Disarming spell WAS: Re: Wandlore and more

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 185422


> Carol responds:
> I recall Zacharias Smith sneering at Expelliarmus in the DA
meetings, but I'm not sure that his attitude is widespread. 

Pippin:

Zacharias's opinion seems to be the common one. Even Harry is
apologetic about it, "I know it's pretty basic but I've found it
really useful and--" (OOP, ch 18)

 IIRC, we don't see older wizards using it in a serious fight.
Lockhart gives the reason: it was obvious what Snape was going to do
and if he'd wanted to stop him, it would have been easy. Of course
that's a lie, but only because it's Lockhart -- if it *is* obvious
that a wizard is going to use expelliarmus, and you are reasonably
competent yourself, you can stop him  without a blocking spell. 

Malfoy's spell in the duelling club (presumably it is an expelliarmus
although canon doesn't say so explicity) makes Harry feel as if he'd
been hit over the head with a saucepan but it doesn't take his wand.
In OOP,  when Neville succeeds in disarming him, Harry thinks that in
a real duel situation  the opponent would not be looking the other way
and holding his wand only loosely in his hand. 

It seems to be like the summoning charm -- if you're prepared and
you've got a firm grip, you may succeed in holding on, as Harry does
when Lucius is trying to magic the prophecy away from him.

The stunning spell, in contrast,  needs a protego to block it. 

Disarming your opponent may be useful, but it's still going to take
another spell to incapacitate him, and meanwhile, as Ron suggested in
PS/SS ch 9, he might punch you in the nose. Not to mention that  even
if you have the unerring skill of a Seeker, you're going to have to
take your eye off your enemy to retrieve his wand. 

When people fight in exhibition they use  different techniques to keep
things interesting, but when you are actually fighting for your life,
I doubt being  bored with the proceedings is a problem. 

Pippin