# 9mm for deer



## 1gr8bldr

Majority says you can't kill a deer with a 9mm...... then why are they so popular as a defensive weapon? This would then conclude that those carrying a 9mm should reconsider. Or, is it that the majority would prefer to use a bigger caliber? I realize there is a point that a pistol becomes to small a caliber, but what are the grounds that a 9mm is too small? Because it looks small? Because of speed? Gel tests? Why is it that the majority assume it to small? Of course a 10mm is better. And of course at some point, a caliber is too small, but what determines this? Now for my opinion. Any caliber put in the lungs or heart will die. Problem will be recovery of the animal. An exit wound would be very beneficial. This is not entirely bullet selection. You need enough expansion to cause trauma for a quicker kill, yet not so much that you lose your driving momentum. Or, a quick expanding "shock" bullet that acts as a "ballistic tip" does. I have no experience with this type. I am very curious and would love to hear the comments on these. I assume that a well placed 9mm will kill a deer just as dead as the same placement of the popular 10mm hunting round. But that is a  point I would also like to see discussed. Shot placement with a short barrel is..... lets say... more potential of a less than perfect hit, this being with a 9mm or the popular 10mm. So, I bring these points up because I like to observe and ponder the responses in hopes of putting my own thoughts under the microscope. And I respect all opinions, and even accept that we must all draw the line somewhere therefore between 9 and 10mm is a reasonable answer. Just fishing for opinions. LOL, I think this is enough discussion points to start with.


----------



## pdsniper

it's probably the same thinking that some say 223 is not enough to be shooting deer with, to me it's more about shot placement than bullet size and power I have killed many hogs in fla and GA with a 22 rimfire


----------



## no7fish

Many people will state that there is a threshold of energy required for a humane kill (I think 1000 ft lb).  That is not reached by most defensive pistol calibers.  Most people don't recommend hunting deer with any of the 3 major pistol calibers.  

Having said that, you can kill a deer with anything if you're close enough and hit it correctly.  Most hunting handguns (such as .41mag, .44mag, .45LC)don't meet the 1000 ft lb rule but carry enough to do the job reliably so long as it's up close.  Even a high energy rifle will not do a good job at a long enough range.

As for the comparison to people, you're generally shooting people at 5 yds or less and the objective is a little different.  You want the deer to die where the person you want to stop.  Pain causes a deer to run (ie get away) where pain usually causes a person to stop or at least pause, which is the objective.  I believe the FBI data shows that most gunfights aren't ended in single clean shots.  

I think if recoil, sufficient time for shot placement, and capacity were not involved then you'd want to be shooting people with more energy, too.  The people situation usually requires quick shooting, quantity over quality, and being able to carry it around a lot.


----------



## GunnSmokeer

1-- deer are built differently than humans. They're tougher. Denser bones. More meat (tough), less fat (fat is easily penetrated). Deer also aren't programmed from years of watching TV and Hollywood movies to react to being shot by flopping over. People are, and many people go down from a gunshot for psychological reasons, not physiological. 

2-- Humans who are shot while attacking you may retreat, though wounded, and that's fine. I don't care how much they suffer or how long they live before dying, or how much medical care it might take to safe their lives.  And assuming I took the fight out of them and they're not a continuing threat to others, I don't mind if some robber experiences hours of pain, or a permanent crippling injury that will never heal right.

I would feel bad about a deer getting a painful and crippling wound that does not prove lethal, or only causes death after prolonged suffering.

3-- If you shoot a bad guy like you would shoot a deer, as he's timidly walking down a well-worn path between where he lives (the Motel 6) and where he feeds each day (Waffle House), and you take the shot from a tree stand at 75 yards with a scoped .30-06 rifle, YES, you're more likely to get that "one shot stop" that Evan Marshall always talks about. But then, you're likely to be arrested and charged, and you'll get to live out that bumper sticker slogan about being tried by 12 rather than carried by six.


----------



## GunnSmokeer

Here is a twist on the original poster's question:

Suppose that whitetail deer were known to be an aggressive species that would regularly charge humans who walk in the woods or even come near the deer while farming, ranching, mowing the "back 40", stringing a fence, etc.

Suppose these deer would gore you with their antlers, ram you with their foreheads, and smack you with their hooves. 

NOW, not knowing when or where such an attack might happen to you as you walk 3/4 of a mile through the woods to go to your favorite fishing spot-- what kind of gun would you carry for "protection" from said deer?   REMEMBER, you're fishing. Not hunting. And you don't want to lug around a lot of extra gear. You're already carrying two poles, a tackle box, and bait bucket.

I'll still carry my 9mm, but only the bigger one with a high-capacity double-stack magazine and good sights.  I don't think I'd carry my 5-shot .38 snubby revolver. Nor my .32 Kel-Tec pocket pistol.  

For such a threat, I might also choose a stainless-steel .357 magnum. Only 6 shots, but those are six very powerful shots.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

GunnSmokeer said:


> Here is a twist on the original poster's question:
> 
> Suppose that whitetail deer were known to be an aggressive species that would regularly charge humans who walk in the woods or even come near the deer while farming, ranching, mowing the "back 40", stringing a fence, etc.
> 
> Suppose these deer would gore you with their antlers, ram you with their foreheads, and smack you with their hooves.
> 
> NOW, not knowing when or where such an attack might happen to you as you walk 3/4 of a mile through the woods to go to your favorite fishing spot-- what kind of gun would you carry for "protection" from said deer?   REMEMBER, you're fishing. Not hunting. And you don't want to lug around a lot of extra gear. You're already carrying two poles, a tackle box, and bait bucket.
> 
> I'll still carry my 9mm, but only the bigger one with a high-capacity double-stack magazine and good sights.  I don't think I'd carry my 5-shot .38 snubby revolver. Nor my .32 Kel-Tec pocket pistol.
> 
> For such a threat, I might also choose a stainless-steel .357 magnum. Only 6 shots, but those are six very powerful shots.


Interesting thought to ponder. How about a big foot? LOL, I would never go back to the woods


----------



## Lilly001

People kill deer with .22s.
But thats far from the norm.
I think the hunter must determine where to draw the line. (state laws allowing)
A 9mm would kill a deer. And if you use the heavier 147 grain loads with a bonded bullet you might even get an exit wound.
I, personaly, will not use less than a 10mm with a full power load and an expanding or hard cast lead bullet. Even with that my self imposed range limit is 40yds on a good broadside shot. But I would stretch a 44 mag or better out to 60 or 70 yards with a good rest.
Like many things, this is subjective to the individual and his own experience and abilities.


----------



## TomC

*BIG* difference between efficiently and effectively stopping 2 legged and 4 legged threats / animals. Reasons noted above. Keep the 9mm in the car, take the 10mm to the woods!


----------



## Bobby Jackson

Why is 9mm popular for defensive carry but not hunting?

Because the 9mm fits in my pocket and my 3006 doesn't..


----------



## NCHillbilly

You can kill a deer with a rock or a stick under the right circumstances. I have seen deer killed with a .22. I have finished off a few wounded deer with a knife. I do not hunt deer with any of those, though. Deer are tough. Much tougher than people. I have seen deer shot through the vitals with various high-powered rifles run for amazing distances. 

The object of deer hunting is a quick, humane kill in which you find the dead deer. The object of a self-defense handgun is to keep someone from being a threat to you, not necessarily to kill them quickly. I personally prefer something bigger than a 9mm for self-defense, also.

Most self-defense scenarios involving a handgun happen at a range of a few feet. Most shootings of deer happen at a much longer range. I can take a large-frame revolver or long-barreled pistol and shoot a respectable group at fifty yards. I would be all over the target and off it at 50 yards with a typical 9mm semi-auto pistol. 

If I was sitting in a ground blind, a deer stuck its head in the window, and I had a 9mm in my hand, I might pop it in the head with it. If I wounded a deer and needed to finish it off, sure. But, I would not shoot at a deer under normal hunting circumstances with one, though.


----------



## Monty4x4

NCHillbilly said:


> The object of deer hunting is a quick, human kill in which you find the dead deer...
> 
> ...But, I would not shoot at a deer under normal hunting circumstances with one, though.



Agree 100%


----------



## 1gr8bldr

In my circle, I have never seen anyone including myself who was accurate enough with a short framed pistol past 20 yards. For sure 25 yards. A 6 inch sighting plane, terrible trigger and blocky sights is the problem as I see it. Not so much the caliber.


----------



## rosewood

NCHillbilly said:


> You can kill a deer with a rock or a stick under the right circumstances. I have seen deer killed with a .22. I have finished off a few wounded deer with a knife. I do not hunt deer with any of those, though. Deer are tough. Much tougher than people. I have seen deer shot through the vitals with various high-powered rifles run for amazing distances.
> 
> The object of deer hunting is a quick, humane kill in which you find the dead deer. The object of a self-defense handgun is to keep someone from being a threat to you, not necessarily to kill them quickly. I personally prefer something bigger than a 9mm for self-defense, also.
> 
> Most self-defense scenarios involving a handgun happen at a range of a few feet. Most shootings of deer happen at a much longer range. I can take a large-frame revolver or long-barreled pistol and shoot a respectable group at fifty yards. I would be all over the target and off it at 50 yards with a typical 9mm semi-auto pistol.
> 
> If I was sitting in a ground blind, a deer stuck its head in the window, and I had a 9mm in my hand, I might pop it in the head with it. If I wounded a deer and needed to finish it off, sure. But, I would not shoot at a deer under normal hunting circumstances with one, though.



^This^


----------



## Huntinfool

147 grain 9mm bullet moving at somewhere in the range of 1000ft/sec.

100 grain broadhead moving at roughly 280ft/sec.

Which one is not ethical?


Would there be any debate about whether a compound bow is an ethical weapon with which to hunt?  It's all about the kill range that you're talking about.  Of course a 9mm is a perfectly fine round to kill a deer with.  At 75 yards?  Probably not the best choice.


----------



## Buzz

Huntinfool said:


> 147 grain 9mm bullet moving at somewhere in the range of 1000ft/sec.
> 
> 100 grain broadhead moving at roughly 280ft/sec.
> 
> Which one is not ethical?



Bullets and arrows kill very differently, speed is not relevant here.


----------



## PappyHoel

I'm not standing 10 feet from a deer with my 9mm.


----------



## Huntinfool

Buzz said:


> Bullets and arrows kill very differently, speed is not relevant here.



Of course speed is relevant.  It's what drives the energy of the projectile.


----------



## Buzz

Arrows are a cutting / stabbing / blood loss kill and have little to nothing in common with how deer are killed with tissue damage from bullets.  Again speed is not relevant as long as the arrow penetrates the vitals.  Whether the arrow goes through at 50 fps or 300 fps the wound will look similar.

Back to the original post - yes, it will work but as you know there are much better options.   The older I get the less I want to chance things that make it more difficult on myself and others I hunt with.    As others have discussed it's different shooting animals and people - psychologically and due to anatomical differences.   People often get shot and think "I'm shot" and are immediately incapacitated.   When a deer is shot, it works purely on instinct and will run until it's body gives out and it dies.


----------



## Huntinfool

I forgot that arrows don't do any damage to tissue.


----------



## NCHillbilly

Arrows kill by hemorrhage, not shock. A knife moving at 3fps will kill you dead if it cuts through your heart. A bullet moving at 3 fps will bounce off of you like a fly.


----------



## rosewood

NC HILLBILLY  and buzz are wise men.


----------



## no7fish

Not to belabor the point further, I think it's been hashed out pretty well, but:
If you look at various terminal ballistic research you will find that, even with modern expanding projectiles, most handgun calibers are not effective at stopping people.  Time and again, the conclusion is that a bigger weapon (ie more energy, not necessarily caliber) is better.  
There was a time when people carried .32's confidently.  We know better now, and incidents end quicker as a result.  That said, even a modern 9mm is not ideal for immediately stopping a threat unless you get a solid CNS hit.  .380's are even frowned upon due to lack of sufficient penetration, although many people (including me) will carry them in certain circumstances since they are better than nothing.
Sorry to be long winded


----------



## .60 caliber buckshot

Let's see:

115 grains at just under 1300 fps.

Same ballistics as the 1888 vintage black powder .32-20 from a 24 inch 1873 Winchester rifle.  

The .32-20 was originally marketed by Winchester as a general purpose round for up to deer size game.


----------



## rosewood

.60 caliber buckshot said:


> Let's see:
> 
> 115 grains at just under 1300 fps.
> 
> Same ballistics as the 1888 vintage black powder .32-20 from a 24 inch 1873 Winchester rifle.
> 
> The .32-20 was originally marketed by Winchester as a general purpose round for up to deer size game.



Coca-Cola used to be laced with cocaine, didn't mean it was a good idea...


----------



## .60 caliber buckshot

Looking further, in original 1880s black powder loads, the .38WCF pushed a 180 grain .40 caliber bullet to 1300 fps from a 24 " barrel.  

A 21st century 10mm pistol could then be said to deliver the same ballistics as a 19th century Winchester .38-40 lever action rifle - in a convenient package that can be worn on the hip!


----------



## Josey

That is among the "no way in Hades" pistol sport or dinner hunting rounds for me, for medium to larger game.

Defensive round for such sized game - maybe.  Survival round for such game - most definitely.

But I would never, ever use less than 10mm for sport or dinner hunting for medium or larger sized game.  I do not relish the thought of anything dying for me.  I would lose several nights of sleep if something I killed did not die instantly.  Especially for sport or just a tasty dinner.

9mm is an adequate defensive round against humans, where the goal is simply to stop a threat, and "suffering" is an afterthought.  But it is (along with .40S&W and .45ACP) a very questionable sport hunting round).


----------



## Apex Predator

When you shoot a deer it doesn't look down at the blood pouring out, or it's sudden difficulty in breathing and think "oh crap, I've been shot" and then sit down.  They run as hard as they can to get away from whatever spooked them until they pass out from lack of oxygen to the brain.  Kind of like shooting someone on PCP.  You really can't compare the two.


----------



## Josey

Apex Predator said:


> When you shoot a deer it doesn't look down at the blood pouring out, or it's sudden difficulty in breathing and think "oh crap, I've been shot" and then sit down.  They run as hard as they can to get away from whatever spooked them until they pass out from lack of oxygen to the brain.  Kind of like shooting someone on PCP.  You really can't compare the two.



True dat (at least on the last part).  Ever pepper-spray a dog, heck-bent on killing something, point blank (right in the eyeballs?) (at zero range), with some very, very good pepper spray?  Well, I have.  Zero effect.   Absolutely zero.  Spray is worthless for dogs or bears, in my book.  Same effect as with an animal shot (or people on high octane dope).  But I never want anything not intent on killing ME to suffer.  One bit.  I get zero pleasure from the act of killing anything.


----------

