Hunting with a Handgun

[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

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]

I hunt with hand gun. Revolvers!

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.