Gun Choice: Sporting chances for game vs. humane kills?

Ethics

I for the life of me can't understand why the word Ethics is being used so much in this Hunting Foram. We are not Doctors, Lawyers or other professionals on the job. We are hunters, Sportsman and the such. As long as we obey the GAME LAWS (and the unwritten rules of fair chase) how can one even think of adding ethics to the list. My goodness we are out to kill(slay) the game. I can't think of an ethical way to kill. We declare A hunter unethical just because they use A caliber of bullet that we don't think is large enough for us. I say obey the game laws and pratice the rules of fair chase and leave ethics for the professionals.
 
Sureshots,

I'll agree with most of what you wrote. My idea of poor ethics is some fella shooting at deer out the pickup window, just for the hell of it. My take-

  • The object of hunting is to kill game.
  • Otherwise, it would be called "game watching".
  • There are legal boundaries we must stay within during that pursuit.
  • The rest is up to the individual.
  • Various methods and killing implements are employed according to that individual's preference. Sometimes, we even choose not to kill the animal at all.
  • We used to call that "individual choice" or "personal freedom".
  • Don't apply your values and definitions to my exercise of those personal freedoms

If you shoot very many deer, sooner or later you are going to have one run off. This takes hunting to the next level and you become a 'tracker'. It's a skill just as worthy as marksmanship; goes back to our days of hunting dinner with rocks and sharp sticks.

Smaug,

Find yourself a trustworthy friend or relative who can take you hunting, the first few times out. Joining up with any outfit that complicates this process for you, will probably not have a good outcome. Spend the club dues on ammo, etc; maybe buy lunch & gas for your hunting buddy. It'll probably do you a lot more good in the long run.

...and on the original question- anything .30-30 or bigger will provide plenty of killing power, provided that you shoot it well. Buy, and use, what suits you. I'd limit myself to 50 yards with that .44 for the first few kills. I've rolled a number of them with that cartridge and '50 yards' still makes a lot of sense, even after all these years. Art raises an excellent point about the 'end of a soda can' and I have used just that as an 'accuracy yardstick' myself.
 
Last edited:
One example is Elmer Keith's story about the 600+ yd. kill with his 44 Special snubby, which took at least 6 shots (and 4 hits) to make the kill. Today, that would be considered inhumane and not a good idea to even attempt a shot like that, no matter how good you are with a revolver. Folks still idolize Keith today, despite that story.
Click to expand...

I don't care who wrote what, this I will absolutely not believe. It is more likely that the deer was shot by someone else and then died from septic shock than hit by a 44 pistol at 600 yards. BS! :cool:

As for hunting, everyone here is very focused on the shooting aspect. I'd like to just remind you that there is always more to it. Growing up in the Texas Hill Country, I was born and literally raised with whitetail deer. They lived in our back yard. Enough of that. Hunting with a scoped rifle from a deer blind is very easy, especially if the feeder is right at 75 to 100 yards, cause you know right where your rifle will shoot. If you need meat or a guaranteed trophy, this is obviously the way to go.

On the flip side, I know very few shooters that can consistently hit a paper target at 15 yards from the line with a handgun, let alone a 44mag. I don't care who says they can hit what with what, getting within acurate killing distance from a deer with a 44 mag is a major hunting challenge, especially for a new hunter! Deer have remarkable senses and as a group take turns looking out while the others forage. To make a kill with a .44 would require exceptional marksmanship as well as exceptional stealth. Even with all of that, add a light rain, poor light, 35 degree temperatures, the sound of yourself breathing, that damn tree in the way, and a moving target that is facing every which way but sideways--and now you're talking about a hunt. If you are good enough to get within your effective range, you have to pull off the shot. Of course as you cock the hammer the deer hears it and stares right at you. You freeze motionless, but it is too late and he is already on the run.

Now lets say if you are good enough or lucky enough to raise the weapon for a shot (or by the cover of a deer blind you get a shot), the last thing that would ever go through your mind is the aformentioned ethical discussion!
 
Ok. *In my opinion*
1.I think it is much more important to kill the animal that you are hunting and do it humanly. I think it is just not right to go out and see a 7 point deer (not very big) and take a 400 yard shot at it that you know your going to miss or if you hit it wound it in the knee. Also, your gonna have to go look for it in the club your guide if you choose one will make you probably and it will be a pain in the butt :barf:.

2. On the .44 mag question 100 yards is a good distance, granted if you practice you can kill them farther but unless the animal is a good size or some other fairly good reason- stick around that.

Hope this helps!
 
What do you feel is more important, giving the game a sporting chance (some feel it is too easy with a rifle) or making sure you don't wound the animal and have to do more hunting that you'd like to?
Click to expand...
A clean and quick kill is far more important. The whole concept of a "sporting chance" is a ridiculous one to begin with. It is not a fair game. If any hunter truly wanted to give them a "sporting chance" they would drop naked onto them from tree branches and chew their jugular veins out with their bare teeth... or at least just hunt them with just a rock and a pointed stick. :)
 
Those people who are fixated on humane kills obviously don't hunt at all.

I'll be the blunt one here. Bad shots happen! There is in any and every hunting situation a very high probability of a slow kill. Every hunter makes bad shots. Wounded game happens. Inflicting pain and suffering on an animal happens. This is part of hunting. Completely missing is part of hunting.

Good hunters are relentless trackers, who with every bad shot spent the time to find their downed animal so that the kill is justified. Even good hunters, however, lose game--and the buzzards benefit. If you want to be humane, hang up your rifle on the wall.
 
Those people who are fixated on humane kills obviously don't hunt at all.

I'll be the blunt one here. Bad shots happen! There is in any and every hunting situation a very high probability of a slow kil
Click to expand...
Bad things can always happen. That does not mean you do all you can to facilitate them. You do your best to prevent them.

Maybe if you have so many bad shots you should take up needle point instead of hunting. :)
 
Have I ever taken a shot I should not have? Yes.Have I ever had an animal escape? Yes.Not proud of it and its not OK.If you speak with people who have the courage to be honest,you will find a fair number who have learned ethic the hard way.Some members of your hunt club have wounded animals that have escaped.They might be good at lying and hiding the truth.
Makes a reasonable person feel real bad.
The ethic is in respecting that you owe the game animal a quick,clean kill.
That is about knowing your own limitations and the limitations of your tool.
One can take an Armalite AR-30 in .338 Lapua and a spotter buddy and with a little bit of shooting skill any animal observed within a half mile can be mortally hit.That is not much about hunting skill.It is the equivalent of shooting a dairy cow in a pasture from afar.Many people decide that is not what they choose
You can choose a .54 Hawken and the efficient ballistics of a round ball are about 60 yds.Of course,kills can be made at longer ranges,but 60 or 75 yds is a realistic hunting range for a Hawken.Its not so hard to hit an apple at 60 yds with a good Hawken.
If you have read any of what I write,I advocate most hunters in most conditions with modern bolt guns think in terms of not much past 300 yds.That is because under field conditions,not sandbagged on a bench,cold barrel,excited,breathing hard,shooting 2.5 MOA groups is pretty darn good.That is what it takes to hit that 8 in target at 300.
Giving the game a chance is about limiting the technology you use and having the maturity to not shoot until you know the game Does Not Have a Chance because you know you can make a clean,precise shot.
Whether that is at 40 yds or 400,is for you to know.
Only shoot when the game doesn't have a chance.
With your .44,sit,lean back on your non gun elbow.Rest your handgun across your gun side knee. I have an MOA Maximum handgun ,4x scope in .260 Rem.I can usually get a one shot one kill on a grapefruit at 200 yds.
I would not push the ballistics of a .44 past 100 yds.
Maybe you can get a produce manager to let you have some dumpster bound old oranges or something.Those ought to get pretty easy at 50 yds.
Then you will know a deer at 50 yds doesn't have a chance.See that orange on the ribs just behind the forleg....
Fruit seems crazy,but the bits fade away.
 
Maybe if you have so many bad shots you should take up needle point instead of hunting.
Click to expand...

Did I say I have many bad shots? In fact, I've watched ten deer pass through my cross-hairs for every one that I've shot. I'm an extremely selective and patient hunter, and sportsmanship is a part of that. Nevertheless, I've injured enough animals and spent enough time wandering through mesquite to know what can happen. After you cut the throat of a groaning animal as its eyes look into yours, it's not hard to forget.

You find me someone that has nothing but perfect shots and I'll declare him a liar or some kind of hunting savant. Yeah you can feel great when you drop them in their tracks (many know what that feels like), but when it gets ugly you have to be prepared to accept it: you know that and so should hunting clubs.

To tell someone that is about to start hunting for the first time that they are inhumane unless they hit the kill zone isn't fair, cause that simply doesn't always happen.
 
HiBC said:
With your .44,sit,lean back on your non gun elbow.Rest your handgun across your gun side knee.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure this is a good idea with a hunting revolver. Could burn a nasty cut in my leg. But maybe I'm imagining it wrong?

Now that you mention it, I don't know why a TC Encore or something didn't occur to me for handgun hunting. Those are much better hunting handguns than revolvers, and with a much wider variety of ammunition.
 
Now that you mention it, I don't know why a TC Encore or something didn't occur to me for handgun hunting. Those are much better hunting handguns than revolvers, and with a much wider variety of ammunition.
Click to expand...

You are correct on that. I hunted w/wheelguns for years; often guns I was carrying all the time, anyhow...but I grew up reading Skeeter and Elmer and they influenced me at an early age.

The simple fact is however that the 'pocket rifles' are more efficient tools for delivering a precise, effective blow at ranges where it gets iffy with an iron-sighted sixgun. If you want a handgun for that single purpose alone, they are definitely the way to go.

Y'all are making me want a Contender in .45 Colt...
 
You are correct,you may need a leather patch or something to protect you from the gas at the cylinder gap.
If you do set yourself up that way,it is a very good hunting position.
 
...

Elmer's sixgun wore a 6½" barrel but you're right about it being wounded by the hunter he was guiding. In which case, you can't possibly make it any worse.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, I wouldn't agree with that...it may be crawling off with a busted leg, now it has no jaw left...that's worse, however it would seem that this gent was confident and it's great to hear that the animal was recovered. Worked out OK.

As for the origional question of how far...I don;t know hand guns, but I know that as long as you know the range of your ammunition (something that has not been mentioned, that I saw....) and confident in your placement and can accuratly judge distance, than you should be able to make your own sound decision.

If you know you can hit the target and your ammo will have enough energy down-range for a clean kill, have at 'er.:cool:

Yes we are hunters and we kill game. We must be, as mentioned,
100% sure of our shots before squeezing the trigger or releasing our arrows.

HUNTERS SHOULD HAVE ETHICS!! I couldn't possibly immagine leaving "ethics" to the "professionals" such as lawyers etc... We are in the woods and we are the ones making the desicions. I don;t know about elsewhere, but here in Nova Scotia the Game Wardens are an endangered species, and far as leaving "ethics" in the hands of government and polititians- the hell with that! Ethics and politics don't mix.

Yes, I have made bad decicions and a bad shot (that actually hit the neck and worked out nicely... )I've learned from that hope that it won't happen again.

(EDIT: Yes, only one bad shot...I just started hunting deer and this was my 4th animal- just wanted to clarify so nobody thought I was bragging up having only made "one bad shot"...I have lots of rabbit hunting stories!)

FYI: Here in Nova Scotia we can only use centerfire rifles, shotguns with slugs, and are allowed to bait deer (I don't bait- don't need to)
 
Last edited:
however it would seem that this gent was confident
Click to expand...
Elmer Keith? Confident? That's funny!! I would say he was downright boastful, boisterous, opinionated, assertive, cocky, possibly even arrogant. But he was good. He was one of the best, both with a rifle and a handgun, and tremendously experienced. And a great storyteller, too, so pick up one of his books sometime if you get a chance. I read his stuff when I was growing up, even though by the time I got into the Marines some of it sounded somewhat suspicious. But he claims he was there, and he had the witnesses to back him on it.

As far as ethics and clean kills, we make a lot of that now that we are somewhat detached from killing, but years ago they killed to eat, so they took the shots that guaranteed them meat at supper time. Folks 100 years ago got closer, shot better, and tracked animals better than most of us do. They also believed in getting the meat on the ground where they could get to it easily and get it home. Most of them shot cartridges that seem anemic, possibly unethical by today's standards, but they worked fine back then. Did they overreach occasionally and wound game? No doubt. Do people do that now? Most assuredly. I get more upset about someone shooting a cannon and wasting a lot of meat than I do when I see skilled shooters taking long shots. Poor shooters, that's another story, some of them shouldn't even be in the field. But I personally think all the finger-pointing and crying about ethics is kind of silly, since we almost always end up judging others based on our own biases.
 
Smaug said:

In other words, the animal has better sporting chances if I have a revolver, as I'm more likely to miss altogether, (even if I'm within my limits!) giving him a chance to run away.
Click to expand...

Actually, if that's the case then you're probably shooting beyond your capable range with the revolver. Think of limiting yourself to closer shots. Always remember that if you have a likely chance of completely missing, then you also have a likely chance of wounding an animal.

And believe me, leaving a wounded animal to wander off and die a lingering death is not considered "giving it a sporting chance".

As others have said, the sporting chance should come in when you're hunting, not when you're shooting. When you shoot, there should be no doubt that you're going to kill the animal cleanly, with one shot, using your weapon of choice. That kind of confidence comes from lots and lots of practice, and without practice enough to have that kind of confidence, you probably shouldn't be shooting at game at whatever distance causes you to have doubts.

50 yards is well within my confident distance with my open sighted revolvers. If I had doubts about hitting an animal at that range, however (due perhaps to bad light, brush in the way, etc), then I would either get closer or pass on the shot. Shooting at game is not a time to take chances, and letting the game suffer the consequences of the shooter's lack of skill is not what most would consider "sporting".

Daryl
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top