Handgun Hunting Support

[Gatehouse]

Wyoming

Firearms and cartridges that are legal for the taking of big or trophy game animals.

(a) Wyoming statutes authorize the use of a firearm which has a barrel bore diameter of at least twenty-three-hundredths (23/100) of an inch and is chambered to fire a center-fire cartridge not less than two (2) inches in overall length, including a soft or expanding point bullet seated to a normal depth, or a muzzle-loading rifle which has a barrel bore diameter of at least forty-hundredths (40/100) of an inch and a charge of at least fifty (50) grains of black powder or equivalent, or a muzzle-loading specialty single shot handgun which has a barrel length of not less than ten (10) inches, a bore diameter of at least forty-five-hundredths (45/100) of an inch and which propels a projectile of two hundred forty (240) grains at not less than five hundred (500) foot pounds at one hundred (100) yards.

(b) In addition, the Commission authorizes any other cartridge fired from a firearm that has a barrel bore diameter of at least thirty-five hundredths (35/100) of an inch and the cartridge generally delivers at least five hundred (500) ft-pounds of impact at one hundred (100) yards and cartridges used are loaded with a soft, or expanding point bullet.

 

[Salty]

Here we are talking about hunting with handguns and the people guarding our borders don't have them

That will change within the year

 

[Salty]

new york state. one of the more anti hand gun places. not a bad place to hunt with one tho...

http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/wildlife/guide/legalimp.html

 

[Gatehouse]

The reallity of the situation would be that wanting and having are two different things. I would venture to say if handguns were legislated legal the majority would mess with them for the first while and then they would be left at home. I don't think most would do the practice required to become and remain proficient with a handgun. Hunters should be spending time becoming and remaing proficient with a rifle leave alone a handgun

.

M<ore likely you will see the same thing that has developed wiht archery gear. Since there are special bow seasons, rifle hutners take up a bow. Since there woudl be no handgun season, there is less motivaiton to hunt wiht them.

Ihtink we would see the keen handgunners do it almost exclusively as do keen bowhunters.

Others woudl pack a .22 pistol to pot grouse wiht (someting not difficult to do with a bit of practice) and others would carry the handguns more for protection reasons. Rifle hunting is still far more common in the USA than handguns, and I think we woudl see that here, too.

The law enforcement community would be against people carrying hand guns and the media would suck it up through a flavour straw. It would do far more harm than good to our sport

Well, maybe, but wiht the proper information supplied (especialy stressing the "more animals get away" part) we coudl control the spin.

Here we are talking about hunting with handguns and the people guarding our borders don't have them. It would be lidicrous of the government to let hunters carry handguns in the bush and let people guarding our borders go without

Well, they dont' let border guards carry rifles and shotguns, but hunters can. So maybe this isn't a rela valid point.

. The net, net is you will walk on the frozen ceiling of hell bofore hunters will legally carry handguns hunting.

With defeatist attitudes, you are correct.

 

[Salty]

I was surprised to find that hard-cast lead semiwadcutter bullets from the .44 Magnum penetrated deeper than the expanding rifle bullets. I mean, after all, a .375 H&H is considered to be adequate for bigger and tougher game than we even have in North America--and the little .44 Magnum revolver bullet out-penetrated it! I later found that even an expanding 240-grain bullet from a .44 Magnum would often shoot completely through a deer broadside.

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

 

[Foxer]

Foxer. Who are you at arguement with here in the last pile of pages other than everyone? Or is it just me?

Why would you say that? I'm discussing things with about 2 or 3 other people, and you figure that's a good reason for a personal attack? This is how you address issues around handgun hunting? Is this the attitude you'll take going into the field?

You know what? You've just convinced me. I will not support handgun hunting when it comes around to discussion in the media or political circles.

If you guys treat your hunting the same way you treat discussing it with others, the last thing in the world we should do is allow handguns in the woods.

Do you realize the ONLY argument put forward to say that it's effective was that some guy shot at elk at 400 yards 'hundreds of times'?

So - congrats. I'm sure you'll have exactly the same effectiveness in convincing the rest of the hunting community (which is the majority) who has concerns about handgun hunting and is leery of supporting it. Based on the number of pm's and emails i got, you're well on your way. Most hunters are going to do exactly what these people did - decide it's not worth fighting with you, and quietly decide to not support it.

If you can't even take the discussion seriously, it's pretty unlikely you'll take the sport seriously either.

 

[tootall]

Holy f**k.

what started out as a simple poll turned into a piss-fest.

What the hell is the matter with the shooting "community", that makes us turn on our own so quickly?

I notice that almost no-one bothered to answer my question about HOW TO MAKE IT HAPPEN.

No, we would rather spend 47 pages #####ing at each other, about who might do what.

Very disappointed in how this thread went sideways

 

[Foxer]

I notice that almost no-one bothered to answer my question about HOW TO MAKE IT HAPPEN.

Actually i did. In several posts. I pointed out the level of gov't to go to, i pointed out the people, and suggested that someone should approach them and then lead a targeted attack.

I also laid out the concerns people were going to have, and the kind of evidence and data we're going to have to provide to deal with them. I also pointed out that if you don't take these things seriously, hunters by and large won't support the initiative.

I got back a whole lotta crap about shooting animals at 400 yards with handguns, and told to 'quit arguing'.

So - there you go. Good luck with that. I'm not much interested anymore and i sure ain't gonna have a lot of nice things to say about the subject when it comes up off the board.

 

[John Y Cannuck]

Why would you say that? I'm discussing things with about 2 or 3 other people, and you figure that's a good reason for a personal attack? This is how you address issues around handgun hunting? Is this the attitude you'll take going into the field?

You know what? You've just convinced me. I will not support handgun hunting when it comes around to discussion in the media or political circles.

If you guys treat your hunting the same way you treat discussing it with others, the last thing in the world we should do is allow handguns in the woods.

Do you realize the ONLY argument put forward to say that it's effective was that some guy shot at elk at 400 yards 'hundreds of times'?

So - congrats. I'm sure you'll have exactly the same effectiveness in convincing the rest of the hunting community (which is the majority) who has concerns about handgun hunting and is leery of supporting it. Based on the number of pm's and emails i got, you're well on your way. Most hunters are going to do exactly what these people did - decide it's not worth fighting with you, and quietly decide to not support it.

If you can't even take the discussion seriously, it's pretty unlikely you'll take the sport seriously either.

I think you'd best go back and read the thread Foxer, you're really exagerating.
Elmer shot an elk with a handgun round we'd consider inadequete today, the 44 special, at a range we'd consider unethical today... 200 yards. He shot it three times if i remember correctly. Raking shots as he described them.
It proves not that the handgun is an effective long range weapon, but that it is an effective hunting weapon, it is one incident.
If you like, I could post hundreds of US handgun hunting articles that clearly show their effectiveness at lesser ranges, and a few more that show how to use specialized handguns at long range.
They are still used today, even for species as large as brown bear, and have been used to humanely take Cape buffalo. Handguns have come a long way since Elmers time.

 

[John Y Cannuck]

Elmer was a fantastic shot with a handgun, and did a lot of testing with his guns. I suggest you get 'Hell I was there' and give it a read.
His stories are sometimes unbelievable, but most have witnesses, including the 200 yard shot.

 

[John Y Cannuck]

Really. ANd they all became proficient in less that 6 times using a handgun? Their 6th time shooting they could all shoot to a skill level suitable for hunting at 50 yards?

I find that hard to believe. Having watched several newbies learn now, i think it would take the average person a little longer to be truly proficient at that range.

So no, i don't think i'm terribly unusual.

Remember - i did not say that people couldn't get that good, or even that I couldn't get that good. I said that it's much harder to get that good than it is with a rifle.

If you are currently shooting at a range then you must realize that many or even most of the people that shoot there have the ability to shoot 6" at 50 yards. Yes, there are a few that may never grasp the techniques. But so what?
If you can hit the paper at 50 yards, you can kill a deer with a 12 inch kill zone.
You can hit the paper right?
Handgun shootingis not as difficult to master or to mantain, as the long bow.

 

[walksalot]

.

M<ore likely you will see the same thing that has developed wiht archery gear. Since there are special bow seasons, rifle hutners take up a bow. Since there woudl be no handgun season, there is less motivaiton to hunt wiht them.

So many archers are going to the crossbow. Why? because it takes less practice to become skillfull.

Ihtink we would see the keen handgunners do it almost exclusively

as do keen bowhunters.

True that but the percentage , in my opinion, would be very small.

Others woudl pack a .22 pistol to pot grouse wiht (someting not difficult to do with a bit of practice) and others would carry the handguns more for protection reasons. Rifle hunting is still far more common in the USA than handguns, and I think we woudl see that here, too.

The amount of times a hunter would pot a grouse with a handgun while on a big game hunt would, in my opinion, be the exception rather than the rule. If you want to hunt big game animals and grouse buy an over and under it is probably as expensive as buying a good quality handgun.

Well, maybe, but wiht the proper information supplied (especialy stressing the "more animals get away" part) we coudl control the spin.

Control the spin with the media? They would blow this issue so far out of proportion it would be a mess. Who got the long gun registery to become legislation? It was a few screaming anti gun activists who caught the eye of vote hungry politicians and through the media gained public support for this assinine piece of legislation. A lie is as good as the truth if you can get someone to believe it.

Well, they dont' let border guards carry rifles and shotguns, but hunters can. So maybe this isn't a rela valid point.

Handguns for border guards are more for intimidation than protection because they are dealing with mamals who have the power of reason. However, if there was ever a group which need a handgun for protection it is the law enforcement sector.

With defeatist attitudes, you are correct.

I am not a defeatist I am a realist.

 

[Foxer]

I think you'd best go back and read the thread Foxer, you're really exagerating.
Elmer shot an elk with a handgun round we'd consider inadequete today, the 44 special, at a range we'd consider unethical today... 200 yards.

Gatehouse says he did it out to 400 yards. And 'hundreds' of times. Go back and read it yourself. I'm not exaggerating at all - that's what was said. In more than one post.

It proves not that the handgun is an effective long range weapon, but that it is an effective hunting weapon, it is one incident.

There is no possible way "One incident" can possibly "prove" something is an effective hunting tool. Especially as you describe it, multiple hits etc.

And that should be so obvious it isn't funny.

Like i've said a billion times, a lady dropped a bear with a 22lr, one shot and it was dead. That does not prove it's an effective hunting tool for bears.

But by all means - ignore me (and logic, and common sense) and lead off with that when you talk to the ministry about handguns and hunting. I'm sure they'll be as impressed as i am.

 

[Foxer]

If you are currently shooting at a range then you must realize that many or even most of the people that shoot there have the ability to shoot 6" at 50 yards.

Seriously - did you even read anything i wrote, or just the first line.

What you just wrote above has absolutely ZERO to do with what i talked about. I never said people don't get good enough - i said it was MUCH HARDER TO GET THAT GOOD THAN WITH A RIFLE. I pointed out that i'm not that good with a handgun YET after about 6 times shooting them - whereas i can have a new shooter able to put 5 out of 5 in a pie plate at 50 yards by their second time out in a lot of cases.

If you can hit the paper at 50 yards, you can kill a deer with a 12 inch kill zone.

12 inches is bigger than the kill zone on a lot of deer. That's too much room for error. Especially if that's the best you can do at the range under controlled conditions, because you KNOW you're not going to shoot as good in the woods. 6-8 inches is more practical.

You can hit the paper right?

at 50 yards? Not 5 out of 5 shots, not into 8 inches, with any reliability. I might do it once, and then the next group get 2 or 3 out of that circle. It's not good enough to hunt. A few more tries at it and we'll see, but the point is it takes a lot more work to become proficient with a handgun. Not just a little, but a lot.

 

[gunz4grlz]

That’s right….keep fighting amongst yourselves. That way nothing will ever get done, and the laws won’t change. I’ve seen enough 3 legged deer and decaying carcasses courtesy of the “weekend warrior” who shouldn’t even be allowed a firearm, let alone a hand gun, to know that this is an issue on which I will not sway. You can’t just say that people like Foxer (and all those who actually know the limitations of themselves and their firearm) can use a hand gun to hunt. If you make it legal for one, you must make it legal for all. Am I the only one who actually sees the problem with this??

 

[joe-nwt]

Why the heck are we arguing about shooting anything at 400yards?

The odds of anyone even getting even close to hitting anything at 400yards are slim to none. Is this the best we can do, even for an arguement?

Let's make an attempt at getting back on track here.

 

[Salty]

Quote:
Foxer. Who are you at arguement with here in the last pile of pages other than everyone? Or is it just me? 'quote'


Why would you say that? I'm discussing things with about 2 or 3 other people, and you figure that's a good reason for a personal attack? This is how you address issues around handgun hunting? Is this the attitude you'll take going into the field?

I didn't mean it as a personal attack Foxer. I made an observation. Complete with a question. If you took it as such, I appologise.

You know what? You've just convinced me. I will not support handgun hunting when it comes around to discussion in the media or political circles.

If you guys treat your hunting the same way you treat discussing it with others, the last thing in the world we should do is allow handguns in the woods.

I sad to hear that this is is how you feel. And particularly your rationale.

Do you realize the ONLY argument put forward to say that it's effective was that some guy shot at elk at 400 yards 'hundreds of times'?

So hear we are back to this point that has put you over the edge. Come on Foxer. There are pages of reasons that we have put forward earlier in the thread. A lot by you personally.

And then Gatehouse (and others including me) disagreed with your steadfast reasoning that hunting hand guns must have a 7 1/2" barrel to be effective. This is when and why the Elmer story was trought out. Just to try and convince *you* that you don't need a stinking long barrel!

 

[Johnn Peterson]

That’s right….keep fighting amongst yourselves. That way nothing will ever get done, and the laws won’t change. I’ve seen enough 3 legged deer and decaying carcasses courtesy of the “weekend warrior” who shouldn’t even be allowed a firearm, let alone a hand gun, to know that this is an issue on which I will not sway. You can’t just say that people like Foxer (and all those who actually know the limitations of themselves and their firearm) can use a hand gun to hunt. If you make it legal for one, you must make it legal for all. Am I the only one who actually sees the problem with this??

I've mentioned much the same, dissention within our ranks is our greatest adversary.
Unlike yourself, I've seen very very few "3 legged Deer and decaying carcasses", and I've hunted a good number of years. I do, however, on occasion have serious misgivings when I see individuals you classify as "Weekend Warriors" out hunting but keep it in prospective, everyone out there isn't one.
Not asking that you change your stance, just to remember it's a question of ethics, not the tool of choice. And while a self proclaimed 'know it all's' like Foxer may be aware of his limitations he shouldn't use his shortcomings as a basis to judge or belittle the skills, abilities and experiences of experts of the past.

 

[SIGP2101]

And then Gatehouse (and others including me) disagreed with your steadfast reasoning that hunting hand guns must have a 7 1/2" barrel to be effective. This is when and why the Elmer story was trought out. Just to try and convince *you* that you don't need a stinking long barrel!

You right, we do not need 7 1/2" barrel as an allowed minimum. Theoretically is doable to use shorter barrel and hit and kill over 100m, but to a very small number of skilled people. Practically would be very hard for majority of us. But Foxer is right in one thing, and that is that bigger gun would be easier convincing/selling point to lawmakers. I believe that was the whole point.
What a hell, lets make that first step end get our right back with biggest/longest possible gun that exist today. I do not care. If that is something that is going to bring this right back to us I say let it be. We have to start somewhere. We can’t get everything we want at once. Be reasonable. Lets discuss how to get there, not get divided around stupid fact whether 44 can kill at 200 m. Certainly it can, everything is possible today.

 

[cdngunner]

Unfortunately most of the dying/injured deer and decay carcases that I have seen have been from car/deer accidents. Unfortunately the deer are overpopulated in our area and drivers are taking about as many as hunters. I know of a particular fellow who took out three in one go. So using your rational people should not drive around these parts because there are to many "3 legged Deer and decaying carcasses". I too have been hunting for better then 20 years and have yet to come across a three legged deer or rotting carcase. Other then the ones hit by cars.

Again I agree with you there are a lot of WEEKEND WARRIORS out there. But its the Morons that injure animals and allow them to die a horrible death, not the firearm they use.

A moron is a moron, is a moron,is a moron, no matter what he does or what type of firearms he uses.

Saying that it will be to dangerous out there is the common argument you antis have come up with and all I can say is that these idiots are out there right now, but with rifles and shot guns. If you think they could shoot some one if they were to hunt with hand guns, I say they are more likely to do it with their rifles or shot guns. If you think they would take 150 yard shots with a handgun, I say these are the same people who would take 250 yard shots with their shotguns and 500 yard shots with their rifles. And probably sighted in their rifles only once since they bought them.



A handgun is just as adequate a tool as a crossbow or bow. People just have to know their limits and the limits of the firearms they use.