Novelty Threshold: where does the practicality end?

[Rex in OTZ]

Cost.
And availability of brass.
2mm Kolibri
.25acp
5.75mm Velo-Dog
7.62x38R Russian Nagant
7.65×20mm Longue
9×23mm Steyr
9×23mm Largo
7.62×25mm Tokarev
9mm Glisenti
9x18mm Makarov
7×20mm Nambu
8×22mm Nambu
9×22mmR Type 26 jap

Allot of wierd milsurp handguns firing some wacked cartridges.
Discontinued cartridges to feed wierd old european military revolvers.
11mm French Ordnance
10.6x25mmR German Ordnance
10.35 Italian Ordnance
.38/200
.442 Webley
.476 Enfield
.450 Adams
.455 Webley Mk I
.455 Webley Mk II
.455 Webley Auto Mk I
.500 Tranter

 

[buck460XVR]

Hello
A few weeks back I had posted a thread on 357 Magnum with folks discussing its limitations and power. A vast majority considered it a powerful enough caliber for SD/HD. Many also considered it as a viable option for hunting, and then there were those who considered it weak and limited against the large game.

While reading many of the responses, I noticed that people who considered it weak were, generally, partial to 44 Remington Magnum. Thus, my question is how powerful a handgun caliber (generally, but not exclusively, shooting out of a revolver) has to be before it becomes a novelty? In my opinion, 44 Magnum is the most practical upper limit in a handgun caliber.

The advantage to handgun calibers more powerful than the .44 mag is effective range and penetration on thick skinned and heavy boned game. For someone that does not use a handgun for a primary hunting weapon against medium to large game(and DG) you could go thru life with a .357 being the "most practical upper limit in a handgun caliber", because for targets and human predators, you really don't need any more. I hunt deer with .357s .44s and .460s as my primary and only weapon. Within their individual parameters, they are all just as effective. What changes is the distance they are accurate within and the penetration they get at those distances. The major reason so many .44 mag and larger handguns get very little rounds put thru them is because as you state, the big bang is just a novelty and it quickly wears off of folks that don't enjoy the recoil and don't like to pay the price for the ammo. Once they have impressed all their buddies with the excessive recoil and extremely loud bag, the gun soon looses it's flash. But for folks that are using those larger calibers for their intended purpose, it's not a novelty, just using the appropriate tool. Kinda like a big 4 wheel drive pick-up. Lots of folks out there got 'em 'cause they're cool. Most never see anything considered "off road". Many never see anything but a few tomato plants in the box. A novelty. Folks would be just as well served with a compact AWD SUV. But to the tradesman/hunter/farmer that actually uses them, they are a valuable asset.

 

[CraigC]

But for folks that are using those larger calibers for their intended purpose, it's not a novelty, just using the appropriate tool. Kinda like a big 4 wheel drive pick-up. Lots of folks out there got 'em 'cause they're cool. Most never see anything considered "off road". Many never see anything but a few tomato plants in the box. A novelty. Folks would be just as well served with a compact AWD SUV. But to the tradesman/hunter/farmer that actually uses them, they are a valuable asset.

Exactly! I guess I just never looked at big bore revolvers as novelties. I like them for what they are but I also appreciate what they do and hunt with them. Of course, we've all encountered those he-man macho types that only get them to make noise at the range because they 'think' it makes them look cool. Problem seems to be that the on-lookers can't really make the distinction.

Same for trucks. I've driven trucks since I learned to drive one in 1989. It's been a long time since I buried one in a mudhole but you kinda get used to all the things you can do with a truck that you can't do with a car. Especially when they're more fitting to your lifestyle. Last year my truck spent six months in the shop due to dealer incompetence and I really learned to appreciate it. It was fun to drive but you can't pull much of a trailer with a Charger. Soon as I got my truck back that silly car went down the road to greener pastures.

 

[el Godfather]

The advantage to handgun calibers more powerful than the .44 mag is effective range and penetration on thick skinned and heavy boned game. For someone that does not use a handgun for a primary hunting weapon against medium to large game(and DG) you could go thru life with a .357 being the "most practical upper limit in a handgun caliber", because for targets and human predators, you really don't need any more. I hunt deer with .357s .44s and .460s as my primary and only weapon. Within their individual parameters, they are all just as effective. What changes is the distance they are accurate within and the penetration they get at those distances. The major reason so many .44 mag and larger handguns get very little rounds put thru them is because as you state, the big bang is just a novelty and it quickly wears off of folks that don't enjoy the recoil and don't like to pay the price for the ammo. Once they have impressed all their buddies with the excessive recoil and extremely loud bag, the gun soon looses it's flash. But for folks that are using those larger calibers for their intended purpose, it's not a novelty, just using the appropriate tool. Kinda like a big 4 wheel drive pick-up. Lots of folks out there got 'em 'cause they're cool. Most never see anything considered "off road". Many never see anything but a few tomato plants in the box. A novelty. Folks would be just as well served with a compact AWD SUV. But to the tradesman/hunter/farmer that actually uses them, they are a valuable asset.

I think this is the best answer so far. It practically explains the need for purpose compared to the cool or fad factor which does wear off.

I guess the crux of it is the handgun hunting.

 

[horsey300]

Hello
A few weeks back I had posted a thread on 357 Magnum with folks discussing its limitations and power. A vast majority considered it a powerful enough caliber for SD/HD. Many also considered it as a viable option for hunting, and then there were those who considered it weak and limited against the large game.

While reading many of the responses, I noticed that people who considered it weak were, generally, partial to 44 Remington Magnum. Thus, my question is how powerful a handgun caliber (generally, but not exclusively, shooting out of a revolver) has to be before it becomes a novelty? In my opinion, 44 Magnum is the most practical upper limit in a handgun caliber. Anything over and above is simply not necessary, therefore, making them a novelty or a personal preference for collecting and shooting etc. I would reluctantly say that the only exception might be 454 Casull, but again I do not believe there is anything it can do that 44 cannot against a predator of any sort.

This is not to say or suggest by any means that there should be no large calibers. Its a free market and demand drives supply where people like different things. The more the better to be able chose what we like at different times. Preferences change and collection bug has no cure! It is simply a discussion from practicality point of view.

Therefore, would it be reasonable to say that for all practical purposes 44 Magnum is the upper limit in a handgun caliber?

Thanks

Anything over .44 mag is a novelty for me. In reality, .44 mag is really a novelty for me. What about multiples of some calibers? I mean how many .357's or .38's can you have before the next one is a novelty?

The reality is, while I can't see myself hunting a cape buffalo at all, much less with a handgun, if that's what you do, something BIG, significantly more than a .44 mag, isn't a novelty. It's a hobby, a pursuit, maybe it's all a novelty.

That's unfortunately something I lack the knowledge about, I have no clue whether recoil only affects the shooter's experience or if it also has an impact on the accuracy of one's shot? Logically a larger caliber for a given case/action length is going to give a higher recoil compared to a smaller caliber because with larger calibers you're also going to be shooting heavier bullets, so if recoil does affect where your shot lands then a large caliber is going to have a bigger negative effect compared to a smaller caliber. But would an effective muzzle break be able to reduce the recoil far enough to the point that it has little impact on the accuracy of the rifle?

Regarding the planned distances, I was thinking of at least 700-1000 yards, enough of a distances that the bullet drop would be considerable with larger calibers, and bullet drift would be considerable in windy conditions with smaller calibers.

Pfftt, must be compensating eh? If my .41 running anything from 170s-300s can't do it, it don't need done! Just teasing gents.

So realistically, I like the idea of the .460 for some of the ranges I hunt, I like my .41 for everything I should, I like my .357 for packing, and I want the .480 for what ifs. Requirements in my state mean that a hot .45 Colt is good to go and probably a happy medium for my wife as she thinks I'm ridiculous with my .460 lol. May not have helped, but (all coolness aside) I think the 500 s&w is MY novelty, if a 50 anything else or .480 or .460 can't do it, I reckon I shouldn't just brought a rifle anyway.

 

[Sneakshot92]

Hello
A few weeks back I had posted a thread on 357 Magnum with folks discussing its limitations and power. A vast majority considered it a powerful enough caliber for SD/HD. Many also considered it as a viable option for hunting, and then there were those who considered it weak and limited against the large game.

While reading many of the responses, I noticed that people who considered it weak were, generally, partial to 44 Remington Magnum. Thus, my question is how powerful a handgun caliber (generally, but not exclusively, shooting out of a revolver) has to be before it becomes a novelty? In my opinion, 44 Magnum is the most practical upper limit in a handgun caliber. Anything over and above is simply not necessary, therefore, making them a novelty or a personal preference for collecting and shooting etc. I would reluctantly say that the only exception might be 454 Casull, but again I do not believe there is anything it can do that 44 cannot against a predator of any sort.

This is not to say or suggest by any means that there should be no large calibers. Its a free market and demand drives supply where people like different things. The more the better to be able chose what we like at different times. Preferences change and collection bug has no cure! It is simply a discussion from practicality point of view.

Therefore, would it be reasonable to say that for all practical purposes 44 Magnum is the upper limit in a handgun caliber?

Thanks

First off let me say that I enjoy these kinds of threads as long as the debate doesn't degrade to trash talk. And second, yes the 44 magnum (along with the old 45 Colt) occupy the upper limit of practical applications for most (90%) hunters and outdoorsmen.
Cartridges such as the 454 Casull and larger do have their practical applications for those that enjoy handgun hunting and want to challenge themselves. These larger cartridges do, in a sense, offer a wider 'safety' margin in terms of overall downrange performance to help ensure quicker kills and can be more effective against dangerous game if something goes awry. The horsepower also offers a sense of comfort in knowing you have enough gun to do the job, which can give the intrepid outdoorsman more confidence in the field. I'm sure @MaxP will chime in here at some point with more if he hasn't already.

 

[Sneakshot92]

That is pretty evident larger container will hold more stuff.

The question is that of practical application in daily routine or even when you are camping or taking a walk in the woods. Or even when you are in the wild and carry a handgun for just in case - not necessarily actively going after a ferocious beast in which case one is choosing handgun to a rifle’s job: not very practical approach either.

Size, weight, recoil, etc while carrying on person are attributes to be considered for practicality.

In that sense of it then yeah the 44mag and 45 colt definitely occupy the upper limits of practicality.

 

[MaxP]

Handgun hunting itself is a novelty, but in this country on non dangerous game I would agree with you on .44mag, or in my case .45C hot loads.

Absolutely not. There is no animal on the face of this earth I wouldn’t confidently and comfortably face with a revolver. Like any firearm, you have to choose the correct bullet for the application and you have to be able to place it. I have never felt under-gunned irrespective of the game being hunted.

 

[huntsman]

Maybe you’re the exception eh?

Are meat hunters going with a handgun? When the average hunter goes into the field I’ll bet it’s Bow or long gun that they reach for not handgun.

 

[MaxP]

Maybe you’re the exception eh?

Are meat hunters going with a handgun? When the average hunter goes into the field I’ll bet it’s Bow or long gun that they reach for not handgun.

Definitely not the exception. Why wouldn’t a meat hunter use a handgun? You have to be competent with whatever you choose to hunt with.

 

[earlthegoat2]

If by meat hunter, you mean one who hunts as a means to feed himself and has very little money, then yes, they would be better served by a long gun. If all they have is a handgun though and they are proficient with it then why not use it. Same goes for recreational shooting.

I know this is not the intent here because I am pretty sure most of us hunt for recreation, enjoyment, and supplemental meat.

We are in a unique position to be able to pick and choose whichever tools enhance (or not) said enjoyment and recreation.

As such, there is very little room to pick and choose what is a novelty and what is “useful” for the various hunters and shooters here.

 

[buck460XVR]

Maybe you’re the exception eh?

Are meat hunters going with a handgun? When the average hunter goes into the field I’ll bet it’s Bow or long gun that they reach for not handgun.

Definitely not the exception. Why wouldn’t a meat hunter use a handgun?

One of the reason I started using handguns as my primary deer hunting platform is because of the generous amount of antlerless tags given out in my hunting area. Sorry, but shooting numerous does at 35-50 yards with my ought-six got old fast. Got so I left that to my kids and grandkids. Not a macho thing, just about challenge and quality of the hunt. Where I hunt for the most part during the gun deer season, the longest shot I might have is maybe 140 yards at most. So, with the proper handgun and ammo, even the largest buck in the area can be taken if I can do my part. But, while the property I hunt can be a bonanza for big bucks during the rut and archery season, Most deer seen after opening morning are smaller immature bucks and does. If I want meat, this is what I need to take. Most of the time, by the time gun season comes around, I have had numerous opportunities at larger bucks during archery season, altho, I'm not always successful. Last year I was given 8 antlerless tags with my license. This year I got 6. I get many opportunities for meat and wait till I get a good high percentage shot. Whatever handgun I have with me in the blind is plenty.

Yes, I agree, the average hunter takes a rifle with him during the gun season for deer. Those of us that hunt medium to large game with handguns as our primary weapon, are not the "average" hunter.

 

[huntsman]

My state has allowed handgun for deer since the early 80’s but it’s lumped into “gun season”.

back then gun season was shotgun(smooth bore foster slugs) or muzzle loader(traditional) so a handgun could offer an advantage.

but once Sabots and rifled barrels were allowed and now straight wall rifle cartridges the handgun hunter Is well into minority status and ODNR admits this with rather lax regulations.

 

[MaxP]

My state has allowed handgun for deer since the early 80’s but it’s lumped into “gun season”.

back then gun season was shotgun(smooth bore foster slugs) or muzzle loader(traditional) so a handgun could offer an advantage.

but once Sabots and rifled barrels were allowed and now straight wall rifle cartridges the handgun hunter Is well into minority status and ODNR admits this with rather lax regulations.

No one said it’s for everyone. The fact of the matter is that hunting with a handgun is harder than hunting with a rifle and it requires more dedication to the craft. I only have a problem with those characterizing the practice as somewhat ineffective or a stunt.

 

[buck460XVR]

No one said it’s for everyone. The fact of the matter is that hunting with a handgun is harder than hunting with a rifle and it requires more dedication to the craft. I only have a problem with those characterizing the practice as somewhat ineffective or a stunt.

^^^This is what so many folks don't understand. I get so much crap about my X-Frame. If I had a nickle for everytime someone said "If I have to haul around something like that, I'll just take a rifle!", I could afford to buy another. Same back when I shot TC pistols. What folks don't get is that they aren't a rifle, nor will they ever be. Unlike archery, most states do not have special "handgun seasons" they are lumped in with general firearm seasons, so you go afield with a platform that is less effective, has a shorter range and is much harder to shoot accurately than what the majority of others out there are using. There are no advantages if it is your only and primary weapon, regardless if it's a standard handgun, a X-Frame, a BFR, a TC or even a XP100. Most anynyone can buy a $400 Savage/Mossberg rifle/scope combo and after shooting a box of twenty shells, have a reasonable chance at taking a whitetail within 100 yards. Not so with any of the aforementioned handguns. It's why some folks use archery during the shotgun season for turkeys or stick with their smokepoles during rifle season. It's a whole different hunt and not one that everyone enjoys. Not everyone can go home happy after they see the buck of their lifetime just out of handgun range, while being well within easy shooting range of their ought-six. To some the idea it coulda been on the wall if they had their long gun instead makes them sick. To others tho, we are happy knowing what could have been and look forward to another chance tomorrow. It comes down to what stage of hunting you are in. It comes down to what kind of hunter you are, and how you interpret a positive hunting experience. Musky fishermen know what I'm talking about, as a good day for them is just having a follow. For most fishermen, going a week of throwing big baits 8 hours a day and not catching a legal fish is a failure. To a Musky fisherman it is the norm. The thrill comes from expectations and when there finally is success. Again....not for everyone. Like many hard core motorcycle riders say...."if I have to explain, you won't understand".

 

[Offhand McFlan]

Honestly, Ive never shot a 44 Mag...but...the first time I shot a 357, I was shooting it one-handed in minutes and loving it. And admittedly i was a little squeamish at first because of all the nonsense I had heard about its nuclear capabilities. If 44 Mag is what...maybe 1.7x harder to handle?...then I'd say it'd be in my upper limit and I wouldn't think of going higher except to a rifle. I'd be most worried about my ears. And I definately think for a bear up to 400lbs 357 is ok and will do the job. For the 400 - 600lb range, definately 44 or a rifle.

I totally agree with the guy who said 454Ca doesnt offer any distinct advantages over a 44.

 

[Dibbs]

It’s relative. A 22lr is very much useful for a squirrel hunter, whereas a 30-06 rifle or a 357mag revolver is a novelty. Similarly, a 22 is a novelty for the deer hunter who is using that exact same 30-06 and .357, but also considered a novelty is an African safari rifle and a 500sw, but then that guy chasing buff in Africa have a legit use for that same rifle and 500 revolver. The only point that I think would by consensus be a novelty would be a gun too ludicrous in size (large or small) to make it hard or impossible to shoot well. 22 short ring gun, yeah novelty. 577 nitro express pistol, yeah that’s a novelty too but a much more powerful one. Both are dangerous because of how hard they are to control.

I think you have to tailor your calibers to your needs. 6.5mm Creedmoor is great, but here, where I hunt, you don't usually get those 200 yard plus shots, it's far shorter brush. While my personal preference leans to .44, I can't say that it's all that much better, here, than .357, either.

 

[MaxP]

I totally agree with the guy who said 454Ca doesnt offer any distinct advantages over a 44.

Having used both calibers extensively on game, I can say this statement is patently false. The .454 loaded to spec is considerably more effective on game.

 

[huntsman]

No one said it’s for everyone. The fact of the matter is that hunting with a handgun is harder than hunting with a rifle and it requires more dedication to the craft. I only have a problem with those characterizing the practice as somewhat ineffective or a stunt.

Not ineffective I view it more in line with traditional archery, accepting the challenge more for personal satisfaction than anything.

the novelty as in not common, I used to hunt the muzzle loader season more for the extra days than the tradition but carry a handgun during deer gun for the challenge.

 

[John Joseph]

It is not practical to hunt with a gun you do not enjoy hunting with.
Clean humane kills are enjoyable, crippling is not.
The kind of bullet launcher doesn't matter if the hunter does his part.

 

[Rodfac]

This is a really good post and poses a really good question.

I've used the .357 some on game and view it as marginal for a game cartridge which means one must use the right bullet and pick their shots carefully.

I personally think that the .44 Magnum is beyond the upper limit of your average casual handgun shooter simply because said shooter(s) don't acquire and maintain the necessary skills to be proficient with heavy recoiling revolvers such as .44 Magnums. IMHO anything larger and more powerful than a .44 Magnum is a novelty and used for novel purposes. Clever marketing has convinced we males that we need 3/4 ton, 4x4 diesel pickups for an 8 mile commute to work on paved roads, chainsaws with 18" bars with which to trim our trees, barbeque grills with the capacity to grill 86 hamburger patties at once, houses large enough to raise Jim Duggar's kids, and revolvers chambered in cartridges with power enough to penetrate 10 bull elk standing nose to tail.



Very true. The original purpose of a handgun was for such times when a rifle wasn't available or practical to carry, but their use has now morphed into the novelty of handgun hunting. Folks are now carrying gigantic revolvers on which they have mounted scopes or electronic sights and are chambered in equally gigantic cartridges. Nothing at all practical about a setup such as this, but if one wants to shoot large game with a handgun, such a setup is what they need.

I normally shoot at least one deer per year with a handgun and it is something of a novelty for me, but I also carry a handgun a lot as there exist plenty of targets of opportunity where I live. As such I attempt to remain proficient with the handgun because of what it is to me; a tool of opportunity and one that offers a challenge when hunting. However, if/when I truly think I may encounter something that may bite me, that cannot be dealt with using a heavy .44 or .45 caliber cast SWC at 950-1000 fps, the novelty of using a handgun goes out the window and a good lever action carbine of sufficient power takes its place.
35W

Outstanding reply...well done 35 Whelen...which is a FINE elk and deer cartridge BTW. Best Regards, Rod

 

[Offhand McFlan]

I think there is alot be said for ease of carry in a hunting trip, and obviously a revolver in your luggage doesnt neccessitate having extra baggage. It would be alot easier to track game in the bush or up steep slopes. In a holster/quiver it leaves your hands much freer for hauling out meat and the details of roughing it on the trail.

I have never really been a hunter, to be honest...but I'd like to start doing it a little just to taste it. Call me impractical if you wish....but a setup where I have a Contender in a quiver and a 357 for backup and protection would be the way I'd like to start. It's not any type of novelty I'm trying to toy with. I really just feel more confortable travelling light.

 

[Ed Ames]

...novelty as in not common...

That’s a different definition than the OP set for this thread, where novelty was set as the opposite of practicality, not popularity.

By the OP’s standard, guns like .45-70 revolvers are novelties because they aren’t especially practical (not because of extreme power, but because you can get the same or more power in a smaller cartridge). By the popularity standard, all hunting is a novelty because hunting is a relatively niche application of firearms in general and certainly of handguns.

 

[Sneakshot92]

I think there is alot be said for ease of carry in a hunting trip, and obviously a revolver in your luggage doesnt neccessitate having extra baggage. It would be alot easier to track game in the bush or up steep slopes. In a holster/quiver it leaves your hands much freer for hauling out meat and the details of roughing it on the trail.

I have never really been a hunter, to be honest...but I'd like to start doing it a little just to taste it. Call me impractical if you wish....but a setup where I have a Contender in a quiver and a 357 for backup and protection would be the way I'd like to start. It's not any type of novelty I'm trying to toy with. I really just feel more confortable travelling light.

Before rifles were legal in my local area dad used a contender pistol in 7-30 waters for whitetails out to 200yds. When the fun of the contender wore off he found a used longer barreled Redhawk and worked up loads to shoot out to 150 with the irons. He never put a scope on it and still carries it as a backup to his 280.

 

[Charlie Martinez]

For my uses any handgun that is more powerful than a 44 Magnum is definitely a novelty. Those ultra powerful handguns are designed to take game that is beyond the physical & financial reach of most of us & their recoil & ammo costs takes them out of the "fun gun" category, at least for the vast majority of shooters.
I purchased my 44 Magnum hardware for CASS competitions. At the time I already had a couple of 357 Magnum revolvers & in retrospect I often feel like I should have geared up for CASS with 357 Magnum lever rifle & SA revolvers.
On the other hand I enjoy shooting 44 Magnum iron with hot 44 Special loads knowing that if I really needed to up the power factor I could. Anything that bucks significantly more than 44 Magnum factory loads is not fun & 44 Magnum is powerful enough to handle any situation I will encounter be it two or four legged.
For my current gun uses the 44 Magnum handgun/rifle combo is borderline novelty. Anything beyond that to me is definitely a novelty.