Legal doesn't make it right. If you are a very good shot, make darned sure of where you place your shot, yeah, you can kill just about any animal with a 9 mil. Thousands of cattle are killed with .22's every year. Doesn't make the 22 a buffalo rifle.
sucks 9mm isn't a big game caliber...
- Thread starter Mr. Friendly
- Start date
Legal doesn't make it right. If you are a very good shot, make darned sure of where you place your shot, yeah, you can kill just about any animal with a 9 mil. Thousands of cattle are killed with .22's every year. Doesn't make the 22 a buffalo rifle.
I understand arrows kill completely differently, please excuse the missstament about more energy. Perhaps I should have said “more better at killin”. I’m not a physicist or rocket scientist. All I know is where I’m at it’s legal to use a .223 and it works. Again bullet selection, range and shot placement all count.
Iirc 44-40 is similar to the .40s&w. Again, in my opinion it would work to kill a deer as would a 9mm out of a carbine. Not my choice but I think it would do the job. Again, load, bullet, range and shot placement would need to be considered. Isn’t 9 out of a carbine getting close to .357 out of a handgun? I wonder if it was legal if how guys would feel about .357 revolvers being used.
Anybody want to talk about the guy in Alberta that killed a bear with a spear? I’ve been on hunts in other countries where nothing but a knife was used. I wonder what those with superior moral compasses to mine think about these methods.
At the risk of upsetting someone (as seems to happen around this subject), what would be wrong with a head shot using 9mm from a carbine? Especially a JHP 147gr, shot only within one's individual and reliably tested capacity for reasonable accuracy? Of course that last bit is subjective. People have often wildly varying abilities to self-assess when marksmanship comes into the conversation. I've seen guys who declare their new gun 'scary accurate' when they can shoot a pop can sized group at 25 yards. Others for whom a 1/2" group at 50 is unacceptable, gets them wondering what's wrong with the gun. I got used to flawless accuracy early on in my middle-aged re-discovery of shooting, progressing quickly through a few airguns until getting a Pardini K10, easily capable of groups less than twice the diameter of the projectile at 10 metres using the worst Crosman pellets, and 7mm outside group measurement with match pellets. That kind of precision is addictive...
I'm considering using my TNW Aero on smaller deer (say, 350lbs and under) with shots placed in the mid- to lower-brain area, at ranges where I can ALWAYS put a shot inside a 1.5" (4cm) circle. In my testing so far, with just a couple of field tests using somewhat awkward placements resting my arm against a tree and on a rotten log with a bipod, that's about 40 metres. My heartbeat seems to be the biggest obstacle, so I'm working on stances/positions to eliminate that as much as possible. Not talking about front nor rear angled shots where glancing off tough parts of the skull are too likely - just side of the head, deer stationary, shooting only when certain that everything is ready. I'd rather have an unwounded deer run off than take an 'iffy' shot, same as for grey squirrels and rats.
This seems to be a controversial subject. I'm still not clear as to why. On squirrels with airguns I use an equivalent criterion and they drop every time. Just sticking honestly to the rules of one's own skill level and projectile power (between about 12 and 18fpe at point of impact) would seem to admit of 9mm being useful for smaller big critters, provided one is familiar with the specific anatomy in question.
Bella Twin's grizzly shot with a .22" Long round was well placed because she was a thoroughly experienced hunter and trapper in her 60's, someone who understood the value of a head shot. And it wasn't a "face-to-face" shot at all. From the thorough account I read, she waited until it was side-on presentation and quite close, not having spotted her nor her partner yet. 90 degrees to the axis of the bear's body. Right into the main part of the brain. She went on to load and fire all the rest of her ammunition, as she couldn't see enough to know for certain it was dead, but from the holes in the skull I'd guess the first shot was sufficient. That whole flat along the side of the skull between eye socket and ear is relatively fragile in most mammals. Wouldn't try it on a sheep, but I think most critters it'd work the same. A 9mm put right there would do several times as much damage. And remember, her old single shot rifle was a mess, held together with wire and tape, missing a big piece of the stock...
I'm considering using my TNW Aero on smaller deer (say, 350lbs and under) with shots placed in the mid- to lower-brain area, at ranges where I can ALWAYS put a shot inside a 1.5" (4cm) circle. In my testing so far, with just a couple of field tests using somewhat awkward placements resting my arm against a tree and on a rotten log with a bipod, that's about 40 metres. My heartbeat seems to be the biggest obstacle, so I'm working on stances/positions to eliminate that as much as possible. Not talking about front nor rear angled shots where glancing off tough parts of the skull are too likely - just side of the head, deer stationary, shooting only when certain that everything is ready. I'd rather have an unwounded deer run off than take an 'iffy' shot, same as for grey squirrels and rats.
This seems to be a controversial subject. I'm still not clear as to why. On squirrels with airguns I use an equivalent criterion and they drop every time. Just sticking honestly to the rules of one's own skill level and projectile power (between about 12 and 18fpe at point of impact) would seem to admit of 9mm being useful for smaller big critters, provided one is familiar with the specific anatomy in question.
Bella Twin's grizzly shot with a .22" Long round was well placed because she was a thoroughly experienced hunter and trapper in her 60's, someone who understood the value of a head shot. And it wasn't a "face-to-face" shot at all. From the thorough account I read, she waited until it was side-on presentation and quite close, not having spotted her nor her partner yet. 90 degrees to the axis of the bear's body. Right into the main part of the brain. She went on to load and fire all the rest of her ammunition, as she couldn't see enough to know for certain it was dead, but from the holes in the skull I'd guess the first shot was sufficient. That whole flat along the side of the skull between eye socket and ear is relatively fragile in most mammals. Wouldn't try it on a sheep, but I think most critters it'd work the same. A 9mm put right there would do several times as much damage. And remember, her old single shot rifle was a mess, held together with wire and tape, missing a big piece of the stock...
At the risk of upsetting someone (as seems to happen around this subject), what would be wrong with a head shot using 9mm from a carbine? Especially a JHP 147gr, shot only within one's individual and reliably tested capacity for reasonable accuracy? Of course that last bit is subjective. People have often wildly varying abilities to self-assess when marksmanship comes into the conversation. I've seen guys who declare their new gun 'scary accurate' when they can shoot a pop can sized group at 25 yards. Others for whom a 1/2" group at 50 is unacceptable, gets them wondering what's wrong with the gun. I got used to flawless accuracy early on in my middle-aged re-discovery of shooting, progressing quickly through a few airguns until getting a Pardini K10, easily capable of groups less than twice the diameter of the projectile at 10 metres using the worst Crosman pellets, and 7mm outside group measurement with match pellets. That kind of precision is addictive...
I'm considering using my TNW Aero on smaller deer (say, 350lbs and under) with shots placed in the mid- to lower-brain area, at ranges where I can ALWAYS put a shot inside a 1.5" (4cm) circle. In my testing so far, with just a couple of field tests using somewhat awkward placements resting my arm against a tree and on a rotten log with a bipod, that's about 40 metres. My heartbeat seems to be the biggest obstacle, so I'm working on stances/positions to eliminate that as much as possible. Not talking about front nor rear angled shots where glancing off tough parts of the skull are too likely - just side of the head, deer stationary, shooting only when certain that everything is ready. I'd rather have an unwounded deer run off than take an 'iffy' shot, same as for grey squirrels and rats.
This seems to be a controversial subject. I'm still not clear as to why. On squirrels with airguns I use an equivalent criterion and they drop every time. Just sticking honestly to the rules of one's own skill level and projectile power (between about 12 and 18fpe at point of impact) would seem to admit of 9mm being useful for smaller big critters, provided one is familiar with the specific anatomy in question.
Bella Twin's grizzly shot with a .22" Long round was well placed because she was a thoroughly experienced hunter and trapper in her 60's, someone who understood the value of a head shot. And it wasn't a "face-to-face" shot at all. From the thorough account I read, she waited until it was side-on presentation and quite close, not having spotted her nor her partner yet. 90 degrees to the axis of the bear's body. Right into the main part of the brain. She went on to load and fire all the rest of her ammunition, as she couldn't see enough to know for certain it was dead, but from the holes in the skull I'd guess the first shot was sufficient. That whole flat along the side of the skull between eye socket and ear is relatively fragile in most mammals. Wouldn't try it on a sheep, but I think most critters it'd work the same. A 9mm put right there would do several times as much damage. And remember, her old single shot rifle was a mess, held together with wire and tape, missing a big piece of the stock...
Now you have gone and opened up another can of worms!
Last edited:
I just don't get why people keep on trying to push these less then adequate cartridges
A finishing hammer for finishing work and a framing hammer for framing..I can't make it any simpiler then that
Must be the back east Corvette syndrome...
A finishing hammer for finishing work and a framing hammer for framing..I can't make it any simpiler then that
Must be the back east Corvette syndrome...
I'm not familiar with 'back east Corvette syndrome' at all, can't quite figure out which way that's intended. For me, the choice of a 9mm PCC was very deliberate. I don't have a rifle which shoots more powerful cartridges, primarily because I really can't stand very loud noises. Sensitive ears, even with custom moulded hearing protection in place. Subsonic bullets are my 'solution' as with ear plugs I can tolerate those. And there is at least a small selection of 9mm cartridges which shoot below the speed of sound, with relatively quieter muzzle blast and ejection port blast, as compared to even .45ACP or 10mm. So 9mm is kind of my upper limit.
If it's not adequate for hunting modest sized deer, well, I guess I won't be hunting with it. But to find out I'm going to construct a couple of head analogues and take those to the woods and test them at a couple of distances, probably at 70 yards, as the 1" holdover for my setup at that distance is easy to judge. At 70 yards (I'm not using metric for this, as the scope on my main air rifle uses yards and I'm trying to get used to everything in yards/inches) the Winchester 147gr JHP which left the barrel at 1,100fps still have 322fpe, which is quite a bit more than a 'finishing hammer' worth of impact. Of course my tests will prove or disprove that notion. Not there yet. I'll build something a bit stronger than a deer's head with all the right layers and see where the bullet ends up, using Paul Harrell's 'high tech fleece backstop' so as to catch whatever passes out the other side.
If I can a) put one within 1" of the desired point of impact on the head-sized target, and b) the resulting damage tells me a brain wouldn't be functional with the same impact, I'll proceed to take some dozens of shots at that range to confirm my ability to hold accuracy sufficiently well. Then repeat whenever I get a chance to go shooting. And only when I've learned enough related skills to feel confident about the whole hunting adventure, in addition to confirming my marksmanship, will I proceed with live quarry. No Corvettes will be involved... my wife has a nice comfy Mitsubishi Delica which goes offroad rather easily, and she'll be only too happy to have it partially filled with packed up deer meat for the drive home from a camping trip, ever since a friend shared some sausages made from a moose he bagged last year.
If it's not adequate for hunting modest sized deer, well, I guess I won't be hunting with it. But to find out I'm going to construct a couple of head analogues and take those to the woods and test them at a couple of distances, probably at 70 yards, as the 1" holdover for my setup at that distance is easy to judge. At 70 yards (I'm not using metric for this, as the scope on my main air rifle uses yards and I'm trying to get used to everything in yards/inches) the Winchester 147gr JHP which left the barrel at 1,100fps still have 322fpe, which is quite a bit more than a 'finishing hammer' worth of impact. Of course my tests will prove or disprove that notion. Not there yet. I'll build something a bit stronger than a deer's head with all the right layers and see where the bullet ends up, using Paul Harrell's 'high tech fleece backstop' so as to catch whatever passes out the other side.
If I can a) put one within 1" of the desired point of impact on the head-sized target, and b) the resulting damage tells me a brain wouldn't be functional with the same impact, I'll proceed to take some dozens of shots at that range to confirm my ability to hold accuracy sufficiently well. Then repeat whenever I get a chance to go shooting. And only when I've learned enough related skills to feel confident about the whole hunting adventure, in addition to confirming my marksmanship, will I proceed with live quarry. No Corvettes will be involved... my wife has a nice comfy Mitsubishi Delica which goes offroad rather easily, and she'll be only too happy to have it partially filled with packed up deer meat for the drive home from a camping trip, ever since a friend shared some sausages made from a moose he bagged last year.
When you refer to "you guys" are you referring to everyone West of you...............
YUP.. That's what the easterners want..We will be happy to do that for them
bearkilr
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Nowhere, ......just past the middle
You might want to brush up on your knowledge of deer before going after them, just so you don't end up with someone's livestock on the ground. Not many deer weigh more than 300 lbs and most are closer to 200.
A fact of which I'm well aware. And considering that 9mm Luger is designed primarily for use on two-legged threats weighing between about 150 and 300lbs, it would seem the same sort of upper weight limit applies to deer. One might feel a bit foolish (briefly) using 9mm to defend against a bear attacking, but then again there was that guy out on a skidoo who was attacked by a somewhat heavier juvenile moose and managed the situation with a few rounds from his 9mm Glock, so perhaps not. But I'm not talking about bear nor moose. I suggested deer below 350lbs. Which is to say deer. Not elk, not caribou.
https://www.full30.com/watch/MDA3NDg2/moose-attacks-the-wrong-man-on-snowmobile
Last edited:
Ardent
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
I took a spring meat black bear with a 9mm carbine and it worked fine, killed just like archery, ran flat out and fell over mid stride a death sprint away, groaned and done. Treat it like archery for range and shot placement, use a quality HP (I used a 147gr), and enjoy your hunt.
A 9mm to the brain will certainly put down a deer or bear.
I went and looked at the Fort Scott Munitions videos where they are shooting bears with .380, 9mm, 40 SW, 45 ACP and 10 mm. Some of them are head/neck shots but the post mortem on the neck shot bear with the .380 showed similar results to a rifle. The lung shot with 9mm and 10mm didn't go very far. None of these were monster bears, but a 9mm to the head of a monster bear is going to kill it too.
I think that their bear hunting videos are more designed to demonstrating that their solid copper tumbling bullets would be a good choice for self defense rather than trying to start a PCC big game hunting movement, but if someone is interested in hunting with a PCC, there are bullets out there that can enhance your ability to cleanly kill. Just like we have a variety of options for rifle hunting bullets.
I can certainly see the appeal of packing something like a Beretta CX4 carbine for close shots. Might even work well for bear defense seeing as we can't pack pistols.
There can be diminishing returns with pistol cartridges in long barrels. The friction of driving the bullet down the barrel outweighs the velocity gains of long barrels. Basically it starts to run out of expanding gases. That's actually true of rifle cartridges too, but it's less pronounced. I would have thought velocity maxes out around 15-16" but maybe that bullet is special.
