sucks 9mm isn't a big game caliber...

[Gatehouse]

Here is a chart

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/9luger.html


If you look at the chart, you can see that often there isn't much difference between 6" of barrel and 16"

 

[GerardSamija]

The two brands/types of 147gr I've tested so far from my 18.75" barrel have gone significantly faster than factory spec. The Remington UMC 147gr flat nose are rated around 990fps and meter at an average 1040fps for me. Winchester JHP 147gr gets to 1,100fps or a bit hotter, similarly spec'd at below 1,000fps for pistols. So maybe they're saying don't do it, because your bullets might hit too hard?

 

[Ardent]

Just wondering what the range was? Did you recover the bullet? Boiler room?

Inside ten yards, it was in camp, and had a tag, and a bunch of people who’d eat it. Wasn’t something I’d set out to hunt bear with but in the circumstance worked swell, carbine was on hand for plinking, never thought I’d hunt with it. In camp the mild report and very close shot made me go for it. Lung shot, treated it like archery as mentioned, bullet was recovered under the skin far side. It was either an SXT or a Gold Dot 147gr I’ve forgotten, have a pic of the recovered bullet somewhere worked as advertised / fully expanded. Gun was a BRS99 non-restricted carbine.

 

[Ardent]

I should note though, “stopping power” as in US style self defence debates, was non-existent. Nowhere near what just a .243 at that range will exhibit. The bear had a long death sprint just like it’d caught an arrow, and if it was in the act of attacking and shot defensively with a 9mm in the boiler room, it would have plenty of time to do more damage than we can sustain. But it would be very distracted.

 

[GerardSamija]

Which makes the fact that many of these 9mm carbines can legally hold 10-round magazines more relevant. A bolt action rifle, even with a 5-round magazine, might be too slow to operate for a second or third shot. A PCC semi-auto can dump 10 rounds in a couple of seconds. Though obviously lacking stopping power, perhaps this makes up for that in volume of fire in short duration.

 

[GUB]

Maybe the BC government will make a law where you can't have a scope on a PCC
After all not much different then a x bow
sounds silly ..But just as silly as using a 9 mmPCC for hunting
Can't be reaching out with them

 

[383SB]

Which makes the fact that many of these 9mm carbines can legally hold 10-round magazines more relevant. A bolt action rifle, even with a 5-round magazine, might be too slow to operate for a second or third shot. A PCC semi-auto can dump 10 rounds in a couple of seconds. Though obviously lacking stopping power, perhaps this makes up for that in volume of fire in short duration.

Like was mentioned before, if you don’t hit that furious, bobbing an running melon or the rope attached to it he’s(sorry to assume genders here ;p) gonna have plenty of time to scratch you up, I’d take one good shot from a rifle over a 9mm hail marry mag dump, not to say it wouldn’t work though either I’d just prefer that

 

[john-brennan]

I would never use a 9mm for big game ever to much chance of wounding the animal in most situations, I have to much respect for the animals I hunt.

 

[9mill]

Inside ten yards, it was in camp, and had a tag, and a bunch of people who’d eat it. Wasn’t something I’d set out to hunt bear with but in the circumstance worked swell, carbine was on hand for plinking, never thought I’d hunt with it. In camp the mild report and very close shot made me go for it. Lung shot, treated it like archery as mentioned, bullet was recovered under the skin far side. It was either an SXT or a Gold Dot 147gr I’ve forgotten, have a pic of the recovered bullet somewhere worked as advertised / fully expanded. Gun was a BRS99 non-restricted carbine.

I should note though, “stopping power” as in US style self defence debates, was non-existent. Nowhere near what just a .243 at that range will exhibit. The bear had a long death sprint just like it’d caught an arrow, and if it was in the act of attacking and shot defensively with a 9mm in the boiler room, it would have plenty of time to do more damage than we can sustain. But it would be very distracted.

Thanks for the reply. Very informative. I always like to hear from somebody who’s actually done it.

Which makes the fact that many of these 9mm carbines can legally hold 10-round magazines more relevant. A bolt action rifle, even with a 5-round magazine, might be too slow to operate for a second or third shot. A PCC semi-auto can dump 10 rounds in a couple of seconds. Though obviously lacking stopping power, perhaps this makes up for that in volume of fire in short duration.

99% of guys on this board wouldn’t get off more than two shots anyways. IMHO using a pcc for wildlife defence is a fool’s errand

 

[SHELL SHUCKER]

Bullet placement is everything. They use .177 air rifles to take feral pigs. Deer, 9MM, tucked in behind the blade, in to the ribs, at less than 50 meters? I would...if I felt good about the shot. Many country folk around these parts have raised their family on .22 single shot, Cooey, deer meat. All you Greta's out there might not like it, but, it's true.

I'm full on in on that one. I've taken more deer over the years with me Cooey 39 than any rifle I've owned.

I bonked a couple of blacktail deer years back using me former Spanish Destroyer carbine in 9mm Bergman/Bayard using a load of Blue Dot under hardcast 158 gr boolits (Sized to .356) at a tad over 1100 fps I used both .38 Super brass & 9mm Largo hulls for my reloads.(The casing dimensions and loading data being so close.)

Distances on deer were inside 50 yds or so and placed into the heart/lung zone on the buggers that didn't know I was there. None of 'em moved far before going down & no boolits were recovered. Nothing wrong with a 9mm carbine in my book at close range on unaware critters.Too much fun on rabbits & grey squirrels to boot.

 

[Brutus]

I don't care who you are or what you are supposedly capable of. Anyone who purposefully chooses a .177 air rifle to hunt feral pigs, regardless of size, does not deserve the term hunter.

Anyone who advocates this torture please come back to planet earth!

 

[SHELL SHUCKER]

I don't care who you are or what you are supposedly capable of. Anyone who purposefully chooses a .177 air rifle to hunt feral pigs, regardless of size, does not deserve the term hunter.

Anyone who advocates this torture please come back to planet earth!

It hardly be "torture" with a well setup shot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZeyMf74sIk

.22 pellets work well too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jejT_DOIgO4

 

[Barnes_270]

I have no doubt it can be done, successfully. The issue is - what percentage of shots result in a quick, humane kill? Sure, a 9mm under ideal circumstances can be adequate - but there are no normal circumstances - in Canada anyway - where a 30-30 or similar would not be a better choice. For every video on YouTube there will be many more where things didn't go as well, and animals suffered needlessly as a result.

 

[GerardSamija]

I'd venture to suggest - again at risk of bringing criticism - that we might be well served by a hunter testing program similar to what is used in Norway. A test series is shot prior to any would-be hunter being granted permission to hunt, so as to prove basic competence and marksmanship. As I understand it in Canada, written testing of knowledge around various aspects of animal descriptions and habits is well covered, but there is no practical shooting test. As such, we likely have many 'hunters' going out with a .308" or .30-06 rifle, who haven't bothered to do more than the basics to get the things sighted in. If even that. Of course I might easily have missed something - I haven't challenged the hunting test yet, just got the old PAL/RPAL as I'm nowhere near knowledgeable enough to try hunting for game. Please share, if anyone knows of a required minimum standard for accuracy among Canadian hunters at large or in BC.

Being able to hit a paper plate at 100 metres is hardly accuracy, at least not sufficient to assure a mercifully quick death to the animal being hunted, and yet this is quite commonly stated as being good enough. But it does go a considerable way towards explaining why it is so often recited that one must use such powerful cartridges, as even grazing the lungs with a 2,500fps bullet is likely to be sufficient to cause death. No real accuracy required.

 

[bearkilr]

I'd venture to suggest - again at risk of bringing criticism - that we might be well served by a hunter testing program similar to what is used in Norway. A test series is shot prior to any would-be hunter being granted permission to hunt, so as to prove basic competence and marksmanship. As I understand it in Canada, written testing of knowledge around various aspects of animal descriptions and habits is well covered, but there is no practical shooting test. As such, we likely have many 'hunters' going out with a .308" or .30-06 rifle, who haven't bothered to do more than the basics to get the things sighted in. If even that. Of course I might easily have missed something - I haven't challenged the hunting test yet, just got the old PAL/RPAL as I'm nowhere near knowledgeable enough to try hunting for game. Please share, if anyone knows of a required minimum standard for accuracy among Canadian hunters at large or in BC.

Being able to hit a paper plate at 100 metres is hardly accuracy, at least not sufficient to assure a mercifully quick death to the animal being hunted, and yet this is quite commonly stated as being good enough. But it does go a considerable way towards explaining why it is so often recited that one must use such powerful cartridges, as even grazing the lungs with a 2,500fps bullet is likely to be sufficient to cause death. No real accuracy required.

I agree about the standardized test, but since you're quoting Norway, one of the Scandinavian countries, be advised that head shots are a no-no and considered extremely unethical. I think you'd find find that most European hunters tend to "overgun", rather than experiment on a live animal.

 

[Gatehouse]

I'd venture to suggest - again at risk of bringing criticism - that we might be well served by a hunter testing program similar to what is used in Norway. A test series is shot prior to any would-be hunter being granted permission to hunt, so as to prove basic competence and marksmanship. As I understand it in Canada, written testing of knowledge around various aspects of animal descriptions and habits is well covered, but there is no practical shooting test. As such, we likely have many 'hunters' going out with a .308" or .30-06 rifle, who haven't bothered to do more than the basics to get the things sighted in. If even that. Of course I might easily have missed something - I haven't challenged the hunting test yet, just got the old PAL/RPAL as I'm nowhere near knowledgeable enough to try hunting for game. Please share, if anyone knows of a required minimum standard for accuracy among Canadian hunters at large or in BC.

Being able to hit a paper plate at 100 metres is hardly accuracy, at least not sufficient to assure a mercifully quick death to the animal being hunted, and yet this is quite commonly stated as being good enough. But it does go a considerable way towards explaining why it is so often recited that one must use such powerful cartridges, as even grazing the lungs with a 2,500fps bullet is likely to be sufficient to cause death. No real accuracy required.

If you can hit a paper plate at 100 from a field position, you can kill a deer at 100 yards. If you can hit the same plate at 500 yards from field positions, you can kill a deer at 500 yards.

Just go and practice shooting and don't worry too much about what the Euros are doing.

 

[GerardSamija]

I spent several years competing in 10 metre air pistol, got up to about 92/100 scores consistently, or 553/600 in several competitions. Not brilliant, but rarely hit outside the 9 ring. A bit of a shoulder injury took me out of that but I've maintained my marksmanship with informal HFT shooting in Mission and practice at home, indoors. No trouble generally hitting what I aim at, and rifles are a whole lot easier to shoot accurately than pistols held in one hand. For the moment I'm more focused on learning animal life cycle stuff, behaviours, efficiently dressing game (bit of practice on grey squirrels and I have that just about wired - from taking the shot to ready for the pot in under 3 minutes), learning the many rules around hunting and land use and forest etiquette etc. in BC... it's a lot more complicated than going out and shooting something.

While I can see the logic behind heart/lung shots as being more reliable in terms of downing a large animal, it's hard to wrap my brain around that shot being more 'ethical' considering that the animal remains conscious and very much alive for often a minute or more. Sure it's consciousness is fading with blood loss, more or less depending on exactly what's been hit and with what intensity of force, but at least 15 seconds to die seems very, very common from all the films I've seen. Even some of the most famous hunters (Steve Rinella for example) frequently watch for a while as the animal takes time to die. How is this ethical?

Early on in my pursuit of garden-destroying Eastern grey squirrels I often took body shots, generally from the side, looking to place a pellet just behind the foreleg and into the heart. More than half the time this was successful. But merciful? Not terribly, as the animal would lay there taking seconds to die, aware of its fate. With correctly placed head shots it's lights out. Over. Done. I can't fathom any hunt being more ethical than that. I've stuck with head shots since figuring that out, and if a good side-on shot to the dime-sized target between eye and ear doesn't present itself, that squirrel lives to meet again another day. Doesn't happen often as in studying their behaviours I've learned how far a bit of patience can go in waiting for that presentation to appear. Getting 'lucky' with body shots just doesn't interest me when an animal's suffering is on the line. Besides that, there's more undamaged meat available with head shots.

 

[kc34]

I spent several years competing in 10 metre air pistol, got up to about 92/100 scores consistently, or 553/600 in several competitions. Not brilliant, but rarely hit outside the 9 ring. A bit of a shoulder injury took me out of that but I've maintained my marksmanship with informal HFT shooting in Mission and practice at home, indoors. No trouble generally hitting what I aim at, and rifles are a whole lot easier to shoot accurately than pistols held in one hand. For the moment I'm more focused on learning animal life cycle stuff, behaviours, efficiently dressing game (bit of practice on grey squirrels and I have that just about wired - from taking the shot to ready for the pot in under 3 minutes), learning the many rules around hunting and land use and forest etiquette etc. in BC... it's a lot more complicated than going out and shooting something.

While I can see the logic behind heart/lung shots as being more reliable in terms of downing a large animal, it's hard to wrap my brain around that shot being more 'ethical' considering that the animal remains conscious and very much alive for often a minute or more. Sure it's consciousness is fading with blood loss, more or less depending on exactly what's been hit and with what intensity of force, but at least 15 seconds to die seems very, very common from all the films I've seen. Even some of the most famous hunters (Steve Rinella for example) frequently watch for a while as the animal takes time to die. How is this ethical?

Early on in my pursuit of garden-destroying Eastern grey squirrels I often took body shots, generally from the side, looking to place a pellet just behind the foreleg and into the heart. More than half the time this was successful. But merciful? Not terribly, as the animal would lay there taking seconds to die, aware of its fate. With correctly placed head shots it's lights out. Over. Done. I can't fathom any hunt being more ethical than that. I've stuck with head shots since figuring that out, and if a good side-on shot to the dime-sized target between eye and ear doesn't present itself, that squirrel lives to meet again another day. Doesn't happen often as in studying their behaviours I've learned how far a bit of patience can go in waiting for that presentation to appear. Getting 'lucky' with body shots just doesn't interest me when an animal's suffering is on the line. Besides that, there's more undamaged meat available with head shots.

How often are your head shots placed poorly....? 10%, 20%, 30%.....? Higher? You don't seem to mention anything about your bad head shots for some reason? Why is that? Have you never made a bad head shot.......

Your clearly a good target shooter but hunting isn't target shooting.

Ricocheting your 9mm off the side of a deer's skull after a case of Buck Fever and the poor SOB stumbling off into the bush never to be seen again is hardly ethical either my friend.......

 

[9mill]

Ethics are interesting to me. It’s a spin that only modern hunters put on hunting. Honestly even a poorly shot deer suffers a better fate than being taken down by wolves. I’m not even convinced that animals feel pain the way we understand it. Once you add people being “sporting” things get even stranger, I know a guy that refuses to shoot grouse on the ground. He throws rocks at them until they fly. Me I just bail out of the truck and shoot them but he says this doesn’t give the bird a sporting chance. I honestly think it’s more ethical to shoot them while they are still as you’ve got a better chance at a clean shot.

And of course there is bow hunting’s dirty little secret. A good number of animals take an arrow and are never seen again. Of course nobody on this board or the entire internet has done that as that would make them a bad hunter but it happens.

In the end I obviously try my best to make the final exit short for anything I have a hand in.

 

[GerardSamija]

How often are your head shots placed poorly....? 10%, 20%, 30%.....? Higher? You don't seem to mention anything about your bad head shots for some reason? Why is that? Have you never made a bad head shot.......

Never made any claims of being perfect. I've completely missed 3 shots this year, and took 43 squirrels. Missed entirely. As in the squirrels ducked/moved at the instant of the shot and my pellets passed clear, with no injury. I have also missed one partially, only knocking it out. Had to take a follow-up shot a few seconds later, which finished the job. The squirrel was unconscious but alive between those two shots, as I mis-estimated the range slightly and hit a bit high, damaging the upper part of the brain with a pass-through.

As I said, I try to avoid shots where there is doubt. As a result I don't take a lot more shots than I do. As you say, hunting is not target shooting. There will always be compromises involved, but one ought to strive to make these minimal by working on the related skills. If I find myself distracted in some way, whether it's excitement causing a lack of steadiness or some other factor, I put the gun down and focus on my breathing. It seems too few hunters give much importance to precision bullet placement, going by videos like the second one early in this thread - those half dozen or so shots from a Glock made me feel only disgust with the shooter and pity for the animal which had to suffer such a drawn-out death to satisfy that idiot's ego. Even more amazingly, he shared the video, and not out of a need for atonement. He was actually pleased with himself!

Ricocheting your 9mm off the side of a deer's skull after a case of Buck Fever and the poor SOB stumbling off into the bush never to be seen again is hardly ethical either my friend.......

Obviously, ricochets are undesirable to say the least. I've read a number of accounts here on CGN, and more elsewhere, of even fairly substantial bullets being found in deer and other game by hunters as they butcher the animals. Not the bullets which made the kill, but bullets the wounds from which the animals had survived and even healed, often with broken ribs or legs involved. If someone's only capable of hitting a paper plate at 100, the edge of that plate puts the bullet up to 5" away from the proper bullseye, which is to say between spine and shoulder if high and rearward, or between ribs or hitting the sternum if low. Shattering a foreleg perhaps but without a clean kill. It doesn't seem like much of an argument in this context. Nobody is perfect. Not even close. But not even trying for a high level of skill in something like hunting where the suffering of another living being is on the line sounds immoral.