CraigC
Sixgun Nut
Yes, that's obvious. I'm always baffled how folks who have never hunted with a handgun could argue with those who do. You've never done it, MaxP has written books on the subject.I have never shot an animal with a handgun...
Don't impose your limitations upon others. The handgun it more difficult to master but terminally, it gives up nothing but range to big bore rifles. The .480, for instance, would shoot completely through a mature grizzly with the right bullet....but if I were to go bear hunting, a handgun would be my last choice. I would probably use something like a .375 H&H Magnum or a .458 Winchester Magnum rifle.
Which leads me to the final point. Yes, nevermind the energy! Kinetic energy is a meaningless number and we'd all be better off if they stopped printing that crap in books, manuals and magazines. There is no more useless measure of a big bore handgun's effectiveness, period. It places far too much importance on velocity, the most rapidly diminishing factor, too little on weight and none on diameter. Which leads folks like yourself to believe a lot of crap that just isn't true. Yes, the .480 would produce a larger wound channel than the .454.By your logic, the .480 Ruger with its .475" diameter would do more damage than a .454 Casull with its .452" diameter bullet? Nevermind that the M.E. of the Casull is significantly more.
Sorry but your posts on this subject are just rife with misconceptions and misinformation. The AK47 nonsense doesn't even earn a response.