[Andrewsky]

What is the point?

Can't a more ethical kill be made on the animal with a rifle or shotgun than with a handgun?

Not trying to sound critical...just a rifle hunter trying to learn.:)

[Jimmy Newman]

What's the point of doing anything but killing deer at 50 yards from an elevated box stand at a feeder with a high power scoped rifle? This is an extreme example, but it's a related topic :).

For me it's about the challenge (mostly the challenge of having to get close). Where I hunt there are a lot of deer and I haven't had any trouble lately making 200 yard shots off of shooting stix or a tree branch of the correct height, but I'm not terribly interested in doing the super long range thing. So instead I've taken up pistol hunting (with an open sights S&W M57-1 .41 mag) and plan to start on bow hunting (I have a good bow and am a good shot with it, I just haven't really tried hard on hunting with it yet. Plus, I just really like pistols :).

I shot a deer last season with the .41 mag and the deer made it about 30 yards before it dropped like a rock. I don't think that's an unethical kill at all (it is the second farthest I have ever had a deer run). Of course, I've shot pistols a lot but am not great, so I set a maximum range of 30 yards for myself (with a rest I can hold about a 3" group at 30 yards) to insure I could make a clean shot. I think you do have a responsibility to make sure you are capable of taking good shots if you hunt with a pistol or a bow - but that's no different from hunting with a rifle, the constraints are just a little different - for me, with my revolver, more than 50 yards is an unethical shot, versus 300+ with my rifle.

Also, it's nice not to have to lug the big rifle around :).

There are other valid reasons as well. A very good friend of mine suffered a stroke about ten years ago. He has since recovered fully but for several years lost most of the use of his left hand and couldn't operate a rifle reliably, but didn't want to give up hunting. He bought a long barrel .357 revolver, put a scope on it, learned to shoot it with one hand and a rest, and did very well for the seasons he couldn't use a rifle (he killed a deer with it that I seem to remember placed in the top 10 of the deer killed in the last 100 years on the hunting club he is a member of).

[Bartkowski]

Well at closer ranges I would bet that if you shot a deer with a hangun in an appropriate caliber or a rifle in an appropriate caliber that the hangun might drop a deer more than a rifle. Just because of the bullet size...the energy trasmitted would be greater, right?

[Clipper]

Anyone can shoot a deer with a rifle at 50 yards...But are you good enough to pull it off with a handgun? Without a rest? The skills I developed shooting everything from squirrels to deer with a handgun for 30+ years has not only made me a better shot, but also required me to be a more patient and dedicated hunter. When you can lay all six rounds through the bottom of a coffee can offhand and unsupported at 50 yards, you know you can shoot.

[Jimmy Newman]

Bartkowski,

Even at close ranges, handguns are not nearly as effective as rifles (with a few exceptions, like a TC Encore with rifle bullets, or maybe .460 or .500S&W). The reason for this is that a rifle bullet causes something called hydrostatic shock - it damages tissue around the bullet path because of the shock wave behind the bullet. This is the big chewed up damaged area around the bullet path. To get this to happen, you need about 2000fps of bullet speed. .41 mag is a FAST handgun round, up to about 1600fps, but it doesn't cause hydrostatic shock at all. You might get there with the new .460 or .500 revolvers. The deer that I shot with my .41 had a perfectly clean hole straight though it with little to no damage to the muscle tissue around the bullet path. The deer dropped so quickly because I put the round right through the middle of its heart.

[Andrewsky]

Well at closer ranges I would bet that if you shot a deer with a hangun in an appropriate caliber or a rifle in an appropriate caliber that the hangun might drop a deer more than a rifle. Just because of the bullet size...the energy trasmitted would be greater, right?

Not really. Energy is equal to mass times velocity squared. That's velocity that's squared, not mass. So velocity is "more important."

As long as you guys are making ethical kills, it sounds perfectly reasonable to me to use a pistol.

I guess my original question was basically, why handicap yourself with an inferior weapon, and the answer is, because it's a challenge. That's logical enough, eh?

Oh, btw, both of the deer I've shot in my short hunting career were dead right there. Both were shot with a .300 Win Mag bolt action out of a 26" barrel. BOOM!!!! The first was in the neck at 35 yards and the second was at 200 yards in the spine. Neither of them moved a step after shot, so I figure the kills were pretty ethical. I've been unsuccessful on my last two hunting trips though...what can ya do, right?

[Geno]

Well, the T/C Contender pistol is more accutate than 99% of rifles...it still holds the world record set with iron sights: 1" X 3.5" at 500 yards.

Add the Encore pistol to the mix which uses rifle cartridges and you have an exceptional challenge.

The fastest downing of any boar I have shot was with an Encore chambered in .444 Marlin (boar dropped in 12 yards, with a single shot). It dropped faster than the boar I hit with a .375 H&H (boar dropped in 200+ yards, with two shots).

I started hunting with a pistol due to a fused neck. Others hunt with pistol for challenge.

Doc2005

[MCgunner]

Oh, here we go down the slippery slope of "ethics" again. I know you're just lookin' for info, but if handguns are unethical, you'd better outlaw bow hunting post haste. As matter of fact, the PETA types have been after bow hunting for years. Actually, they're after ALL huntning. I just saw some woman from PETA on a morning news show stating that deer hunting (with rifle) is as cruel as Micheal Vick's dog fighting activities. Be careful how you throw that word "ethical" around.

I've killed two deer quite dead with a .357 magnum, didn't go more'n 25 yards and the other dropped in its tracks. I've dispatched 5 with a Contender in .30-30 so far. I enjoy handgun hunting for the reasons everyone here states. I enjoy precision shooting with a handgun. I got into IHMSA for a while, but hunting is much more fun and you can't eat metal rams. :D

[jmorris]

I'm with Doc on this one, there are not many rifles that will out shoot my XP-100 in 7mm br. But, it and the contenders are only really handguns by law, if you are thinking about a "side arm" the ranges will be much closer (depending on how well you shoot). Look at it this way, if you have a pistol to defend yourself against a 250lb bad guy it should be just fine for a 120lb deer.

[Kingcreek]

What is the point?

Can't a more ethical kill be made on the animal with a rifle or shotgun than with a handgun?

Part of the problem right out of the gate here, is that you are assuming a gradient of ethical kills.
Is one kill more ethical than another?
an ethical kill is an ethical kill. period.
Your ethical kill with the .300wm is not more ethical than my ethical kill with a .44 handgun round or an arrow or a muzzleloader.
I hope we see an end to these hunter-questioning-hunting issues.

[DogBonz]

But my brother does. He has taken two nice and quite large bucks with his 6” SS Python, and will be trying for #3 thin season. He does have a red dot scope of some type mounted on it, and he is pretty proficient with that 357. He likes the challenge of having to get close enough to make the shots. I personally would rather hunt with a rifle for a number of reasons but see nothing wrong with hunting with a pistol if it is powerful enough, you are responsible and only take the shots that you can make, and can keep your shots in the vitals at that distance…. But then again, the same rules apply to rifles.

[rantingredneck]

I've handgun hunted for awhile and have taken a couple of deer with a .454 Casull. Both were DRT. I got rid of the Casull earlier this year but will be hunting with my Ruger P90 .45ACP and heavy handloads (260gr Speer SJHP's @ 750-800fps).

It's all about shot placement and appropriate bullet selection. I tend to hunt the thick country where 50 yds is a long shot. Most of mine lately have been 35 yds or less.

[Andrewsky]

I think one factor I didn't consider was the ranges involved.

Most of North Dakota is wide open prairie. A rifle is a much more effective tool here.

But I suppose if one was hunting in the Alleghenies are something, there would be little difference.

[kmrcstintn]

I can think of 2 very possible scenarios where having a sighted in handgun during hunting season becomes a welcome thing to have...

1) you wander away from your perch/post/stand/etc to answer the call to deposit some liquid gold and not place a foreign odor into the area around your hunting location; you are standing erect and peeing into a recepticle or on the ground; your rifle/slug gun is slung over your shoulder or perched against the next tree over; a deer wanders within 35 yards of you and you know that any movement to retrieve and bring your long gun to bear on the critter may cause some unwanted results; you quietly and slowly unsnap your holster; you cautiously and slowly raise the pistol to a good firing position; you aim, cock the handgun, and squeeze the trigger...BANG!

2) you are sitting while quietly snacking or eating; your rifle is leaning against a tree or perched nearby; again a deer comes into the vacinity...again any major movement to secure the long gun would cause spooking the animal and BYE-BYE BAMBI; quietly, cautiously, and slowly retrieve the handgun from the holster, aim the handgun, cock the hammer, and squeeze the trigger...BANG!

essentially, you are handgun hunting by necessity and not by design...later

[Mannlicher]

While I rarely take just a handgun afield, I do hunt with one. There are times when the heavy cover is so intense, that I sling the rifle, and depend on just the handgun.

[Neophyte1]

Andrewsky: Sir;
I had the very conversation yesterday with my shooting buddy.:):eek::)
He is like myself, kinda, sorta out of shape, yet he is a fair shot.
We are going coyote hunting in a couple of weeks:)
The set-up:eek:
My intent; him rolling a coyote over.
He enjoys a 1895c, I enjoy a Blackhawk .357,
We have a good spot pick out.:confused:
We have worked on our shooting.
He; using both my handgun, and the 1895c He does pretty good.:p
Now I want him to sneak up on the Coyote within 50 yds. take a couple of deep breaths and slip a good clean shot.:what:

Sir; the object as 'I' see it; isn't the kill, it's the moment.
A Shooter isn't a trigger puller,
A Shooter is a realistic visionary. Quote "can I realistically make a clean shot"

It's not how many fish you catch, but how that you enjoyed your friends adventure.;)

[MCgunner]

I think one factor I didn't consider was the ranges involved.

Most of North Dakota is wide open prairie. A rifle is a much more effective tool here.

But I suppose if one was hunting in the Alleghenies are something, there would be little difference.

Well, yeah. Down here in the brush, it's rare to get a shot much over 100 yards. A 50 yard shot is the norm. Rifle hunting deer under those conditions can sometimes just feel like cheating. I enjoy hunting with my handguns under those conditions. Out west, I'd see a lot of shots I could make with a rifle I'd have to pass with a handgun, but hey, that's part of the game. You have to get close. There's more hunt in the hunting with a handgun. I'd bow hunt, but I'm left eye dominant and right handed and bows and me just don't work. So, handguns have similar ranges to bows and, to me, present a similar challenge.

[MDig]

I think the challenge of getting close enough to the deer to take it ethically with a handgun is the "point" of hunting with one.
The same holds true with a Bow.
The Point of Hunting Ethically is to know your own limitations well enough so as to make a Kill Shot as opposed to spray and pray.
Frankly I find leg hold trapping somewhat gruesome, but it is legal and I rarely if ever ask what the Point of it is. It is just not my cup of tea so I don't do it.
If we as Hunters and Outdoorsmen start asking one another what the point of a certain type of hunting is, we may as well give in to the Anti hunting crowd. The question is divisive and counter productive to keeping the sport alive and well. Isn't this why Jim Zumbo got skewered by firearms owners? He didn't see the "point" in owning an EBR and stated so publicly and went so far as to equate ownership of an EBR as being Terrorist. Well as a Veteran and a Hunter, and RKBA advocate I was insulted he created a division in a community that is divided enough and has made one too many concessions to the Anti-Gun Lobby.
We need to close ranks and stand firm on the second ammendment and the privelage to hunt.

[Andrewsky]

So what are the fine lines of the law concerning open carry of a pistol while hunting in Texas?

[MCgunner]

You can legally open carry while involved in a sporting activity (hunting). Get back to the truck, unload and store. The law says it has to be locked in a trunk, which trucks don't have, and that's always been kinda stupid to me. But, I carried illegally concealed for many years until I was able to get a CCW when they passed the law. Don't ask, don't tell was my philosophy on that. :D Actually, when you're hiking the woods in a national forest, you can open carry in Texas, anytime you're involved in the outdoors, but hunting is obvious.

Most of the hunting in this state, though, is on private land. There is very little public hunting and what there is isn't where I'd wanna hunt. I've mostly hunted on private land and you can carry a handgun anywhere on your own property whether you're hunting, working cattle, running fences, whatever.

[Andrewsky]

I think the challenge of getting close enough to the deer to take it ethically with a handgun is the "point" of hunting with one.
The same holds true with a Bow.
The Point of Hunting Ethically is to know your own limitations well enough so as to make a Kill Shot as opposed to spray and pray.
Frankly I find leg hold trapping somewhat gruesome, but it is legal and I rarely if ever ask what the Point of it is. It is just not my cup of tea so I don't do it.
If we as Hunters and Outdoorsmen start asking one another what the point of a certain type of hunting is, we may as well give in to the Anti hunting crowd. The question is divisive and counter productive to keeping the sport alive and well. Isn't this why Jim Zumbo got skewered by firearms owners? He didn't see the "point" in owning an EBR and stated so publicly and went so far as to equate ownership of an EBR as being Terrorist. Well as a Veteran and a Hunter, and RKBA advocate I was insulted he created a division in a community that is divided enough and has made one too many concessions to the Anti-Gun Lobby.
We need to close ranks and stand firm on the second ammendment and the privelage to hunt.

Yeah, I see what you're saying. I'm not anti hunting or trapping, I was just curious.

Hunting with a handgun always sounded interesting to me and I wanted to hear what you had to say.:)

I'm surprised it's okay to open carry while hiking in Texas. I bet some day open carry will be legal again. The mainstream media is going to have a field day if that happens.

[Troutman]

<<You can legally open carry while involved in a sporting activity (hunting). Get back to the truck, unload and store. The law says it has to be locked in a trunk, which trucks don't have, and that's always been kinda stupid to me.>>

Starting Sept.1, if one doesn't have a CHL, you can keep it in the glove compartment.

[kmrcstintn]

if someone likes the effectiveness of handgun rounds while in thickets, heavier brush, or good close shots and doesn't want to drag their super duper full bore long distance hunting rifle, he or she could use a handgun caliber carbine (eg: my hunting sidearm is a 4" or 6" .357 magnum handgun and I recently bought a Marlin 1894C in .357 magnum with 18.5" barrel to match); even though I bought the carbine as a camp gun, it can double as a 50 yard gun with open sights and/or a 75-100 yard scoped gun...low recoil and effective on anything up to a medium sized deer or hog...

[Troutman]

<<if someone likes the effectiveness of handgun rounds while in thickets, heavier brush, or good close shots and doesn't want to drag their super duper full bore long distance hunting rifle>>

That’s the idea of the new hunting handguns that are out today.
Some will say, why not just use a rifle. Well, a rifle is not only longer to carry, overall length, also more weight.
Even Marlins weigh in at 7 lbs. Where even a 10-1/2 inch (barrel length) big bore revolver will weigh in at 5 lbs. With the weight and overall length taken into account. When it’s a horse race that close, sticking with the above (quote) scenario, it’s the jockey that’s going to win it. Jockey, meaning, who’s carrying it.
Even the same, make, model of big bore handguns, there is a big difference between a 10-1/2 and 4 inch model. Size-wise. Not only overall length…….weight. A 4 inch can weigh in at 3-1/2 lbs.

[sm]

I have always enjoyed small game hunting with a handgun.
I use only factory sights.

For me, it has to do with using woodscraft skills to get close enough for the shot.

Like bowhunting with a firearm - labgrade

I grew up doing this with Mentors & Elders as a kid.

We didn't have, much less use camouflage, and I still don't.
We used what guns we had; it was about skills of being in the woods, and the Software part, the Guns themselves played a more minor role if you will.
One just used a gun that fit them, in which they had the correct basic fundamentals down pat, and had quality practice with.

One learned their skill limits, and stayed within such limits - hence the woodscraft skills.

If one could always hit a golf ball sized target with a .22 Revolver like a High Standard, H&R, Iver Johnson, at 25 steps/yards, or the same with a Ruger Standard semi-auto, then that is the distance they limited themselves to.

Golf ball about the size of a squirrels head.
Get "close" , rub two quarters together, and the squirrel would come around the tree, and one could make a clean ethical kill.


Model 10 with fixed sights, and 4" barrel, I have felled many rabbits.
Bone Stock Gov't model of 1911, and mild target load, felled many rabbits as well.
Ditto for BHP.

32 caliber revolvers were popular when I was growing up and the term "Trail Gun" was attached to these.
Just a handy handgun and caliber to fill the pot while on the trail.
Squirrels, rabbits, grouse, and other game were often referenced in Ads for these .32 cal "trail guns"

Pest Control around the property.

Normal when I was growing up for folks to have a single shot shotgun at least behind the back door;ditto for one in the barn.
Trucks had gun racks and cars most likely had one in the trunk.
Between a long gun and garden hoe, well a garden hoe felled many a rattlesnake or water moccasin near water.
Garden hoe "shooed" many a feral cat.

Money was tight, so folks did not "spray and pray". Then again, folks grew up learning to shoot, with correct basic fundamentals.
.22, 32, 38spl, and various shotgun shells were in coffee cans at the hardware store, so one could buy just one, or three or whatever they needed.

That said, handguns were "just what one did". Hardware guns, in .22, .32, and .38spl were popular, since they were less money.
Ladies always had a handgun, and they could flat shoot.

While the shotgun/.22 rifle/ 30-30 may have been put on the back porch, the handgun was on person.

Especially with a Prison Work crew out doing road work [chain gang] one always paid attention.
Chain Gangs, knew folks were armed, and could shoot, so it was rare any real incidents took place, those that did, did not work in the escaped inmates favor.

My Grandma could shoot anything, and shoot it well! She toted what we call a Model 10.
Rabid dog come around, and she would get between me, other kids playing and shoot one time, and DRT.

MY very own .22 revolver, she gave me, she used more than once.
One time a bunch of feral cats came onto property and near the covey of quail that lived back there.
Hen house, and some new baby chicks.
I was about 4 years old and she takes my gun, and being smooth, quiet, and me on the back porch paying attention , sneaked up and shot feral cats.
She did not miss, and came back with two ctgs not fired.
She unloaded my gun, and reloaded it back to nine ctgs.

I will never forget this, and other times she did this. Flowered print house dress , halfway between knees and ankle, with a apron and just smooth, quiet, fast and taking head shots and the feral cats DRT.

Got a burlap bag, shovel, toted the cats down to spot where a brushpile was, and that was that.


I was sitting on the tailgate of a farm truck eating a peanut butter and banana sandwich , and sipping milk from a mason jar one day.
Grandma, myself and other folks were messing with a farm pond, clearing brush, and Grandma put her hands over my ears.

The Mentor on the backhoe, stopped, and took a Gov't 1911 and shot a Spike Buck, in season.
I still knocked over my milk and it went off the tailgate, breaking the jar, I was, surprised!
Grandma removed her hands and put mine over my ears, and she eased off to the side, a doe came running out, and was heading straight for that tree where Grandma was.
She shot it with her Model 10!

Long guns were in the truck, just the handguns were on person, and ...well...
"run what you brung".


How raised - what you do.

[kmrcstintn]

That’s the idea of the new hunting handguns that are out today.
Some will say, why not just use a rifle. Well, a rifle is not only longer to carry, overall length, also more weight.
Even Marlins weigh in at 7 lbs. Where even a 10-1/2 inch (barrel length) big bore revolver will weigh in at 5 lbs. With the weight and overall length taken into account. When it’s a horse race that close, sticking with the above (quote) scenario, it’s the jockey that’s going to win it. Jockey, meaning, who’s carrying it.
Even the same, make, model of big bore handguns, there is a big difference between a 10-1/2 and 4 inch model. Size-wise. Not only overall length…….weight. A 4 inch can weigh in at 3-1/2 lbs.

Oh well...I tried ;):D

partII

nice nostalgia SM...kinda reminds me when a fixed sight 6 shot .38 spl revolver was the mainstay of law enforcement and security personnel...for most people, the sight of it was enough 'reminder' to stay honest or enough 'deterrent' to get honest...back when life was more family-based and the 'real' enemy was USSR and the Cold War was all the rage...

after getting out of the service, dad's hunting collection were the following: Browning A-5 12 ga for cottontails; Remington 760 .30-06 for PA whitetail; Marlin Glenfield 25 .22LR for squirrel; and the ubiquitous Smith & Wesson 19 in .357 mag w/ 4" barrel...where the 760 went, the 19 followed as a backup...IIRC, he actually drew it once, but when he raised the gun to rest his forearm on a branch, the deer was turning its head and caught the movement of his arm and sprinted;

I know that he used it once with .38 spl LRN to put down a wounded animal that started to bolt just as he pulled the trigger on his rifle and caused trauma to the spine between the chest and abdomen; the front half was still thrashing, so he unloaded the magnums as quick as he could, put in a few specials, took aim ?behind the ear? and put the animal down...just another example why having a revolver on the hip was a good thing

y'all have a good one; I will be only on a few times in the coming weeks due to a move...later!

[sm]

Here is my take about firearms, handguns, hunting, and the whole nine yards.

Folks are not being raised as I and others were back in the day.
Which means Kids are for sure not being raised as I and others were back in the day.

We have a huge number of folks growing up that were not raised with firearms in the home, not being mentored about hunting, shooting and so much more so Hungry for any tidbit of "education" .

Gov't Meddling, Influences of Teachers, TV, Magazines , Movies, and Video games are where so many younger folks are getting "mis-information".

They oh so want to be matriculated into the Firearm, Hunting, Outdoor community...the only "Mentors" are what they get from the above sensory inputs and mediums.

Sad. Real Damn Sad. :(

Society changed with more folks coming to cities, more Single parent families , and well, let us be honest, hard to work, raise a kid, pay bills and keep up with what all the Schools are brainwashing a kid with.
Parent needs to pick up a late shift, for money for car insurance and the kid...as sad as it sounds, "entertains" themselves and the input about hunting, guns and all is often nothing but Hollywood Hype, Marketing , Herd Mentality , Cult-Like Adherence and ...

No wonder some folks have the perceptions they do about guns, calibers, hunting, shooting, and everything.

I've had folks of all ages share, and it hurt to share they have never been fishing, shot a BBgun, much less anything else.

Raised in a household, and these folks "hid" behind studies to keep peace in the family. They could tell me all sorts of stuff about Biology, and Latin names for plants and insects, but they had never gone out and plucked a tomato off the vine, wiped it off on pants/shirt, and taken a bite.

I have had folks from kids on up to 30's shoot a BBGun for the first time. Shoot a .22 single shot rifle for the first time. Actually a*gasp* touch a handgun, for the first time. I prefer a .22 revolver to start out with handguns.

Ever see a HS boy or girl almost cry, I mean forget about being a "know-it-all" teenager, I mean almost cry because someone took the time to share with them and let them shoot? I have, lots of times.

A 29 year old lady was introduced to me, by some ladies I know. Extremely well educated and all.
She had never shot a gun in her life.
She has done a lot of difficult things in her Academia, but asking for help about guns was one of the most difficult for her.
She was raised in such a structured home environment.

I and the other ladies assist her and she progresses. She took a shine to a Model 18 .22 revolver.
29 years old and having a ball shooting groundhogs with a handgun.
Later, she felled her first squirrel with that same revolver!

"I did not know who to turn to for help. So many folks are just getting information from TV, Magazines, Movies, and Internet, and all they are doing is parroting what they gather , and they themselves don't know, to boost self esteem." - 29 year old lady.

She at least was honest with herself, and sought us out to get the truth.

Sad ain't it?

:(

[JesseL]

The reason for this is that a rifle bullet causes something called hydrostatic shock - it damages tissue around the bullet path because of the shock wave behind the bullet. This is the big chewed up damaged area around the bullet path. To get this to happen, you need about 2000fps of bullet speed.

Hydrostatic shock is a myth.

In order to create an effect like hydrostatic shock, a bullet would have to be travelling faster than the speed of sound in tissue - about 5000 fps. There is no round that fast.

Bullets kill by causing bleeding, nervous system damage, organ failure, and eventually infection. There is no fundamental difference in how deer dies when it is shot with a rifle vs. a handgun vs. an arrow vs. a big knife.

In general, rifle rounds kill more effectively than handgun rounds because they penetrate deeper and may cause wider wound channels.

[GunTech]

If I am hunting to get meat, I take a rifle. If I am hunting for meat and a challenge, I'll take something more challenging. Lately, I've taken to the flintlock, and my wife to the handgun. It is a lot more challenging in either case, much more enjoyable and the deer are far safer :)

I think the confusion comes from the fact that most people think that hunting is just about going into the woods and killing something. They just don;t get it.

[JackOfAllTradesMasterAtNone]

Nearly box stock off the shelf. I've taken 6 Blacktails at iron sight pistol ranges. Spot and stalk. No tree stand. Now friends, that's a challenge on their home turf.

I probably could have done the same thing with bow and arrow, but I don't shoot a bow. I regret not taking a Black Bear with pistol. I had it. Holstered, but shot him with the rifle instead.

Other times when I don't carry both, I like to hunt with pistol since it's quicker to bring to target, and weighs four pounds less than my rifle, and a hell-uv-a lot easier to carry through thick brush of the Great North Wet.

If you 'Don't get hunting with a pistol', You've obviously never tried it. If you're an experienced rifle hunter, then I suggest you learn to be a good pistol shot, then hunt with one. You may get lucky, but most don't fair as well when converting from rifle. Over time, you'll become a much better hunter once you've limited your shooting distance.

-Steve

[Jimmy Newman]

JesseL:

Possibly hydrostatic shock is a myth - if so, I just have the wrong term, as there is CERTAINLY something that rifle rounds do that most handgun rounds do not (possibly the new super-revolvers do, I've never shot a deer with one).

Every deer I have ever killed with a rifle (mostly a 7mm-08) has had a wound channel at least 1.5"-2" in diameter following the bullet path that was just all torn up. As in, shredded, with clotted blood and badly torn muscles. Often the contents of the body cavity around the bullet path (especially the lungs) have been turned into a pulp. If the bullet hits the heart, I often can not find a large enough piece left over to identify as having once belonged to the heart.

When I shot a deer with a pretty beefy revolver (full-house hunting loads out of a .41 mag), I made two shots, about 2" apart. Both cut pretty clean .41" holes straight through the deer with little to no tissue damage aside from that directly crushed by the bullet itself (i.e. no 2" diameter "torn up" stuff). One, incidentally, did hit the heart and put a nice hole through one of the ventricles - but didn't really tear it up. The lungs also had pretty clean holes through them.

There is something going on here which I can only attribute to the speed of the projectile, given that every high-velocity shot I have made or seen has had similar effects (shooting my 7mm-08, a .270, a .30-06, and a .375H&H with various projectile types) and every low-velocity shot I have made has not (using .41mag, .40S&W, .357mag, and .45ACP with hard cast and hollowpoint bullets) despite the fact that the low-velocity rounds are often heavier bullets of larger diameter. Possibly it is not hydrostatic shock, but it is certainly SOMETHING.

To recap: handgun rounds cause wound channels approximately the width of the bullet (or the widest point of its expansion). Rifle rounds cause a MUCH larger wound channel that is just plain ugly. This larger wound channel translates to much faster bleedout, and much more damage to organs/CNS, as so much more tissue and blood vessels are destroyed. I was not trying to argue that the rifle round does something magical that makes the deer fall over dead from shock. I have been told that is effect begins to happen with projectile speeds in the 2000-2200fps range. This agrees with my observations so far.

Incidentally, I have not had the .41 mag fail to exit the body on any deer or pig I have shot with it thus far. Ditto my 7mm-08. So the penetration depth thing has nothing to do with what I have observed.

[CommanderPoopyduX]

While I have never hunted with a pistol (yet) I have seen my dad, on two separate occasions, take a white tail with his .44 mag revolver. I can say the wound, both inside the deer, and the exit wound, were bigger and nastier than what my 155 gr. 30-06 rounds have caused to the deer. Both bullets drop the deer dead in its tracks, the only difference is he was able to draw his pistol (with his rifle slung) and shoot the deer before I can unsling my rifle and pull it up for a shot.

The wound channel caused by ALL bullets is called Cavitation. There are permanent cavities (the actual bullet channel) and temporary cavities caused by the fluid being displaced by the energy of the bullet passing through the liquid. All bullets cause damage as they pass through other than just their diameter, but smaller, faster bullets cause less than heavier bullets (5.7mm vs .45 ACP - not counting tumbling as scene with a 5.45). Obviously heavier bullets traveling very fast with create the biggest wound.

[22-rimfire]

The main reason I use a handgun for deer hunting is the challenge. I am pretty confident with a rifle. The handgun brings back the fun and adds to the challenge. Bee leaving the rilfle at home since I'm mostly hunting woods these days. Not everyone can shoot a handgun good enough for deer hunting. If I don't get one, no big thing as my wife does not like to make venison anyway. I cook my own. Give the handgun thing a try. You may really enjoy it.

I feel that although the handgun will have less energy than most rifle calibers, it is still just as ethical as using a bow, or black powder rifle.

[jmorris]

I’m not so sure of the hydrostatic shock theory but I do know the speed of sound is around 1100fps depending on atmosphere variables, and many 22lr rounds exceed this speed. If it were all about speed a .17 Remington (25grain @ 4100fps) would be much better for hunting large game than a 45-70 (300grain @ 1900fps) I just can’t buy that theory. Also, bullet construction will have a lot to do with what wound channel exists.

[Jimmy Newman]

Well, the speed of sound may be around 1100fps in air, but JesseL is certainly correct that it is higher in denser materials.

I never said that speed is all that mattered, I just attributed the much-larger-than-the-bullet-diameter wound path and sometimes explosive results on the internal organs to projectile speed. However, nasty wound path isn't everything, as your example demonstrates. I will note that I did say that both my rifle and my revolver have always had full penetration on the animals that I shot, acknowledging that penetration has an effect but that both the rifles and revolver I use have always had adequate penetration.

.17 Remington has less muzzle energy than a heavy .44mag. The bullets are tiny, probably would not hold together on impact, and probably would not very far. I suspect they would make a really nasty wound, but one that is shallow enough that it wouldn't be very effective at immediately killing deer. That said, I'm sure it could do enough damage to kill them eventually, or immediately with a head or neck shot.

.45-70, on the other hand, would at the very least punch a nice hole straight through the deer. It certainly wouldn't have any penetration issues :). But I suspect that it would not leave the wide wound path that a high velocity rifle bullet will.

When I shoot deer with a rifle, I often have to throw away the meat for about 3-4" around the actual bullet path because of tissue damage and clotted blood in the muscle. When I shoot deer or small pigs with the .41 mag, I can just cut out about 1/2" around the bullet hole.

Maybe I should just say that, in my experience, most rifles that people recommend as suitable for deer hunting are VASTLY more effective than most of the handguns that people recommend as suitable for deer hunting and leave it at that.

That doesn't mean I'm going to stop handgun hunting, just that I'm going to continue to be very careful to make ethical shots.