Why are people skeptical about the idea of hunting with a handgun?

Has anyone ever argued with you about using your revolver for hunting?

  • Yes

    Votes: 13 25.0%
  • No

    Votes: 35 67.3%
  • Yes, and alot of them

    Votes: 4 7.7%

  • Total voters
    52
Status
Not open for further replies.
Where to begin...

I have faced many skeptics over the years, but I’ve made my arguments in print. I’ve read the letters and emails by the critics and I can say without sarcasm that in general they are simply ill informed.

Their erroneous arguments are often based on muzzle energy as a measure of lethality. It’s a good thing it’s a number that is pretty much meaningless, as I have killed many large (by large I mean 1,000 lbs up) animals with “inadequate” firearms that don’t meet these experts’ so-called minimum requirements (assuming good placement, it’s all about the bullet).

Where I have on more than a few occasions met with skepticism is from outfitters. They’ve either experienced some bad happening with a previous client or they’re simply ignorant from a lack of exposure to handgun hunting. My outfitter in South Africa last year had a heart to heart with me on the third day of my hunt showing real concern about my choice in caliber and bullets for Cape buffalo. That evening he ate a sizable helping of crow but was man enough to admit he was wrong. I like to leave camps with an outfitter being sold on the effectiveness of handguns and feel duty bound (not only for the animals sake) to perform well.

So, I take my hunt preparation very seriously and choose my equipment carefully.
 
The first two pigs I ever killed (wow, 38 years ago) I took with a .357 mag Blackhawk. I’ve taken deer, pigs, snakes, coyotes and bunnies with various handguns since. But I also hunt with an AR-15 so what do I know? lol
 
Wondering why all the focus just on Deer. Hasn't anyone ever taken a squirrel with a handgun in 22.cal? Not to mention all the other Varmits and calibers.
Probably because no one questions the effectiveness of a .22 on squirrel from either a handgun or rifle.

I think it comes down to folks don't care about the effectiveness of handgun calibers on other game like they do on Bambi. Most folks I see who participate on these types of forums could care less if and when a coyote crawls off and suffers. In the past I have seen folks suggest this is how it should be done, since coyotes are such senseless and mean killers.:confused:

Same with a squirrel or a rabbit. Tell folks you made a bad hit on either and couldn't retrieve it, folks will tell ya "it was just a squirrel!". Do it to a deer and folks will chew your head off and spit down your windpipe.
 
I switched from .22 rifle to .22 handgun on squirrels back in college ( had a 10.5" AMT Lightning that was wicked good).
Also ran a Kart slide on a Nygord built 1911 frame (pops' gun).

Took my High Standard Sharpshooter to a buds woods, for piney slaying a couple years ago.
WTH? Fuzzballs on crack or sumptin......too speedy for handgunning LOL.
Came back with rifle and barely got a couple.

Pests, best way is to shotgun em, clean em out. But I just can't do that.
 
It does make you feel good knowing that you can hit a baseball at 100 yards with a handgun,,,,ya know
I can hit a baseball at 100 yards with my scoped, XP-100, 7mm IHMSA occasionally...if I'm resting it on sandbags.:D
Naw, just kidding. I'm better than that with my XP, and I've watched my wife slam down literally hundreds of 100 meter steel chickens with her 44 Mag revolvers using factory sights.
I've been noticed lately that most people you mention about using your 44 magnum or your Vaquero to get a deer with, they act surprised as say "are deer like nimble these days?"
Yet these same people justify using a .22 for Elk.
On the other hand, I've heard just as many people claim that 44 Magnum revolvers are inadequate for hunting deer as I've heard people justify using .22s for Elk...zero.:scrutiny:
 
I'm a member on another forum in which a new moderator is exceptionally vocal about his recommendation for a 340 Weatherby for deer, and is equally as vocal to chastise those who use 6 or 7mm cartridges. Can't account for taste, as they say, but sometimes bad advice from biased sources is simply that...

I see the same type of ridiculous comments about leveraction rifles - so largely, I expect it's simply a lack of experience with big, slow moving bullets for hunting application in general. OR, in some other cases, I know some guys who have had relatively bad experiences from improperly using their gear. For example: one of my high school girlfriends' grandpa's poo-poo'd the 30-30 in a levergun for deer hunting, as he claimed the rifles weren't accurate enough, only marginally powerful enough for even short range use, and the trajectory arched too much for ethical hunting. This coming up in a conversation about how my cousin used a Marlin 30A in 30-30 to put down dozens of escaped bison on our federal contract, while I used a 44mag SBH, SKS, or 30-06 more often. He'd trot out his pride and joy Win 70 in 270win and extol its virtues as a superior deer killer, with the flap of a box of Remington ammo with drop information taped to the stock - then tell about how he'd ran out of that remington ammo decades prior, and had been shooting different Winchester ammo since... using the drop info from the Remington box... I never wondered why he called my buddy, my gf's brother, to help him track deer every winter... My buddy then, after years and years of watching a 270 fail to put deer in the dirt by his Gpa, was a staunch objector to a 30-30 levergun, and bought a 300win mag for his first deer rifle... If Gpa Roger had ever put a bullet where it needed to be instead of flinging lead and assuming all 270's fly the same, maybe my buddy wouldn't have had such a bad taste in his mouth for a 270, and wouldn't have bought an overly powerful rifle for his needs.

And of course, there's a large segment of folks who have never been trained nor taken the time to learn how to shoot a handgun, and as such, simply don't shoot them well, and fail to recognize it's their fault, not the revolver. They might be capable with a rifle, so they assume the skill will inherently transfer to revolvers, so then when they can't hit the broad side of a barn, they assume it's the revolver which isn't accurate.

I lump them all into the same group as guys who won't abide scopes on leverguns or revolvers, won't try a polymer framed pistol, love to hate the WSM's/Creedmoors/Noslers/etc, won't give up a paper map for a Garmin, talk trash on guys who buy Under Armour or other Tech Fabric base layers, favoring their old hanes cotton long-johns, won't run E10 fuel in their cars, etc... The good news, information travels faster than in the past, more people are willing to try new things, and more people have learned to question things for themselves, so these old luddite holdouts are dying off.
 
I've been noticed lately that most people you mention about using your 44 magnum or your Vaquero to get a deer with, they act surprised as say "are deer like nimble these days?"
Insomuch that some of them will even debate the idea of hunting with handguns as not being a 'good idea' because "handguns are not as accurate or powerful as a rifle."
Even after I explain to them that certain handguns were specifically designed for use as hunting arms or sidearms, they say "Well it's just disrespectful to the game" and then they talk about something else.
Why are so many people ignorant of the sport of hunting with handguns/revolvers? A .357 Magnum is a perfectly capable tool of putting an animal as large as a deer on your table. Yet these same people justify using a .22 for Elk.

May be they have been to a public range or some where else to SEE people shoot their hand guns.
 
May be they have been to a public range or some where else to SEE people shoot their hand guns.

At the range I shot at monthly back in San Antonio I noticed quite often that those with bottom feeders had larger groups at 7 yds than my black powder revolver groups at 15. But those who brought revolvers generally did better than me. I’m no pistolero by any means. The guys with autoloaders were generally in their 20’s.
 
Wondering why all the focus just on Deer. Hasn't anyone ever taken a squirrel with a handgun in 22.cal? Not to mention all the other Varmits and calibers.

Like a copperhead with my “mowing pistol” at the house.

48F38353-C5EC-4B60-9FC3-4C6F10CFEAA7.jpeg

Or an odd “two-fer” while cleaning out the lake shooting a moccasin eating a catfish.

4DC68B3C-FA10-4566-94EA-372F75AF169A.jpeg
 
Last edited:
To my comment about people justifying .22 for elk:
It was years ago but I once heard someone say in passing mention "A .22 is so important, you can even hit an elk with it"
A little toooo much ethiusum for that caliber... Yes I've known people who've taken deers with .22 but as some other people in this forum mention, your shot placement is more important than just the raw energy of your bullet.
Like in Varminators story, the Grandpa Rogers son thinking .270 is too weak for deer. His Grandpa (or was he his uncle?) never could hit anything right.
 
They just not have been properly educated on the subject."

Ah but if you read the OP's original point, and you read the replies...

"Why are so many people ignorant of the sport of hunting with handguns/revolvers? A .357 Magnum is a perfectly capable tool of putting an animal as large as a deer on your table."

Yet the folks that are talking about how they use the .357 above..., agree with my response..., they're using a 180 grain bullet or a single shot pistol where there is no cylinder gap with that 180 grain projectile.:thumbup:
I've never heard anybody say a .41 magnum or larger, let alone a .454 Casull or a +P .45 Colt, is inadequate.
When talking black powder the minimum caliber in my state is .40 with 40 grains of powder. A .44 Walker with 60 grains of powder, or a Colt First Model Dragoon or the Ruger OA with 40 grains + will work.
Yet, when you talk to the average hunter about ".357 Magnum" and you don't mention a 6" barrel along with heavy projectile loads, is it fair for us to think ill of that person who quite naturally defaults into a mental picture of a 4" Smith & Wesson 586 or a 4" GP 100, using 158 grain JHP's. ??? ;)

Yes those platforms can slay a deer with the short barrel and the lighter bullet, so can my Glock 19 with 147 grain Gold Dots. I dispatched one last week with such. I was right on top of it. Can isn't equal to "good choice", right?

LD
 
Are we saying a quality 158gr JHP from a 4 inch 357 Magnum would not work on deer assuming the shooter does his part?
 
is it fair for us to think ill of that person who quite naturally defaults into a mental picture of a 4" Smith & Wesson 586 or a 4" GP 100, using 158 grain JHP's. ???

I don’t think so. That 6” 357 in the bottom right of post #38 has done the job with 158gn JHP’s. I don’t think the deer could have felt the difference it if were two inches shorter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top