Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 49

Thread: HANDGUNS FOR DISPACH

  1. #1

    HANDGUNS FOR DISPACH

    How many people use a handgun for dispatching deer?

    Why?

    When still allowed in the UK, I did a fair bit of pistol shooting and owned several. I have also had a permit for a .32. for dispatching foxes[I was the hunt terrierman]

    Having dealt with many RTA's and wounded deer I can't see the point of a hand gun.

    When dealing with rta's I normally take

    in an area with housing and public - a .22 rifle [moderated]

    open countryside- deer rifle and a shotgun.

    If you a close enough to use a pistol , why not use a shotgun, which has been proven as the most effective weapon at close range on any species of animal.

    I get the impression that the ownership of a handgun is more of an "ego" thing rather than a practile solution.

    I'd be keen to hear others opinion

  2. #2
    A shot pistol would be even better, and easier to carry.

  3. #3
    >If you a close enough to use a pistol , why not use a shotgun, which has
    >been proven as the most effective weapon at close range on any
    >species of animal.


    Means lugging two full size guns around when stalking.

    I haven't had a use for one yet, but the thread about the neck shot hind that got away could have ended differently if he had had one.

  4. #4
    bambislayer,

    Why not use a pistol?

    Personally if its legal and its humane, I say leave it up to the individual to choose what they use..

    The Government and the Police already restrict our freedoms, so lets not start doing it to each other too...

    Regards,

    Peter

  5. #5
    SD Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    East Midlands M1/M69 Junction 21
    Posts
    5,399
    If you a close enough to use a pistol , why not use a shotgun, which has been proven as the most effective weapon at close range on any species of animal.
    I really do wonder about some of the nonsense posted on this Forum. The whole point of a handgun for dealing with RTA is that it is discreet, less noisy, and can be carried out of sight in what looks just like a bag or case. Or even in the pocket of a coat.

    The task can be accomplished before assembled onlookers realise that it has been done. Assess the animal, judge a safe position and direction to fire. Take out the gun, cock, fire, assess the animal, put the gun away.

    Maybe there are those who enjoy the "self importance" of wandering up shot gun in hand visible for all to see almost proclaiming "I'm the man that's come to shoot the dying animal. Look at me I'm important"? "Shall I use the rifle, shall I use the shot gun?"

    The spectacle of taking it out of the case, assembling it, screwing on the moderator, loading the cartridges etc., etc.

    Killing an animal isn't about blowing its head to pieces but maybe some here don't realise or know that. It is about destroying its brain AND central nervous system.

    This can be done better by a single well placed shot to the head and a pistol being more "handy" can give better shot options as well as having other advantages. Sometimes with a "pithing rod" to follow up.

    I don't have a pistol for "humane dispatch" and have never had one. I personally don't have the need. Although I did, sixteen or so years ago, have a 357 Magnum revolver on my FAC for shooting of feral goats. But not since 1996.

    I know that a pistol is a superior tool...why do vets and those at racecourses use them and not shot guns? And that this sort of nonsense just smacks of a "If I don't do it then nobody else should be allowed to do it either".

    If you're not happy. Fine. Do your shooting and stalking your way. Don't impose your own prejudices on others. There's even some on here might question why anyone would want a 300 WSM just to stalk deer!

  6. #6
    Like many here, I have had a decent amount of time with a handgun.

    Sorry ES - in my estimation, everything you say about the big 'I am' can be as easily applied to the man with a pistol, as opposed to a long arm.

    My shooting is more accurate with a rifle - to a longer range than with a handgun. This is something that can be very handy if the casualty is still mobile. A shotgun however, scores by avoiding overpenetration.

    Perhaps the ideal answer? A Drilling or BBF!

    I admit to being a bit biased on this one!



    Rgds Ian

  7. #7
    If you've ever had to *crawl* after a wounded/injured beast into heavy cover such dense sitka spruce thicket, you would immediately see the benifits of a handgun.

    Personally, I don't see a pistol as an alternative to a rifle or shotgun, rather just another additional choice open to the stalker dealing with an RTA.

    I don't own a pistol currently, but having used them in the past, I would much prefer to dispatch a beast with a pistol than a knife. If the beast is still relatively mobile, in most circumstances a long arm of some description is probably going to be a better choice.

    But as I said in my first post, if its legal and humane, let the individual decide if they want to use a pistol or not...

  8. #8
    SD Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    East Midlands M1/M69 Junction 21
    Posts
    5,399
    Sorry ES - in my estimation, everything you say about the big 'I am' can be as easily applied to the man with a pistol, as opposed to a long arm.
    Got it spot on!


    Devil's Advocate! All, as you say, that can be said against the perception of one method can be said against perception of the other method.

    Personally I don't think they are necessary. But that's for what I do. Other people may have a different viewpoint. Neither is "right" nor "wrong" I just find it tiresome when others seek to impose their viewpoint on others.

    And the thread started by a man who uses a 300 WSM on deer!

    (Enjoyed the picture of the BRNO. I tested one of these for an article in Shooting Times in the 1992. Chambered in .223 under 12 or 20 bore)

  9. #9
    its just another think to carry and look after .i have a HK usp 9mm .i would never carry it stalking ,as a stalker you would look like a total fxxxxxg ejit greeding a client with a side arm strapped on .

  10. #10
    I used handguns an a recreational basis for about 25 years till they were prohibited. I was always aware that they were (with their owners) viewed with suspicion not just by the general public but also by mainstream shooters. However even I was dissapointed by the tidalwave of apathy, when it came to supporting pistol shooters.

    There is just something about a weapon that can be hidden and is capable of multiple shots that causes concern.

    I have never used a handgun for humane dispatch but I have a shotgun and I have absolutely no doubt that if I needed a weapon for that purpose (and especially if there were members of the public about) that the pistol would be my weapon of choice. The reason why they are disliked, makes them ideal for the job. Concealable, easy and fast to use and without the mess made by the alternatives.

    If you live in a society that judges everyone on the basis of the lowest hanging fruit (like we all do) then I am sure we can all work out that the process will not stop. I remember thinking twenty odd years ago that at some point the only users of firearms would be the police the criminals and a very limited number of certified professionals. We are getting there. We cannot stop the process in this country but we might be able to slow its progress. That can only be done if we work together.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •