Home
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cViXU8eXU94&feature=related
Purpose of posting such garbage??
Originally Posted by FAIR_CHASE
Purpose of posting such garbage??



The purpose of posting this garbage is to show how not to shoot a revolver at game, the guys in the video suck.

Gunner
Originally Posted by gunner500
Originally Posted by FAIR_CHASE
Purpose of posting such garbage??



The purpose of posting this garbage is to show how not to shoot a revolver at game, the guys in the video suck.

Gunner


Which is why I called it garbage. Thanks for clarifying shocked
The Casull is more than enough.....the shooter on the other hand.
As always, much depends on the shooter...
Originally Posted by TNrifleman
As always, much depends on the shooter...



And the bullets
Originally Posted by FAIR_CHASE
Purpose of posting such garbage??


Sorry for offending anyone.

I was looking on You Tube for .45ACP footage on hollow point vs. hard ball when I came across .454 Casull footage. There was footage of a Casull destroying ballistic gel, a huge watermelon and a frozen 16 pound turkey. Obviously, a .454 Casull is more than adequate for the biggest, baddest pig on the planet.

I've been in discussions lately on the appropriate hand gun cartridge for pigs and what works and doesn't work. Toward that end I was being sarcastic with this post.

I should have let everyone know I was being sarcastic but I did not do so. I'm sorry.
I've seen that video. Those guys are clowns and I just can't believe they'd post a video that clearly demonstrates exactly that. All that's missing is the big funny clown shoes. I kind of wish the hog had won that round...
There's a case where the shooter has too much gun. Very few people can competently shoot a .454 beyond 7 yards. Recoil is severe no matter who you are. And while the Taurus Raging Bull is without a doubt the most accurate production revolver I've ever shot, the grip frame is somewhat less than optimal for a hoss like the .454.

I've shot the Raging Bull in .454 and .480, and I'll take the .480 EVERY TIME; much more fun to shoot and with an LBT LFN bullet, I think it just out-performs the .454 for less recoil.
Originally Posted by KevinGibson
There's a case where the shooter has too much gun. Very few people can competently shoot a .454 beyond 7 yards. Recoil is severe no matter who you are. And while the Taurus Raging Bull is without a doubt the most accurate production revolver I've ever shot, the grip frame is somewhat less than optimal for a hoss like the .454.

I've shot the Raging Bull in .454 and .480, and I'll take the .480 EVERY TIME; much more fun to shoot and with an LBT LFN bullet, I think it just out-performs the .454 for less recoil.


If the .480 had caught on more I'd have been sorely tempted to get one. I think a lot of people wanting something bigger than the .44 went .454 due to the crossover with the .45LC.

Have you ever shot a .500? My early model X-Frame is very accurate and (when shot by people that can actually handle them and aren't just "hanging on") from what I can tell that seems to be the norm. I'll freely admit that around three cylinders of full-house loads and I'm just about done. I'm sure better men than me can handle more but my accuracy starts falling off after that.

OTOH I've got a Longshot load that with 400gr bullets is right about what the top .454 loads do with that weight bullet that aren't bad at all in that huge revolver.

Anyway it's like those that'll argue a .243 is too small for deer. They're right...if they can't hit what they're aiming at. If that's the case a 30-06 is pretty light too.
Interesting comment Kevin.

On all the forums I've found so far dedicated to hog hunting a common thread seems to be that bigger isn't necessarily better.

It seems that rifle and revolver/pistol rounds at the low end of the power curve seem to kill more hogs quicker than the rifles and revolvers/pistol at the high end of the power curve.

I've talked to government hunters and many of them use a .220 Swift or .22-250 to kill big bears and even buffalo. They say that the bullets dump all their energy inside the animal rather than go through the animal dumping the energy outside the animal.

A friend of mine killed a big black bear with a .223 Ruger Mini-14 at about 75 yards with one shot in the sternum. The round broke the sternum and blew up the heart. The bear was standing on it's hind legs, woofed and fell over backwards dead right there. No exit hole, all energy expanded in the bear.

I think it maybe possible to have to much gun for the animal just as it's possible to have to little gun for the animal.
Originally Posted by derby_dude

I think it maybe possible to have to much gun for the animal just as it's possible to have to little gun for the animal.


Other than excessive meat loss I'm not sure I can agree with this. (this is assuming the shooter can handle the caliber of course or the rest is actually pretty moot) I think where the "energy dump" thing gets sketchy is the assumption that, say, my .340 won't "dump" more energy than a .223 simply because the .340 bullet kept going.

For instance, what's the top ME for a .223? 1400ftlbs? A larger rifle could easily blow that much (and in fact more) all the way through the target and then exit. This would also include a larger frontal area and obviously an exit wound, which many people (myself included) rather prefer.

Personally I'd be in dire straits before shooting a bear with a .22 anything but that does nothing to say I don't think it can work. To me the one absolute advantage I see to smaller calibers (handgun or rifle) is that more people can shoot them accurately. As anyone with a clue will tell you that is the single most important thing regardless.
Energy dump is a myth. I don't like making blanket statements, but two holes are always better than one. I kill a lot of hogs a year with handguns, and if you do your part, and the handgun is loaded correctly, bigger normally works better -- unless it's a small animal that really doesn't require a lareg caliber. Of course CNS shots are not caliber dependent.
To Guyandarifle and Whitworth1:

This is an argument that has been going on since the invention of the gun: all the energy inside or through and through energy/hole. This an argument that will probably never be won.

I've never hunted pigs wild or otherwise. In visting all the hog hunting forums I could find it seemed to me that all the big guns from 30-06 up to and including elephant guns took many rounds to put down a pig even the pigs that weren't super sized. The same could be said of the really big handguns.

One reason I suspect the smaller calibers tend to put down the pigs with one shot and DRT is because of the lower recoil, people tend to shoot more and practice more. I know I shoot my 1911 a heck of lot more than I do my .44mag. I also shoot my .22lr bench gun a heck of a lot more than my .308 Win. bench gun. Lower recoil guns tends to lead me to shoot more than the heavier recoiling guns do.

We all seem to agree that the old boys in the video had a gun they did not shoot very well. Had they had a lower recoiling handgun that they shot a lot and placed their shots better that old pig might have gone down with the first shot.
In this discussion I am not interested in rifles as they have a lot more velocity to work with and the dynamic is completely different. Revolver bullets by comparison are lumbering. Nowadays, I hunt almost exclusively with handguns, and I can assure you that two holes are better than one. I consider a bullet that doesn't exit a failure.

I have shot hogs with my .416 Remington (the rifle in my signature picture), my .458 Lott, and a slew of other calibers, and they kill no better or faster than my .454, .475, .500 LInebaugh, .500 JRH, etc. despite the muzzle energy "advantage" they enjoy. I have seen pigs that were shot not bleed or stop bleeding because the hole closes up (fat, hair, etc.). Make two holes and your tracking will be a lot easier and the animal will bleed out faster.

Not trying to be argumentative, but there still is no replacement for placement. A poorly shot hog can live on and absorb a lot of lead for a period of time. Hit 'em right, and collect the carcass. Here's one I shot last month......320 grain WFN -- two holes, and a dead hog......

[Linked Image]
Originally Posted by derby_dude
Interesting comment Kevin.

On all the forums I've found so far dedicated to hog hunting a common thread seems to be that bigger isn't necessarily better.

It seems that rifle and revolver/pistol rounds at the low end of the power curve seem to kill more hogs quicker than the rifles and revolvers/pistol at the high end of the power curve.

I've talked to government hunters and many of them use a .220 Swift or .22-250 to kill big bears and even buffalo. They say that the bullets dump all their energy inside the animal rather than go through the animal dumping the energy outside the animal.

A friend of mine killed a big black bear with a .223 Ruger Mini-14 at about 75 yards with one shot in the sternum. The round broke the sternum and blew up the heart. The bear was standing on it's hind legs, woofed and fell over backwards dead right there. No exit hole, all energy expanded in the bear.

I think it maybe possible to have to much gun for the animal just as it's possible to have to little gun for the animal.

My OPINION* on the matter is�rarely is it a case of too much or too little gun. Sure, it happens, but for every 1 case of too much or too little gun, I�m betting there�s a few dozen of�had you placed your shot better, all would have turned out okay.

When I was young I thought it was irresponsible to use the .223 for deer sized game. But I�ve learned that the .223�s almost complete lack of recoil allows the shooter to place his shot considerably better than had he been armed with a .30-06. I�ve also learned that even with lung shots on deer, the .223 isn�t nearly the pip-squeak I used to think it was. I�ve seen chest and lung shots with 55 grain soft points result in very clean kills. Now those clean kills are not produced in a way that gives ME a warm & fuzzy. Often that little bullet just barely penetrates enough to reach the vitals�but to my astonishment, I�ve yet to see a well hit animal from a .223 just walk away.

When people say the .223, .22-250 or .220 Swift do what they do because they �dump all their energy into the target�, I say BS. They work because the shooter was able to place his/her shot with surgical precision. Pop a deer in the spine with a .220 swift and chances are a bullet that completely blew up and only penetrated 1 inch still works; again, it�s all about the shot.

It�s almost ALWAYS about the shot; place it well and most cartridges will do most reasonable jobs just fine. You don�t need a .475 Linebaugh to take down a black bear or wild pig. But if you can shoot one well, why not? I would say most every time that a .475 Linebaugh is too much gun for deer, hogs and black bear. But if you load it right, that�s not always the case. Light .480 loads will turn the .475 into something more akin to a .44 magnum. But sometimes we choose something like a .475 Linebaugh for hogs not because we NEED it, but because we�re enamored with the .475 Linebaugh (or whatever other cartridge), and we just want to see it do its thing through thick, dense muscle tissue. There�s nothing wrong with that.

But a guy has no business hunting with a handgun he can�t hit with. I�d say we as American�s run into situations of too much gun far more often than we run into issues of too little gun. A good handgunner like JWP or Whitworth can take a cannon like a .454 or .475 Linebaugh and through bullet selection and their choice in handloads, use that one handgun to kill most anything that walks on planet Earth, with game killed quick, clean and appropriately. Give that same gun to someone who can�t REALLY handle the recoil, and you can see videos like the one at the beginning of this thread all day long. Think back to the video�Even when the guy walked up to the classic Hollywood �point blank� range, his fear of his .454 caused him to jerk the trigger so bad he still couldn�t produce a quick kill on the animal, causing that poor hog to continue to writhe in pain until he finally bled out. I�m betting if the guy behind the trigger was the afore mentioned JWP or Whitworth, that hog would have died 10x as fast if they were shooting a .357 magnum, than that idiot with the .454; it�s all about the shot.

*Stressing the word OPINION. This is just my OPINION on the matter and I'm not stating this is fact, just my view of the issue of too much or too little gun.
Originally Posted by Whitworth1
In this discussion I am not interested in rifles as they have a lot more velocity to work with and the dynamic is completely different. Revolver bullets by comparison are lumbering. Nowadays, I hunt almost exclusively with handguns, and I can assure you that two holes are better than one. I consider a bullet that doesn't exit a failure.

I have shot hogs with my .416 Remington (the rifle in my signature picture), my .458 Lott, and a slew of other calibers, and they kill no better or faster than my .454, .475, .500 LInebaugh, .500 JRH, etc. despite the muzzle energy "advantage" they enjoy. I have seen pigs that were shot not bleed or stop bleeding because the hole closes up (fat, hair, etc.). Make two holes and your tracking will be a lot easier and the animal will bleed out faster.

Not trying to be argumentative, but there still is no replacement for placement. A poorly shot hog can live on and absorb a lot of lead for a period of time. Hit 'em right, and collect the carcass. Here's one I shot last month......320 grain WFN -- two holes, and a dead hog......

Well said, I completely agree. And people just don't get how a revolver with much less "power" can produce the same end result of a "much more powerful" rifle. Rarely does "energy" make any amount of difference. The thought is that a stretch cavity can be sufficient to produce additional wounding in cartridges where the bullet impacts above 2000-2200 fps (depending on which "expert" you're reading). But combat surgeon and ballistics expert Martin Fackler has writen time and time again that RARELY does velocty contribute anything of value. Death is almost always from the crush cavity. Now of course the argumentative type can come up with all kids of exceptions, and they're welcome to live in the world of exceptions. But I KNOW that a large revolver with a WFN bullet can do everything a dangerous game rifle can do...because I've seen it. Autopsy big animals hit with something like a .457 Linebaugh using a bullet with a wide meplat and you'd think the animal was hit with a .470 NE. They got there in different ways, but the end result is the same. Dead animal, BIG hole.
Originally Posted by Whitworth1
In this discussion I am not interested in rifles as they have a lot more velocity to work with and the dynamic is completely different. Revolver bullets by comparison are lumbering. Nowadays, I hunt almost exclusively with handguns, and I can assure you that two holes are better than one. I consider a bullet that doesn't exit a failure.

I have shot hogs with my .416 Remington (the rifle in my signature picture), my .458 Lott, and a slew of other calibers, and they kill no better or faster than my .454, .475, .500 LInebaugh, .500 JRH, etc. despite the muzzle energy "advantage" they enjoy. I have seen pigs that were shot not bleed or stop bleeding because the hole closes up (fat, hair, etc.). Make two holes and your tracking will be a lot easier and the animal will bleed out faster.

Not trying to be argumentative, but there still is no replacement for placement. A poorly shot hog can live on and absorb a lot of lead for a period of time. Hit 'em right, and collect the carcass. Here's one I shot last month......320 grain WFN -- two holes, and a dead hog......

[Linked Image]


I'm not trying to be argumentative either, I'm trying to learn and you certainly have the experience to teach.

When I took up the longbow the maker of my longbow who was a hunter and who had been taught archery hunting by the great Howard Hill said to remember that arrows and hunting broad heads kill by cutting and bleeding out an animal not by shock.

He said bullets on the other hand, kill by shock to the nervous system and destruction of the vital organs. When I hand gun hunted that's what I always tried for.

When I was in the service they said the purpose of the hard ball ammo was to wound the enemy but not to necessarily kill the enemy as it took more people to care for a wound enemy than bury a dead enemy. My experience and testing shows that's exactly what hard ball does, small wounds.

We don't have feral hogs in Montana yet but I think it's just a matter of time. I like hand guns to hunt with but I also realize the .44 mag. is the most recoil I can handle and right now the .45ACP is about all I want to handle. It looks to me that handguns that have less recoil and bullets that work on the nervous system and vital organs is the way to go for guys like me rather than a hole in and a hole out.

Maybe I'm wrong.
Originally Posted by KevinGibson
Originally Posted by derby_dude
Interesting comment Kevin.

On all the forums I've found so far dedicated to hog hunting a common thread seems to be that bigger isn't necessarily better.

It seems that rifle and revolver/pistol rounds at the low end of the power curve seem to kill more hogs quicker than the rifles and revolvers/pistol at the high end of the power curve.

I've talked to government hunters and many of them use a .220 Swift or .22-250 to kill big bears and even buffalo. They say that the bullets dump all their energy inside the animal rather than go through the animal dumping the energy outside the animal.

A friend of mine killed a big black bear with a .223 Ruger Mini-14 at about 75 yards with one shot in the sternum. The round broke the sternum and blew up the heart. The bear was standing on it's hind legs, woofed and fell over backwards dead right there. No exit hole, all energy expanded in the bear.

I think it maybe possible to have to much gun for the animal just as it's possible to have to little gun for the animal.

My OPINION* on the matter is…rarely is it a case of too much or too little gun. Sure, it happens, but for every 1 case of too much or too little gun, I’m betting there’s a few dozen of…had you placed your shot better, all would have turned out okay.

When I was young I thought it was irresponsible to use the .223 for deer sized game. But I’ve learned that the .223’s almost complete lack of recoil allows the shooter to place his shot considerably better than had he been armed with a .30-06. I’ve also learned that even with lung shots on deer, the .223 isn’t nearly the pip-squeak I used to think it was. I’ve seen chest and lung shots with 55 grain soft points result in very clean kills. Now those clean kills are not produced in a way that gives ME a warm & fuzzy. Often that little bullet just barely penetrates enough to reach the vitals…but to my astonishment, I’ve yet to see a well hit animal from a .223 just walk away.

When people say the .223, .22-250 or .220 Swift do what they do because they “dump all their energy into the target”, I say BS. They work because the shooter was able to place his/her shot with surgical precision. Pop a deer in the spine with a .220 swift and chances are a bullet that completely blew up and only penetrated 1 inch still works; again, it’s all about the shot.

It’s almost ALWAYS about the shot; place it well and most cartridges will do most reasonable jobs just fine. You don’t need a .475 Linebaugh to take down a black bear or wild pig. But if you can shoot one well, why not? I would say most every time that a .475 Linebaugh is too much gun for deer, hogs and black bear. But if you load it right, that’s not always the case. Light .480 loads will turn the .475 into something more akin to a .44 magnum. But sometimes we choose something like a .475 Linebaugh for hogs not because we NEED it, but because we’re enamored with the .475 Linebaugh (or whatever other cartridge), and we just want to see it do its thing through thick, dense muscle tissue. There’s nothing wrong with that.

But a guy has no business hunting with a handgun he can’t hit with. I’d say we as American’s run into situations of too much gun far more often than we run into issues of too little gun. A good handgunner like JWP or Whitworth can take a cannon like a .454 or .475 Linebaugh and through bullet selection and their choice in handloads, use that one handgun to kill most anything that walks on planet Earth, with game killed quick, clean and appropriately. Give that same gun to someone who can’t REALLY handle the recoil, and you can see videos like the one at the beginning of this thread all day long. Think back to the video…Even when the guy walked up to the classic Hollywood “point blank” range, his fear of his .454 caused him to jerk the trigger so bad he still couldn’t produce a quick kill on the animal, causing that poor hog to continue to writhe in pain until he finally bled out. I’m betting if the guy behind the trigger was the afore mentioned JWP or Whitworth, that hog would have died 10x as fast if they were shooting a .357 magnum, than that idiot with the .454; it’s all about the shot.

*Stressing the word OPINION. This is just my OPINION on the matter and I'm not stating this is fact, just my view of the issue of too much or too little gun.


I've read this over a couple of times, nothing to disagree with I can find.
Originally Posted by derby_dude
To Guyandarifle and Whitworth1:

This is an argument that has been going on since the invention of the gun: all the energy inside or through and through energy/hole. This an argument that will probably never be won.

I've never hunted pigs wild or otherwise. In visting all the hog hunting forums I could find it seemed to me that all the big guns from 30-06 up to and including elephant guns took many rounds to put down a pig even the pigs that weren't super sized. The same could be said of the really big handguns.

One reason I suspect the smaller calibers tend to put down the pigs with one shot and DRT is because of the lower recoil, people tend to shoot more and practice more. I know I shoot my 1911 a heck of lot more than I do my .44mag. I also shoot my .22lr bench gun a heck of a lot more than my .308 Win. bench gun. Lower recoil guns tends to lead me to shoot more than the heavier recoiling guns do.

We all seem to agree that the old boys in the video had a gun they did not shoot very well. Had they had a lower recoiling handgun that they shot a lot and placed their shots better that old pig might have gone down with the first shot.



There is noarguement for anyone that has a clue about the subject. Physics is the JUDGE and there is no arguement. Fact i that a bullet strike is an inelastic collision and the conservation of energy can not be used in an inelastic collision. Energy is mostly transformed into thermal enrgy, some enrgy transforms into sounds as well as some other forms. There can be a SMALL amount of enrgy transfer, but this amount is untracable and unimportant in terminal ballistics. There if you can prove other wise I am sure a Pultzer prize in science awaits and Physics has been wrong for centuries, but I ain't holding my breath

Originally Posted by jwp475
Originally Posted by derby_dude
To Guyandarifle and Whitworth1:

This is an argument that has been going on since the invention of the gun: all the energy inside or through and through energy/hole. This an argument that will probably never be won.

I've never hunted pigs wild or otherwise. In visiting all the hog hunting forums I could find it seemed to me that all the big guns from 30-06 up to and including elephant guns took many rounds to put down a pig even the pigs that weren't super sized. The same could be said of the really big handguns.

One reason I suspect the smaller calibers tend to put down the pigs with one shot and DRT is because of the lower recoil, people tend to shoot more and practice more. I know I shoot my 1911 a heck of lot more than I do my .44mag. I also shoot my .22lr bench gun a heck of a lot more than my .308 Win. bench gun. Lower recoil guns tends to lead me to shoot more than the heavier recoiling guns do.

We all seem to agree that the old boys in the video had a gun they did not shoot very well. Had they had a lower recoiling handgun that they shot a lot and placed their shots better that old pig might have gone down with the first shot.



There is no arguement for anyone that has a clue about the subject. Physics is the JUDGE and there is no argument. Fact i that a bullet strike is an inelastic collision and the conservation of energy can not be used in an inelastic collision. Energy is mostly transformed into thermal energy, some energy transforms into sounds as well as some other forms. There can be a SMALL amount of energy transfer, but this amount is untraceable and unimportant in terminal ballistics. There if you can prove other wise I am sure a Pulitzer prize in science awaits and Physics has been wrong for centuries, but I ain't holding my breath



Well I don't know beans about no physics all I know is bullet companies spend zillions on different types of bullets from big chucks of lead the make a hole clean through an animal to bullets that expand to twice sometime three times the bullets size with giant wound channels, the bullets don't exist and animals die either way. I figure bullet companies wouldn't spend all that money if there was no argment on what a bullet does they would just make one type of bullet and that would be it.

YMMV.
Originally Posted by derby_dude
Originally Posted by jwp475
Originally Posted by derby_dude
To Guyandarifle and Whitworth1:

This is an argument that has been going on since the invention of the gun: all the energy inside or through and through energy/hole. This an argument that will probably never be won.

I've never hunted pigs wild or otherwise. In visiting all the hog hunting forums I could find it seemed to me that all the big guns from 30-06 up to and including elephant guns took many rounds to put down a pig even the pigs that weren't super sized. The same could be said of the really big handguns.

One reason I suspect the smaller calibers tend to put down the pigs with one shot and DRT is because of the lower recoil, people tend to shoot more and practice more. I know I shoot my 1911 a heck of lot more than I do my .44mag. I also shoot my .22lr bench gun a heck of a lot more than my .308 Win. bench gun. Lower recoil guns tends to lead me to shoot more than the heavier recoiling guns do.

We all seem to agree that the old boys in the video had a gun they did not shoot very well. Had they had a lower recoiling handgun that they shot a lot and placed their shots better that old pig might have gone down with the first shot.



There is no arguement for anyone that has a clue about the subject. Physics is the JUDGE and there is no argument. Fact i that a bullet strike is an inelastic collision and the conservation of energy can not be used in an inelastic collision. Energy is mostly transformed into thermal energy, some energy transforms into sounds as well as some other forms. There can be a SMALL amount of energy transfer, but this amount is untraceable and unimportant in terminal ballistics. There if you can prove other wise I am sure a Pulitzer prize in science awaits and Physics has been wrong for centuries, but I ain't holding my breath



Well I don't know beans about no physics all I know is bullet companies spend zillions on different types of bullets from big chucks of lead the make a hole clean through an animal to bullets that expand to twice sometime three times the bullets size with giant wound channels, the bullets don't exist and animals die either way. I figure bullet companies wouldn't spend all that money if there was no argment on what a bullet does they would just make one type of bullet and that would be it.

YMMV.



Again you figure WRONG. Those companies make what guys like you want to buy. A great buissnes decision, but not always a good termal decisions

Another troll from a member who doesn't even hunt.
Originally Posted by Rancho_Loco
Another troll from a member who doesn't even hunt.
Rancho_Loco - Your comment is a reply to a post from JWP475...are you saying JWP doesn't hunt, 'cause you can bet your arse he does?
Originally Posted by KevinGibson
Originally Posted by Rancho_Loco
Another troll from a member who doesn't even hunt.
Rancho_Loco - Your comment is a reply to a post from JWP475...are you saying JWP doesn't hunt, 'cause you can bet your arse he does?


I don't think his comment was directed at JWP......
I never said I've never hunted I said I've never hunted pigs and I was willing to learn not be insulted.

This is NOT directed to you Whitworth or Kevin.
Quote
Fact i that a bullet strike is an inelastic collision and the conservation of energy can not be used in an inelastic collision.


Actually it can, and I've explained it to you before. If you want to learn on your own, find out what happens when kinetic energy is converted to thermal energy via friction.


Sorry, but the laws of physics don't make exceptions for those who do not understand them.

No the laws of physics do not make exceptions.

An excellent book on the subject.

[Linked Image]
Originally Posted by derby_dude
Obviously, a .454 Casull is more than adequate for the biggest, baddest pig on the planet.



I would take the 460 S&W over the Cassull any day of the week.
Originally Posted by Reloder28
Originally Posted by derby_dude
Obviously, a .454 Casull is more than adequate for the biggest, baddest pig on the planet.



I would take the 460 S&W over the Cassull any day of the week.



I would not.......
I saw that video awhile back on youtube doing the same thing you were doing. I can't believe that 454 didn't stop the pig with a real quickness. Maybe they were using 45 longcolt. I don't know.
Originally Posted by Tombstone
I saw that video awhile back on youtube doing the same thing you were doing. I can't believe that 454 didn't stop the pig with a real quickness. Maybe they were using 45 longcolt. I don't know.


Having hunted hogs with the .460, .454, and .45 Colt, I would take the .45 Colt every time over the other two. The Colt loads I use are more than adequate for anything you may encounter in the lower 48, without all of the blast created by those other two cartridges.
Whatever they were using they were certainly poor shots and I certainly wouldn't post a you tube video of it. Heck, I'd want hang my head in shame.
Well, I thought it was interesting but one can't learn much from a clueless [bleep] like our video hero. It did make me appreciate the cameramen who do the pro videos however.
Location, location, location. wink A miss with a field artilery piece doesn't kill very quickly, either. grin
Originally Posted by the_shootist
Location, location, location. wink A miss with a field artilery piece doesn't kill very quickly, either. grin


I don't know about that. Anything within a 100 to 150 yard radius of 155MM howitzer is pretty much toast with high explosives. Of course, that was about 35 years ago. You maybe right today.
Those guys stalked that pig in the video for a long time more than I would have if I knew I had an adequate firearm in my hand as well as confidence in my ability to put the bullet in the kill zone.

So, evidently all they DID have was a powerful firearm which they had no business with. That poor pig suffered a long time even after the finishing shot which, I think was even a miss also.
Originally Posted by Whitworth1
Having hunted hogs with the .460, .454, and .45 Colt, I would take the .45 Colt every time over the other two.


Same here. In capable hands a 45 Colt hardly needs an encore nor an upgrade. I carry 45 Colt in my revolvers or 45 Super in my 1911's when pigs are a concern or on the menu.
Originally Posted by Reloder28
Originally Posted by Whitworth1
Having hunted hogs with the .460, .454, and .45 Colt, I would take the .45 Colt every time over the other two.


Same here. In capable hands a 45 Colt hardly needs an encore nor an upgrade. I carry 45 Colt in my revolvers or 45 Super in my 1911's when pigs are a concern or on the menu.




[Linked Image]
Have to wonder why he didn't put it out of its misery?
He either had the wrong gun and load or he couldn't hit the broadside of a barn standing in the barn.
There's nothing wrong with the gun or the caliber. Easily could have been loaded incorrectly, and the placement poor. A combination of the two is a really bad situation.
Originally Posted by Whitworth1
Energy dump is a myth. I don't like making blanket statements, but two holes are always better than one. I kill a lot of hogs a year with handguns, and if you do your part, and the handgun is loaded correctly, bigger normally works better -- unless it's a small animal that really doesn't require a lareg caliber. Of course CNS shots are not caliber dependent.


I agree. Energy doesn't kill. Holes in vital organs leaking massive amounts of blood do. Energy just goes along for the ride.


I prefer innies and outies.
© 24hourcampfire