quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:

quote:

Originally posted by george roof:
Lloyd, I understand the others on here, but how can you say "Ft lbs of energy isnt what kills with a handgun. The ability of your load to penetrate to the vitals in any circumstance does."?

If the bullet has zero foot pounds of energy, how far do you think it might "penetrate"?

I truly wish this forum had a Handgun HUNTING category.

Handgun Hunting
For our friends who prefer to bag their game the hard way

Reloading
Reloading Topics

Your Favorite Loads - Share Them With Us

A 40 grain bullet @ 4000 FPS from a 22-250 has 1954 FPE my 500 Linebaugh with a 525 grain bullet @ 1100 FPS has 1410 FPE
Which would you choose for one of these?



I know which one I'd choose and it aint the 22-250

That's my point, ME is meaningless.

spot on guys. ft lbs of energy is engery transfered to game. Momentum is the ability of a bullet to penetrate. Handguns may lack big numbers when it comes to energy but they make big numbers in momentum. Do a test with any gun that puts out astronomicaly high energy figrues. Take the 340 weatherby for example. Hang a 100lb sack of corn or anything else in the air and shoot it. It will barely move. Now it does absoultely nothing more to something living. A gun kills an animal by shutting down its blood flow period. It does not knock an animal off its feet. Im not much of a fan of measuring any rounds ablility to kill with a mathamatical equation. Id rather measure it by how full my freezer is. Jwp said it correctly which would you choose a 4570 or 500 linbaugh that dont put out major numbers in energy or a .22250 or 220 swift if you were facing a brown bear.

Lloyd, did you shoot the sack of corn with a pistol too? Try shooting a CAN of corn and tell me how that works out.

This dead horse keeps getting flogged here and for any intelligent interchange to take place, someone, sometime, someplace is going to have to read a good physics book and find that that velocity, mass, and energy all play integral parts of the same issue. Pistols are only good to get you back to a rifle and to keep you from using a pocket knife. Anything more than that is just trying to add excitement to what you've tired of doing conventionally.

george, you need to understand physics a bit better before you keep bringing it up.

I know this is nothing more than anecdotal, but my .416 Rem with it's 5,132 ft-lbs of muzzle energy doesn't seem to kill any better than my .475 Linebaugh......... I don't feel under-gunned in the least carrying that handgun. It even makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside......

George-

I am guessing that you don't want to post your report cards from your college physics courses, right?

No matter how much velocity and energy you have, you can only kill an animal so dead.

Assuming good shot placement and the proper bullets, a rifle with 10,000 ft./lbs. of energy won't kill a deer or bear any deader than a 320 grainer from my .44 Magnum at a measly 1350 fps. Yes, the rifle will shoot flatter and serve you better at longer range, but we are talking about HANDGUN HUNTING ranges here. (That same basic .44 Magnum round has been successfully used to take virtually every huntable species of big game.)

Where I live, wild hogs are an incredible nuisance and unprotected by game laws, so it's basically a shoot-on-sight proposition and often more of an animal damage control situation rather than hunting. I've shot them with everything from a .223 (in a populated area in which an exit would have been a bad thing) to various medium-capacity 6.5mm, 7mm and .30 caliber guns -- and yes, with my beloved .44s.

If you are at all familiar with them, you know that hogs are tough, tenacious of life and built like a tank, but I have yet to hear one complain that I didn't kill it dead enough, even though I didn't shoot any of them with a 400 grain projectile at 2400 fps. And as far as I know, they are still "dead."

It's simple science and common sense...
---
I apologize for not posting any of my .44 mag hog photos but will do so later once I locate them. The hog in the top photo weighed 353 pounds and had incredible girth. I took it with the barner-burner (sarcasm on) 7mm Bullberry in a 20" Contender. The hog in the bottom photo was my largest ever and was taken with a 140 grain bullet from a 6.5x55 at a range of 252 yards. Neither hog has yet to inquire about the pipsqueak rounds I chose to use...

Damn nice hogs, Bobby. Are you sure they're dead, being so undergunned?

I'm still looking over my shoulder...just in case...

how many animals have you killed with a handgun to bring you to that conclusion? Every animal in the world has been taken cleanly with a handgun. there isnt an animal in Delaware that cant be harvested cleanly by a .357! In my experience the average guy hunting with a handgun is a much better shot and knows his limitations alot more then some idiot showing up for a once a year hunt with a 300 weatherby and has probably had a total of about a box of ammo ran through in its lifetime. As to the adding excitement statement. I couldnt agree more. Shooting whitetail deer or black bear at 50 yards with a scoped bolt action rifle is about as exciting as watching golf on tv! thats why i took up bow hunting and its why i took up handgun hunting. It puts some ammount of skill and excitement back into the process.

quote:

Originally posted by george roof:
Lloyd, did you shoot the sack of corn with a pistol too? Try shooting a CAN of corn and tell me how that works out.

This dead horse keeps getting flogged here and for any intelligent interchange to take place, someone, sometime, someplace is going to have to read a good physics book and find that that velocity, mass, and energy all play integral parts of the same issue. Pistols are only good to get you back to a rifle and to keep you from using a pocket knife. Anything more than that is just trying to add excitement to what you've tired of doing conventionally.

quote:

Originally posted by Lloyd Smale:
how many animals have you killed with a handgun to bring you to that conclusion? Every animal in the world has been taken cleanly with a handgun. there isnt an animal in Delaware that cant be harvested cleanly by a .357! In my experience the average guy hunting with a handgun is a much better shot and knows his limitations alot more then some idiot showing up for a once a year hunt with a 300 weatherby and has probably had a total of about a box of ammo ran through in its lifetime. As to the adding excitement statement. I couldnt agree more. Shooting whitetail deer or black bear at 50 yards with a scoped bolt action rifle is about as exciting as watching golf on tv! thats why i took up bow hunting and its why i took up handgun hunting. It puts some ammount of skill and excitement back into the process.

Lloyd, that is why I took up handgun hunting 26 some year ago. For the sheer excitement.

Sure here in little old Delaware we don't need a big bore to kill a deer. But I use them because I just like big holes.

quote:

Originally posted by Lloyd Smale:
how many animals have you killed with a handgun to bring you to that conclusion? Every animal in the world has been taken cleanly with a handgun. there isnt an animal in Delaware that cant be harvested cleanly by a .357! In my experience the average guy hunting with a handgun is a much better shot and knows his limitations alot more then some idiot showing up for a once a year hunt with a 300 weatherby and has probably had a total of about a box of ammo ran through in its lifetime. As to the adding excitement statement. I couldnt agree more. Shooting whitetail deer or black bear at 50 yards with a scoped bolt action rifle is about as exciting as watching golf on tv! thats why i took up bow hunting and its why i took up handgun hunting. It puts some ammount of skill and excitement back into the process.

Exactly. Handgun hunting is a lot more exciting than sitting up in a stand with a scoped rifle. It is more exciting by virue of the distances shots are taken and the stalking up closer to the animal. That said, it is in no way a stunt, as a properly loaded big-bore handgun kills with aplomb. Shot placement is everything be it with a .600 Nitro Express or a .44 magnum. Again, I don't feel undergunned carrying my hunting revolvers.

C'mon guys, you know you can't beat the muzzle energy guys! It is so funny that my Ruger Old Army cap and ball with a measly 142 gr, .457 ball at 1102 fps will bust all the bones in a deer and penetrate all the way through dropping the deer FASTER then my .475, .45 Colt or .44 mag. They react like they were REALLY punched too.
I just HAVE to find out how to get that puny ball to 3000 fps in order to let the deer run farther. I just hate to have them drop right there!

Bobby, actually I never WENT to college, but they did teach me things in elementary school and the military that the gruesome foursome here have no concept of obviously.

Lloyd, the .357 is in my opinion, a minmally effective firearm for shooting any big game with. I know guys who poach deer with .22.s but that's no endorsement for your argument either. I once killed a 120 pound doe with my Camero with a 350 engine. I don't think it was either the penetration or the velocity that did the deer in, but my insurance guy didn't have them run tests on it. I haven't HUNTED that long with a handgun and thus far only have a bear FROM THE GROUND at a distance where a .22 might have been more than sufficient. But some of you whizkids seem to think that implies that I haven't shot handguns for over 40 years and don't know how to use one. I carry one faithfully when I'm in Alaska, but it damned sure isn't my PRIMARY firearm. As I said, if this forum would stick to HUNTING instead of my peter is bigger than yours in reloading and custom handguns, much of this constant flonging your dong would stop. There are a few people who come here with trophies that don't oink or squeak.

quote:

Originally posted by george roof:
Bobby, actually I never WENT to college, but they did teach me things in elementary school and the military that the gruesome foursome here have no concept of obviously.

Lloyd, the .357 is in my opinion, a minmally effective firearm for shooting any big game with. I know guys who poach deer with .22.s but that's no endorsement for your argument either. I once killed a 120 pound doe with my Camero with a 350 engine. I don't think it was either the penetration or the velocity that did the deer in, but my insurance guy didn't have them run tests on it. I haven't HUNTED that long with a handgun and thus far only have a bear FROM THE GROUND at a distance where a .22 might have been more than sufficient. But some of you whizkids seem to think that implies that I haven't shot handguns for over 40 years and don't know how to use one. I carry one faithfully when I'm in Alaska, but it damned sure isn't my PRIMARY firearm. As I said, if this forum would stick to HUNTING instead of my peter is bigger than yours in reloading and custom handguns, much of this constant flonging your dong would stop. There are a few people who come here with trophies that don't oink or squeak.

Gruesome foursome? Ouch! I feel your love, George. Tell me something, are you feeling a bit inadequate maybe from a caliber or educational standpoint? Is that what this post was all about? I've killed animals that squeak and oink that are a damn sight bigger than that bear you shot, so I don't know if I should feel complimented or insulted.

When you get on the vitriol train, expect to get it back.......

FWIW while I wouldn't ordinarily choose it as the perfect hunting round, I've killed two whitetail does and two 175-200 pound range pigs with a .357 loaded with Leadhead bullets 168 gr Keith design. All ranges were under 50 yards and in one case on the pig less than 10 yards. Both does were killed with rib cage shots and both were pass throughs. Same for pigs but bullet did not exit, one was in opposite shoulder and, I think, one was in the guts somewhere. I feel pretty confident that had my shot been "square" through the pig's rib cage the bullet would have exited.

Like I said, I wouldn't make the .357 my first choice for a small/mid size game hunting round, but anyone who thinks it won't do the job easily hasn't seen the results.

well.........despite the fact that taylor contradicted himself on several occasions and that according to his own KO values, a john elway pass having a higher KO value than a 600 nitro, i think about every single equation used to describe penetration or predict it has been a miserable failure. there's truth on both sides. go to the african board here or the big bore rifle board and their own formulas they ascribe to show the pistol bullets shouldn't penetrate the skin of a buff let alone kill it. it's truly laughable.

Gatorgordo, I don't disagree with that. I certainly think it WILL do the job (those old enough to remember, recall that the .357 was extolled for being capable of disabling a car engine by cracking the engine block?), but I think that it needs to be kept "within reasonable distances" (like 20-25 yards). In the hands of an experienced pistoleer, we have a whole new realm of possibilities, but the AVERAGE handgunner is not willing to put in that much time on a range. I'll bet you that in most states, most handgunners only use a pistol because they can't use a rifle/muzzleloader/shotgun. There are guys who feel exactly the same way about archery (and God knows we don't want to get into velocity/energy/mass on THAT subject). But this mindset is not AVERAGE.

Whitworth, I'm an old country boy. I've shot hundreds of rats with a Benjamin pump pistol and I don't know how many 200-400 pound hogs or how many 1200 pound Charlets I've shot using a Colt Peacemaker in .22 Mag. I just never considered that HUNTING either.

quote:

Originally posted by tradmark:
well.........despite the fact that taylor contradicted himself on several occasions and that according to his own KO values, a john elway pass having a higher KO value than a 600 nitro, i think about every single equation used to describe penetration or predict it has been a miserable failure. there's truth on both sides. go to the african board here or the big bore rifle board and their own formulas they ascribe to show the pistol bullets shouldn't penetrate the skin of a buff let alone kill it. it's truly laughable.

tradmark I agree about all the formulas out there. I know what works for killing game, and I know what bullets to use in my handguns to accomplish it also.
All the formulas don't mean crap except for what anyone wants to take away from it.

Handgun hunting in the lower 48, a 41 mag would probably accomplish it all, within it's effective range. Me, I like the 45 Colt and above for my handguns. Big holes are what I am after. I don't need to know the actual velocity to know, if I use published data when reloading, and I have the accuracy I need, and a good construed bullet, I can kill anything that walks in North America.

george roof wrote:

quote:

There are a few people who come here with trophies that don't oink or squeak.

Well, well. Now I see: YOUR trophies are better than anyone elses -- so it boils down to an ego issue, does it not?

No, I have never bagged a grizzly. But if I ever am fortunate enough to hunt one, you can bet that I'll probably take along a .44 Magnum as my primary armament. And I will not feel undergunned.

In fact, one of the largest grizzlies I recall seeing was taken with a .44 magnum and 240 grain Hornady FMJs (not my first choice of bullet). Larry Kelly of Mag-Na-Port fame did the honors with one of his customized Rugers.

Maybe you should chastise him for not using a .416...

I guess I had it all wrong thinking that free-ranging hogs not shot over bait was hunting......hmmmmmm.........

But I won't let you bad mouth my chipmunk hunts!

Whitworth, the hogs I shot with the .22 weren't intended to equate with the tuskers you enjoy. We both know that I could've saved the bullet and just used a sledgehammer on farm hogs, but I did enjoy an earlier segment where people showed their trophies. My only point was, again, formulas don't kill animals, people with guns do. Yet someplace hidden in that fact IS a formula as to why it happens like it does.

Bobby, I don't know what got your thong in a wad, but I've been in grizzly country and there's no way in hell I"m INTENTIONALLY taking a .44 mag there as a primary firearm. Perhaps you need to see the video of Bob Foulkrod shooting one with a .375 H&H. Most Alaskans are going to tell you that's the MINIMUM they'd be around, though if you're shooting ptarmigan with a .22 and that's all you had, that's what you'd have to use. You have no idea of the size, the strength and the speed of a grizzly. You could kill it but if it took 10 seconds to die, you might be dead yourself in five of them. I do hope if you plan a harebrained stunt like that, you have someone next to you with a real gun on their shoulder.

george roof wrote:

quote:

I do hope if you plan a harebrained <sic> stunt like that,

Really...

Now do all the archery kills of grizzlies qualify as "harebrained stunts" as well? I might have to inform some of the stick-and-string-shooters to stop with the "stunts."
---

george roof also wrote: "You have no idea of the size, the strength and the speed of a grizzly."

And you do moreso than anyone else here???

I thought your grizzly hunting experience was ZERO.

Understanding the sheer size and speed of a grizzly doesn't require rocket science, by the way.

The 200 pound black bear sow you recently bagged is no grizzly and in fact is a good bit smaller than most of the tuskers I have taken.

But again, I bow to your trophy "that didn't oink or squeak" as hunting in a blind over bait and taking a bear from 2 feet had to be quite the challenge...and -- judging by the tenor of your prior post -- obviously tougher than any of the hogs that anyone has ever killed.

Hang on, what makes you think because you shoot a grizzly with a .375 H&H it's going to die any faster than with .44 magnum? A hole through the heart is a hole through the heart. The only way to stop an animal cold is a CNS hit and either one will do the job.

Whitworth, you didn't see the video did you? The bear DIDN'T die quickly.

Bobby, you really do have your drawers in a wad don't you. Who said ANYTHING about the black bear sow I shot. I admitted that it wasn't much, but it was rather exciting when she came that close to be before and after the shot. It was all self induced. I'm NOT an expert on grizzly hunting, I simply stated that I'd been there and I know what having one stick its nose against your tent when you have nothing but a 7mm RemMag inside the tent with you.

Sure archers shoot them as do muzzleloaders, but all of them have someone right beside them with real guns in their hands. Even the classic Fred Bear film of his shooting that world record bear (at the time) involved a backup. (If you read his book, you'll see that the camera man got run over by the bear 50 yards away after the shot as well.)

And "harebrained" doesn't need your orchestrated misspelling implications. That IS the correct spelling as in "the brains of a hare". The only thing <sic> was your interpretation.

Actually, George, "harebrained" needs a dash (as is "hare-brained) to be perfectly correct, though your version is deemed marginally acceptable in less-than-stringent English-usage applications.

Do you know what <sic> stands for? It simply is used to indicate that what precedes it is written intentionally or is copied verbatim from the original. It DOES NOT necessarily refer to misspelling or other errors.

---
george roof wrote: "Who said ANYTHING about the black bear sow I shot."

Well, Georgre, you brought it up with the tenor of your post when you wrote: "There are a few people who come here with trophies that don't oink or squeak."

Hmmm.....

With that, you sought -- whether intentionally or not -- to minimize the postings of both Whitworth, myself and others. Whether or not your perceived view of that statement polarizes you to the north or south in this situation does not matter: The directive indicates you don't take anything killed by anyone else seriously unless it fits some bonafide Boone & Crockett category.

To me, a "trophy" is in the eye of the beholder and is more of a reflection of the hunt itself rather than some sordid measurement of an animal. The largest hog I have ever taken eluded me for nearly 3 years and very nearly pulled off another Houdini act the evening I put a 140 grain Hornady into his boiler room.

In your eyes, it may not rank up there with a 200 pound bruin taken over bait, but it will always be a trophy to me.

I guess im one of the Gruesome foursome too. Ive got some of them there custom high dollar handguns. I guess i dont unerstand why people laugh at me shooting a deer with a 500 linebagugh and then in the same statement claim that handgun hunting is a stunt. Look at the ballistics of a 500 linebaugh (if your one of those that use mathematical equations to rate killing power) and its about on par with a 4570 shooting enimic factory ammo. Not to many people claim that a marlin guide gun isnt a good deer rifle. Ive killed enough with handguns in about every caliber to know that it isnt really needed but i enjoy shooting big guns anyway and will do it again. I allways got a charge out of people that bad mount big bore handguns. In just about every case its someone that just cant handle the recoil they produce and instead of being an avid enough shooter to master them they go the other route and just claim the guys that shoot them are crazy. Its easier then admitting you cant. bottom line is ive killed a truck load of deer bear and pigs and other simular sized critters with handguns. Probably 1/2 of them with 44s and 45s shooting a 250 cast at a 1000 fps and have yet to make a clean kill on any of them if i did my part. Truth be told probably half the guys that go into the woods with a handgun to harvest game shouldnt. Same goes with bow hunters. It takes alot of pratice to become copetant with a handgun or bow. Just about any kid can hit a deer out to 200 yards with a scoped rifle and thats what makes them a better hunting tool for most, not ft lbs of energy. Same goes for a dangerous game hunt. Theres not to many people that a cool enough under pressure and comeptant enough with a handgun to stand face to face with a dangerous animal. Most would do much better a 100 yards away with a rifle. I dont think anyone here thats even an avid handgun hunter would say his dream is to be facing a charging bear with a handgun but i doubt youd get many rifle hunters that would want that either. Anyone hunting dangerous game with any kind of firearm or bow should have a backup shooter hopefully armed with a .50 cal browning machine gun!!

quote:

Originally posted by Whitworth:

quote:

Originally posted by george roof:
Bobby, actually I never WENT to college, but they did teach me things in elementary school and the military that the gruesome foursome here have no concept of obviously.

Lloyd, the .357 is in my opinion, a minmally effective firearm for shooting any big game with. I know guys who poach deer with .22.s but that's no endorsement for your argument either. I once killed a 120 pound doe with my Camero with a 350 engine. I don't think it was either the penetration or the velocity that did the deer in, but my insurance guy didn't have them run tests on it. I haven't HUNTED that long with a handgun and thus far only have a bear FROM THE GROUND at a distance where a .22 might have been more than sufficient. But some of you whizkids seem to think that implies that I haven't shot handguns for over 40 years and don't know how to use one. I carry one faithfully when I'm in Alaska, but it damned sure isn't my PRIMARY firearm. As I said, if this forum would stick to HUNTING instead of my peter is bigger than yours in reloading and custom handguns, much of this constant flonging your dong would stop. There are a few people who come here with trophies that don't oink or squeak.

Gruesome foursome? Ouch! I feel your love, George. Tell me something, are you feeling a bit inadequate maybe from a caliber or educational standpoint? Is that what this post was all about? I've killed animals that squeak and oink that are a damn sight bigger than that bear you shot, so I don't know if I should feel complimented or insulted.

When you get on the vitriol train, expect to get it back.......

What was the original question, again?
Peter.

quote:

Originally posted by Peter:
What was the original question, again?
Peter.

Good question, Peter, I don't remember!

George, no I didn't see the video, but because the bear didn't die quickly surely wasn't a function of muzzle energy or a lack thereof. A CNS hit is the only way to quickly ensure a stop, and foot-pounds have nothing to do with it -- but reaching that vital spot does.......

If a .375 H&H has enough "momentum" to pass through an animal, and a .500 Linebaugh has enough "momentum" to pass through that same animal, where does ME come into play. The .500 will leave a bigger hole as well, so why would the .375 be any more appropriate for a bear hunt or charge for that matter??

I am one of the foursome and enjoy it!
I have posted many times of all the deer lost here with magnum rifles with tons of energy. Seems as if some guys here believe a nick with one of these guns should flip an animal on it's cork. I don't know of anyone hunting here with a 30-30 that has lost a deer but the magnum guys are always doing it. I find dead deer all the time with huge holes blown in them that were not recovered.
Now those are small deer compared to a large bear or buf that can soak up a couple of tons of so called ENERGY!
It still all boils down to what vital system in the animal is disconnected. NOT HOW MUCH ENERGY IT TOOK.
Shoot a deer between the eyes with a .22 and it drops yet hit one behind the shoulder with a .300 mag and it can run out of sight.

The energy comes into play just as soon as you add "distance" to the equation. Because of you guys, I truly have to keep from wincing when the God given emaculate conception of the .475 Linebaugh comes up. I've read up on Linebaugh and he has a lot of good things to say but even he's capable of understanding that there are other handguns out there that are just as effective or moreso. You guys have made the name seem like a dirty word.

All I've EVER said is that basic laws of physics apply to ALL projectiles (Yes, even that silly assed .475 Linebaugh) and to pooh pooh them as you guys continue to do is simple mental midgetry. NO ONE understands what keeps the thread of life present in any living being. With some animals (like the grizzly and the Cape buffalo and even the mountain goat) there seems to be a much stronger reluctance to give it up that on other animals, but we all "know" that there is no hard and fast rule on that. A kid on a bike hit by a car can survive yet one hit with a baseball dies. Physics didn't CONTROL that event, but can't be ignored from the science aspect.

But again, the "Handgun Hunting" site has been hijacked by the reload/custom load/custom gun crowd and unless you bow at the alter of John Linebaugh, you're a malcontent.

Bobby, I suppose shooting a bear over bait isn't much dfferent than shooting a feral hog over bait.

Your grammar and spelling explanation may work on some of the people here, but you're simply blowing smoke now. I'm well aware of what <sic> means and just as familiar what it implies. It means that the writer has copied the word verbatim from another author simply because it was used incorrectly. In journalism, <sic> is never used any other way. When one quotes another, quotation marks ("") are the standard if the spelling and usage is correct. And as for harebrained, I don't know what dictionary you're using, but you'd better get rid of that paperbacked one and use a better one. Here's a C&P from Dictionary.com

harebrained
3 dictionary results for: harebrained
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
hare·brained /ˈhɛərˌbreɪnd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[hair-breynd] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective giddy; reckless.

[Origin: 1545–55; hare + brained]

—Related forms
harebrainedly, adverb
harebrainedness, noun


—Synonyms rattlebrained, scatterbrained, half-baked, dimwitted.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
CITE THIS SOURCE|PRINT
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This hare·brained (hâr'brÄnd') Pronunciation Key
adj. Foolish; flighty: a harebrained scheme.


Usage Note: The first use of harebrained dates to 1548. The spelling hairbrained also has a long history, going back to the 1500s when hair was a variant spelling of hare. The hair variant was preserved in Scotland into the 18th century, and as a result it is impossible to tell exactly when people began writing hairbrained in the belief that the word means "having a hair-sized brain" rather than "with no more sense than a hare." While hairbrained continues to be used and confused, it should be avoided in favor of harebrained which has been established as the correct spelling.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

harebrained

adjective
very foolish; "harebrained ideas"; "took insane risks behind the wheel"; "a completely mad scheme to build a bridge between two mountains"

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.

George, I have to ask why you ALWAYS take a condescending tone when you respond to posts? It boggles the mind. So you've been published a bit, so have I -- actually I've been published quite a bit. That doesn't mean you should talk to others like they're somehow beneath you.

Why are you speaking in such a way about the .475 Linebaugh? Just because you hadn't heard about its existence until recently? It has been the choice of serious handgun hunters for a couple of decades -- long before the advent of the .500 Smith and the .460, so what in God's name is the problem?? At Linebaugh's seminars, the .475 in one iteration or another always finishes in the top 5% of penetrators, and it has big-diameter going for it. Don't attack me for citing this as an example of its effectiveness.

Also, why do you keep introducing distance into the equation? If you want to snipe, get a scoped rifle. Hunting DG from a distance takes the danger out of dangerous game. So even if you are hunting with a big-rifle, you will more than likely be doing it from up close.

You also said: "But again, the "Handgun Hunting" site has been hijacked by the reload/custom load/custom gun crowd and unless you bow at the alter of John Linebaugh, you're a malcontent." Who in the hell worships at the altar of John Linebaugh? He is a pioneer who needs to be taken into consideration in any talk of big-bore handgun hunting. Again, he introduced big handgun cartridges long before most of the current crop of commercial cartridges. You keep bitching about the content of this forum, yet you stick around. If you really dislike it as much as you blather on about it, then leave. No one is forcing you to stick around.

The problem as I see it is that even if definitive proof is offered you that goes contrary to your beliefs, you will refuse to concede........

george roof wrote:

quote:

Bobby, I suppose shooting a bear over bait isn't much dfferent than shooting a feral hog over bait.

I couldn't tell you. I don't hunt them over bait. I've taken them in crop fields, etc., in animal damage control situations, but my HUNTING is NEVER over bait.

I do not judge anyone who chooses to hunt this way, but for me, it's not my cup of tea.

george roof also wrote: "But again, the "Handgun Hunting" site has been hijacked by the reload/custom load/custom gun crowd and unless you bow at the alter of John Linebaugh, you're a malcontent."

Really??? Just for the record, I don't own or shoot any Linebaughs...
----

just for my good friend george:

From World-Wide Words:
The current status of hairbrained is disputed: some style guides say that it should not be used, as does the Fourth Edition of the American Heritage Dictionary... Other guides disagree, a case in point being Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage which says, “Our opinion based on the evidence is that it is establishedâ€.
---
from yet another internet source:
hair-brained - “foolish, ditzy.†The expression originates from the erratic behavior of hares and is more properly spelled hare-brained. However, the spelling hair-brained is quite common.
---

Note the use of the HYPHEN in the latter.

I can use the net to look up things as well. It's a bit tough, but my little brain is working hard at it...

Some day, I hope to even figure out how to turn on and off my computer without help. And maybe, just maybe, I'll even figure out how to put some of the text in a nice, bright red for special effect...

Whitworth, perhaps you don't understand the tone that Bobby was using. I do and I know that no matter how much smoke he tries to blow up someone's ass, he got caught. The Oxford Dictionary is the source that all other dictionaries defer to. The American dictionaries have never purported to use PROPER English. They report "usage" and words like "alright" and "proactive" have gained entrance simply because of that fact.

As for the .475 Linebaugh, you're correct. I was NOT aware of it's existence until recently since if fits into an inner circle of handgunners who are, by and large, reloaders. It seems to be a very fine firearm and John Linebaugh seems to be a very sensible guy with his own ideas and interpretations. HOWEVER, you, bfrshooter, jwp, and hitman consistently and constantly compare EVERYTHING to the performance of that firearm. When Redhawk made some mention a few days back it was you who accused him of "slandering John Linebaugh". When he stated that he was going to use a certain load for his bear hunt, someone remarked that it "wasn't enough" for bear, but somehow the bear died of a single shot wound anyway. Some even made catty remarks at the quality of the video. And THAT, dear sir, is why I wish this would return to the subject title of HANDGUN HUNTING. Like cars, long guns, bows, and women, we are ALL going to have our personal opinion/preference and just as soon as it's voiced, someone's going to take exception that theirs "is better".

Bobby, since you're the pseudo linguist, you need to learn that EVERYONE hunts over bait. Some might be more blatant and obvious, but when you hunt over a food source or the path that leads to and from a food source, you're hunting over "bait". It might make you feel mightier or better to say you don't, but will never change the fact that no one hunts areas where animals don't eat/sleep/or travel to eat or sleep. To berate or besmirch anyone who participates in a legal activity involved in hunting and hunters is simply to play the pawn for animal rights activism.

george roof wrote:

quote:

To berate or besmirch anyone who participates in a legal activity involved in hunting and hunters is simply to play the pawn for animal rights activism.

George- I challenge you to find ANYWHERE that I berated or besmirched ANYONE for hunting over bait. It's a matter of personal preference.

This is what I actually wrote, so please get your facts straight:

"I do not judge anyone who chooses to hunt this way, but for me, it's not my cup of tea."

My take is pretty simple and easy to understand for anyone who actually reads the sentence.

Your interpretation is simply ludicrous and without basis.

quote:

Originally posted by george roof:
As for the .475 Linebaugh, you're correct. I was NOT aware of it's existence until recently since if fits into an inner circle of handgunners who are, by and large, reloaders. It seems to be a very fine firearm and John Linebaugh seems to be a very sensible guy with his own ideas and interpretations. HOWEVER, you, bfrshooter, jwp, and hitman consistently and constantly compare EVERYTHING to the performance of that firearm. When Redhawk made some mention a few days back it was you who accused him of "slandering John Linebaugh". When he stated that he was going to use a certain load for his bear hunt, someone remarked that it "wasn't enough" for bear, but somehow the bear died of a single shot wound anyway. Some even made catty remarks at the quality of the video. And THAT, dear sir, is why I wish this would return to the subject title of HANDGUN HUNTING. Like cars, long guns, bows, and women, we are ALL going to have our personal opinion/preference and just as soon as it's voiced, someone's going to take exception that theirs "is better".

George, the .475 Linebaugh IS the benchmark by which all big-bore handgun calibers should be judged. It was the first dedicated big-bore revolver round, and it strikes a near perfect balance in diameter, bullet weight, and penetration. I would venture a guess that most really serious handgun hunters do load their own, to optimize the combination. That said, there are some fine factory ammo offerings for this caliber. I was critical of Redhawk1's choice of loads for bear, but didn't realize that immature bears would be on the menu. For a really large bear, where penetration is a necessity, I personally would have chosen a heavier bullet. Now, you never know what you will end up encountering, but you should always plan for the worst case scenario -- IMO. A heavier bullet will work on anything.

Personaly i prefer the .500 linebaugh but I also agree that the 475 is a benchmark revolver round. The .475 may not be the biggest and may not shoot the heaviest bullets but it does just plain work. Otto Candice (i hope the spelling is right) was at one seminar i was at. He has taken probably more elephant then anyone and his favorite round for doing it is the 475. He said hes not found a handgun or rifle thats better for penetrating big heavy bone. He said he brain shoots them and an elephants skull is one of the best test of a bullet there is. Its very hard bone and honeycombed. Dalton Carr is another guy you should talk to. He spent his whole life and made his living killing pest bears on indian reservations and for the dnr. He said that a high velocity jacketed bullet is junk. His saying was that life begins at 45 caliber and more is better. This man has killed hundreds of bear and knows what works. Look to at what a elephant or cape buffalo hunter uses. A large caliber heavy bullet at a relitively slow velocity. Most dangerous game hunters want penetration not expansion. If it works on animals that weight over a ton id guess it works on deer and bear too. As to John linebaugh and dustin. They are not gods but you will not ever meet to more honest and trustworthy men. Either would give a stranger the shirt of his back and ive never heard one word out of there mouths that could be considered bull shit or a bad word said about any man and the same sure cant be siad for some here.

quote:

Originally posted by Whitworth:

quote:

Originally posted by george roof:
As for the .475 Linebaugh, you're correct. I was NOT aware of it's existence until recently since if fits into an inner circle of handgunners who are, by and large, reloaders. It seems to be a very fine firearm and John Linebaugh seems to be a very sensible guy with his own ideas and interpretations. HOWEVER, you, bfrshooter, jwp, and hitman consistently and constantly compare EVERYTHING to the performance of that firearm. When Redhawk made some mention a few days back it was you who accused him of "slandering John Linebaugh". When he stated that he was going to use a certain load for his bear hunt, someone remarked that it "wasn't enough" for bear, but somehow the bear died of a single shot wound anyway. Some even made catty remarks at the quality of the video. And THAT, dear sir, is why I wish this would return to the subject title of HANDGUN HUNTING. Like cars, long guns, bows, and women, we are ALL going to have our personal opinion/preference and just as soon as it's voiced, someone's going to take exception that theirs "is better".

George, the .475 Linebaugh IS the benchmark by which all big-bore handgun calibers should be judged. It was the first dedicated big-bore revolver round, and it strikes a near perfect balance in diameter, bullet weight, and penetration. I would venture a guess that most really serious handgun hunters do load their own, to optimize the combination. That said, there are some fine factory ammo offerings for this caliber. I was critical of Redhawk1's choice of loads for bear, but didn't realize that immature bears would be on the menu. For a really large bear, where penetration is a necessity, I personally would have chosen a heavier bullet. Now, you never know what you will end up encountering, but you should always plan for the worst case scenario -- IMO. A heavier bullet will work on anything.

Now you struck a cord with me Whitworth. I have stayed out of your pissing contest until now.

quote:

but didn't realize that immature bears would be on the menu

In the wild, no one knows what will come in. Also, have you ever hunted bear? It is hard to judge bear. And a 200 plus pound bear is not a bad bear by no means. How do you call a 4 or 5 year old bear immature?

Also, my choice of bullet, the 350 gr. hard cast, would of works as well on a 500 lb black bear as well as it did on my 206 lb bear.

In your opinion, I should of used a larger bullet, why because you say so. Sorry but my accuracy and velocity are just fine with the 350 gr. bullet. The penetration with this bullet is outstanding. What else do I need?

I have NEVER criticized any animal you took or posted, even when you posted pictures of little hogs you shot. I don't think you should make your snide remarks about the size of the bear I took

quote:

immature bears

. I don't recall you paying for my hunt and I dam sure don't need to please you with my choices of bullets, guns or anything else.

I have hunted successfully many years with a handgun, and don't need your advice on what to use, I have done just fine without it.

You guys can continue on with your pissing contest, but leave me out of it.

.

You need to be in better communication with your partner George, as he is the one dragging trophy animals into this thread. I personally don't give a damn what you think, or what you hunt. Those little hogs handily outweighed that bear you shot recently as do you. If that bear was 206-lbs, you must weigh 400......... You don't ever know what will come around, but it is you that ultimately decides the fate of the animal and it is your judgement that comes into play and your trigger finger.

I also recall some time back where George took jwp to task about the grizzly he shot in self defense as being small. That bear was a hell-of-a-lot bigger than what you posted -- yet, if wasn't sared enough to be left alone......

No one dragged you into this, so you can only blame yourself. You have repeatedly pissed on people here and y'all don't like it when you get it back. So, my suggesion, if you don't like what you are reading here, is not to read it........oh, and don't respond either if you find it so upsetting. Leave you out of it? Stay out of it.

quote:

Originally posted by Lloyd Smale:
Personaly i prefer the .500 linebaugh but I also agree that the 475 is a benchmark revolver round. The .475 may not be the biggest and may not shoot the heaviest bullets but it does just plain work. Otto Candice (i hope the spelling is right) was at one seminar i was at. He has taken probably more elephant then anyone and his favorite round for doing it is the 475. He said hes not found a handgun or rifle thats better for penetrating big heavy bone. He said he brain shoots them and an elephants skull is one of the best test of a bullet there is. Its very hard bone and honeycombed. Dalton Carr is another guy you should talk to. He spent his whole life and made his living killing pest bears on indian reservations and for the dnr. He said that a high velocity jacketed bullet is junk. His saying was that life begins at 45 caliber and more is better. This man has killed hundreds of bear and knows what works. Look to at what a elephant or cape buffalo hunter uses. A large caliber heavy bullet at a relitively slow velocity. Most dangerous game hunters want penetration not expansion. If it works on animals that weight over a ton id guess it works on deer and bear too. As to John linebaugh and dustin. They are not gods but you will not ever meet to more honest and trustworthy men. Either would give a stranger the shirt of his back and ive never heard one word out of there mouths that could be considered bull shit or a bad word said about any man and the same sure cant be siad for some here.

Lloyd, that is why I ordered a 475 Linebaugh. I like what the round offers.

When I first started handgun hunting, the 357 Mag was what I used for deer hunting, I then went to the 41 Mag. Then I decided I wanted to move up to the 44 Mag.
For the longest time the 44 Mag was my round of choice, then I gravitated to the 45 Colt and from there all hell broke loose, 454 Casull, S&W 500 Mag S&W 460 Mag, 480 Ruger. Now 26 years have passed, and all the handguns I used killed game, deer, bear and hogs. And people are still arguing what is better.

I was not able to afford some of the custom guns when I was younger, but now I am having fun with them all. I am no longer a 44 Mag fan, my true hunting handguns start at 45 Colt and go nothing but up from there. OK I do have a 410 GNR, but it is a neck down 454 Casull case.

In my opinion a large hole with the proper shot placement and anything 41 Mag and above will kill just about anything with the proper bullet and shot placement.

I think if we all could get away from all the bullshit formulas, and just go out and kill a few animals, all the BS fighting about what is better and who has the best would stop.