Miller,
Arguements against the use of the .410 for hunting go something like this: 'A .410 is a wounding weapon' 'it's unethical to use a .410 because it's a wounding weapon'. The inferrence is, therefore, anyone using a .410 to hunt is unethical.
The anecdotal reference to 12g guns wounding more game than all other gauges combined, indeed has value. It points out that people argueing against the .410 based on what is ethical, ignore actual performance of the 12g itself. The reality is that the average gunner is a low average clean killer. Even people known as "good shots" or "ethical hunters" are more often than not, no where near 100% clean killers with a 12g.
I no more believe a person hunting roosters with a .410 is a less ethical hunter than one using a 12g, than I believe a person using a bow and arrow to hunt deer or elk is less ethical than someone using a rifle. Was Howard Hill or Fred Bear less ethical than Elmer Keith, based on their choice of weapons? Was Askins less ethical than Keith for shooting all that game with a .270?
Last edited by Chuck H; 07/20/11 02:25 AM.
