Revolver for Hunting

[Cowhide Cliff]

I have carried a variety of big calibers handgun hunting and I'm back to what I started with and that is generally the 44mag. If I ever take the notion to carry any larger caliber it is a 480. I just do not care for the 454 or 460 at all and the 500 is just overkill for deer and such.

 

[MaxP]

Keep in mind that all of the bigger calibers can be loaded down. Neither the .480 Ruger nor the .475 Linebaugh are calibers for neophytes in my humble opinion, however, from a recoil standpoint and if you don't load it to spec, the .480 is quite pleasant. I have owned a .480 Ruger since 2001, and still have a couple in my arsenal, and it is a great round. The .475 is fantastic as well (there are two production offerings in .475 Linebaugh -- the FA 83 and the BFR), that can be loaded to soft .480 levels also. But if the game to be pursued will not exceed whitetail in stature, it's hard to beat a .44 Mag. I am merely suggesting bigger calibers than the .357 if the OP decides one day that he would like to hunt bigger game.

 

[Dragon breath]

Here is my hunting revolver. Ruger Super RedHawk 44 magnum 9.5 inch barrel.
View media item 892

 

[giggitygiggity]

I do reload and will definitely be reloading for whatever revolver I get because I am not wealthy enough to pay $1.50 per shot. I hear a number of good points. I was leaning towards the S&W .460 XVR so I'd have the capability to shoot .460, .454, and .45LC. However, many of you bring up some good points on .44. How is the S&W 629? From the looks of it, I hear S&W, Ruger, and Taurus get brought up when it comes to hunting revolvers. I'm pretty certain I want the DA/SA capability. Out of the various revolver, especially those offered by the above manufacturers, which have the best trigger, cylinder lockup, overall quality, etc? What mounting options are available (I will probably go with a RMR or similar reflex sight.

I don't mind spending money on quality and I know Colts revolvers, especially snake guns are exemplary, but $2000 is a little out of my budget. At that cost, I would be too worries about beating it up while in the woods. I intend to use the revolver as a secondary firearm and use my deer rifle as my primary when hunting. However, most of my shots are within 100 yards and I am looking at revolvers because I can acquire a moving deer with an open sight or reflex sighted revolver far faster and better than a .30-06 with 3-9x scope.

 

[Hookeye]

If you can handle the blast and recoil, .44 mag 6" bbl or longer.
If shooting 50 yards and in, a Colt Python makes a pretty little deer killer
I'f the funds allowed, I'd get a 9.5" Superredhawk and put a Burris Fastfire in one of the scope ring positions.
EER scopes suck, as do eyeballs getting older.
Reflex or reddot is the way to go.

FWIW my hunting bud has an Anaconda. I hate that gun. It's ugly and clunky and certainly is no Python.
Decent investment if you scored one right LOL

Much prefer Smith 629 (have had 4 of them).
Had 4 Superblackhawks too (two OM, two NM).
Pops had the SRH............I shot a little one with it......out a ways
View attachment 229029

 

[Hookeye]

Now with arthritis and tinnitus.............I'd go 6" .357 and keep shots 50 yards and in.
Shame a pre lawyer lock Smith 686 costs so much.
Can't find a deal on one.
Be tolerable, maybe.............if Ruger put rib scallops like for scope rings, on the GP100, to mount a Burris Fastfire.
The Weigand rails work, but add too much to the gun in looks, IMHO.

 

[CraigC]

As a hunting tool, the Super Redhawk is tough to beat and the .44 is plenty capable.

 

[Dog Soldier]

This is like a discussion on which pick-up truck is the best? We all have our strong opinions based on what we like. Back in the 1960s when handgun hunting started to become popular there was a theoretical rule. Which caliber was the minimum base line? This was the rule of, .40 caliber, 200 grs. bullet at 1,000 fps. I suspect that rule would work today 50 years later.

 

[CraigC]

Not really. One can have a respectable level of experience with a lot of different revolver manufacturers and chamberings. That's not really true for vehicles. I don't agree with all the rampant brand war crap anyway. It's narrow-minded and counter-productive.

We have also learned A LOT about handgun hunting since the 1960's. Hell, since the 1980's.

 

[MaxP]

I've come to my conclusions through experience. I have nothing against the .357 Magnum, but in my opinion it doesn't leave you with much margin for error. Again, diameter doesn't make up for poor shot placement, but bigger is better if you can place your shots. Again, the OP may try handgun hunting on deer and discover that he not only loves it, but also show a knack for it and now wants to try his hand on something bigger than your typical whitetail. That is my reason for picking larger calibers over the venerable .357. JMHO.

 

[Dog Soldier]

Not really. One can have a respectable level of experience with a lot of different revolver manufacturers and chamberings. That's not really true for vehicles. I don't agree with all the rampant brand war crap anyway. It's narrow-minded and counter-productive.

We have also learned A LOT about handgun hunting since the 1960's. Hell, since the 1980's.

Yes, it seems the same deer that were harvested 40 years ago are now super deer. It takes a bone jarring .50 caliber handgun to harvest them?
It seems that sales and marketing has worked better than many hunters think.

 

[Blacksmoke]

As a hunting tool, the Super Redhawk is tough to beat and the .44 is plenty capable.

Is that a Longhorn domestic bull? I did not realize they are a game species. Just asking, not arguing anything.

 

[22-rimfire]

I do reload and will definitely be reloading for whatever revolver I get because I am not wealthy enough to pay $1.50 per shot. I hear a number of good points. I was leaning towards the S&W .460 XVR so I'd have the capability to shoot .460, .454, and .45LC. However, many of you bring up some good points on .44. How is the S&W 629? From the looks of it, I hear S&W, Ruger, and Taurus get brought up when it comes to hunting revolvers. I'm pretty certain I want the DA/SA capability. Out of the various revolver, especially those offered by the above manufacturers, which have the best trigger, cylinder lockup, overall quality, etc? What mounting options are available (I will probably go with a RMR or similar reflex sight.

I don't mind spending money on quality and I know Colts revolvers, especially snake guns are exemplary, but $2000 is a little out of my budget. At that cost, I would be too worries about beating it up while in the woods. I intend to use the revolver as a secondary firearm and use my deer rifle as my primary when hunting. However, most of my shots are within 100 yards and I am looking at revolvers because I can acquire a moving deer with an open sight or reflex sighted revolver far faster and better than a .30-06 with 3-9x scope.

The important point here is SECONDARY gun while hunting deer. I don't have a big problem getting on target with a moving deer with a rifle. Depends on how fast they are moving... But you have to ask yourself the question, should I be taking this shot at all? My suggestion is that you get either a 41 or 44 mag revolver with a 4" barrel as a secondary gun. That is what I did eventually. I doubt you'll carry a longer barreled revolver on your person after a couple trips unless you sit in a box stand. Learning to shoot either the 41 or 44 mags is much easier than the bigger bore/higher powered revolver calibers.

Don't dismiss a single action revolver as a viable option. You only need one shot and should you need another shot, the single action is fast enough.

I started out thinking I would carry a large revolver (in my case, S&W M57 8 3/8" barrel with iron sights, or the Ruger 9.5" SRH with 2x scope) along with my rifle on my shoulder. Well, I quickly learned that the rifle always gets first choice because once I start hunting, my competitive nature takes over and I want to score IF the opportunity presents itself. A revolver has limitations because I know that I am always more precise with my shots with a rifle and the rifle has more range flexibility. Consider that you are likely carrying 20 lbs of gun on you... too much. The big revolver not used as a primary weapon gets very cumbersome quickly.

Basically I am trying to talk you out of a really large revolver (X frames etc) used as a backup/secondary gun hunting deer unless you hunt from a box stand.

Getting on sight quickly with an optic on a handgun takes practice.

I wanted to hunt with the handgun and my solution to that was to leave the rifle home and not worry about the what if's.

The reason people hunt deer with a handgun is for the challenge and the thrill. I think you need to consider your hunting situation when choosing a revolver. If you get interested in handgun hunting for deer, you will eventually go with about a 5.5-7.5" barrel and the rifle will stay at home or serve as a backup left in the car/truck or camp.

 

[35 Whelen]

For deer (depending on size) even full power 44mag ammo isn't necessary.

A 240gr bullet at 1000fps should be fine, but I use a a 240gr XTP at about 1200fps.

I'm a big fan of the 629's and use a 5" personally for deer hunting when I'm not carrying my 16" M92 44mag carbine.

Accuracy is outstanding and it carries very well compared to the bigger X frames.

No need to read any further than this. You can use cartridges that launch 260+ gr. bullets at 1200 fps and beyond, but they're not at all necessary for deer and similar size animals. I'm not sure why folks think you need lots of power to shoot through animals that weigh less than 250 lbs.

I have a buddy, retired, that carries a .44 Magnum everywhere and shoots it literally every single day and hunts with it during deer season. For his daily forays to his farm to shoot, he loads a 240 gr. cast SWC over a case full of Trail Boss. He's told me it runs a little under 800 fps. A couple of months ago at the farm he ran across a boar standing 40-some yards out. Not having time to switch to his hunting loads, he just popped him with the above mentioned practice load. The boar trotted off a few dozen yards and keeled over, deader than a hammer.

So, something in the .44 Special/45 Colt area of power is more than enough, in my experience.

35W

 

[MaxP]

Is that a Longhorn domestic bull? I did not realize they are a game species. Just asking, not arguing anything.

We call that live bullet testing. An animal of that size will tell you lots about how well your chosen load/bullet combination works unlike a 120-lb doe. It can be considered a game animal when you are on the ground at spitting distance with it with no back-up. I've had some close calls with so-called domestic bovines that didn't get the memo that they aren't supposed to be aggressive.

 

[CraigC]

Yes, it seems the same deer that were harvested 40 years ago are now super deer. It takes a bone jarring .50 caliber handgun to harvest them?
It seems that sales and marketing has worked better than many hunters think.

Did you actually read the thread? Nowhere here did you see me say you need a .500 to hunt deer. You'll actually find my first post to say quite the opposite.

I don't even know what "sales & marketing" you'd be referring to. My opinion comes from killing critters, not magazine ads.

No, the deer aren't tougher but we have learned a lot about handgun hunting since the 1960's. Particularly about terminal ballistics.

 

[22-rimfire]

We call that live bullet testing. An animal of that size will tell you lots about how well your chosen load/bullet combination works unlike a 120-lb doe. It can be considered a game animal when you are on the ground at spitting distance with it with no back-up. I've had some close calls with so-called domestic bovines that didn't get the memo that they aren't supposed to be aggressive.

I was hunting with my handgun on a property with a wide selection of exotics a number of years ago. The owner asked me if I wanted to take this one older exotic that he had in a pen. I said... no thanks. But the horns would have certainly made for some nice knife handles.

 

[CraigC]

I was hunting with my handgun on a property with a wide selection of exotics a number of years ago. The owner asked me if I wanted to take this one older exotic that he had in a pen. I said... no thanks. But the horns would have certainly made for some nice knife handles.

Well, the 1800lb longhorn bull above wasn't standing in a pen waiting for someone to shoot it. We drove around for hours before we even spotted them. You'd be surprised how tough something that big can be to find when they don't want to be. Once you get out of the truck, everything changes. They know they're being hunted and aren't too thrilled about it. Every critter that was taken that week put up a fight and took multiple shots to bring them down, except for one watusi. Once we had one down, the rest of the group would keep our eyes peeled because they tend to double back and pick a fight with the folks who shot their friend. The lone water buffalo left standing at the end was particularly irritable.

 

[22-rimfire]

Wasn't suggesting that the longhorn bull was in a pen. It would be a great animal to test out the 480 Ruger penetration.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

Thanks for the replies. How does the .45LC do on deer? My buddy's Taurus Judge is fun to shoot and is a soft shooter with .45LC, but I am fearful it might not pack enough punch.

There's not an animal in the lower 48 that a standard 255 grain bullet from a .45 Colt won't kill.
For whitetails, a regular 1,000 fps load will do anything you need it to.

Now if you start hunting animals like Max and Craig do you may want to step the power up a might.

 

[gotboostvr]

As a hunting tool, the Super Redhawk is tough to beat and the .44 is plenty capable.

Out of curiosity, what load did you take that with?

 

[CraigC]

Wasn't suggesting that the longhorn bull was in a pen. It would be a great animal to test out the 480 Ruger penetration.

I didn't take it that way. I just wanted it to be clear. Some folks have a very negative opinion of high fence ranches but they're not all created equal.

Out of curiosity, what load did you take that with?

A Beartooth 355gr WLN at about 1250fps.

 

[SamT1]

I'm shocked how many guys here have a 480 ruger. I have a SRH with Leupold scope and a puma 92 and they are both a blast to shoot.
The 480 with 7.5 barrel is pretty mangable, no muzzle flip, but it does press hard into the palm. I let a female cousin shoot it one day, she's probably 125# and she did flawless, though she has pistol training. Emptied the whole cylinder into a 12" gong at 50 yards standing.

Best of all a 480 will sit in a pawn shop a while and can be had cheap. I gave $400 for mine back in 2008, very gently used, after watching it sit for 3 months on the shelf. It accompanied me on many a hunting trip until I met 460 Rowland!

Photo is before scoping the revolver. And sorry for the quality, looks like that's from my blackberry days!

 

[Mn Fats]

I am new to this forum stuff. I took a Whitetail with my Super Blackhawk due to a malfunctioning .30-30. I've carried a sidearm while hunting for 15 years. For me, handguns are backup hunting tools. I've never understood using a handgun when rifles are available.

 

[MaxP]

For me, handguns are backup hunting tools. I've never understood using a handgun when rifles are available.

And frankly I don't understand the challenge involved in sitting in a stand and taking a 100 yard shot with a scoped rifle. After all, this is a discussion about hunting revolvers.

Handguns are infinitely more challenging to hunt with successfully, and thereby way more satisfying when you connect. And, loaded properly, they are terminally effective on even the largest game. Puts a lot more fun into hunting. JMHO.