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

Now that's about the smartest thing I've read on this site in a long while......

And I'm a trestand deer hunter!!!!

Ran a pack of beagles (on rabbits) for years, so I can speak with some authority on the subject of hunting with dogs.

And Coss, you are right on the money on this one............

Guess the only issue I have with the fella is the above statements. I have a problem with people throwing "Hail Mary" shots at unwounded animals. If he was that good with his pistol, he would not have made those statements.

Holy chitt, I hope the south texas guys don't get wind of this. If a 270 is marginal where does a 9mm come in at? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Firing squads are somewhat out of fashion now, at least in these parts. Thought to be a bit barbaric by most. But at least the people on the "giving" end had the sense to tie up and immobilize those on the "receiving" end so that they ended their lives somewhat more quickly and humanely.

I have this picture in my mind (movie..actually) of a bunch of "receivers" running around in an enclosed area (lets say..encircled by lots of dogs) while being shot at by the "givers". I would strongly suspect that, given both these scenarios, the running around "receivers" are not dying as quickly as the more "placid ones" that you earlier described.

Isn't the purpose of "hunting" to have as a final result...the taking of an animal cleanly and quickly. Running deer, whether exhausted by dogs harassing them for long periods of time or not, would seem to pose a much harder target than a placid one. I would also suspect that the wounded deer has no alternative but to put up with a pack of dogs tearing and ripping at them until their "giver's" can drag them off to apply the finishing touch to a magnificent "hunt". But that's if the deer hadn't already succumbed to being fatally traumatized by the "givers" pets because the shot placement on that deer while running wasn't all that great. How could that be.......he just wasn't placid enough to deserve to die humanely.

Wouldn't try it personally, would like to hunt hogs with dogs.

Have made some crazy conections with a pistol that I could never reliable make or hope to make.

The deer was recovered and the coonazz was happy, what more could you ask for?

djmbow says;

Now that's about the dumbest [bleep]' statement I've ever seen on this site.

But I wouldn't expect the member of PETA to know any better anyhow-------------

Boy...that's a new one. Try to be a bit more authentic in your responses...anything...but the PETA response.....geeeeez.

How is "hunting" with dogs ANY different than several guys in a bunch of airplanes, talking on radios, flying out over the calm bay and herding up a bunch of ducks and causing them to fly low over their buddies blind in an adjoining stubblefield so he can pass shoot 'em. Oh yeah.... while barking and growling every so often out their plane's window.

Oh yeah... since your response sounds like you need the extra help.........one's a plane and the other's are dogs....that's different too. Oh, and just in case.....one's hunting ducks and the other, "hunting" (loosely defined), deer.

Is one activity less sportsmen like than the other.....if so.......why?

Off the topic, but I wonder how much steak he could have bought with the money used to buy those 100,000 rounds

The shooters response, "Lucky? Oh, heck yes!!".

Pretty clear answer to your statement that, "The ethics of the shot are dependent more upon the man and his ability......".

As with your above statement, I agree with the substance of your entire post.

...130yd shot at deer with a 9mm pistol? PLAIN stupid,even if great good luck and a pack of dogs puts a good end to the story!If such stunt shooting isn't unethical at game animals,what would constitute an unethical shot?..I do agree,food piles,feeders,ect.are questions as well,but such feeding also aids animal survival,whereas pistol stunt shooting deer is only sure to feed more vultures..The guy is a dim wit and should recieve hunter's condemnation, not thier aclaim...

I expect someone has ballistics software for the 9. But Federal posts 100 yard ME figures along with available graphs of data for their various nines...
http://www.federalpremium.com/ballistics/default.aspx

236 ft lbs at 100 for the 115 grain load to 272 ft lbs at 100 for the 147 grain.

Extrapolating from the graphs, that translates to about 200 to 220 ft lbs at 130 yards, roughly equivalent to mild .38 Special loads at the muzzle. With a trajectory drop of around 20 inches at 130.

Sorta related; for a "Quigley Down Under" experience without recourse to 1,000 yards, try mild .38 reloads from a .357 Marlin on soda cans at 100.

Birdwatcher

Handgun brass lasts a long time and I'd venture to guess that most of those bullets were of the cast variety, made by Keith himself. I doubt he would have bought a lot of steak with what he had into it, unless you count his time.

He probably melted down wheel weights...

djmbow says:

Now that's the second dumbest statement Ive seen here----

You know if you don't know what the [bleep] you're talking about, you should keep your stupid mouth shut and pay attention----------you may learn something you ignoramus!

Hunting with hounds is a terrific sport.

The animals are courageous, amazing hunters and will literally run their hearts for their masters.

The game they pursue, be it deer, fox, rabbits, wild boar etc. are also very capable and quite often they are easily able to elude their pursuers.

In many cases the terrain is such that various game animals can ONLY be hunted with dogs (i.e. swamps, thickets, mountains etc.) and because of this the game animal will often have a distinct advantage over his pursuers.

Why don't you go on a dog/deer hunt in a thick snake infested Florida swamp, run your azz off all night following a pack of coon dogs, snowshow into a Maine cedar swamp to hunt white rabbits with pack of beagles or chase after some lion or bear hounds until you can't breathe any more so you know what the hell you are talking about before you open your big mouth?

If you want to criticize hound hunting, please do it at the local Starbucks with your limp-wristed, anti-hunting, associates who also know absolutely nothing about the sport.

Real houndsmen don't really give a [bleep] what you think anyhow because they are too busy training and hunting with some of the finest sporting dogs in the world.

Perfectly placed...that could be effective....grin.

Placed in the hoove, butt, leg, kidney, liver, tail ear, bladder, the many thick and large boned area's or other assorted deer parts.....not likely quick or humane....which still should be the primary intent of any responsible hunter.

That the deer was found at all....only because of the real "hunters", the dogs. How long did the deer suffer before being eventually "put down"....inconsequential? I wouldn't hope so.

Would the shooter have used that same handgun and caliber if he were alone, without the dogs and that deer had shown up? My guess...sure, why not? He's already shown that he was capable of doing that. So there's absolutely no reason to believe that he wouldn't do it again. He obviously thought that his shot would drop the deer where it stood or he wouldn't have taken the shot in the first place. Isn't that what all responsible hunters strive for? But this time there's no dogs to find the wounded deer. Now what? Perhaps he searches for awhile....then on to the next deer because there wasn't enough blood to follow as the 9 can't be expected to do what a responsible deer caliber can do as far as pass throughs or damaging bone enough to incapacitate the animal.

Bottomline....bad choices all around...IMHO.

From his own statements justifying his decisions to shoot this deer in the way that he did....no matter what he says now to appease the masses...he'll no doubt feel justified again when he does the same thing....and he will.

Any supportive comments he hears or reads just justifies his actions. That will encourage him to perhaps get "lucky" next time, as well.

Sorry...missed your answer to my question.

How is the hunting of ducks with airplanes any different and which one is less sporting and why?

Some people avoid questions by continually protesting loudly and emotionally because they just can't answer the question. Seems like a clear enough question. Should have a simple and clear answer.

What's the hold up?

Oh...and by the way....the game animal SHOULD have a distinct advantage over the "hunter's....that's why it's called hunting and not shooting.

One last thing....what's the difference between "real" houndsmen and "fake" houndsmen? Guys with real dogs and guys with stuffed dogs? How do the stuffed dogs stay upright, OR EVEN MOVE when chasing deer?

I won't be long....just got to go get another latte', I just inhaled this one! French vanilla or mandarin orange......too many choices.

Because hunting with hounds is the oldest form of hunting. The care and management of hounds is an art in and of itself. Dog hunting probably has a much lower success rate than hunting from a stand. It is, however, labor intensive and requires lots of land.

I am glad that you are the ultimate arbiter of what is sporting and kosher in the world of hunting. However, you should probably call what you do something else, such as stalking or standing as that "hunting" involves the use of hounds and is properly understood as such in most parts of the world.

Now, STFU about things in which you have absolutely no understanding or knowledge.

What's the ethical difference between hunting deer with dogs and hunting pheasants with dogs?

What does this post have to do with herding ducks?

I wouldn't try to shoot a deer with a 9mm at 130 yards beause I don't think it's ethical to shoot at a game animal unless I'm pretty sure of putting it down with one shot.