minimum caliber? why?

[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!

 

[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 !

 

[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.