Handgun Hunting Support

[Foxer]

Yes.......Valid Concerns ?

Not one mentioned thus far has anything specifically to do with "Handguns" though ?

Oh i think they have. I don't particularly feel like sorting thru the 32 pages of posts to re-print them but there have been a few vaild concerns. Remember - valid doesn't mean that it's 'true' or 'can't be fixed easily', it just means it's a real concern. "I don't like handguns" is not a valid concern. "i'm worried it's too hard to shoot a handgun accurately in hunting conditions, and it will lead to more poor shots" is a valid concern - it should be addressed.

BC has some pretty lax Calibre Laws already governing Big Game animals, such as Coastal brown Bears can be Legally hunted with a 22 Hornet if you so desired...yet there doesn't seem to be a Widespread epidemic of "Wounded" animals running amock due to "underpowered" firearms being used.

You can't compare the two. If rifles only came in 22 hornet - there'd be discussions about it The fact is, we don't have the problem because there's a lot of other choices. But bison for example - there's a minimum for that.

Handguns aren't rifles, and are much more limited. No one will argue a handgun is as powerful as an average hunting rifle i think. So there's some concern someone's going to take a 357 mag to moose, and that might well be a mistake.

Realistically most Hunters it would seem already "police" themselves regarding cartridge choices etc. I'm sure Handguns would follow suit, perhaps just carry the centrefire/ rimfire laws onto handguns

On the whole - i think you're right.

As far as making Folks "Qualify" with a Handgun why stop there ?......I'd Guarantee FAR more animals are and will continue to be "wounded" by Rifle Hunters long after Handguns hit the scene. Largely of course due to the Vast Majority of Hunters using the Rifle instead of the other choices but I think it's a Valid observation nonetheless.

There are some people who do believe this would be appropriate. It might even be worth discussing. However - the concern with handguns is they are even harder to become proficient with. I can have a newbie grouping fairly well with a 22 rifle at 25 yards on their first day - it's much more difficult to get the same results with handguns, they need more practice.

So it's a 'concern'. I don't know if it's a concern we need to worry about - but if it WAS, and that was determined, my point is there's a real easy fix.

I still HOLD by my Statement that NO ONE has yet suggested any "Legitimate" reasons as to WHY Handguns are not allowed in the Field other then conjecture and alot of what ifs etc.......

Well i'll grant you that there are very few. But not none.

It's important to be honest here. It's FAIR for someone to question if handguns are powerful enough to drop animals ethically. They're far below what we normally consider 'average' powered firearms.

It's FAIR to ask 'does it require so much more skill that people should be required to show they've spent the time getting proficient". The answer may be no, but it's a fair question to ask.

What i haven't heard is a whole lot of evidence suggesting these concerns are warranted. They may be valid concerns, but unless someone can produce evidence that they are in fact real problems, especially in light of the arguments people have put forward addressing the concerns, then it's hard to say they are good reasons to not allow handgun hunting.

I'd have to say that personally, when i talk to other hunters about it the biggest concern i still hear is that people will wound animals.

 

[John Y Cannuck]

Ok, new can of worms.
Allowing us to hunt with handguns, is one step towards proving their worth as useful tools in society in general.
It's also one step towards CCW in general.
How can a Gunnut NOT be in favor of that?

 

[canadian hunter312]

foxer, we all know that people are scared of handguns for some unknown reason. likely brainwashing from the liberals? argue all you want that handgun hunting wont cause problems but when you really think about it, there would be alot more problems than with rifle or shotgun hunting. idiots that know nothing about guns automatically assume that someone with a handgun is going to rob a bank or kill someone.

it isnt gun owners that you need to convince, its the people that know nothing about the sport that need to be educated.

as for the commy comment...wow that really hurt dude insults from some useless puke on the internet really get to me

for the record. i voted yes, and id love to use a handgun to hunt. is it something that will happen in the near future? i dont think so

 

[BCWILL]

What i haven't heard is a whole lot of evidence suggesting these concerns are warranted. They may be valid concerns, but unless someone can produce evidence that they are in fact real problems, especially in light of the arguments people have put forward addressing the concerns, then it's hard to say they are good reasons to not allow handgun hunting.

Well I think we agree there may be unwarranted "Concerns"

I'd have to say that personally, when i talk to other hunters about it the biggest concern i still hear is that people will wound animals.

Yes that keeps coming up......I'll still ask where are they now then ?
Surely anyone will agree it takes a hell of alot more skill or at least the same...to Place an arrow into the Vitals of an animal then with a Handgun ?
Yet even without some form of "Qualifying" for Archery gear there does not seem to be herds of animals running around with arrows sticking out of them. Sure it must happen but come on...hardly a HUGE concern

Again I will say and YES FOXER I've also read this whole
thread, there has not been 1 VALID concern raised about Handguns that one cannot apply to the already accepted forms of hunting by Rifle and Archery

 

[dangertree]

Calibre/power limitations shouldn't even enter the discussion. Or else, admit that .22RF shouldn't be allowed for small game, because someone in the woods with a .22 might see a moose, and shoot at it.

Also, since when do we worry about what anti-hunters care when it comes to choosing OUR hunting arms? Here's a hint, they don't like your 300WM either. Who gives a toss? Seriously.

Handguns are perfectly valid hunting tools. Not being allowed to hunt with them is asinine.

 

[Foxer]

Allowing us to hunt with handguns, is one step towards proving their worth as useful tools in society in general.
It's also one step towards CCW in general.
How can a Gunnut NOT be in favor of that?

Well there's a few people out there who still have misgivings about ccw as well

But really, while i agree it will likley help the ccw cause, that's not a good reason to allow it IF there's going to be problems with it.

Either handgun hunting is valid in and of itself, or we shouldn't do it.

The thing is reasons for it being valid have been presented, and while there are concerns I haven't seen or heard of any that can't be addressed easily. The real question is how should we address them (or do they REALLY need addressing at all).

 

[Foxer]

foxer, we all know that people are scared of handguns for some unknown reason. likely brainwashing from the liberals? argue all you want that handgun hunting wont cause problems but when you really think about it, there would be alot more problems than with rifle or shotgun hunting.

It is possible that initially people will be uncomfortable with the idea, but the fact is we did it for years, and no one really complained about handguns in the woods. It was stopped for 'other' reasons.

I believe that there's two factors to consider from an 'acceptance' point of view. Number one - if it were legal tomorrow, you would not see a flood of people strapping on sidearms and heading to the woods. It would begin very slowly. Most people would stick to rifles for most hunting. Lets face it - a rifle is a better choice 90 percent of the time, so that's what people will go with. Gradually, people will get used to seeing more people doing it, it will become more popular, and while i think it will never be something 'everyone' does, it will gain acceptance. Much like bow hunting has.

And number two - hunters will be the only ones seeing this happen. While the odd hiker or two will see someone carrying a pistol, they're not going to see it in large numbers or freak out or anything. So i think it'll be an 'out of sight, out of mind' issue for the public.

as for the commy comment...wow that really hurt dude insults from some useless puke on the internet really get to me

LOL - no personal insults bud, seriously. It's important to keep this civil.

 

[Foxer]

Calibre/power limitations shouldn't even enter the discussion. Or else, admit that .22RF shouldn't be allowed for small game, because someone in the woods with a .22 might see a moose, and shoot at it.

That doesn't make any sense. The rules are there to tell hunters what the baselines are - we already have calibre/power limitations for game. You can't hunt moose with a shotgun for example. (tho i think that should be changed to allow slugguns). And in fact there's a law saying you can't shoot moose with a 22lr already

The idea would be to set acceptible limits that are known to be effective and provide a framework for people to use handguns to hunt in. We have generations of experience with rifle cartridges on game, but lets face it - i doubt even one percent of one percent of bc'ers have hunted with handguns before or really know what cartridge/energy is appropriate. It just addresses the concerns of people that marginal cartridges will be used (or used in inappropriate guns - a 6 inch barrel 44 mag is not good for hunting as far as i understand. )

There is also a political reality here. Many people, hunters included, are going to be uncomfortable with this. So - doing something like limiting cartridge and gun parameters to something known to be effective (Which won't affect the average knowledgeable handgun hunter anyway, as they're likely to choose something which is in that class to start with.) helps assure those people that their concerns have been addressed. They won't have to worry about someone 'trying' a 38 special to 'see' if it can take a deer.

 

[joe-nwt]

It just addresses the concerns of people that marginal cartridges will be used (or used in inappropriate guns - a 6 inch barrel 44 mag is not good for hunting as far as i understand. )

Better do some more homework here foxer. 44mag with 300gr or bigger cast bullets is very formidable medicine, within it's range limitations.

Here' let me guide you...

http://www.shootingtimes.com/ammunition/hunt_121305/

 

[Teapot]

Foxer, are you forgetting another ligitimate reason for carrying a handgun is for personal protection while out hunting. A large caliber is good for actually hunting but for protection you would not want to carry a TC in 30-06.

 

[Foxer]

Better do some more homework here foxer. 44mag with 300gr or bigger cast bullets is very formidable medicine, within it's range limitations.

I did do some homework. Numerous american sources suggest that that cartridge in a 6 inch barrel is an issue, they recommend a longer barrel.

And to put it in perspective, a 44mag out of a 'standard' barrel if you will only has about 700 ftlbs of energy at 50 yards. Most hunters want at least 900 ft lbs of energy to kill deer with from their guns. Sure - i realize that the handgun makes it up with calibre, and will kill better than it's 'energy' suggests by far. But an extra 100 ftlbs of energy achieved with a longer barrel is obviously not going to go to waste.

Now - maybe that's wrong, but it's what I'm reading in the American forums. There is no chance the 44 mag will ever be a 'powerhouse' cartridge. But my understanding is that in a longer barrel (say 7.5 inches) it IS a good round out to about 100 yards, maybe 125. So - limit it's use to longer barreled guns like that and it resolves some of the concerns. 7.5 inches isn't exactly a 'long' barrel.

 

[Foxer]

Foxer, are you forgetting another ligitimate reason for carrying a handgun is for personal protection while out hunting. A large caliber is good for actually hunting but for protection you would not want to carry a TC in 30-06.

I'm not forgetting that at all. (tho, i have to think mr bear would not care to get whupped upside the head with a 30-06 at close range either). Restricting barrel lengths to something like 7.5 inches does not in any way shape or form eliminate wheel guns from the picture.

But we ARE talking about hunting here. The personal protection thing is a bit of a side benefit. And lets face it - if you DO face a bear the extra power from a longer barrel will not do you any harm either

 

[joe-nwt]

I ammended my post, go read that article, for interests sake.

The difference between a 6" and a 7.5" barrel is just an adjustment to your effective range, and not that much of anadjustment either, IMHO.

 

[Foxer]

The difference between a 6" and a 7.5" barrel is just an adjustment to your effective range, and not that much of anadjustment either, IMHO

When you're talking about effective ranges in the 100 yard arena, every little bit helps

Now - i have to say you're not being fair. I did mention the bullet should kill all out of proportion to it's energy. (BEFORE you posted that story). And i never said you couldn't kill deer with it, obviously. I know all about 'momentum' vs 'kinetics'.

Nor am i saying that a 6 inch barrel'd 44 will cause bullets to bounce off game.

I simply said there are some recommended parameters that seem to work in the american experience, and keeping handgunners inside those recommendations is an excellent way of both ensuring there won't be problems and calming people's concerns about handgun hunting.

I notice most of the 'hunting handgun' manufacturers have 7.5 inch barrel models. You're certainly not going to lack for choice in any of the more popular cartridges.

Now, maybe 7.5 is longer than necessary. Whatever - we figure it out. But the point is that putting reasonable guidelines in place will help assure that only handguns that are suitable for hunting are used (which is one of the big fears out there - people probably shouldn't be trying to take moose with 45 apc for example.)

 

[joe-nwt]

I agree 100%.

 

[Johnn Peterson]

There are some before us that paved the way through experimentation, developmet and real life experiences. Especially when it comes to the capabilities of various handgun calibers and barrel lengths on game, much has been tried and experienced by people like Elmer Keith and Skeeter Skelton, to name but a couple. While there have been a number of developments in the field since these two individuals passed on, the basics are still the same. So we don't attempt to 'reinvent the wheel', I would strongly suggest anyone interested in handgun hunting read Sixguns by Keith. I'm sure it'll not only answer many of your questions but also dispel many myths.

 

[Gatehouse]

Barrel length hs mnore to do wiht a persons ability to aim better wiht a longer distance between iron sights.

The difference in power between a 6" and 7.5" barrel of a revolver woudl hardly be measurable...A few FPS, only.

I woudl use a 5" 45LC Ruger and not look back...

 

[joe-nwt]

Barrel length hs mnore to do wiht a persons ability to aim better wiht a longer distance between iron sights.

The difference in power between a 6" and 7.5" barrel of a revolver woudl hardly be measurable...A few FPS, only.

I woudl use a 5" 45LC Ruger and not look back...

Good choice.

I'd have to pick between a Contender in 35rem, an XP-100 in 7-08 or my trusty 6" barreled 629. Hmmmmm......

 

[John Y Cannuck]

One must remember that when this country was young, the 45 long colt in a black powder revolver was considered to be quite capable as a short range grizzly defence round.
Handgunners in the US using specialized pistols routinely take game at so called rifle ranges.

 

[Johnn Peterson]

One must remember that when this country was young, the 45 long colt in a black powder revolver was considered to be quite capable as a short range grizzly defence round.
Handgunners in the US using specialized pistols routinely take game at so called rifle ranges.

Quite true concerning the .45LC. An example, many years ago, a Game Warden in the B.C. interior was badly mauled by a Grizzly. Although he sustained serious injuries, emptying his .45LC SAA into the bear stopped the Grizzly's 'dining' process, permanently.