Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns Deer with handguns and duty carry???

I've shot several deer each with a 9, 40 and 45 acp. I noticed a significantly quicker kills and penetration on deer with the 45 than the 9 and 40. I have read lots of articles saying that for law enforcement the 9 is just as good at stopping a threat. FBI has even gone back to the 9mm but I just don't buy it. But other than a handful of deer with each I really don't have much to disprove that theory. who buys into the 9 being as good or better for duty carry or hunting for that matter.

Well, this ought to go about 10 pages.

Hopefully DocRocket will check in----he's forgotten more about this than the rest of us know collectively----well except for deflave.

Yea I figured it would but I'm not trying to start an argument. I do understand shot placement is key and that less recoil seems to make the 9 more forgiving. Who else has shot deer with these 3 cartridges?

Your experience mirrors mine on game.

Mine as well.

It would be interesting if the OP could quantify this somewhat, with the specific ammo, penetration, and incapacitation times.

Didn't the Aleuts and the Eskimos use .22 long rifle for moose for a long time?

I've shot deer and feral hogs with a .45acp using 230gr Golden Sabers, and with my Glocks in .357 sig & 10mm and all three rounds do great at 25 yards.

I'm sure many here will disagree, but I really don't consider 9mm adequate for deer or 2 legged varmints. JMO, though.

I ran golden sabers in all cartridges 230 grain 45acp, 180 grain in the 40 and I think 124 in the 9mm. Deer shot with the 9 never acted like they were hit and ran on average 75 yards before running into the ground, and a couple required follow up shots. A couple were hit in the shoulder and still didn't show signs of being hit until they fell. The 40s seem to hit harder and the deer showed it but most ran over 50-75 yards. I had to follow up one with the 40 after a spine shot but I've had to do that before with a 7 mag. The 45 took a couple off their feet immediately that were hit in a shoulder and lung shots ended in 25-40 yard runs and they struggled to make it that far. Never needed a follow up shot with the 45.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Shots on deer come in all sorts of angles and distances.

Shots on people, for the most part, seem a lot more consistent.....facing right at you within 7 yards. It'd be a lot easier to see specific patterns with that sample data than deer hunting.

I agree bleudreaux but thankfully I have no comparison with my deer data against a person. Also there is nothing scientific with my data it's just what I have noticed. II just find it odd that the difference in performance seems noticeable to me on deer when I read frequently that the cartridges are basically a wash between the three.

From all the videos of gunfights I have watched bad guys only stay facing toward the guy shooting until the first round goes off. Then it turns into all kinds of different ranges/angles.

Dink

Before the PA Game Commission decimated the deer herd, my dept routinely put down 1-2 deer a week on a road in my area. While I personally carry a .45 (Sig P220), other officers carry other guns and other caliberrs like the 9mm or .40 S&W.

No deer shot with any of these three caliberrs lasted any longer or shorter because of caliber.

All things being equal, the reason a .45 works better in the game field than a 9mm is due to this simple fact;

The vast majority of people react "psychologically" to being shot whereas an animal only reacts "physiologically" to being shot.

Animals don't feel pain quite the same as humans do and they certainly have no ability to respond emotionally, so getting shot either shuts their system down or it doesn't ..... will or determination plays no part in the matter.

In my expereince when a deer or hog is shot with a 9mm there is little to no visual indication of a hit. I normally get enough of a visual indication when using a 45 to know exactly where the bullet hit. Where the bullet hits pushes in with the larger caliber and bullets. To me this is a definate advantage to know exactly what is happening in real time.

One of the PGC WCO's conducted a test a few years ago before the PGC switched from revolvers to Glock 357 sigs. He used ungutted road killed deer with a ballistic vest behind the chest to catch the bullets. He used various calibers and various bullets from plated lead to hollow points. All shots were taken at 7 yards. Very few of the bullets expanded. The ones that expanded almost always hit ribs or the shoulder otherwise the hole coming out was the same size as the one going in. He conclude that if you want a big hole coming out you need a big hole going in.

I am and always will be a fan of the .45 acp. But in the days before the "Humane Society", we cops in rural areas had to put down a lot of feral dogs. I recall one in particular, only about 35 pounds, but mean as a snake and it wasn't about to give up on the deer carcass it was guarding. My shot with a 1911 Series 70 using ball ammo was square into the side of the brain pan and I expected the dog would be bowled over. Instead, it stiffened and remained standing for about 5 seconds, before tipping over like a frozen statue.

With car struck deer, I invariably used a carbine so I don't have much anecdotal information to offer there, except one instance where I used a Ruger Super Blackhawk in .44 mag. The deer was dragging it's hind legs and trying to make the woods and my shot was behind the shoulders, quartering away at 20 yards or so. It dumped her as good as any deer rifle could...but she was already traumatized.

LOL, I did lean around a tree and shoot a little 7 pt that wouldn't come out from behind my stand, hit him in the shoulder at about 17 yards with my 45 ACP and a 185 Barnes copper hp, he trotted off and crashed about 25 yards away, fun hunt that was.

I've shot a handful of hogs with both the .40s&w and 10mm. I have not seen a huge amount of difference between the two.