I Got the news a week ago that I will be hunting deer and elk this year archery, muzzle loader and modern again. I plan on using three handguns in that more then three months of hunting. I have a single shot Jukar in .45 cal that I use 60 grains of FFFG, My IJ Cattleman Buntline and of course my Uberti Walker but I hunt some really nasty terrane and most of the time by myself.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Question about handgun hunting
- Thread starter JSAW
- Start date
Because you have to hit it first where you want to hit it. And I don't know anyone that can be as consistently as accurate with handgun compared to a rifle. Now that depends a bit on the type and calibre of handgun we are talking about, what type of handgun are we talking about.I have multiple handguns that will shoot completely through a deer at ranges up to 200 yds.
How is that not as good as any rifle?
List some logical reasons
The concept of (handgun, archery, muzzleloader) hunting is to use your hunting skills to get within the reduced range that these weapons offer and take the time needed to deliver a humane, lethal blow. We self limit because we enjoy the interaction with the animal and don't mind losing more than we win. That is part of the challenge. The death of an animal is only one of the goals of the hunt. Finding the animal and getting within its defense zone undetected are a huge part of the satisfaction of hunting along with all the usual outdoor pleasure parts.
The fellow who thinks that the most efficient means to a dead animal is the core of hunting will probably never be able to understand what we do.
For him the most efficient means to a dead animal is the butcher shop.
The fellow who thinks that the most efficient means to a dead animal is the core of hunting will probably never be able to understand what we do.
For him the most efficient means to a dead animal is the butcher shop.
Pond James Pond
New member
Finding the animal and getting within its defense zone undetected are a huge part of the satisfaction of hunting along with all the usual outdoor pleasure parts.
That is exactly what my friend enjoys about wildlife photography and others about ornithology.
So all that is not the sole province of hunting. Killing the animal in its environment, however, is.
I think doing so efficiently and humanely should be the core of hunting.
When I finally get my licence, it certainly will the core of mine.
Hunting isn't about using the most efficient tool. If it were we'd just buy our meat at a store. All of us hunt because of the challenge. It doesn't matter if we are using the most modern, high-tech equipment or a spear. We are all purposely handicapping ourselves. Some more than others.
I know guys who sold their rifles and now only big game hunt using longbows because they found rifles too easy and no longer a challenge. I don't hunt with a handgun, at least not on purpose. But while I tend to usually use a modern scoped rifle, my favorite method is with a 50+ year old recurve bow.
Efficient and humane are not the same. I'm all for killing any animal as quickly and with as little pain as possible. Using less efficient methods such as archery, spears, or handguns is just as humane. It just requires a LOT more effort and skill for the hunter as well as severely limiting his effective range.
If someone doesn't have the skills and equipment don't use that method. If you do, they I could care less how anyone hunts.
I know guys who sold their rifles and now only big game hunt using longbows because they found rifles too easy and no longer a challenge. I don't hunt with a handgun, at least not on purpose. But while I tend to usually use a modern scoped rifle, my favorite method is with a 50+ year old recurve bow.
I think doing so efficiently and humanely should be the core of hunting.
Efficient and humane are not the same. I'm all for killing any animal as quickly and with as little pain as possible. Using less efficient methods such as archery, spears, or handguns is just as humane. It just requires a LOT more effort and skill for the hunter as well as severely limiting his effective range.
If someone doesn't have the skills and equipment don't use that method. If you do, they I could care less how anyone hunts.
22-rimfire
New member
I think it is sometimes pointless to argue the hunting or guns issue. People have their views and usually stick with them. James Pond is all about efficient killing. I am all about the challenge and sport. The killing is secondary for me and frankly I often don't care if I "score" or not. But I do like to see game.
Hunting with a camera is a lot of fun too. It is catch and release at it's finest.
Hunting with a camera is a lot of fun too. It is catch and release at it's finest.
JSAW said:....I just got out of an argument with a friend of mine over handgun hunting, he's taking the stance that it's "stupid" based around arguments like "better tools for the job", his rather intense hatred of "machismo", and some political gun control nonsense.
"It's a wise man who knows his limitations".......your friend has shown what his limitations are. People with better shooting skills have no problem handgun hunting, because they practice and hone those skills out of respect for the game.
Pond James Pond
New member
Efficient and humane are not the same.
Given then choice, then, I'd put humanely at the top of the pile.
Deciding what the core of your values as a hunter will be when you have not yet hunted is nice and sounds wonderful. When you get some experience hunting you will move from theoretical to practical knowledge. And no, you won't have that from what you think about others. There is this idea that a rifle will kill more efficiently that other methods. Not true. Archery can kill animals every bit as quickly and humanely as rifles. I have seen bull elk double lunged with a broad head be called back to the hunter. They were dead right there but didn't know it yet. They were bleeding internally in a way that would cause them to fall over dead in less that 5 minutes but not in the kind of pain that made them stop thinking about sex. We should all be so lucky to find out death that easy.
Don't equate a quick and relatively painless death with an easier method of getting a kill shot.
I have no issue with wildlife photographers but is not something directly comparable to hunting.
Don't equate a quick and relatively painless death with an easier method of getting a kill shot.
I have no issue with wildlife photographers but is not something directly comparable to hunting.
Pond James Pond
New member
Deciding what the core of your values as a hunter will be when you have not yet hunted is nice and sounds wonderful. When you get some experience hunting you will move from theoretical to practical knowledge. And no, you won't have that from what you think about others. There is this idea that a rifle will kill more efficiently that other methods. Not true. Archery can kill animals every bit as quickly and humanely as rifles.
Assuming you were responding to my post, I made no statement that the rifle was above other forms of hunting. I merely said that hunting with a handgun is probably harder, and by and large that is true given sight radii, no shoulder stocks etc and if one chooses a means of hunting, one should be competent enough to avoid the chance of unnecessary suffering.
Don't equate a quick and relatively painless death with an easier method of getting a kill shot.
I didn't do that either, just that a quick and relatively painless death should be a hunter's aim, regardless of their means of hunting. And that if they are not proficient enough to make that highly probable, they probably should not hunt with that platform, the same way hunters on here state that if you are not sure of a shot, don't take it...
I have no issue with wildlife photographers but is not something directly comparable to hunting.
I disagree. The skills and knowledge needed to get close to wild animals will be the same. Why shouldn't they be? Photographers use tracking, stealth, hides, decoys, calls, bait camouflage...
As I stated, the only guaranteed difference is at the end of a successful encounter, a photographer has a frame, and the hunter a corpse.
Both had to "fire a shot".
Is there reliable evidence to confirm that. ?Archery can kill animals every bit as quickly and humanely as rifles.
Blindstitch
New member
'Bang-Flop' is not a guarantee
Exactly. I'm just waiting for someone to come in and say they bang flopped all their deer. I have 30 or so deer under me. Some heart shots, some lung, and unfortunately 1 spine. Over half the deer were shot with a bow and put down in about 100 yards or less. My last deer with a gun shot through the heart still went 70 yards.
I bang flopped 2. One in the spine which was my first at 14 and the gun was to big and I had trouble holding it.
The second was a double lung. Both I think died faster due to shock being smaller deer.
A bad shot with a handgun, rifle, shotgun and bow is still a bad shot.
If you want to see a few handgun kills Keith Warren has a few on Youtube.
Quote:
Archery can kill animals every bit as quickly and humanely as rifles.
Years of observation has confirmed those resultsIs there reliable evidence to confirm that. ?
The animals bleed out from the trauma in both cases
I don't know of any species hunted with guns that hasn't been killed with a bow and arrow also
22-rimfire
New member
One of the things that is likely different when "hunting" with a camera is that you are less likely to be out in the woods freezing your butt off hoping to see a deer. But you could "hunt" with a camera the same way that you might a rifle or bow leaning up against a tree, stalking or still hunting, from a blind or raised stand. You certainly are likely to measure success differently.
The other side of the coin when using a camera is that you are more apt to be "hunting" in a park or other area that might be restricted to normal hunting. You could certainly shoot a deer at 200 or 300 yds with a rifle, but it wouldn't be much of a picture. So, from that point of view, wildlife photography is more akin to archery hunting.
The other side of the coin when using a camera is that you are more apt to be "hunting" in a park or other area that might be restricted to normal hunting. You could certainly shoot a deer at 200 or 300 yds with a rifle, but it wouldn't be much of a picture. So, from that point of view, wildlife photography is more akin to archery hunting.
Years of observation has confirmed those results
The animals bleed out from the trauma in both cases
I don't know of any species hunted with guns that hasn't been killed with a bow and arrow also
Just because an animal can be killed with something doesn't mean its the best tool for the job. How quick can you get a second shot in with a bow compared to a firearm. Can the animal not move on hearing the arrow being released. It wont hear a high velocity bullet coming. What advantage does a bow have over a firearm, apart from being quieter.
Blindstitch
New member
manta49,
I don't know how they do it in your country but in most of the U.S. bow hunters get the first crack at taking deer for the season. Here in Wisconsin archery opens up around september 13th and goes till something like the end of the year. Some states make you buy a firearms license to hunt during that season. But either way that's 3 1/2 months to hunt. Our gun deer season is 9 days and doesn't start till the last week of november.
Besides if you shoot a deer with a 300 feet per second bow with max range being 40 yards that's still 4/10ths of a second. The goal is to take the best shot first and not to care about the second.
I don't know how they do it in your country but in most of the U.S. bow hunters get the first crack at taking deer for the season. Here in Wisconsin archery opens up around september 13th and goes till something like the end of the year. Some states make you buy a firearms license to hunt during that season. But either way that's 3 1/2 months to hunt. Our gun deer season is 9 days and doesn't start till the last week of november.
Besides if you shoot a deer with a 300 feet per second bow with max range being 40 yards that's still 4/10ths of a second. The goal is to take the best shot first and not to care about the second.
manta49,
I don't know how they do it in your country but in most of the U.S. bow hunters get the first crack at taking deer for the season.
Bow hunting is illegal in the UK.
Hunting with the bow and arrow was prohibited in the UK in 1965. In the most up-to-date Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 its legal status remains unchanged. Although deer are comparatively large animals, the vital areas for clean kills are small. No one should consider stalking unless they can consistently shoot a group of three shots within a 10cm target at 100m.
Northern Ireland.
For Muntjac and Chinese Water deer only- a rifle with a minimum calibre of not less than .220 inches and muzzle energy of not less than 1000 foot pounds and a bullet weight of not less than 50 grains may be used.
For all deer of any species – a minimum calibre of .236 inches, a minimum bullet weight of 100 grains and minimum muzzle energy of 1,700 foot pounds is the legal requirement.
fficient and humane are not the same.
Given then choice, then, I'd put humanely at the top of the pile.
You don't have to choose. It isn't an either-or proposition, you can have both.
Archery can kill animals every bit as quickly and humanely as rifles.
Put a bullet, arrow, or sharp stick of any type into any animals lungs and it has about 30 seconds to live. What that animal does in that 30 seconds is entirely dependent on the animal. Not the weapon. Some lay down and die giving the impression of a quick kill. Some make a mad dash and run just as far as possible in that 30 seconds. I've seen animals with a fist sized hole all the way through both lungs and a missing heart, with blood pouring from the both holes run over 100 yards before laying down dead.
There are only 2 ways to guarantee one doesn't run. Sever the spinal cord or make a brain shot. Both small targets with poor hit probability. The 2nd way is to break shoulders. That doesn't kill as fast as a lung shot and ruins meat. It will put them down, but usually requires a finishing shot.
The lungs are the largest target and most humane way to kill something. It wastes no useable meat and ensures the quickest death. It is also the one least dependent on using a powerful weapon.