Handgun Hunting story.
- Thread starter 007
- Start date
jh504
Explorer
Velocity plays a big role in cavitation and energy transfer as well. Here are some stats of a few comparable rounds:
.40 S&W 155 gr 1275 ft/s 559 f/lb
.357 SIG 125 gr 1430 ft/s 568 f/lb
.357 Mag 125 gr 1600 ft/s 711 f/lb
The 125 gr 357 mag is FAST with high energy transfer numbers. When it comes to stopping power though, with bullets traveling that fast, if they over penetrate they dont get the chance to transfer all of their energy. With the hollow point .40, obviously it did not penetrate enough, but it definitely dispersed ALL of its energy right there on top of the animals head.
So what stops an animal faster? The fast, cavitating, 357 mag, or a slow energy dispersing round like a .45 acp?
Check out the energy numbers on this one.
.45 ACP HydraShok JHP 230 gr 850 ft/s 369 f/lb
Energy looks pretty crappy compared to the prior rounds, but I am willing to bet that it will knock the socks off of anything it plows into.
howell_jd
Adventurer
To 007, I accept your explanation.
What I hope you understand in explanation of my response is that for me it's not the success of the individual shot but ultimately the ethical decision of taking a questionable shot in the first place...specifically how that represents each of us and a larger community of hunters.
The internet abounds with examples of guys taking 1,500-yard shots using high power optics and massive powder loads to achieve hyper muzzle velocities. I have no doubt there are some who are skilled enough to accomplish such a long range shot - the very fact that there are videos are testimony to this. Nevertheless, most hunters could never make this shot. The uncertainties and inconsistencies of wind direction and wind velocity over such a distance exceed the ability of most marksmen. Most who are capable of these shots rely on tables of ballistic data or ballistic computers (there are even watches sold now to perform these function). But in true one-up-manship fashion, folks with higher opinion of their skill than they deserve take these shots. Their overcharged rifles put them at risk of a rupture in the chamber from excessively hot loads. And how do these pseudo-marksman-hunters go about tracking a gut-hit game animal from 1-mile away anyway?
There are quite a few internet postings of head-shots to deer as well using the (clearly demonstrated in several postings here) clearly misapplied theory that because shooting a human in the head is an effective one-shot stop method that such a shot is effective for a game animal.
The problem again comes from mistakes that are often uncontrollable. Margin of error is critical for a successful shot. Again, there are marksmen of such skill to hit a target about the size of a candy bar but the margin of error is small. Add to that margin of error by what a game animal almost always moves first when curious, startled, or spooked; its head.
High percentage shots result in tracking ability for a wounded animal. Low percentage shots impose near certain death sentences upon animals who will suffer. What do you hit if you miss a head shot? Eyes, nose, jaw, ears (auditory canal), throat (not neck). What do you hit if you miss a vitals shot? Other vitals are nearby - heart, lungs, liver, major arteries all abound within a dinner-plate sized target. Broken limbs also make overtaking a wounded animal easier. A coup-de-grace to the neck or heart is a better use of a "double-tap" (Rule #2 - I didn't forget, nice "Zombieland" reference).
In closing I want it to be clear. I hunt. I won't take a shot if I don't think it's ethical. It means I take fewer shots to be sure. I am trying to pass along a method of hunting to my daughter that is sustainable in our ever changing culture - it is hard to dispute that perceptions drive rules, regulations, and laws sometimes without merit. We do have the right to bear arms in the Constitution but such protection has not disuaded the imposition of restrictions on those who ordinarily follow the rules. When there are too many rules to make the process enjoyable, the practice of enjoyment evaporates. I see the dismissive treatment of a low-percentage shot as more dangerous than a discussion of muscle-twitching or meat harvesting techniques..."Do you cut all the way around the anus or use a butt-out tool?...Do you cut around a milk-sac or through it?"
Thank you for your more appropriate description and a less combative response. I apologize for my all too public disagreement and disagreeableness.
Hope to meet you on the trails someday. And maybe we can share stories of our respective experiences either in agreement or disagreement without these harumph, harumphs.
Jonathan
What I hope you understand in explanation of my response is that for me it's not the success of the individual shot but ultimately the ethical decision of taking a questionable shot in the first place...specifically how that represents each of us and a larger community of hunters.
The internet abounds with examples of guys taking 1,500-yard shots using high power optics and massive powder loads to achieve hyper muzzle velocities. I have no doubt there are some who are skilled enough to accomplish such a long range shot - the very fact that there are videos are testimony to this. Nevertheless, most hunters could never make this shot. The uncertainties and inconsistencies of wind direction and wind velocity over such a distance exceed the ability of most marksmen. Most who are capable of these shots rely on tables of ballistic data or ballistic computers (there are even watches sold now to perform these function). But in true one-up-manship fashion, folks with higher opinion of their skill than they deserve take these shots. Their overcharged rifles put them at risk of a rupture in the chamber from excessively hot loads. And how do these pseudo-marksman-hunters go about tracking a gut-hit game animal from 1-mile away anyway?
There are quite a few internet postings of head-shots to deer as well using the (clearly demonstrated in several postings here) clearly misapplied theory that because shooting a human in the head is an effective one-shot stop method that such a shot is effective for a game animal.
The problem again comes from mistakes that are often uncontrollable. Margin of error is critical for a successful shot. Again, there are marksmen of such skill to hit a target about the size of a candy bar but the margin of error is small. Add to that margin of error by what a game animal almost always moves first when curious, startled, or spooked; its head.
High percentage shots result in tracking ability for a wounded animal. Low percentage shots impose near certain death sentences upon animals who will suffer. What do you hit if you miss a head shot? Eyes, nose, jaw, ears (auditory canal), throat (not neck). What do you hit if you miss a vitals shot? Other vitals are nearby - heart, lungs, liver, major arteries all abound within a dinner-plate sized target. Broken limbs also make overtaking a wounded animal easier. A coup-de-grace to the neck or heart is a better use of a "double-tap" (Rule #2 - I didn't forget, nice "Zombieland" reference).
In closing I want it to be clear. I hunt. I won't take a shot if I don't think it's ethical. It means I take fewer shots to be sure. I am trying to pass along a method of hunting to my daughter that is sustainable in our ever changing culture - it is hard to dispute that perceptions drive rules, regulations, and laws sometimes without merit. We do have the right to bear arms in the Constitution but such protection has not disuaded the imposition of restrictions on those who ordinarily follow the rules. When there are too many rules to make the process enjoyable, the practice of enjoyment evaporates. I see the dismissive treatment of a low-percentage shot as more dangerous than a discussion of muscle-twitching or meat harvesting techniques..."Do you cut all the way around the anus or use a butt-out tool?...Do you cut around a milk-sac or through it?"
Thank you for your more appropriate description and a less combative response. I apologize for my all too public disagreement and disagreeableness.
Hope to meet you on the trails someday. And maybe we can share stories of our respective experiences either in agreement or disagreement without these harumph, harumphs.
Jonathan
"You have the right to be grilled. You have the right to be tasty next to the corn and potatoes on the plate."
ObGobOobaleeney
Observer
A friend of mine once had a cornered deer charge at him. Bad time for him to find out he had emptied his mag. *click*. The deer did not stop, hit him, he wrestled it to the ground and knifed it repeatedly in a wild panic. To this day his wife jokes about all the knife holes in the skin.
robert
Expedition Leader
Don't get me wrong- I'm not offended at all and I'd put my money on the deer being quite dead after getting brained. I'm not squeamish and would like to see the damage to the skull and underlying brain. I'm guessing most folks haven't spent much time in or around a slaughterhouse or small farm. Lots of folks still kill cattle with a ball peen hammer and a solid hits renders them DRT (dead right there) and they weigh a hell of a lot more than a deer. I've seen sheep and goats killed this way too- it used to be pretty standard in slaughterhouses. Heck, a captive bolt pistol is basically the same thing and that's the standard these days. Folks might want to look up how animals are killed under Halal and Kosher rules too. I doubt most of us would pass on a good Jewish deli sandwich (pastrami on rye :drool: ) or some halal kabobs.
I have no issues with head shots either- the veterinarian I used to work for in high school shot all of his deer in the head with a .223 or .243. He didn't have any use for the antlers but he ate most of the meat including the heart (cook it like you do beef heart and it's good eatin'). As for the muscle spasms, that's pretty common although I think a lot of hunters don't see it as they get to the animal after they've stopped twitching. For an extreme example think of a snake that you've lopped the head off- the body will continue to move for quite a while even wrapping around your arm.
As for the ammo, I was just curious. One of the truncated styles would likely do better for a bone shot, but my friend that I mentioned shooting the hogs with his .40 was using Speer's 180gr JHP at the time and was very satisfied with the results of body shots. When I was younger (and could run faster) I stalked a few myself using the .357 but I never ran 'em down like Bill does. My personal favorite in a hunting load for the .357 is still a 158gr SJSP @1400fps. Many traditional BP rifles have about the same ballistics and loads like the 32-20, 44-40, 45LC and 30carbine used to be pretty commonly used for deer hunting with no public outcry.
Not to get off topic, but its widely agreed that slaughtering an animal the kosher or halaal way is the most ethical manner and the most hygienic method. Both methods involve draining the blood from the animal. Both methods do not allow for the animal to suffer any pain during the process or to allow the animal to see others of its own kind killed.
I have been in to a slaughterhouse, in South America, there on a weeklong project valuing the slaughterhouse and the other associated slaughterhouses for the same company in an effort to price them for an upcoming sale(sell side valuation M&A valuation). Absolutely 100% of the animal was used. I will never forget the smell, or the cruel environments that chickens and slaughter animals endure.
I love meat.
-Sam
howell_jd
Adventurer
This is kind of the "golden BB" type of success that I ascribe to the ultra-long range and micro margin-of-error shot.
That being said there is a great deal of difference in .22 caliber rounds (and near comparable caliber): .22 long rifle, .22 Winchester, .22 magnum, .22 hornet, .223 Winchester (not quite NATO 5.56mm), 5.56mm NATO (in a variety of round configurations)...None of which is an acceptable round to consider for a successful grizzly bear hunt.
It can happen, but I doubt that the "little old woman" was baiting a bear armed with her .22LR rifle either (let alone a pistol - automatic or revolver) - her own life would be at much greater peril if that were the case even if she were to have peppered that bear with a SAW. Not buying it. Don't misunderstand me, she shot a grizzly with a .22 caliber round and the bear died. I got it. It happened you say. I just don't think it was a planned hunt. Sounds like one of the Field and Stream "Real Life Survival Stories in the Field" episodes that I have read - ala Ripley's Believe It Or Not.
Off topic: Makes me think of the off-color joke where the bear winds up saying to the three times unsuccessful hunter, "You don't really come out here to hunt do you?"
To Robert and the discussion of blackpowder rifles and several cartridges - three of the four cartridges you cite when discussing your .357 stalk hunting days are in fact rifle cartridges not pistol cartridges (and historically blackpowder rounds too). Only the .45 long colt is historically a pistol (handgun...from the original topic of discussion) cartridge...ok the .44-40 is a sort-of dual purpose but then the .357 may be used in a rifle as well...As for the .30 carbine - there are several states that disallow the .30 carbine round by name for big game and as mentioned earlier in the thread there are muzzle energy minimums in other states that the .30 carbine won't meet. They are all good rounds - Mississippi allows the .44-40 as a "Primitive Weapon" projectile when fired from a single-shot weapon - within the reasonable expectations of their intended purpose (sometimes including mid to large game animals as with the .45 long colt and .44-40...questionable for the .32-20 or .30 carbine).
All good discussion BEFORE making a decision what firearm to employ for a particular hunt. Very good discussion in my opinion regardless of the decision. Discussion is always good. Decisions are debatable and subject to opinions which vary from time-to-time as all of us - I am sure - have seen/experienced once or twice before.
Jonathan
That being said there is a great deal of difference in .22 caliber rounds (and near comparable caliber): .22 long rifle, .22 Winchester, .22 magnum, .22 hornet, .223 Winchester (not quite NATO 5.56mm), 5.56mm NATO (in a variety of round configurations)...None of which is an acceptable round to consider for a successful grizzly bear hunt.
It can happen, but I doubt that the "little old woman" was baiting a bear armed with her .22LR rifle either (let alone a pistol - automatic or revolver) - her own life would be at much greater peril if that were the case even if she were to have peppered that bear with a SAW. Not buying it. Don't misunderstand me, she shot a grizzly with a .22 caliber round and the bear died. I got it. It happened you say. I just don't think it was a planned hunt. Sounds like one of the Field and Stream "Real Life Survival Stories in the Field" episodes that I have read - ala Ripley's Believe It Or Not.
Off topic: Makes me think of the off-color joke where the bear winds up saying to the three times unsuccessful hunter, "You don't really come out here to hunt do you?"
To Robert and the discussion of blackpowder rifles and several cartridges - three of the four cartridges you cite when discussing your .357 stalk hunting days are in fact rifle cartridges not pistol cartridges (and historically blackpowder rounds too). Only the .45 long colt is historically a pistol (handgun...from the original topic of discussion) cartridge...ok the .44-40 is a sort-of dual purpose but then the .357 may be used in a rifle as well...As for the .30 carbine - there are several states that disallow the .30 carbine round by name for big game and as mentioned earlier in the thread there are muzzle energy minimums in other states that the .30 carbine won't meet. They are all good rounds - Mississippi allows the .44-40 as a "Primitive Weapon" projectile when fired from a single-shot weapon - within the reasonable expectations of their intended purpose (sometimes including mid to large game animals as with the .45 long colt and .44-40...questionable for the .32-20 or .30 carbine).
All good discussion BEFORE making a decision what firearm to employ for a particular hunt. Very good discussion in my opinion regardless of the decision. Discussion is always good. Decisions are debatable and subject to opinions which vary from time-to-time as all of us - I am sure - have seen/experienced once or twice before.
Jonathan
robert
Expedition Leader
My point wasn't whether they were rifle or handgun cartridges- all of them have been chambered in both- but rather that there are plenty of cartridges that are ballistically about par with or even lower powered than today's .40s that were previously considered good deer rounds and commonly used as such. I just threw out the first few that popped into my head as I was typing. :ylsmoke: I also agree that they will do the job if the shooter does theirs- that includes allowing for their limitations and not exceeding them.
One thing to remember is that a lot of the laws on the books where written prior to today's bullet technology; a lot of progress has been made in the last twenty years and especially the last ten or so. Hornady's Leverevolution lever gun rounds are a good example of this. I'll admit I wasn't expecting as big a jump in performance as they deliver. That doesn't make the venerable 30-30 a 500 yard gun by any stretch, but it does give you an extra margin on that 200 yard figure you hear tossed around in regards to the 30-30.
Just as most of us wouldn't walk around with lead round nosed bullets in a .32 or.38 S&W (pre-Special days) lemon squeezer, most of us aren't going to use an older bullet design in our modern hunting rifles (the exception of course being black powder or some dangerous game rounds). While I know why they were written, some of the laws on the books are a bit dated- obviously any military ammo is a poor choice and shouldn't be used. The .30 carbine is a good example as many were bought surplus and used with surplus ammo. With a good JSP such as Remington's 110gr it's not a bad short range cartridge for smaller deer. It wouldn't be my choice though.
Funny you mention the golden BB- during the ten years I worked for another agency we had two deaths from BBs that I can recall. One was a woman shot in the chest who didn't think it had gone in (it was a BB after all) and it actually penetrated the pericardium. The other was a kid who shot his sibling in the head IIRC (I didn't run either call but I was working both nights when they occurred and saw them in the ER). I've seen people DRT from a single .22 and walking around after being shot by a .300Win Mag (he wouldn't have lived without a trauma team intervening, but he had walked out of the woods to the road holding his own guts in :Wow1:. Doh- Never, ever pull a firearm towards yourself.).
Ethically we need to use enough gun for the job at hand and make sure we do our part which includes knowing the limitations of ourselves and our equipment. A touch of luck doesn't hurt either. :elkgrin:
I think I'll bow out of this one at this point. :snorkel:
One thing to remember is that a lot of the laws on the books where written prior to today's bullet technology; a lot of progress has been made in the last twenty years and especially the last ten or so. Hornady's Leverevolution lever gun rounds are a good example of this. I'll admit I wasn't expecting as big a jump in performance as they deliver. That doesn't make the venerable 30-30 a 500 yard gun by any stretch, but it does give you an extra margin on that 200 yard figure you hear tossed around in regards to the 30-30.
Just as most of us wouldn't walk around with lead round nosed bullets in a .32 or.38 S&W (pre-Special days) lemon squeezer, most of us aren't going to use an older bullet design in our modern hunting rifles (the exception of course being black powder or some dangerous game rounds). While I know why they were written, some of the laws on the books are a bit dated- obviously any military ammo is a poor choice and shouldn't be used. The .30 carbine is a good example as many were bought surplus and used with surplus ammo. With a good JSP such as Remington's 110gr it's not a bad short range cartridge for smaller deer. It wouldn't be my choice though.
Funny you mention the golden BB- during the ten years I worked for another agency we had two deaths from BBs that I can recall. One was a woman shot in the chest who didn't think it had gone in (it was a BB after all) and it actually penetrated the pericardium. The other was a kid who shot his sibling in the head IIRC (I didn't run either call but I was working both nights when they occurred and saw them in the ER). I've seen people DRT from a single .22 and walking around after being shot by a .300Win Mag (he wouldn't have lived without a trauma team intervening, but he had walked out of the woods to the road holding his own guts in :Wow1:. Doh- Never, ever pull a firearm towards yourself.).
Ethically we need to use enough gun for the job at hand and make sure we do our part which includes knowing the limitations of ourselves and our equipment. A touch of luck doesn't hurt either. :elkgrin:
I think I'll bow out of this one at this point. :snorkel:
jh504
Explorer
It was not a hunt, but it definitely was a record kill. She was in her cabin alone and the bear was out in front of her place. She said she was scared knowing that it was out there so she shot it with the only thing she had, a .22LR I believe. I wasn't, by any means, saying it is a good idea to do. But looking at the pure ballistics of it I think it is very interesting, and also humorous. She followed her first shot with about 5 or 6 more shots in about a 3" group, all of them penetrating the skull. A .22LR is also known to hit a human skull and only penetrate the skin, passing between the skin and skull and ending up on the other side of the head. Ballistics is a very interesting topic.
***EDIT*** My story may be a little off, but still a 1 shot kill with a 22LR. I found this one while searching:
http://catfishgumbo.blogspot.com/2007/10/grandmas-griz.html
Last edited:
jh504
Explorer
Also found the picture of the skull and a listing for her kill in the record book.
http://www.albertaoutdoorsmen.ca/record-book.html
Notice the .22LR holes in the side of the skull.
http://www.albertaoutdoorsmen.ca/record-book.html
Notice the .22LR holes in the side of the skull.
howell_jd
Adventurer
Fantastic account!
Much closer than I'd like to be to a grizzly (bear bell, bear spray and all perhaps - burp says the bear). She had guts of that there can be no question, equivocation, or doubt.
Remaining calm under pressure and in stressful situations will increase the probability of success in a hunt or in a crisis situation. Training helps as does visualization in advance of events that may result in such an encounter.
I think self-defense reaction is perhaps a bit different than a planned event like a hunt but the parallel is persuasive. I still think that an ethical hunter does not underequip themselves or take low-percentage shots that are beyond their skill. It is why proper sighting and repetitive time on the range are such time-honored routines with marksmen in general and hunters in particular.
The discussion has taken a decidedly more philosophical and esoteric or at least very case-study type turn. It is intriguing and leading me to review my stance on "proper" equipping considerations...not causing me to question my convictions but definitely giving me an opportunity to be a bit more lenient in where the always ambiguous gray area crosses that "line" we all (or many of us in any case) likely have somewhat defined. It's evolutionary - that gray area that prompts action rather than sitting back and being a spectator.
I think in the discussion though that we've only covered success stories with various caliber rounds from a variety of weapons in the man v. wild department here. It bears saying there are plenty of hunters who've spent hours of gut-wrenching (emotional as well as physical) agony tracking gut-shot or other similarly wounded animals to complete their hunt. There was a very recent article either in North American Hunter or another similar hunting magazine of a hunter who spent a full day tracking an animal he "missed" but hadn't. It's good stuff for continuing the discussion...I'll try to find the reference if I haven't recycled the magazine.
Jonathan
Much closer than I'd like to be to a grizzly (bear bell, bear spray and all perhaps - burp says the bear). She had guts of that there can be no question, equivocation, or doubt.
Remaining calm under pressure and in stressful situations will increase the probability of success in a hunt or in a crisis situation. Training helps as does visualization in advance of events that may result in such an encounter.
I think self-defense reaction is perhaps a bit different than a planned event like a hunt but the parallel is persuasive. I still think that an ethical hunter does not underequip themselves or take low-percentage shots that are beyond their skill. It is why proper sighting and repetitive time on the range are such time-honored routines with marksmen in general and hunters in particular.
The discussion has taken a decidedly more philosophical and esoteric or at least very case-study type turn. It is intriguing and leading me to review my stance on "proper" equipping considerations...not causing me to question my convictions but definitely giving me an opportunity to be a bit more lenient in where the always ambiguous gray area crosses that "line" we all (or many of us in any case) likely have somewhat defined. It's evolutionary - that gray area that prompts action rather than sitting back and being a spectator.
I think in the discussion though that we've only covered success stories with various caliber rounds from a variety of weapons in the man v. wild department here. It bears saying there are plenty of hunters who've spent hours of gut-wrenching (emotional as well as physical) agony tracking gut-shot or other similarly wounded animals to complete their hunt. There was a very recent article either in North American Hunter or another similar hunting magazine of a hunter who spent a full day tracking an animal he "missed" but hadn't. It's good stuff for continuing the discussion...I'll try to find the reference if I haven't recycled the magazine.
Jonathan
007
Explorer
Thats an amazing bear story! Who would have thought?
I would hate to shoot a bear, I think of all predators as my fellows, but of course I would defend myself as a last resort, and I don't care if others hunt them at all.
I think predator animals (like us) are wired to be very sensitive to pain, it behooves them to be, so that they carefully weigh the risks when engaging other animals. If they didn't hate pain it would be too tempting to bite off more than they could chew and lead to their early demise.
Most herbivores on the other hand seem to be nearly unphased by pain. I imagine that makes sense given that they are so likely to die a pretty brutal death, all they need is fear to escape, not really a sensitivity to pain. It just seems that deer and such react so differently to trauma than say us or a dog.
Man has hunted animals with rocks and sticks for thousands of years, and all the other hunters use teeth and claws. Its excellent to strive for the cleanest quickest kill, but you have to keep it all in perspective. If I was starving I would kill game with whatever means where available.
I wouldn't judge somebody poorly for taking a deer with a primitive bow and flint tipped arrow, when they could have used a razor sharp broad head or high powered rifle instead.
I would hate to shoot a bear, I think of all predators as my fellows, but of course I would defend myself as a last resort, and I don't care if others hunt them at all.
I think predator animals (like us) are wired to be very sensitive to pain, it behooves them to be, so that they carefully weigh the risks when engaging other animals. If they didn't hate pain it would be too tempting to bite off more than they could chew and lead to their early demise.
Most herbivores on the other hand seem to be nearly unphased by pain. I imagine that makes sense given that they are so likely to die a pretty brutal death, all they need is fear to escape, not really a sensitivity to pain. It just seems that deer and such react so differently to trauma than say us or a dog.
Man has hunted animals with rocks and sticks for thousands of years, and all the other hunters use teeth and claws. Its excellent to strive for the cleanest quickest kill, but you have to keep it all in perspective. If I was starving I would kill game with whatever means where available.
I wouldn't judge somebody poorly for taking a deer with a primitive bow and flint tipped arrow, when they could have used a razor sharp broad head or high powered rifle instead.
Similar threads
