sucks 9mm isn't a big game caliber...
- Thread starter Mr. Friendly
- Start date
Afraid it’s the exact same thing. There would be utterly zero difference between this 9mm I took the spring bear with, which expanded to .60 before it met the organs, and then penetrated the whole bear, and a .45 Colt. We get whipped up into thinking a .45 Colt, or even .45-70 cast is more gun because it kicks more and looks bigger. The only difference between the 9mm and them is penetration, none reach the velocities for hydrostatic shock and tissue damage. For a frontal shot and the possibility of glancing off bone the heavier, higher SD bullet will always track straighter and go further. But on a heart / lung vitals shot this 9mm and a .45 Colt or cast .45-70 are identical. If bullet diameter actually really mattered, this 9mm would be superior to a hard cast .45 Colt in a heart / lung shot. All bullet diameters up to .577 are actually small holes and there’s little difference between them, contrary to popular conception.
The bear died exactly as the bears I’ve seen taken with a .45-70 hard cast did, death sprint and fell over in sight of the shooter, groaned and done. I don’t think the 9mm is a fantastic bear round, and don’t want to come off as purporting it to be. Skill sets and shot restraint vary more than cartridges do is my point. It’s an absolutely fact driving a .60 cal hole through the lungs of a bear will kill identically well from a 147gr 9mm or a .45-70 however, and there’s utterly no debate in that. I always encourage people to pick up faster cartridges, .30-30 and beyond, but also have no illusions that a .45 Colt is more ethical than a quality 9mm for a conventional heart / lung shot. They kill by the exact same mechanism and both look pitiful compared to a .243 Or .30-30 for on game effect. Seen too many bears shot, of a couple species, with too many things I could be convinced otherwise.
This was a broadside shot with bullet recovered under offside hide?
At 58 it's been some years since I could shoot with open sights. In air pistol competition I'd use a shooting frame with custom lens and iris, occluded on the left eye, but that's not really practical for hunting. Normal glasses don't seem to work well for me with open sights in the several diopter strengths I've tried. I see 'slug gun' scopes, so that's probably my best option if I eventually go the shotgun route.
- Location
- Blaster land, Okanagan BC
I think we’re saying we’d take a 12g over a 9mm pcc, not over a rifle. I’ve got a spot I watch that see's lots of deer traffic. It’s thick smaller trees and a long shot in there would be 40y, most shots would be in the 20-30y on average. It’s about the only place I’d use a shotgun over my reg deer rifle, would be an ideal spot to shoot deer with a slug. A rifle with irons or an rds would be perfect also.
Yeah, range in dense rainforest is certainly a consideration. I've found it difficult to find a place on crown land anywhere north of the valley where I can set up a clear line of sight to a 100 yard target. 45 or 50 is manageable, beyond that I'm threading the needle. And of course nothing wrong with shooting paper between densely spaced trees... but shooting a deer through too much of that seems unwise. So I'd just not take shots much beyond 50 yards.
Ardent
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Yes indeed, caught a rib both sides.
This fall, I shot a doe with my 20 gauge and a 260 gr. sabot moving just under 2000 fps, at 206 yards, One shot, both lungs, blood spray in about a 15 ft. half-circle. She took one jump and. Never in my wildest dreams would I have thought it would cause that kind of a kill. And that is the absolute furthest I can shoot where I hunt. My smoothbores would shoot a 2-3 " group at 50 yards (basically a ragged hole for a 5-shot group), but at 100, they opened up to dinner-plate size - a little too iffy for my taste. A Browning BPS I had loved the TruBall slugs, an 870 preferred Challengers, a lever gun liked Brennekes, The others, I can't remember.
If I know my shotgun ... and I know where it will hit .. and within the range that I determined that I am comfortable with ... why wouldn't I use my shotgun?
I am probably more likely to harvest a deer with that shotgun than with a rifle that I don not know ....
My 870 with Federal TruBall slugs can shoot a 4" group at 100 meters .... and I know where to aim and compensate with that gun.
And I can harvest a squirrel or a hare along the journey ...
Last edited:
That's good performance, bullet looks good. Not too different from what you would expect from a lever gun 30-30 or 44 Mag.
If I know my shotgun ... and I know where it will hit .. and within the range that I determined that I am comfortable with ... why wouldn't I use my shotgun?
I am probably more likely to harvest a deer with that shotgun than with a rifle that I don not know ....
My 870 with Federal TruBall slugs can shoot a 4" group at 100 meters .... and I know where to aim and compensate with that gun.
And I can harvest a squirrel or a hare along the journey ...
You should use whatever makes you happy. The point is that unless you are restricted to a shotgun, rifles usually open more opportunities for both distance and shot placement.
Ardent
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
While I’d put it way below the .30-30 as there’s no radiating tissue damage, threshold for that is 2,200fps impacts, I fully agree on the .44 Mag. It punched a clean .60 cal whole straight through the vitals of the bear and no .44 Mag is going to do that any differently. We’re seeing that in US handgun effectiveness analysis as modern statistics start to finally push their way through decades old assumptions, ####ty data gathering techniques, and hyperbole about .44s and .45s being “big” holes or guns.
Federal had a good video out with their ballisticians who noted there was no difference in terminal effectiveness between modern 9mm and .45. The issue is both cause damage by the same mechanism, low velocity impacts (Sub-2,200fps as per Federal and the FBI), and the .45 hole is not appreciably larger statistically than the .35. In nature .1 of an inch doesn’t make the difference it does in a shooter’s mind. If the bullet penetrates the distance required, results will be largely comparable. Yes the .44 Mag will provide that penetration from more angles, but in the broadside shot as you note they’re utterly equal.
Again it’s not that the 9mm is underrated it’s that the cartridges we’re debating beside it are overrated, like the .45 Colt and .44 Mag. All will cleanly take deer or black bear, in a much narrower window of shots than a faster rifle as you pointed out. Heck few take issue with the .50 cal traditional muzzle loader hunters and they are at a greater handicap than my 9mm 147gr carbine was by nearly every measure; shot follow up, ballistic coefficient, even arguably accuracy.
The issue is hunters’ skill level and understanding not cartridges’ abilities, and I do get an uncomfortable feeling thinking about inexperienced hunters taking a 9mm afield because they’ve taken only the information they want to hear. Whenever a bear client asked me what I thought of the .45-70 for grizzly I was very frank and told them I’d rather see them with a .270 or .308. Most effective rounds on grizzly and black bears I’ve witnessed were .270, 7 mag below 175s, .300 ultra, .300 win, .375 mag. All share one thing in common; they’re fast. Least effective? Hard cast .45-70, stiff bulleted .505 Gibbs and I’m not hamming that up. Yea they killed the bears but identically to the 9mm I used above.
There is an awful lot of 30-30 ammunition going must slower than most people realize. The original load was for a 160gr bullet at 1970 fps IIRC. I've clocked plenty of factory 30-30 that is sub 2000 FPS from the muzzle. Even if we use the optimistic factory specs on lots of 150 gr 30-30 ammunition, it's dropped to 2000 fps before it gets to 100 yards, and 170gr ammo starts at 2200 fps...Although reality is they factory specs are probably fudged. And lots of 30-30 bullets end up looking like yours and found on the offside, so that's why I noted the similarity.
This is a study that's been posted before on CGN. While it has to do with shooting humans and incapacitating/killing them, it does show that for the most part, they all work about the same.
https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/alternate-look-handgun-stopping-power
When talking about handgun cartridges for hunting or defense I had always subscribed more closely to Elmer Keith's big, slow and heavy thoughts. I felt that as the handgun was going to be much slower than a rifle, the way to compensate for it would be to make the bullet larger in diameter and weight. But this study as well as a few other things (including Shoemakers 9mm grizzly) made me rethink a few things. My ideal wilderness carry handgun was originally a 45 ACP loaded with 45-08 cartridges that produced similar numbers to a 44 magnum, but had 10 rounds and was faster to reload than a 6 shot revolver. Power, capacity, fast reloads and better ergonomics than a revolver. And for a human defense carry (not applicable in Canada but it's part of the whoel concept) it would be loaded with 45 ACP, because a 45 ACP is twice the weight of a 9mm and kills better, right? Well, not according to that study. And since most handgun rounds are fairly equal, as you note, then it comes down to where you put the bullet. There is no question the 9mm can be shot accurately faster than a 45 ACP, 44 Magnum, 38 Special, whatever.
Couldn't agree more with the 45-70. When the 45-70 resurgence started a few years (decades?) ago I thought wouldn't it be cool to get a 45-70 Marlin and load it with hard cast and have a real thumper. But then I started shooting some and looked at the ballistics and didn't see what all the fuss was about. Even with hot handloads it comes up short compared to many modern cartridges. And a M94 carbine in 44 Magnum or 45 Colt would work just as well yet be lighter and nicer to carry.
I think if I was allowed to carry a handgun for wilderness defense, these days I would take a Glock 9mm. While Glocks are not my favorite handguns, they are light and work well enough. I can make 10 good hits with a 9mm and reload with a fresh magazine, faster than emptying the 45 ACP with good hits, and certainly faster than shooting a 44 magnum revolver. And almost anyone can shoot a 9mm accurately with a bit of practice, the bigger guns take much more effort. To defend yourself from a bear you need to hit it well, preferably in the head and a 9mm can give you the ability to make very fast accurate hits. At the very least even without a brain shot, it is probable that a bear getting hit in and around the face will break off the charge.
Considering how fast and accurate a good 9mm PCC can be shot especially with a red dot and how handy some of them are to carry, I can see their usefulness in wilderness defense although a rifle is still a better option when going into areas I expect to see a grizzly.
This is a study that's been posted before on CGN. While it has to do with shooting humans and incapacitating/killing them, it does show that for the most part, they all work about the same.
https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/alternate-look-handgun-stopping-power
When talking about handgun cartridges for hunting or defense I had always subscribed more closely to Elmer Keith's big, slow and heavy thoughts. I felt that as the handgun was going to be much slower than a rifle, the way to compensate for it would be to make the bullet larger in diameter and weight. But this study as well as a few other things (including Shoemakers 9mm grizzly) made me rethink a few things. My ideal wilderness carry handgun was originally a 45 ACP loaded with 45-08 cartridges that produced similar numbers to a 44 magnum, but had 10 rounds and was faster to reload than a 6 shot revolver. Power, capacity, fast reloads and better ergonomics than a revolver. And for a human defense carry (not applicable in Canada but it's part of the whoel concept) it would be loaded with 45 ACP, because a 45 ACP is twice the weight of a 9mm and kills better, right? Well, not according to that study. And since most handgun rounds are fairly equal, as you note, then it comes down to where you put the bullet. There is no question the 9mm can be shot accurately faster than a 45 ACP, 44 Magnum, 38 Special, whatever.
Couldn't agree more with the 45-70. When the 45-70 resurgence started a few years (decades?) ago I thought wouldn't it be cool to get a 45-70 Marlin and load it with hard cast and have a real thumper. But then I started shooting some and looked at the ballistics and didn't see what all the fuss was about. Even with hot handloads it comes up short compared to many modern cartridges. And a M94 carbine in 44 Magnum or 45 Colt would work just as well yet be lighter and nicer to carry.
I think if I was allowed to carry a handgun for wilderness defense, these days I would take a Glock 9mm. While Glocks are not my favorite handguns, they are light and work well enough. I can make 10 good hits with a 9mm and reload with a fresh magazine, faster than emptying the 45 ACP with good hits, and certainly faster than shooting a 44 magnum revolver. And almost anyone can shoot a 9mm accurately with a bit of practice, the bigger guns take much more effort. To defend yourself from a bear you need to hit it well, preferably in the head and a 9mm can give you the ability to make very fast accurate hits. At the very least even without a brain shot, it is probable that a bear getting hit in and around the face will break off the charge.
Considering how fast and accurate a good 9mm PCC can be shot especially with a red dot and how handy some of them are to carry, I can see their usefulness in wilderness defense although a rifle is still a better option when going into areas I expect to see a grizzly.
Ardent
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Fair enough on real world .30-30 velocities. That 2,200fps cutoff for me has been pretty clearly illustrated on grizzlies to me. One with a 7x57 175gr where the impact would have been around 1,900-2,000fps, and it killed like the 9mm did on black bear. Cleanly, but it had time and a walk. Same with .300 Win with 200gr stiff bullets past 200 yards. Two grizzlies were shot back to back with 200gr Trophy Bonded Bear Claws (Hoyt was there), one absorbed several hits at 200+ while turning circles confused, the other absorbed a couple rounds and jumped into the river and died floating downstream (which was an interesting recovery). In closer or with lighter bullet weights I’ve seen the .300s absolutely flatten grizzlies though by the same token.
Not trying to tell people .45-70s or slower cartridges won’t reliably kill animals, of course they will. But they’ll do it by a different mechanism than faster bullet impacts will, and frankly are less effective if not less lethal. As for ATC in BC the 10mm is the lowest round approved for my knowledge and what I was told, it’s what I carry, and I do value the better straight line on bone penetration than the 9mm. Though I have no illusions about it being vastly more effective than the 9, or vastly less effective for that matter than my old .475 Linebaugh.
Not trying to tell people .45-70s or slower cartridges won’t reliably kill animals, of course they will. But they’ll do it by a different mechanism than faster bullet impacts will, and frankly are less effective if not less lethal. As for ATC in BC the 10mm is the lowest round approved for my knowledge and what I was told, it’s what I carry, and I do value the better straight line on bone penetration than the 9mm. Though I have no illusions about it being vastly more effective than the 9, or vastly less effective for that matter than my old .475 Linebaugh.
One thing that is undeniable is that much of our "knowledge" and/or assumptions come from bullet designs over a hundred years old, and modern bullets are orders of magnitude better. If you look at calibers like the 243 - when they came out, pretty well everyone agreed that it was a goo medium game and large varmint gun, but totally inadequate for big game. Now, many hunters are humanely killing moose and elk with the 243. OK, so, OP, maybe I have changed my point of view on the suitability of the 9 mil for deer sized game.
I view the present 9mm carbines as being Big 22's. Great for shooting with kids, relatively low cost of ammo and mild report (more important than mild recoil in my opinion). Without reloading of course.
The Kel Tec Sub 2000 comes the closest to my idea of what a 9mm carbine should be. Some of these carbines are so chubby, 7 lbs is ridiculous, by comparison Ruger claims 5.2 and 5.5lbs for their 77/44 and 77/357. I would love a 9mm along the lines of the Browning SA22.
For big game and general usefulness I think they are out classed by things like the SKS and the Winchester and Marlin 30-30's.
And only the Hi Point carbine is price competative with the 3 rifles I just mentioned.
The Kel Tec Sub 2000 comes the closest to my idea of what a 9mm carbine should be. Some of these carbines are so chubby, 7 lbs is ridiculous, by comparison Ruger claims 5.2 and 5.5lbs for their 77/44 and 77/357. I would love a 9mm along the lines of the Browning SA22.
For big game and general usefulness I think they are out classed by things like the SKS and the Winchester and Marlin 30-30's.
And only the Hi Point carbine is price competative with the 3 rifles I just mentioned.
I think the draw of the 45-70 has a lot to do with the rifles they're chambered in. lever guns are often short, light, fast to load (I'm personally much faster with a lever than a bolt gun), and most wear irons. somewhat meaningless for hunting, but it could be vitally important in a defensive scenario.
I know that I'm not the only one on this board, but I've been charged by black bears in the bush. they're far faster than I ever thought possible. getting a single shot off may be the best one can hope for. a lever gun may get you that shot, where a bolt gun doesn't.
I know that I'm not the only one on this board, but I've been charged by black bears in the bush. they're far faster than I ever thought possible. getting a single shot off may be the best one can hope for. a lever gun may get you that shot, where a bolt gun doesn't.
