Question about guns

[Mosher]

I have no idea how I would verify that. I imagine there aren't many experiments where scientists fire handguns at bears. Google tells me that that isn't the case, but I don't consider that authoritative.

A .45 could drop a black bear pretty handily. I don't know about a grizzly or anything else, though.

 

[Cutlass]

Okay then.



Forgive me, I was working under the assumption that people don't have aim assist.



I have no idea how I would verify that. I imagine there aren't many experiments where scientists fire handguns at bears. Google tells me that that isn't the case, but I don't consider that authoritative.

I don't think you have a real concept of just how powerful guns are. And how vulnerable flesh is. Now granted it's not the easiest thing to do to hit an attacking animal with a handgun, but if you do, it will do a lot of damage.

Hunting larger game
Centerfire hunting revolvers, autoloaders, and the T/C Contender single shot pistols are chambered for a variety of powerful, flat shooting cartridges. The current selection of revolver cartridges includes the .30 Carbine, .32 H&R Magnum, .357 Magnum, .41 Remington Magnum, .44 Remington Magnum, .454 Casull, and .480 Ruger. Auto pistols are usually chambered for the .38 Super, .357 SIG, 10mm Auto, or .45 Winchester Magnum. The Contender has been chambered for most of the cartridges on both lists at one time or another.

All of these cartridges have the power and trajectory for 100 yard shots at appropriate size animals. The old 9mm Luger, .38 Special, .44-40, and .45 Colt cartridges will also do for shorter-range hunting with expanding bullets (as far as 50-75 yards, depending on the load and the size of the target).

The .30 Carbine, .32 Magnum, 9mm Luger, .38 Special, and .38 Super are primarily useful for animals of 50 pounds live weight or less. The others are pronghorn antelope and deer cartridges within their range limitation. The most powerful cartridges, the .44 Rem. Magnum, .45 Win. Magnum, .454 Casull, and .480 Ruger can be used to take larger animals, perhaps up to the size of elk, under favorable conditions. Of course, all of the "deer" cartridges from the .357 Magnum on up have been used to take far larger animals on occasion, but this is more in the nature of a stunt than responsible hunting.

It is important to choose a gun you can shoot accurately with hunting loads. If you find shooting a .44 Magnum intimidating, don't be ashamed. A standard .44 Mag. revolver shooting full power hunting loads kicks with something like 22.5 ft. lbs. of recoil energy. This is way more than most people can handle (although few will admit it). Try a pistol chambered for a less powerful cartridge.

If your goal is to hunt deer, you do need be able to handle at least a .357 Mag. It is possible for most shooters to learn to handle a .357 and its 8-9 ft. lbs. of recoil energy, although it may take time and lots of practice. Mastering a magnum handgun places a premium on concentration and self-control. You must strive for a consistent surprise break. Concentrate on the front sight and squeeze the trigger gently until the gun fires. There is no short cut to excellence with a handgun, particularly a magnum.

For deer hunting, the hunter (with a deer pistol and hunting loads) must be able to consistently put his or her bullets into an 8" circle. This determines the maximum range and from what position the shooter can shoot a deer, out to the maximum effective range of the cartridge.

For example, when shooting a hunting pistol chambered for a 100 yard deer cartridge, if I can keep my shots within an 8" circle shooting with one hand from a standing position at 25 yards, I can shoot at a deer from that position at that range. If I can keep all of my shots within an 8" circle from a two handed standing position at 50 yards, that is the range at which I can shoot a deer from that position. If I can keep my bullets in an 8" circle at 75 yards from a sitting position, I am good to go from that position out to 75 yards. If I can keep all of my bullets in that 8" circle at 100 yards from a sitting position with a solid rest, I must be able to assume that position to engage a deer at that range, which is also the maximum permissible range for my cartridge.

http://www.chuckhawks.com/handgun_hunting.htm

Summary

If you choose a revolver for protection in the field, you must always carry it anytime you are not carrying a rifle. That includes while camping, fishing, hiking, cooking outdoors, walking to the latrine, fetching something from your boat or vehicle, etc. It must be your inseparable companion. Make sure you choose a revolver you are willing to carry 100% of the time you are awake. Choose a wide, supportive gun belt and holster for maximum comfort. We find a cross-draw holster convenient, but there are also good shoulder holsters and strong side field rigs, should that be your preference.

The Redhawk balances, handles, feels and recoils differently than the Super Blackhawk. If you are more comfortable with a DA style revolver, the Redhawk is a superior example of the type and the way to go. Conversely, if you prefer a SA revolver, the Super Blackhawk is the logical choice. Either, with appropriate ammunition, is capable of saving your life in a close encounter of the dangerous kind with a big predator, if you have developed the skill required to take advantage of their thunderous potential.

Although it is not the focus of this article, we would be remiss if we did not mention that a magnum revolver is the only practical handgun alternative to a rifle, should a rifle armed human predator threaten you in the field. Any handgun, even a magnum, is at a serious disadvantage at ranges approaching or exceeding 100 yards. However, the .44 Magnum cartridge shoots flat enough and hits hard enough, in the hands of an accomplished shooter, to give even a rifle armed adversary pause.

No handgun is as effective against predators in the field as a powerful rifle and a rifle is always our first choice. However, some outdoor activities, such as fishing streams and rivers, effectively preclude carrying the awkward bulk of a rifle. On those occasions a powerful revolver, such as a Super Blackhawk or Redhawk .44 Magnum, can potentially be a lifesaver!

http://www.chuckhawks.com/compared_ruger_super_blackhawk_redhawk.htm

They do not hold up if comparing rifle cartridges to revolver cartridges, or even when comparing dissimilar rifle cartridges such as the .243 Winchester and .45-70. Both the .243 and .45-70 are effective deer cartridges and the 100 grain .243 bullet actually carries more energy at 100 yards than a 400 grain .45-70 bullet. However, the latter is a far better choice for hunting large game like elk, moose and bear that require more killing power than deer. And that conclusion is not based on theoretical calculations, but decades of experience by thousands of hunters using both cartridges in the field.

Energy is an important component of killing power, but clearly it is not the whole story; it is just one part of the picture. Focusing entirely on any one factor among the several involved in killing power can be misleading, and so it is when comparing rifle bullets to handgun bullets.

Remember that kinetic energy, per se, is not what kills deer. Kinetic energy powers the bullet expansion and penetration that destroys tissue, and it is the destruction of tissue (vital organs if the shot is a good one) that kills the animal.

http://www.chuckhawks.com/revolver_killing_power.htm

 

[bhsup]

Forgive me, I was working under the assumption that people don't have aim assist.

1) I'm a PC game master race. I don't use console aim-assist. 2) I don't suck with firearms.

 

[GoodGame]

A .45 could drop a black bear pretty handily. I don't know about a grizzly or anything else, though.

Black bears might be dropped by a pot of honey and black berries also.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

1) I'm a PC game master race. I don't use console aim-assist. 2) I don't suck with firearms.

Good for you! Bravado aside, you are you, and you are not any of the other millions of people out there.

 

[bhsup]

In the interest of full disclosure, I must confess I probably should aim-assist. I suck at computer shooters

 

[Mosher]

1) I'm a PC game master race. I don't use console aim-assist. 2) I don't suck with firearms.

Small game are very hard to hit with anything that isn't bird/buckshot unless they are standing still.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

http://www.chuckhawks.com/handgun_hunting.htm



http://www.chuckhawks.com/compared_ruger_super_blackhawk_redhawk.htm



http://www.chuckhawks.com/revolver_killing_power.htm

He states that it is so. He does not explain why it is so. That comment about the "decades of experience by thousands of hunters" was interesting. Do you have a systematic review somewhere, Mr. Hawks?

Aren't there any hunting organizations that collect statistics and data? That would be great help to any hunter, and would really help solve this matter.

 

[Cutlass]

He states that it is so. He does not explain why it is so. That comment about the "decades of experience by thousands of hunters" was interesting. Do you have a systematic review somewhere, Mr. Hawks?

Aren't there any hunting organizations that collect statistics and data? That would be great help to any hunter, and would really help solve this matter.

I don't know where to find that. But it does look like big game hunting with handguns is a real thing.

http://www.handgunhunt.com/

http://www.fieldandstream.com/photo...ar/2010/06/25-best-handguns-hunting-ever-made

Now I'm not saying this because I endorse this kind of hunting. But rather I think you are really underestimating how powerful the heavy handguns are. The advantage of rifles over handguns is range and aim, not necessarily the striking force at short range. So a big handgun at <100 feet can well have the striking force of a rifle at several 100 yards.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

See, that was another problem. The author assumes that the only alternative to a handgun is a rifle. There are shotguns too, you know. And I would think them unmatched for stopping power at close range. Plus, extreme accuracy isn't as important, so you can reliably stop a bear even when you are trembling.

 

[Cutlass]

That doesn't work for many situations either. A handgun is much smaller and lighter than a rifle or shotgun. And at close range, is far quicker and easier to bring on to target. If you are hiking or fishing or camping you don't want to have a rifle or shotgun in hand the whole time. But if you strap it to your back, not only is it encumbering, but it will take much longer to get the barrel on target than with a pistol. Let's say you're fishing, and a bear comes out of the woods near you. In what way is a rifle or shotgun a better choice?

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Probably the guarantee that it will stop the bear from using your entrails as a cat's cradle.

 

[Cutlass]

A rifle certainly won't do that, because if you are surprised at short range by a large animal when you do not have the rifle already in the ready position, you aren't going to get it into the ready position nearly as fast as you will a handgun.

 

[Flying Pig]

I don't think you have a real concept of just how powerful guns are. And how vulnerable flesh is. Now granted it's not the easiest thing to do to hit an attacking animal with a handgun, but if you do, it will do a lot of damage.

Yes, but I don't want my personal protection weapon to 'do a lot of damage'; I want it to stop the thing! That said, the most I've ever carried for black bears in Canada is pepper spray; firearms might be acceptable in Svalbard, but black bears
are practically vegetarians, I mean.

See, that was another problem. The author assumes that the only alternative to a handgun is a rifle. There are shotguns too, you know. And I would think them unmatched for stopping power at close range. Plus, extreme accuracy isn't as important, so you can reliably stop a bear even when you are trembling.

I do not want to be at shotgun range with a bear! And the spread on them isn't that great (it's about eight inches at 25 feet, according to Wiki), so you still have to aim reasonably well, and you need a very good hit to do a lot of damage. Bear in mind (pun not intended) that the last thing you want to do is make Winnie angry.

A rifle certainly won't do that, because if you are surprised at short range by a large animal when you do not have the rifle already in the ready position, you aren't going to get it into the ready position nearly as fast as you will a handgun.

Realistically, you're not going to gringo-draw on a bear anyway. At that distance, you're probably stuffed; I've only ever had pepper spray in my backpack.

 

[holy king]

christ, just wrestle the bear to the ground, sissies.

 

[Leoreth]

I consider the use of force against bears illegitimate as long as the bear hasn't consented to it.

 

[WindFish]

I consider the use of force against bears illegitimate as long as the bear hasn't consented to it.

But if the force is legitimate, the bear's body will shut down regardless of consent.

 

[Cutlass]

Yes, but I don't want my personal protection weapon to 'do a lot of damage'; I want it to stop the thing! That said, the most I've ever carried for black bears in Canada is pepper spray; firearms might be acceptable in Svalbard, but black bears
are practically vegetarians, I mean.

Well I do know one guy who was chased and bit by a black bear. However, in the northwest of North America the brown bears are a lot more dangerous. And bigger. I wasn't even thinking of the black bears, really.

Realistically, you're not going to gringo-draw on a bear anyway. At that distance, you're probably stuffed; I've only ever had pepper spray in my backpack.

For a lot of people, they think something is better than nothing, even if they might not be quite up to using it as they think.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

1. What is your personal view on what guns should or should not be allowed?

Not being a gun connoisseur, but being left I need to use unnecessary French words on occasion, I'd say: small ones.

2. Do you feel that your stance is currently constitutional, or do you disagree with what the constitution currently says?

The constitution can kiss my ... oh, the Chamber.

edit: Not the Chamber! Furry Little Butt!

I have little interest in ancient documents telling me what's right and wrong. I prefer to be sensible and use reason.

3. How do you justify gun control with things like "Innocent until proven guilty" and the general right to self-defense?

With the simple pointing out of the fact that gun control doesn't mean banning guns. It means recognizing that guns can be a little hazardous from time to time and it may be a good idea to have some rules about who can play with them.

 

[Mosher]

A rifle certainly won't do that, because if you are surprised at short range by a large animal when you do not have the rifle already in the ready position, you aren't going to get it into the ready position nearly as fast as you will a handgun.

This is why I bring my bayonet if I go rifle hunting.