Handgun Hunting Support

[Foxer]

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

Well, the reloading sites i visited told another story.

See - this is why people are resistant to it. The moment it looks like someone might get the right - someone decides the first thing they'll do is try to take something that's not a powerhouse and reduce it even further .. just because.

2 and a half inches of barrel, especially when you have a short barrel to begin with, makes more than a few feet per second difference.

Every gun site i visited recommended a longer barrel. But right off the bat, having never used one to hunt, you're going to ignore that and go with a shorter barrel.

And you guys wonder why so many hunters, already leery of pistol cartridges to begin with, are still a little concerned. If they go look into it, they'll read the same stuff i did and see you're already wanting to use a gun not recommended by people who actually do this now, and right or wrong you've just convinced them you're not going to make responsible decisions.

Honestly. The hunting community is it's own worst enemy. This is exactly why we lose so many fights.

 

[joe-nwt]

Ok foxer, since you've gone to all the sites, What is the difference between shooting at 50yrds witha 6 inch barrel or 100yrds with a 7.5 inch barrel?

No seriously, I want to know.

I don't think anybody is ignoring anything. I for example said 6" barrel would be fine within it's range limitations. Instead of applauding the fact that I may already know what the limitations of my firearms and skills are, you pull the magic number off a web page and are insisting it is a minimum. For what distance? Hmmmmmm? And then procede to chastise us.....

Who is our worst enemy?

Not that I expect you to admit you are wrong.....

 

[tootall]

Would the 45-70 be considered enough gun?

Maybe even enough for this guy?

I believe that EVERY type of big game animal has been taken with handguns, so the idea that HG are not capable is absolute bullchit.

I would like to see this thread progress a bit, to start discussing HOW TO MAKE IT HAPPEN.

 

[stormbringer]

I am opposed to hand gun hunting because I think the woods allready have too many idiots without adding pistoleros to the mix. Besides I can only imagine the ethical range, ethical calibre and what would you do if you got scoped arguments

Hands down one of the most uneducated posts I have had the displeasure of reading on CGN.

 

[John Y Cannuck]

Hey if Elmer Kieth can kill an Elk with a 4" barrelled 44 Special at what was it ? 200 yards?
What's all the bull about barrel length. ?
I suppose you need an extra 2" on the hunting rifle too?
C'mon, you guys know better than that by now. Pistol rounds kill by size and weight, not by speed.
The extra barrel length is valuable more for the increase in sight radius IMO.

 

[John Y Cannuck]

{refering to a post by Covey Ridge}Hands down one of the most uneducated posts I have had the displeasure of reading on CGN.

I'll go along with that.
Look at these pages, and see the same arguements posted for rifles. What's the difference if we get to talk about handguns as well.

 

[Foxer]

nstead of applauding the fact that I may already know what the limitations of my firearms and skills are, you pull the magic number off a web page and are insisting it is a minimum.

Which is what every other person who's considering the question will do. Or are you hoping that suddenly all hunters everywhere will become handgun experts overnight?

Who exactly did you think you have to convince?

This is probably the most gun friendly sight in canada - and even HERE more than 11 percent of the people are either hesitant or opposed.

Instead of applauding the fact that I may already know what the limitations of my firearms and skills are, you pull the magic number off a web page and are insisting it is a minimum.

Did i really. So, when i said:

Now, maybe 7.5 is longer than necessary. Whatever - we figure it out

You feel that's me 'insisting' on it being a minimum.

I mean, what do you want me to tell you. I point out quite clearly a recommendation from the states where they do this that apperently is working for them and suggest that's not a bad way to start. YOU are now jumping in my face saying I 'insist' upon it, and another guy says no, we should go even smaller!

Do you really believe that ANYONE now reading this thread who had concerns that those who want handgun hunting are a) -being resonable, and b) being open minded to addressing any concerns?

No offense intended, but seeing that i wouldn't trust what you guys had to say about what's 'enough' if my life depended on in. I feel you haven't got any objectivity in the slightest.

And that right there is the problem i pointed out. I say 'here's a concern people have - we could address it this way and the concern is gone'. You say "WHat!?!?! you're INSISTING ON THAT as a MINIMUM!?!?! NO WAY blah blah blah. "

Groaaan.

Here's a few facts for all those who'd like to see handgun hunting.

1) - people in canada have virtually no experience with it. The handfull who do for the most part have shot only a couple of animals.

2) - the people with no experience have serious reservations about it. Most are fairly sure it'll wound animals and that 'cowboys' will try to 'streach' the minimum powers and ranges the guns are effective within.

3) - you do no good whatsoever to the cause when you dismiss that concern, or understate things like velocities, or overstate things like saying i'm 'insisting' on it because i brought it up. It makes you look like you have no objectivity whatsoever and will say anything to get what you want.

4) - at the end of the day, if most hunters are still uncomfortable with it .. there will be no support for it and it'll never ever happen.

So. Give that some thought the next time you put words in my mouth about what i 'insisted' on. Because if you take that attitude with others, i guarantee you what they'll say - no.

And i know perfectly well who our own worst enemy is.

 

[Foxer]

Hey if Elmer Kieth can kill an Elk with a 4" barrelled 44 Special at what was it ? 200 yards?

So that's what you're proposing to do? You figure that'd be an 'ethical' shot for most people?

Hell - a native woman dropped a grizzlie with a 22lr - maybe we should let people shoot at grizzes with those, right? I mean, after all.. SOMEONE did it.

By all means, go tell the regular hunters out there you want to handgun hunt because someone demonstrated that you can use a 44 special to kill elk at 200 yards. That'll win 'em over.

 

[Gatehouse]

Well, the reloading sites i visited told another story.

See - this is why people are resistant to it. The moment it looks like someone might get the right - someone decides the first thing they'll do is try to take something that's not a powerhouse and reduce it even further .. just because.

2 and a half inches of barrel, especially when you have a short barrel to begin with, makes more than a few feet per second difference.

Every gun site i visited recommended a longer barrel. But right off the bat, having never used one to hunt, you're going to ignore that and go with a shorter barrel.

And you guys wonder why so many hunters, already leery of pistol cartridges to begin with, are still a little concerned. If they go look into it, they'll read the same stuff i did and see you're already wanting to use a gun not recommended by people who actually do this now, and right or wrong you've just convinced them you're not going to make responsible decisions.

Honestly. The hunting community is it's own worst enemy. This is exactly why we lose so many fights.

This isn't the first time I've looked into handgun hunting Foxer....Nor am I completely basing my decision on what I read from unknown people on internet chat forums.

For starters, the Ruger I refer to actually has a 5.5 inch barrel, not a 5".

Certainly a longer barrel is an aid to aiming, and yes there wil be some velocity loss wiht the shorter barrel- But it is not significant in terms of killing power.

Hell, if Ross Seyfried can kill a cape buffalo wiht a 5.25" 45 LC, I htink I may manage to put down a deer, moose, or bear with one.

 

[joe-nwt]

Which is what every other person who's considering the question will do. Or are you hoping that suddenly all hunters everywhere will become handgun experts overnight?

Who exactly did you think you have to convince?

This is probably the most gun friendly sight in canada - and even HERE more than 11 percent of the people are either hesitant or opposed.



Did i really. So, when i said:


You feel that's me 'insisting' on it being a minimum.

I mean, what do you want me to tell you. I point out quite clearly a recommendation from the states where they do this that apperently is working for them and suggest that's not a bad way to start. YOU are now jumping in my face saying I 'insist' upon it, and another guy says no, we should go even smaller!

Do you really believe that ANYONE now reading this thread who had concerns that those who want handgun hunting are a) -being resonable, and b) being open minded to addressing any concerns?

No offense intended, but seeing that i wouldn't trust what you guys had to say about what's 'enough' if my life depended on in. I feel you haven't got any objectivity in the slightest.

And that right there is the problem i pointed out. I say 'here's a concern people have - we could address it this way and the concern is gone'. You say "WHat!?!?! you're INSISTING ON THAT as a MINIMUM!?!?! NO WAY blah blah blah. "

Groaaan.

Here's a few facts for all those who'd like to see handgun hunting.

1) - people in canada have virtually no experience with it. The handfull who do for the most part have shot only a couple of animals.

2) - the people with no experience have serious reservations about it. Most are fairly sure it'll wound animals and that 'cowboys' will try to 'streach' the minimum powers and ranges the guns are effective within.

3) - you do no good whatsoever to the cause when you dismiss that concern, or understate things like velocities, or overstate things like saying i'm 'insisting' on it because i brought it up. It makes you look like you have no objectivity whatsoever and will say anything to get what you want.

4) - at the end of the day, if most hunters are still uncomfortable with it .. there will be no support for it and it'll never ever happen.

So. Give that some thought the next time you put words in my mouth about what i 'insisted' on. Because if you take that attitude with others, i guarantee you what they'll say - no.

And i know perfectly well who our own worst enemy is.

Not that I expect you to admit you are wrong.....

Relax bub! Your getting all bent out of shape over nothing.

How about deer? Think a deer could be taken cleanly with a 6" barreled 44mag?

 

[Foxer]

This isn't the first time I've looked into handgun hunting Foxer....Nor am I completely basing my decision on what I read from unknown people on internet chat forums.

Well you can bet a lot of the people who need convincing will be. That's if you're lucky - if you're UNlucky they'll just talk to their other hunting buddies who'll come up with the answer "what? no way, we'll get too many cowboys'.

Certainly a longer barrel is an aid to aiming, and yes there wil be some velocity loss wiht the shorter barrel- But it is not significant in terms of killing power.

Maybe, maybe not. It's not entirely relevant. I look at what information is available and all seem to agree that something like a 44 in a 7.5 inch barrel is an effective gun out to about 100 yards and is controllable for most people. I then look on the gun manuacturer's site and see that most offer a gun in that length (and in fact most handguns advertized as 'hunting guns' seem to be about that length). And I think "here is a reasonable guideline that allows us to over come the issue of people being afraid hunters won't use 'enough gun'". And others will too.

Now - Again, if you want to have handgun hunting, who is it you need to convince? The person who has shot dozens of animals, looked into it, etc? Or the person who knows very little about it, has reservations, and will want proof of accepted practices somewhere else?

At least you take the time to explain why you felt that way, rather than dismiss the argument altogether, so points for that.

But sure as god made little green apples, some guy is going to have fired a 5 inch 44 mag with iron sights and will claim to the skies that they're uncontrollable and inaccurate, and of questionable strength to knock down an animal.

If we're talking about how to get our rights, we need to address that. One really good way is restricting it (at least initially) to guns that are very well suited to the task, and better yet purpose built hunting rigs. Then at least you can say "you may have shot that cartridge before, but these are specifically hunting guns and are designed for that purpose. They are used frequently with good results in the states. these are not 'minimum' guns. "

Heck - i think we talked before about how it MIGHT be best to forget big game altogether initially and just talk 'em into 22's for grouse and such. That would meet with little resistance and establish precident, we could always push for more later.

But whatever we do - more than half the hunters out there are going to be uncomfortable with the idea at least at first. You don't say "lets allow this gun because it's only slightly LESS killing power", you say 'we've restricted it to these parameters because they have slightly MORE killing power'. Even if the first statement is perfectly accurate and reasonable, the second one sells the concept.

 

[Foxer]

Not that I expect you to admit you are wrong....

Oh please. I read on one reloading site that depending on the load a 2 inch difference in barrel length can lead to between 50 - 100 fps. Do i know personally? No - i've never reloaded for it and never said otherwise. The problem is, there is no 'right' or 'wrong' - that's what people are going to think and that's what they're going to start asking about. How will you convince 'em other wise, especially seeing as you won't be there in front of them to talk about it?

Relax bub! Your getting all bent out of shape over nothing.

I know what you're saying - but our rights aren't 'nothing'.

This is a 'win' or 'lose' kind of thing. Either we start expanding our rights, or we start shrinking them. So it's important. The handgun hunting thing is gaining some momentum in this province - if we aren't careful hunters will reach a 'decision' about it that will end that debate for years.

i'm always passionate about our rights

 

[joe-nwt]

Perhaps we would gain more support from "more than half the hunters out there" if they already had something in the gunsafe they could use, ie. a six inch .44 or .45, instead of having to shell out another $700.00-0$1000.00 for a nother 1-1/2 of barrel.

Barrel length alone is not the deciding factor with hanguns, no more than it is with rifles. Bullet construction is one thing to consider. The actual velocity of the load used can easily make up the difference of an inch of barrel.

Gatehouses prefered tool for example. How many "hunting" class 45colt loads do you think you are going to find on the shelves in Canada? More than likely it would be a handloading proposition as the 45colt really becomes a hunting class cartridge in certain strongly built handguns, such as the ruger.

 

[Johnn Peterson]

Read the 'Bible'!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Gatehouse]

This is an article printed in the Speer manual tha I have..Thank god it's online, so I don't have to type it up...

Barrel length (in the terms of killing power, not ease of aiming) is a pretty pointless way to "classify" a fireamr for hunting suitability.

You will see form the table that the difference between 4" and 10" barrels is not huge.

If you look at what Elmer Keith was able to kill, and at what distance, you will realize that the difference in velocity between a 5" and a 7.5" .44 magnum at 50-100 yards really has no relevence in terms of how well it kills.

If and when we get around to answering those quesitons, it's proably better to just look at the USA, and use one of thier models to determine cartridge suitability. They may restrict handgusn wiht shorter than 4" barrels, (proabblay a good idea, as snub noses are bloody hard to shoot accurately) but I doubt they restrict handguns to 7.5" or more...




Dear Ballistician: Your reloading manual is all wrong! You say on page 713 that 11.2 grains of Super-Duper powder will push the 125 grain bullet at 1468 fps. My barrel length is the same as yours, but when I tried this load and had my friend chronograph it the velocity was only 1411 fps. Why are you so far off?"

Letters like this imaginary one are all too common. In an effort to pinpoint one reason for such velocity differences, the Speer Ballistic Laboratory selected three lots of .357 Magnum ammunition in different bullet weights. These particular lots of ammunition were selected because of their uniformity, not because of high velocity. The ammunition was fired in all of the .357 Magnum guns available to the lab at the time.

The different handguns were all tested in same manner with the gun muzzle elevated and then gently lowered to the horizontal for each shot. Every effort was made to make the results as accurate as possible.

The table shows the average velocities of the three different bullet weights in each of the guns tested. Note that in the standard 10" test barrel, made to tight ammunition industry specifications, the extreme variation (EV) in the velocities ranged from 48 fps for the 125 grain hollow point bullet, to 38 fps for the 158 grain soft point bullet. Using the 6" barreled revolvers as an example, the EV between all 125 grain bullets fired in all the 6" barrels was 376 fps, almost 8 times the EV in the test barrel. The EV for all 6" barreled revolvers with the 140 grain hollow point ammunition as 275 fps, over 10 times the EV in the test barrel. The 158 grain soft point ammunition showed an EV of 282 fps, almost seven times the test barrel EV of 38 fps.

These large variations are due partly to the relatively very small differences in chamber, bore, forcing cone rifling, and barrel-cylinder gap dimensions and in the finish or smoothness of these interior surfaces. Chambers will vary minutely even though cut with the same reamer, as will all other machined surfaces. It is virtually impossible to manufacture two of some machined metal item, even as simple as a revolver, with all dimensions and finishes exactly the same. When hundreds of thousands of .357 Magnum revolvers have been made by thousands of different people, in different factories, with different materials and tooling, it cannot be surprising that there are differences between guns.

These minor differences between guns cause some of the differences in ballistic measurements. Additional variations, due to differences between different makes or lots of bullets, powder, primers and cases, powder charges, loading dies, loading techniques and chronographs complicate the problem. Many times these small differences tend to cancel each other, but when everything goes one way, the resulting variation may be relatively large.

These velocity tests are not presented with any idea of claiming that one particular brand or model of revolver is superior to another. A repeat of the test with different ammunition might well reverse the relative standings shown here. The point we want to make is that even with the very best quality ammunition available, there will always be velocity variations when the ammunition is fired in a different gun.


Gun Description
Barrel
Length

-Ammunition Used in Test-

125 grain

140 grain

158 grain
S&W M19#1 2.50" 1190 1132 1034
Colt Python 2.50" 1205 118 989
S&W M19#2 2.50" 1209 1118 1018
Ruger Security Six 2.75" 1233 1154 1075
Colt Trooper Mark III 4.00" 1317 1175 1101
S&W M66 4.00" 1385 1225 1117
S&W M19#1 4.00" 1368 1227 1153
S&W M19#2 4.00" 1374 1242 1146
Ruger Security Six #1 4.00" 1370 1242 1130
Ruger Security Six #2 4.00" 1380 1267 1151
Dan Wesson 4.00" 1358 1280 1160
Ruger Blackhawk #1 4.625" 1361 1266 1159
Ruger Blackhawk #2 4.625" 1480 1336 1196
Ruger Security Six #3 6.00" 1436 1311 1210
S&W M19 #1 6.00" 1400 1282 1179
S&W M19 #2 6.00" 1372 1281 1154
S&W M19 #3 6.00" 1603 1417 1284
S&W M28 #1 6.00" 1307 1246 1080
S&W M28 #2 6.00" 1499 1364 1207
S&W M27 6.00" 1547 1358 1248
Colt Python #1 6.00" 1227 1142 1002
Colt Python #2 6.00" 1477 1373 1251
Colt Python #3 6.00" 1468 1364 1207
Ruger Blackhawk (new) 6.50" 1471 1375 1262
S&W M27 8.375" 1547 1358 1248
Ruger Blackhawk 10.00" 1738 1544 1365
T/C Contender 10.00" 1944 1726 1587
Martini Rifle 17.375" 2121 1906 1678
Winchester 92 Rifle 20.00 2153 1964 1824
Marlin 1894 Rifle 24.00" 2212 1994 1835
Velocity Test Barrel 10.00" 1866 1732 1591

Velocity Test Barrel Extreme
Variation

48 26 38

 

[Gatehouse]

Read the 'Bible'!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree...It will take alot of confusion out of this topic if one was ot read Elmer Keiths books on handgun hunitng. For that matter, there are several other writers today that have alot of experience with it too.

 

[Foxer]

Perhaps we would gain more support from "more than half the hunters out there" if they already had something in the gunsafe they could use, ie. a six inch .44 or .45, instead of having to shell out another $700.00-0$1000.00 for a nother 1-1/2 of barrel.

Nope.

You'll never get it past unless you appeal to the non-hangun hunters. Guys who already own pistols are already generally supportive, but there aren't that many compared to the number of hunters.

And most who have 'em don't need much excuse to go buy another gun.

There are 2.5 million gun owners or there abouts. There's something like 60 thousand handgun owners. It's the first group you need the support of. The second group already thinks handguns are pretty cool.

 

[joe-nwt]

Quote:
Perhaps we would gain more support from "more than half the hunters out there" if they already had something in the gunsafe they could use, ie. a six inch .44 or .45, instead of having to shell out another $700.00-0$1000.00 for a nother 1-1/2 of barrel.

Nope.

You'll never get it past unless you appeal to the non-hunters. Guys who already own pistols are already generally supportive, but there aren't that many compared to the number of hunters.

And most who have 'em don't need much excuse to go buy another gun.

There are 2.5 million gun owners or there abouts. There's something like 60 thousand handgun owners. It's the first group you need the support of. The second group already thinks handguns are pretty cool.

Well maybe it would convince the 7.64% of the people here who won't support us.

 

[Foxer]

Well maybe it would convince the 7.64% of the people here who won't support us.

What would?

And it's 11.64 percent who don't support it. They are either against it or undecided.

 

[Johnn Peterson]

I agree...It will take alot of confusion out of this topic if one was ot read Elmer Keiths books on handgun hunitng. For that matter, there are several other writers today that have alot of experience with it too.

At the moment the exact firearms escape me, but it's amazing how effective a hot .38spl load of 13.5gr of 2400 behind a 173gr hard cast Keith SW is on Deer from 40 - 150 yds or an Angora Goat at roughly the same ranges. Or, the effectiveness of a hard cast 250gr Keith SW in front of 22gr of 2400 in a .44 Mag on Black Bear at 25'. Keith also did a lot of effective game shooting at longer ranges with those and other calibers. On almost all shots, the hard cast bullets, penetrated through so the capabilities of the calibers isn't really in question. Just the judgement and abilities of the shooter.