9mm and White Tail

[Rnelson]

Glock 34, 38 yards front quartering shot. 124gr Federal hydra shok. One big kick and she was down for good in 12 yards.

I have read so many 9mm threads about what is humane for a hunting round. So i picked out the largest doe for real life ballistic test.

Posting a link because their is major blood and good pics of the wound channel. The bullet was just under the skin so i was lucky to have a bullet recovery.

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0By0zKKCWMUdBdVJXaVdJTl9tUVE&usp=sharing

 

[mountain_man]

This goes to prove shot placement is king. Put the bullet where it disrupts something important and you will have a dead animal. Also it kind of makes the "marginal" .223 look pretty good.

 

[SDGlock23]

Thanks for sharing, good pictures and yea the 9mm has the goods to get the job done. I remember someone on arfcom shot a deer at 60yds with a 124gr +P Golden Sabre from a G17 with good results.

 

[H&Hhunter]

Thanks for posting that. Those are some impressive results.

 

[clearcut]

Great pix, great forensics, great shot!!!
CC

 

[short barrel]

A 9mm is a great woods gun.

 

[stringnut]

As has been said shot placement is the key. It would't be my first choice to take deer hunting. Large deer or different angles could present problems. With proper knowledge and self control you can often make do with less. Brian Pearce has published several articles in which he stated he has taken deer with a 38 special with hard cast lead bullets. Knew a guy that used a 22 hornet for backing up archers on wild boar. With his excellent knowledge of a pigs anatomy he never had an issue.

 

[yzguy87]

That's cool! Always thought about hunting with my pistol.

 

[jmorris]

Nice photos and good job.

Kind of funny when I think about it. 9mm, 38 and 380 being "marginal" or inferior rounds for a 120lb deer all the while people carrying them for protection from larger more threatening things.

 

[ldlfh7]

Nice shot. Good placement is what it is all about.
I have seen deer shot with a 30-06 never to be discovered.
Know your weapon and apparently you do.
Congrats!

 

[Stony]

I don't remember seeing any threads about the deer that were wounded to just run away with these marginal cartridges. A guy can get lucky and good shot placement helps...but I wouldn't even attempt it. I imagine most of the guys shots like this are just called a miss, when the deer runs away...not to be found. Highly unethical..

 

[matrem]

Congratulations on a clean kill.

As you've just attested to, any critter with holes in or through both lungs (whether just shy of 3/16" or 1/2" plus) will be in the freezer if we do our job after the shot.

edit

Made the mistake of assuming you hit lungs before being sure. Dang, I'm getting kinda bad at that.

Anyhow, a .356 hole with adequate penetration in any vital spot sure works, eh?

 

[gamestalker]

Many, many moons ago, a guy I knew shot a deer with his FA Uzi from about 50 yards or so. But he sprayed it with about 20 rounds, maybe more, that poor deer didn't have a chance. The meat was barely edible, lots of blood shot meat as you can imagine.

Point being, the deer dropped within the first 2 or 3 hits, so I have no doubt a 9mm with the right bullet, properly placed, will drop them just fine.

BTW, shooting game animals with a FA weapon is highly illegal in Arizona, and was back then as well.

GS

 

[Radagast]

Late THR member Stephen A. Camp also took deer with the 9mm round.
http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/Purpose of the Handgun.htm

 

[Jason_W]

If a round will wreck at least as much vital tissue as a broadhead and it's legal in your area, go for it. Just know the distance at which that round will no longer ruin as much tissue as a broadhead as well as the distance at which you can no longer score reliable hits to vital areas.

I often wonder how much traditional wisdom regarding acceptable medium/large game rounds stems from people pushing a round/platform well beyond its intended limit.

Example: My uncle Pete shot a deer with buckshot and it got away, therefore buckshot is no good for deer. Left out of the story was the part where uncle Pete shot at a deer that was 75 yards away using the cheapest big box store buckshot he could find.

Example 2: The .30-30 is marginal for deer because my cousin Steve once shot a deer that he had to track for 2 miles. Left out of the story is the part where cousin Steve took the shot at 300 yards across a corn field.

 

[buck460XVR]

Unlike many want us to believe, deer are not armor plated and are not that hard to kill when hit with the proper projectile in the proper area. A .22LR while not very effective for boiler room shots on deer, is very effective on head shots and thus, is the preferred caliber for poachers. Only makes sense that a caliber the size of the 9mm, with the proper projectile, would kill a deer when used appropriately within it's limitations and the limitations of the shooter. No different than any other handgun or rifle caliber. This thread is an excellent example of this.

 

[AKElroy]

A lot of back and forth in this thread and in my head. I'm a big fan of the 9mm, I have four of them. I also love to hunt. I cannot imagine a scenario where I would attempt to take medium/large game with a nine, other than put-down shots on a wounded animal or trap shots on pigs.

For coons, my experience in spotlighting them off the feeders is mixed with the nine. The vast majority of the time they take more than one round. Of course, the ones well-hit drop, but most are not well hit when shot out the window of a jeep while they scamper up a tree and hide. I have also taken the same marginal shots on them with a .30-30, and I have yet to need a follow-up. The results are messy and final, pretty much regardless of where I hit the animal. I only use this example to point out that power counts.

I think perfect shot placement, especially with a short-sight radius pistol, is far more difficult to achieve and for me, too likely to produce a wounded animal. Congrats to the OP for a clean kill; IMO, luck may have have been smiling down on that shot.

I know I will get flamed for this, but shot placement is NOT, in fact, everything. The power of the cartridge is a critical part of the equation. For most scenarios, the nine is not enough IMO.
I've had decent deer walk under my blind, with a nine on my hip. They were close enough for a head shot, and I am sure they would have been DRT. I still waited for them to walk to an appropriate rifle distance and provide a decent presentation. I think we owe it to the animal to use the best tool for the job.....

 

[Jason_W]

I know I will get flamed for this, but shot placement is NOT, in fact, everything. The power of the cartridge is a critical part of the equation. For most scenarios, the nine is not enough IMO.
I've had decent deer walk under my blind, with a nine on my hip. They were close enough for a head shot, and I am sure they would have been DRT. I still waited for them to walk to an appropriate rifle distance and provide a decent presentation. I think we owe it to the animal to use the best tool for the job.....

Then how do you feel about hunters who opt to use a recurve or long bow or a traditional muzzle loader stoked with a round ball? Neither of those weapons are packing a great deal of power by modern standards.

I know that on the surface it may seem like an apples/oranges comparison, but it's really not. Unless a hit to an animal's central nervous system is scored, all weapons ultimately cause death via exsanguination. If you cut, crush, rip, or or otherwise destroy enough tissue rich in blood vessels or tissue that is responsible for blood oxygenation and circulation, and animal is not long for this earth.

The X factor, of course, is how much rapid blood loss a given weapon will inflict. If we consider the organ damage inflicted by a broadhead arrow at 300ish f/s to be a bare minimum for deer, then almost all centerfire rifles and handguns will suffice within range limitations.

For example, the OP took his deer at what is essentially bow range. I'm skeptical that a broadhead arrow in the same spot would have caused the animal to expire more rapidly.

The question a hunter has to ask his or her self before selecting any given weapon is: Am I willing to limit myself to taking only shots I know are within this weapon's effective range?

 

[AKElroy]

I think re-curve bows and muzzle loaders serve a purpose unto themselves, that being the ability of taking game the way they were in antiquity. There is value in being paitient, working to get close to ones quarry to make a shot within the limited capabilities of both of those weapons.

That said, there are extremes that must be recognized. I assume we would not add spears and rocks to this argument, so their are hopefully limits that we would both observe. I just choose to limit myself a little more conservatively than others.

If I needed to take game for survival and my P226 was the best weapon I had available, then I now have a bit more confidence thanks to this thread that it would be effective. I am not in that circumstance, so I prefer to use more proven choices.

 

[WestKentucky]

When I had my hi point 995 I tried hunting with it. No deer but I killed a big fat raccoon. At 40 yards it wasn't a pretty sight. I was using magtech defense ammo.

 

[Jason_W]

I think re-curve bows and muzzle loaders serve a purpose unto themselves, that being the ability of taking game the way they were in antiquity. There is value in being paitient, working to get close to ones quarry to make a shot within the limited capabilities of both of those weapons.

That said, there are extremes that must be recognized. I assume we would not add spears and rocks to this argument, so their are hopefully limits that we would both observe. I just choose to limit myself a little more conservatively than others.

If I needed to take game for survival and my P226 was the best weapon I had available, then I now have a bit more confidence thanks to this thread that it would be effective. I am not in that circumstance, so I prefer to use more proven choices.

I do know that a few years ago there was a push by a small group in Pennsylvania to legalize the atl'atl for deer hunting. Not sure what became of it.

If someone can get close enough to a deer to kill it with a rock, club, or knife, they can do whatever they want. I'm certainly not going to criticize a such an individual

For firearms, I guess it ultimately boils down to whether or not we trust others to take the time to know the limitations of their weapons. I wouldn't use a 9 mm pistol for deer hunting. I'm a laughably terribly handgun shot and I'd also hate to have to pass on a deer that was a mere 50 yards away.

But if someone finds hunting deer with a rifle too easy and are willing to limit their shots to bow range, I'm of the opinion that they should be able to use any firearm/ammo combination that will result in as much bleeding or organ damage as a broadhead.

 

[AKElroy]

Im not opposed to handgun hunting. I've done it, but with hot 300gr cast loads, Ruger super RedHawk .44mag. I did not feel that I was under-gunned for deer.

With a 9, I would be under gunned. We need to be responsible here, this is a public forum. To suggest that we should take to the woods with a 9mm is silly, and borderline unethical when better choices are available. The OP made a perfect shot, perhaps the only shot (other than the head) that would have enabled such a marginal cartrige to have cleanly taken that animal. Kudos to him for excellent shot choice and marksmanship. Most hunters would not replicate that often, if ever.

He was also using a load that from his 6" barrel was likely pushing 500 ' lbs of energy, a long slide glock with an Aimpoint is not a typical 9mm platform, so that needs to be taken into account by folks looking to replicate this.

The broadhead comparison misses one vital point, that being between head and bolt you are looking at a projectile weighing 1000 gr or more, with a large caliber cutting tool designed to cut and slice. It is not apples to apples with a 123gr 9mm load. The OP took a perfect quartering shot at close range, missing large bone and dense muscle. The results would likely have been far different had that round hit shoulder or ham. If I hit a heavy joint or dense muscle with a decent rifle caliber, I am still going to have a through-and-through.

I am not uncomfortable being on the "bring enough gun" side of this discussion.

 

[AKElroy]

Kind of funny when I think about it. 9mm, 38 and 380 being "marginal" or inferior rounds for a 120lb deer all the while people carrying them for protection from larger more threatening things.

Not at all. My goal when hunting is to accurately take a shot that will cleanly and quickly take an animal at distance, while preserving as much meat as possible. I carry a nine for SD for its portability, a concern I do not have when hunting, as well as its controlability in rapid fire. Again, not a concern when hunting. Lastly, I am only interested in stopping deadly aggression that is up close and personal when choosing a nine for SD. It is an entirely different goal than hunting, and requires a different, more portable tool. As for power, if I were certain of the place and time of an attack, where employing a weapon was warranted, I would have an AK with me that day. ( unless being elsewhere was an option!)

 

[d2wing]

9MM's are not legal in my state with good reason. Less than 400 fpe at the muzzle.i wouldn't use one for deer.

 

[ljnowell]

Im not opposed to handgun hunting. I've done it, but with hot 300gr cast loads, Ruger super RedHawk .44mag. I did not feel that I was under-gunned for deer.

With a 9, I would be under gunned. We need to be responsible here, this is a public forum. To suggest that we should take to the woods with a 9mm is silly, and borderline unethical when better choices are available. The OP made a perfect shot, perhaps the only shot (other than the head) that would have enabled such a marginal cartrige to have cleanly taken that animal. Kudos to him for excellent shot choice and marksmanship. Most hunters would not replicate that often, if ever.

He was also using a load that from his 6" barrel was likely pushing 500 ' lbs of energy, a long slide glock with an Aimpoint is not a typical 9mm platform, so that needs to be taken into account by folks looking to replicate this.

The broadhead comparison misses one vital point, that being between head and bolt you are looking at a projectile weighing 1000 gr or more, with a large caliber cutting tool designed to cut and slice. It is not apples to apples with a 123gr 9mm load. The OP took a perfect quartering shot at close range, missing large bone and dense muscle. The results would likely have been far different had that round hit shoulder or ham. If I hit a heavy joint or dense muscle with a decent rifle caliber, I am still going to have a through-and-through.

I am not uncomfortable being on the "bring enough gun" side of this discussion.

I agree 100% with this post. Thanks for saving me the trouble of typing it all out.