Jason_W
Member
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 want to be clear that I'm not advocating the 9 mm or any other firearm in that power class as a great first choice (or even fourth choice) deer gun. Most hunters won't want to handicap themselves to that degree.