[moooose102]

what is it about this / why are so many people wanting to know what is the SMALLEST caliber for hunting something? it really does not cost any apreciable amout more to shoot a deer with a 270 than it does with a 223, and the results are so much better. same goes for elk, or wild bores, or lions, or elephants. USE ENOUGH GUN! it makes no sense to me to try to hunt something with an underpowed caliber. there are no world record for this, no rewards, and really, not even bragging rights. if a guy tells me he shot a deer with a 223, i dont think, "wow, what a man". i think,"gesh, it is a good thing he has luck on his side". yes, i suppose you can kill an elephant with a 22 short. but it is going to be a long, miserable, die from lead poisoning or infection type of death. not the quick, clean, humane kill that i was taught was part of being a sportsman. so what gives. why do people want to kill a brown bear with a 218 bee, or something else just as underpowered.

[K3]

Meh, you're just jealous of others ability to place shots correctly. Learn to shoot better. :neener:

Seriously though, I generally use more than the minimum. Hell, I plan to try 375H&H on deer this year. I'm kinda curious to see how a 300gr round nose will do on a West Texas whitetail or muley. Usually my goto deer cartridge is the .300WinMag. That's only because it's the rifle I've owned the longest and when I shoot, it feels like a part of me.

[oronocova]

Hello,
New here, but I hear ya. I've heard the stories before "shot him with my 22 dropped him like a ton of bricks." Well, ok? I don't get it either. You -do- run the risk or injuring or wasting game, no doubt in my mind. If I'm killing hogs in a pen give me a 22. But if I am in the woods with the mindset of taking a deer for meat give me something I know will get the job done even with a less than perfect shot.

[B Man]

It's not for bragging rights when someone says they shoot a smaller caliber than the next guy b/c for most part men want to show there big guns off..... LOL
When i came up it was always like a challenge to see who hunted with the largest caliber. IMO you can go to large for certain sized game and ruin what your sopose to be really taking game for, "The meat". I'm pretty sure the guy that started that thread was just curious what other opinions were. I've had & seen more game suffer from a bad shot with a large caliber (magnums) than i have with small calibers. People sometimes get over anxious and careless when shooting a big 300 Win. Mag. than they do with a .223 or .243 b/c they remeber that they have to have a great shot to harvest what they are hunting.

[saddlebum]

i think it has to do with wanting to use thier AR's for more than actin tacticool at the range

[Cypress]

I've pondered this since I first joined The High Road. I guess I always thought caliber choice and uh "member" size had some correlation. Me, I always tote enough gun. Hear that ladies!!!!!

[MCgunner]

i think it has to do with wanting to use thier AR's for more than actin tacticool at the range

I think that's a big part of the .223 thing. Gotta justify having the thing, so why not shoot a deer with it? Or, they've never hunted, only played army at the range and it's all they have. Mostly youngsters, too, in my observation. Few older guys trying to hunt with pistol gripped anything, though there's always exceptions and I'm sure some 70 year old mall ninja will speak up. :rolleyes:

Too, in the past, it's been guys starting their kids off. I can understand that. A kid ain't gonna wanna shoot a .30-06. Me, I started with grandpa's .257 Roberts. I handled it fine at age 11. I always tell folks, if the kid can't handle a .243, he don't need to be deer hunting, yet. Let him chase squirrels until he's older.

Sometimes it's women not wanting a heavy recoiling gun or it's men who just don't like recoil.

Ya know, when I was a kid it was all about who had the biggest or most powerful caliber. LOL Size mattered. Now, I get the impression it's all about who has the most picatinny rails. :rolleyes:

[.38 Special]

Some of us just don't like recoil. Or our wives/girlfriends/kids don't.

I think the question is a natural outgrowth of the magnum fad. You'll get folks seriously asking if the latest .300 magnum is really necessary for whitetail -- that's what the guy at the gunshop told him, anyway. And while I think "Use enough gun" is excellent advice, it is all too often used by the ".300 Magnum is the minimum for whitetail" crowd.

So while I'm not convinced the .223/AR-15 is a good idea for deer, I do understand the desire to find a pleasant gun for routine hunting chores.

[Shawnee]

+1 for having seem more deer wounded and lost because the shooter had "too much gun" and apparently thought the noise is what killed the deer.

The advice to "use enough gun" - meaning to use a gun with sufficient power to take the quarry under hunting conditions is good advice.

HOWEVER...

There is definitely such a thing as "too much gun"... meaning the gun/caliber produces more blast and recoil than a given shooter can deal with and still shoot accurately. That's to say it may be "enough gun" to take the quarry but it is "too much" gun for the shooter.

But of course some people have too much misguided ego to admit they would do much better with lighter calibers - and these are usually thy people who are using calibers to hunt deer that arfe powerful enough to hunt Moose - and, like it or not, that is just plain old nonsense. The shame is they keep on wounding and losing deer year after year rather than trading their cannons for a sensible caliber.

:cool:

[.38 Special]

FWIW, my grandfather had Parker Ackley build him a .228 Magnum. He, and later my father, hunted with this gun extensively and never lost a big game animal. Granted, a 90 grain .22 bullet is a bit different than a 52 grain .22 bullet -- but comparing the bullets of the 1940s to the bullets of today, maybe not as much as we might think.

I personally have found the hotrodded .45 Colt to do everything I want on the game I hunt -- and the .44 Special and .357 Magnum to be nearly as good. So I generally feel like just about any rifle is the hammer of Thor. I like the 7x57, m'self...

[Bartkowski]

One advantage the smaller calibers have is meat damage. With a .30-06, you can really waste a lot of meat. With a .223 or a .243 you damage a lot less meat.

[.38 Special]

One advantage the smaller calibers have is meat damage. With a .30-06, you can really waste a lot of meat. With a .223 or a .243 you damage a lot less meat.
Hornady's 220 grain roundnose is a great solution to that problem, although it runs afoul of the second half of the magnum men's diad: sniping at game from the next county over.

For those of us who still enjoy hunting, though, the 220 can be a good bullet.

[R.W.Dale]

I don't remember what poster said it but this quote comes to mind.

Those who say .223 isn't powerful enough for deer aren't good enough shots to use a .223

Hunting and self defense shooting comes down to just three variables

shot placement, shot placement, shot placement

[MCgunner]

If you can't shoot what you're trying to hunt with, you need range time before going hunting. If you can't shoot a 7 mag, you'll be pretty poor with a .223 IMHO. You just don't know how to shoot. The key to recoil is not anticipating it. Guess what, concentration on sights and trigger squeeze is the key. The old saying, the trigger should surprise you, is true for just pure marksmanship with any caliber, not just heavy recoil guns. If you can't shoot that 7 mag, you need practice, period. You need to learn marksmanship principles.

Of course, there are the arthritic, the young and small, the meek and the weak. But, I'm 6 ft and 210 lbs. If I couldn't shoot a .30-06 or a 7 mag, I'd not hunt until I could. Recoil isn't an excuse for a healthy man IMHO.

[B Man]

[B]"Recoil isn't an excuse for a healthy man IMHO"[B]

This is not 100% true IMO. As stated above, you should have an adequate gun for whatever you are hunting. Do you hunt squirrels or rabbits with a .243? No thats nonsense. Just like to much gun for other sized game animals. You can deer hunt with a Barret .50 cal. but it wouldn't be practical.

My father has hunted his whole life just as he brought me up doing, and has owned many magnum sized calibers for deer. In the end he now has a 25-06. Plenty enough gun for whitetail & the recoil of a .243 winchester. He's shot it now for 6 years and says he will never have another caliber.

For Elk or Moose small calibers are not the brightest things to use & thats where recoil comes into play b/c you need the better suited magnums to make a humane kill in most situations. B/C for the most part a 22lr would barley pentrate the hide when on a deer sized game it would get into the vitals within 50-75yds. The white-tail deer seems to be the most over gunned game that walks. Every game animal requires a different caliber.

[bradm]

I recently was considering going on a hunt that included caribou and bear. I asked around about minimum caliber to see if what I already owned was enough gun, since I originally bought my gun for small pigs and deer. I wanted to make sure that I wouldn't become bear food by pissing it off with too little gun, and I didn't want to chance causing unnecessary suffering by using too small a bullet or too little gun.

Sometimes people just need reassurance to offset their lack of knowledge.

brad

[.38 Special]

I'm 6'1" and I don't care for the recoil of the .30-06. I mean, I can deal with it, but I'd rather not if I don't have to. And I don't: the 6.5 Swede, .25 Bob, and 7x57 are all capable of taking boar and whitetail cleanly if pointed right. Granted, they are not 500 yard cartridges, but I am not a 500 yard hunter.

[MCgunner]

This is not 100% true IMO. As stated above, you should have an adequate gun for whatever you are hunting. Do you hunt squirrels or rabbits with a .243? No thats nonsense. Just like to much gun for other sized game animals. You can deer hunt with a Barret .50 cal. but it wouldn't be practical.

That's not what I meant. I'm sayin', well, ya wanna use a .243 on elk cause you think you can't handle the recoil of a 7. It causes you to flinch. If you're a normal, healthy man, the 7 is not causing you to flinch. Poor marksmanship is causing you to flinch. Stay home if you can't handle an adequate caliber. JMHO, though.

I've killed more deer with a .257 Roberts than anything else I own. I've killed 'em with a 7 mag, with a .308, with the 7.62x39, with a .30-30 both in a pistol and a rifle, with a .357 in both a pistol and a rifle, and with a 7x57, I hunted almost exclusively with the .257 from my first deer in 1963 to about the early 90s. I killed one deer in that time with a .30-30 rifle, all the rest with a .257 Roberts. Then, I started buying guns and expanding my experiences. :D I've never ever wanted to use a .22 on deer. If I thought I needed to because the .257 Roberts made me flinch, well, I'd burn some more powder at the range until I could handle it.

I don't know anyone in his right mind that doesn't think the 6.5 Swede isn't enough for whitetail. Most figure it's adequate if not great for elk, let alone whitetail. My minimum is .243. But, I see a lot of ".223 on deer" threads. WHY?

[mudslinger]

The key to using any calibre rifle is knowing where the bullet drop is at a given distance. My wife is sensitive to recoil, so she uses a remington model 700adl in 222 mag. the last 4 seasons she fired 8 shots total and killed 8 deer, dead in thier tracks! She is a really good shot. I use a 25-06 with the same results. Last year we had all 4 of our tags filled within 1 1/2 hours and could see all of them lying dead in the field at 100 to 250 yards from the rock where we sit. You just have to practice at different ranges to know bullet drop.

[R.W.Dale]

But, I see a lot of ".223 on deer" threads. WHY?

Because it works. Our forefathers used cartridges that were positively underpowered when compared to .223rem. A lot of people are content to either use what they have or buy what they like in terms of deer rifles and if legal it's really not any of our business what caliber they choose.

've killed more deer with a .257 Roberts than anything else I own. I've killed 'em with a 7 mag, with a .308, with the 7.62x39, with a .30-30 both in a pistol and a rifle, with a .357 in both a pistol and a rifle,

the 357 from a handgun worked just fine for you. A .223 firing a modern hunting bullet is on a another level of effectiveness beyond the best .357 mag loads. So what makes it a bad choice?

This argument is all about preconceived notions.

[MCgunner]

the 357 from a handgun worked just fine for you. A .223 firing a modern hunting bullet is on a another level of effectiveness beyond the best .357 mag loads. So what makes it a bad choice?

Absolutely. The .357 shoots a 158 or 180 grain bullet of .36 caliber. It holes the deer through and through. I also limit my ranges to under 75 yards with the caliber in a handgun, preferably 50. AND, I've yet to find a .223 revolver. I mean, it's a HANDGUN, apples and oranges. I hunt with a handgun just because. I guess I could sell my .30-30 contender barrel for a .223, but why? Is the .223 a superior big game round? I think not.

But, I'm not a girly man. I see no reason to shoot a .22 when I can quite handle up to .375 H and H in a rifle, let alone a .243. :rolleyes: If a .223 is adequate, a .257 Roberts is a lot better. I'm shooting a 100 grain bullet to 3150 fps for about 2200 ft lbs and it carries adequate energy to about 300 yards. Shoot the .223 if you think it's so blasted great, but I know there are about a bazillion BETTER deer calibers, so why would I choose a .22? Stupid, Ridiculous. I don't think the .223 is any cheaper and I KNOW it ain't if it's in an AR.

[R.W.Dale]

Shoot the .223 if you think it's so blasted great, but I know there are about a bazillion BETTER deer calibers, so why would I choose a .22? Stupid, Ridiculous.

and theres a bizillion better calibers than 257 Roberts what makes it so special......... You like it that's why, that's reason enough. The same applies to someone who uses .223 within it's limits

There is only one kind of DEAD. Your 257 don't kill em any deader than a well constructed .223 bullet in the vitals just like my 35 whelen doesn't kill em any deader than your 257

But, I'm not a girly man. I see no reason to shoot a .22 when I can quite handle up to .375 H and H in a rifle, let alone a .243.

Bingo!!!!!!! You just touched real the real reason some people are so down on smaller calibers. They're worried about what other people think. This is the same reason why people buy 1 ton trucks when all they tow is a bass boat.


Is the .223 a superior big game round? I think not.

when .223 rifle is compared to a .357 handgun it is, every day of the week and twice on Sunday

[HB]

Because it works. Our forefathers used cartridges that were positively underpowered when compared to .223rem. A lot of people are content to either use what they have or buy what they like in terms of deer rifles and if legal it's really not any of our business what caliber they choose.

True, but the muzzle loaders of the day were the most powerful weapons available to them at the time. Also, all of us hunt because we like to for any number of reasons, not because we will go hungry if we don't kill a deer. In this day and age, we should try to put the deer on the ground as quickly as possible, which generally means using something bigger than a .223. But to a certain extent, this is a hypocritical statement because I enjoy bowhunting, which ultimately provides a very bloody way to end a deer's life. People need to find what works for them, and as long as the are proficient with their method, I respect them. I can put arrow onto a hardball out to 30 yards, so if I do it right, the deer sill have a 1 1/4'' hole through his heart, which will drop him quickly.

Ethics are a very subjective thing which stem from the roots of a person's environment and upbringing. I'm currently having an internal struggle with the issue of trapping this fall. I've bought a few traps and done quite a bit of reading on the topic, but I'm still undecided. The trapping "lifestyle" is very appealing for me, but I don't know if it is right to hold an animal in a trap for a few hours only to whack him on the head?

Hell, maybe I'll write a book

HB

[Okiecruffler]

Well, then there's the other side of the coin. I ran into a fella a few weeks back. He was sighting in his new 300 win mag. He confided in me that he had bought it because he had shot 4 deer with his 270 and all of them ran off.
Now would I use a 223 for deer? Nope, but I feel pretty confident in my 6tcu, mainly because it will shoot 1/2MOA.
Another thing I've noticed from listening to people talk around gun shops and shows. Something terrible has happened to the 30-30. It's gone from a great little deer round to barely adaquate for bunny hunting in a petting zoo. Go figure, maybe if we put a belt on it...

[Defensory]

It's illegal in many states to hunt deer with .223.

.243 is usually fine for whitetail, but often iffy for the larger specimens of mule deer.

.270 is your best bet for mule deer, IMHO.

[DRYHUMOR]

Shot placement, period.

How many hunters actually shoot a rifle more than 3-4 rounds before the season opens? That's about all it takes to say "yep, still dead on". That's not the same as knowing where you and your rifle consistantly shoot under less than ideal conditions- wind, rain, cold, adrenaline.

I figure the guy shooting 100 rounds or better a year has a far better idea (and judgement) on taking a deer/elk with a smaller caliber. If he knows as the trigger breaks he's a half inch off. Then he knows where his shot will end up. 1/2 to 1 inches doesn't make a lot of difference most of the time. 2-3-4-5 inches do.

[JohnBT]

"A .223 firing a modern hunting bullet is on a another level of effectiveness beyond the best .357 mag loads. So what makes it a bad choice?"

If they legalized .223 for deer in Virginia I'm certain there would be a lot of folks out there using ball ammo. I suppose the law and hunting regs could include a list of acceptable ammo brands/bullet types, but I don't see the state government getting into ammo testing.

John

[Shawnee]

"If you're a normal, healthy man, the 7 is not causing you to flinch. Poor marksmanship is causing you to flinch. Stay home if you can't handle an adequate caliber. JMHO, though."

For those of us crazy enough to spend the time and money to practice with our assorted centerfires - that sounds (almost) like good reasoning.

But for every hunter who will do (or can afford to do) any substantial amount of centerfire practice there are at least 500 who won't/can't - either due to lack of interest, lack of opportunity or lack of funds, or some combination thereof.
As "DryHumor" notes - many hunters go from one hunting season to the next simply assuming their rifle will do what they bought it to do and "Good 'Nuff". Their car starts every morning when they turn the key - why shouldn't the deer fall over when they jerk the trigger on their rifle? Isn't that what it's for? Any Hunter Safety Instructor will meet hundreds of that type. If all those folks "stayed home" until they could shoot a 30/06 or 7Mag well the Game Dept. would be broke for lack of licernse sales and want rest of us to cover the shortfall.

I have a good friend who is 6' and 280lbs. He's a farmer with a fat % of probably no more than 14%. I've seen him lift a 10-ft. section of railroad iron and put it on cement blocks stacked two high. I watched him shoot three deer at 200-250yds., within a couple minutes, unsupported offhand with his bull-barreled, Savage target rifle (.22/250). He's like a human Ransom-Rest.
The point is... no one in their right mind would call him a "girly-man", and he is a good shot.
But he recently bought a ported .25/06. The noise from that thing will rattle the sides of a grain wagon from a distance 50ft. And my friend is now struggling with a major flinch. Oddly, he also just bought a 7Mag and was shooting that fine - UNTIL he got that ported .25/06.

Is he a wimp? Nope, not hardly. Does he need to learn to shoot. Nope, not hardly. He could probably easily outshoot a great many macho types with a sensible weapon, or even his 7Mag. Does he need the explosive roar of that ported .25/06 to prove his manhood or worthiness to hunt. Nope, not hardly. Will his ego allow him to do the sensible thing and sell the ported .25/06. Nope, not hardly.

And another "safe queen" is born.

:cool:

[jjohnson]

I'm sure there are lots of reasons - a couple being that most folks don't want to handle any more recoil than they have to, another that they have a limited number of choices in the guns they already own and don't want to buy yet another gun (I know, doesn't that sound odd?):scrutiny:

We all know Grandpa hunted deer with his .22 squirrel gun in the Depression.

But, oh, yeah, if I had a nickel for every time I went to the (50 yard) range to shoot handgun and a bunch of Rexall Rangers with their ARs/AKs and black SWAT outfits were there.... augh....:barf: I keep wanting to ask them how long it's going to be while they zero their weapons so they can go shoot at the RIFLE range :banghead: Some of them bring girlfriends to impress (okay, I'm jealous) and I'm sure they'd love to hunt deer with their ARs to make them feel like they'd been man enough to enlist instead. Remember - it used to be the same way when M1 Carbines were under a hundred bucks and guys wanted to hunt (wound) deer with THOSE.

[moooose102]

there is a reason the 223 is not legal to hunt whitetail deer with in many states. there HONESTLY, AND TRUTHFULLY just isnt enough power there do do a good, quick clean kill in MOST hunters hands.
dont get me wrong, i own a 223, it is a lot of fun to shoot, and my next rifle purchase will be a 223 ar-15 type (although i have not decided which one yet).
but it is not a good deer gun. the problem is the bullet is just to small, can easily be sent elsewhere INSIDE the body if it hits something substantial instead of blowing a hole through it.
i think a 270 is a fine gun for deer, even though i do not own one. you just need a bullet of sufficient size and weigh to penetrate all the way through the animal, while mushrooming to twice its original diameter, AND retaining 80% of its original weight ALL OF THE TIME, EVERY SHOT, NO MATTER WHERE IT HITS.
i am not trying to start an anti 223 thing. like i said, it is a nice, fun gun. just not for big game. the problem isnt shot placement as so many of you will state. it is when things go wrong! you hit a twig, there is a tuft of grass you didnt notice, the deer (or other animal) moves quickly, or you actually make a mitake (just be man enough to admit you do ocaisionally) and hit the shoulder instead of the lungs. there are a million of things that can go wrong to ruin the best intended shot, and hunt.
and if you are using a marginal caliber to begin with, you are going to loose the animal, or worse, wound it so it will die a long miserable death.
i admit it, i once shot a deer, with my 300 win mag. the deer dropped, then to my suprise, got up and ran about 70 yards. this had never happened before, so i was suspicios that somehow, something went wrong. after carefully studying the situation, i found a bullet hole through a 2" hunk of tree limb, that i didnt see through my scope that was between the deer and i. how i missed seeing it i will never know. but anyway, the 180 grain silvertip continued on to reach the deer. punching about a 3" hole at the entrance, and penetrating all the way through and stopping at the hide on the other side of the animal.
try doing that with a 223. it will just result in a wounded or missed animal.
as far as excessive recoil goes, i can reccomend thiese options. 1) buy some managed recoil ammunition from remington to practice with and target practice exclusively with those, OR download your own to an acceptable level. then when you shoot full power loads at an actual animal, you will be anticipating the mild recoil. when the full power one goes off, it will be no big deal, as your adrenalin will be pulsing through your veins and you will hardly even notice the difference.
2) practice, practice, practice with full loads and REALLY CONCENTRATE ON THE POINT OF AIM, AND TRIGGER PULL. you would be amazed how affective this really is. like a previous poster said, this is just basic rifle marksmanship. the gun going off should ALWAYS be a suprise.
3) have a muzzle brake installed. they make a world of difference. i just had one installed on my 45/70, mostly because i was tired of having my shoulder turn back/blue/orange. it does a great job. no more bruising, way less recoil, and for my ears, not really perceptably louder ( yes, this is a plug for the Gentry Quiet Muzzle Brake ).
i have grown up with magnums, but i honestly do not, (now in my older, more experienced years) really believe that everybody needs to run right out and buy a magnum cartridged rifle.
the 30-06 / .308 winchester are fine 30 caliber guns that will do EVERYTHING my 300 mag will do out to 400 yards. and how many shots do you really take at that range?

now western hunters, who shoot muelies, and elk, may need a magnum. but for the most part, most hunters are in the woods, not open praries.
my wife has been a great shot with her 30-30, now there is a mild recoiling gun, and being a lever gun, great fun to shoot as well. she has droped several deer with it, and one we had to chase over a mile, with a good shot.
the big advantage to a magnum is the increased hydraulic shock you get. often, i think this is the biggest reason for them. i havent killed a deer with my 45/70 yet, but i am thinking that it will carry a huge hydraulic shock with it as well.
like i said in the beginning of this thread, this is not a 223 bash, it is simply about using enough gun!

[surjimmy]

I shot my first buck in 2006 with a 270 ballistic tip, hit him square in the chest at 108 yards. He ran off like nothing happend. Thank God snow was on the ground or I think I would have lost him (ran about 150 yards). Sold the the 270 and bought a 300 winn mag. Alot of people think that's too much gun(so be it) last year I shot 2 doe one at 95 yards and the other at 115 yards. Both fell in their tracks. I know shot placement is everything, but I would rather take a chance of ruining some meat and get my deer, then not ruining any meat and loosing him. This year I will be hunting with a 300 wsm, cause it has less recoil then the 300 winn mag. I don't think anything is wrong with smaller caliber's just not for me, but I think a 243 should be minimum.

[Shawnee]

"there HONESTLY, AND TRUTHFULLY just isnt enough power there do do a good, quick clean kill in MOST hunters hands."

Can't say I disagree much with that statement. But I'm not sure I've heard anyone say the .223 is a good deer caliber.It is a doable deer calliber under some sensible restrictions. Maybe the poster who opined that the AR-type rifle fanciers overrate the caliber for personal reasons is homing in on a Truth. :confused:

I really like the .243 a lot. I'm sure I could drop and Elk or even a Moose with a .243. Do I think it's a good caliber, or even an appropriate caliber, for most Elk or Moose hunters? Nope, absolutely not.

I also happen to really like the 7mm Rem. Mag. and could drop any deer with one. Do I think it is a good caliber, or even an appropriate caliber, for most deer hunters. Nope, absolutely not.

To me, the imoprtant thing is not the minimum caliber that will kill the quarry but the minimum and maximum calibers that Joe Average Hunter can make clean kills with using a hunting rifle under field conditions. Being a Hunter Safety Instructor for nearly 30 years - I've seen a huge parade of "Joe Average Hunters" and for a whale of a lot of them the .243 or 6mm Rem., or the .250 Savage or the .257 Roberts or the 30/30 is all the deer gun they should ever consider.

Yet many, many times I've had guys say they and their wife kill their deer every year - she with a "little" .243 and he with a 30/06. If his wife can limit out with a .243 why does Mr. Hairy Chest need a 30/06? If his wife is a better shot and a better hunter than he is - what the heck is the knucklehead crowing about?? Sounds like he desperately needs to take some lessons from his "little" wifey to me.

:cool:

[MCgunner]

One problem with the tacticool crowd hunting with the .223 is many of 'em ain't got a clue about bullets. FMJ is as illegal as .223 in many states, but that don't seem to stop 'em from using it. :rolleyes: The .223 being best applied to woodchucks, not deer, most of the bullets out there for hunting are designed for varmints. There are bullets available now, the Barnes and such, that work better.

I understand all this bullet stuff and handload and, still, I'd take a 6mm bullet over a .22. I do NOT buy that the .223 is a great deer round, not even close. It's barely pushing 1000 ft lbs in its best loadings at 100 yards. Me, I'd keep it to 100 yards. I'd use a .30-30 to longer ranges even with flat nose bullets. BTW, the .257 carries over 1000 ft lbs all the way to 400 yards in my handloads and with more effective bullets. Might that be four times more effective? It's a much better choice, I can tell ya that! If ya don't like the .257 for some reason, just substitute the .25-06 for it, pretty close in factory loads to my .257 handloads and even more capable when handloaded. If I just HAD to use a .22, it'd be a .22-250, a popular caliber in Texas for kids and women and people that can't handle the massive, bone shattering, retina detaching recoil of the .243...:rolleyes: It's got more zap farther out, though, gives you at least another hundred yards and in most guns is surgically accurate. Me, I'll stick to the .243 as a good minimum for whitetail and give the animals a break.

BTW, for the last 10 years I've been in love with the .308 Winchester. My .257 rarely comes out of the safe. I need some new brass for it to load some rounds, but I keep putting it off. It's still a great little gun even though it's 50 years old. Just that I like that little M7 and the .308 is an awesome hunting round that's light on the shoulder, believe it or not. I can't imagine why anyone would think they needed a .300 win mag for deer. The .308 kills 'em just as dead just as fast as far away as I wanna shoot. In the field, I can place its bullets just as accurately as I could a varmint rifle in .223 and they pack a hell of a lot more whop when they hit. And, I love the little compact, lightweight, laser accurate M7 whether in the stand, still hunting brush, or scoping canyons in New Mexico.

[Clipper]

Ya know, McGunner, I usually agree with you, and I too have a special place in my heart for the .257 Roberts, but I disagree with you here. My uncle bought a Winchester bolt action .218 Bee from my dad in the '50s, and took I don't know how many dozen big northern Michigan whitetails with it. Why? Because he loved that rifle and never missed with it. He only took neck shots, he never missed, and his deer were always DRT. That man could and often would shoot sparrows at 100 yards for practice. What possible practical arguments could there be against his prefered caliber, given his abilities with it? It's no different in my mind from the guy who uses a single-shot rifle, or the guy who goes after big bass with 4lb test line and homemade rod. I do both. He has to do it right too. Simple as that. Do I use a .22 for deer? No, not because I couldnt, but because the smallest centerfire I own that meets Michigan's .22 centerfire minimum is a .243, but if I could use the .17 Fireball I'm building on one, I'd go head-shooting at least once...

[Bartkowski]

For those of us who still enjoy hunting, though, the 220 can be a good bullet.

Why? Is it to slow to cause as much damage? I know the deer I shot last year with 180gr. federal fusion ammo dropped immediatly. Took out about 4.5" of the spine, part of the back strap, and broke some ribs. Leaving a spot in the deer you could put your two fists.

[Shawnee]

"I love the little compact, lightweight, laser accurate M7 whether in the stand, still hunting brush, or scoping canyons in New Mexico."

After watching literally thousands of riflemen shooting, I strongly suspect having a rifle one likes and has confidence in is a LOT more important and more valuable than having any specific caliber.

:cool:

[brighamr]

Moose - just use your 50BMG for everything from squirrels to buffalo, right? :neener:

Edit: if there's a thread in hunting, and MCGunner posts, "tacticool" will be used lol

I just hunt everything with a tactical 5.0 slingshot. Keeps it easy, and it fits right between my titanium leg armor and kevlar underwear.

[K3]

After watching literally thousands of riflemen shooting, I strongly suspect having a rifle one likes and has confidence in is a LOT more important and more valuable than having any specific caliber.

With the exception of the .30-06, right? ;)

[MCgunner]

I suspect, Clipper, that there ain't that many youngsters with an AR in .223 wanting to hunt deer with it that are as good as your uncle with that Bee. ;) The CNS ain't a big target.

[.38 Special]

Why? Is it to slow to cause as much damage? I know the deer I shot last year with 180gr. federal fusion ammo dropped immediatly. Took out about 4.5" of the spine, part of the back strap, and broke some ribs. Leaving a spot in the deer you could put your two fists.
The 220 grain .30 caliber is a good bullet for those concerned with excessive meat damage. In my experience, the heavy, slow bullets hit pretty darn hard and kill very quickly, but expand to a moderate diameter and don't tear up a whole lot of meat.

Honestly, when shooting much beyond 200 yards is not a concern, I find that very heavy-for-caliber bullets -- 6.5/160, 7mm/175, .30/220 -- do a better job than most anything else available. But they are so out of fashion that people at the range will actually laugh at you -- or offer heartfelt advice on the assumption that you truly don't have a clue -- so if that matters to you, you should probably stick with some type of cool looking projectiles. ;)

[Cypress]

I think the missing part in the argument here is WHO is doing the shooting. Everyone agrees that a .22lr can and has killed MANY deer. We also agree that the .223 is not the best choice for deer but in the right hands yields good results. When someone I don't know asks me what caliber for deer I have to take into account that they may not be the perfect shot that some of you .223 buffs obviously are. Like it or not a more suitable cartridge is more forgiving when the shot is not right on. When someone here asks if .223 is enough to hunt deer or pigs I have to say no because by asking the question they are telling me that they have not hunted much and probably don't have a lot of real life (as in shooting in the field at something other than a piece of paper) shooting experience.

[R.W.Dale]

If they legalized .223 for deer in Virginia I'm certain there would be a lot of folks out there using ball ammo. I suppose the law and hunting regs could include a list of acceptable ammo brands/bullet types, but I don't see the state government getting into ammo testing.


You guys act as though .223 is the ONLY caliber where you could use ammo not suitable for deer hunting..



A slob could just as eaisly use 110 V-max .308 ammo

55grn 243 ammo

110 grn .357 magnum ammo.

An uninformed slob is just that no matter what caliber they choose

[MCgunner]

Varmint loads in .308 are the exception. In .223 they are the rule. Not to say that an informed hunter couldn't figure that out, but that still don't make the .223 the ideal, or even an adequate big game round. Yeah, it'll kill deer, so will a Louisville slugger properly applied to the CNS, just stay within range, right?

[R.W.Dale]

Varmint loads in .308 are the exception. In .223 they are the rule.

It is NOT 1977 anymore. Varmint .223 ammo is NOT the rule any longer and hasn't been for some time.

http://www.midwayusa.com/eproductpage.exe/showproduct?saleitemid=161368

http://www.midwayusa.com/eproductpage.exe/showproduct?saleitemid=564348

http://www.midwayusa.com/eproductpage.exe/showproduct?saleitemid=891153

http://www.midwayusa.com/eproductpage.exe/showproduct?saleitemid=402682

I've yet to find a .223 revolver. I mean, it's a HANDGUN, apples and oranges.


No it's not. Both are tools used to achieve the SAME goal. Killing deer. If a 357 handgun is OK to use within it's range envelope why isn't a cartridge that's twice as powerful and penetrates just as deeply while damaging more tissue inside the vitals.

Anyone who uses a 357 mag but thinks a .223 is underpowered is just being a hypocrite.

Both are more than up to the task of killing the crap out of small southern deer out to 100yds + in a rifle.

[MCgunner]

With an iron sighted handgun, you accept the fact you're going to have to limit yourself to bow hunting ranges. That's sorta why I do it. And, as I said, the .357 bullet is significantly heavier and bigger and can cause enough trauma without ANY expansion, seen it done, and it will fully penetrate in the process. I know it's not, and I ain't claiming the .357 is the world's best deer caliber, but I've used it. It doesn't work like a rifle, but it works within its limits. Mostly, when I hunt with a handgun, I use my Contender in a rifle caliber. Theoretically, it's good for 200 yards, if you have a good enough rested position to shoot from, but I've not taken anything with it past 90 yards to date.

Okay, I give up, the .223 is the best big game caliber in America. :rolleyes: The naught six ain't squat, old and antiquated and not chambered in guns that have enough picante rails. You need them picante rails, ya know. And, it kicks to much. No one can possibly hit anything with all that recoil.

[R.W.Dale]

I could be a slob and start taking potshots and wound deer 300 yards away with a 30-30 would that mean that 30-30 is completely incapable of cleanly killing deer. No it would not. Just like the 357 handgun or ANY other cartridge the .223 user must employ his rifle within the cartridges performance envelope. If this is done on the correct sized game and proper ammo is used then the .223 is every bit as effective as a 300 win mag.

Will a .223 kill deer at 400yds like a 300 magnum NO it will not. But will a deer shot at 80 yds be any deader cause the big 300 was used over a well placed 64grn PP from a .223 NO

The .223 rem is a bowhunters rifle cartridge. It's not for your average 1/2 box of "shells" a year shoot em in the poopchute if they wont turn round Jackie Bushman wannabee

[MCgunner]

Am I going to chose a .223 when I have a .257, a .308, and a 7 mag to deer hunt with? Uh....NO! Would I buy a .223 rather than a .308 or a .270 or about a bazillion more capable rounds for deer hunting when they cost the same? Uh....NO! :D Can't really understand why anyone else would, either. Do I hunt with a .357, well, yes, I have. It's not my primary game getter, but when you sit in the same old stand year after year, you have to do SOMEthing to entertain yourself. AR15s just ain't my choice of entertainment and the .223 is just not my choice for deer hunting. I cannot see a reason to get one. If I'm going to hunt with a deer rifle, I'm going to hunt with a REAL deer caliber. Handguns, well, I had the .357 and it shoots well. I now have a Contender and it works mo bedda.

[MCgunner]

BTW, if the .223 is the greatest deer caliber ever made, does that mean the .22 Hornet is adequate? Maybe I should get a hornet barrel for my Contender and toss the .30-30. Hell, why do that, I already have a .22 Long Rifle match barrel with a scope and I can hit the head with it at 50 yards just as easily as I hit squirrel's heads at that range. The perfect deer gun! :D Oh, yeah, that barrel is pretty accurate with CB shorts, too, AWESOME!

[Shawnee]

"With the exception of the .30-06, right?"

LOLOL !! :D:D

If someone has a rifle they like and have confidence in and it happens to be a 30-06, I figure that is the rifle (and caliber) they should hunt with. But I don't think it's the rifle/caliber they should tell everyone they meet to buy. Less robust calibers are simply easier for inexperienced people to use and develop skills with - that is just everyday fact.

I knew a fellow with a Winchester Model 88 carbine in .308. I am lukewarm to both the rifle and the caliber but he loved it and shot it very, very well. It was simply the "best" caliber and rifle for him.

:):cool:

[MCgunner]

Hey, Shawnee, the M88 I fired once, friend's gun and in .243 Winchester, was danged accurate! Weren't the best trigger in the world, but it was capable of near 1 MOA with factory ammo. I was kinda impressed with it. In modern lever guns, I would rather prefer a BLR, though. :D

[Matt-J2]

I'm with krochus here, even if I normally love to read MCgunner's posts.
I fail to see why it's assumed that just because the round comes out of a rifle, it has to be fired at really long ranges.

But then, I'll freely admit I have no love for recoil, and I don't feel like any less of a man for saying it. I might not look for a .223 deer rifle(.223 come in rifles other than ARs, you know), but I'm going to be hovering on the lower end of the power spectrum. Guess I'll just have to practice more.

[R.W.Dale]

But this discussion isn't about what YOU use it's about other peoples choices. If a person employs their rifle well within it's limitations and uses it successfully who are YOU to judge them.


Why shoot cap and ball when Sabots are better

Why use a recurve when compound is better

Why use .257 when 30-06 is better in every way

Why buy a v6 when the v10 is better

Why eat pizza when ribeye is better

Why shoot 357 when .44 is better

Why look a B cups when D's are better

Why drink Jim Beam when Makers Mark is better

Why buy a Buick when Cadillac is better

Where does it stop? It comes down to personal choice, one of the things that makes this country great. The problem with this country today is people worry too much about what others do.

[Shawnee]

McG... yep the trigger is my worst complaint about the 88s. If I recall I've shot two different .308s and two different .243s and the triggers on all of them felt "gritty" and were on the heavy side. "Heavy" isn't so bad but triggers that don't break clean give me the "willies". The 88 carbines are pretty nice to carry though. My friend's .308 was very accurate with some variation of Federal factory ammo but I don't recall the bullet weight. He had a K6 on it
We were walking a sendero on a lease near Cotulla when two coyotes trotted into the road (maybe 120-130yds.) where it widened near a tank and he nailed both of 'em before I could get a shot off.:banghead:

[MCgunner]

Actually, I thought I was answering the OP when I said I don't know why people chose to buy a .223 when they can get the same gun in a better caliber for deer for the same price. He asks why people always wanna know about minimal calibers like the .223. I'm agreeing with him, essentially.

As deer and hog (there are big hogs down here, more hogs than deer) calibers go, I find it hard to beat the .308 for about any application. It don't kick all that bad. Son-in-law has one in a Remington 700 with 26" fluted heavy barrel. That thing feels like shooting a .22 in a light gun, yet, it has 200 fps on my 20" M7. I like the M7, light, handy, just sayin', there's more ways to reduce recoil than shooting a marginal caliber. Any way I shake it, like the OP, I consider .223 a marginal caliber on big game. Head shots, yeah, you can kill a 400 lb boar with a .22 and a head shot in the right place. That don't make my 10/22 the perfect hog gun. I got jumped on in this forum for telling about a guy I know that killed a hog with a 10/22 while squirrel hunting. Took 'em 50 rounds to finally kill the thing. They sorta tortured it do death. An amazing number of rounds were to the head, too. He had pics of it, big hog, well over 200 lbs. They just ran it down shooting at it. Took 'em 30 minutes to finally get it to where they could just start shooting it in the head until it quit kickin'. BUT, they killed it, eventually, living proof the .22LR is a good hog gun.

Why buy a v6 when the v10 is better

At 4 bucks a gallon?! I don't think so. ROFL! :D

[R.W.Dale]

At 4 bucks a gallon?! I don't think so. ROFL!

At $25 a lb .223 uses about half the fuel a .308 does LOL

[yenchisks]

what do we really know about the 223 rem , r we guessing or do we have proof thats it's inadequate,my personal experience is that it will kill @ 200...no questions ask! have a nice day :) okla

[B Man]

I shot my first buck in 2006 with a 270 ballistic tip, hit him square in the chest at 108 yards. He fan off like nothing happend. Thank God snow was on the ground or I think I would have lost him (ran about 150 yards). Sold the the 270 and bought a 300 winn mag. Alot of people think that's too much gun(so be it) last year I shot 2 doe one at 95 yards and the other at 115 yards. Both fell in their tracks.

That was the problem, head on shot. I have a real good freind of mine that hunts with a 338 Magnum and lost a deer last year b/c of a broadside gut shot. My girlfreind shot her first buck with me last year with the perfect broadside shot with my 7mag.. Perfect hit in the crease of the shoulder at 175yds. It took me 2 hours to find the deer b/c the bullet did not properly expand and leave a blood trail. And then again I have shot two deer on permits with my 22-250 T/C both between 200-275yds. and neither took a step. Anything at any given time can happen.

the problem isnt shot placement as so many of you will state. it is when things go wrong! you hit a twig, there is a tuft of grass you didnt notice, the deer (or other animal) moves quickly, or you actually make a mitake (just be man enough to admit you do ocaisionally) and hit the shoulder instead of the lungs. there are a million of things that can go wrong to ruin the best intended shot, and hunt.


Your right in a way with this statement but at the same time things could have gotten alot worse when you hit the tree. The bullet could have veared and hit a leg....? I mostly hunt with my 270 WSM b/c i mostly hunt open terrain but 2 years ago I lost a really big buck I had hunted all year b/c of a over hanging limb about as big around as a #2 pencil was 5 yds. before the deer that I couldn't see. 50 yard shot and the bullet clipped the bottom half of the limb and caused my bullet to hit low on the shoulder through the leg. Was my 270WSM a bad caliber choice for white tail? Would a 30-30 have been better since i was in a creek with some brush?

I know it's not, and I ain't claiming the .357 is the world's best deer caliber, but I've used it. It doesn't work like a rifle, but it works within its limits.

I almost bought a .357 revolver for this deer season b/c i didn't know if i would be comfortable with a .44 magnum yet. I've heard good things about this gun for white tail hunting but at the same time i've heard the .44 magnum people talk down on it badly as being to small. Same thing as with a .223. I have read alot of your post before i ever joined and you give some great advice but in this one when i read your post I think of the old saying my grandpa use to say, "Thats like the pot calling the kettle black". A .357 in a amatures hands who takes a shot to long and cripples a deer or buys his first handgun in a .357 and shoots it a few times before the season and can hit a can at 10yds and says it's good enough will do the same as an amature with a .223.


I'm not trying to say a .223 is a fine deer round by anymeans. Do i have one, yes. Do i use it often to hunt, NO. I only shoot 60 gr. Nosler partitions through mine none of the others hold together. Just like everyone says to ONLY shoot a 180 gr. cast bullet through a .357 if you deer hunt with it. Any thing within reasonable limits in the right hands can be lethal.

[koja48]

Don't like recoil anymore, but CAN place a .223 or .204 Ruger round wherever I so desire (given range limitations, but have cleanly dispatched coyotes with both beyond the 400-yard mark with regularity) . . . just ain't my thing to try anything larger. I'll take my venison with .24-caliber or larger & elk will fall prey to a .30 or better. Use what you are: sufficiently-accurate with, has sufficient terminal energy to CLEANLY DISPATCH the game at-hand, and that represents the MINIMUM CALIBER with which you would be willing to confront a critter that could harm, kill, or devour you given the same body-mass and tenacity. It ain't a "small-caliber, but I can do better with less" competition . . . ethics plays a HUGE role. If you can ensure your proficiency with regularity with something smaller, I envy your ability. If you aren't that proficient, hunt with something a bit more effective.

[cjanak]

"why are so many people wanting to know what is the SMALLEST caliber for hunting something?"

One can use too much gun (spoiled meat, etc.) or too little gun (failure to harvest animal or get a humane kill). It is important not to waste meat, but I think it is more important to avoid causing an animal a slow and painful death. Therefore, I think it is more important to understand the lower boundary (too little gun) than the upper boundary.

So I think it is reasonable (and responsible) to ask about the minimum caliber that should be used to harvest a given animal.

I also think there are a lot of reasonable responses to such a question, because we have different skill levels, different biases and different styles. If you consistently take game cleanly and humanely without wasting a bunch of meat, then you’re doing just fine by me no matter what caliber you’re using. Alternatively, if you’re losing wounding animals left and right or wasting a bunch of meat, then no matter what caliber you’re using I think you're probably not ready to be a hunter quite yet.

[JWarren]

Ahh... I don't know here.

It seems like mininum caliber discussions have been going on in hunting camps since long before the internet.

Those conversations actually have more merit, however. You see, they are conversations between hunters that are actually hunting the same-sized game at generally the same distance and with similar terrain.

I shouldn't have to mention that all deer are not created equal. A Michigan whitetail is not the same as an East Texas Whitetail, and those are not the same a a Florida deer.

Equally, a guy hunting in a lowland thicket is not taking shots like a guy in an open plain.


I've always held the view that caliber is dependent upon BOTH the game-size and distances involved.


But I digress.

I remember sometime around 1985 around here everyone was "poo-poo'ing" the .243 Winchester as simply not enough round to take MS whitetails. Skip forward a decade or so, and no one does that. I can't say that I've seen .243 as any less effective as 30-06 around here in effectively putting down a deer. While I don't shoot a .243, it has become quite a popular round in this area for deer hunting.

As for .223-- Well, I have been a critic of .223 as a deer round in the past. I've posted as such on THR. However, I am not static in my opinions. After seeing enough positive results with .223, I now say that it depends.

It depends on the bullet and bullet weight that you shoot. It depends on the range that you shoot. And it depends on the shooter.

As one example, in our communty we have a guy whose young daughter did quite well this year shooting a bolt action .223 with 80 grain bullets out to 100-ish yards on deer.

With this in mind, I purposely built my last AR with a 1:7 twist and M4 feed ramps in order to handle heavier grain bullets. Often my AR is the rifle that I carry when going out into our thicker woods on a day-to-day basis. If I did choose to shoot, I would want it up to the task. In addition, I often use a shorter, faster rifle when I hunt on my trail/brush deer stands. The maximum range for the shots there are about 35 yards. I'd have no reservation taking a shot at that range with a .223 WITH heavy grain bullets.

Would I shoot a .223 past 100 yards at a deer? As my personal view, not a chance. Would I use a 55 grain bullet at any range? As my personal view, not a chance.

But there are shots that I WOULD take at closer ranges with 80 grain hunting rounds.



-- John

[moooose102]

i think the better question would be " what is the BEST caliber for ******", (what ever species you are trying to harvest). not the smallest. that is what i am getting at. why would you want to use the smallest, rather than the best!?! and obviously, there is a wide variety of opinions as to what is best. but somewhere in the middle of all of those answers, it the median. and that would give anyone a good choice of acceptable, capable guns for a quick, humane kill. instead of a long slow agonizing death. i am not be the worlds best hunter, of that i am certain. but i do believe in being a true sportsman. and part of that is the resonsibility of choosing a weapon that will do the job with the least amount of suffering to the animal. i do understand that sometimes, stuff happens, and the best laid plans go up in smoke. but it is our resopnsibility to do our best, and if your shot placement is off and you wound the animal, it is also our resonsibility to track it down and find it. finishing the job a.s.a.p. . which brings us back to the beginning of this post. if the minimum caliber is what you use, and something goes wrong (as it often does) (Murphy's law) you can lessen those chances using a better cartridge to begin with. you can never eliminate all the things that can go wrong with a hunt, but you can stack the odds in your favor as much as possible. and in my opinion, it is our duty to do so.

[tinygnat219]

30-06 properly placed is the only rifle cartridge you need for anything on this side of the world.

It's my deer gun, my hunting gun, and it does a fine job of dropping dead deer.

[Cypress]

Well said moooose102. I agree 100%.

[NCsmitty]

I really enjoy these threads that provoke the different responses in regards to using 22 centerfire rounds as deer guns. In my mind, it boils down to three different criteria.
1. The legality of using 22 caliber in that particular state.
2. The ability of the shooter for proper bullet placement.
3. The use of proper bullet selection for the species being hunted.
I have 222, 223, and 22-250 in my collection, and would not use any for deer because I have more appropriate deer rounds available for that use. Having said that, if all I had was a 223 with heavier hunting bullets, not varmint style, and was proficient with that weapon, and it was legal to use, you're darn right I would use it.

NCsmitty

[Girodin]

Too, in the past, it's been guys starting their kids off. I can understand that. A kid ain't gonna wanna shoot a .30-06.

This was the first thing that came to mind. When I went on my first deer hunt I was a pretty small kid. I probably weighed 85 lbs or so. There was no way I could haul an '06 through the hills all day long. Hauling a rifle that 20% of your body weight would be like a 200 lb man hauling a 40 rifle. Who here is going to pack a barret .50 up into the rockies?

I took a .22-250. It was the biggest gun I owned that I could handle. Maybe a .243 would ahve been better or something else but I was twelve, I didn't have the means to go buy a new rifle. It is not what I would take deer hunting today. I don't feel bad about having taken it then though.

[drgrenthum]

first line the OP wrote was "what is it about this / why are so many people wanting to know what is the SMALLEST caliber for hunting something?"

I enjoy reading those post because i would like to know what i can go out and ethically hunt with. I have an AR a 10/22 and a xd 40 but i want to go hunting hogs. Those whats teh smallest caliber threads let me know i need to choose a good shot with a 70 grain plus bullet that expands. Great now a noob has a starting point to go hunting. Without those "smallest caliber" posts. I probably would have went out with a 55 grain fmj. It may of work but those "smallest caliber" posts set me off in a better direction.

As for a bigger gun. I dont have the money for it right now, nor do i plan on hunting with any regularity so to get a 30-06 or the like would be a waste. On top of that the AR gets a couple hundred round ran through it a month, i just cant imagine doing that with a bolt action or a 5 round semi to stay proficient.

[Clipper]

You're right...Anyone who really NEEDS to shoot 200 rounds per month through any rifle to remain proficient with it...

Oh, forget it.

[Art Eatman]

I've always figured that the least recoil that would allow me to do what I wanted to do was sort of a starting point. Not the be-all/end-all, but a place for the thinking to start.

Bullet technology for .22 centerfires has increased dramatically in these last ten year or so. 20 and more years back, there were few bullets that wouldn't blow up and wound a deer, rather than making a clean kill.

By the mid-1980s, I'd cut and wrapped over 20 deer that had fallen to my .243, so negative comments never got my attention. :)

My '06 is quite likely more than I need for clean kills, but since I know the trajectory and have shot one so much, that's sort of an Old Reliable for larger deer which might well be at distances where I wouldn't really want to take the shot with a .243.

.30-30? No problem with the cartridge insofar as power. That's not where the problem is. It's the commonly low-quality sights that come on the lever action rifles. And, the trajectory has the bullet dropping quicker than more modern cartridges, causing less-than-perfect hits.

And we always come back to the skill level required for good shot placement. If Bambi is lollygagging around at 35 or 50 yards, almost any pipsqueak cartridge will do quite nicely, with a neck or head shot. If he's in overdrive at 200 or 300 yards, you better be using something with some serious Oomph! to it.

[stevereno1]

I think that if you don't have a minimun caliber on a certain animal, you will eventually have the occasional fool who will try to bag a large animal with a .22lr. While I do believe that the .223 is a good round for whitetail, would I send someone off to hunt bear with it? No, That would endanger lives. My 2 cent.

[R.W.Dale]

which brings us back to the beginning of this post. if the minimum caliber is what you use, and something goes wrong (as it often does) (Murphy's law) you can lessen those chances using a better cartridge to begin with.

A larger caliber DOES NOT make up for bad shot placement in the slightest I've looked for more lost animals shot with a 30-06 than all other calibers combined. The whole use a bigger round so you can gutshoot deer more is just as irresponsible as using a 17hmr. If a deer doesn't give you a good shot then don't shoot

not the smallest. that is what i am getting at. why would you want to use the smallest, rather than the best!?!

define "best"? Which cartridge is better for whitetail.

but i do believe in being a true sportsman. and part of that is the resonsibility of choosing a weapon that will do the job with the least amount of suffering to the animal.

By your reasoning a bowhunter is less of a sportsman than someone shooting deer 600yds away with a 300wby? I'm sorry I don't buy it. I hear some slob hunters still use cap and ball in their muzzleloaders.


This discussion makes me think of all the old timers who come deer season would climb up a tree in the deep woods with their trusty M1 carbine and kill the snot out of whitetail at ranges from muzzle to 75yds never losing an animal.

Of course this was in the days before a bunch of self proclaimed experts in the gun media convinced everyone that it takes 3000 ft lbs of energy to kill a 180lb deer and that you're not a man if you don't use a rifle that'll killem 800yds out.

Why does someone who kills sub 200lb whitetail at ranges less than 100yds need a 400yd rifle. But then again why do 1/2 ton trucks come with 300+ hp engines when our grandparents got by just fine with a 100 hp 6cyl.

This generation really needs to realize that the world doesn't revolve around what they think is proper and that neither past nor future hunters will have much use for todays screwed up point of view

[stevereno1]

I can see your points, and I am not disagreeing with you for the most part, but to deer hunt with a 22lr, or a 25acp, or even a .17 seems a bit on the light side. Personally, I use a 7mm rem. mag, and they do occasionally run, but not very far. If you can handle a heavier caliber, why not use it? Also to call a purist that chooses to shoot round ball out of a muzzle loader a "slob" isn't very high road.

[Shawnee]

"A larger caliber DOES NOT make up for bad shot placement in the slightest I've looked for more lost animals shot with a 30-06 than all other calibers combined. The whole use a bigger round so you can gutshoot deer more is just as irresponsible as using a 17hmr"


Amen to THAT !
:cool:

[stevereno1]

I have yet to see anyone advocate gut-shooting anything. I have yet to see anyone on here state that a bigger caliber will make up for poor shot placement. I will tell you that a well placed shot from a 7mm drops a deer. Folds them up like a chinese fan. Most of the questions are about the effectiveness of a well placed shot from a weak round like a 22 mag, or a .17hmr, etc...

[Cypress]

No, a larger caliber won't make up for a BAD shot. But, it SOMETIMES will do better if the shot is just a little off. Shoot 10 hogs in the shoulder with a .223 then shoot 10 with a .270 and do the math. I know, I know BULLET PLACEMENT. I for one have actually muffed a shot and anyone who hunts long enough will. It doesn't bother me a bit that some people hunt successfully with a .223. What bother's me is reading where someone is recommending this to some kid without explaining that it may not be the best choice. I know people that read things like that and think that thier new AR is a laser beam on deer. It just ain't so!

[R.W.Dale]

I have yet to see anyone on here state that a bigger caliber will make up for poor shot placement.

from the OP

which brings us back to the beginning of this post. if the minimum caliber is what you use, and something goes wrong (as it often does) (Murphy's law) you can lessen those chances using a better cartridge to begin with.

In the world of shooting game "Murphy" is a eupanism for that's a really nice rack all I can see is a flag, I'm gonna shoot anyhow or I don't know how far away he is but I can make this shot

It's funny if someone pulls out in front of a cement truck it isn't called Murphy's law but if someone tries to shoot a deer through a briar patch and misses then that's murphy at work.

[MCgunner]

Well, since I know nothing, is the .22 Magnum too much for deer? I don't wanna tear up meat using a magnum caliber, but I really shoot this 597 magnum well, 1/2 moa at 100 yards. Good shoulder shots aren't a problem. But, I don't wanna ruin the meat.

For a good bullet in 7mm (and destructive) try the 150 Sierra game king. I guarantee you, it WILL expand. Blew the whole shoulder off a doe with it once, but she died right there. Everything I've hit with it died right there. :D But, it's too much gun. I'm thinking a .22LR doesn't quite reach far enough, just hope the .22 Mag, being a magnum, ain't too much. It don't have a belt, ya know. It's sorta powerful, though. I knocked my swinging target over with it at 100 yards. My .22LRs won't do that at 25. That's why I'm sorta worried it's too much now that I know the .22 is the best big game caliber. I don't have a .223, so I guess I'll over gun 'em with the magnum until I can get one. I'll just have to put up with the meat loss. I'm not sure I can handle the recoil enough to make a head shot with it. It is a magnum, ya know.


At $25 a lb .223 uses about half the fuel a .308 does LOL

Yeah, but I don't drive a .308 to work. :D

Oh, but the .22 mag will sure save on gunpowder. :D I'll probably use maximag solids. They're accurate and maybe they'll keep the meat loss down.

[Clark]

If the Elk will stand broadside at 200 yards, shoot it with a .243 through the heart.
If the Elk is outside the kitchen window, shoot it with a 22LR through the brain.
If the elk is 200 yards and running away shoot it through it's length with a .338WM partition.

[MCgunner]

Anyone deer hunt with a .17 Remington? How about .17HMR?

If the Elk will stand broadside at 200 yards, shoot it with a .243 through the heart.
If the Elk is outside the kitchen window, shoot it with a 22LR through the brain.
If the elk is 200 yards and running away shoot it through it's length with a .338WM partition.

So, you carry your rifles around in a golf bag? "Whadda ya think, caddy, .338 iron?" "Nah, that's a chip shot, here, take this .22." :D

You can putt with a driver, but ya can't drive with a putter.

Pretty good since I never swung a golf club in my life, eh? :D

[R.W.Dale]

You can putt with a driver, but ya can't drive with a putter.

But if your golfing is taking place on the putt-putt course why bring a driver at all? Much like hunting deer in the woods with a 308 where you can't see any farther than 50yds

[R.W.Dale]

http://www.forumspile.com/IBTL-Dog.jpg

[Cypress]

I guess there are some people out there who truely are perfect. They never blow a shot even though it's laid out good. I wish I was one of those guys!!!

[MCgunner]

But if your golfing is taking place on the putt-putt course why bring a driver at all? Much like hunting deer in the woods with a 308 where you can't see any farther than 50yds

Fine. Just stand hunt over a feeder, don't even think about taking a running shot at a deer while still hunting. Arse to neck penetration ain't the .22's game. I've killed a few deer DRT that way, including with the .308.

"Wait, caddy, take this .22 back. That there shot calls for a .308 iron.....":D

[Colorado Bob]

First and foremost, most states have a minimum caliber requirement for each type of game to be harvested. In this state the smallest caliber allowed for deer is .243. I think the logic that if you were a good marksman you could take a deer with a .22 is pure "macho B.S.".

[MCgunner]

How about, "If you're a good rifleman, you can handle the recoil of a .243?" :D People have called me a testosterone laden big balled macho chauvinist for that one, but I think it's true..... that you could handle .243 recoil if you were a good enough rifleman to actually hunt, not that I'm big balled or anything. :D

[R.W.Dale]

I think the logic that if you were a good marksman you could take a deer with a .22 is pure "macho B.S.".

and I think the logic that you need 3000ft lbs of energy from a 400yd cartridge to kill a 180lb bambi 70 yds away is pure over compensation.

don't even think about taking a running shot at a deer while still hunting.

I wouldn't even with my 35 whelen......because I have enough self discipline not to take shots I haven't practiced for. How many deer have you wounded shooting them on the run? How do you practice for shooting running game at the range?

News flash! Just cause a deer is there doesn't mean you HAVE to shoot it.:rolleyes:

Fine. Just stand hunt over a feeder,

McGunner have you ever been in an actual forrest? With real trees, Not those sparsley scattered misquete bushes that a ya'll call trees a grown man can pee over.

[MCgunner]

How many deer have you wounded shooting them on the run?

None, missed a couple, though. I do use an adequate caliber. I won't take a shot like that either with a cap gun. I don't take shots over 50 yards on a running deer. I got a LOT of practice poppin' running rabbits with a .22 when I was a kid. I can handle the marksmanship of it out to 50 yards. Don't take much lead out to that range regardless of speed.

First deer I ever killed was on a dead run at 75 yards, but over a tree for a rest. I was 11 years old. Me and ol' Davy Crockett used to run together, but he got kilt down here in Texas, ya know.


McGunner have you ever been in an actual forrest? With real trees, Not those sparsley scattered misquete bushes that a ya'll call trees a grown man can pee over.

They call it the "piney woods" or "big thicket" down here. I prefer hunting out in the desert or down in the brush on the senderos, though. Yankees can have their trees. My FAVORITE deer hunting is the Guadalupe Mountains in New Mexico. I'll go back there some day. All spot and stalk, 200 yard plus shots are common. I like my 7 mag out there, but the .308 is lighter and is enough. I could use a .223 for jack rabbits out there, I guess. They're almost as big as the deer in Arkansas. :D I guess I could practice on moonshine jugs if I lived up there.

BTW, I'm still just kiddin'. :D You are the home state of Bill Clinton, though. I wouldn't get too cocky. :D

[R.W.Dale]

You are the home state of Bill Clinton, though. I wouldn't get too cocky

The past couple of presidents have left a lot to be desired. One from Arkansas the other...........

[MCgunner]

Well, they did call it the Clinton gun ban, ya know. Bush brought CCW to Texas after Ma Richards told us we'd turn into Dodge City, Kansas if we passed it and vetoed said bill. For that, I will always think of GW fondly. :D He's the man that made me legal. Before that, I was just another armed outlaw, committing a class A misdemeanor every day.

OKAY, back on topic now. .22s are for rabbits and squirrels. :neener:

[Art Eatman]

This thread is gettin' over-loaded with irrelevancies, seems to me.

Look: Some guys, particularly those with more experience, like to use what they consider to be a minimum caliber as a test of their own skills. They're forcing themselves to be pickier about their shots, more precise in their aim, more in control against "buck fever". This includes being closer to the animal than they might otherwise try.

Then there are those who believe, "If he can, I can." Sometimes they're just really wrong.

Generally, from a bunch of deer-camp years and a lot of hunting on my own land, I've found that something like an '06 is gonna give more tissue damage and bone breaking than something like the .243. And that's why I go along with the notion that being off-target by a small amount with that class of cartridge gives the shooter a better chance at not losing the animal. IMO, it has to do with such as the amount of blood trail, as one for-instance. And when I say "small amount", I'm not talking about way off the mark as in a gut shot.

I've never understood all this about "wasting meat" from using high-power cartridges. Me, I don't shoot deer in the hams or backstrap. Or in the meaty part of the shoulders, either. The reason a deer has that long old neck is to give me a target. Heck, I don't eat the heart or lungs, either. And on little ol' bucks, I've been known to stick it in his ear. :D Sorta cuts you out of brains and eggs for breakfast, though.

[moooose102]

i agree art, this is not intended as a pi$$ing match. please, no one take any offense of anyones postings, and try to refrain from posting in argumentory language. i just dont get why people want a minimum caliber. arts explanation is pretty good, but i feel a lot of folks are not posting for that reason. since those folks have enough experience to know what is the minimum caliber for their skills. i believe that the majority of these style posts are from inexperienced hunter/shooters. and they really should not be asking minimum, but best.

[Shawnee]

There is NO one "best" caliber for this or that quarry.

None. Nada. Zip. Zero. Zilch. NOT ! No Days. Ain't gonna happen.
NoWayJose. Game Over. Period.

There may be a couple (or several) "really suitable" calibers for a given quarry - but linking caliber to quarry is always less important than linking caliber to the shooter. It is the shooter who uses the caliber.

The Gospel Truth is the average American shooter, and certainly the beginner, will shoot more effectively with calibers in the .22 - .25 category than they will with anything larger/more powerful.

Yes, they could increase their hunting and shooting skills to the point that they are proficient with a much larger caliber. But for deer hunters and varmint hunters especially (and that's what 99% of Americas's centerfire shooters are)... there is no need, or point, in going above .25 caliber. None. Nada. Zip. Zero. Zilch. NOT ! No Days. Ain't gonna happen. NoWayJose. Game Over. Period.

As for bigger caliber providing some "insurance". Hogwash. I literally learned to follow blood trails by looking for deer that other people wounded with their :cuss: .308s and 30-ought-BS rifles. I know of a small Texas buck that recovered from a .308 shot through his back. A week later he had two ghastly wounds (entry/exit) scabbed over but was grazing calmly and fully mobile.
Right now there is an 8-pt. buck that dines in the beanfield behind my house every morning and nght. He was shot in the shoulder early this Spring by a .270. He laid down for a couple days and now his right foreleg is permanently bent - sorta like the lifted leg of a pointer - and the top of the broken ulna bone is visible. His body weight looks better than normal and his rack is looking good. I can't shoot him now because crop damage permits are "does only".
He stays during the day in the top of a downed Ash tree along the fenceline. He can only hobble so all the bean plants near that Ash show the effect of his feeding - exactly like the areas around a woodchuck burrow.
I could wait until opening day and collect that good-looking rack but I have watched him struggling along like a wounded trooper nearly every morning and evening and I doubt I'll be able to shoot him. Since the other side of the fence is my friends' posted property, it's more likely I'll use the weeks before the season opens to convince him to abandon the Ash and relocate farther onto the property where he won't be bothered.
The guy who shot that buck has claimed to have shot 6 deer so far with his .270. He has recovered one and, he doesn't know it yet, but the farmer he has gotten his permit from will be removing him from his list of authorized hunters this week - not because he uses a .270, but because he uses it poorly. The .270 is a fine caliber - but not in that guy's hands.

But I digress. The crap about "bigger gives you more chance" is absolute Hooey. It's just a popular, but highly unethical, rationale some people use to excuse themselves for blazing away with shots that they know are 99% wishful thinking.

I surely don't advocate everyone use a .223 for deer. But I know there are trainloads of varmint hunters who can hit poker chips at 200yds. with their .22 centerfires so I would rather see that than everyone using a 30/06. I would be very much in favor of seeing a legal maximum caliber for deer.

An old time San Antonio beat cop told me once that he would much rather face a bad guy who was armed with a .44 magnum pistol than one armed with a .22 pistol - and his reasoning was very straightforward. He said it is because there is a good chance the guy with the .44 will miss him but a great chance the guy with the .22 would hit him, and he felt that difference significant.

One last comment - NO hunter ever sees all his deer dropping in their tracks until one thing happens and that one thing is when he makes the decision that DRT is the absolute minimum he will accept. No exceptions. No matter what caliber you use or scope you buy or bullet you have or amount you spent or how much camo you own, you canNOT achieve that standard until you set it for yourself. Period. And then the caliber you use can be any of several calibers.

:cool:

[MCgunner]

The reason I think the .308 is neigh on perfect for Texas hunting is that it's relatively light on the shoulder, accurate to the max, carries good power and penetration, yet does not destroy much meat. It will take small deer to large hogs effectively with shoulder/lung shots, not limited to neck or head shots. It is easy to shoot for the beginner if one picks a heavyish gun in the caliber and there are light, fast guns available for it for those who don't mind a little more recoil. Like the OP, I really can't understand someone wanting a minimal caliber. Sure, you can take a 400 lb boar with a head shot at 50 yards, but if all you have is a .223, you won't be properly armed for mulies in west Texas or the mountains or whitetail down a long south Texas sendero. Probably not even legal to hunt with in New Mexico. You do want to hunt more than just whitetails over a feeder in the brush at 50 yards, don't you? Would you not enjoy a trip to Colorado for mulies? If you're going to have one caliber for everything, the minimal caliber ain't it. Now, if you have a good caliber and want something for the challenge and are willing to pass a lot of shots because of angle and don't want to handgun, black powder, or bow hunt, you think the .223 is the challenge for you, hell, go for it. But, it's not an ideal deer or hog hunting caliber by any means. To me, it borders in inadequate. I've trailed and finished an angry hog shot behind the shoulder before. I prefer to put 'em down right now. You have to take those things out through to shoulder and to do that, you have to have penetration. Hogs have thick gristle shields. Oh, yes, there's the head for all you Annie Oakleys out there. But, I like horsepower, enough to do the job with a not so good shot, if I'm hunting with a rifle.

If all I did was woods hunting, I can think of nothing finer than a Marlin M336 in .30-30 Winchester or .35 Remington, but my .308 will do that, too. It really isn't too much gun, it's just about right IMHO.

[Art Eatman]

Shawnee, you're sorta getting circular in your argument. Those deer you had to trail weren't trailed on account of the cartridge. They were trailed on account of the shooter not hitting the right place.

Now, I don't go to rifle ranges, so I don't have a clue about how many would-be hunters flinch or worry about recoil and all that. The last forty years, I've had a benchrest and 100-yard range at home. I've known a few bad shots, but from what I saw, they couldn't hit a bull in the butt with a bass fiddle, a .22 rimfire or a .30-'06. But that was a mere few out of dozens of guys who could pop beer cans at significant distances with all manner of your "too big" centerfires. Maybe I'm spoiled...

Now, if you want to say that "some shooters" oughta stay with lesser-recoil cartridges, I'm not about to disagree with you. Nor about some folks needing to work at being better shots, no matter what they use.

I dunno. From around 1964 to 2000, I autopsied somewhere around 50 or 60 deer that I shot, and was around for other guys' likely-equal amount. My observation, in general, is that there is more tissue damage and bone damage from such as the .270s and .30s than for any of the centerfire .22s or the .243.

But if you shoot Bambi in the white spot, it doesn't really matter. :D

[Shawnee]

LOL ! :D


Nothing "circular" about it. The reason they didn't "hit in the right place" is because they were using a caliber that was too much for them to shoot well.

"But if you shoot Bambi in the white spot, it doesn't really matter."

Absolutely - that "white spot" is about the best place to land the shot there is.

:cool:

As for damage - slip a .243 87-gr. Honady BTHP behind the shoulder and angled forward from about 250yds. and you'll see damage with a capital "D". :)

[Meeteetse]

Sorry to disagree Shawnee, but for some it doesn't make any difference if it is a Red Ryder BB gun or a 375 HH, they are poor shots. They have bad technique, poor trigger control and no knowledge of their gun. But that is another story. .

I never knew anything smaller than a 30/06 existed, steel butt plate and all, until I entered the service in the 60's and learned about the .308. . . .:D

The .223 is not legal for game animals in Wyo so it was not even considered. The 243 was the smallest legal gun. On the ranch, the 22 lr harvested a lot of deer when the meat locker was empty. Our family ran a guide service for 12 years in the 1960's in Wyo and found that most people couldn't shoot regardless of the caliber they carried. Those who hunted in "shotgun only" states couldn't judge distance and really didn't understand what it takes to anchor a big elk, mule deer or moose. It isn't about minimum caliber, as someone said earlier, it is about what caliber is best for the job.

Sure, small, low recoil calibers can take game, if the shot is perfectly placed. But, IMO, there is less room for error, and a greater chance of wounding and loosing game.

[cjanak]

Maybe the ideal commenter would ask for minimum, best and maximum caliber? And more importantly perhaps, they should probably be very detailed in explaining the size deer they are likely to encounter, the style of hunting, the likely distance of the shot, their sensitivity to felt recoil, and their skill and experience.

This gives the respondents an opportunity to best define the bookends and the optimal cartridge for the given situation and shooter.

[MCgunner]

I really don't think there is a "maximum" caliber. I mean, for one, I can load a .375 H&H DOWN. The full power loads will kill deer, after all. You can take a squirrel cleanly with a .458! I don't hunt squirrel with a .458, just sayin'. But, would you wanna use a .22 LR on cape buffalo, up close and personal? Would ya? Not me. I'm talking rimfire, now, not .223. We all know the .223 is way enough gun for elephant, let alone buffalo. All it takes is a well placed shot. You just have to be able to hit the right spot. In fact, I'm thinking of investing in .223 futures. Once Africa finds out what a great caliber it is, i'l make a fortune. :D

[cjanak]

"I really don't think there is a "maximum" caliber"

Point taken MCgunner. No question .505 Gibbs will take rabbit just fine... assuming you're capable of handling such a weapon. Frankly I doubt that I could, which means that at some point there is a maximum caliber that I can reasonably use to humanely and effectively dispatch game. But a guy like you that seems comfortable and experienced in dealing with larger calibers might not have any problem at all, and therefore the maximum bookend might not be particularly relevant to you.

Also, some people claim that using large calibers on small game can waste meat, though I have no personal experience with this as I only hunt small game with light shotgun loads or .22LR.

[MCgunner]

Our forefathers used to "bark" squirrels with their kentucky rifles to avoid meat loss.

[Art Eatman]

MCg, guys used to try to "crease" wild mustangs, to cold-cock them for an easy catch. Fed a lot of coyotes and buzzards, doing that.

Back wehen I was selling bibles door to door, I was set upon by a vicious dog. A pit bull, to be exact. All I had with me was a sample, a leather-bound, brass hinged and locked copy of the Holy Word. Some seven ecclesiastical pounds' worth. I smote that evil hound in mid-leap, sending the evil bow-wow to that Great Fire Hydrant in the Sky.

I was sore down-heartened by that awful event, and sought advice from my preacher. He asked, "Were you engaged in lawful pursuits?" "Yes, sir, I was." "And you were attacked without warning?" "Yes, sir I was." "And you say you smote this creature with the Word of the Lord?" "Yes, sir, I did."

"In that case, then, I suggest you let your work speak for itself."

It is in that spirit, then, that I suggest that if somebody is successful in his endeavors with respect to Bambi, we let his work speak for itself. Regardless of the ecclesiastical caliber...

Art

[ltetmhs]

Just cause you can doesn't mean you should. I've wanted to ask this question since the first time I saw someone ask about .223 for deer or birdshot for intruders. I fail to see why it is such an accomplishment to kill a deer w/ a .22 lr. Sure they can drt but they could die miserably from infection. I have heard a story of a magnificent deer around these parts shot w/ a .223 (shot by someone who could could handle much much more) that was found dead months later destroyed. That could have been the deer of someones lifetime, but instead it was wasted. I think it is just irresponsible and unsportsmanlike. If we are going to take a deer why would you not want to do everything they could to make it quick. I know that shot placement is far more important. a deer shot in the leg with a .223 is just as shot in the leg with a .338. can't people be just as happy with perfect shot placement w/ a .270 as a .223?

p.s. if someome is so helplessy addicted to black guns what about a .308? not my taste anyway.

[MCgunner]

Back wehen I was selling bibles door to door,

My GOD, you got sucked into that, too? Okay, off topic, but I was desperate for money to finish school in 1973, went to Nashville for a week, assigned to New Albany Indiana, nearly starved to death before giving up. Worst job decision of my life. LOL! I am not a door to door salesman, I found out. However, I do have a record of smoting dogs, not with books, though. LOL

[Art Eatman]

Aw, MCg, I just sorta stole part of an old Gamble Rogers story...

You can Google for the website; I recommend his Still Bill stories. :D

[MCgunner]

Oh, well, I'm glad you really weren't as gullible as me at that age. LOL! Not one of the wiser things that I've done, but they say you learn from mistakes.

[blackbearaddict]

i believe if u are trying PURPOSELY to use the smallest caliber for whatever ur huntin, u dont belong in the sport.

[sarduy]

if you want a big caliber and low recoil i would recoment a AR in .308 ;)

[MCgunner]

.308 doesn't kick in a heavy barrel bolt hunting rifle. No need for an auto. But, then, recoil is subjective. Some folks think a .243 is too much. :rolleyes: I think the 3" 12 gauge has probably toughened me up over the years. LOL I can fire 20 rounds off the bench with a 300 mag and it's nothing to poppin' 25 rounds at ducks and geese combination in the morning with a sub 7 lb 12 gauge double. But, the sore shoulder is a good sore, reminds you of a good morning in the marsh. :D I'm converting to autoloading shotguns in my old age, though, primarily for the softer push.

[michaelmcgo]

My minimum caliber is 7mm-08 (or .44 Mag in a lever gun). These are my minimum because I like to hunt deer. When I went out to get a deer gun, I bought a deer gun! I don't hunt deer with a tiny or a huge cartridge because I don't feel the need to brag about what I killed a deer with. I hunt deer because I love to hunt, not brag.

[Art Eatman]

Aw, michaelmcgo, relax. Look at it this way: If I'm gonna sit around and ambush some little central Texas whitetail, I might well use my .223. Or, maybe, my .243. If I'm sitting-hunting here on mule deer, I might likely use my 7mm08. Back in my walking-hunting days, I used an '06 for whitetails and mulies.

Why? Circumstance and deer size. I'm a good shot. I don't lose deer. Most are DRT or danged close to it. Sorta up-close on smaller deer, I'll happily use smaller cartridges in lighter-weight rifles. Longer shot possibility on larger deer, I go with larger cartridges and don't worry about the weight of the rifle (although my 7mm08 is a Ti).

There's nothing fixed or arbitrary about all this. It's empirical: Whatever works is good. So far, my notions have worked out quite nicely for me--for a helluva long time. :)

Art

[MCgunner]

Son-in-law put the box out in the trash that his Remington came in. I wasn't sure the model, but it's a M700 Varmint heavy barrel (fluted) synthetic. NICE rifle, very accurate, and very light on the shoulder even in .308. If'n ya can't shoot THAT, well, you need to examine your marksmanship skills. It's a pussycat, really. I still like my M7's lightness and compactness, just sayin'. One advantage of his gun, he gets near a couple hundred fps more out of that 26" barrel with the same load. As a stand gun on a sendero, I gotta admit it's better than the M7, but I like all around guns in all around calibers 'cause I might be in west Texas or New Mexico one month chasing desert or rocky mountain mulies, still hunting the hill country, or stand hunting on my place for hogs and deer. The .223 is probably a fine deer gun for specific situations, but I don't hunt the same way all the time or for necessarily the same animals and I don't have varmints to hunt, so there's really no place in my rack for a .22 centerfire. Other than rimfires, a .257 Roberts is my smallest caliber and I can tell ya, it's enough for anything I've ever hunted. Yeah, I hunt with handguns and have used the .357 on a few animals just to make things interesting hunting on my place from a stand and over a feeder, but I don't bother with handguns out west or for still hunting.

If all you do is 100 yard standing shots over feeders or something, great, but I ain't always in a stand or hunting a feeder and my place has more hogs than deer on it and it has a LOT of deer. I gotta be ready for either. Head shooting a hog with a .22 will normally do the job, but I'd as soon not be limited to head shots.

[K3]

i believe if u are trying PURPOSELY to use the smallest caliber for whatever ur huntin, u dont belong in the sport.

Is it so hard to type 'you'?

Like Art said. Empirical. A West Texas whitetail doesn't take much to kill. I've used an AR before and had no issue. DRT and that was with a 55gr PSP.

I've got some Speer 70gr semi spitzers that I'm going to load up this weekend.

[MCgunner]

Like Art said. Empirical. A West Texas whitetail doesn't take much to kill. I've used an AR before and had no issue. DRT and that was with a 55gr PSP.

Depends on the range. You can see a long ways out there. I limit myself to no more than 400 yards, myself, but with a .22, I'd stick to 100, MAYBE 150 on a small doe. I'd sight the gun in for zero at 150 and shoot for the head when possible for those longish shots. However, I'd probably wind up shooting a jaw off if I didn't dope the wind right, not an option to me. The brain of a deer is not a large target. In a clean world I can do it every time at 150. But, after hiking 4 miles, climbing, and then you have to find a good rest to shoot from.

Easier to make those shots in East Texas where you are hunting 40 yards from a feeder. Here, I don't see much wrong with .22s on deer so long as you can shoot it and discipline your shots.

[K3]

Depends on the range. You can see a long ways out there. I limit myself to no more than 400 yards, myself, but with a .22, I'd stick to 100, MAYBE 150 on a small doe. I'd sight the gun in for zero at 150 and shoot for the head when possible for those longish shots. However, I'd probably wind up shooting a jaw off if I didn't dope the wind right, not an option to me. The brain of a deer is not a large target. In a clean world I can do it every time at 150. But, after hiking 4 miles, climbing, and then you have to find a good rest to shoot from.

Easier to make those shots in East Texas where you are hunting 40 yards from a feeder. Here, I don't see much wrong with .22s on deer so long as you can shoot it and discipline your shots.

West Texas is mostly where I've hunted, so I'm well aware of the distances. I've watched deer at more than a mile through the spotting scope.

With a good bullet like a TSX or the Speer, I'm comfortable out to 200 with .223.

That said, I don't care to lug that heavy barrelled SOB around with me, so it's usually your basic bolt gun. Been using 300 Win for the most part, but I load it to warm .30-06 levels with 180gr bullets. I'm playing around with some 200gr pills loaded on top of H1000 aiming for about 2800fps, but that's just for giggles right now. This year the .45-70 Buffalo Classic will get it's turn. I'm anxious to see the 405gr SP do its work.

[Eb1]

One advantage the smaller calibers have is meat damage. With a .30-06, you can really waste a lot of meat. With a .223 or a .243 you damage a lot less meat.


This is a totally incorrect quote.. The last deer I shot with my AR15 the worst blood shot and ruined meat than I have ever seen.

A 55 grain pill at 3200 fps is a recipe for meat jelly. I got picks to prove it if you need to see them.


A larger bullet will make a nice and smooth wound channel and go in and out. The .223 will just destroy tissue from everywhere. I don't know how to describe it. You just have to see it to believe it.

[sryk]

Mag. than they do with a .223 or .243 b/c they remeber that they have to have a great shot to harvest what they are hunting.

[K3]

This is a totally incorrect quote.. The last deer I shot with my AR15 the worst blood shot and ruined meat than I have ever seen.

A 55 grain pill at 3200 fps is a recipe for meat jelly. I got picks to prove it if you need to see them.


A larger bullet will make a nice and smooth wound channel and go in and out. The .223 will just destroy tissue from everywhere. I don't know how to describe it. You just have to see it to believe it.

You say these things as if they are the hard and fast rules.

These are examples from your experience. My experience tells me that a given bullet can a) pass right through and ther deer walks away, b) perform as intended, or c) blow up like a tactical nuke.

The 55 gr pill I used didn't create any meat jelly. I've had 150gr Core-lokts do all 3 of the above.

[Eb1]

You say these things as if they are the hard and fast rules.

So did the poster in which I quoted to begin with.

Also I have proof of my post. So to me it is "hard and fast" rule.

[Art Eatman]

And I'll say again: Y' ain't s'posed to shoot 'em in the eatin' part! :D:D:D

[K3]

And I'll say again: Y' ain't s'posed to shoot 'em in the eatin' part!

Yeah, but a hit in the backstrap craters the spine, and the deer goes nowhere. Sounds like the perfect spot. :p

[Master of Arms]

It's illegal in many states to hunt deer with .223.
ChaChing^

[K3]

ChaChing^

It's LEGAL in many states as well.

Chaching.

[michaelmcgo]

It's LEGAL in many states as well.

It's frowned upon in many of those states.

Chaching

[Eb1]

Only by the "Experts"

Us shooters who know how to shoot don't have a problem with it.

$$$CHACHING$$$

[K3]

It's frowned upon in many of those states.

Chaching

The states themselves?

The Game Wardens in those states?

Or some fudd-types in those states?

I suspect I know the real answer, but do tell....

[Art Eatman]

Let's give it a rest, okay? Maybeso later, after Thanksgiving? Christmas? Groundhog Day?

:), Art