Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire 9mm auto 130 yard deer kill

To no one in particular, Just my .02 worth and my experience.

I've had the opportunity to hunt behind hounds, both coon and Bear and really enjoyed every minute of it. It's an exciting sport, requires some training, and hauling out after the hounds to the tree is real work. It's interesting how fast you can pick out the individual dog's style and tempo of baying, and which dogs are working it.

But there are differences between hound hunters, just as there are differences between the guy who hikes back a mile with a portable treestand on his back and hangs it overlooking a white-oak ridge, and the guy sitting in the PortaJohn on stilts, with the heater, overlooking the autofeeder, and talking on his cell phone: Same idea, but definitely not the same.

With bear, you go to where it's treed, can make the decision on whether it's a shooter, and generally can place a well placed shot from 25 yards. Quick, humane kill.

On the other hand, I've moved to a state that allows dog hunting for deer and it's like night and day. Deer don't tree, so what you're left with is guys standing on a fire road, with walkie talkes, taking running shots at crossing deer. When taken at 50 -75 yards, by someone who know's what they are doing, this shouldn'tresult in wounded deer. Unfortunately this is not the case in the hunts that I've witnessed. It's not uncommon to hear 30-40 shots, and later find out they put down one, maybe two deer out of the chase. Spray and pray.

On top of that, I can't imagine what those steaks must taste like, after the deer have been run hard, adrenaline pumping through the deer.

This 9mm guy is a jerk, slob, and idiot and shouldn't be defended by any anyone, especially other dog hunters. We have to defend hunting, but we don't have to defend slobs and unethical idiots who have hunting licenses.

To state that hound hunting is less successful than stand hunting is pure conjecture (where's the data)....so STFU about those things of which you haven't a clue. By the way...I've never hunted from an elevated stand or set-up (artificial ground blind)....FWIW. It is just not a method used where I hunt.

"Because hunting with hounds is the oldest form of hunting". So what! People have been involved with the "sport" of dog fighting for many years as well, but that's a bit frowned on these days. EXCEPT by the few that remain embedded in their old ways because it's one of the oldest forms of entertainment, for them anyway. Love their dogs, fight their hearts out for their owners, cared and loved....sound familair. So, saying it's the oldest form of hunting has no bearing whatsoever.

"Hunters" used to hunt with cannons filled with glass, metal, stones and whatever for ducks and geese many years ago. Killed hundreds with one blast. Oldest form of waterfowl hunting by far...but outlawed because it was unethical and wasteful.

By the way and FYI....the very early dog didn't teach the caveman how to hunt, the caveman trained the dog to hunt for and with them. As you would imagine, the dogs were instrumental in their quest for food....out of necessity more than "sport". Those fellas didn't have rifles, binoculars, rangefinders, radios trucks, ATV's and the like. Not many similarities to draw from these days...huh? Subsistence living is where hound hunting derived. There was a reason to bring home the bacon. Life and death stuff. Made a bit more sense to have help. If that's the reason for you hound hunting...great. I've got no problem with that. Use dogs as it ups your chances for scoring and therefore eating....if not the reason.....then it just ups your chance of scoring for scoring purposes. That's not how I view hunting.

Therefore...hound hunting is not the earliest form of hunting....man hunted alone or with other men....so again...STFU about those things which you'd like the rest of us to believe just because you say so and actually know absolutely nothing about.

sorry boys....... 130 yd shot with a 9mm is a bad idea.

Well, actually I do know a thing or two about it. I've hunted with dogs and on stands extensively. If there are adequate numbers of deer, I will say unequivocally, that stand hunting is more productive than hunting with dogs. Where I live, it is not uncommon for someone to see fifteen, twenty, or even more deer a day sitting on a stand. When dogs are involved, one only sees the deer being run by the dogs, IF one happens to be in the right place when the dogs go through. So, unlike you, I actually have experience at the methods of hunting described. You, instead, condemn something with which you have no experience. And by the way, I don't hunt with dogs and haven't since I was a kid. I just find it ridiculous that people who know absolutely nothing about it are so willing to condemn it.

Hunting with dogs is about the dogs and the excitement of the chase. The same desires and thrills that cause men to follow a pack of hounds on a horse motivate dog hunters.

You may not approve. But then again, I suspect that you are a damn stupid Yankee. So, we really don't care what you think about it anyway.

That would be a fun bet... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

However, Hubert's problem wasn't directed toward M16A2s, nor was my 1K hunting response.

Let me pick the 1K hunting rig (hmmmm.... I'm thinking one of 'Sticks, with drop chart and turrets, please), and you can use the .38Special loads.

Pie plate at 1K for me, 130 for you.

Most hits out of ten wins; loser buys the beverages.

Personally, I think it'd be a pretty even match... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

Now, put Blaine, or Stick in that 1K shoot, and I have a good idea as to who'd be buying...

Back again....that's a surprise.

"Hunting with dogs is about the dogs and the excitement of the chase". IF that's true, why not just let the dogs chase the deer and you guys share in their excitement? Because....the dogs make it so much easier to actually harvest a deeer...plain and simple.

In your "buddies" previous post, he said they oftentimes just "shoot for their legs" as they're being run around by the dogs. I don't know if that's exactly what most of us other hunter's really like to hear. In fact, I'm sure that offends every hunter...by definition. I'm damn sure that the PETA's WANT to hear that, however. So if your buddy is smug enough to state THAT fact and we shouldn't deny him that chance or opportunity to express his beliefs....it is easy to assume and believe that many other houndsmen also engage in the same unsportsmen like activity. Not that I condone that shot placement whatsoever, but if the legs aren't taken out enough to stop the deer, then we can again easily assume that there was a high percentage of deer that were hit, but not dropped or recovered. Especially with scatterguns. That's nice. One extra, enormously large sandwich order coming up....served on PETA bread, compliments of yours truly....a "real houndman".

I suppose this won't make any sense to you because you try to make all of this into a "damn stupid Yankee" issue for lack of any other way to turn, but hunting responsibly is the intention we should ALL take to the field. Shooting at running deer, especially with less than "adequate" calibers and at extended ranges and/or shooting at the deers legs to immobilize them are just a few of the ugly reminders that hunting ethics, as we all should know them, aren't embraced by all.

Those goals and ethics should have absolutely nothing to do with geographics.....I sure as hell hope not anyway.

Wait...before you respond I'll save you the time and effort and of reviewing the past statements I'm referring to so as not to be thought of as changing the content of djmbow's post.

djmbow said:

1) "In fact, ALOT of the guys I hunted with used buckshot and JUST AIMED FOR THE LEGS".

2) "...all that is really necessary sometimes is TO HIT THE DEER (assuming... ANYWHERE....especially with buckshot) and THE DOGS will USUALLY run it down".

Hope this helps.

We'll have to give it a try sometime just for S&Gs to see what happens. Being that my wife is about to have baby #3, it'll be a while before I get to try it. Maybe this spring sometime.



Hey, if you get to pick an alternate shooter, so do I. Give me Bob Munden. You have seen him break balloons at multiple hundreds of yards, haven't you? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

As I noted in my original post on the subject, rural Southerners understood and to some degree, still understand that an animal is just that, an animal and don't really waste all that much time worrying about its "suffering".

A personal aversion to the suffering of animals is one thing, and is something that I share with you. However, kindly disabuse yourself of any notion that your care for animals will cut you any slack with those who wish to get rid of hunting. A dead deer is still a dead deer and it really make no difference how that animal was killed to those who place a lot of stock in the feelings of those animals.

As to the damn stupid Yankee comment, Yankees are usually the only ones stupid and arrogant enought to presume to pass judgement on a tradition that goes back hundreds of years in the rural South. We really grow tired of hearing that we are ignorant savages from the likes of you.

Without getting into the prior posts, I think the attitude to which Joe refers is typical of rural people everywhere, and those who see real nature up close, rather than some anthropomophized Disney version of life where mountain lions save puppies from drowning and crap like that.

It's not cruelty, or even really indifference, just an unemotional recognition of reality.

Your post is well taken and for the most part, understood.

There is a rather huge assumption on your part, however, that I am "less close" to nature and have less of a feel for the "goings on" in that regard. The time I spend in the wilds is quite substantial and I expect would rival most anyone's outdoor experiences.

We all adjust our eyesight to see what we want when it comes to subjects such as these. In this instance and in reference to your statement, ".....just an emotional recognition of reality", it is not my reality nor many other's I suspect, to feel OK about wounding an animal in hopes of recovering it later. Remember....this was a houndhunters own words and he stated that he has seen plenty of other fellow "hunters" do this as well. More clearly, actually wounding an animal ON PURPOSE in HOPES of recovering said animal. I understand Joe didn't advocate this practice and that it came from another avid houndhunter. So this comment is not on him, but on the other hand, he has not offered that this tactic and/or behavior is in any way unethical nor an improper hunting practice.

If we, as a hunting community, accept that the purposeful wounding of deer, for whatever reason, is just a "reality", then we have sunk to a new low.......IMHO. I can't imagine for one second that you or anyone find that tactic both OK and unoffensive.

If that's a reality we should all just accept....then it is a nightmare come true.

Hey magnumb, you self righteous bastard.

Let's cut to the chase here and find what your real motivation is for coming on to a hunting forum and criticizing an extremely popular aspect of our sport.

Forget about whether you think that guy should have shot at the deer with his pistol or not.

Any further debate over this issue would appear to be foolish, since you've already demonstrated that you have absolutely no knowledge or EXPERIENCE with hunting deer over dogs.

Let's focus instead on your views as they relate to hunting with dogs in general.

Others here who favor the use of hunting dogs have cited their personal experience with them.

Will you please cite the dog hunting experience you have had that qualifies you to be critical of it?

As I tried to point out to you in my earlier posts, there are numerous situations where various game animals can only be pursued effectively with the use of dogs, but apparently you don't agree.

So it seems only fair that you state your reasons why isn't it?

BTW, I wasn't trying to evade your question about the comparison between a plane driving ducks to the gun and running game with dogs, I just thought it was either a rhetorical one, or it was just so [bleep] stupid that it didn't warrant an answer.

Don't know if it's legal to use a plane to drive ducks to hunters, but if it is, I think it would be a great idea.

If it's the driving of the game to the hunter that bothers you, please explain.

As you're well aware, this thread has gone way off course. My fault as much as yours or other's. There isn't going to be anybody changing their mind due to something another has said.

The actual real distaste for your "sport" came about with your post about shootin' at legs and havin' the dogs run 'em down. Take a look back at my very first post and I said "different strokes" and was essentially accepting of your "sport".

Then as you told of how your "sport" was carried out, my attitude changed....alot! You would like to think that my biggest bitch is about your dogs roundin' up the deer and driving into your laps. That's definitely a part of it. It's also true that I find it deplorable that you consider that attempting to wound an animal is OK. Now, you can argue all day that that's not what you meant, but anybody that can read can see exactly what you wrote.

So, as much as you'd like to believe it's just for one reason only that I find your "sport", unsporting, there are several reasons as I've pointed out.

Your attitude won't change, nor will mine. Never expected it to. But to not speak my mind when I read how your hunts were carried out in regards to shots taken at running deer and expecting the dogs to run down the wounded animals....was, honestly, too much to let go.

There have been a million posts on this forum which have spoken about harvesting animals cleanly and humanely. There have been great posts that remind us that we need to care about the animals that we hunt. Hell, there was even a section on varmint shootin' that had people discussing whether to waster another bullet on a varmint if it isn't totally dead....and rightfully so! So how could you or anyone else possibly think that your comments regarding shootin' at legs and having the dog's find 'em if not hit well......would just be accepted!!

This forum and it's members are a small slice of all hunter's everywhere. We impart lots of information to one another and we do battle now and then. But I have never seen a post that so disturbed me as yours. Perhaps I'm the only guy on this forum that feels that way about your methods of hunting, I couldn't tell you. But I can tell you this... if any member of my hunting party ever even suggested that we try to shoot the legs out from under a deer, he'd be gone, no matter a family member or not. That is not acceptable. Being a family member, that probably wouldn't happen because our children learn everything, plus how to hunt from us. We pass on those ethics of hunting in hopes that they pass it on as well.

I can only imagine, given the fact that you so easily and justifiably told of you and many others shooting at their legs, that younger one's have also been schooled as such. Yeah, that's disturbing. It should disturb all of us, not just me.

We're spinning our wheels, but there's no doubt how you, I, Joe and many others feel about this subject. I'm not the first one you've run into that didn't agree with your "hunting" tactics and I won't be the last. Dogs will continue to hunt as they are trained. That's what they do and it's now quite natural to do so. They are trained and will follow your commands, really not having much choice in the matter. They don't have the ability to determine what is and isn't ethical in regards to hunting practices. But we do....and promoting and then attempting to shoot the legs out from under a deer while on the run cannot be thought of as an ethical hunting practice....not by any stretch of the imagination.

I have no more to offer, just plain wore out and dissappointed. Not that I couldn't change your minds because that wasn't the intent. Because you really can't see that those practices go against everything I've ever learned to do. Perhaps that's my issue and mine alone, but that is the reason for my obvious frustration.

No more to say, no more I can say...........

magnumb,

First of all, your explanation of how you only became indignant about dog hunting, AFTER you read my comment about shooting at a running deer legs with buckshot is complete bullsh!t, because if you go back and read the posts you (and everyone else here) will see that you had already begun to criticize the sport with those assinine "givers" and "receivers" statements.

Secondly, I guess we'll just have to assume that by your refusal to answer my question about your prior hound hunting experience that you have NONE!.

Always good to be able to run your mouth off about things you know absolutely nothing about isn't it.

In addition to your distorted views about hunting ethics, do you teach your kids how to do this too?

And finally, we come to the question of shooting at running deer which you have also expressed some distain for.

Now you got to be really "on track" with that opinion, because I'm sure, like you, none of the other hunters on this site have EVER shot at a running animal.

But gee, maybe I misunderstood you again and you really didn't mean it when you said "Shooting at running deer, especially with less than "adequate" calibers and at extended ranges and/or shooting at the deers legs to immobilize them are just a few of the ugly reminders that hunting ethics, as we all should know them, aren't embraced by all."

Is it the "running" thing that bothers you, or do you just feel that a hunter should never shoot at a moving target?

Hmm.........Be careful how you answer that.

Now, about the "unethical practice" of shooting at a deer's legs with buckshot when it is being chased by a pack of dogs.

Here's the scenario:

You know a deer is located in a thick, snake infested swamp and as a hunter, you want to shoot it.

Well, since you can't get to he deer yourself, you send in your dogs to drive him out.

Now you encounter another problem, because the deer is going to present you with a running shot through very thick cover.

You can choose to shoot at the animals body with a rifle (of adequate caliber as you suggest) and "perhaps" be successful in hitting a vital area.

But if you aren't able to hit a deer running through thick cover in the vitals every time, (and how many of us could) then it's most likely the wounded animal will run for miles and even escape all together.

So after after a lot of EXPERINCE you determine that if you can disable the deer somehow by inhibiting its ability to elude your dogs, your success rate is dramatically improved.

And now guess what.........we have an explanation for the use of buckshot to break the deers legs and when used in combination with pack of good hounds it usually produces the desired results.

I don't expect that anything I've said here will alter your warped opinion of hunting with dogs.

But my foregoing remarks are really addressed at the other sportsmen who peruse this site and may possibly be swayed by your irresponsible and completely uninformed views on this matter.

Thas all folks......................

With buckshot why would you want to break legs instead of shoot at vitals? Buckshot animals rarely go far anyway. Not far enough to loose IMHO. OF course if you have collateral leg damage thats fine, but not shooting at vitals seems dumb to me, plus legs are a low percentage shot compared to size of vitals.

May not have read this all(I didn't....) and might have missed the point.

To the fact of dogs running game, its not my cup of tea but its been done for years, and has some unique history behind it. Its really no different than choosing your sport to me. Since I don't care for it I'll just pass. If you want to do it and its legal, have at it.

Much like Lion hunting, I want one really bad, but don't care at all for dogs. So probably will never get one, same with bears, but I'd hunt bears over bait, and lots of hunters hate deer feeders but would hunt bears over bait......

Do we drive chevys or fords....

I have no problem with the distance of the shot.130 yards with a handgun is nothing.I can consistently hit an 8 inch gong all day long with just about any good handgun,even a 22 LR,at 100 yards.

A 9mm though is so anemic,and has such poor ballistics and is usually loaded with such crappy bullets,that I just don't see it doing a good job on deer at any range,let alone 130 yards.

I wouldn't hesitate to shoot at a deer at that range with a 357 Magnum.Not with a 9mm though.

WB.

1st � This was a dumbazz idea. Too many people just don�t get that hunting isn�t just about killing. If the guy couldn�t say 100% for sure the deer was dead before he pulled the trigger, he shouldn�t have shot. The 9mm is borderline at 25 yards and downright irresponsible at over 100 yards.

2nd - I can make that shot. I can do it all day long, but I never will. If someone was shooting at me and all I was armed with was a 9mm handgun at 100 yards, they�d be in grave danger. The 9mm is a great TARGET cartridge at 100 yards. The trajectory is flat enough that you hardly have to hold up any front sight at all. I love target practice with a 9mm at 100-200 yards, but I�d never shoot at an animal at that distance with a 9mm unless my life depended upon it. I wouldn�t even take that shot with a .357 magnum.

It really frosts me that so many hunters are willing to break all the rules (legally, morally, ethically) to kill a deer. Hunting for me is a sacred event. It�s peaceful and my chance to spend some quality time in the woods chasing an animal I hold in the highest regard. I�ve passed up so many shots that others would have taken because I didn�t know for sure. I consider those to be successful hunts because I got to within shooting range (most of the time that means, iron sight range) of a deer.

No matter how you slice it, this guy�s a TOOL.

Rost,

Have to disagree with you on the stopping power of buckshot my friend, but we can "agree to disagree" on that subject all day long, cause that's what I think these kind of forums are all about.

Understand your position on the dog issue too, since there are certain types of hunting that I don't personally care for either.

But I can see that you are a reasonable man and just because you don't "prefer" to do something, you don't come on a Hunting Forum and indict others for doing it.

Especially if you have NEVER done it yourself.

Kevin,

You may be right about the pistol shot at that distance, under "normal" circumstances, but if you are hunting with a pack of good hounds, that changes the equation considerbly.

But I will take exception with your comment about the purpose of hunting though.

YOU may want to hunt simply because you enjoy the peace and tranquilty of the woods and the "challenge" of the chase.

But please don't knock others who don't share your views.

Many people I know (and they are damm fine hunters too), hunt solely for the purpose of getting meat for the table.

They work hard at what they do, put a lot back into it and fully support the organizations that help all sportsmen.

Can't go along with you on this one partner.

Guess I just been around too long and seen too much to be willing to pass judgement on my fellow hunters.

There are certainly plenty of others around these days that are more than willing to do that.

Dan,

Maybe my comments sounded a bit hard line, which wasn�t my intention. What I mean is that there�s never a reason to break legal, moral or ethical rules just to kill a deer. Just because I turn down a shot, doesn�t mean that others would have to. If they are hunting for meat, I have no problem with that until they cross the legal, moral or ethical lines. In the situation in question, it�s obvious this guy wasn�t going to go hungry if he didn�t come back with a kill, since he was on leased property. For what a lease costs, I can feed my family steak 3 nights a week, all winter long.

I really have no problem with those who don�t share my views on hunting and it wasn�t my intention to look down my nose at anyone. I think most meat hunters are very moral, legal and ethical people.

Kevin mentioned legal rules. Makes me wonder if whatever state that was has any requirements for the type of weapons used, especially muzzzle energy.
A 9mm pistol sure wouldn't make it in Colorado
How about the bullet-FMJ???. Doubt it would be legal.