Wands and wandless magic

[Jim Ferer]

No: HPFGUIDX 24720

Cynthia:"A couple of wand questions:

 First, where is Pettigrew's wand?  I personally think it got blown 
up or lost) when he blew up the street.  That explains why Pettigrew 
is using Voldemort's wand all the time (except for the time he used 
Lupin's wand to stun Ron and Crookshanks)."

Good question. Your explanation might well be the right one, but it 
could be that Pettrigrew had to hide it when he assumed rat form and 
has lost it or been unable to return to it in all this time.  He 
spent years with the Weasley family, you know.
 
Cynthia:"Second, wizards can do simple spells without wands.  So, 
then, what is the single most complex spell any wizard or witch 
performs in the  books without a wand?  Any ideas?"

My hypothesis has always been, "it depends."  IOW, *all* spells 
depend on the talent, skill, and experience of the witch or wizard 
performing them.  That means Dumbledore can do spells without a wand 
that maybe no other wizard can do, just as I bet he can Apparate 
farther than anybody else and Summon or Banish farther and faster 
than other wizards.

In GoF, we see instances where witches can Summon without naming the 
thing called, as Harry did with the Cup and Molly Weasley did 
cleaning out Fred and George's Ton-Tongue Toffees. In both cases, 
the "operator" was physically near the object(s) and looking right at 
them. They were both highly motivated at the time, too, which might 
have made a difference.  But Harry had to say 'Accio Firebolt!' at 
the First Task. He was some distance away from his broom and couldn't 
see it.