles:
https://youtu.be/ryvljjccqL8
Of course my favorite scene is of the Governor’s secretary:
https://youtu.be/NzbhbetwYFU
If you guys are measuring handguns with micrometers you have way too much time on your hands. Do it in a tree stand when it’s slow. Me? I just thought about things. When I held it in my hands I thought one of two things: this one works. This one doesn’t. Guess which one I bought?
Uncommon, I shoot +P Gold Dots in my 442. Always scored 100%. Same as my 1911. Same course of fire. I don’t want to tell you to grow a pair, but…
Without being in hand it probably would be .380 in a gun this size and weight for me. The star on the grips is a nice touch. Probably good for a backup. Not bad and looks like one I would not say no to.
Perfect gun for those who use hurricane lanterns (the kerosene ones, not the newfangled LED ones) for power outages, and horses and buggies instead of cars.
HARD pass.
I carry 12+1 in a similar sized package… with night sights.
Well by golly you cant start fires very well with an LED and a horse dont need gas during a power outage.
Gonna say J-frame for me.
To Uncommon Sense: I like your idea about a four-shot 327 magnum revolver. Unfortunately, nobody will produce it. To take advantage of the smaller cylinder diameter, the cylinder and timing mechanism would have to be re-engineered instead of using existing 38 Special/357 magnum components. Ruger, S&W, Taurus, et.al. won’t spend the money because their market research will tell them there’s a limited market for such a product. We’re more likely to see a NAA revolver in 32 H&R. Which wouldn’t be half bad…
OldProf49,
I agree that a firearm manufacturer would have to re-engineer the timing mechanism–and I don’t think that is a big deal. Manufacturers already make 7-shot and 8-shot .357 Magnum revolvers (essentially in a .44 Magnum-sized revolver) and 9-shot .22 LR revolvers.
I think the biggest hurdle is whether or not there is a large enough market to make it worth their while. I do not have any such market data so I cannot speak authoritatively. I can tell you that a LOT of people (especially women, and even men getting up in years) really struggle with racking the slide on semi-auto handguns. A similar number of people do not like the “complex operation” of semi-auto handguns as well. For those people, a light-weight, compact, and easy-to-carry revolver has a HUGE amount of appeal.
With respect to that market, the only question is how many of them would accept the trade-off of slimness (about 3/4-inch wide) for a reduction in ammunition capacity to four shots from the traditional 5-shots of j-frame revolvers. In my humble opinion many/most people would happily accept that minimal reduction in ammunition capacity for the much smaller size, weight, and ease of carry. Of note: chambering it in .327 Federal Magnum which allows multiple lighter-load options and thus much less recoil is another key asset to my proposed platform.
I also believe, as I hinted in one of my previous comments, that this would be an instant hit as a backup gun for people who normally carry a compact or even full-size handgun. I would absolutely LOVE the option of a very light and compact revolver–even a four-shot revolver–as a backup gun to my full-size semi-auto pistol that I carry every day.
Of course sales success of this proposed platform would also require a fairly low price–on the order of $350 I believe.
Sorry, you would not be first in line. I would be there a split second before you. I like the idea of carrying two. Small enough that one could carry one in each front pocket without appearing to be aroused at an inconvenient moment. “Is that a gun in your pocket or are you just glad to see me?
No idea what the target market is, but it’s nobody I can think of.
Lots of unflattering judgment on this little gun in here, but it’s the first Derringer style pistol I’ve seen that I would actually be interested in. I think I found my next Father’s Day present.
I’ve owned derringers in the past and still have a Davis 38. There’s little point to them these days with several models of pocket rockets capable of multiple round semi auto fire.
They are much slower to draw, remove the awkward safety and fire.
Are you interested in selling the Davis .38?, I’m 8 miles North of Welch.
Correction , Make that 12 miles north.
Better catch him quick, Matt… at the rate hes moving he’ll be out of state in about 126 minutes.
No sir
Isn’t 12 miles north of Welch like three or four miles into Kansas? Delivered a semi load there once, learned it was right next to Ma Barkers grave… you suppose Possoms kinfolk rode with the gang?
Well shucks to Matt in Ok.
And yes and No to Pb_fan59
Own several, for recreation and carrying with shot shell for snakes. .45 shotshell is very good at close range so dont need .410.
The Bond Arms is very well made, very nicely done.
But- by the time you cock that hammer hammer and press that heavy trigger and you have a shot at more than a few feet- you are riddled with bullets. Just reality.
SWEET! Let’s take a gun that’s already horrible to shoot, and make it even worse by making it lighter.
Two rounds of 38 in a package the size of a P365 . . . . . . no idea how these guys are still in business unless boomers are just eating their guns up.
To Uncommon Sense: You may be correct about the engineering not being a big deal. I still think it’s easier (cheaper) to add chambers and notches to an existing large frame cylinder blank than to reduce the number of chambers and create a smaller diameter cylinder which would need a smaller, narrower frame to take full advantage of the smaller size. However, it shouldn’t be any more difficult than creating an 8-shot, two-barreled 22 magnum revolver that volley fires 2 rounds with each trigger pull. Standard Manufacturing has apparently done that with their Thunderstruck revolver at a reasonable price of $366 at Cheaper Than Dirt. However, I’ll stick with my LCR. If I need lower recoil, I’ll switch to the 327 magnum (with Buffalo Bore H&R magnum rounds) or the 22 magnum versions. They’re light weight, have excellent triggers and holsters are readily available. What’s not to like?
Maybe I am just too numb to know better, but I have never had a problem with recoil from my j-frame except accuracy which was corrected by the rubber Packmyer.
Now a relative of mine fired Smith’s scandium snobby in .357 and after he fired a cylinder full the Smith guy working the booth at the exposition said, “Congratulations. You’re the first person today to fire a full cylinder full.”
My relative said his hand was totally numb (to match his brain) the rest of the day and still gives him trouble every once in a while. He can predict rain with it better than the Ch 4 weatherman.
Pass. The only value I see is one of nostalgia for River Boat Gambling and Houses of Ill Repute, Stogies, Cheroots and 4 fingers of Bourbon.