Handgun Hunting story.

[K2ZJ]

You should have used bear spray!






:sombrero: j/k, I will rethink using hollow points in my sidearm in the woods.

 

[bobDog]

This is the type of post that gives hunters a bad reputation. Taking big-game with a small caliber pistol, let alone an underpowered small caliber pistol is unethical. I abhor such a posting as this. I would normally not make such a showing of distaste on the ExPo but this is beyond cruelty and reeks of sensationalism as well.

The author would have us to believe that he "skinned...and cut all the muscles from the the bone" of a still living animal - a MULE DEER BUCK at that (about 200lbs on average I would imagine - no small task...skinning requires rolling an animal of this size without the use of a gambrel). While I have indeed seen an animal skinned alive on the internet thanks to GreenPeace and PETA (although such eco-terrorist organizations have sufficient ill-repute to lead any to question their altruism), most hunters would in fact field-dress a deer to properly cool the meat and gain access to the most desirable cuts - namely the backstrap. Field dressing removes all the vital organs - but more importantly - the entrails to prevent tainting the meat. Removal of the organs is certain to render an animal dead and any uncertainty would be exposed by the visible pumping blood, functioning respiration, and (not quite a small spasm) muscle twitching.

I've seen my share of hit deer that kept going. I suspect that there are even cases of a stunned deer from a handgun shot but this just doesn't sound legitimate to me. Hollow point usage in hunting - for self defense perhaps but against the two-legged variety of predator not game. A hollow point is designed to do just what the author describes rapid expansion and massive transfer of energy in a short space. Spitzer rounds penetrate and normally an ethical shot is to double lung, liver, heart (if you are extremely accurate and LUCKY or fully equipped with optics and known ranges). An ethical pistol range is equivalent to bow-hunting range...like 35 yards or less.

I question the full truthfulness of the posting - perhaps there are elements of truth - I am not however impugning character here...plenty of folks exaggerate and I hope that is a case of sensationalism at worst.

I think the posting should be removed. What are the hunting requirements in Montana (if this is where the hunt occured)? I've hunted LOTS of places and in addition to a license I had to have a big game tag for the game animal I was hunting. Hunter safety courses abound in scope and professionalism but I would hazard a guess that .40cal ammunition (and HOLLOW POINT?) is NEVER recommended for large game ETHICALLY and/or perhaps LEGALLY.

I request that the moderators take the post down before this causes problems for our community.

I am a hunter. I would NEVER do this. I would never hunt with someone who would do this. I don't condone the actions of someone who would do this.

Bad, bad, bad.

Jonathan

I agree something here isn't right and if it is the karma and the ethics of posting it here sucks! Bad, bad, bad. Last I speak of it.

 

[robert]

I'm assuming this wasn't one of the Ranger T Bonded rounds (law enforcement round). I am curious what round it was though. One of my friend's routinely hunts hogs with his Glock 23- he runs them down and shoots them and finds the .40 to be very effective at close range. Not something I'd ever try, but it works for him. Of course I've had friends go on those hunts where you spear or knife the hog too and I'd never try that either. .40, .357, etc are generally plenty on deer if the shooter makes a good shot within the limitations of the gun (I've been known to hunt with just my Ruger .357 with 158gr SJSP before and I've had friends who use .357 also).

As an aside on the .40, some years ago not long after the .40 came out one of the local deputies shot at a fellow who stated he wasn't going to jail and was going to get his shotgun out of his truck. The officer's .40 went through the back windshield of the truck and struck the fellow in the head but didn't penetrate his skull (unfortunately). It did knock his down and the officer was able to subdue the belligerent drunk. Occasionally rounds do funny things and just don't perform like we expect them to. That said, yeah, if they twitch when I get near them I put a round in their head. I've known two people who have gotten hurt by deer that got up. I also cut their throat and bleed them out when I hang them. I'm not judging you as I wasn't there, but I'd have probably left out the part of the story knowing it would cause a fuss. JMHO

 

[007]

I agree something here isn't right and if it is the karma and the ethics of posting it here sucks! Bad, bad, bad. Last I speak of it.

The deer couldn't have felt any less pain, there is no sense of pain when you're knocked out. Many livestock animals are slaughtered in a manner that resembles what happened to this deer. A blunt force to the skull by a bolt gun is essentially what happened to this animal.

I didn't expect anyone to think this animal suffered, I would never post, or even share an event in which the animal suffered. I hate the killing part of hunting, its just a neccesary evil and I do whatever I can to make it as quick and clean as possible.

This was a post about bullet dynamics, nothing else.

 

[007]

I'm assuming this wasn't one of the Ranger T Bonded rounds (law enforcement round). I am curious what round it was though.

I'm not judging you as I wasn't there, but I'd have probably left out the part of the story knowing it would cause a fuss. JMHO

It was the ranger 155gr JHP,

I should have left that part out in hindsight or described it better. It wasn't like the animal was moving, it was just those tiny muscle spasms that you hardly notice shortly after the animal has died. Every dead animal has them, this one just lasted longer than usual.

I just took a pic of the skull but its kind of bloody and I'm sure that would not go over too well either :Wow1:

 

[02TahoeMD]

This was a post about bullet dynamics, nothing else.

Just thought I would add some personal experience to the mix here. I have no doubt that the .40 could kill the deer with a head shot if the round was fired as close as .007 indicates. Though it didnt enter the brain, I imagine the shockwave of the round impacting the skull was enough to shut things down, and perhaps left some residual energy that he saw when dressing it out.

Deer can absorb horrendous amounts of damage and still keep moving. At my prior employer I once had to put down a deer and it took 5 head shots with my 9mm before it got the message that it needed to die. Before that comment gets shredded, I am a country boy and know where to aim. The deer just was not shutting down in what I considered to be a quick and humane fashion. I lacked faith in the 9mm getting the job done thereafter and kept a .45 in my briefcase for the occasional struck deer. I also seriously doubted the round against bad guys as one of my brethern hit a guy 6 times in the "K5" zone with a 9mm and the bad guy is still here with us unfortunately.

Now, where I work, I carry a .40, and every deer I have shot has expired promptly, no questions asked. I recovered one round from a deer that I had hit while on patrol, he clobbered the front end on my cruiser and I finished him off, finding the round laying on the pavement under his head when I moved him - complete mushrooming and very effective transfer of energy. For that matter, every bad guy that our agency has used the round on is no longer with us either. So, I find no problem with using it on a deer at close range.

 

[bobDog]

God you guys....I knew when I said that was the last I would say it wasn't true
........ballistic dynamics etc. is not what happened here really. The round didn't kill its target....crap too bad. Hack sawing an X into the hollow point would of made things worse.....not a person here. my disgust and I mean that. There is no reason for the over description of twitching etc of muscular or whatever. This was written for other reasons not ballistics . If this really happened the hunter would have noticed the signs of life......breathing, blood pump, etc......not to mention gutting to stop tainting of the harvested tissue (back strap, tenderloin or what ever ' I love the good stuff and never leave it to go to waste.) I resent this over dramatic account.
Yes slugs do funny things but muscle twitch etc does not belong here.
WE DESERVE AN APOLOGY. This is BS.....admit it...I forgive you for your sensationalism. Poor judgment.....we'll get over it. Good night

 

[d1sc0ver]

God you guys....I knew when I said that was the last I would say it wasn't true
........ballistic dynamics etc. is not what happened here really. The round didn't kill its target....crap too bad. Hack sawing an X into the hollow point would of made things worse.....not a person here. my disgust and I mean that. There is no reason for the over description of twitching etc of muscular or whatever. This was written for other reasons not ballistics . If this really happened the hunter would have noticed the signs of life......breathing, blood pump, etc......not to mention gutting to stop tainting of the harvested tissue (back strap, tenderloin or what ever ' I love the good stuff and never leave it to go to waste.) I resent this over dramatic account.
Yes slugs do funny things but muscle twitch etc does not belong here.
WE DESERVE AN APOLOGY. This is BS.....admit it...I forgive you for your sensationalism. Poor judgment.....we'll get over it. Good night

You probably should have been asleep or sober or both at the time of this writing. Your message is confusing and further muddled by the extremely poor grammar. You've added noting of consequence here.

 

[jh504]

I wont speak about morality of a knocked out muley, whatever, I wasn't offended (I'm sure he was dead anyway).

I am glad you shared the story though. Around here it is a general rule of thumb (not a law) to take big game with a caliber equal to, or larger than .40, with at least a 150gr bullet or more. Also the general conception is to use ball ammo to muscle through hard stuff. I have been thinking of doing some handgun hunting this year and I was trying to decide if I would use my .40 S&W, .357 mag, or my .45 ACP. I have seen .40 S&W do some weird stuff when striking a hard object, the size and velocity dont seem to penetrate through harder objects very well. I have also shot ballistic gel with the round and the hollow point has good energy transfer. So, I think it is a great round, and is my round of choice for two legged critters. But I think I will be going with the .357 or .45 for hunting season this year.

Also, you might want to check into the local handgun hunting laws where you are, if you haven't already. A lot of places have regulations on caliber, barrel length, and so on.

 

[Fireman78]

Just a balistics "thought"... I have always been under the impression that the hollow points Police carry, (and many homeowners for defense, ect.) are better deployed by hitting center mass on the body. NOT the head. These hollowpoints expand, causing massive internal derangement, bleeding, AND, hopefully, don't exit, then re-enter an innocent bystander. Hitting a skull, (or a wall, for example), may cause too much expansion to penetrate and cause death. Correct me if I am wrong here, but in my experiance as a former soldier and cop, and current paramedic, this seems to be the deal, at least from what I've seen.

 

[K2ZJ]

I wont speak about morality of a knocked out muley, whatever, I wasn't offended (I'm sure he was dead anyway).

I am glad you shared the story though. Around here it is a general rule of thumb (not a law) to take big game with a caliber equal to, or larger than .40, with at least a 150gr bullet or more. Also the general conception is to use ball ammo to muscle through hard stuff. I have been thinking of doing some handgun hunting this year and I was trying to decide if I would use my .40 S&W, .357 mag, or my .45 ACP. I have seen .40 S&W do some weird stuff when striking a hard object, the size and velocity dont seem to penetrate through harder objects very well. I have also shot ballistic gel with the round and the hollow point has good energy transfer. So, I think it is a great round, and is my round of choice for two legged critters. But I think I will be going with the .357 or .45 for hunting season this year.

Also, you might want to check into the local handgun hunting laws where you are, if you haven't already. A lot of places have regulations on caliber, barrel length, and so on.

I was also curious about the law there so I looked it up for Montana. I was surprised there is no caliber limitation with rifle or handgun for big game. I know here in Colorado you need a certain ft/lb @ 100yds to qualify a handgun, and rifle is .24 cal or bigger.

 

[d1sc0ver]

Just a balistics "thought"... I have always been under the impression that the hollow points Police carry, (and many homeowners for defense, ect.) are better deployed by hitting center mass on the body. NOT the head. These hollowpoints expand, causing massive internal derangement, bleeding, AND, hopefully, don't exit, then re-enter an innocent bystander. Hitting a skull, (or a wall, for example), may cause too much expansion to penetrate and cause death. Correct me if I am wrong here, but in my experiance as a former soldier and cop, and current paramedic, this seems to be the deal, at least from what I've seen.

I 2nd this...

 

[howell_jd]

If this is to transform into a discussion of ballistics then I am all for it.

The .40 caliber round is not a high-powered round. It is the equivalent in comparison of the .38 special to the .357 magnum when considered against its high-powered equivalent the 10mm round.

The Federal load for the .40 caliber round of 155gr is among the lightest of loads for the .40 caliber suite of rounds available. It will carry under 450ft-lb of ballistic energy which is sufficient to induce hydro-static shock but will NOT readily penetrate bone which would obviate the head shot as the most ethical.

In comparison, the .357 magnum in its lightest load configuration with a round mass of 130gr has over 550ft-lb of ballistic energy. The .357 is accepted in every state I have hunted in as the "gold standard" for hunting pistols and is sufficient to take most big game other than animals with frames larger than humans (Elk, Bears, etc. where a .44 magnum becomes more applicable).

I haven't hunted with a pistol myself. I use a .30-'06 rifle or blackpowder rifle in .50cal when I'm not using a bow or shotgun or airgun (yes - .177cal for squirrels and rabbits).

The operative point in hunting big game with a pistol is the use of MAGNUM rounds. Ballistic energy as you noted was insufficient for your hunt. I don't know of any hunter who aims to stun an animal or impair brain function for its harvest.

Certainly there are hunters who employ a variety of rifles, shotguns, pistols which are unsuitable or less than fully suitable. I applaud your realization that perhaps a better round is necessary for your deer hunting.

I also make the observation again that I don't know what Montana requires - and I've never hunted in Montana - but everywhere else: Kansas, Missouri, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, Georgia, and Alabama, I had to have a game tag in addition to a hunting license or the Department of Game and Wildlife would consider the take to have been poaching.

If I find myself equipped with a tag and license but improperly armed for an encounter with a large game animal, I call that encounter "scouting" not hunting and I don't take the shot.

I've skinned and gutted my fair share of game and fowl. My own experience was not the basis for a legitimate repartee I think. So my feelings are hurt but I will get over it and I will try not to take it personally. I am adult enough to say when I have made a mistake though. I have said to many of my friends, "Often, the hardest words for a man to say are, 'I WAS WRONG.'" In this case, I was wrong to present the perception that back straps are removed only after field dressing. The fact that most would field dress first is not obvious to non-hunters...it is commonplace practice for a preponderance of hunters - the type I would find myself hunting amongst.

I am sure you are a fine man of legitimate character and a friend to many. I believe you tell a good story and would be a fun companion on a 4x4 adventure.

I won't accompany you on a hunt (even if you invited me and I suspect that is unlikely at the moment). It is not personal however it is a result of what you describe and how you respond.

My information on ballistics - by the way - is available from the Army Research Laboratory (ARL) and the Impacts and Explosives Effects Branch of the Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory at the Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC).

I work at ERDC.

Enjoy the outdoors. Leave it better for those who follow. Hunt responsibly.

Jonathan

 

[Fireman78]

When I went through the NM State Police academy.. ours was the first class to convert from the S@W .45 , to the .357 Sig. (Glock 31 at the time, although now I believe they are using SandW .357Sig). We read a big booklet on the balistics testing the SP had done in the search for a better LE round. Since then (ten years ago), many State and Federal LE agencies have gone with the .357 Sig. I don't really remember exact details, but the gist of it was basically the highest energy transfer availible and still able to carry 15 rounds in the weapon. There is definatly a distinct louder and more pronounced POP when firing the .357 Sig over a .45 or .40. Since I am not in LE anymore, my carry gun is now a 9mm (Springfield XDM). Simply for price of ammo reasons and higher capacity. A good "Redneck" test you can do is grab a bunch of one gallon milk jugs, fill em' with water, and shoot em' with diffrent loads. The .357 Sig round demolishes them!

 

[007]

If this is to transform into a discussion of ballistics then I am all for it.

I apologize for not communicating my experience well enough. I'm often guilty of expecting people to follow my train of thought without enough clues. I did think to title the thread "handgun hunting story" hoping that people with no stomach for animal harvest would avoid it. Looking back I can see that I left it it open for people to think I believed this deer to be alive while I did my butchering. I didn't mean to convey that, I wouldn't have proceeded with skinning if I didn't believe the animal to be fully expired. The situation was different than any other game I've harvested in that the subtle muscle twitching continued longer than usual. I believe this was because the brain didn't completely shut down from loss of blood pressure, and some part of it continued to send a signal even after it was skinned. I'm positive the deer was essentially dead the second the bullet struck it.




The .40 caliber round is not a high-powered round. It is the equivalent in comparison of the .38 special to the .357 magnum when considered against its high-powered equivalent the 10mm round.

The Federal load for the .40 caliber round of 155gr is among the lightest of loads for the .40 caliber suite of rounds available. It will carry under 450ft-lb of ballistic energy which is sufficient to induce hydro-static shock but will NOT readily penetrate bone which would obviate the head shot as the most ethical.

In comparison, the .357 magnum in its lightest load configuration with a round mass of 130gr has over 550ft-lb of ballistic energy. The .357 is accepted in every state I have hunted in as the "gold standard" for hunting pistols and is sufficient to take most big game other than animals with frames larger than humans (Elk, Bears, etc. where a .44 magnum becomes more applicable).

I was using the winchester ranger jhp non-bonded bullet which has about 500ft-lbs of energy. Not the federal load you describe. I just looked it up and found out why they are so cheap and it adds insight to what happened. These loads were originally made for law enforcement but after penetration failures, the departments dropped the load and use the bonded version that holds together much better. The bullets I have hit the wholesalers cheap after this move.

I don't know of any hunter who aims to stun an animal or impair brain function for its harvest.

I fully expected the bullet to pass completely through the deers head. I didn't want to wound the animal so I took the head shot, many hunters would have never aimed at the head because it risks damaging the antler display, this was a large 5-point deer and had the bullet performed well it would have messed up the rack. I have no attachment to antler, I only save them and throw them in the shed so I remember the animal and experience. I have a few "trophy" type racks that would certainly make the books and be very valuable on someones wall, but I love hunting because its a primitive connection to the people we used to be when it was just us and nature. To me taxidermy isn't natural and it feels disrespectful to take pride in the antler when its the meat that the deer sacrificed. To each his own on this matter.

Certainly there are hunters who employ a variety of rifles, shotguns, pistols which are unsuitable or less than fully suitable. I applaud your realization that perhaps a better round is necessary for your deer hunting.

I also make the observation again that I don't know what Montana requires - and I've never hunted in Montana - but everywhere else: Kansas, Missouri, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, Georgia, and Alabama, I had to have a game tag in addition to a hunting license or the Department of Game and Wildlife would consider the take to have been poaching.

I normally hunt with a .338 ultramag using 225gr partitions, the reason I used the pistol was because I was chasing a covey of grouse with my shotgun when I stumbled across the deer in a creek bottom. it was not a planned event and I certainly had a license and tag. I would never poach.

I've skinned and gutted my fair share of game and fowl. My own experience was not the basis for a legitimate repartee I think. So my feelings are hurt but I will get over it and I will try not to take it personally. I am adult enough to say when I have made a mistake though. I have said to many of my friends, "Often, the hardest words for a man to say are, 'I WAS WRONG.'" In this case, I was wrong to present the perception that back straps are removed only after field dressing. The fact that most would field dress first is not obvious to non-hunters...it is commonplace practice for a preponderance of hunters - the type I would find myself hunting amongst.

I agree that most hunters field dress, I used to but when I started hunting with a very experienced trapper I learned that it is completely unnecessary and the meat is less likely to be tainted if you avoid it . Every scrap of meat is still accessible. If you want to bring the animal out whole you certainly need to dress it out.

.