Quote:
Q9... You and I will have to respectfully disagree on this topic. That said, I'd like to clarify where I am coming from on the Revolver accuracy issue, as well as your other points.
Revolver vs. Semi: You may be able to faithfully strike a ten or twelve inch steel plate from 7 or 8 yards away. Under ideal conditions. When not under stress. When you are clear headed and remembering to put the firearm into single action (pulling hammer back on first shot sent down range.) A ten inch target is - from my point of view - the "Broad Side of a Barn".
Replace that ten inch steel plate (which when struck resounds with a very satisfying "ding!") with a fast moving, small animal like a coyote - and your effective sweet spot reduces to just about two inches. Outside that sweet spot you have either maimed the animal, or placed a lethal projectile moving at XXXX feet per second, God Only Knows Where.
I know many competitive shooters who can group 10 rounds inside 1 inch at 50 feet with a revolver. Acquiring this skill took them thousands of hours of practice.
On the flip side, I have trained many novice shooters to group 2 inches at 50 feet with a semi-auto. I have never been able to get a novice to that kind of accuracy with a revolver.
In a self defense situation, this difference between hitting your "sweet spot" and missing by 3 inches is crucial to surviving an assault.
Now, as for "spraying" bullets, which you suggested was the only value you see in a semi-auto - I do not know any responsible gun owner who would advocate such a thing. This concept violates every single rule of gun safety I can think of.
Shotgun: Yeah. Buck shot will group a fairly tight pattern at close range. It will also blow a fairly big hole straight through walls. It will shatter brick, bone, and drywall like exploding a small stick of dynamite. It's a very blunt instrument. Shotguns are great for intimidating intruders, blowing down doors, clearing rooms, and plucking flocks of birds from the sky. That's about it.
"Relocate 'em to Heaven": Again. You and I just completely disagree on this point. I will only suggest that while it sounds very macho to advocate killing an animal, it's also unnecessary and arrogant. I will never understand the rational that allows people to think they have a right to take a life as a first resort, rather than taking preventative measures. It's positively Medieval thinking.
I'll say it again. It is my belief that every person who acquires a firearm, should be required to see first-hand the results of a poorly placed shot. If - after seeing the effect - you are not moved to either put the gun down and walk away forever - OR - prompted to practice, practice, practice to the degree that your skill is such that missing is highly unlikely - then there is something seriously "missing" in your character.
The problem with guns is that they make people feel powerful. It's a dangerous illusion. Real power is having the wisdom and experience to know that using a gun is an absolute last resort, not taken lightly, and not undertaken without considerable training.
#1: My turn to clarify - "spraying" was probably a poor choice of words. What I basically meant is, the only value when used against coyotes that I can think over a 6-inch revolver is the ability to quickly compensate for any missed shots. I would NEVER advocate spraying, even with weapons DESIGNED for it (AK-47 and the like). I guess it boils down to a matter of preference and experience. If you're an experienced shooter, I'd guess that a .45 semiauto would almost definitely be better than a .357 revolver. But for a novice, there is ALWAYS the possibility of improperly handling the gun and causing it to stovepipe or misfeed. Revolvers have no such issues, but you are right that it might be difficult to remember to draw back the hammer.
#2: So what do you propose using? A handgun is problematic against coyotes no matter what, a shotgun is too powerful and the spray is too wide, and a rifle bullet travels too far, apparently. Birdshot would probably just injure a coyote, and a slug is a weird sort of compromise between a rifle and buckshot, that doesn't contain the strong points of each. I say, if it's not near anything, use buckshot, and if it's too close for comfort, give it a rifle bullet.
#3: You ignored my reason - relocation honestly strikes me as just passing your problem to someone else, who will probably shoot said problems. Raccoons are different - most folks don't have chickens, and they're small and relatively harmless unless rabid, so sure, relocate them if you wish. But coyotes, as soon as they lose their fear of people, WILL attack children, sometimes in front of adults. I say shoot them because coyotes are problem animals no matter where they're placed, unless it is in the middle of a God-forsaken wilderness avoided by humanity. I don't see how that's "medieval" thinking.
#4: Really? I, personally, find holding a firearm to be rather humbling. The power is NOT an illusion, it is a humbling reality. You suddenly realize that you are holding a device capable of easily taking a life - be it animal or human. In any decent person, holding a weapon should inspire them to train with it so that they don't cause unnecessary harm, but are capable of causing harm if necessary.
