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

Ardent said:
Seems he explained it nicely in the quote. And I outfit fishing and hunting, including bears. :d All the remote streams locally have lots of Grizz / Browns. I carry on ATC and if I could carry a pocket gun unobtrusively, I would too many days. There’s nothing odd about it, take a tour of a wild northwest river and you’ll find bears, and happy unarmed fishermen both sides of the border. Believe me I’ve been there, both sides of the border. That Phil scaled down to a 9mm for a relaxed day of fishing sounds the same to me as hearing you hopped on a dirt bike instead of a quad to check a bait one day. I think we’re seeing some sour grapes at publicity and fanfare, and that’s natural.
Click to expand...

I know a few guys that got wilderness ATT's. As soon as the novelty wore off, they stopped carrying - too much hassle. I also used to keep a close watch when I went to Southern states and was always surprised at how few people carry.
 
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by GerardSamija
I've been looking at what's available there. Not a huge selection available in Canada. I see a bit more power becoming available with something like this 220gr .300BLK cartridge, priced at around $1.25+tax per round, delivering about 488fpe (my Winchester JHP 147gr at 1,100fps delivering 81% of that muzzle energy) which doesn't seem such a useful increase considering the cost of a .300BLK rifle... and then of course everything in the class is full size rifles, no takedowns...

https://www.reliablegun.com/en/feder...ds-box-1000fps

Seems the .35 stuff is generally made to travel around 2,000fps and hotter, so perhaps not the best ballistically when it comes to cutting velocity in half? And the mass involved doesn't seem to offer anything over .300BLK in terms of muzzle energy when loaded subsonic.

I'm leaning more towards thinking about a shorter non-restricted 12ga shotgun with either a rifled barrel or 'rifled' slugs. A 1oz slug at 1,000fps gives 970fpe, with similar holdovers to 9mm or .22lr. Not so sure about precision shot placement however, which is my major point of hesitation with a shotgun, ESPECIALLY if trying to keep it small-ish for convenience in backpacking. This page has some good information on subsonic hunting:
https://www.americanrifleman.org/art...ic-shotshells/

While of course it's not absolutely essential that I go subsonic, it's a strong preference. I'd rather stick with just the one set of custom earplugs, not layering up with external hearing protection. It's not just a matter of being excessively sensitive to loud noises, which I am, but that my hearing is central in my profession, as musicians depend upon my ability to adjust the sound of their violins, violas, cellos and doublebasses with considerable sensitivity. So going hunting and being somewhat able to hear what's going on around me is at odds with my career. Subsonic ammunition seems the obvious compromise. And since I don't relish the prospect of hauling a full-length shotgun around in forests... a shorty seems to join the list, though not quite so imperative.


Gatehouse said:
If noise is your issue, a much simpler solution is to just use a rifle and wear electronic ear plugs or muffs while hunting.
Click to expand...


I agree with Gatehouse. Use the KISS principle here by using a rifle with a longer barrel, moderate load and your hearing protection and you are good to go. Easy, Peasy Lemon Squeezy......:rolleyes:
 
Ardent said:
Seems he explained it nicely in the quote. And I outfit fishing and hunting, including bears. :d All the remote streams locally have lots of Grizz / Browns. I carry on ATC and if I could carry a pocket gun unobtrusively, I would too many days. There’s nothing odd about it, take a tour of a wild northwest river and you’ll find bears, and happy unarmed fishermen both sides of the border. Believe me I’ve been there, both sides of the border. That Phil scaled down to a 9mm for a relaxed day of fishing sounds the same to me as hearing you hopped on a dirt bike instead of a quad to check a bait one day. I think we’re seeing some sour grapes at publicity and fanfare, and that’s natural.
Click to expand...

No sour grapes here, I could care less. The whole incident just seems a bit "Mark Sullivanesque" :d
 
Ardent said:
It’s called the Deerfield Carbine, lots still around.
Click to expand...

I've had a few "clackers..." bailed on that and went with the 77/44... much prefer the bolt action, even with the restrictive magazine OAL... you will still see many of the Ruger Deerfield Carbine's in Ontario deer camps.
 
hoytcanon said:
I've had a few "clackers..." bailed on that and went with the 77/44... much prefer the bolt action, even with the restrictive magazine OAL... you will still see many of the Ruger Deerfield Carbine's in Ontario deer camps.
Click to expand...

Agreed it never took me, though I do find it a pretty little gun, like a big boy 10/22. Skipped past it straight to the Mini-30.


GerardSamija said:
Looks like at least 1,000fpe with .460 Rowland:

Loud though.
Click to expand...

The difference between a .45 Colt and a 9mm is a lot less than people think. And the difference between a .243 or .30-30 and a .45 Colt is a lot more. Get above 2,200fps impacts and everything changes drastically, below 2,200 it changes incrementally.
 
If I were in a survival situation and had the choice between a rifle in 9×19mm Parabellum or .22 rimfire the smaller diameter would win everytime.

Like Rodney Dangerfield the 40 grain round point .22 LR get no respect. With it's modest velocity it will out-penetrate the 9mm bullet in most mediums. While hardly endorsed as a moose rifle a couple of 40 grain lead .22 bullets placed low in the lungs will kill any moose that walks as long as the shooter has the patience to let the animal bleed out without spooking it.
 
'Boo said:
If I were in a survival situation and had the choice between a rifle in 9×19mm Parabellum or .22 rimfire the smaller diameter would win everytime.

Like Rodney Dangerfield the 40 grain round point .22 LR get no respect. With it's modest velocity it will out-penetrate the 9mm bullet in most mediums. While hardly endorsed as a moose rifle a couple of 40 grain lead .22 bullets placed low in the lungs will kill any moose that walks as long as the shooter has the patience to let the animal bleed out without spooking it.
Click to expand...

My grandfather dropped a 90 pound wolf on the spot with his 22LR at about 50m last winter. No question it would do the same to a small deer.
 
Ardent said:
Agreed it never took me, though I do find it a pretty little gun, like a big boy 10/22. Skipped past it straight to the Mini-30.




The difference between a .45 Colt and a 9mm is a lot less than people think. And the difference between a .243 or .30-30 and a .45 Colt is a lot more. Get above 2,200fps impacts and everything changes drastically, below 2,200 it changes incrementally.
Click to expand...

The thing is with the 44/45 you get almost 50% more surface area from the get-go, and 80% or so more weight. Also, you can use pure lead in the 44/45's, which will expand very well even at low velocity. I have tried lead in a 9 mil and had issues with leading, but I didn't play around much with cures. I never had issues with lead at 44-40 velocities in my Mag, or in my traditional muzzleloaders. In the end, it's all a question of what you're comfortable with. I did get a few bears with a Kentucky rifle, 270 gr. Maxi's and 70 gr. of fffG, which I suspect would give similar energy to a 9 mil. They were quick, humane kills, but the bullets had expanded to over an inch.
 
kc34 said:
I'm leaning more towards thinking about a shorter non-restricted 12ga shotgun with either a rifled barrel or 'rifled' slugs. A 1oz slug at 1,000fps gives 970fpe, with similar holdovers to 9mm or .22lr. Not so sure about precision shot placement however, which is my major point of hesitation with a shotgun, ESPECIALLY if trying to keep it small-ish for convenience in backpacking.
Click to expand...

Have a look at some of the 12g barrels with rifle sights, plenty accurate once you find a slug it likes shooting. Rem makes a 20” smooth bore turkey barrel that’s threaded for chokes with fiber optic rifle sights, if I had to pick one 12g barrel to use its would be the one. Or a 14” that’s threaded for chokes and has rifle sights.
 
Butcherbill said:
Have a look at some of the 12g barrels with rifle sights, plenty accurate once you find a slug it likes shooting. Rem makes a 20” smooth bore turkey barrel that’s threaded for chokes with fiber optic rifle sights, if I had to pick one 12g barrel to use its would be the one. Or a 14” that’s threaded for chokes and has rifle sights.
Click to expand...

If you're not going to be using it for long-ish range hunting, this is the route I would recommend. You will almost certainly be able to find a foster (read "inexpensive") slug that will do a ragged hole at 50 yards, and you can use it for small game, turkey and with buckshot. A rifled barrel pretty much limits you to sabot (read "expensive") slugs. There are dual purpose slugs (less expensive than sabots, and not much more than Foster's) you can supposedly use in both smooth and rifled barrels, but accuracy was so-so in the 3 rifled guns I've tried them in, whereas the 5 or 6 smoothbores I've tried with rifle-type sights (some were clamp on to the rib designs), I could get a one hole group or very close to it at 50 yards
 
Papaclaude said:
If you're not going to be using it for long-ish range hunting, this is the route I would recommend. You will almost certainly be able to find a foster (read "inexpensive") slug that will do a ragged hole at 50 yards, and you can use it for small game, turkey and with buckshot. A rifled barrel pretty much limits you to sabot (read "expensive") slugs. There are dual purpose slugs (less expensive than sabots, and not much more than Foster's) you can supposedly use in both smooth and rifled barrels, but accuracy was so-so in the 3 rifled guns I've tried them in, whereas the 5 or 6 smoothbores I've tried with rifle-type sights (some were clamp on to the rib designs), I could get a one hole group or very close to it at 50 yards
Click to expand...


Exactly, there’s a couple good hard cast foster style slugs on the market that shoot well from any of my smooth bore barrels. I’d have no issues shooting large game out to 80y with rifle sights, 100y if I spent some time getting to know my hold overs even better. Like you said, with a choked smooth bore you get the use of many different loads. Much better than a pistol round imho.
 
Papaclaude said:
The thing is with the 44/45 you get almost 50% more surface area from the get-go, and 80% or so more weight. Also, you can use pure lead in the 44/45's, which will expand very well even at low velocity. I have tried lead in a 9 mil and had issues with leading, but I didn't play around much with cures. I never had issues with lead at 44-40 velocities in my Mag, or in my traditional muzzleloaders. In the end, it's all a question of what you're comfortable with. I did get a few bears with a Kentucky rifle, 270 gr. Maxi's and 70 gr. of fffG, which I suspect would give similar energy to a 9 mil. They were quick, humane kills, but the bullets had expanded to over an inch.
Click to expand...

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, and for that matter one taken with a .505 Gibbs, 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 absolute 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 all said, I do worry about certain types of personalities with very little hunting experience keen on using a 9mm they’re fond of to be different, seizing only carefully filtered parts of my comments to justify their ideas. My point isn’t the 9mm is a great bear round any more than I’m saying the .45 Colt is over estimated. And back to my original point, treated like archery, the 9mm works. That is to say it is an extreme handicap on one’s hunting, offering a tiny fragment of the range and shot possibilities a rifle with modest speed will. It’s the hard way of doing things and there are few good reasons for it. But, it can be done correctly, my only lack of faith in that statement lies in the people who may try it and their restraint and ability.

oEfoc8T.jpg

7fxwRG8.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom