I was hunting in a small stand of hemlocks surrounded by a thicket with my 35 Whelen when a thought crossed my mind. It was a bit of a hassle lugging my rifle through the thick stuff to get to my spot. I have a more than adequate hunting revolver but why couldn't I use my CZ 82 9x18 in this kind of setting. I couldn't see more than 50 yards and more than likely if a buck stepped out he would get within 15 to 30 yards of me or even closer. I mean, I've killed deer with buckshot where only one pellet hit the deer and did the job. Then again, I've shot at deer with buckshot and found little or no blood and no deer. So why wouldn't a well placed single shot from a handgun with similar effectiveness as a single pellet of buckshot be better and more ethical than firing a random spread of pellets from a shotgun, hoping that at least one hits a vital organ. Again, I would normally use my more than adequate Ruger Blackhawk with 45 Colt +P ammo in this kind of situation but many people consider such handguns as those chambered for 9mm and other similar cartridges inadequate or unethical and I don't think they should. I think it would be a lot more convenient to carry a Glock into a thicket than shotgun or a rifle. Now I am talking about still hunting here not hunting with dogs where a shotgun is really your only option. I also realize that such handguns are not legal to use for hunting everywhere, but where legal I think they would be adequate. Especially if loaded with the right kind of bullet. What are your thoughts?

My thoughts are a shotgun with buckshot would be adequate.

I like the buckshot theory. Ohio allows pistols 30 cal or larger as long as the cartridge is a straight shell. I still like the OO!

Have fun finding the right bullet in a 9x18.

Limiting yourself within reason is fun and challenging.
But one can push it too far. IMO 9mm is too far. Is it really so much harder to tote your .45 LC?

The best option is the shotgun as others have said.

If you can shoot your 9 accurate ,go for it. It is unethical for some people to even attempt to shoot a deer with a .300 win mag

Why not a slug?

That'll do it! If no slug go with 00 buck..

There are 115 gn hardcast bullets available in a +p load from buffalo bore. But I did a little experiment. I compared a standard 9x18 loading to a single pellet of 00 and 000 buck and the performance was similar as far as velocity and energy goes. Concerning the ballistic superiority of the pistol bullet, it doesn't matter because shots by either weapon would be limited by effective range.



No, it isn't harder to tote my .45 LC. That is for sure what I would use. I'm just trying to compare two weapons in regards to what's easier to carry and most ethical in a certain situation. Just pretend I'm a hypothetical guy with the choice of rifle, shotgun, or 9mm and I want to walk to my spot which is a small clearing. The only way into the clearing involves walking through a dense thicket. Hypothetically I don't have a 45 colt. The theory is that the 9mm is easier to carry to the spot and is just as effective as a shotgun with buckshot - if not more - considering only one pellet hits vitals. And that it is also more ethical because you have more control over where the bullet hits.

Your theory is blown. If your only putting one bb from the buckshot into the vitals your over shooting your choke.

Go compare whatever numbers you used with 9mm but use 50% and then 75% of the pattern hitting the vitals for 00 and 000 buck.

While I do believe you can kill a deer with a 9mm, trying to justify the use of one over 00 buck based on one pellet hitting the vitals is a stretch.

+1. To me, that part of the hypothetical is flawed. Of course a 9mm will kill a deer. So will a .22 short. Doesn't mean I would use either while deer hunting.

The difference is you can likely send 80 "pellets" at a deer vs maybe 2 from a 9mm somewhat accurately.

to the forum.

Buckshot would be my choice. Especially in tight brush the pellets aren't gonna deflect like bullets will.

Why would this question even come up if you own a .45 colt?

There is no point in trying to shoot a deer with a 9mm for sporting reasons

Ive only seen one deer shot with buckshot and not sure what guage or shot it was or what choke was used. The shooter covered the axis does head with the barrel and shot. He reported to find 1 pellet in the head, one in the neck and 2 in the guts.

Id say that's a little better than 1 9mm.

Ive shot plenty of critter with small guns. With something like a 9mm at 30 yards will you get a drt kill or is it gonna run? My bet is on run. Will it fully penetrate the deer? My bet is no. How far will it run? God only knows but with a low shock bullet like that and no exit it may run FOREVER AND A DAY and leave no blood. Sounds like a bad option.

Realistically, how much easier is it to carry the shotgun than the rifle? You're not gaining much, and I bet the shotgun is likely longer than the rifle (more un-wieldy) even if it is lighter.

Only pro I can think of for the shotgun I will drag my old 870 willy nilly through pretty much any brush fence creek river or obstacle in my path. I take a little more care with my rifles.

The other advantage of buckshot is you can get a double pretty easy. We have been reducing the does where we got several doubles. Nothing like a double on deer.