|
Post by 340wby on Sept 21, 2005 12:33:59 GMT -5
I know a few guys who use 44 mag,445 sm,454 cassul,ETC. revolvers to hunt almost excluesively, they take great pride in getting in close before firing and getting exactly the shot placement they want to acheive. several of these guys kill deer regularly(my self included ) but few of us Have had the opertunity to hunt ELK , with a revolver, while theres no question that a good hunter and shot can effectively kill ELK with a 44 mag,ETC. in an iron sight equiped revolver under the correct conditions, we tend to view those (CONDITIONS/LIMITS )differantly now I feel that shots should be limited to the range where you can place ALL your shots in a 6" circle,(thats about 120-130 yards for me personally with a revolver and iron sites) but Id like to see what you guys think are the reasonable ranges and limits on ELK and before someone brings it up......my personal feeling are that the use of non-revolvers and scopes effectively make it a totally differant and for me at least totally distasteful hunt, IF I wanted to be hunting with a 4.5 lb or heavier a bolt action or falling block with a scope and a 1barrel over 10" long Id be useing a carbine already as its certainly at least potenialy faster and easier to aim and hit with. unlike a REVOLVER that is more like archery hunting with a slight edge in repeat fire speed and range
|
|
|
Post by dakota on Mar 8, 2006 16:26:17 GMT -5
Sorry but the closest I would come to carrying a pistol/revolver for elk would be an ultra light rifle. Shooting at an elk with something like a revolver doesn't make sense to me. I see no reason for taking a chance at wounding such a magnificant animal. I believe that a .44 revolver would be much deadlier than shooting sticks (arrows) but there is no way I would think of doing that. I respect elk and I suspect most people that hunt them do also. It is just beyond my understanding why a person would do such a thing?
|
|
Gila
Grand Member
and a Vernier sight. It's marked up to twelve-hundred yards. This one shoots a mite further.
Posts: 622
|
Post by Gila on Sept 12, 2006 17:55:23 GMT -5
The 44 Mag is not suitable as an elk cartridge from a rifle. It is certainly not suitable to use if fired from a handgun. I regularly use a 44 mag to hunt with and wouldn't even think about using it on an elk, even at 10 paces. There isn't enough energy or penetration to do the job. I have seen elk hit properly with all sorts of reasonably large calibers with minimal effect to the animal. No, the 44 Mag is definately not an elk cartridge.
|
|
|
Post by xphunter on Sept 12, 2006 21:36:58 GMT -5
The 44MAg, 45LC, and 454 Casual all will reliably drop elk when using hardcast bullets heart/lung shot. For those I know who consistenly use the 44 they usually put a max limit of 100 yards. The Casual can go further performance wise. AS mentioned, one's skill with iron sights and field rests can be an equally determining factor depending on the style of hunting, terrain, and physical condition and state of mind of the hunter.
As for scoped revolvers or single shot specialty handguns it is a preference of style. They are harder & slower to use in the field than a rifle, but that is part of challenge I enjoy. When I do use a revolver for hunting deer and or elk (FA 454 C) I have used a 2x LER scope. My personal limit with my FA 454 was 125 yards under good conditions (300 grainer 1775 fps).
|
|
|
Post by deputydon on Sept 12, 2006 23:06:13 GMT -5
As always shot placement and pratice,pratice,pratice.....
|
|
Gila
Grand Member
and a Vernier sight. It's marked up to twelve-hundred yards. This one shoots a mite further.
Posts: 622
|
Post by Gila on Sept 12, 2006 23:29:32 GMT -5
xphunter, I have seen a lot of elk shot using all sorts of weapons. You can preach whatever you like, but a 44 mag is no elk weapon. I shoot a 300g Sierra in my Dan Wesson and would never even attempt to use it. The problem is not that the cartridge will not kill the animal. The problem is that it lacks enough energy to drop it on the spot and the projectile will not leave a decent exit hole for tracking purposes. Elk tend to go a long ways when not hit with enough energy. Tracking can be tough even when they are shot using a normal elk cartridge from a rifle. The key to success is to have an exit hole in order to leave a decent blood trail. I absolutely can not agree with your reasoning at all. I'm not entirely sure how many elk you have shot or have seen shot, but I do not agree with your reasoning based on my experience. Misleading information has been responsible for a lot lost Elk and will continue to account for lost animals as long as hunters are convinced to use inadequate weapons. The animals deserve better than that. Certainly, a 44 Mag under ideal circumstances will kill the animal, but we seldom get ideal circumstances in the real wild hunting world where we offer fair chase. Of course, shot placement is the key to success, but that isn't the only consideration here.
|
|
|
Post by dakota on Sept 13, 2006 8:53:34 GMT -5
Perhaps, there are a couple of cartridges that might be considered elk rounds at close distance. A long barrelled .358 Winchester on an XP action for instance. But it would not be for me. By the time I would have a 7 pound pistol my question would be, "Why not use a carbine?" Say a 600 Remington in 350 Mag or such. I don't mean to offend but shooting an elk with a pistol seems more like a stunt than anything else. Why do it?
|
|
|
Post by xphunter on Sept 13, 2006 15:52:07 GMT -5
I'm not about to say I have taken elk with a 4 Mag., because I haven't, but I have taken a number with specialty handguns and witnessed a number of others with like or the same SP I was using. IMO those that religously use big more revolvers to hunt elk with are not stunt shooters and they probably lose less animals % wise than rifle hunters, since they know the limits and they use the right bullets (hard cast designs) that fully penetrate. Concerning specialty pistols: Even though these are rifle cartridges they will run about 250-300 fps slower than the same cartridge in a rifle. So you can do the math on the MV's. I may have left one or two out but these are the elk that myself & my hunting partners who use SP's have taken. most of these are mine since Steve (most years) hunts elk with a bow, and Mitch and Marc have only taken one a piece 2 cows 260 Rem. MOA, 75 yards (1-shot kills/120 bullet complete pentration with good expansion) 6.5-284 XP two cow elk beyond 200 yards 140 grain bullet 1 shot kills 284 Win XP 2 bulls and 5 or 6 cows 140NP (Found at far side under hide or exited) couple were 200 yards but the rest were further. I put more than one shot in one of the bulls because my first was a tad far back, but he couldn't wouldn't move and the other was kill shot on a wounded cow from a 338 WM rifle. 3 cows 7.82 Patriot XP ( 150 NBT & 180 SGK-all exited). One these cows I put three shots into. She didn't move after the first shot (heard meat report) and I sent two others. While cleaning we found all the entrance hole were under 3" in diameter, so in essence the 2nd and 3rd shot were not doing all that much more damage. I have missed shooting at elk before, but to date I have not lost anything I have connected with. The majority have been one shot kills or the animal was dead and didn't know it yet, so I kept sending them. I go for double lung shots and am very careful about presentation. My choice of SP's is what I enjoy and it is very capable of cleanly killing what I hunt. It takes me more time to set-up and make a shot (primarily prone and sometimes sitting or kneeling), but once I am set up I feel no disadvantage to a rifle hunter as far as my ability to put the bullet in the right place. I do not attempt snap-shots or moving shots. I recognize with my style those are shots I cannot be sure of.
|
|
|
Post by dakota on Sept 13, 2006 16:29:57 GMT -5
I did have a 7mm int on a xp action (close to a 250 savage necked to 7mm). If it was loaded with 140NP and I kept the yardage close, I suspect that would be a sufficent cartridge. In my hands it would be a lot more lethal than an arrow, that is for sure. The game fish and parks departments of states don't give special seasons and the pistol shooters have to compete with rifle shooters everywhere I know. Some people will shoot 30-30's at elk. I knew a guy who used a 220 Swift. I bought a .338 Win Mag and I built up a 350 Rem Mag and I also have a 300 Win Mag. Since I have these rifles I won't use something smaller, but that is me. Even with these rifles I may be a little 'over-kill' as I would only shoot partitions in the 338 or 300. With the 350 I think the lower velocity would allow a standard bullet.
I don't wish to say that no one should be able to use smaller guns, be it rifles or pistols.
|
|
|
Post by klsm54 on Sept 13, 2006 21:59:39 GMT -5
I surely don't think a 44 magnum would be my preferred Elk medicine, in revolver or rifle. Living here in the east, Elk hunts are a luxury. So if I was to venture west, I'd choose something more appropriate.
But, if I was fortunate to live in Elk country I'd probably have to harvest an Elk with my 44 magnum. I'm thinking maybe if I had lots of time, could hunt close to home where I knew the country and the Elk, and more than likely a cow would be my target with my Super Blackhawk.
As far as power, I'm pretty darned sure I wouldn't be dropping even a cow in it's tracks. But I think with proper bullet choice, and placement, I could have two holes to form a blood trail. A good hardcast Keith style, 300 grains, ought to poke through both sides if you don't take on the shoulder bone. Of course the range would have to be sensible, under 75 yards.
|
|
|
Post by calsibley on Sept 13, 2006 23:33:24 GMT -5
My friend has a Ruger Super Blackhawk in .44 Magnum. I'm sitting here trying to picture myself shooting it from 100yds. at the range. I don't even want to guess at the size groups I'd shoot with his revolver, muchless actually killing an elk with it. It seems to be asking an awful lot of a weapon. I doubt that I'm up to it and suspect few of us are. Best wishes.
Cal - Montreal
|
|
|
Post by xphunter on Sept 14, 2006 9:56:36 GMT -5
Cal, You make a good point. The practice it takes to be proficient with a Revolver at that distance can be time consuming. When I use a revolver I want either a 2x or 4x LER scope. I am near sighted and so using iron at further distances is not my desire since field conditions don't always work out the way you want. And at that range, I sure wouldn't be shooting off-hand and I would have practiced in field conditions beyond that range to ensure I was capable of making a clean shot.
|
|
|
Post by dakota on Sept 14, 2006 10:16:31 GMT -5
When I was shooting silhouette, I could shoot 2.5 inch groups with my 44 at 100 yards (prone). If I were to try to duplicate that any more I am sure I would have to mount a scope and shoot the gun off bags.
One of my borther-in-laws shot a decent elk with a 30-06 using Sierra bullets 165 grain, I suspect before the pro-hunter was available. He trailed that elk all day, he lost it. Since then I have vowed never to be undergunned when hunting big game.
And I practice a lot - usually all year long - even with the rifles.
|
|
|
Post by klsm54 on Sept 14, 2006 13:09:11 GMT -5
I am wayyyyy beyond attempting to hunt with an open sighted revolver. True, it's a bigger challenge, but my eyes and open sights don't seem to get along any more.
My Super Blackhawk is the Hunter Model, with integral scope rings. I never fired it without it's 2x Leupold sitting on top of it. With that scope it will keep it's shots right around 2" at 75 yards, which should suffice for any shooting I'll ever do. As far as off-hand, I don't even like to shoot a rifle off-hand at any distance. If I was taking on an Elk with a 44 Magnum, I would be well situated with a steady rest.
A pursuit such as handgun hunting takes planning and preperation. I too would think a hunter to be a little goofy if he just went out wandering around the mountains looking for an Elk to blaze away at, offhand, with his shiny new revolver. Realisticly though, I think you will find most handgun hunters to be very dedicated and well prepared. And part of that preperation is knowing your guns limitations, and making sure you keep within those limitations.
|
|
Gila
Grand Member
and a Vernier sight. It's marked up to twelve-hundred yards. This one shoots a mite further.
Posts: 622
|
Post by Gila on Sept 14, 2006 16:35:46 GMT -5
I've personally lost two different bulls using a puny little 270 loaded with 150g Nosler Partitions. Both hit just fine I might add. A 270 Win is a piss poor elk cartridge and from my experience, the 7mms aren't much better. When I was guiding full time, we were unable to locate bulls after being shot an a few occasions when the bull was definately hit properly with a decent cartridge/load combination by most people's standards. In my opinion, a hunter should be restricted to a minimum of 30 cal (preferably 33 cal) and even better if it has a belt on it. There's my opinion on the subject after tracking elk throughout the mountains for many, many years. I'll not entertain the notion of using a 44 mag any longer. It's a ridiculous notion at best.
|
|