Author Topic: Why Scope a Hunting handgun? (Read 2553 times)

jeager106 · « **on:** April 12, 2006, 06:54:42 PM »

Relax everyone. I'm not trying to start a war.
I'm just looking for you opinions and a place to simply share my thoughts.
I have owned a T/C 14" Contender in .44 mag with a T/C 2 X scope.
It shot like a rifle.
I could get 1" groups at 100 occasionally with a firm bench rest.
It also carried like a rifle.
The more I used it the more I didn't like it and I began to see the thing for what it was.
A sawed off rifle that was not as good as a rifle nor as portable as a handgun.
I bought a Ruger Redhawk in . 44 mag with (I think) 7.5" barrel and scoped it.
It was not as accurate at the T/C and still carried like an old refridgerator.
The RH was a good solid revolver but carried like a boat anchor.
I now have several big bore Smiths three big bore Rugers.
All .41, .44, and .45 Colt.
I'm older and don't see the sights as well as I once did but I consider the hunting hangun to be a short range proposition in the 1st place, up to 100 yards IF you are a good shot.
So why 10" and longer barrels, with scopes, and slings on a weapon best suited to under 100 yards and really optimum at 50?
Merely curious.

Dusty Miller · « **Reply #1 on:** April 12, 2006, 09:02:52 PM »

Truth of the matter is there ARE folks who can do at 200 yrds what most of us can barely do at 100 but it really takes dedication and perseverance.

jeager106 · « **Reply #2 on:** April 13, 2006, 12:49:58 AM »

Quote from: Dusty Miller

Truth of the matter is there ARE folks who can do at 200 yrds what most of us can barely do at 100 but it really takes dedication and perseverance.

Wow!
Two hundred yards with a handgun?
I can accept that with a 14" barreled Contender type, with scope, sling, steady rest, V-8 engine and mag wheeels, but how about a 6" revolver with issued sights?
Seriously. I'm not trolling for an argument but 200 yards is a long shot with any handgun.

Redhawk1 · « **Reply #3 on:** April 13, 2006, 01:34:14 AM »

I shoot good with open sights out to 50 yards. The reason I like to either put a scope or red-dot on my handguns is, I can get better accuracy out at the further ranges. I don't have to align two sights, I either put the cross hairs where I want them or put the dot where I want the bullet to go. In the woods and low light conditions the red-dot is a lot easier to find over the iron sights. My hunting handguns only have barrels from 5 inch to 7 5. inches. Plus I have diabetes and sometime it plays with my vision not often, and the scope or red-dot in my opinion makes for a more accurate shot. I think we as hunters owe the game our best shot and if a scope or red-dot do that, then that is what I will do. My only gun that I carry during hunting that does not have a scope or red-dot is my back up handgun, which is my 4 inch 500 Mag. All my CCW handguns are iron sights, but I don't have a problem shooting them.

As far as a handgun being like a rifle, I don't see it like that. No matter the barrel length, a handgun is not as stable as a rifle held up to the shoulder. Yes a handgun can shoot like a rifle, but it is still held like a handgun.

TGFOGAL · « **Reply #4 on:** April 13, 2006, 02:20:22 AM »

About 6 years ago a deer was running in my direction and when I lined the sights up they were blurry, I raised my head to use the center lens of my trifocals then I could see the sights but the deer was blurred. That is when I bought a Holo sight. It works great. The next year I got two bucks with it. The Holo is on a RB 454.
Last year I use a 2.5x8 Leupold on a PC S&W500, its good for a little longer range but a deer moving in the woods is hard to fined quickly like the Holo can.
Tom

Special Ed · « **Reply #5 on:** April 13, 2006, 02:27:44 AM »

Quote from: jeager106

Quote from: Dusty Miller
Truth of the matter is there ARE folks who can do at 200 yrds what most of us can barely do at 100 but it really takes dedication and perseverance.

Wow!
Two hundred yards with a handgun?
I can accept that with a 14" barreled Contender type, with scope, sling, steady rest, V-8 engine and mag wheeels, but how about a 6" revolver with issued sights?
Seriously. I'm not trolling for an argument but 200 yards is a long shot with any handgun.

Ernie (xphunter) should be here any second now.....

He takes long range handgunning to a new level.

Ed

Questor · « **Reply #6 on:** April 13, 2006, 03:30:19 AM »

You're right jaeger, it does get a bit absurd, especially now that some hunting handguns weigh more than rifles chambered for more powerful and flatter shooting cartridges.

Most of the animals I've shot with a handgun have been on the plains at ranges between 150 and 275 yards, so for me the scoped TCs definitely have a place. For strictly short range shooting I prefer an iron-sighted revolver, although the new compact red dot sights like the Docter that adjust their own dot intensity are a superior option. I've got one of these sights on a target pistol and it's excellent. It's small enough to fit on a holstered revolver without using a special scoped-handgun holster. But for serious hunting I always want some kind of scope on a handgun. The scopes are just superior, particularly in dim light where iron sights simply disappear.

As far as carry-ability, I think the big handguns are more burdensome than rifles because rifles are designed to be slung, whereas slung handguns are awkward to carry. Also, the big holsters for scoped handguns are like wearing an ironing board.

Of course, all these complaints miss the point of handgun hunting entirely. We hunt with handguns for the challenge of it, not to have a compact gun. Most of us, anyway.

jeager106 · « **Reply #7 on:** April 13, 2006, 06:05:05 AM »

Yes, the challenege of it is why I would hunt with a handgun.
The Redhawk I had with scope attached was like toting an ironing board.
My Smiths are older "N" frames and I don't fancy drilling a hole in any one of them.
The only revolver I own that I would consider hanging a scope from would be my new modle Bisley Blackhawk in .45 Colt.
It's about 6 years old. Would I have to drill it to mount a scope?
I confess that I might want a scope on one but the older Smiths with pinned and recessed ain't getting drilled, period.
I have a Ruger 45/22 5.5" heavy that wears a better Bushnell variable size red dot that can be changed to green.
I must admit that sucker will really, really, shoot. I got 5/8" at 25 yards with Wally World Fed, Hi vel. bulk pack h.p., more than good 'nuff to shoot squirrels.
That might be a real trip to use during bushy tail season next fall.

So can the new Ruger Bisley take a scope without drilling?
You see I'm not anti scope. I'm anti carrying an ironing board.
I enjoy the challenge that's why I hunt with bow, and traditional flintlocks.
A scope is still an option for me even if I would hunt from a tree stand and keep shots well under 100 and more like 50 yards while hoping for 50 feet.

Questor · « **Reply #8 on:** April 13, 2006, 06:33:00 AM »

jaeger:

I'm sure a lot of them have had scopes mounted for them. Before doing anything rash, I'd do a web search to see if I could find examples that I like. For example, what kind of scope mount, what kind of scope, color, brand of scope base, etc.

Shootist Elite · « **Reply #9 on:** April 13, 2006, 07:23:21 AM »

Hello I'am new to these forums as far as posting but have viewed them for a while now. I figured this was as good a time as any to join in on the fun. I personally have hunted with handguns be it either small game (squirrels) or big game (whitetail deer) for a little over 20 years. I've tried various types of handguns and sighting options be it scope or iron sights. I guess from my own experience and preference i prefer optical sights. The main reasons being the ability to make longer shots as well as more accurate shot placement. For small game I've used both red dot sights as well as variable power scopes. My own opinions are if your going for head shots only the red dot sights are good for about 35 yards where as the scope is good for between 50 - 60 yards. Now mind you this is providing for several factors. One is your own ability second is your equipment. I know some may argue that equipment isn't that critical but I believe it is. To me if your equipment cannot prove itself capable of superb accuracy under the best of conditions than how can you count on it under field conditions. To make shots such as what I've described you have to have a good resting postion from which to do it. It's best to have some sort of blind set up for this purpose. You also need to practice as often as you can so that you not only are familiar with your equipment but have absolute confidence in it. For Big game I prefer the red dot sights especially if your shots are inside 75 yards. I don't think you can beat them for practical accuracy, speed and ease. If you have an adequate cartridge you could probably get away with a shot out to 125 yards. I would prefer to stay inside 100 yards myself if possible.

corbanzo · « **Reply #10 on:** April 13, 2006, 08:53:07 AM »

Think the best shot i ever had was a quail at 60-75 yard range with open sights on my 9.5" barrel single six. Wouldn't try anything big at the range with open sights though... The cartridges they are coming out with now can be effecting at that range. I'd take a scoped shot with a .460mag at 200yards.

xphunter · « **Reply #11 on:** April 13, 2006, 01:23:10 PM »

jeager106,
If you decide to scope/optic a hunting revolver or semi-auto in a cartridge that is capable of downing, say a whitetail, you can find a reasonably light weight optic as Bushnell's compact Holosight (no magnification). The reasons for putting an optic on has already been mentioned. For me personally it does at least two things:
It extends my range (if the cartridge is capable and accurate enough)
It allows me to be more precise in bullet placement. I do some hunting with revolvers And i use a 2x or 4x LER scope. One is DA and the other is a SA. It does add bulk to the pistol and change it's balance. My deer and elk hunting is more open and I prefer spot-n-stalk. With a optic you can better shoot at LR, if you practice from field positions and confirm you and your pistols accuracy under non-benched conditions. I was not afraid to use my FA 454 Casuall out to 150-175 yards under ideal conditions. I would have never considered it w/out a scope.
Yes, I practice from off-hand, seated, prone and kneeling. I also carry shooting sticks to be as stable as possible.
Some of you guys may have thought I only shoot SP's, but I have and shoot both revolvers and Semi's. I use Bianchi's shoulder rig in the field.

S.B. · « **Reply #12 on:** April 13, 2006, 03:31:05 PM »

Quote from: Redhawk1

I shoot good with open sights out to 50 yards. The reason I like to either put a scope or red-dot on my handguns is, I can get better accuracy out at the further ranges. I don't have to align two sights, I either put the cross hairs where I want them or put the dot where I want the bullet to go. In the woods and low light conditions the red-dot is a lot easier to find over the iron sights. My hunting handguns only have barrels from 5 inch to 7 5. inches. Plus I have diabetes and sometime it plays with my vision not often, and the scope or red-dot in my opinion makes for a more accurate shot. I think we as hunters owe the game our best shot and if a scope or red-dot do that, then that is what I will do. My only gun that I carry during hunting that does not have a scope or red-dot is my back up handgun, which is my 4 inch 500 Mag. All my CCW handguns are iron sights, but I don't have a problem shooting them.

As far as a handgun being like a rifle, I don't see it like that. No matter the barrel length, a handgun is not as stable as a rifle held up to the shoulder. Yes a handgun can shoot like a rifle, but it is still held like a handgun.

I ditto that, even the diabetes. Well put. Some of us have not so obvious handicaps/

S.B. · « **Reply #13 on:** April 13, 2006, 03:32:36 PM »

Quote from: Redhawk1

I shoot good with open sights out to 50 yards. The reason I like to either put a scope or red-dot on my handguns is, I can get better accuracy out at the further ranges. I don't have to align two sights, I either put the cross hairs where I want them or put the dot where I want the bullet to go. In the woods and low light conditions the red-dot is a lot easier to find over the iron sights. My hunting handguns only have barrels from 5 inch to 7 5. inches. Plus I have diabetes and sometime it plays with my vision not often, and the scope or red-dot in my opinion makes for a more accurate shot. I think we as hunters owe the game our best shot and if a scope or red-dot do that, then that is what I will do. My only gun that I carry during hunting that does not have a scope or red-dot is my back up handgun, which is my 4 inch 500 Mag. All my CCW handguns are iron sights, but I don't have a problem shooting them.

As far as a handgun being like a rifle, I don't see it like that. No matter the barrel length, a handgun is not as stable as a rifle held up to the shoulder. Yes a handgun can shoot like a rifle, but it is still held like a handgun.

I ditto that, even the diabetes. Well put. Some of us have not so obvious handicaps/

Old Griz · « **Reply #14 on:** April 13, 2006, 05:23:10 PM »

:cb2: Ever since I saw that guy on TV bustin' balloons at 200 yards with a S&W .38 snubnose, I began to realize what a louzy shooter I am! These well over 50 year old eyes will take all the help they can get!

WL44 · « **Reply #15 on:** April 20, 2006, 03:10:22 AM »

Easy one. They look cool with long barrels and optics.

It's like why Lara Croft doesn't simply shoot a Glock 19. :grin:

slink · « **Reply #16 on:** April 20, 2006, 04:51:37 AM »

so it can look like you can regularly hit what you really get 10 misses to one hit. Munden was known for cheating at Fast Draw. He's the reason that they got away from "self start" draws, and went to all reaction time draws.

lovedogs · « **Reply #17 on:** April 20, 2006, 06:55:55 AM »

To scope or not to scope... that is the question. To my way of thinking there are so many variables to look at here. My Contenders are bulky enough already that a scope doesn't make them any more so. And they also shoot accurate enough to fully utilize a scope. Several of the calibers they come in are plenty accurate and powerful enough to shoot 200 yds. with practice and a good rest.

Large revolvers can be accurate enough for a scope to be an advantage, also. But, to me, a scope on, say, a 4 to 5 1/2 incher, doesn't make any sense. On something 6 inches and longer it does make sense.

In my own world I've sort of taken to using scopes on all my Contenders and left the revolvers with irons. I take something with a scope when the distance will be long or the light dim. On what will probably be short-range with good light I'll use an iron-sighted revolver. As I age and vision worsens I tend to be leaning more and more to the Contenders with scopes.

Here in Montana it's not legal to shoot big game with any electronic sight so I don't worry about red dots and such. Not only that, they don't work in cold weather, the Aimpoint being the exception here. And I can't afford an Aimpoint.

xphunter · « **Reply #18 on:** April 20, 2006, 11:03:33 AM »

"So why 10" and longer barrels, with scopes, and slings on a weapon best suited to under 100 yards and really optimum at 50?
Merely curious."

Here are some reasons:
#1 Preference. People are different and have different preferences.
#2 Accuracy. Some of the longer barreld SS in straight wall cases can turn in great accuracy. MY 7.5 inch FA 454 (scoped with either a 2x or 4x Leupold) would hold between 2.5-3 inches off the bench for 5 shots with heavy loads (31.5 grain H110 W/300 grain Hornady XTP=1775 fps). Revolvers can do that well and even better sometimes.
#3 With longer barrels you get more speed.
#4 Slings can be used not only to carry, but also aid in shooting if it is set-up correctly.
#5 Scopes. Less wounding (more precise shot placement), enhances low light situations and extends range if the rig is up to it.
#6 Capable. Some straight-wall cartridges are capable to cleanly down game beyond 100 yards.

No doubt that a 6 inch and under revolver w/iron sights have a # of advantages in and of themselves (and you mentioned some yourself) and I am not knocking that style of hunting, just attempting to thoughtfully respond to your first question.

Questor · « **Reply #19 on:** April 20, 2006, 11:33:03 AM »

Adding to the previous post....

The reason for the scopes, long barrels, and slings is that handgun hunters have learned over the years that some equipment works better than others. Guns like that have proven themselves in the field to be generally superior as handgun hunting tools. You can hunt with handguns that don't have those attributes, just as you can hunt mountain sheep with a shotgun. It all comes down to what works best for a particular application.

slink · « **Reply #20 on:** April 20, 2006, 11:48:27 AM »

They want the approbation of being able to do with a sidearm, what most men need a rifle to accomplish. but they can't DO it with a real sidearm, so they use various abortions to puff themselves up.

xphunter · « **Reply #21 on:** April 20, 2006, 12:48:13 PM »

slink,
I'm glad that you have pinned every man's motives and lack of abilities that uses a specialty handgun so precisely :-D
I have believed that only one man that walked on this earth had that kind of ability.
I'm not sure what has tweaked your emotions, but your statement is cutting a wide path.

lovedogs · « **Reply #22 on:** April 21, 2006, 12:13:12 PM »

Yeah, Slink... your comments do cut a wide path. They also are insulting to those of us who have gained the skills needed to hunt and make good, humane kills with any gun we choose.

Why are you so abrasive? Think about that for a minute. I thought we were a group of friends who all enjoyed our passions of hunting and shooting, people with a common bond. Why do you talk like that? I could probably come up with a few insults for you, too. Maybe insult your heritage or something dear to you. But I'm not that way. I won't lower myself to that. And I'd bet many here will agree with me. Try being nice to people and you might be surprised at how many will be nice to you.

'Nuff said

WL44 · « **Reply #23 on:** April 23, 2006, 09:51:55 PM »

Jeagar106 I apologise in advance for this thread drift, but I want to make a comment aside from what I said in jest earlier. I doubt that you intended this and I will limit the drift by not replying to any response to my post.

If we say it's cheating - as Slink says in the subject to his post - we open a whole new can of worms about what is cheating in hunting.

It's our obligation as hunters to try to achieve clean and humane kills. We owe our quarry our respect. If you don't feel that way I would encourage you not to hunt. (I seperate hunting and culling).

Few of us need to hunt to eat - we have supermarkets and butcheries - so hunting is (for most of us) an endeavour, not a necessity.

Each time we do something to make our chosen form of hunting more efficient (more humane usually) someone may argue that it's cheating. Bipods on rifles, scopes on rifles, laser rangefinders, flatter shooting and harder hitting calibres, scent block (as you guys have in the US) etc.

Part of the joy of carrying a handgun is that you can be in the outdoors with my both hands free. As someone else said you also need to be more in touch with other (different) aspects of the environment than a long range rifle hunter (e.g. less focus on wind speed, more on wind direction, more on camoflague and stalking, less on absolute pinpoint accuracy etc.).

It's all about tradeoffs and choices. Handgun hunting is like rifle hunting where you have a self imposed maximum range limit which is very short. As opposed to the "I can see 'em so I can hit 'em" position that you may find yourself in in certain (limited) rifle hunting situations. Does that mean you seek some form of admiration? I think not.

If guys are in any form of hunting for "approbation" of any type they are missing the point, in my opinion. To me it's about me, God and my quarry and my our own emotional / spritual journey into the relationship between all of those and what I feel when. And I seek no approbation for my position either, I'm just sharing how I view it.

Hunt once with someone whose ethics you discover you detest and you'll truly understand what I'm getting at. Look at someone's hunting photgraphs (which not everyone has) and sometimes you'll gain some insight as well.

All forms of hunting should still be about hunting.

How you do it and why you do it a certain way, or with certain equipment, is your personal preference. Sometimes that choice is because of necessity (eyesight or a handicap), sometimes its just a preference.

Lose a wounded animal (which I wish on no-one) and you understand a little more again.

Wim

lovedogs · « **Reply #24 on:** April 24, 2006, 06:01:12 AM »

Really well-said, WL44! You sound like the kind of person I'd enjoy hunting with. Too bad you can't come over here for a hunt and I could go over there for one. Bet we'd have a good time! What all do you hunt there?

Best Regards, Mike

ftw · « **Reply #25 on:** April 27, 2006, 06:04:09 PM »

I have both scoped and non scoped handguns that I use for hunting. I like them both and which I use depends on the situation.

If I am hunting in a closed in area where I know my shots will be 50 yards or closer I will carry an open sighted .41 or .44 Magnum. I know my old eyes can quickly take an animal at this range and with open sights.

When hunting where the shots are probably going to be 60-150 yards then it will be a scoped revolver or Contender to allow me to take a quick,humane killing shot at those distances. No way I could make the shot that far with open sights.

I enjoy both styles of hunting and sometimes I chose where I am going to hunt depending on what I feel like hunting with on that particular day.

I support anyones choice of weapon as long as they use it in an ethical,safe manner and within the restrictions of the hunter and weapon.

totallycustom · « **Reply #26 on:** April 28, 2006, 08:29:20 AM »

I think scopes are a waste for all hunting weapons, I think that many hunters have lost the ability to "hunt" their game, they just glass animals hundreds of yards away and become snipers, or bait and wait, the abilty to track and get close to the animals is whats makes it hunting if it wasnt they would call it hunting, hunting is defined as ,#1 To pursue (game) for food or sport- from dictionary.com

I think there is too much emphasis put on the rifle/pistol/scope than there is on the hunter. It should be about the man not the machine.

I dont own a scope on any of my guns at all, I am iron sights only and have been succesful hunting everything in Washington State ( other than moose/sheep/goats- not drawn one yet), thats also with a 114 yr old gun.

Redhawk1 · « **Reply #27 on:** April 28, 2006, 09:07:11 AM »

Quote from: totallycustom

I think scopes are a waste for all hunting weapons, I think that many hunters have lost the ability to "hunt" their game, they just glass animals hundreds of yards away and become snipers, or bait and wait, the abilty to track and get close to the animals is whats makes it hunting if it wasnt they would call it hunting, hunting is defined as ,#1 To pursue (game) for food or sport- from dictionary.com

I think there is too much emphasis put on the rifle/pistol/scope than there is on the hunter. It should be about the man not the machine.

I dont own a scope on any of my guns at all, I am iron sights only and have been succesful hunting everything in Washington State ( other than moose/sheep/goats- not drawn one yet), thats also with a 114 yr old gun.

This is a perfect example why I have back off of discussions here. Just because one person thinks his way is the only right way. Your post does not even deserve a response. :roll:

WNY_Whitetailer · « **Reply #28 on:** April 29, 2006, 07:30:58 AM »

Hey...Everyone is entitled to their opinion...No need to get upset over it. I hunt with a scope or red dot on my handguns, rifles, bp guns, and slug guns and that is the way that I like it. I don't care what anyone else thinks.