9mm and White Tail

[Bezoar]

its the bullet construction that comes into bearing here folks.

people have used 125 grain expanding bullets from a 357 to hunt deer with. and successfully done it, as well as unsucessfully.
the main problem is that , the ones who did the best used a bullet that would hold together at 357 magnum levels of fun. And not used the 125 grain bullet designed to expand at 800 fps from a snubnose 38 special.

 

[Johnny_B_Goode]

its the bullet construction that comes into bearing here folks.

people have used 125 grain expanding bullets from a 357 to hunt deer with. and successfully done it, as well as unsucessfully.
the main problem is that , the ones who did the best used a bullet that would hold together at 357 magnum levels of fun. And not used the 125 grain bullet designed to expand at 800 fps from a snubnose 38 special.

I agree 100%. A 357 mag 125gr critical defense is rated at 1,500 fps from a 4" barrel. You can bump that up to 1,600 fps from a hunting pistol with a 6.5" barrel. Critical defense is not even a hunting cartridge. Your 357mag hunting cartridges are hot. Fiocchi used to load their JSP ammo very hot. I have seen a 125gr Fiocchi JSP clocked by a calibrated chronograph at 1,700 fps. Double tap hunting ammo has the same kind of performance. I shot a doe with a 357 mag Fiocchi 125gr JSP in the chest at about 10 yards. The JSP penetrated over 30 inches of deer before exiting right before her hip. You would have to use a +P+ 124gr FMJ with a G34 to get that kind of penetration from a 9mm.

 

[Ankeny]

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.

Same here. I guess that is why my state would see you in court if you shot a deer with a 9mm. The game wardens and state troopers I know don't even like a 9mm for shooting cripples. Just not enough gun. YMMV

 

[d2wing]

same here Ankeny. Some things just aren't right.

 

[Bezoar]

however at the same time, .357 gets relegated to the same level of usefullness of hunting white tail as the 9mm has in this thread.

ie, not at all humane for hunting deer or more politely among the heavy handgun crowd with "ok for putting injured deer down, or with a rifle at really short range"

 

[Johnny_B_Goode]

however at the same time, .357 gets relegated to the same level of usefullness of hunting white tail as the 9mm has in this thread.

ie, not at all humane for hunting deer or more politely among the heavy handgun crowd with "ok for putting injured deer down, or with a rifle at really short range"

The difference is most states that have pistol requirements usually consider anything from a 40 cal on up to be adequate for hunting. We have no requirements in NC for a pistol or a rifle. We used to have a 357 mag, 6" barrel requirement for pistol hunting. Several years ago the state dropped all minimum requirements. We never had a minimum requirement for rifles.

If you are going to hunt with a small pistol or rifle use solid or FMJ ammo so the bullet passes through. At least you will have a blood trail to find the animal. Any bullet can glance off an animals skull weird things happen. But 99.9% of the time a 22mag or a small pistol will pass through a deers head or neck. I call them suicide shots. The animal 10-20 yards away just staring at you.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Congratulations!

I never did cotton much to people who would put down one particular round (or group of rounds) for large game hunting.

The fact is, people who hunt typically do not take shots that aren't good ones. If it falls outside the parameters for their experience, then they don't take it. It's a good way to needlessly wound an animal and, perhaps, lose a wounded animal as a result.

Part of the hunt is the exercising of the skills necessary to take game using whatever weapon one chooses.

Now, obviously people who do serious big game hunting, say, in Africa will choose some very appropriate firearms. But deer and like sized critters? Bow, atlatl, handgun, rifle...develop the skills necessary and have at it!

 

[leadcounsel]

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

Totally, absolutely unethical and irresponsible hunting practice.

Why in the world would you try to use the smallest round possible, that may not get the job done. Surely you have tools more suited to the job. So this then just becomes a pointless exercise of bravado. Animals aren't there for your "ballistic testing."

Hunter risks nothing. The deer has to suffer from a hunter's poor judgment. That deer could have suffered greatly if you screwed up (or the other machos who read this and think they too can use their 9mm pistol to take a deer).

Stories of hunters hitting a deer or other animal only to have to track it and maybe lose it... or stories of hunters finding dead animals that were shot but ran and bled out, are all too common.

Good grief.

 

[browningguy]

I'm in the camp that congratulates you on getting a lucky shot that killed quickly, but it's probably much more common for a 9mm to lead to a wounded deer that may die slowly somewhere in the woods. Not a humane way to hunt in my book.

... 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.

Quite a ridiculous argument, almost any medium size game animal is much tougher than a human, many deer get shot with medium bore rifles, through the heart or both lungs, and run 30-40 yards before going down. Very few humans will do that.

I'm going off deer culling this morning for 4 days to south Texas, and I'm taking a pistol. But I'll be using a Ruger Super Blackhawk in .44 Mag loaded with 225 gr. FTX bullets. Sure, it's a light for caliber bullet, but out to 50 yards it gets the job done very well.

 

[GAMEOVER44]

Wow is all I can say. Taking a deer down with a 9mm..

How'd you get so close?

 

[Rnelson]

I would never take a bad shot with a pistol. The ranch is set up for hunting with 12 tower stands and bow tree stands hunting over feeders. Shooting a deer on the run our at distance isn't what we are after. We look for older deer or deer that wouldn't contribute to the herd.

Going back out this weekend for a meat run. If the opportunity comes around maybe lighting will strike twice. Their is one stand that has a 300+ boar on the camera that i am going to hunt a couple times. If he comes around that would be a nice 25yard head shot with the 9mm.

I only hunt in the most humane way except for pigs and predators. I really don't care if they run off because they all need to die.

9mm or 44mag
Recurve bow or Mathews Z2

Their the same in my book if you can hit the kill zone. Only draw back with the 44mag is your hearing is going to be gone.

 

[Ankeny]

The fact is, people who hunt typically do not take shots that aren't good ones.

Fact? I think there are countless hunters, game wardens, farmers (finding dead deer), etc. in Wyoming that would disagree.

We (Wyoming) recently gave folks the opportunity to hunt for pronghorn and deer with a .223. Lots of folks reported that caliber to be more than adequate. Others tried it and are going back to their .243, etc. It is a personal choice, and personal choice is the only reason the Game and Fish allowed .22 caliber center fire in the first place.

The discussion about minimum calibers revolves around individual choice, trying not to be total dictators regarding caliber and ethics, etc. But, there comes a point in time when the Game and Fish needs to draw the line. It's simple, you can't hunt deer with a 9mm in Wyoming unless you can generate 500 ft. lbs. of energy at 100 yards.

 

[Jason_W]

Fact? I think there are countless hunters, game wardens, farmers (finding dead deer), etc. in Wyoming that would disagree.

We (Wyoming) recently gave folks the opportunity to hunt for pronghorn and deer with a .223. Lots of folks reported that caliber to be more than adequate. Others tried it and are going back to their .243, etc. It is a personal choice, and personal choice is the only reason the Game and Fish allowed .22 caliber center fire in the first place.

The discussion about minimum calibers revolves around individual choice, trying not to be total dictators regarding caliber and ethics, etc. But, there comes a point in time when the Game and Fish needs to draw the line. It's simple, you can't hunt deer with a 9mm in Wyoming unless you can generate 500 ft. lbs. of energy at 100 yards.

But isn't it in the nature of some people to push the limits of whatever gun they have in their hands? I'm inclined to think that F&W could draw the minimum power line at the .30-06 and there would still be plenty of wounded game every season. Do we really want to legislate to accommodate the lowest common denominator?

Also keep in mind the differences in terrain across the continent. You hunt in Wyoming. I've driven through that state a few times and even spent a few days in Yellowstone back in college. It appeared that cover was sparse and some places there wasn't a tree for miles. It's obvious that most shots on game out there would be on the long side and that if one ethically hunted with something on the lower end of the power spectrum, they would be passing on a frustrating number of shots.

By contrast, I grew up hunting in Northern New England (Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine) which is a thickly wooded region with an often dense under story of skin shredding blackberry bramble. Visibility in the woods is limited and most deer are shot at 50 yards or less and a surprising number are shot at 35 yards or less. What centerfire rifle won't cleanly kill a deer at those ranges with appropriate shot placement? Ok, maybe the .17s.

I'm thinking that it might be a good idea to start incorporating units on the limitations of common rounds and the importance of bullet selection into hunter education courses.

 

[Rnelson]

I think Jason_W has a good point. Terrain and environment are wide spread in our country.

It should come down to the ability and gear we use to take game.

Personally i don't use a .223 because doesn't have the punch for distance hunting. My carbine is a 7.62X39 and it works very well.

I will take a 9mm over a .223 any day for short shots for most game in texas.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Fact? I think there are countless hunters, game wardens, farmers (finding dead deer), etc. in Wyoming that would disagree.

We (Wyoming) recently gave folks the opportunity to hunt for pronghorn and deer with a .223. Lots of folks reported that caliber to be more than adequate. Others tried it and are going back to their .243, etc. It is a personal choice, and personal choice is the only reason the Game and Fish allowed .22 caliber center fire in the first place.

The discussion about minimum calibers revolves around individual choice, trying not to be total dictators regarding caliber and ethics, etc. But, there comes a point in time when the Game and Fish needs to draw the line. It's simple, you can't hunt deer with a 9mm in Wyoming unless you can generate 500 ft. lbs. of energy at 100 yards.

The key word in my statement "people who hunt typically do not take shots that aren't good ones" is "typically".

You'll always have some portion who will blast away at anything, who won't take the time to learn how their gun shoots and to shoot it appropriately, and who exhibit hunting skills akin to a squirrel crossing a street in front of a car.

But I wouldn't call such people "typical hunters".

 

[leadcounsel]

Should be minimum calibers.

.30 caliber rifle or 20 gauge shotgun for states too congested for rifle.

.44 magnum pistol.

9x19 is just unacceptable and risk of inhumane too great. :banghead: amazes me people don't see that.

 

[Jason_W]

Should be minimum calibers.

.30 caliber rifle or 20 gauge shotgun for states too congested for rifle.

.44 magnum pistol.

9x19 is just unacceptable and risk of inhumane too great. :banghead: amazes me people don't see that.

So, the .25-06 and .41 Mag are too light for deer?

 

[Fremmer]

I'm glad you got the deer, good shot!

 

[leadcounsel]

So, the .25-06 and .41 Mag are too light for deer?

Read too literally... and splitting hairs.

I would expect people to use good judgment.

Shooting a deer with a 9mm pistol from nearly 1/2 a football field away is totally inexcusable, regardless of the successful result.

 

[Radagast]

What I am seeing from this thread is that all the posters have hunting ethics. Yup. Even the ones in complete disagreement.

Rnelson did his research first, worked out his expected parameters for success, then took a shot to see if that research held true or not. He then posted the results. I consider that ethical behavior for a researcher, it provided more info for those interested in this topic. No bunnies were locked in a vise and had chemical dripped in their eyes. This was humane by the standards of the cosmetics industry.

Leadcounsel has a very valid point about what will work vs what may work and this

I would expect people to use good judgment.

goes to the heart of the matter.
The problem is we want people to use good judgement, but we cannot expect it.
Idiots may try to emulate behavior that they cannot match. That is the basic argument against these sort of discussions.

But idiots will always be with us, will always ignore good advice, and usually will come up with idiotic means of harming themselves, others or the environment, all by themselves.
They are not likely to research their great idea before acting. They are not likely to come to a board that enforces polite behavior on its members. So I don't see that we should self censor just for the idiots.

As for my personal take on the matter? I am not a bad shot with a handgun. When I was into into Metallic Silhouette I could knock over 4 out of 5 silhouettes at 100m with a 4 inch revolver. At one IPSC nationals I shot three x three shot 1.5 inch groups in the A-Zone at 35 meters. Unfortunately on the same stage I hosed the targets at 1 meter and had clear misses on each.
And that's the problem with buck fever. Exceptional 'range' ability can go out the door rapidly under mental pressure. So I would not hunt with a caliber I consider marginal.

I am interested in this thread because it helps define 'marginal' based on actual experience and effects, not on assumptions. Please keep it going by keeping it polite.

 

[stiab]

So i picked out the largest doe for real life ballistic test.

I hope the anti-hunting organizations don't come across this thread, they love to make the hobby look bad, and some people make it so easy for them.

 

[notaglockfanboy]

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.....
__________________
I agree 100%. We as hunters owe it to the animals for a humane kill, not to use them as ballistics tests to "see what it will do to them"

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

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.

No flame from me, but I disagree with your statement that shot placement is not everything.

Yes, it is. Even with larger caliber, higher velocity, heavier bullets you STILL have to hit the target to be effective.

What you're really saying by your example/statement is that it's better to use a larger caliber higher power round because if you MISS a critical area, you'll be more likely to bring the animal down simply because you were able to blow the hind quarter completely off the animal.

This may be an exaggeration, but that's essentially what you're saying.

I won't deny that a larger bullet and higher velocities work together to create BETTER terminal ballistics for the hunter, because they DO. But that's not what the OP was posting about.

Any hunter should be hunting his prey with a weapon adequate for the job with respect to what he's hunting, where he's hunting, and what his skills are. For example, I'm not skilled with a bow...therefore I should not be bow hunting until I develop sufficient skills to use the bow within some reasonable range of distances. If I cannot reliably hit the target zone outside of 25 feet and I choose to hunt with a bow anyway, then I need to adjust my hunting according to that limitation.

The same applies with any hunting weapon/technique.

 

[Art Eatman]

Stories from my father, from sixty/seventy years back: Some deer hunters would "buy" a deer. So, one of the wetback ranch hands down in the Brasada would sit out at a stock tank on a moonlit night and pop a good buck between the eyes with a .22 rifle. $5 per point. Good money, back then.

Shot placement.

I've walked up to does to maybe fifteen yards before they'd spook. Define "adequate".

I've sat in tree stands, maybe ten to twelve feet up. What's "adequate" if an old doe comes up and lies down under my stand?

The last mule deer I killed was at maybe 25 yards. Felt ashamed at using an '06, but I didn't have my Redhawk with me.

Judgement and skill level--as usual.