Anybody hunted deer with a handgun?

[300rum]

There is no way to enforce this.  I think it was a pretty dumb law myslef. 

One of the most irresponsible decisions wdfw ever made was changing the legal requirement for a pistol removing the minimum ft. lbs. of energy.

[tonymiller7]

There is no way to enforce this.  I think it was a pretty dumb law myslef. 

One of the most irresponsible decisions wdfw ever made was changing the legal requirement for a pistol removing the minimum ft. lbs. of energy.

of course you do, because then you couldn't shoot a deer with a caliber that "should be quite doable" and "should be just fine"  These statements tell me that you would like to test a theory.  Testing whether or not a caliber will perform as you believe it "should" on a living creature is in my opinion very irresponsible.

[300rum]

It hasn't been done yet that I can find.  Correctly loaded a hopped up .380 will be ballisticaly fine at at a very close range.  I am thinking that it will have to be loaded as long as possible to get the most pressure out of the cartridge so you couldn't use the magazine.     

There is no way to enforce this.  I think it was a pretty dumb law myslef. 

One of the most irresponsible decisions wdfw ever made was changing the legal requirement for a pistol removing the minimum ft. lbs. of energy.

of course you do, because then you couldn't shoot a deer with a caliber that "should be quite doable" and "should be just fine"

[300rum]

The minimum ft. lbs rules eliminated the ability to use the .357 magnum which is more then acceptable at close range.
 

[tonymiller7]

The minimum ft. lbs rules eliminated the ability to use the .357 magnum which is more then acceptable at close range.
 

I agree with that but it kept people from trying a 380 simply because they can.  You should try the .25 acp while you're at it.

[300rum]

I thought of that too but a .380 could be shot out of a 9mm and loaded longer.  I don't know of any worthwhile .25's with a 4" barrel either. 

The minimum ft. lbs rules eliminated the ability to use the .357 magnum which is more then acceptable at close range.
 

I agree with that but it kept people from trying a 380 simply because they can.  You should try the .25 acp while you're at it.

[jackelope]

No, I'm not kidding.  Obviously I would have to be real close but I prefer real close rather then real far.  With the correct load it should be quite doable.  Many wouldn't blink at shooting their .44 Mag at 300 yards.  Elmer Keith said he shot/killed a buck at 600 yards with his .44.  A .380 loaded correctly should be just fine.

How close is real close?
I was curious so I looked at a ballistics chart and I can't find too many rounds that have more than ~1200 ft lbs of energy at the muzzle.

[tonymiller7]

I thought of that too but a .380 could be shot out of a 9mm and loaded longer.  I don't know of any worthwhile .25's with a 4" barrel either. 

The minimum ft. lbs rules eliminated the ability to use the .357 magnum which is more then acceptable at close range.
 

I agree with that but it kept people from trying a 380 simply because they can.  You should try the .25 acp while you're at it.

   Glad to know you seriously thought about doing something I was completely sarcastic about.

[300rum]

Like I said, I have been kicking it around for awhile.  We are talking out of the box load development.  Maybe using something like HS6 or Autocomp or something else, probably filled to the brim.  We aren't talking about a Ruger LCP and a box of Winchester white box ammo.  The load wouldn't even be close to sammi. 

The chrono will tell you how far but I am thinking anything around 1000 ft lbs would do. 

[Mike450r]

No, I'm not kidding.  Obviously I would have to be real close but I prefer real close rather then real far.  With the correct load it should be quite doable.  Many wouldn't blink at shooting their .44 Mag at 300 yards.  Elmer Keith said he shot/killed a buck at 600 yards with his .44.  A .380 loaded correctly should be just fine.

How close is real close?
I was curious so I looked at a ballistics chart and I can't find too many rounds that have more than ~1200 ft lbs of energy at the muzzle.

1200 ft lbs of energy out of a .380 acp?    Never gonna happen not even close.   You were seeing the fastest fps when you saw 1200.   The hottest load would be lucky to get 300 ft lbs of energy.

[300rum]

Yes, meant fps. 

[Special T]

Hunted with  357 in the western Wa thick and it was nice. Much better than lugging the shotgun around in the "restricted" area... I just bow hunt now tho...

[runningboard]

I shot a 3x3 whitetail with a XP-100 rebarrelled to 30 IHMSA which out of a 14" bbl was getting about 300 savage velocities. used willows for a rest and shot it broadside throught the lungs at 160 paces with a 2x scope on it. he took 2 jumps and was done.
used a T/C contender with 14" bbl in 7mm TCU to take another 4x4 whitetail at 125 yards with same 2x scope, 1 shot though the neck, no muss no fuss. used shooting sticks for that one. caryy a 45 long colt with HOT hornady loads when hiking and shed hunting in bear country but have yet to shoot it at anything breathing.

[jasnt]

I use a SBH in 44 mag. I bought the gun scoped but have since switched to open sites. I haven't taken any deer with it yet but I did use it to take my 2013 cougar(avatar pic). I'm shooting 429421 Elmer Keith slightly hp'ed.

I also hunt with my 9mm and have taken a rabbit and couple grouse. Shooting a 158gr LRN @ 1000fps. Have almost gotten several coyotes with it as well. Need more practice shooting running targets with it.

[Bob33]

One of the most irresponsible decisions wdfw ever made was changing the legal requirement for a pistol removing the minimum ft. lbs. of energy.

When did this happen?

In the 1990s. It was virtually impossible to enforce unless a LEO carried a chronograph with him everywhere he went.

Then as now, I blame the hunter who makes a decision to use inadequate equipment, not WDFW.