Does a 9mm pistol round have enough to drop a deer

antiqueguy said:
yep but these are the same type of people who frown on buckshot
Click to expand...
I don't think that is a fair statement. Buckshot can work, but we all know it takes a lethal pattern delivered close up to get the job done right.
Hence easily changeable chokes and various sighting systems for deerslayers/turkeyslayers and such.
The world and industry knows some hunters actually use buckshot for this task. (hopefully in the larger gauges and some juridictions actually mandate buckshot, and this fella has never heard of any province or state mandating 9mm for deer hunting) No, I think not......your agruement is weak IMO comparing the resistance to using buckshot as equal to our resistance to encouraging 9mm for big game.
On the opposite end of opinions, I suspect very few in the firearms industry would even barely consider a 9mm Parabellum chambered cartridge firearm to harvest deer cleanly and ethically. Because it's energy levels are just not there for a single aimed shot, except for a few experts in a survival type situation at ridiculously close ranges. One could argue the same point for 22 LR. And you would have the same results: not encouraged for day in, day out 'deer hunting' unless you were starving to death on a desert island. Why even go there when there is an endless list of better choices?
 
Interesting thread men.

So, if i may, i'm going to sum it up.

9mm for deer? While it may work, sort of, don't try it until SHTF. Then shoot em with whatever you've got. Buy a bigger rifle for normal times.
 
It would be interesting to hear of a likely situation where you are only carrying a 9mm and would have to defend yourself from a deer.
 
its not always about energy here sure you move a .30 cal bullet at 2800fps it will do more tissue damage but still without shot placement its pointless you hit a deer in the guts or hindquarters with that round its not going to kill and it could be days for it to do so. you hit a deer in the hart with a 9mm it will drop it within a few yards
 
antiqueguy said:
its not always about energy here sure you move a .30 cal bullet at 2800fps it will do more tissue damage but still without shot placement its pointless you hit a deer in the guts or hindquarters with that round its not going to kill and it could be days for it to do so. you hit a deer in the hart with a 9mm it will drop it within a few yards
Click to expand...

not so. a walking away deer when shot in the rear will die and a hard quartaring way shot in the guts will kill ;)
 
antiqueguy said:
its not always about energy here sure you move a .30 cal bullet at 2800fps it will do more tissue damage but still without shot placement its pointless you hit a deer in the guts or hindquarters with that round its not going to kill and it could be days for it to do so. you hit a deer in the hart with a 9mm it will drop it within a few yards
Click to expand...
I'm sure a 22 WRM will do the same also.
Still a very poor choice.
 
Can-down said:
What won't work? Quite a few officers chiming in but not a lot of details? I for one would love to hear about yours and others experiences.
I'm assuming that most officers are using duty guns with self defense type loads.....or have you tried shooting deer with harder non expanding bullets?
Click to expand...

You are correct. My experiences have been using a 4" barrel and 147 great JHP ammunition. The most telling one was one night north of Williams Lake. I responded to a deer hit on the highway. When I arrived I found a medium sized doe in the road with a broken back but still very much able to try to sitter away. Of course I didn't have a shotgun in the car (rare because I almost always carried one) so I had to get as close as I could before trying a shot. I was around 30 feet from her and put my first shot to the back of her head. The result was similar to hitting her with a stick. She took smack to the head and then continued to look around, thoroughly uneffected by the shot. I walked closer, about 20 feet and shot again. The effect was basically the same though possibly as though she took a harder smack but still not down or visibly injured. I got closer, about 15 feet and hit her again. That shot knocked her down but didn't kill her at all. I then walked right over to her and, while standing over her, shot her in the side of the head from about 3 feet. That worked though the scene resulted in my being splattered with grey matter and thoroughly horrifying the family that stopped next to my PC to watch the spectacle (that'll teach them). With the exception on the final shot (execution-style) none of the shots penetrated to the spine or brain. Had I been using my standby of a shotgun with a slug first (to anchor her) followed by buckshot (for the kill) I wouldn't have had that problem.

I'm certain that a FMJ would have worked better, though only marginally due to the lighter weight of our FMJ ammo but that doesn't really bear on the discussion of the 9mm being suitable for hunting as non-expanding bullets are generally prohibited for hunting.
 
BigUglyMan said:
You are correct. My experiences have been using a 4" barrel and 147 great JHP ammunition. The most telling one was one night north of Williams Lake. I responded to a deer hit on the highway. When I arrived I found a medium sized doe in the road with a broken back but still very much able to try to sitter away. Of course I didn't have a shotgun in the car (rare because I almost always carried one) so I had to get as close as I could before trying a shot. I was around 30 feet from her and put my first shot to the back of her head. The result was similar to hitting her with a stick. She took smack to the head and then continued to look around, thoroughly uneffected by the shot. I walked closer, about 20 feet and shot again. The effect was basically the same though possibly as though she took a harder smack but still not down or visibly injured. I got closer, about 15 feet and hit her again. That shot knocked her down but didn't kill her at all. I then walked right over to her and, while standing over her, shot her in the side of the head from about 3 feet. That worked though the scene resulted in my being splattered with grey matter and thoroughly horrifying the family that stopped next to my PC to watch the spectacle (that'll teach them). With the exception on the final shot (execution-style) none of the shots penetrated to the spine or brain. Had I been using my standby of a shotgun with a slug first (to anchor her) followed by buckshot (for the kill) I wouldn't have had that problem.

I'm certain that a FMJ would have worked better, though only marginally due to the lighter weight of our FMJ ammo but that doesn't really bear on the discussion of the 9mm being suitable for hunting as non-expanding bullets are generally prohibited for hunting.
Click to expand...

head shots are not always a kill shot a spine shot would have been a better idea
 
BigUglyMan said:
You are correct. My experiences have been using a 4" barrel and 147 great JHP ammunition. The most telling one was one night north of Williams Lake. I responded to a deer hit on the highway. When I arrived I found a medium sized doe in the road with a broken back but still very much able to try to sitter away. Of course I didn't have a shotgun in the car (rare because I almost always carried one) so I had to get as close as I could before trying a shot. I was around 30 feet from her and put my first shot to the back of her head. The result was similar to hitting her with a stick. She took smack to the head and then continued to look around, thoroughly uneffected by the shot. I walked closer, about 20 feet and shot again. The effect was basically the same though possibly as though she took a harder smack but still not down or visibly injured. I got closer, about 15 feet and hit her again. That shot knocked her down but didn't kill her at all. I then walked right over to her and, while standing over her, shot her in the side of the head from about 3 feet. That worked though the scene resulted in my being splattered with grey matter and thoroughly horrifying the family that stopped next to my PC to watch the spectacle (that'll teach them). With the exception on the final shot (execution-style) none of the shots penetrated to the spine or brain. Had I been using my standby of a shotgun with a slug first (to anchor her) followed by buckshot (for the kill) I wouldn't have had that problem.

I'm certain that a FMJ would have worked better, though only marginally due to the lighter weight of our FMJ ammo but that doesn't really bear on the discussion of the 9mm being suitable for hunting as non-expanding bullets are generally prohibited for hunting.
Click to expand...

Neh friend! 9mm in FMJ is a poor killer of even medium sized dogs. We witnessed this in the middle east while manning an observation post. Our adventureous line supervisor discovered while on jeep patrol of the green line dividing the two hate-ridden communities, a wild dog severely tangled in the nearby razor wire. Feral dogs were a constant nuisanse/health threat and sometimes downright dangerous when approached. He got as close as safely possible and drew out his BHP from it's army issue flap holster and tried to end it's suffering with 3 shots and a range of around 4 feet, to no avail no less. In the nearby platoon house communication bunker was stored a brand spanking new Remington 1100 Magnum deer slug gun and four or five unopened boxes of Imperial 3" 00 buckshot just for this specific task. But for whatever selfish reason, he decided to try the 9mm High Power instead, a big mistake in hindsight.
In fact he worsened the situation. He called over to my partner on duty and told him to bring the axe handle/puppy pounder. One swift blow to wounded dog's head and it was game over. Thankfully, finally ending the rather noisy horror show! BTW the line supervisor puked his guts out! :) Lesson learned......
 
Last edited:
bcsteve said:
It's funny, I've never had any issues with headshot (finisher) with adequate cartridges.
Click to expand...

a good shot when hunting does not need a finisher shot. for deer hit the top of the hart and you will also take out atleast one lung some times accuracy pays ive never had to use a put down shot even with buckshot
 
antiqueguy said:
a good shot when hunting does not need a finisher shot. for deer hit the top of the hart and you will also take out atleast one lung some times accuracy pays ive never had to use a put down shot even with buckshot
Click to expand...

Because no matter the situation or distance or position or weather or personal health or personal condition or Murphy or whatever, no one has ever missed the top of the heart, ever, even when that was not the intended POI.

Riiiiiight, we are not talking theory, but instead are talking about actual hunting.
 
something i read somewhere , but wasn't the 9mm one of those rounds that was intended to wound rather than outrightly kill a human ?



back to the original post , where cd hunter is looking at a jr carbine in 9mm for hunting purposes for his wife / daughter ....

why not a 45acp one instead ? it appears they have the bugs worked out of them , and they function no differently than the 9mm chambered ones now .
 
Thanks for the expanded version BUM and thanks Brutus for the dog story! It's hard to believe that a soldier with a HighPower and ball ammo couldn't even kill a dog at close range with three shots!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom