O.K. guys.
Everyone pull in the claws, let the fangs and hair go away and lets get back into persepctive.
I LOVE CONTROVESY.
Not infighting, not bad mouthing, but controversy.
It stimulates thought.
Now please notice I defined certain parameters when I said the .500 magnum was no more
effective than, say a .44 magnum, on deer sized game.
I said from a revolver, with open sights at handgun ranges of less than 100 yards.
I stand by my statement.
I doubt the deer would know the difference if it was killed by a .500 magnum or a .44 magnum.
Dead is dead is dead.
The .500 is no more
effective than any of the earlier "big bore" handgun hunting rounds.
Now understand this:
At ranges of under 100 yards the 30-30 is just as
effective at harvesting deer sized game as is the .300 Winchester Magnum.
Think about that.
If all other factors are equal, i.e. bullet weight, bullet contruction, shape, etc., size of the targeted game, distance to the targeted game, shot placement, the 30-30 and .300 magnum are equally
effective.
The hunter using the .300 magnum gains only one thing.
RANGE.
Period.
That
cannot be said of the .500 magnum vs the .44 magnum class handgun hunting cartridges all other factors being equal.
The .500 (and others giants of that ilk) is no more effective because of:
1) limitiations of sights
2) limitations of the shooter.
All that power generated by the .500 is simply waisted on game the size of our whitetail deer.
Now there is nothing wrong with using any handgun you want to hunt any game you want.We are allowed to do that.
The ONLY point I was making is simply that the .500, the .460 and such monsters gain the hunter absolutely NOTHING in effective killing power over the .44 magnum class cartridge for the deer sized target.
Now if I were very wealthy and had the opportunity to take Cape Buffalo with a handgun I'd choose the biggest, baddest, caliber I could handle and then make sure that I could at least out run my guide!
I still maintain that the 30-30 is about ideal for taking whitetail deer at ranges of about 100 yards and closer.
That of course is only my opinion. Your mileage may vary.
I've taken a number of deer. Most with the 12 gauge as where I live we are not allowed centerfire rifles.
I've taken 50 + deer, only two with a handgun, five with bow, two with muzzle loader, the rest with the 12 bore.
I've seen literally hundreds of deer taken with shotguns and slugs.
I had a buddy that owned a butcher shop. He processed thousands of harvested deer.
I helped him and his employees skin more deer than I can count.
I can tell you that it's very difficult to see the difference in damage done by a 20 gauge and 12 gauge slug.
The deer shot by the 20 bore was every bit as dead as the deer shot by the 12 bore slug.
The damage to the tissue was about equal.
The 20 is about 62 caliber, the 12 is about 72 caliber.
The difference between those two diameters is far greater than the difference between a .429 and .500 handgun bullet.
I fail to understand why some think the .500 diameter bullet is a much better killer than the .43 bores?





That is really splitting frog hairs isn't it?
Any .44 magnum and any .500 class magnum will shoot through the biggest whieteail in the woods.
That means that any calibers of that class will waist enough KE to sent the bullet downrange.
I'd like to hear a logical argument showing that the .500 is more effective under the outlined parameters than the .44 magnum on deer.