Thought experiment: The clash of the marginal deer rounds

Status
Not open for further replies.
Also side note, now that i thought about what i just wrote, if any reader is stupid enough to try that...and not just leave it as a joke, and then attempts to craft an improvised explosive for real and consequently blows them self up....just know that life is made up of choices...and you chose to challenge natural selection and lost.

Someones been asked to "hold my beer!".......
 
You have described the perfect conditions for a 357 lever gun. Get rid of the ugly and unhandy scope - not needed. Load good semi-wadcutter type bullets that will feed well and you will feed well. Leave the 223 ready in the event that a vicious zombie poodle is on the loose in the neighborhood.

A 20 ga rifled barrel will also work well, but will require more than $50 experimentation to get the right slug and zero.

Well, for one, even if my eyesight were as good as it was when I was 20, I'd still choose an optic over irons for hunting. You can hunt earlier and hunt later by 30 minutes in the dark woods when the game moves. Too, I'm much faster on a moving target with a scope than having to line up sights on it. I much, much prefer optics, in the woods or in the mountains. But, I have no other choice at the moment. I can see through an optic to shoot, can't even see the front sight on my .357 Carbine. Cataracts suck. I'll get 'em fixed soon, but then I'm wondering how my eyes will adjust since they'll no longer have acute near vision, don't think. Not sure how an artificial lens could adjust itself to focus on near objects like sights.

If you don't have these problems now, just wait....you will, I promise. :D
 
Well, for one, even if my eyesight were as good as it was when I was 20, I'd still choose an optic over irons for hunting. You can hunt earlier and hunt later by 30 minutes in the dark woods when the game moves. Too, I'm much faster on a moving target with a scope than having to line up sights on it. I much, much prefer optics, in the woods or in the mountains. But, I have no other choice at the moment. I can see through an optic to shoot, can't even see the front sight on my .357 Carbine. Cataracts suck. I'll get 'em fixed soon, but then I'm wondering how my eyes will adjust since they'll no longer have acute near vision, don't think. Not sure how an artificial lens could adjust itself to focus on near objects like sights.

If you don't have these problems now, just wait....you will, I promise. :D

I think if most people are honest with themselves, they'll admit they shoot better with an optic than without. All of my guns are without optics, but that's because I'm always some combination of broke and cheap, not because I'm brilliant with an open sight.
 
Go with the 357 or the slug.The 223 Has a lot of fans and just as many possible problems.I’ve been familiar with it since the 70’s when Uncle Sam said here is your weapon . Even when shooting woodchucks its a poor 2’nd to a 17hmr or 22mag .
 
357 in the situation you describe.

Last eve I loaded some 44s for mu Ruger 77/44 that took my deer at about 55 yds. A 357 would have done it just as well. I tried loading some Partitions for my 223 bolt but they did not shoot well in 3 tries so I switched to a 25/45 Sharps AR for the coming season.
 
Go with the 357 or the slug.The 223 Has a lot of fans and just as many possible problems.I’ve been familiar with it since the 70’s when Uncle Sam said here is your weapon . Even when shooting woodchucks its a poor 2’nd to a 17hmr or 22mag .
Only if you're keeping pelts-which I wouldn't for woodchuck. There are other bullet choices besides FMJ......
 
Cataracts suck. I'll get 'em fixed soon, but then I'm wondering how my eyes will adjust since they'll no longer have acute near vision, don't think. Not sure how an artificial lens could adjust itself to focus on near objects like sights.

I won't say my cataract surgery results are universal, but I had the lenses replaced when I was about 58 years old, about 11 years ago. I was restored to 20/20 distant vision and need reading glasses for reading and very close up work only. I have improved results using peep and open sights on rifles. I replaced the scope on my M1 Carbine with the original peep and for a couple of my plinking .22s was able to go to open sights and removed their scopes. I do keep a few guns scoped for long range accuracy. My acute near vision range affected by the lens replacement was about 12 to 14 inches from the tip of my nose. Compared to the yellow lens flare making driving at night hazardous, and sitting five feet from the TV to read the subtitles to foreign films, having now to keep reading glasses for the morning paper is minor.
 
a pump action 20 ga. shotgun with a standard bird barrel as well as a rifled slug barrel (open sights only).

Your premise is skewed in my opinion. I don't know why, other than custom and the anecdotal information from a lot of bad shots, why you'd say a 20 gauge slug is "marginal". A 20 gauge round ball (325 grains of lead) launched by 80 grains of black powder (three drams) was the preferred deer and moose gun of Canada until the cartridge guns became readily available. A modern 20 gauge, even with a smooth bore, cylinder barrel, plus the rifle sights, can be very accurate to 50 yardss, with the right slug, and if you're offering a scenario with a rifled slug barrel, the 20 gauge will do just fine. Nothing marginal about it at all.

Where I live the answer is simple, the 20 gauge, because where I live in the People's Republic of Maryland, using the .357 lever gun and the .223 bolt action rifle, is prohibited for deer, period. :eek: So I'd test fire different brands of sabot slugs, but I'd bet 15/16/ oz. Rottweill slugs https://www.sportsmansguide.com/productlist?k=20+gauge+sabot+slug or 7/8 ounce Lightfields https://www.sportsmansguide.com/pro...xp-20-gauge-2-3-4-7-8-oz-sabot-slugs?a=709632 would be accurate, or if I was using a smooth bore "slug barrel" with rifle sights I'd opt for original style slugs from Rottweill https://www.sportsmansguide.com/pro...e-275-shell-15-16-oz-slugs-5-rounds?a=2108589. In fact I use the last version of the above mentioned slugs in my 12 gauge 870 with a smooth bore, cylinder choke barrel with rifle sights, and out to 50 yards (since that's the farthest shot I'm going to get) it's very accurate. I got the "slug barrel" cheap for my 870 goose gun, because I had a 12 gauge 870, but I'd still hunt with it and that type barrel and slug if it was a 20 gauge. ;) One of the most accomplished hunters I've ever known in person, used a rifled, 20 gauge shotgun as his "meat gun" for shooting does when he wanted venison..., and he had a pleathora of rifles, handguns and shotguns from which to choose, (now Bill put a 4x scope on his to go to 100 yards, but my eyesight was way better than his when I knew him). He opted for the 20 gauge and a 7/8 ounce slug in a 3" magnum load for better trajectory over the heavier slug from a 12 gauge...not to mention less recoil.

LD
 
Last edited:
Your premise is skewed in my opinion. I don't know why, other than custom and the anecdotal information from a lot of bad shots, why you'd say a 20 gauge slug is "marginal". A 20 gauge round ball (325 grains of lead) launched by 80 grains of black powder (three drams) was the preferred deer and moose gun of Canada until the cartridge guns became readily available. A modern 20 gauge, even with a smooth bore, cylinder barrel, plus the rifle sights, can be very accurate to 50 yardss, with the right slug, and if you're offering a scenario with a rifled slug barrel, the 20 gauge will do just fine. Nothing marginal about it at all.

Where I live the answer is simple, the 20 gauge, because where I live in the People's Republic of Maryland, using the .357 lever gun and the .223 bolt action rifle, is prohibited for deer, period. :eek: So I'd test fire different brands of sabot slugs, but I'd bet 15/16/ oz. Rottweill slugs https://www.sportsmansguide.com/productlist?k=20+gauge+sabot+slug or 7/8 ounce Lightfields https://www.sportsmansguide.com/pro...xp-20-gauge-2-3-4-7-8-oz-sabot-slugs?a=709632 would be accurate, or if I was using a smooth bore "slug barrel" with rifle sights I'd opt for original style slugs from Rottweill https://www.sportsmansguide.com/pro...e-275-shell-15-16-oz-slugs-5-rounds?a=2108589. In fact I use the last version of the above mentioned slugs in my 12 gauge 870 with a smooth bore, cylinder choke barrel with rifle sights, and out to 50 yards (since that's the farthest shot I'm going to get) and it's very accurate. I got the "slug barrel" cheap for my 870 goose gun, because I had a 12 gauge 870, but I'd still hunt with it and that barrel and slug if it was a 20 gauge. ;) One of the most accomplished hunters I've every known in person, used a rifled, 20 gauge shotgun as his "meat gun" for shooting does when he wanted venison..., now Bill put a 4x scope on his to go to 100 yards, but my eyesight was way better than his when I knew him.

LD


All true. But as I wrote above, with the price of slugs today, I don't think one could dial in and zero one's 20 ga for $50 and still have any left over to hunt with ;)
 
All true. But as I wrote above, with the price of slugs today, I don't think one could dial in and zero one's 20 ga for $50 and still have any left over to hunt with ;)

Not with Sabots, but with Brenekke slugs you could. I haven't encountered a shotgun yet that doesn't do well with Brenekke.

I could have made the thought experiment even more challenging by setting it in California where much of the state mandates lead-free projectiles (whole state by 2019) but that would have just bummed everyone out.
 
Not with Sabots, but with Brenekke slugs you could. I haven't encountered a shotgun yet that doesn't do well with Brenekke.

I could have made the thought experiment even more challenging by setting it in California where much of the state mandates lead-free projectiles (whole state by 2019) but that would have just bummed everyone out.
There are a few non lead options that would be feasible, factory or otherwise, but I appreciate your care to the morale of the rest of us ;).
 
Out of a long barrel with slow burning pistol powders, you can get a .357 bullet moving way faster than from a handgun. Handloading is required to unleash the round's full potential in a rifle. Factory rounds are optimized for handguns, for obvious reasons.
Ok, after looking at the data for 357 out of a rifle I have found loads with more energy than a 223 at the muzzle.

I would still go with the 223 with correctly constructed projectiles.
 
I've loaded for and chronographed both the .223 from a 14" (plus 2" of fixed flash hider to make it legal) and hot .357 handloads. The .357 is only marginally, maybe 100 ft lbs at the muzzle, more energy than the .223. By 100 yards, the .223 has passed that .357 like a Vette passes a Cub Cadet lawn tractor. :D But, the .357 still packs 700+ ft lbs at 100 yards from a good load and it killed that 80 yard doe pretty dead for me. I used a cast Lee gas checked SWC which weighs 165 grains. I don't hunt with it that much, just wanted it. I've killed more squirrels with it using a very light load,105 grain SWC over 2.3 grains of Bullseye in .38 brass, than I have deer or pigs. It's a cool gun, main reason I bought it at the time, not really for a hunting rifle, though in the brush, it's a good choice IMHO. It can push a 158 grain bullet near 2200 fps, or so says Buffalo Bore. That's light .30-30 territory......at the muzzle.


Cataracts suck. I'll get 'em fixed soon, but then I'm wondering how my eyes will adjust since they'll no longer have acute near vision, don't think. Not sure how an artificial lens could adjust itself to focus on near objects like sights.

I won't say my cataract surgery results are universal, but I had the lenses replaced when I was about 58 years old, about 11 years ago. I was restored to 20/20 distant vision and need reading glasses for reading and very close up work only. I have improved results using peep and open sights on rifles. I replaced the scope on my M1 Carbine with the original peep and for a couple of my plinking .22s was able to go to open sights and removed their scopes. I do keep a few guns scoped for long range accuracy. My acute near vision range affected by the lens replacement was about 12 to 14 inches from the tip of my nose. Compared to the yellow lens flare making driving at night hazardous, and sitting five feet from the TV to read the subtitles to foreign films, having now to keep reading glasses for the morning paper is minor.

Man, that right there is good to hear, THANKS! I can't hardly wait for November 1 when I turn 65 and medicare kicks in. I am SOOOO there. :D It'll cost me first part of deer season healing from the surgery I reckon...don't care. Just to be able to shoot handguns on my back yard range again and HIT something will be SO cool. I have a Ruger Mk 2 with a red dot sight I do okay with, but iron sights, FORGET it. :rolleyes:

Hopefully, things will be healed up by December when my buddy and I usually book a goose hunt or two. Geese with my 10 gauge would probably do okay with. They're big birds. I know last dove season, I had to rely on my buddy and his son to tell me when doves were coming. Once they got almost in range, I could see 'em. I didn't know what was wrong at the time. It only got worse. I'm just hoping I can shoot my 20 gauge on doves this fall. Dove season is a tradition, would hate to miss it.
 
Last edited:
Not with Sabots, but with Brenekke slugs you could. I haven't encountered a shotgun yet that doesn't do well with Brenekke.
Yeah I tested three different brands of Foster style slugs, Remington, Winchester, Federal, with craptastic groups..., the Brenekke's went right where they were aimed in a nice, tight group at 50 yards. Again, a huge assumption that it would take numerous rounds to dial the slugs. You can bore sight with a laser and get iron sights very near their mark, too.

LD
 
My only experience with slug guns was my old 12ga 500 with two barrels. The slug barrel shot about 5-8" at 50yds, with what ever slugs i bought at the time. I shot one deer then went back to the .223, having felt i had done my due diligence.
Im not sure how much less the 20ga recoils, but lethality from a 12ga, with basic lead slugs on soft bodied game didnt (Again sample size 1) seem worth the pounding at the time.

Now im mildly curious, and may borrow my buddies 20ga for a while to try it again.
 
Now im mildly curious, and may borrow my buddies 20ga for a while to try it again.
I Confess when I was testing my plain jane, smoothbore barrel with rifle sights, I despaired that the accuracy was sooo bad, plus in the People's Republic of Maryland, NO Buckshot. Three rounds of Foster slugs from Remington and Federal gave me one hit in the vitals, one close to the vitals, and one miss for each brand. The Winchester had such a large concussion from the blast I got a nosebleed, so that brand was "right out" (and these were all 2 ¾ loads :confused: at 25 yards) Then I tried the Brenneke and got a clover-leaf at 25 yards. Jumped out to 50 yards, shot low but got a group under 6". Went out and bought three boxes of the same lot, went back, adjusted the sights to be "on" at 50 yards..., voila.., and they were less expensive than the American rounds to boot.

One needs to try different loads in a plain jain slug barrel just as one needs to pattern a bird-shot barrel. I also confess that my go to deer rifle is a .54 black powder rifle shooting a patched round ball, but the 870 continues as the backup if it turns out to be a rainy deer season (since I use a flintlock).

LD
 
First choice is properly loaded 223, followed by the slug gun!
The 223 is what I would choose for my style of hunting,but even though I have never killed a deer with one the old "Punkin Ball" is still alive,and well in these parts..I have heard a lot of folks that hunt with them say they always carry a slug ,or two with them, in a separate pocket,while squirrel hunting.They favor a single shot because they can change from shot to slug pretty quick..It don't bother me if someone gets a eating deer when the weather cools down,espicially if they need it..
 
Under ideal conditions all kill deer. The 223 works better in conditions where the other 2 would come up short. A 20 ga shotgun will severely limit your range as would a 357. Not just because of energy levels at extended ranges, but the accuracy potential is much better with 223. The 223 will have about 1/2 the recoil of 357, closer to 1/4-1/5 that of a 20 ga with slugs.

Use bullets designed for big game, not targets or varmints, and it will work just fine.


I'm a big 357 mag fan but this makes a lot of sense. 357 can be a touchy proposition at 100 yds, depends on your rifle. It really isn't a rifle cartridge so you may have some work to do to come up to speed with your particular rifle for good dependable accuracy at 100 yds. I know all about it because I have some experience with 357 rifles, some of it wasn't good. 200 yds is out of the question for hunting.

On the other hand I have two 223 rifles. Both of them are tack drivers at 100 yards. I'm a shot placement is everything guy when it comes to hunting. 223 is your best choice for that reason. Any good 62 grn ammo designed for hunting will work. Barnes Vor TX or something along those lines is all you need. Make sure .223 is legal where you hunt.
 
As of this point I have no experience shooting deer with a 223, so I would pick the 357 at those ranges
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top