Pistol hunting?

Originally posted by planeman
So these people go hunting for the challenge of killing animals that are otherwise minding their own business?

See, you're here to discuss politics. I invited you to brush up on your spelling, grammar and compositional skills and join us on PTS where we discuss the ethical and political aspects of a plethora of subjects. We have several threads on firearms ownership on Social Issues and you would be welcome to start a thread on the ethical considerations of handgun hunting versus hunting with a rifle.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by planeman
So these people go hunting for the challenge of killing animals that are otherwise minding their own business?

See, you're here to discuss politics. I invited you to brush up on your spelling, grammar and compositional skills and join us on PTS where we discuss the ethical and political aspects of a plethora of subjects. We have several threads on firearms ownership on Social Issues and you would be welcome to start a thread on the ethical considerations of handgun hunting versus hunting with a rifle.

Hey, less double standards mate; you're the one who posted the First Amendmant silliness. It's not politics, it's about the motivation to go killing animals which is what Pistol Hunting is. And if you disagree that the animals are otherwise minding their own business, well I'm not sure even you could despute that much.

The motivation for choosing a pistol is central to the debate about whether pistols are the optimum for killing animals. People are making up all sorts of justifications about why they carry a pistol but they seem to shy away from admitting what you touched on with the quoted comment about skill required. I.e. they choose the pistol because it is NOT the most efficient way to accomplish the task, relative to say a rifle.

PS. The put downs about my typing are wasted breath, I'm not easily patronised and I don't give a monkey's how many typos and spelling mistakes I make on an internet forum. Just so you don't have to say it a third time.





[edit on 5-9-2006 by planeman]

Go take a cold shower.

Originally posted by planeman
This is one of those unfortunate situations where a topic is subtly censored and a "party line" dictated. With all due respect Grady, you are both a "subject matter expert" and demonstrably also preacher for gun owbership/NRA etc; you are clearly not unbiased. In this thread the answer to the question which pistol is best for killing animals?, the answer "none can really be justified" is not permitted, but it is clearly a valid viewpoint.

To people reading this thread who may be wishing to step back and view the topic objectively: note how all the advocates of hunting with pistols so far are gun owners - they have a vested interest in drowning out any counter argumement.


Now consider this: if you really must go killing animals, is it not more logical to use a hunting rifle which has better range, acuracy and stopping power than a pistol?

The pro-pistol hunting loby inevitably cite the most powerful pistols and compare them to the weakest and least relevant rifles (or shotguns). They even show pistols with telescopic sights on them (lol).

No-one can seriously dispute that firing a pistol accurately is more difficult than firing a rifle accurately, all other things being equal. Indeed pistol shooters often see it as added challenge. A pistol is essentially a barrel mounted almost entirely in front of the hands (the natural fulcrum) offering only one point of support - whereas "long" guns such as rifles have two points of support - which can be made even more steady with a bipod or sling.

This is why no-one (credible, lol) has suggested a sniping pistol.

So in essence these "pistol hunters" are CHOOSING to loose off deadly bullets employing a weapon which is inherently less accurate than the alturnative.

For certain prey a shotgun is more suited, particularly birds. An added advantage of shot guns (firing bird shot) is that the pellets that miss (many) fall at a velocity at which they are unlikely to do any serious harm to any one accidently standing where they land - whereas a rifle or pistol round can travel a great distance (far further than the firer could reasonably observe if it was safe or not) and still land at leathal velocity. So anyone who hunts birds with a conventional pistol is grossly irrisponsible, criminally so IMO.




[edit on 5-9-2006 by planeman]

I posted this thread and i did not ask which pistol is best to kill an animal... I ask which pistol do people use to hunt with, because i rarely hear anything about hunting with pistols and my knowledge on pistols is limited when it goes beyound .45.... and i am planning to get a .45 myself for self defense... and just for the record i'm not some little kid posting about guns

[edit on 6-9-2006 by IspyU]

I posted this thread and i did not ask which pistol is best to kill an animal... I ask which pistol do people use to hunt with, because i rarely hear anything about hunting with pistols and my knowledge on pistols is limited when it goes beyound .45.... and i am planning to get a .45 myself for self defense... and just for the record i'm not some little kid posting about guns

[edit on 6-9-2006 by IspyU]

Well I think a better answer to your question would be along the lines of "if you must go killing animals, use something better suited to the task like a rifle or shotgun depending on the animal". You don't have to be a hunter to realise that much is common sense - hand guns with telescopic sights etc are gimmicks. And as for self defence........

Originally posted by planeman

I posted this thread and i did not ask which pistol is best to kill an animal... I ask which pistol do people use to hunt with, because i rarely hear anything about hunting with pistols and my knowledge on pistols is limited when it goes beyound .45.... and i am planning to get a .45 myself for self defense... and just for the record i'm not some little kid posting about guns

[edit on 6-9-2006 by IspyU]

Well I think a better answer to your question would be along the lines of "if you must go killing animals, use something better suited to the task like a rifle or shotgun depending on the animal". You don't have to be a hunter to realise that much is common sense - hand guns with telescopic sights etc are gimmicks. And as for self defence........

Well if it is a better questionl, then it is your question not mine... My question is more direct to various pistol types. Yes self-defense, If you ever heard or live in a city called Houston, Tx, then you will know how many people get their homes broken into and been shot just for small things.

Originally posted by orangetom1999

Silverado

Keep em in the X ring...!!

Thanks,
Orangetom

You know it man. Thanx Orangetom. Same to you my shooting friend.

Grady, i dont think i need to belong to any group just because i own guns and shoot avidly. My grandfather enrolled me as a NRA member when i was kid and I seen no reason to keep up the membership as i grew older. The endless clutter mail from them was annoying to boot. Now dont get me wrong, they have done wonders for gun advocacy and childrens groups and training and for that i applaud them. But thats an added extra yearly fee i really dont need to be paying. I spend enuff on ammo as it is...lol.

IspyU its no use. i explained exactly why i use a handgun in close proximity hunting but was ignored for more baiting. its easier to ignore them then feed them and i apologize for your thread going so far off discussion because of it. I fell into the trap instead of heeding my own advice.

One of the innovations which has accelerated the popularity of pistol hunting is advances in technology and design. Pistols/handguns are being manufacturered to tighter tolerances along with new ammunition designs/bullet availability.
You now see revolvers with longer barrels and tighter lock ups on the cylinders.
I own a target pistol in .45 ACP called a Tracker and Made by Tarus. It is a five shot revolver with a muzzle brake and a 6 inch barrel. It is very accurate. Same with my Thompson Contender.

You see these pistols coming out with better than average iron sights than most handguns. Not just a slot along the top of the cylinders frame to line up with a front sight as was so popular with the olde guns of the cowboy days...but real usable sights..in accurate handguns.
When I buy a handgun I pay particular attention to what kind of sights are offered on them from the factory. I Just prefer my hanguns with good front and back sights and have customized some of the sights I found unsatisfactory.

Optics are now coming out for more handguns than before. Anything from telescopes...with lower pistol type magnification and eye relief so as not to punch yourself in the eye with scope...to electronic sights...red dots and holo sights.
Many handguns ..especially of the handgun hunting class are manufacturered with rails or slots for mounting optics.

If you decide to get a handgun or a handgun for hunting pay particular attention to these details. They make a difference in accuracy if that is what you want and that for which you are willing to pay.
It is the same with rifles for which I purchase.

Hope this helps,
Thanks,
Orangetom

I use a Ruger redhawk 44mag. 240gr hollow point over various powder charges. I have not taken any game with it yet, they have been out of my comfort zone. My brother uses a ruger super redhawk in .454. He has taken 2 with it over the past 5 years.

I did have a TC in 375 winchester. Way to much gun for me. Very punishing on hands and ears.

One guy I know claims to hunt with a colt 10mm. Maybe he does.

I have also used a Ruger blackhawk in 45 long colt. I also hand load for those.

Mind you that I only take 1 or 2 deer a year. I am not a good hunter but I can keep all of the above in the X ring.

Also a Ruger Mark II for small game.

A 45 colt auto is a good option for home defense, but I do not like it because to be in the ready it has to be Cocked and locked. An aggressive DA could call this premeditation and make you out to be the bad guy. I prefer a double action wheel gun. Also when have you heard of a revolver jamming.

Sage advice on the double action revolver.

Hey dude... you make me feel good about the punnishment I take with my .35 Remington TC Contender. I thought I bought to much pistol. I take it you like punnishment more than me in .375 caliber. WOW!!!

Keep them in the X ring,
Orangetom

Originally posted by orangetom1999

I take it you like punnishment more than me in .375 caliber. WOW!!!

It really wasnt bad, the barrel was magnaported and it had the decealerator grip on it. It was fun to shoot for a while then it got boring. I only shoot it twice without earplugs in. The first time was to see what it was like and the second time was to make sure not to do it again.
It was not something i could spend all day shooting. I took it to the gun show and traded it for a new Marlin Golden 39A and a ruger Mark II bull barrel. I have actually killed more wit both of those and have had alot more fun with them than I did with the TC.
I have not had a chance to enjoy alot of shooting in the past couple of years. My reloading equip has dust on it. Things are changing and I should be able to have somefun again.

How is that 35? Is it 35 rem or whelen? Hope you are having fun.
Stay safe.

This Thompson Contender I have is a .35 Remington caliber.

I originally bought the Contender in caliber .223 but when I bought a Marlin 336
in .35 Remington from a guy at work needing some moneys for $100,I decided to try the Thompson Contender in the same caliber.

Much to my surprise I quickly learned what a horse pistol was. It is a horse.

The .223 barrel 14 inchs long is quite managable and the powder burn is good in it.

Switching to the .35 Remington at 14 inch barrel length is a different story. I too cannot shoot it alot. More wearing gloves but not all day. Powder burn is not clean with factory ammo as the ammo from the factory loads is designed for a 20 inch barrel or longer. Handloading eliminates some of this unburned powder but it is still a horse.
If I dont wear gloves it will jam my wrist into my foream and pinch the nerves.
Obviously I bought to much caliber here.

The factory load most often enountered in the .35 Remington is the 200 grain round nose bullet.
I have reloaded this cartridge with the .357 Serria JHP pistol bullets at 158 grains and it works fine...recoil is not as rough with light loads. I have also loaded .358 diameter spire points at 180 grain weights. These too shoot fine with light loads.
Its been a while since I have reloaded for this but as I recall I used a faster powder than factory. IMR 3031 is what I used as I recall but downloaded somewhat.
I had a Thompson Contender four power scope on this pistol but it got damaged by the recoil and one day was full of moisture ..bocking up the lenses. Since that time I have just used the iron sights ..reinstalling them. THey make better scopes today and made much better for this type of recoil

This seems to be a popular pistol for long range metallic silhouette shooting with enough mass at the longer ranges to drop the heavy silhouettes targets.

I have only shot this one out to 100 yards with any accuracy as this is all the range we have at our local gun club. No problem getting bullets on the target even with my poor eyesight..both in .223 caliber or .35 Remington.

YOu just have to be aware of and not flinch with the heaver caliber. As I stated .223 is quite managable and easy to shoot. .35 Remington takes more dicipline.

But that is what some of us are about ..dicipline. Reloading just steps up the dicipline level a couple of notches.
For me ..hours of time at the reloading bench makes me more aware of making every shot count...under dicipline since lack of dicipline means more time at the reloading bench...to become diciplined.
I have actually gotten to where I like time reloading as much as shooting. Strange how that worked out. A cup of coffee and a snack..some good music and I am good for hours.

Hope this helped in answering your question Ultralo 1?

Thanks and
Keep them in the X ring,
Orangetom

I forgot to add..I am not Magna Ported in my .35 Remington. It does make a difference.

Thanks,
Orangetom

One of the biggest legal fictions taught to the American Public is that the Militial is the "National Guard." This was never and at law still is not so.

The militia was always ordinary armed citizens joining together in a common cause to promote stability in their countrys or countys or citys. It is not a organization under a governor...or president.

THere have been several groups of people who have formed militias...in the last 20 years. THese laws are still on the books in several states.
THe State governments dont like it but at law they can do nothing about it..the laws are still in effect. THese are precidents at common law.

The States and Federal governments always like to switch back and forth from statutes at equity and common law as if they were the same thing with the same jurisdictions..they are not. They can get away with it because the ordinary ...television educated public ..never knows the difference or takes the time to learn.

If this were not so...statutes like Posse Comitatus...would not be still on the books.
These laws have to do with keeping the military from turning on the civilians or civilian citizens in this country and provisions for people to form for thier own defense when the local , State or Federal government fails them. This goes back a long ways in common law.
Posse Comitatus was always for the benifit of the ordinary citizen ..not the state or local governments. This knowlege has been hijacked from us by ignorance.

What public education wants to do in our minds is confound the concept of the National Guard and claim that this is the militia. It is not, and never was, nor will it ever be. We are going to find out that in times of war ..and the real war has not begun as of yet....that we are without the protection of the National Guard. They will mostly be mobilized overseas leaving us to fend for ourselves.
Anyone with less than 25% of a mind can figure out that this is going to happen....our national guard people being sent overseas in larger numbers.

Thanks,
Orangetom

Originally posted by orangetom1999
We are going to find out that in times of war ..and the real war has not begun as of yet....that we are without the protection of the National Guard. They will mostly be mobilized overseas leaving us to fend for ourselves.

Lol, well this a conspiracy forum so what should we expect...

Your living in the UK and you are asking that in the form of a question??

Thanks,
Orangetom

AT our shooting club the indoor range is open 24/7. No range officer needed. Not so with the outdoor range. Range officer is needed there.

Shot my Tarus Tracker in .45 ACP. This is a very accurate pistol in five shot, Magna ported barrel of six inch length. Very accurate. Shoots .45 ACP in star clips. I have enjoyed learning to handle this pistol. I have other handguns which are accurate but not quite up to this speed..with the exception of my Thompson Contender.
I would not use this .45 ACP Tracker for hunting but enjoy target shooting with it.

Hope to return tomorrow to try out the second batch of reloads I have prepared for a specific rifle using the outdoor range.

Thanks,
Orangetom

I don't know how Planeman can judge on things if he likely never even ever shot a handgun and if he did, certainly never hunted with it.

Ballistics on modern pistol ammunition are sufficient for taking medium game, if it wasn't humane, pistol hunting wouldn't be allowed.

I agree...well said..

Thanks,
Orangetom

Originally posted by orangetom1999
Shoots .45 ACP in star clips.

Have you tried the Auto Rim. My Father Has an old Webley that was modified for 45acp in half moon clips. I reloaded some Auto rims and they work well. It takes a little longer to reload rather than just droping a clip in, but you can carry a pocket full.

[edit on 11-9-2006 by ultralo1]