357 VS 223 for deer under 100 yards.


PDA






R H Clark
July 5, 2012, 06:37 PM
Thinking about either caliber for my 8 year old daughter's first centerfire.Even a 243 has too much recoil for her.We are looking at both calibers in a 5.5lb rifle.All shots will be in the woods under 100 yards,probably under 50 yards.

I am sure either will work but was wondering about how recoil would compare.

Would the 223 have an edge in killing ability?

The 223 will be a 1:9 twist and we will use either heavier partitions or TTSX.

I like that we can practice with 38 special in the 357 and it is a lot cheaper than the 223 we are considering.

If you enjoyed reading about "357 VS 223 for deer under 100 yards." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
knifeman32
July 5, 2012, 07:01 PM
223 hunting loads, at least for me are few and far between, even for think skinned game. I would look into the 6.8 spc cartridge if it were me.

W.E.G.
July 5, 2012, 07:03 PM
The .223 slays average-size deer at common hunting distances.

The .357 will have more recoil.

WYOMan
July 5, 2012, 07:06 PM
Is .223 legal to use where you are? If it is, then as long as you use a tough bullet, and don't try to crush shoulders with it, I would let her use it.

jmr40
July 5, 2012, 07:33 PM
With good softpoint ammo a 223 will kill any deer. Just have to limit your ranges a bit. I wouldn't pass on a 200 yard shot with the small whitetails around here, but with some of the bigger deer would probably limit my shots to 100 or less. About the same as a 357.

If you are asking from a purely performance perspective I'll take the 223 any day. But if I had a 357 in a rifle I wanted to hunt with I'd have no problems using it either.

Both have limited range. The problem with a 223 is that is is very easy to hit game at ranges at which it does not have enough power to get the job done. With most other weapons with limited range, handguns, muzzle loaders, bows etc., you lose the ability to make hits before you lose the energy to reliably kill game. Nothing wrong with a 223 if the shooter understands this and has the discipline to only take shots within the cartridges limitatons.

Eb1
July 5, 2012, 07:41 PM
I have used Black Hill 55 grain soft points with great success. You do not need long heavy bullets to kill with a .223 within 100 yards.

ApacheCoTodd
July 5, 2012, 08:01 PM
I'm wondering what platforms you're considering first then caliber next.

In generalizing. I view .357 in lever and slide actions most and .223 in bolt and semi-auto more.

On some platforms you're really not going to have much readily available choice I should think.

zxcvbob
July 5, 2012, 08:15 PM
I like that we can practice with 38 special in the 357 and it is a lot cheaper than the 223 we are considering.


FYI, the point of impact changes quite a bit between .38's and .357's.

I'm not sure which cartridge is better for hunting deer-sized game, but .223 practice ammo costs about the same as LRN or FMJ .38 Specials, and is cheaper than any .357 unless you load them yourself.

R.W.Dale
July 5, 2012, 08:47 PM
FYI, the point of impact changes quite a bit between .38's and .357's.

.


Cheap practice with 38's in my experience is a red Herring

The poi at 50yds between 38 and 357 in most of my guns so chambered is right around TWO FEET!

This discrepancy requires a complete resight in and in the case of a couple of my guns required a different front sight as the rear sight wouldn't adjust that far.

Forget about "cheap. 38 practice" unless practice is merely making some noise

R H Clark
July 5, 2012, 09:00 PM
I'm actually about 99% settled on a Kimber Montana in 223.I will only have to grind away all but about 1/4" of the recoil pad to get correct LOP.It is at the weight and recoil I am looking for.

I am only asking because I have been tempted by the Ruger 77/357 at the same weight and similar recoil.For some reason I like the idea of heavier bullets also.Maby because I've never hunted with a 223 but have a friend who has killed a bunch of doe's with a 357 revolver.I also like that it's half the price of the Kimber but don't want that to be the deciding factor.

Art Eatman
July 5, 2012, 10:13 PM
Plenty of loads, nowadays, which make the .223 a reasonable deer cartridge. There is a thread running right now in the Hunt forum at http://www.thefiringline.com on that very subject. Probably a fair number of fairly inexpensive good-used bolt-actions available.

The difference in point of impact between a .38 Spl and the Maggie is irrelevant. There is a reason that sights are adjustable. :) I'd have no qualms about trying to ruin Bambi's day with a .357 carbine/rifle. Precision aiming, range to maybe 100 yards or so.

Grumulkin
July 5, 2012, 10:17 PM
Thinking about either caliber for my 8 year old daughter's first centerfire.Even a 243 has too much recoil for her.We are looking at both calibers in a 5.5lb rifle.All shots will be in the woods under 100 yards,probably under 50 yards.

I am sure either will work but was wondering about how recoil would compare.

Would the 223 have an edge in killing ability?

The 223 will be a 1:9 twist and we will use either heavier partitions or TTSX.

I like that we can practice with 38 special in the 357 and it is a lot cheaper than the 223 we are considering.
For 100 yard shot you will have much better accuracy with a 223 than with a 38 Special load. For a 25 or 50 yard shot there may not be a significant difference.

In regards to the 223, as long as you place the bullet in the neck, head, heart or lungs, you don't need a real special bullet. In a 22-250 I've used a 55 gr. Remington soft point and a Speer 70 gr. Semi-Spitzer. In a 222 I've used the Speer 70 gr. Semi-Spitzer and in a 204 Ruger a Hornady 45 gr. Spire point. The closest of said deer was probably 80 yards and the longest 360 yards away. They were full sized Ohio deer by the way.

Eb1
July 5, 2012, 10:22 PM
I load a 30-30 with a 125 grain jacketed HP @ 2150 fps. It kills deer dead. The caliber choice between the two mentioned is irrelevant within 100 yards.

55 grain 3250 fps muzzle
125 grain 2100 fps muzzle
180 grain 1800 fps muzzle

All equal dead. The only thing that I will say is if you do not neck shoot and you hit a shoulder with a .223 within 100 yards. Plan on loosing it and possibly the other shoulder depending on the angle.
A .35 caliber soft point will have less meat loss. This is a general statement. Bullets do funny things and are not predictable.

Choose. Practice. Hunt.

I'd have to say the best 100 yard deer gun would be a 12 gauge slug gun.

adelbridge
July 5, 2012, 11:02 PM
Me and a buddy went out hog hunting this last weekend and he popped a hog in the neck with IMI 5.56 FMJ and it blew a tennis ball size hole on the exit wound, DRT. That is hog hide, not deer hide. You get both lungs with a .223 and it is lights out.

R H Clark
July 5, 2012, 11:29 PM
I know either will work.I also know that many will say either are marginal. I just wondered if either caliber had any specific advantage or disadvantage over the other inside 100 yards.

Kachok
July 6, 2012, 01:47 AM
Given the choice of the 223 and the 357 for a low recoil round I would go with the 223 loaded with 52gr TSX bullets, both are a long way form being ideal but can get the job done in the right hands.

YankeeFlyr
July 6, 2012, 01:47 AM
8 years old + centerfire rifle.

OK.



.223 shoots flatter! That might make it easier for a new hunter (?).

firesky101
July 6, 2012, 09:56 AM
My wife thinks .223 is cuter than .357. Just sayin' you got to love what you are using.

R H Clark
July 6, 2012, 10:57 AM
YankeeFlyr
I completly understand the concern.We have been through one squirrel season of her carrying a BB gun to help teach her safety and one season of her using a 22 under my close supervision.

I will not just give her a rifle and turn her loose.She will be sitting becide me in a shooting house the whole time.I just want something her size,so that I can also begin to teach her field shooting positions and such.

Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.Safety should be the #1 concern with all parents.

Gregaw
July 6, 2012, 11:12 AM
It's not the age of child that matters, it's their maturity (and that of the parents) that matters. Well done teaching her right!

I'd personally lean toward the .223 for her. It's harder here in Iowa, since rifle use is all but outlawed for deer. I'm trying to decide between a 20GA and a muzzleloader to start my 9 year old on this year. He shoots the .22 extreemly well and I don't want to give him a flinch!

Asherdan
July 6, 2012, 12:11 PM
I'd go with the .223 you're considering because, while they will both do what you're asking for now just about equally, the .223 will do more outside of you're immediate need. It sounds like you're making a hunter, give her a tool she can grow with a bit.

(But man, I'd be hard tempted by that Ruger 77/357 (http://www.realguns.com/articles/339.htm) anyways)

j1
July 6, 2012, 12:14 PM
To broaden the choice the Hornet with 45 grain bullets is good for 50 to 100 yards if put in the eye and has next to zero recoil.

jmr40
July 6, 2012, 12:57 PM
I you decide on a bolt gun just be careful of the twist. The Kimber is 1:9 which should be OK with all but the heaviest bullets. Many bolt actions are 1:10 or even slower which would be fine with light bullets. AR's are all over the place with many options.

Skyshot
July 6, 2012, 04:55 PM
If you decide on a .223 the 60grn Nosler partions work really well on medium sized whitetails under 100 yards. As my buddies daughter has slain at least 20 deer with her mini-14. Only one required a follow-up shot.

desidog
July 6, 2012, 06:09 PM
If you're going to be with her, and probably carrying the rifle out and back anyway, and she'll be shooting from a static location, why not get an 8 or 9 # gun instead of a 5.5? It'll have less felt recoil.

R H Clark
July 6, 2012, 06:26 PM
Desidog
I am hoping recoil won't be an issue with a 223 even at 5.5 lbs. The Kimber would be right at 6lbs with a light weight scope.

I want her to have something she can handle so that I can start teaching her shooting positions and good rifle skills even now.

Kachok
July 7, 2012, 01:47 AM
My main concern with the tiny .223 bore is lack of reliable penetration, but those 64gr Federal fusions are a sure fix for that as at the TSX bullets. Still a slim wound tract but getting through the vitals is VASTLY more important then making a wide hole for the first few inches. They can run a mile with their shoulder turned to hamburger, but an expanded bullet through the heart and lungs is a sure kill even with a small caliber.

jmr40
July 7, 2012, 06:25 AM
If you're going to be with her, and probably carrying the rifle out and back anyway, and she'll be shooting from a static location, why not get an 8 or 9 # gun instead of a 5.5? It'll have less felt recoil.

Recoil from a 223 is going to be under 4 ft lbs. From a lightweight 357 leveraction under 10 ft lbs. No need for a heavy rifle in either caliber

03Shadowbob
July 7, 2012, 08:30 AM
I've had great success on deer with the 62gr PowerPoint 223 round. Drops them just as dead as my 30-30 or 35 Remington. I've hit them at 50 yards and over 100 yds with the same result. Shot placement is key. If she can hit a grapefruit size circle reliably at 100 yards then the 223 will be fine.

CDW4ME
July 7, 2012, 01:55 PM
My boys are 7 & 8 years old and will be hunting with a .223 AR (red dot sight) this fall.
I'm restricting their shots to 30 yards and they will shoot from a tri-pod inside a blind (bowhunting like set-up).
The Federal Fusion 62 gr, Barnes TSX, Winchester 64 gr. PP, and Nosler Partition 60 are all deer bullets.
I shot the Barnes TSX and Partition handload into water filled gallon jugs and both penetrated to the rear of 4th jug (made a dent).
Recovered diameters of the bullets: TSX about .45, Partition .40

buck460XVR
July 8, 2012, 11:06 PM
The .357 cartridge is a whole different animal outta a carbine than it is outta a handgun. For deer, it will shoot a bullet with three times the weight and more 1 1/2 times the diameter of a .223. Within 100 yards, on deer sized game, for a new hunter, I see that as an advantage over the .223. Recoil will be about the same, so that is a moot point. The Ruger 77/.357 is a lightweight, fast handling little carbine, that is easy to load, and the slower velocity and heavier bullet means a smaller chance of ricochet and less distance downrange to worry about. Something young and inexperienced hunters seldom think about. JMTCs.

JEB
July 9, 2012, 01:43 AM
for deer hunting specifically, i would go with the .357 because i would want a heavier bullet to maximize penitration. the 77/357 is nice and light and should be a breeze to carry, even for an 8 year old. that being said, if she shows promise of wanting to hunt varmints, or do a little longer range target work, the .223 would be a much better choice.

IMO, the .357 would be the better of the two options for the task at hand, while the .223 would be not quite as good of a choice, but would prove to be much more usefull for various tasks in the long run.

MCgunner
July 9, 2012, 01:47 PM
I've killed several deer with .357, revolver and rifle. The rifle has about 400 fps on the Blackhawk. It's good for 100 yards. I killed a doe at 80 with it. It is a rather handy Rossi 92 lever carbine I bought back in the late 80s.

All in all, I prefer my .257 Roberts or my .308 Winchester and don't hunt with the .357 carbine, more of a fun gun and knock about. Very versatile, though, as it can hunt anything from squirrels to hogs/deer.

I have absolutely no use for a .22 centerfire. I can use my Roberts for coyotes if I wanna hunt 'em. I've killed a few with my .308, just when I was deer hunting. Never hunted predators on purpose.

Many kids start out in Texas with .22-250, better rifle than any .223 and low enough recoil. I always figured if they couldn't handle a .243, they were too young to bother. I killed my first with that .257 Roberts at age 11 back in '63. It seems light in recoil, now, but it had some whop to it when I was 11. :D I think a lot of that was because the stock was too long for me. Fit will help. Get something that you can fit to her, maybe a handirifle in .22-250 or something and cut down the stock.

razorback2003
July 9, 2012, 04:05 PM
Either should be fine. If people can kill deer with a bow, you can kill a deer with either a 223 or 357 rifle.

dprice3844444
July 9, 2012, 05:53 PM
h&r makes a youth 223 single shot superlight rifle blue/synthetic 20 inch bbl for 234.00 wholesale at zanders.change bbl to 243 as she gets bigger,or order with an extra fitted 243 bbl.

jmorris
July 9, 2012, 08:54 PM
I like more bullet weight than I can load in my .223. Out of the two I would use 357 out of a rifle.

I have had great results with 7mm BR out of my XP-100 and years ago wanted to setup a rifle for hogs (walking at night) using the same round. The price for the work needed was more than I wanted to spend so I picked up a model seven in 7-08 and down loaded them to 7BR speeds with 139 grain partitions. Very low recoil and a much more effective rifle down the road with "full house" loads than your choices.

wyohome
July 9, 2012, 09:21 PM
I would consider a .243 and reduced recoil loads. She would benefit from being able to use the same rifle as she got older and the OPs calibers are not legal for deer in some states.

Feanor
July 10, 2012, 12:13 AM
55 gr HP will work just fine on white tail, I'd choose it over almost any loading in .357.

Davek1977
July 10, 2012, 05:01 AM
I've used the 62 Fusion loading on South Dakota whitetail with success. However, I disagree with Feanor when he says the 55 grain HP's are good deer ammo. The 55 gr HP's are designed for rapid, violent fragmentation, like one would want out of a varmint bullet. For deer-sized game, you want the bullet to stay together and penetrate the vitals, making bonded bullets like the Fusion, TSX, and Winchester's power point MUCH wiser selections for larger game. The 55 gr pills tend to blow up upon impact, making them among the WORST type of ammo to be used on deer-sized game, and I wouldn't recommend ANYONE use a "typical" varmint type HP on deer, regardless of caliber

To broaden the choice the Hornet with 45 grain bullets is good for 50 to 100 yards if put in the eye and has next to zero recoil. The .22 LR will kill with a perfect eye shot too, but how many rookie hunters do you trust to make such a shot 100 out of 100 times? Head shots don't leave room for error. A "slight miss" with that hornet will leave a deer possibly with no jaw, or otherwise grusomly injured. To recommend such a weapon...or technique...for a rookie hunter borders on lunacy in my opinion. You'll find a good many hunters (myself NOT being among them) who think the .223 is not enough gun for deer. You expand that to include the Hornet, and you'll find a good many more hunters against it, as well as finding few states where it'd even be legal. Even if legal, such a gun would be an expert's tool, not a rookie's. Asking an 8 yr old to shoot a deer's eye out at 100 yards is setting one's expectations a bit too high, IMO, and is begging for injured animals, something no hunter likes, but something that could outright ruin hunting for life for some kids.

jhamilt
July 10, 2012, 05:44 AM
Another option would be the little rossi single shots, you can get multiple barrels, thats what my kids will be getting in a few more years. I'm pretty sure they come in either 357 or 223, along with several other calibers if you ever want to move up. Also, you can get a 22 barrel and a 410 shotgun. They are priced fairly reasonable also.

If you enjoyed reading about "357 VS 223 for deer under 100 yards." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!