Pistol hunting?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just for grins? I'd love to go handgun hunting with a .44 magnum or heavy .357. In an encore I think it would be pretty fun too. Maybe use that .600 NE Encore pistol? :)
 
As long as you take it fair, clean and legal, and eat what you kill, there's nothing unethical about it - no matter what your motivation might be.

Don't get me wrong, 'bragging rights' doesn't interest me much either, but declaring something unethical just because it's not my thing is a form of arrogance I could do without.
 
Its not the killing that your bragging about. Its being able to say you took on a slightly harder tool to do the job and still got the job done. Its the challenge of the thing, being able to master something that not everyone else is willing to do.

I am more proud of the little 7 point I killed with my Contender in 44 mag. I killed at 40 yrds than I am my first buck I shot with a 32 win. at 130 yds.

CHECK360
Half
 
The tool used in hunting is insignificant to the hunt itself. If the hunter is proficient with his tools then what he uses to make the kill really means nothing. Does it really mean anything to the hunt if your firearm has a buttstock or not?
 
in the area that I deer hunt you can pick a shotgun or a handgun. I use a handgun because I shoot alot more handgun than shotgun slugs and therefore I have more confidence in my revovler skills and also a 44 mag will do great on deer in the area I hunt were shots are under 100 yds.

Another reason is that a handgun is more portable than a longgun. My DAD always sends me in the brush piles cause I'm carrying a nice short revolver and he's got an 870.

When Ive hunted in northern MN I've used a rifle but if I only had a revolver I wouldn't be under gunned.
 
I would also think that if you're considering the "ethics" of hunting, doing it with a more difficult tool would be more ethical. It evens things out a little more.
 
The handgun is easier to pack in the heavy brush and woods, and can be brought into action faster, in my experience, than the rifle. Also, after you kill that trophy buck or hogzilla type hog, you just holster your handgun and load up your animal, without having to worry about your slung rifle flopping all over the place or leaning your camoed out Remington 870 Turkey Gun up against a tree and not being able to find it again (has happened, real life :)).

Lots of folks think that the handgun is strictly a short range proposition. Lots of handguns (T/C Contender/Encore, XP-100, and others) have the same reach as a typical hunting rifle, and in some cases better accuracy.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr
 
Handgun hunting is more of a challenge than rifle hunting, just as bow hunting is more of a challenge than a handgun hunting. I too have used a handgun, only for the reason of a challenge and yes, have earned bragging rights. There is nothing unethical about it.

What would be unethical is to go buy a handgun, never shoot or practice with it, never sight it in, and go out and take a shot at a deer. One of the reasons I don't bow hunt is because i don't have the time to become proficient enough with a bow in order to have a reasonable chance at a clean kill. :)
 
I have always wondered why people would rather use, for example, an encore pistol in a rifle calibre instead of a rifle?
Click to expand...

I am a rifleman, a handgun fanatic, and a reloader. I love my .30-30 Contender. I have practical reasons I like it. My loads are effective out to a full 200 yards depending on the solidity of the rest I have in the field. At 100 yards, more'n enough. I've yet to actually take a deer further than 75 yards with it, though. I ride a motorcycle a LOT and in Texas, you never have to "winterize" your motorcycle, it's a year 'round transport. The Contender is an accurate hunting firearm that fits in a saddlebag. I carry it in a shoulder holster and my M7 Remington won't fit in a holster. Yes, I call it a handgun because it is a handgun. Heck, it's smaller and lighter than some of the X frame Smith and Wessons everyone brags about and with only one shot, you gotta make it count.

Beyond that it's fun to shoot, fun to hunt with, you don't bang the barrel around in a box blind with it, it's light in the field. When I'm stand hunting, I don't see why I SHOULDN'T use it if I want to. I've made four clean kills with it so far, rifle-like kills. You can also impress the rifle guys at the range with it when you show them your groups that are half the size of their groups. I don't really use it for the practical reasons though, I use it because it's fun to hunt with and I want to.:p
 
A LITTLE HUNTER ED STUFF HERE BOYS:

5 stages of a hunter:

1. Shooter: Needs trigger time. Harvest level doesn't count, just shots fired.

2. Limiting out: If i can take 6 ducks, I'm taking 6 ducks.

3. Trophy: self explanitory

4. Method: Wants a higher level challenge. This is where bows, handguns, muzzle loaders, etc., come in.

5. Sportsman: Harvest or challenge level become less important than being outdoors with family/friends. The hunt as a whole is whats important, not any individual part/aspect of it.
 
I think I skipped number three. To be a "trophy hunter" you must first make a lot of money which I never did. All it takes in Texas to bag a trophy is money enough to go on a "trophy hunt". I've been on stage five for a long, long time. I definitely went through 1, 2, and 4, though. :D
 
There is another reason to use handguns, necessity in order to continue hunting. Accident in 1989 precludes the use of long guns only option for me was a handgun. In 2005 I used a Browning A Bolt to kill my last deer for that season. There will be on more long gun kills for me. I know I can do it so now I can choose to use handguns which I do. I have admitted that I truly felt under gunned that first handgun hunt. I had much concern over the effectiveness of the 657 and .41RemMag round I was using. No more of that. I'll use handguns as long as I can hunt.
 
Aren't the seasons different as well? Can't you hunt with a handgun at times when rifle hunting is not allowed (like during bow hunting season)?


Killing an animal for braggin rights is pretty unethical.
Click to expand...
:scrutiny:
Unless you're hunting for sustenance, or to sell the meat/pelts you're likely hunting for "braggin rights".
 
I am stuck on the

Limiting out stage.

My goal is to fill my freezer, which I argue is the purest form of hunting. Always will be too.

Don't care what kind of deer it is (don't even usually know if it has points till I get up to it).
 
Different states have different laws.

Here in Utah pistols hunt the same hunt as rifles. Including wearing 400 square inches of orange. Very challenging.

Also there are laws on barrel length and energy:

Barrel must be 4 inches long.

On deer you must have 500 ft. lbs. of muzzle energy.

On elk or moose you must have a load that retains 500 ft. lbs at 100 yards.

Also the 5 stages are not mutually exclusive. You can be in more than one stage at a time. I.e.:
Hunting a trophy bull elk with a handgun.

This is Utah specific. You need to check your own states laws if you intend to hunt with a handgun.
 
I never really understood where they came up with the 5 stages of hunting.

I see myself more as a sportsman than anything else; i just like going hunting for what it is.
 
Wait..wouldn't this be worse than hunting with a .223? Why the resistance against hunting deer with .223, but not .44 magnum?
 
Mr. Quatin,

The .44 Magnum was designed from the start for big game hunting. The .223 was an anti-personnel military cartridge, that became a small game/varmint hunting catridge, that people started using for big game. Granted, the .223 will kill deer and maybe some bigger animals with textbook shot placement under ideal conditions, but in IME the .44 Magnum is a much more consistent killer of big game than the .223.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr
 
I have not graduated to rifle calibers in handguns yet (ie contenders etc.). I use a revolver because it is a challenge, is still enough gun for the purpose, and I don't particularily care if I fill my freezer. Heck, my freezer is still full from last year. My wife hates to cook venison and I never get around to it. Want some?

The 223 is not a deer caliber. Even with people, it was selected because it wounds as often as it kills. I can understand this in the military, but not for hunting.
 
To be a "trophy hunter" you must first make a lot of money which I never did.
Click to expand...
Trophy hunting doesn't take any extra money. It does take the mindset and patience to pass up lesser grade animals while looking for the perfect one. The big money hunts just means you spend less time hunting as most hunts are rigged. You can find your own trophy in the wild if you are willing to put in the time.
 
Pardon my ignorance, I'm pretty new to firearms, but in my Remington Catalog the ballistic reports show that the .44 mag has 741 ft-lbs at the muzzle, whereas a .223 could have 1379 ft-lbs at the muzzle. Is there something else that factors in? I know the .44 mag can be 4x the weight of a .223, but the .223 has 2x the energy delivered. Is there something else that factors in that I'm missing?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top