My handgun hunting has been done with an Encore or a Contender thus far. Since I think hunting dangerous game like chipmunks with a single shot gun is mostly a stunt, I'm considering getting a revolver for hunting. The revolvers I've shot, haven't been quite up to what I consider acceptable standards accuracy wise. What I want is for a scoped revolver to be able to do 3 shot 1.5 inch or better groups at 100 yards off the bench consistently.

Maybe such a revolver doesn't exist. If you know of one or a custom revolver dude who can cook one up, I would appreciate more information on it.

My S&W PC model 460 Mag with a 2X6 scope will do that at 100 yards.

I am also sure you can get a custom to do the same.

Freedom Arms revolvers have a good reputation for accuracy.

I have a 6" 475 FA.

Also several members here have had great results with BFR revolvers.

My M-N-P Stalker will do 2" off the bench at 100 yards. My 10" FA in .454 is a little over half that at the same distance.

Boolit choice and how you load is more important then the revolver you choose. Most revolvers made today can outshoot a lot of rifles.
I am sure you found the same with the single shots and the revolver is not relegated to the back room any more. It takes the same work up as any other gun.
I hear too many say "Just a revolver or just a .44."
So much has been learned about revolver loading and what it takes that if you have one that won't shoot, do more work and research. They will surprise you.

Everyone has their own biases, and I have mine as well:

Single action revolvers are the only way to go -- particularly for big bores -- with the only real choices being Ruger Blackhawks (customized or not); Freedom Arms; or completely custom guns such as those produced by Gary Reeder and several others. They'll all do the job satisfactorily -- you just have to go at least partially custom if you like your tools fancy or you want to go with a wildcat chambering.

I personally favor 44 Magnums; 44 Specials 454's and 475 L/B's -- with my absolute favorites being the wildcats based on the latter two -- they retain almost all the effectiveness while significantly reducing chamber pressures and, therefore, felt recoil.

You can go bigger - and I often do in Africa -- but, they're really overkill for anything in North America excepting the Alaskan Brown Bear.

your asking a hell of alot out of a revolver if you want 1.5 inch accuracy. Bottom line is that if you have to ask your probably not capable of doing it yourself anyway. It takes a very skilled handgunner to shoot ANY handgun that well. Then you have to look at a revolver and understand that every time you cock it your shooting a differnt gun then the last shot. A revolver has 5 or 6 different chambers that your firing rounds out of and its tough enough to get a bolt action rifle to shoot groups like that let alone a revolver with 6 differnt chambers. Then you will probably have to shoot thousands of rounds of diffent handloads varying every component to find a majic combination that capable of shooting that well in your gun. Just to many things are against you. I jump up and down when i can get a scoped revolver to shoot 3 inch groups at a 100 yards. Ive shot groups as small as you are talking about but i am just not capable of doing it each and every time and theres a big difference between getting lucky and shooting a 1.5 inch group then there is in doing it all the time and claiming your gun and you are capbable. Probably the best platform to start with if your really wanting to get there is a fA gun. But even at that price and quality level theres no guanatee you will get there. Then too i have to ask why. A revolver is a 100 yard maximum tool in most very experienced handgunners hands and even a gun that will shoot 4 inch groups at that distance is accurate enough for any handgun hunting situation. A guy can get way to anal about finding a majic load. Im guilty of it myself sometimes. The best dammed thing you can do to make yourself a good handgun hunter is to find a good load that will group into 4 inches or less at the range your hunting and then pack up all the stuff on your bench and start shooting from field positions. Thats much better use of your range time.

Well said Lloyd, nobody can do it all the time even with a rifle. My opinion is that a good revolver can shoot surprisingly well compared to the old days when everyone thought 7 yd's was far. Even today, a lot of guys will not stray beyond 25 yd's.
Most of our revolvers will group as good at 100 yd's today then the older guns did at 25.
No, I would not expect 1-1/2" all the time but 1" or less is possible but not all the time either. I would say 3" most of the time can be done. 4" is enough for any hunting.
But think back when everyone thought 6" at 25 yd's was super accuracy.
Elmer Keith knew better then that. We have surpassed him with the powders, boolits and the precision that revolvers are made with.
The old Colts were well built and fit perfect but since then Colt has not come up out of the dark ages and their newer guns are not near as good or as strong as other brands.
S&W .44's are accurate but will not take a pounding.
The only things left are the Freedoms, Rugers and BFR's for top accuracy and strength.
I don't know about the new, real large S&W's but they sound good too. I can't afford one.

A few years back Ross Seyfried wrote an article for G&A about his efforts to create a 1 moa revolver. For my money mechanical accuracy from the bench is only one of many factors. Practical accuracy in the field under hunting conditions - with a pistol I can wear on my belt - is another altogether. Who wouldn't love to know that his hunting revolvers will shoot into 1.5 inches at 100 yards? But if a fella can't duplicate that group without using a four pound pistol fitted with a scope, shot from a benchrest, in fair weather with perfect light, what does it really matter? I figure my maximum practical range is that at which every shot will land inside a six inch bullseye (maybe eight inch if the critters are larger than deer) and get closer if I can and pass on shots when I must. All that said a revolver that drops hunting loads into 1.5 moa would be an envy-inducing implement, so please keep us posted.

My opinion is that accuracy matters as the top priority with any gun for any purpose. It cuts down on misses at any distance when off the bags or even if you have open sights.
I like a gun that will put the boolit where the sights are when the trigger breaks so I can call every shot. Ok to miss as long as I can tell where the shot went.
Any gun that shoots somewhere else other then where it is aimed will be sold. You just have to accept a little larger group with a revolver but if it will only shoot 1 foot patterns, it is no good.
Lets say that all you can hold and shoot off hand at 100 yd's is 1 foot. Now you have to add the other foot to it from the poor shooting of the gun itself.
If you can shoot a 6 inch group and the gun shoots 3" or less, you will seldom stray out of 6". At the most you might get 9". Better then 2 feet!

quote:

Originally posted by Grumulkin:
. . . What I want is for a scoped revolver to be able to do 3 shot 1.5 inch or better groups at 100 yards off the bench consistently.

Maybe such a revolver doesn't exist. If you know of one or a custom revolver dude who can cook one up, I would appreciate more information on it.

I own Super Redhawk 480s and Freedom Arms 475 Linebaughs. I shoot with open sights and with UltraDot L/Ts.

Your goal of 1.5 inches at 100 yards is admirable. Keep in mind that some of that accuracy is mechanical; some is human. While there is an enormous difference between Ruger SRH and Model 83 prices, the only substantive difference between the revolvers' usefulness I detect is the Model 83's superior trigger action. SRH 480s have very good triggers. My M83's is that much crisper. This difference is not reflected in significantly tighter shot groups, though. I think the human factor takes over.
***
Shooting accuracy to which you aspire is not necessary for shooting successfully at handgun (revolver) ranges, so you may be pursuing a will o' the wisp. Single shot pistols are capable of using longer, more streamlined bullets to take advantage of such accuracy. The revolvers I use put a limit of about .400 inch from crimp groove/cannelure to nose, give or take. This forces use of blunt bullets whose shape and composition function somewhat differently from the rifle-like characteristics of single shot pistols.

What is at least as important as previous discussion is that by creating a rifle-like accuracy with rifle-like trajectory, you are depriving yourself of the revolver hunter's most prized gift -- to hunt up close. My first whitetail deer was shot at three yards. And it was unaware of my presence on the ground next to him. While a week's worth of loving from a prima ballerina of the Kirov Ballet is a better rush; it's not orders of magnitude better.

I also wonder why the restriction of 1.5" at 100 yards. The critter you shoot wont have a care if it is a 1.5" gun or a 3" gun unless you are trying to shoot squirrels.

I know 1.5 inch groups out of a revolver is a lot to ask; that's why I'm asking you experienced revolver shooters for your opinions and I appreciate all.

As for my requirement of 1.5 inch groups off the bench at 100 yards, that would be because as some have mentioned above, though not shot from a field position, it is a good measure of what a handgun is capable of. I also know that a revolver doesn't have to be capable of that accuracy if I'm shooting a deer at 5 yards but at 5 yards I could just as well use a spear. I think I have the right to expect good accuracy from a modern well constructed handgun. We let gun manufacturers off too easy when we accept 6 inch groups.

For those who question the need for such accuracy, consider my recent RSA hunt. I used an Encore 460 S&W Magnum to take 12 animals at ranges up to 180 yards. The 180 yard animal was a Klipspringer; not a very large animal and there was no way I was ever going to get a closer shot; it was take it then or lose it. I could never had gotten that animal if I hadn't had a handgun capable of the accuracy of which I speak.

i know that guys that shoot 460s and even 454s which i shoot myself will tell you differntly but if im going on a hunt that will include 150 yard shots at deer im leaving the handguns (especially revolvers) at home and am taking a rifle with me. Theres not one shooter in a 1000 that is capable of hitting a deer sized animal in the vitals EVERY time. Bottom line is when chooseing a weapon for a hunt you owe it to the game your shooting to do just that. everytime means just that EVERY time. Not 99 times out of a hundred but EVERY time. I dont know, maybe your one of those gifted shooters but im sure as hell not. Now give me a gun like a scoped contentor in a flat shooting rifle round, a month to work up a load and a 2 lb trigger and maybe then id try a 150 yard shot with a handgun.

Can it be done with an off the shelf revolver?
YES! All the time, well maybe not but enough to make it interesting.
Here is a picture. The left targets were shot at 100 yd's with my SBH, one with the Lee 310 gr, one with my 330 gr WLNGC and the one in the cardboard with a Speer jacketed. Several shots were called out of the group, my fault.
The right targets are 200 yd's, one with my .475 and a WFNPB, 420 gr's. (Not too good but I was measuring drop.) The .44 group was also a drop test, three shots in 1-5/16". (I use red dots that blot out targets, very hard to group.)
The one paint can was shot at 100 yd's with the RD boolit from my SBH, three in the bottom so I aimed higher and centered it. The other can was shot twice at 100 with the .475 BFR. (One hole.)
The two pop cans were shot at 200 yd's with a SRH. I centered a paint can with my .475 at 200 yd's but the can is down on the range all shot up now.
Whitworth and I have been shooting off hand at 100 yd's and are holding about 6" with our .475's. (Converted SRH and a BFR.) We can hit a liter bottle once or twice with a cylinder full and a gallon jug of water is easy. Just depe nds on the shakes of the day.

I like my deer shots 50 yd's or less but with a deer in the right position, I have no problem dumping them off hand at 100 yd's. Anything farther would require a drop to Creedmore and a perfect estimation of drop at the range. I just don't do it. Drop estimation has to be too perfect. For instance, my .44 drops around 35" at 200, the .475 is 18" and the 45-70 BFR is 16". I won't do it on any animal.
The .460 would shoot very flat but I just don't like the destruction of the light expanding bullets. A friend sent me a picture of a deer he shot at 140 yd's and both shoulders were GONE. I like the shoulders, good meat.

quote:

Originally posted by bfrshooter:
My opinion is that accuracy matters as the top priority with any gun for any purpose.

Hmmn... If accuracy was a fella's top priority he'd build a 25 pound rail gun with a 15 inch barrel. He'd have a handgun but it wouldn't much of a pistol. I like mechanical accuracy as much as the next fella - and absolutely prize effective shot placement - but the practical difference in the field between a handgun that will shoot into 3 inches instead of 1-1/2 at 100 yards will be all but imperceptible on large game. To use your example, a 12 moa shooter with a 3 moa handgun shoots into 15 inches compared to the 13-1/2 inch group he'd get with a 1.5 moa gun. Pinkmisting rodents is a different hobby altogether. Shooting klipspringer at 150 yards falls somewhere between these two extremes and calls for a very serious revolver and some mighty fancy shooting. Have a fine day!

But you just have to admit, an inaccurate gun is just no fun!
Even a .22 that shoots a foot group at 25 yd's is not worth keeping and you would also dump it.
There is just no way to say accuracy is not needed and is a waste of time.
Do you think I would be happy shooting a tin can at 7 yd's when I can do it at 200 yd's?
There is no way for me to accept a gun that just goes bang.
And you have to admit, my groups were not shot with a rail gun but out of the box revolvers all of you can buy. All I do is a trigger job.
But I know how to load ammo.
I hate to show you what I get with single shot pistols! How about 5 shots in 3/8" at 100 yd's from an MOA 7BR, 10" barrel?
We can't turn this into a pissing match. You are wrong saying accuracy does not matter.

Guess I never considered accuracy NOT being vital to any sort of shooting. I've seen it often in others where only "close" was necessary. But I've shot trees that were "close" to animals I'd intended to shoot. I'm no where close to the accuracy of bfr, but I was raised on driving range golf balls until you could no longer see them. If YOU do everything right, it seems paramount that the gun perform exactly the same way every time the trigger is squeezed. How else do you find out if it's you or the gun that's doing the missing?

Lloyd, that's a good point about electing to take a rifle, but as you well know, deer seldom bother to play fair. I sight my 460 in for shooting out to 200 yards just in case. Nothing bothers me more than the thought of sitting in a treestand with a pistol and have Mr. Wonderful pose for me at that distance and knowing I couldn't make the shot. I'm not so brazen as to say I would bust him every time at that yardage, but I want to be prepared, just in case, and I have all intentions of dropping the hammer if he actually does stand there for me.

I guess what I'm getting from this discussion is that there are precious few revolvers that could do what I would want it to do. Redhawk1 said his S&W revolver could to it, good things were said about Reeder guns and about Freedom Arms revolvers. I'll have to look into those a little further. I have shot Smith & Wesson's 460 & 500 S&W Mag. revolvers but they were owned by someone else and I have never given either a fair test of their accuracy.

In hunting, people miss with rifles as well as handguns. I am happy to say that after 2 trips to Africa, nothing I shot there got away wounded either after being shot with a rifle or a handgun. On the last trip I took 14 animals; all with my handgun except two. The two with the rifle were mainly because since I had brought it all that way I thought I should use it for something.

Ranges of the animals taken with my handgun on the two trips were from a close 35 yards up to 180 yards with most being in the 80 to 120 yard range. I also know that the bullet drop of my handgun between 100 and 200 yards is 7.5 inches; that's little enough of a drop to be able to compensate for with confidence.

As for meat damage, it's not as much as you might think at least with the bullets I use but they still put the animal down with authority. Also, my handgun is scoped with a 2 lb. trigger, I've worked up an accurate load for it and I've practiced with it. The target pictured is a 3 shot group (one bullet went in the same hole) measuring 0.561 inches from center to center.

Grumulkin, Don't give up on a revolver. They WILL shoot. Don't miss out on the fun even though you might have to shorten the distance a little. There is no reason not to have both revolvers and single shots. I have both and will take the revolver hunting every time.
There is nothing more pleasing then dropping an animal at 50 to 100 yd's off hand with a revolver compared to putting a short rifle on sticks and shooting a little farther.
You are bench resting that short rifle.

I may get flamed for this but a smith 460 or a 10 inch scoped fa gun isnt really my idea of a handgun hunt. Personaly before id pack a 5lb handgun id take a rifle. My idea of handgun hunting is carrying a gun i can pack handly in a hip holster. Ive seen guys with 5lb handguns and even have seen them with bipods on them. I guess it would be no more thrill for me to take a deer with a scoped 10 inch revolver then it would be with a peep sighted levergun. To me handgun hunting puts the hunting back in hunting. Getting within the range of your ablitiy to take an animal with a open sighted revolver is what put the thrill in handgun hunting. to me carrying a big scoped handgun and claiming your a handgun hunter is about like carrying a crossbow and claiming your a bow hunter. But thats just my opinion and i know alot of guys disagree with it and like and use guns i dont care for. I respect there opinion and as long as it meets the letter of the law its none of my bussiness what they use. Give me a nice sunny day with snow on the ground, a thick swamp and a 4 inch N frame or a 5.5 inch or less blackhawk and im in heaven.

Lloyd as much as I respect your opinion, I think you are dead wrong on this one.

A handgun is a handgun no matter the barrel length, you still have to shoot it with your arms extended, and don't have a nice rest on your shoulder. And as for the crossbow vs the compound bow, there is no advantage a crossbow offers over a compound bow. The effective range of both are the same and the disadvantages of the crossbow makes up for the fact that one does not have to pull the bow back.

I use both short barreled handgun with open sights as well as a scoped handgun for hunting.

The only advantage my S&W 460 Mag offers over my iron sighted handguns are range, and how accurately I can shot the scoped gun at longer ranges.

I don't feel anyone is less of a hunter, because they choose to use something different then me.

What puts the hunt into hunting is the persons attitude not the implement they choose to hunt with.

quote:

Originally posted by Redhawk1:
Lloyd as much as I respect your opinion, I think you are dead wrong on this one.

This is a far cry from what I've seen on the forum in the past and a much better effort on discussing different views.

Personally, I don't agree with all of Lloyd's discussion either, but respect his opinion and thank him for expressing it.

Y'all have got to admit that a bipod kind of takes the hand out of handgun.......

Yes, thank you guys!
Lloyd, I don't disagree with you and have taken many deer with open sights and prefer them but when you get my age and the sights look like someone put them under the barrel instead of on top, you too will love a red dot!
I still use my Vaquaro .45 to hunt with and have taken a deer every year with it. Last season, the doe was over 50 yd's through a tiny hole in the brush. But, holy smokes, I had to hunt for the sights big time, moving my head up and down to try and clear them so I could still see the deer too. I need a LOT more light to see the sights.
All of my revolver hunting is done off hand without a rest. The larger guns are MUCH harder to master then a short light one. The heavy recoil is harder to master.
However, I hit as good off hand at 100 yd's as I do with a rifle. Shooting far with a rifle still needs a rest. Not many can hit a deer at 200 yd's off hand. Anything off hand beyond 100 yd's turns into a stunt that only an expert silhouette shooter might be able to do.
I am willing to bet that even with your rifle, you will take advantage of every option to steady the gun.

I use a rest where I can with a rifle or a handgun. Offhand when a rest isn't available or I need to snap shoot something. But that's just me.......

When I am using my handguns, and I am up close 50 yards and less, I will shoot off hand.

But with adrenalin running and a longer shot and if I have a chance, I will use a rest. I don't see anything wrong with making a good shot.

I don't have any bi-bod's attached to any of my handguns, but I will carry a set of shooting sticks that I use for walking as well as shooting.

To me shot placement is more important than how I shoot.

For me handgun hunting is not about how well or far I can shoot. It's about how well I can hunt and how close I can get. I can and have shot game at over 400 yards. Thats good shooting not good hunting. If you really want to impress me with your hunting skills show me the powder burns on the hide!

Chad

quote:

For me handgun hunting is not about how well or far I can shoot. It's about how well I can hunt and how close I can get. I can and have shot game at over 400 yards. Thats good shooting not good hunting. If you really want to impress me with your hunting skills show me the powder burns on the hide!

Chad

Wow, someone that agrees with me about the difference between hunting and shooting! I have been a bowhunter too long to be impressed with someone dumping a deer at 400 yd's. I sold my rifles long ago.
I too, like deer close and will wait if they are coming to me. Long shots are just good shooting without excitement.
No, you will never see me buy an inline muzzle loader either. I like the flinters and the Hawkin. Better yet is my cap and ball.
Guys say they can't get close because of the terrain but send a good archer to the same place and they come back with a deer.
I can't get too bad on guys though because there are some that fall down with the shakes when they see a deer at 200 yd's!

Hey, I am not talking about any of you fellas either! Just had to make sure ya know!

quote:

Originally posted by TEXASFIVEGUN:
For me handgun hunting is not about how well or far I can shoot. It's about how well I can hunt and how close I can get. I can and have shot game at over 400 yards. Thats good shooting not good hunting. If you really want to impress me with your hunting skills show me the powder burns on the hide!

Chad

I guess that is where we differ, I have bow hunted for many years (over 25 years) as well as handgun hunted. I have shot deer and hogs at under 5 yards with a bow and even a handgun. I have shot deer and Caribou at 300 yards with a rifle.

To me it was hunting, no matter the distance I took the shot from.
When you are telling people that it is not hunting, but shooting, when someone chooses to take a further shot, it is actually telling them they are not hunting.

I bow hunt, handgun hunt, rifle hunt and muzzleloader hunt. It is all hunting in my book. I don't have to have powder burns on my game for me to feel I am hunting.

You want to impress me, make good shot placement, no matter the distance.

And somewhere in Africa, there is a group of duggaboys lying around the thicket..." You want to impress me, show me the butt cheek skin on your horn bosses".

quote:

Originally posted by MS Hitman:
And somewhere in Africa, there is a group of duggaboys lying around the thicket..." You want to impress me, show me the butt cheek skin on your horn bosses".

LOL!! I think all hunting is cool, but I do like to get as close as I can. Stalking is an integral part of my hunt.

quote:

Originally posted by Whitworth:
Y'all have got to admit that a bipod kind of takes the hand out of handgun.......

.

YUP !!!
And I do agree with the point that a good shot is of utmost importance .......
Tho it isn,t the correct term I cal a 5 ,6,7 or 8 shot hunting hand gun with a revolving cylinder a pistol ...
Yes they can wear an optical sight and be carried in a big bandoleer holster , but generally they only have iron sights and are worn on a hip ..... In that guise they are some limited in range ...

Like Kieth said , the handgun is a weapon of opportunity , where as a rifle is a weapon of deliberation ......

Redhawk, of course it is all hunting, no dispute. It is only a personal thing when the excitment diminishes with range.
I have walked past deer to get in my stand. Something to do with the ambush thing. I guess I have been around them too long.
Seeing a herd in the field is like seeing a herd of cows. I could shoot deer off my deck or lay in the back yard and shoot them across the back field. Just no excitement. It's just another deer! I need to put myself in a position that the deer can catch a wrong move so I need to use skills to get a shot.
I love to track them in snow and almost never fail unless they go onto property I don't have permission to be on. I have tracked down and shot a ton of deer with a flintlock and the revolvers.
Jumping a deer from it's bed and killing it with a revolver is a whole lot better then sitting in an elevated house with a heater, coffee and sandwiches and shooting 200 yd's across a food plot from a rest with a rifle.
I don't know if I can call that hunting! I just have to be in an open tree stand or on the ground at close range. Have to suffer the elements too, shiver and shake. Sitting on a chair and opening your coat to cool off because the heater is too good does not appeal to me.
I can do that from my house. Watch TV and look outside once in a while. When a deer comes in the yard, slide the door open a little and pop it. If it is a book buck, then I need to make up a fantastic story about how I worked and hunted for weeks and outsmarted it. I sure couldn't say I shot it from my house!

quote:

Originally posted by gumboot458: Like Kieth said , the handgun is a weapon of opportunity , where as a rifle is a weapon of deliberation ......

This is definitely a weapon of deliberation! I don't feel many limitations with it (I guess we do with all weapons at some point), save for obviously really long ranges, but thisis more a function of my skills rather than the weapon's shortcomings as I have limited my shooting practice with it to 200 yards or so.

I understand what bfrshooter is saying as he wants more of a challenge while hunting than some of the scenarios we spoke of above. This is also why I don't hunt with my rifles much anymore........

And then I stll fall asleep in the tree!
One day in PA while bowhunting it was warm, then it rained and the temp fell out of the bucket dropping to below 20* and snowed like crazy. I had an inch of ice all over me and the bow. Had to keep breaking it off. I still dozed off. A deer came past on the wrong side and finally got into a spot for a shot. As I was raising my bow, my friend climbed out of his stand back in the woods and spooked it. He couldn't take the cold anymore.
It was still a good hunt, let alone falling asleep with a ton of ice on me!

Like i said its only my opinion and you know what thats worth! I like a challange in my hunt. I hunted for years with scoped bolt rifles and it got to the point that i didnt even get excited. Where i notice it was when i went bow hunting. My heart still would about come out of my chest with a bow. So then i figured id give handgun hunting a try. I started first with a scoped tc 14 inch contender in 7 waters and killed a few deer with it and found it was getting back to no excitement. I then switched to a scoped revolver and hunte a couple years with that and guess what? it got boring. then I went with a open sighted revolver and took along either a scoped handgun or rifle for a back up in case a low light situation or a deer was out of range of my open sighted ablility. just knowing i was cheating with that rifle took the fun out of it. Now i go into the woods with only a open sighted gun usualy one with a barrel under 5.5 inch. Now i get that same feeling as i do bow hunting. My deer hunting has gone from being able to hit anything i see to having to work for a good shot. The biggest advantage ive found is i can walk out of camp with a sixgun and i have both of my hands free. I also find that a scoped gun slowed me down to much for quick shots that present themselves and for me anyway its about impossible to use a scope off hand especially when trying to shoot fast. Try swinging a scoped revover on a deer walking through the woods. For me its about impossible to keep a field of view in a scope. I guess those long barreled scoped guns would be great for a gun that sits in a shooting house and hunts over bait but they just down work for me when still hunting and anymore thats about the only way i hunt. I guess the point i want to stress here more then anything is that it is a PERSONAL CHOISE. I would never critisize a gun someone else had. If it works for you use it. My biggest complaint with the long barreled scoped guns is it temps people that dont have handgun skills to try shots on game that are way out of there league. Most guys here are skilled handgunners and thats not a consern.

quote:

Originally posted by Redhawk1:
Lloyd as much as I respect your opinion, I think you are dead wrong on this one.

A handgun is a handgun no matter the barrel length, you still have to shoot it with your arms extended, and don't have a nice rest on your shoulder. And as for the crossbow vs the compound bow, there is no advantage a crossbow offers over a compound bow. The effective range of both are the same and the disadvantages of the crossbow makes up for the fact that one does not have to pull the bow back.

I use both short barreled handgun with open sights as well as a scoped handgun for hunting.

The only advantage my S&W 460 Mag offers over my iron sighted handguns are range, and how accurately I can shot the scoped gun at longer ranges.

I don't feel anyone is less of a hunter, because they choose to use something different then me.

What puts the hunt into hunting is the persons attitude not the implement they choose to hunt with.

Lloyd, thats why I like the red dots. I can see them but there is no magnification. Long shots are no farther then open sights can do. It is only a matter of vision. Not one of an advantage.
Years ago I could shoot smaller groups with open sights then I can with a red dot but those days are gone.