Dangerous Game Sidearms pre 1955

[Cosmoline]

I believe this thread is about sidearms, not hunting with a handgun as a primary weapon.

True, but how many hunters pre-WWII went big game hunting while carrying a sidearm? In Africa and the colonies I've read no accounts of this practice other than the Howdahs referenced above, and those suckers were the size of small shotguns.

It could be a practice that emerged from North America and the habit of wealthier cattlemen and ranchers to carry a sidearm on horseback. They also went hunting with horses, so the handgun went with them. Just a thought.

There could also be a connection to the carrying of a back up pistol by trappers in the pre-Civil War era. But I'm needing to read more sources from that era.

I think Keith did a lot to *change* attitudes about handguns. Prior to his writing, they were not generally thought of as powerful enough for big game hunting let alone protection. In fact they had a pretty bad reputation by the time Keith was growing up. They were seen as criminal weapons with few legitimate uses. That was the era of widespread anti-CCW laws and remember Roosevelt came within a hair's breadth of getting all handguns classed as NFA firearms. By expanding the way we think of handguns, Keith helped to ensure a broader base of support for their continued legality. Though I don't know that he thought of it this way, it's something else we owe him for.

Our friends over in SA like wildehond never had an Elmer Keith, and that continent retains the earlier views against the use of handguns for any sort of hunting. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think they're actually illegal to use for hunts in most of Africa.

 

[Greg528iT]

I saw, read and understood PRE 1955.. but my mind still went to 1900s. I pictured in my head a 45 Colt SAA, and a 45-70 rifle in companionship.

But as many here have said, a 44 Magnum as a lone firearm, I'd feel safe enough.

 

[earplug]

Just not done

In Taylor's book he interviews a hunter that owned a pistol but was not caring when he was mauled by a Lion ?. Anyway it wasn't considered acceptable for a proper gentleman to carry a sidearm.
Taylor was a professional Ivory hunter not a visiting hunter.
The American West had no such notion about side arms.
I recall showing up at a South GA. deer drive with a handgun in the mid 1980's and my host told me I was outside the norm for the area.

 

[XTrooper]

I try my best to follow the old adage, "Use the right tool for the job." For dangerous game hunting, a handgun ain't it.

 

[Certaindeaf]

Didn't Elmer shoot a charging black bear in the eye up in Canada? 45 auto rim? These were actual man eaters if memory serves (the indians would leave their sick/dead out for them and they developed a taste for humans... they went up there to hunt these pests). Actually it kinda summersaulted after the shot and then someone sunk an axe into its head so it was really double dead.

 

[kayak-man]

Wow, great answer's guys!

I figured that there probably weren't any handgun hunters back then, so it wasn't meant to be just "What did people use" but more along the lines of "what was available." I probably should have phrased the question like: What firearms and cartridges of the early 1900's and late 1800's would have had the power to be reasonable for protection against dangerous beasts.

By all means, please keep posting any info you have on the subject!
I think I'm going to order a copy of SixGuns now.

Thanks,
Chris "the Kayak-Man" Johnson

 

[CraigC]

Handguns were legal in South Africa when I booked my ill-fated hunt, back in 2005. As I was going to take my Clements custom Bisley .44Mag but it was just a plains game hunt. Don't know how much has changed since then but Gary Reeder and his crew still go to Africa every year and hunt primarily with handguns.

You're right about attitudes in Africa regarding handguns. They're at least a good 50yrs behind us in that regard, as are a lot of American hunters who go to Africa. It will take a lot more guys like Larry Kelly, JD Jones, Mark Hampton and Ross Seyfried to take more of the Big Six for folks to come around. Attitudes and beliefs are sloooooow to change.

Although I have read a book by Richard Burton about his adventures in east Africa and he carried a Colt 1851 Navy, along with various long guns. I imagine there were folks who carried sixguns in the field, like the big Tranter .577.

 

[OregonJohnny]

with hard cast SWC's at normal .45 speeds (around 900 fps) it WILL get the job done. I took a whitetail with it at 50 yards and got a complete pass through-shoulder and rib cage. I think that would handle most tasks except maybe the big old bears up north.

The classic in Joseph Conrad's day was the .45 Colt. Blackpowder loads would drive a 250-255 grain bullet to 900 to 1,000 fps. And I can tell you from experience, that will shoot through an elk. It would be the best choice in Africa in that timeframe.

And yet, if a person suggests that a .45ACP load like Buffalo Bore's 255-grain hardcast flat nose at 925-950 f/s from a 5" 1911 might be a suitable hunting/black bear protection round, people tend to dismiss it pretty quickly.

What's the difference if the .451" hardcast slug is coming out of a 5.5" Blackhawk, or a 5" beefed-up all-steel 1911? Will the animal care that you shot it with an autoloader instead of a revolver?

Anyway, the pre-1955 scenario brings up another interesting point. In the decades leading up to the 1950's, there were still inland brown bears (grizzlies) in states like Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, even California (as late as 1922). Now the grizzly population in the lower 48 has been reduced to pockets in Montana and Wyoming, an a few even smaller pockets in Washington and Idaho. Hiking around in the Oregon Wallowas or Colorado Rockies now is a very different thing than hiking around in those areas 60 or 70 years ago. While I might take comfort in my handgun selection nowadays when out roaming the Oregon forests, I'd probably not want to be without a rifle if it were the 1920's or 30's. But I'll agree with others who say the .45 Colt was probably the best choice for a handgun at the time, when loaded with hardcast or jacketed bullets. Did they have bullets like that back then for handgun calibers?

 

[Vern Humphrey]

And yet, if a person suggests that a .45ACP load like Buffalo Bore's 255-grain hardcast flat nose at 925-950 f/s from a 5" 1911 might be a suitable hunting/black bear protection round, people tend to dismiss it pretty quickly.

I suspect those people have no experience shooting large game with a handgun.

And that is a really stiff load for a 1911 -- closer to .45 Super than .45 ACP.

 

[CraigC]

People have a weird perception of the .45ACP. Seemingly detached from reality. Like most choices, it's all about the bullet.

 

[OregonJohnny]

And that is a really stiff load for a 1911 -- closer to .45 Super than .45 ACP.

No kidding! I have tested it through my S&W 1911, using a recoil buffer and heavy recoil spring. Out of 10 rounds, it averaged about 940 f/s! .45 Colt bullet weight and velocity from a slim, accurate, fast, 8-round bottom-feeder...

People have a weird perception of the .45ACP. Seemingly detached from reality. Like most choices, it's all about the bullet.

Yeah, you say ".45ACP" and people immediately think of a 230-grain jacketed round nose bullet going 840. Pre-1955, this may have been your only choice in a 1911. Nowadays, it's a much more versatile handgun.

If metallurgy and powder technology had been better when the 1911 handgun and .45 Auto cartridge were being developed, maybe there would be a lot more stories of the 1911 as a hunting/wilderness defense sidearm.