subsonic 9mm for small game?

[abrahamsmith]

II want to use a 9mm handgun for wearing around the woods and taking small game (there are no bears around me, so this is strictly a plinking/hunting application).


What 9mm ammo is appropriate for this use?

I think I want: 1) subsonic, so I don't go deaf ; 2) hollowpoint/expanding, so it reliably kills; and preferably clean and well-feeding.

I don't particularly care about what bullet weight I use, but I'd like it to expand well on a light target.

 

[Snowdog]

Only once have I intentionally targeted a small animal not intended as game.
This was a wickedly fierce tomcat I defended myself against with my Kahr K9.

Though the load I used at the time was 115gr Triton Quik-Shoks, which runs about 1300 FPS (far from subsonic).

Two words about the performance:

*****Warning - Graphic, run to another room with blindfold*****

Cat pudding

**********resume normal reading**********

It was a necessity as it would attack anything it deemed a threat (anything from kittens to horses). It wouldn't allow safe passage past the haybale it was on and threatened to pounce, showing it's needle-like fangs and making an unearthly sound.
Snowdog's moral angel on his left shoulder agreed with the little red pitchfork guy on the right... self defense, no question.

If you wish to use a 9mm to harvest some type of meat for the pot, this load is certainly not what you're looking for.

 

[Chop Farwood]

Unless I misunderstand what you mean by small game, I don't think expansion will prove to be important. A flat nosed, truncated cone FMJ should provide all you'd need. Although the 147 gn 9mm is still subject to a great deal of debate as a manstopper, it should perform adequately on small game, providing that you aren't using round nosed FMJ.

 

[abrahamsmith]

Good point, C.F.
9mm fmj should do fine, since I doubt .22 ever expands to that size.
There is another reason for non-FMJ: In WI, as I recall, there's a law saying that "nonexpanding, fully jacketed" bullets cannot be used for hunting. I can't find my regs right now, so I don't recall if it applies to all game or only to deer and bear. of course, there is also the question of whether that comma is a logical "and" or a logical "or"....

so anyway, my question stands, more or less: what are good brands of subsonic, clean, expanding ammunition in 9mm?

thanks,
abe

 

[bpisler]

I believe any 147gr 9mm will be subsonic except +P's,the one time i fired these without hearing protection they seemed about as loud as 115-124gr 9mm's.As far as ammo i like the remington 147gr golden sable,147gr gold dot and 3-D makes a load using the hornaday XTP bullet,winchester has the SXT in this bullet weight.

 

[Crimper-D]

Haven't tried this with 9mm

But wadcutters in .38spl do an effective job, leaving most of the edable meat intact. I see no problem downloading a 9mm with WC's or SWC's as far as effect...cyceling/feeding might require tweaking, but for a single shot, shouldn't be a problem.
Hmmm. Haven't even thought of my 40 S&W in this role...I wonder

 

[labgrade]

Loudness will be about as much w/a subsonic as will any other - as far as unprotected ears go - it'll still "hurt" your ears w/o hearing protection. The subsonic thing is for using w/suppressed.

Anything factory 9mm will work pretty good for small game, if you figure raccoons on down, expanding or not.

I'd try some refurbed/reloads in a cast truncated - 122-147 grs, if available. If you reload, same-same. Pushed at anything from 800-1000fps or so will do the trick & be easy enough on your & your shooter.

148 gr .38 cal HBWCs @~ 750-800fps is my standard plinkin' & small game pistol round. Anything (within reason) hit in chest area or head DRT.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

99.9% of the sound you hear when shooting the gun is the gases coming out of the gun. Having a subsonic round isn't going to help you much in saving your hearing. The second loudest part is the action of the gun cycling. You would be suprised how much noise a gun with suppressor (silencer) makes when shot. Unless you can lock the action shut, there isn't much "silence" about it.

 

[abrahamsmith]

hmm.. what a pity...

well, so much for that idea, since class III is out of the question...

 

[444]

I have taken a number of animals with a Ruger P89 and 147 grain bullets. Several coyotes, jackrabbits, ground squirrels, and I put two shots into a running wounded mule deer. I chose the 147s just because they hit point of aim with the fixed sights on the gun. The deer was shot with Golden Sabres. The coyotes were shot with Hornady XTPs, and the rabbits and ground squirrels were shot with copper clad cast bullets. The deer dropped upon firing. The shots were raking with the deer running away from me towards one o'clock. Neither bullet penetrated enough to reach the deer vitals so the fact that it dropped may have been coincidental (I had hit it right behind the front shoulder with a 150 grain bullet at 3000 fps initially). None of the coyotes dropped in their tracks dispite good solid hits to the boiler room. The other stuff of course dropped like it was pole axed. All the bullets expanded. I would say that if you are talking about edible game animals, there are better rounds avilable, but something like the 147 grain bullets wouldn't be bad. Obviously it would be better if you could get them to stand still for head shots. A shot through the chest on a rabbit would still leave most of the meat. If all you have is a 9mm, by all means give it a try. If you get some shots, you can be the judge. I would stay away from the fast, light, HP loads if you are going to eat them.

 

[labgrade]

abrahamsmith,

Why is any of your initial posit a "pity?"

Please do reconsider what you think about your "what I want" post.

Everything you want to do, can be, & easily enough done. A "one or two" rounds will not "junk" your hearing" & a "sub-sonic" load (out of a 9MM) will kill (with proper bullet placement) any small game animal you would want to.

Wear hearing protection when working up your load - just makes sense re "loud" = "hearing loss." Don't have to use hearing protection when hunting - I never do.

In almost everything you say, you are attempting to duplicate a 148 WC .38 Special loading, & a really pretty pratical goal.

Even with a bit more velocity (& loudness), you'll still have a goodly small game getter & an easy enough loading on you & your shooter - what more could you want - for what your initial question was all about?

Go for what you want & you will acheive it.

From my perspective, too many want to go "balls to the wall" for the highest velocity & never consider what will actually work for what they actually want to do ...

YMMV - as always.

You are on the right track - don't be dissuaded.

 

[labgrade]

& you must decide what is "small game" & what isn't - of course.

It is within the limitations of what caliber, bullet weight & velocity you hunt with ....

"Coyotes" may be, or they may not be - one of those choices only you may choose - regardless of any "regulations" - do choose wisely, please.

 

[abrahamsmith]

labgrade,

indeed, you are correct that 9mm is a fine choice for small game hunting, and that the hearing loss faster is quite minor when only shooting one or twice per week.

it its a "pity" because I already have a .22 buckmark which can do all these things (well, not coyote), and it is just as loud as every 9mm I've ever shot with 115 and 124 gr loads. I was trying to use the excuse that heavy, slowish bullets in 9mm might be quieter for the same purpose.

Instead, i'll just scrap the idea of having an excuse and use a 9mm anyway. Fun is reason enough.

thanks fo all the comments,
abe

 

[labgrade]

A 9MM will probably be louder than a .22 (rimfire).

But still, abrahamsmith, there are plenty of reasons to shoot 115-147 gr 9MM bullets at "sub-sonic' velocities - besides being "quiet." Low velocity has its own advantages.

There is no reason to "push" any firearm platform to its "max," even though a cast 115-147 9MM at (say) 800-1100 fps) wouldn't do so.

The "standard" .38 special 148 gr HBWC Bullseye load at about 750+ fps will do so much that most of us have forgot it ... It really is one of those "do everything" loads. & really, (except for a heavy-duty "kill every thing else" load), why would anybody "require much else? (unless going for a "big-game, or "defense" loading.") - It is just not "required."

Before anybody starts off with a "labgrade's an idiot & can't play with The Big Boys," retort, I do have some fairly hefty handgun loads that do some things other than desired regards just a "nice light 9mm, or .38 special" loading. I can, & do "play" with "The Big Boys" reagards handguns.

Point is, & regards the initial post, a "workable" cast 9mm bullet at about 115-147 grains at about 700-~1200 fps would certainly do everyting asked of abrahamsmit's intitial post requirement - a nice, light load, that will do what he wants.

Far as accuracy goes, he may have to reload & work up to something that works in his own shooter. May entail bullet seat-out (for COAL), or maybe playing with the (variations of) powders ... & that's beyond what we're talking about here.

Want more? Goto Reloading forum, & I'd bet we could fix him up ....

"Worst case?" - I''ll load the damned things for him myself & give him a very decent medium range, small game/plinking load for him.

Frankly, this is one post in handguns that actually didn't recommend going to "the biggest/heaviest/most powerful bullet/loadinfg" out there ... fairly refreshing, all-in-all.