Post by: emelizabeth on March 18, 2015, 06:33:02 AM
I'd like to hear from anybody who has done this. Share the story and tell me about the gun.
:)
Post by: jeffro on March 18, 2015, 06:46:00 AM
I knew I could get close and there were houses about 500 yds. from where I was going to hunt my friends property.
So I put an Burris red dot on my trusty Desert Eagle 44 mag.
Practiced with it out to 50 yds. and had it shooting dead on.
One shot to the neck at 15 yds.
Dropped her in her tracks, with no meat loss.
Post by: jackelope on March 18, 2015, 09:34:03 AM
:dunno:
Anybody have any personal experience with the last part of that?
I spoke to a guy 1 time who claimed to have hunted with a Glock 20 and killed an elk with it.
Post by: Mike450r on March 18, 2015, 09:53:14 AM
About 50' in I saw him looking at me from about 20' away. Shot him through the lungs, ran in a small circle almost back to where was shot. 158gr Buffalo Bore JHP
Post by: headshot5 on March 18, 2015, 09:56:18 AM
Quote
My dad mostly hunted with a T/C Contender Super 14 in 7mm TCU. Might as well have been a rifle I guess. It would not be legal here in a firearms restricted area from what I understand as it is considered a rifle cartridge.
Would that mean you could hunt in a firearms restricted area with a T/C contender in 44 mag (pistol cartridge)? :dunno:
Post by: blindluck on March 18, 2015, 11:24:40 AM
Post by: jackelope on March 18, 2015, 11:31:52 AM
QuoteMy dad mostly hunted with a T/C Contender Super 14 in 7mm TCU. Might as well have been a rifle I guess. It would not be legal here in a firearms restricted area from what I understand as it is considered a rifle cartridge.
Would that mean you could hunt in a firearms restricted area with a T/C contender in 44 mag (pistol cartridge)? :dunno:
Yeah, maybe....that's why I was asking. Really I don't know as I've never looked into it. I've just hunted with my muzzleloader in the restricted areas.
Post by: headshot5 on March 18, 2015, 11:39:26 AM
Post by: Smoke on March 19, 2015, 08:45:31 AM
would like to get a bear with a handgun tho... that would be fun ;)
Post by: Igor on March 19, 2015, 09:00:52 AM
p 78 of the regs: "Big game, except cougar, may be hunted with handguns with a minimum barrel length of 4 inches per manufacturers specification, and fire a minimum .24 caliber centerfire cartridge."
I'd like to hear from anybody who has done this. Share the story and tell me about the gun.
:)
My plan is to someday take a deer with my handgun........It's a Ruger Super Blackhawk in .45 Colt. I would like to take a bear, as well, and hope to be out there looking for one when the general season opens later this year.
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi165.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu63%2Ffnu_lnu_photos%2FHPIM1153.jpg&hash=52d543f2afefc3181901ca08c3758da13c7dedf6)
Post by: CAMPMEAT on March 19, 2015, 09:10:11 AM
p 78 of the regs: "Big game, except cougar, may be hunted with handguns with a minimum barrel length of 4 inches per manufacturers specification, and fire a minimum .24 caliber centerfire cartridge."
I'd like to hear from anybody who has done this. Share the story and tell me about the gun.
:)
My plan is to someday take a deer with my handgun........It's a Ruger Super Blackhawk in .45 Colt. I would like to take a bear, as well, and hope to be out there looking for one when the general season opens later this year.
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi165.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu63%2Ffnu_lnu_photos%2FHPIM1153.jpg&hash=52d543f2afefc3181901ca08c3758da13c7dedf6)
I just bought a 44 mag Bisley.........nice gun for sure. :tup:
Post by: 300rum on March 19, 2015, 09:21:51 AM
Post by: tonymiller7 on March 19, 2015, 11:37:59 AM
Last year I finally completed my personal quest of taking a deer with a Bow/ML/Rifle and a pistol. I have been kicking around the idea of taking a deer with a .380 ACP for awhile.......I hope you're joking...
Post by: tonymiller7 on March 19, 2015, 11:42:08 AM
Post by: 300rum on March 19, 2015, 11:55:17 AM
Post by: 300rum on March 19, 2015, 11:57:06 AM
One of the most irresponsible decisions wdfw ever made was changing the legal requirement for a pistol removing the minimum ft. lbs. of energy.
Post by: tonymiller7 on March 19, 2015, 12:06:49 PM
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.
Post by: 300rum on March 19, 2015, 12:14:14 PM
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"
Post by: 300rum on March 19, 2015, 12:18:46 PM
Post by: tonymiller7 on March 19, 2015, 12:34:07 PM
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.
Post by: 300rum on March 19, 2015, 02:54:02 PM
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.
Post by: jackelope on March 19, 2015, 03:11:29 PM
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.
Post by: tonymiller7 on March 19, 2015, 03:18:18 PM
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.
:yike: Glad to know you seriously thought about doing something I was completely sarcastic about.
Post by: 300rum on March 19, 2015, 03:30:49 PM
The chrono will tell you how far but I am thinking anything around 1000 ft lbs would do.
Post by: Mike450r on March 21, 2015, 08:40:57 AM
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.
Post by: 300rum on March 21, 2015, 08:42:07 AM
Post by: Special T on March 21, 2015, 08:59:50 AM
Post by: runningboard on March 21, 2015, 09:55:20 AM
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.
Post by: jasnt on March 21, 2015, 10:22:09 AM
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.
Post by: Bob33 on March 21, 2015, 11:15:44 AM
In the 1990s. It was virtually impossible to enforce unless a LEO carried a chronograph with him everywhere he went.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?
Then as now, I blame the hunter who makes a decision to use inadequate equipment, not WDFW.
Post by: jackelope on March 21, 2015, 11:39:41 AM
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.
Well. You're right. I put 280 ft lbs at first then thought I read the chart wrong. My bad.
Post by: jdb on March 22, 2015, 03:06:54 PM
One of the most irresponsible decisions wdfw ever made was changing the legal requirement for a pistol removing the minimum ft. lbs. of energy.ft lbs of energy is a poor endication of lethality. That said the minimum requirement in this state are ludicrous
Post by: luteai on March 22, 2015, 09:08:48 PM
.32 acp to the hear of doe v ford still kicking, worked just fine.
Post by: magnumb on April 02, 2015, 10:45:01 PM
First day of the 4 day hunt I was fortunate enough to find a 2x2 blacktail buck frozen at a lasered 60 yards (Leica Geovids). He offered a perfect broadside shot and the first handloaded 300gr. 'Beartooth' bullet was certainly enough as it was a double lunger, but since he insisted on remaining on all 4's, albeit drunken sailor style, I dispatched him with a shoulder shot. I had always wanted to take a deer or elk with a handgun and getting this deer with my .44 Mag has just made me more dedicated to taking a bull with it, as well.
Every new season presents new opportunities........ :tup:
As a plus, I took this 2x2 buck just after a couple of inches of snow had blanketed the ground. The 'in and out' of that first double lung shot immediately made the snow on his offside look like a huge cherry snow cone. One can much more easily visualize and appreciate such dramatic terminal effects when snow's on the ground.
Post by: BKMFR on April 02, 2015, 10:59:23 PM
Post by: buglebrush on April 02, 2015, 11:06:13 PM
Was pleased with the performance. Shot him in the chest at twenty yards, and blew an enormous hole out his backside. :yike:
Post by: magnumb on April 03, 2015, 08:06:00 AM
One of the most irresponsible decisions wdfw ever made was changing the legal requirement for a pistol removing the minimum ft. lbs. of energy.
ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!!
The WDFW's switching it's criteria on what handgun/limitations and so forth over the last several decades has been both arbitrary and irresponsible. My first 629 was 6 inches because that was at one time the minimum legal length when all along I much preferred the 4" version. But nope.....I went along with it and produced the appropriate ft/lbs. energy handloads for it (albeit, easily done with most any .44)''.
Then ft./lbs. became the main criteria years later and I sold the 6" and bought a 4" (which I truly enjoy so much more and shoot just as well). Now it's come to this point where the criteria is so very irresponsible and actually misleading......misleading enough that a member here actually entertains the idea that a .380 is perfectly reasonable to hunt deer with because it fits the criteria........... >:(. There's hardly a metallic round produced that won't eventually kill most any game animal if given enough time to suffer for days on end.
I absolutely agree that the WDFW couldn't have made a more bone-headed decision if they tried.
A .380..................geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez.. :bdid: And to boot....if you could find a 4" .25 cal., you'd have no qualms about attempting to take a deer with that, as well.......your words, not mine! An ethical hunter isn't the guy who can take a deer or elk with the smallest caliber, but the one who does it consistently and responsibly. When this happens, we all win. When we don't, those lurking (anti's and fence sitters) just have more reason to voice their issues to all others, about all of 'us'. I, for one, don't like being lumped in together with 'hunters' who fully embrace bone-headed idea's and evidently endorse such an irresponsible pursuit that is in no way any better than this particular WDFW's irresponsible deer caliber criteria. No dishonor in taking the 'high road' even when the 'low road' might be 'doable' or more accomodating.
Sure, it's legal and if you want to use that as your only 'fall back/default' argument, it is certainly there to use, but that doesn't make it a responsible nor informed or intelligent decision....IMHO and obviously, at least a few others.
Post by: Bigshooter on April 03, 2015, 08:40:35 AM
Post by: gs1150rider on April 18, 2015, 08:34:34 AM
Smith and Wesson .44 Mag loaded with full 240xtp’s at 1400 fps
Glock 20 10mm loaded with 200 hardcast over AA #9 at a legit 1250 fps
Glock in .357 sig with 125 grain gold dots at 135 fps
All deer dropped cleanly. My pick for the future will be to sick with the Glock 20 and load 180 jhp a bit faster. Let me know if you have any additional questions.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on April 18, 2015, 09:06:40 AM
One of the most irresponsible decisions wdfw ever made was changing the legal requirement for a pistol removing the minimum ft. lbs. of energy.ft lbs of energy is a poor endication of lethality. That said the minimum requirement in this state are ludicrous
We all know the WDFW doesn't do anything right.......at least not for the sportsman.
Post by: MisplacedAlaskan on April 19, 2015, 10:07:15 AM
Post by: timberfaller on April 19, 2015, 11:06:00 AM
As explained at a IST for Instructors, the year they changed it, "the commission, who makes the rules, deemed that the "Wardens" didn't need to be burdened with understanding ballistics" :yike:
Obviously the "Commission" doesn't understand "Fair Chase" nor the fact that a lot of "Sportsmen/women don't practice their discipline enough to be proficient.
The "change" can make for a good laugh during class! :chuckle:
I doubt they will ever change back, not enough brain power!