Handgun Hunting Support

[Johnn Peterson]

If you think it's ok to shoot at elk at 400 yards with a handgun - you've just convinced me that it's the worst thing we could possibly allow.

Obviously it doesn't take much to 'convince' you then, when it comes to your negative perception. Is that what I said? Or was the statement ment as an indication of what is POSSIBLE in the hands of an expert? Would I attempt it? NO! With a rifle and a good rest and ideal conditions, possibly.

 

[Gatehouse]

Geez

To EVERYONE followin this thread- Have i been unclear?

Is it just Foxer that doesn't understand what I was saying, or is it everyoen else?

Please let me know, so I can try again if necessary- Or is it just Foxer that cannot grasp my point?

 

[Foxer]

I wonder if applying for an ATC for hutning purposes- in a province that does not disallow handgun hunting (liek BC used to be) woudl be a logical first step?

Apply, get denied and then start a court case?

I dunno..

An interesting question.

That's generally the first step to a court challenge or the like. That MIGHT work in that province.

Especially if that province has a similar law as bc - where we have the right to hunt 'within the law'. The gov't would be seen to be interfering with that right.

Which provinces don't have handgun restrictions? Does anyone know?

 

[Salty]

OK I'll bite Gate. I think your point is roughly this:

-a 5" barreled 44 magnum hand gun is more than enough to effectively kill large game

-for instance Elmer Keith wrote extensively about using 4" barreled guns at up to 400 yards successfully on elk

-consequently a shorter barrel on a hand gun is not an impediment for hunting

 

[savagefan]

The killing power of the bullet is not what keeps us from legally handgun hunting. Bolt action pistols and the TC handgun are available in big game rifle calibers. The governments don't want the public to believe that handguns have any legitimate or practical purpose because then we'd all want some.

 

[Foxer]

Obviously it doesn't take much to 'convince' you then, when it comes to your negative perception.

No - it really doesn't when it comes to handguns. I think that you'll find that's pretty common.

I accept that within certain parameters handguns can be an effective and ethical tool to hunt game. And i accept that there really are circumstances where a hunter might be better served by using a handgun than a rifle. So i support the idea of allowing handgun hunting based on that.

But - my own experience with handguns has shown me they are hard to aim compared to a rifle, and obviously they don't allow for a whole lot of 'mistakes' in the power department. Obviously, it WOULD be easier to harm a animal rather than kill it with a handgun than with a rifle. A bit of bone, a funny angle, those can ruin a rifle shot never mind a handgun.

So - when i hear 'evidence' being presented that you only need the kind of power a 41 has at 400 yards to 'hunt ethically' - i start to really question the whole thing. How many animals ARE wounded in the states by people who are seeing what the MINIMUM amount of power they need to kill an animal is?

Is that what I said? Or was the statement ment as an indication of what is POSSIBLE in the hands of an expert?

Actually all you said is that you agree with gatehouse pretty much, so we have to look at what he said.

And what he said was that killing an animal with about 250 ftlbs of energy demonstrates that these guns are powerful enough to kill game.

What I said was that while it MIGHT kill game - it's not enough for the average hunter to do it with consistency.

Would I attempt it? NO! With a rifle and a good rest and ideal conditions, possibly.

Glad to hear it!!

If it's not something you would do, it's not relevant to the conversation.

The question isn't 'what is possible' the question is 'what is reasonable to expect in a wide variety of hunting circumstances such as hunters would face in (insert province here) for the average hunter on a regular basis'.

 

[Foxer]

-a 5" barreled 44 magnum hand gun is more than enough to effectively kill large game

-for instance Elmer Keith wrote extensively about using 4" barreled guns at up to 400 yards successfully on elk

-consequently a shorter barrel on a hand gun is not an impediment for hunting

Unless other hunters have the skills that elmer keith had, the comparison is not relevant.

Michael Schumacher can drive a car at 150 miles an hour. That does not mean it's smart to set the speed limit to that for the average driver.

Does that make my point any clearer?

 

[Johnn Peterson]

No - it really doesn't when it comes to handguns. I think that you'll find that's pretty common.

I accept that within certain parameters handguns can be an effective and ethical tool to hunt game. And i accept that there really are circumstances where a hunter might be better served by using a handgun than a rifle. So i support the idea of allowing handgun hunting based on that.

But - my own experience with handguns has shown me they are hard to aim compared to a rifle, and obviously they don't allow for a whole lot of 'mistakes' in the power department. Obviously, it WOULD be easier to harm a animal rather than kill it with a handgun than with a rifle. A bit of bone, a funny angle, those can ruin a rifle shot never mind a handgun.

So - when i hear 'evidence' being presented that you only need the kind of power a 41 has at 400 yards to 'hunt ethically' - i start to really question the whole thing. How many animals ARE wounded in the states by people who are seeing what the MINIMUM amount of power they need to kill an animal is?



Actually all you said is that you agree with gatehouse pretty much, so we have to look at what he said.

And what he said was that killing an animal with about 250 ftlbs of energy demonstrates that these guns are powerful enough to kill game.

What I said was that while it MIGHT kill game - it's not enough for the average hunter to do it with consistency.



Glad to hear it!!

If it's not something you would do, it's not relevant to the conversation.

The question isn't 'what is possible' the question is 'what is reasonable to expect in a wide variety of hunting circumstances such as hunters would face in (insert province here) for the average hunter on a regular basis'.

 

[Foxer]

Well what did you expect me to say johnn? I see people offering as their sole evidence the fact a man shot animals at 400 yards as proof handgun hunting is viable. Right there i pretty much started to re-think whether or not its something that we should allow.

Honestly... how do you THINK people will react to that kind of statement? "Handguns are powerful enough to kill because elmer did it at 400 yards" - the first thing they think is 'the guy you're basing this on shot animals at 400 yards with a handgun? Yikes - doesn't sound like a particularly ethical line of thinking to me'.

 

[bill c68]

As we are up to 410 posts, and I only read the first 10 or so... I risk repeating a point.

As far as a handgun not being enough gun.. there is also lots of oppotunity for trappers and small game hunters.

I know people that up until the late eighties, would take their .22 revolvers out for bunnies and the like. Trappers did it for many years out of convenience.

 

[Gatehouse]

OK I'll bite Gate. I think your point is roughly this:

-a 5" barreled 44 magnum hand gun is more than enough to effectively kill large game

-for instance Elmer Keith wrote extensively about using 4" barreled guns at up to 400 yards successfully on elk

-consequently a shorter barrel on a hand gun is not an impediment for hunting

Pretty much.

I will add:

Foxer had a belief that reducing the barrel elngth from 7.5 to 5" woudl dramaticlaly reduce velocity, which in turn would dramatically reduce killing power.

However- Large bullets at longer ranges and very low velocity have been quite sucessful in killing animals cleanly. Therefore, one woudl conclude that the velocity loss experienced by using 2" less barrel does not reduce the killing power of the cartridge measurably.

 

[Foxer]

I know people that up until the late eighties, would take their .22 revolvers out for bunnies and the like.

I think the 22 thing is the one thing that about 90 percent of people agree on.

 

[Gatehouse]

Some other interesitng figures:

Speer manual

44 magnum Rifle
20" barrel

300gr Bullet
Max velocity- 1503

44 magnum Revolver
7.5" barrel

300gr bullet
max velocity -1187


12.5" less barrel, loss of 316 fps

25.28 fps per barrel inch.

Nobody would dispute that a 44 magnum rifle can kill animal at 200 yards, since it (and similar cartridges) have done it many times.

At 200 yards, the rifle bullet is going 1066 fps

At 200 yards the revolver bullet is going 945 fps- a difference of 121 fps.

Still think that 2" of barrel on a revolver makes a big difference?

 

[Foxer]

Foxer had a belief that reducing the barrel elngth from 7.5 to 5" woudl dramaticlaly reduce velocity, which in turn would dramatically reduce killing power.

Now that's just plain not fair. I hardly said it would 'dramatically' do anything. I mentioned one site said for some loads it would be a reduction in speed of about 100 fps.

further to the point, i've mentioned several times that the point of it is to appear to be slightly 'better' than slightly 'worse', regardless of the difference.

And in fact i was quite clear that i wasn't saying a 6 inch gun couldn't kill game.

Lets not blow it out of proportion.

However- Large bullets at longer ranges and very low velocity have been quite sucessful in killing animals cleanly. Therefore, one woudl conclude that the velocity loss experienced by using 2" less barrel does not reduce the killing power of the cartridge measurably.

One will have to demonstrate that if one wants the many to believe it.

And one example of an extreme shooter utterly fails to do so.

And that would be the point.

Like i said - "hundreds of shooters use this configuration to take game in the states each year, and the officials feel there is no increase in wounded animals' is a good start. "some guy did it" is not.

 

[Foxer]

Nobody would dispute that a 44 magnum rifle can kill animal at 200 yards, since it (and similar cartridges) have done it many times.

Again - lose the word 'can'. Can is irrelevent. "does consistantly" is the only thing that matters.

And when the subject has come up here, as it has many many times, those who use those guns reccomend keeping the range for shooting deer to about 100 yards, maybe 125 as a max for PRACTICAL hunting.

So, now you're reducing it below that. The question is, how far.

I have never seen any of the many 44 carbine users who post here suggest that their gun is a 200 yard gun.

At 200 yards, the rifle bullet is going 1066 fps

At 200 yards the revolver bullet is going 945 fps- a difference of 121 fps.

Still think that 2" of barrel on a revolver makes a big difference?

I think if its the intent of handgun hunters to engage game regularly at 200 yards, i'm really rethinking my support of the sport. That is certainly beyond the practical ranges I've seen from ANY hunting site in the states. They seem to feel 50 -100 yards is a max.

I do recall a couple of people saying that the 45-70 is not suffcient for moose at beyond 200 yards. So i would have to think a 44 mag would have less killing power than that.

 

[Johnn Peterson]

Well what did you expect me to say johnn?

- I expected you to view the accomplishment as what the handgun is possible of in the hands of an expert. Yes, it is the extreme, the exception rather than the rule but none the less posible and done by a few people on more than a few occasions.

I see people offering as their sole evidence the fact a man shot animals at 400 yards as proof handgun hunting is viable.

- I disagree, it doesn't portray or indicate viability but rather shows, again in the extreme, what is possible.

Right there i pretty much started to re-think whether or not its something that we should allow.

Honestly... how do you THINK people will react to that kind of statement? "Handguns are powerful enough to kill because elmer did it at 400 yards" - the first thing they think is 'the guy you're basing this on shot animals at 400 yards with a handgun?

- Again, it indicates they are potentially that lethal, not that everyone has that ability, but in the hands of someone with Elmer's skill, it is possible.


Yikes - doesn't sound like a particularly ethical line of thinking to me'.

- Ethics are dictated by skills and ability, and you and I do not have the required skills to match what he has done.

 

[John Y Cannuck]

That is faulty logic, and i'm being kind saying that.

The fact that one person CAN kill an animal at that range does not for a moment suggest in the slightest that the average person will be able to kill animals at that or any other range as effectively as they could with a rifle.

First off - not all hunters are elmer keith Second off, there is no record of how many times he DIDN'T kill the animal trying that.

It would entirely be dismissed. And had you actually thought about my response, you'd see that the whole point of it was not to twist it into something else but to demonstrate that the fact something happened ONCE does not make it acceptable as a regular activity.

You could provide proof that Mario Andretti drove home drunk and didn't get into any accidents. That in no way shape or form makes drunk driving safe.

Its' a false argument. It has no bearing on the discussion.


I'm a regular hunter. And i don't believe you. So .. now what are you going to do?

See what i mean? You say there's no problem. Frankly, i have grave doubts you're prepared to be objective about it and so will most other hunters. So ... how do you address that?

If anything - your 'proof' suggests you think it's ok to take shots at big game at 200 yards with that kind of handgun. Hell - if i thought that's what you're going to do -I- would vote against handgun hunting. It's irresponsible for the average person to do that - you're going to wound game.

At 200 yards, a 44 special has maybe 250 ft lbs of energy. To put that in perspective, that's about as much power as a 22 hornet. You would have to make something very close to a perfect hit.

Yet you seem to hold this example up as what handgun hunters will do. Give it some thought there for a minute or two bud. If you tell other hunters that this is your intent - that this clearly demonstrates that handguns are 'ethical' because someone shot at a game animal that far with it, then you are going to doom the cause from day one.

All it demonstrates is that handgun hunters will happily take very 'marginal' shots if they feel like it, and they'll tell you about the ones that hit.

Faulty logic? Give your head a shake man.
Who cares what energy or anything else it has at any range, if it is effective.
You're lost in ballistic tables, and you know better. They don't tell the whole story.
All it takes is the right size hole in the right place.
Doing so at 50 yards is EASY.
I'm not talking to anti-hunters here, I'm talking to you guys. Reasonable guys that have (well some anyway) the experience to reason this out.
I'm not suggesting that we go blasting away with handguns at 200 yards, only that it has been done, and that it demonstrates how much killing power a handgun has. Elmer lived in very different times. Some of what he did in his day, would not be considered ethical today. That doesn't reduce the lessons learned about effectiveness in the slightest.

 

[catnthehatt]

I believe what I read from Ken Howell was that ElmerKeith actually shot the mule deer in question aqftrer his friend had wounded it and was out of ammo?
I may be wrong , but this is what I am leadto believe .
Cat

 

[savagefan]

I've never shot at an animal past 100yards, most have been within 50 feet, a 44 mag.revolver is more than sufficient. I would like it if my government would trust me to hunt with one. Doubt I ever would though as I have some sweet rifles.

 

[The Hackmaster]

Delete