9mm compared to buckshot for deer hunting - thoughts?

[GerardSamija]

A "historical fact"???? that more deer have been shot in North America with a 22LR than any other cartridge???? WHAT??????
Hunters already get a bad rap from non hunter big city types, and then you want to intentionally use a cartridge that is not intended for deer hunting, just because you like the feel of your rifle? Great, give them more reason to hate us.
After hunting numerous species for almost 40 years, (some that are considered dangerous game too), keeping very physically fit, and practicing shooting skills out to 400 yards, to this day I still experience an adrenaline rush when I have a big specimen in my cross hairs......
Hunting is NOT a game. You owe it to the animal to harvest it in the most humane way possible. If you just want to kill a deer with a small cartridge because it "can" be done, that is not ethical. I hope you reconsider and stick to your squirrel and rat adventures.

My apologies. Looking back (thanks to your referring to my statement) I see that I was rash in saying that about .22lr - I was conflating the global body count by cartridge in terms of human beings killed with the numbers for deer, where it seems .30-06 might hold the lead. From what I've been able to find in yet another search today, it seems .22lr still holds the record for people being killed, though many among that number died hours or even days after being shot. I was careless making this statement. My apologies, elKrusto (though it makes me smile a little bit, apologizing to someone who calls himself elKrusto).

I don't doubt your experience. I do not expect ever to be completely free of the influence of hormonal flux when doing something as 'interesting' as hunting an animal. But with time and careful thought, breathing exercises, comfort with one's own skills, this can be reduced to something like a dull roar.

And I don't for a moment mistake hunting for a game. That's why I'm here, asking you guys this question. I take it very seriously. Don't want to make a stupid mistake and cause unnecessary harm. But did you look at those videos? Have you looked at the data, besides my silly error about .22lr? Just because 9mm wasn't designed for deer hunting, doesn't seem to me enough argument against its utility. After all, ball ammunition and black powder, often delivering well under 400fpe, was the most common tool for hunting deer for a couple of hundred years on this continent. Many still practice black powder hunting, at suitable ranges such as I'm proposing for the task. I'm not for a second suggesting hunting a deer of any size beyond about 60 yards with a 147gr 9mm round. My experience so far in testing tells me that 70 yards and beyond would render it questionable, both in terms of potential for the animal moving while the projectile is in flight (added to the delay between perceived time of trigger pull and actual timing of trigger pull, typically 1/5 of a second or so - a topic of some debate among consciousness researchers) to use a primarily subsonic projectile at further range. But in what might be called the comma, or interval, between shotgun range and rifle range, it seems there may be room for 9mm or .45ACP. 10mm pushes things out slightly but still not all that much, being more in .44Mag territory.

 

[Gatehouse]

There's a 9mm thread here that may be of interest.

https://www.canadiangunnutz.com/for...ks-9mm-isn-t-a-big-game-caliber?highlight=9mm


As for buckshot vs 9mm- I've shot a few bears with buckshot. In my opinion, for maximum effectiveness the buckshot has to arrive on the target en masse at close range. It's the cumulative effect of several pellets hitting the same area at the same time that makes buckshot work well in some applications. Something you can't really duplicate with a single 9mm bullet.

A .223 with an appropriate bullet is a far better option for hunting than a 9mm PCC, although the .223 is much louder and has a very small amount more recoil.

 

[GerardSamija]

You did see that the Glock shooting the deer was a .45 auto? Not to say that it's any more or any less ethical, just that it wasn't the 9mm example that you seem to think it is.

WOOPS! Sorry, wrong link. Here's the Beretta 9mm deer kill I meant to post. A similarly sized buck, at about double the distance, also from a tree stand.

 

[GerardSamija]

There's a 9mm thread here that may be of interest.

https://www.canadiangunnutz.com/for...ks-9mm-isn-t-a-big-game-caliber?highlight=9mm


As for buckshot vs 9mm- I've shot a few bears with buckshot. In my opinion, for maximum effectiveness the buckshot has to arrive on the target en masse at close range. It's the cumulative effect of several pellets hitting the same area at the same time that makes buckshot work well in some applications. Something you can't really duplicate with a single 9mm bullet.

A .223 with an appropriate bullet is a far better option for hunting than a 9mm PCC, although the .223 is much louder and has a very small amount more recoil.

I appreciate that, thanks. I'm considering .223/5.56, primarily as a lightweight bolt action rifle not a semi-auto. But the advantage of a semi-auto being able to deliver a very fast follow-up shot seems to have merit.

When hiking with family I carry a short 12ga 870 with 00 buck up front and 2 slugs behind it. Wouldn't want to take more chances than necessary with a charging bear. But of course I'd rather get out of a 'bear situation' without violence. On one occasion I was chased by a bear in pitch black on my mountain bike, probably accelerating faster than I ever did otherwise and then dismounting at a run and throwing the bike over a gate, jumping after it and continuing running, successfully getting away from what sounded like a substantial bear from the huffing and puffing and the large volumes of gravel being sprayed from the road. The more recent encounter was what sounded like a very large bear tearing apart and tossing around a log in West Van while we were out berry picking and mushroom hunting, near the upper reaches of Mt Fromme where it meets Grouse. We cautiously walked by on the road, salmonberry bushes the only thing between us, and I don't think that bear ever became aware of our presence. Still, I had my hand on the shotgun the whole time, ready to draw it from my pack. Would not want just a 9mm for such an occasion, nor even just buckshot, not when my kid's life might be on the line.

 

[GerardSamija]

Within 50 meters, with good ammo, and an unobstructed shot I personally wouldnt hesitate.

Deer are not particularly large or bullet proof. Lots have been taken with the .25-20 and 32-20 with simple bullets in times past. I don’t think many of those early sub cartridges hold water to a modern +p hollow point fired from an 18.5” barrel.

Exactly. Loads of deer have been taken with a single shot of .38Special or even lighter fare. Paul Harrell in a recent video about the best deer rifle even mentions success at modest distance with .32"! Personally I won't be trying .22lr on deer as it's not necessary and I'm not trying to prove anything. But hey, if things fell apart, society breaks down and we're down to using whatever tools are available, that's a different story. We're not there just yet however, so I'm wondering if my neat little takedown rifle which fits so nicely into a day pack can be practical for hunting, not just plinking. Doesn't seem all that dangerous a topic for simple discussion. It's not like I'm heading out to hunt next week or even next fall with it. Just asking! And I'm grateful for all informative responses. As many are saying on a lot of gun community websites and other media, modern 9mm is not the same as older 9mm. The capabilities of the cartridge have been substantially improved. Hence the fairly large scale adoption by law enforcement and military agencies.

 

[elKrusto]

The elkrusto name is a long story....
Buckshot overwhelms the body with multiple simultaneous impacts, which in a sense "shorts out" the nervous system. One impact from a 9mm bullet does not have the same effect.
I do agree with you that a modern 9mm cartridge traveling at high velocity would be enough to kill a deer. My issue here is that everything would have to be perfect to have an immediate incapacitation of the animal. Rarely is it when everything is perfect in normal hunting situations.
I am not one to over gun myself just to have the false impression that size is more important than shot placement and projectile choice. On the other hand, I have too much respect for my quarry to use too little gun neither.
Nobody really cares if you wound a rat and it runs off down an alley never to be seen again. I get really upset to think of a deer limping off and dying a slow painful death because of someone using such a small cartridge when there are just so many far superior choices available.
I have hunted since I was 15, and have defended hunting to anybody that would listen. It has been a long battle. There is just no way I could defend someone using a 9mm unless it was in a survival situation.
Of course, you do what ever you want, you have to live with the consequences. It sounds like you have a conscience and that's a good thing.
Just do what the rest of us do, and buy more rifles. You will find one you like just as much or even more than your 9mm. That's not a bad thing.

 

[rifleman762]

My 2 cents:

Yes, a 9x19mm will kill a deer. And at close range with a perfect broadside shot, probably reliably at that. But think about how many times you hear about a human getting shot with a 9mm and surviving. Close range pistol velocity is similar to 50 yard carbine velocity. You would need to be in a bowhunting state of mind to be successful with a 9mm carbine. Perfect lung/heart shots only, wait until the deer steps forward with the near side leg.

The 9x19mm case is pretty tiny and can't hold much powder. Even a 38 Super or 10mm Auto would be much better if you feel a need to use a PCC. 460 Rowland (or 45 Super) is also quite the powerhouse. For a semi-auto pistol caliber, that is.

Even the dinky little 7.62x39 shooting a light 123 grain bullet at/under 2400 fps is 10x more suited to deer hunting than 9mm. TRIPLE the effective range out to 150 yards. The biggest, hairiest handgun cartridges are mediocre when compared to "pedestrian" rifle rounds.

It's really too bad that the Liberals banned a bunch of platforms that were conducive to lighter recoiling rifle rounds like the 6.8 SPC, 6.5 Grendel, and 6mm ARC. I wouldn't hesitate to take any of those rounds up against a deer! I'd use a 223, for that matter, if it was legal here. 75gr Swift Scirocco or Speer Gold Dot and deer meat's in the freezer!

 

[GerardSamija]

Buckshot overwhelms the body with multiple simultaneous impacts, which in a sense "shorts out" the nervous system. One impact from a 9mm bullet does not have the same effect.

This reminds me of a FieldSportsChannel video from last year, where they showed hunters bringing down very small deer (50lbs?) using birdshot from maybe 50 metres. In most cases the low velocity shot wasn't even penetrating the skin. The local tradition apparently has it that the shock to the animal is so overwhelming that merely being hit with something like a very hard punch is sufficient to kill it. The results shown weren't nearly as in-depth and clear as I'd like to see in support of such a claim. Frankly I'd not be surprised if it was a sort of April Fools joke. But they did show a fair bit, and butchered the animals to show minimal bruising... so maybe, I guess? But I won't be taking a shotgun filled with birdshot on a deer hunt.

I do agree with you that a modern 9mm cartridge traveling at high velocity would be enough to kill a deer. My issue here is that everything would have to be perfect to have an immediate incapacitation of the animal. Rarely is it when everything is perfect in normal hunting situations.

Well as I'm trying to make clear, I am my own harshest critic, and I would not take such a shot unless I was certain of an incapacitating hit and a quick death for the deer. Anything less seems to me arrogant and cruel. A 'perfect' shot would be what I'd take, nothing less.

I am not one to over gun myself just to have the false impression that size is more important than shot placement and projectile choice. On the other hand, I have too much respect for my quarry to use too little gun neither.
Nobody really cares if you wound a rat and it runs off down an alley never to be seen again. I get really upset to think of a deer limping off and dying a slow painful death because of someone using such a small cartridge when there are just so many far superior choices available.

To each their own I suppose. We arrive at wherever we are via our experiences. Hence my outlining above my own path towards today - shooting that finch bothers me still, though it would have died in a cat's teeth or of old age decades ago. I had no cause, no right shoot down that tiny songbird. Its death will haunt me the rest of my days. Scale of the animal, for me, has no bearing. I have enormous respect for the cleverness, even intelligence of the rats and squirrels I shoot. We are not compatible in this environment so I shoot them, else they would dominate my garden and eventually my home (especially with the large family in a nearby house who insist on leaving food scraps in garbage bags in the yard - unbelievably careless behaviour). If I'm going to take the life of an animal, it is going to be done with precision and concern for its suffering. ANYTHING less is immoral, to me.

I have hunted since I was 15, and have defended hunting to anybody that would listen. It has been a long battle. There is just no way I could defend someone using a 9mm unless it was in a survival situation.
Of course, you do what ever you want, you have to live with the consequences. It sounds like you have a conscience and that's a good thing.
Just do what the rest of us do, and buy more rifles. You will find one you like just as much or even more than your 9mm. That's not a bad thing.

Thanks for that again. And yes, I'm window shopping a lot lately. Hoping to find a really nifty looking old lever action or maybe bolt action in a middling cartridge, something with maybe 600fpe or more and a bit longer range which I can scope for longer shots. No idea how my own hunting story might play out. Just poking around, opening up a Sunday conversation, trying to learn more.

 

[Gatehouse]

]

I appreciate that, thanks. I'm considering .223/5.56, primarily as a lightweight bolt action rifle not a semi-auto. But the advantage of a semi-auto being able to deliver a very fast follow-up shot seems to have merit.

Is that why you are interested in a 9mm pcc for hunting? For fast follow up shots?

When hiking with family I carry a short 12ga 870 with 00 buck up front and 2 slugs behind it. Wouldn't want to take more chances than necessary with a charging bear. But of course I'd rather get out of a 'bear situation' without violence. On one occasion I was chased by a bear in pitch black on my mountain bike, probably accelerating faster than I ever did otherwise and then dismounting at a run and throwing the bike over a gate, jumping after it and continuing running, successfully getting away from what sounded like a substantial bear from the huffing and puffing and the large volumes of gravel being sprayed from the road. The more recent encounter was what sounded like a very large bear tearing apart and tossing around a log in West Van while we were out berry picking and mushroom hunting, near the upper reaches of Mt Fromme where it meets Grouse. We cautiously walked by on the road, salmonberry bushes the only thing between us, and I don't think that bear ever became aware of our presence. Still, I had my hand on the shotgun the whole time, ready to draw it from my pack. Would not want just a 9mm for such an occasion, nor even just buckshot, not when my kid's life might be on the line.

9mm PCC makes more sense for bear defense than for hunting actually. In defense you want to stop the threat from a fast moving target. With hunting you want a clean kill on a mostly stationary target. Hurting the bear with a few hits from a 9mm would probably dissuade most bears and make them go the opposite direction of the pain.

 

[City Boy]

There was an account many, many years ago where a young native girl killed a record grizzly with a 22 lr at point blank range behind the ear. This was widely reported in the hunting mags of yesteryear.

Yes, shot placement makes all the difference, but why bother, when a cheap rifle can be had that is a better suited cartridge? You could pick a nice flat shooting, lower recoil rifle cartridge that can guarantee a humane kill, even if you are a great shot.

 

[GerardSamija]

Is that why you are interested in a 9mm pcc for hunting? For fast follow up shots?

No. But it seems to add a bit of insurance, compared to the relatively awkward follow-up potential of, say, Brobee's short shotgun with birdshead grip.

9mm PCC makes more sense for bear defense than for hunting actually. In defense you want to stop the threat from a fast moving target. With hunting you want a clean kill on a mostly stationary target. Hurting the bear with a few hits from a 9mm would probably dissuade most bears and make them go the opposite direction of the pain.

Sure, a 9mm magdump could be somewhat effective on a bear. But having watched numerous police shooting videos where half a magazine or more dumped towards an oncoming human target meant little to that target... well, let's just say I'll just leave it to the shotgun. Hurting a bear and leaving it to run away seriously wounded does not appeal to me in the least. If a bear decides it is going to kill me or a member of my family I'll do my best to kill the bear. Pretty simple formula. If there's any way to avoid it coming to that extreme I'll do my best to avoid either of us dying.

 

[Gatehouse]

No. But it seems to add a bit of insurance, compared to the relatively awkward follow-up potential of, say, Brobee's short shotgun with birdshead grip.

So what is the appeal to using a pistol carbine over a rifle? I can see making a choice between a pistol or a rifle because of the obvious size difference but a pcc and rifle are not that far apart in dimensions.

Sure, a 9mm magdump could be somewhat effective on a bear. But having watched numerous police shooting videos where half a magazine or more dumped towards an oncoming human target meant little to that target... well, let's just say I'll just leave it to the shotgun. Hurting a bear and leaving it to run away seriously wounded does not appeal to me in the least. If a bear decides it is going to kill me or a member of my family I'll do my best to kill the bear. Pretty simple formula. If there's any way to avoid it coming to that extreme I'll do my best to avoid either of us dying.

Humans and animals react differently to all sorts of things. Some humans lie down after being shot in the finger because, well...they've been shot. While an animal may run off with half their lungs gone, because they don't know what a bullet is.

But if you have watched numerous police videos where a mag dump from a 9mm "meant little" to the person getting shot, why would you have any faith whatsoever in a single 9mm bullet killing a deer cleanly?

 

[GerardSamija]

There was an account many, many years ago where a young native girl killed a record grizzly with a 22 lr at point blank range behind the ear. This was widely reported in the hunting mags of yesteryear.

Yes, shot placement makes all the difference, but why bother, when a cheap rifle can be had that is a better suited cartridge? You could pick a nice flat shooting, lower recoil rifle cartridge that can guarantee a humane kill even, if you are a great shot.

Bella wasn't all that young if memory serves, and she didn't shoot it behind the ear. She was a very experienced trapper and hunter, and when she found herself being stalked by a very large bear she shot it between ear and eye, in the place she knew from experience was most likely to allow penetration from her .22" cartridge - not .22lr, just .22 Long. Here's an excellent essay desribing the story, with pictures of the hide and the skull:

https://www.ammoland.com/2017/06/be...-take-the-1953-world-record-grizzly-and-more/

That's where I like to shoot grey squirrels. Works every time. I understand that on deer this particular spot isn't such a good choice, as deer have very hard heads. When culling deer in the UK, apparently they're taking rear-of-skull shots. This rather infamous video demonstrates clearly the utility of brain shots, when delivered by an expert shooter:

The unrestricted portion of the video showing the graphic results is here:

https://youtu.be/fJr7Ph5SGO4

Of course this is with a high velocity bullet with plastic 'ballistic tip' so not the same sort of bullet at all. But it does demonstrate the sort of precision I'm talking about. Many hunters, based on observations in videos shared and many forum discussions I've read, seem to rely on something like 'minute of paper plate' level accuracy when hunting. I turned down a really incredible deal on a sporterized Lee-Enfield in .303 British the other day for exactly this reason; 4MOA or maybe a bit better simply isn't even in the same ballpark as what I'm talking about. I regard a 2MOA gun as barely acceptable, no matter how nice an old rifle it seems to be.

 

[mcpiper]

A $150 Lee Enfield would be a much better choice than the most expensive 9mm Carbine that you can find. I've shot dozens and dozens of deer in my lifetime and am amazed at how far a well hit deer can run after having a 3oo grain slug completely pass through it's chest. Get your hunting licence and gain some big game hunting experience before attempting to take game with the most anemic round possible. I could take deer with my Ruger 9mm Carbine but I would have to pass up a lot of shots and ultimately would never attempt it as I have too much respect for the animal.

 

[GerardSamija]

So what is the appeal to using a pistol carbine over a rifle? I can see making a choice between a pistol or a rifle because of the obvious size difference but a pcc and rifle are not that far apart in dimensions.

Primarily familiarity, followed closely by utility in terms of fitting the taken-apart carbine into a backpack. It's for the latter reason that I'm keeping eyes open for a takedown rifle in a more powerful cartridge, though it seems options are very limited.

Humans and animals react differently to all sorts of things. Some humans lie down after being shot in the finger because, well...they've been shot. While an animal may run off with half their lungs gone, because they don't know what a bullet is.

But if you have watched numerous police videos where a mag dump from a 9mm "meant little" to the person getting shot, why would you have any faith whatsoever in a single 9mm bullet killing a deer cleanly?

Because I understand what is primarily responsible for this sort of non-reaction to being shot multiple times? Or just as often, being missed multiple times by a cop doing a magdump? Police officers typically go through less than a box of ammunition in training per year. Their training typically involves only minimal shooting, and what testing there is seems ludicrously low level. An average police officer falls comfortably into the 'couldn't hit a bad guy if he was in contact range' category. It's embarrassing how society accepts this level of incompetence, or is put into a situation where we have no choice but to accept it. If you're going to be a cop, for god's sake learn to shoot your pistol. Seems a bare minimum requirement. But these people often shoot the people behind the bad guy, or houses, or just the sky. Amazing. Competence has always been a priority for me. Precision, grace, competence, these are words and actions to live by. I make and restore musical instruments, often the most valuable possessions of the musicians involved, and they come back to me again and again because I understand that every single job I do could mean irreversible damage if I make a mistake. I don't make those mistakes. Just the same, I endeavour to avoid errors when shooting animals. Precision, skill, an over-arching moral code, these are central in any sort of hunting whether it's pest control or hunting for food. Why would a person do any less?

 

[GerardSamija]

A $150 Lee Enfield would be a much better choice than the most expensive 9mm Carbine that you can find. I've shot dozens and dozens of deer in my lifetime and am amazed at how far a well hit deer can run after having a 3oo grain slug completely pass through it's chest. Get your hunting licence and gain some big game hunting experience before attempting to take game with the most anemic round possible. I could take deer with my Ruger 9mm Carbine but I would have to pass up a lot of shots and ultimately would never attempt it as I have too much respect for the animal.

If you have so much respect for these animals, why are you taking shots which result in the animals running so far? Sounds like the complete pass-through shots you're taking (which Brobee demonstrates are also achieved with barely-supersonic 12ga buckshot, so it seems velocity or projectile weight aren't even the issue with deer) aren't good enough if the deer are going for a run after being shot in the 'chest.' Maybe it's time to upgrade your understanding of deer anatomy and aim for something a little more exact in nature than a chest, more like a particular location, say, the top area of the heart where it meets the arteries?

 

[mcpiper]

If you have so much respect for these animals, why are you taking shots which result in the animals running so far? Sounds like the complete pass-through shots you're taking (which Brobee demonstrates are also achieved with barely-supersonic 12ga buckshot, so it seems velocity or projectile weight aren't even the issue with deer) aren't good enough if the deer are going for a run after being shot in the 'chest.' Maybe it's time to upgrade your understanding of deer anatomy and aim for something a little more exact in nature than a chest, more like a particular location, say, the top area of the heart where it meets the arteries?

Exactly how many deer have YOU killed?

 

[GerardSamija]

Exactly how many deer have YOU killed?

Exactly zero. Exactly how many words can you read? I believe I've stated in this thread at least twice today that I have not yet hunted deer. Is this sarcasm? Or just illiteracy?

Sorry if this seems excessively confrontational, but it's stated in-kind, considering carefully the nature of your question, which seems brutishly ignorant. Is there something magical about deer anatomy I'm missing? Are their hearts prone to wandering around in the thoracic cavity, such that such a suggestion as shooting in the region of the upper heart (a significantly large target measuring some 3" x 3" generally speaking) is somehow wrong when compared to shooting the typically mentioned 9" diameter paper plate region hunters tend to target?

 

[mcpiper]

Exactly zero. Exactly how many words can you read? I believe I've stated in this thread at least twice today that I have not yet hunted deer. Is this sarcasm? Or just illiteracy?

Sorry if this seems excessively confrontational, but it's stated in-kind, considering carefully the nature of your question, which seems brutishly ignorant. Is there something magical about deer anatomy I'm missing? Are their hearts prone to wandering around in the thoracic cavity, such that such a suggestion as shooting in the region of the upper heart (a significantly large target measuring some 3" x 3" generally speaking) is somehow wrong when compared to shooting the typically mentioned 9" diameter paper plate region hunters tend to target?

Just pointing out that one of us has actually done it and one of us has spent some time on YouTube researching it. I gave you my advice based on 30 years of deer hunting experience which you are free to ignore but I'm not interested in hunting tips from the inexperienced, thanks. I'm out, not sure why you came here looking for advice as you strike me as the type that never takes it.
By the way, are you paid by the word?

 

[GerardSamija]

Not paid by the word, no. Thanks for asking, I guess? Are you paid for your arrogance? Were you taught that brevity equates with wisdom? If so, it seems you were subjected to an overly simplistic and somewhat lazy tutelage.