Deer rifle for 12-13 YO, 6.5 Grendel?

Status
Not open for further replies.
If I had a boy of 12 years old I would purchase him a 270 win. He can use that rifle the rest of him life. Low recoil and they shoot flat with 140 gr. That is what I started with in 1965, Parker Hail and I still use it today for deer hunting. Just a thought!
 
I posted a question a few months back asking for recommendations on a rifle for a 12-year-old. He's skilled with a rifle in .22LR, and I was looking to upgrade to centerfire for two reasons: increased range on targets, and to get away from lead styphnate priming compound in filthy rimfire ammo. Some of the challenges have been to fit his short length of pull, and not to have a sudden big increase in recoil. My first thought was to cut down the stock of a Tikka T3X or CZ 527 in .223, but I was also considering precision-style rifles with adjustable furniture like the Ruger Precision Rifle, also in .223. I got a few recommendations here for .243.

I hadn't made a decision yet, but then he got into a hunting class with 4H. In addition to that, he's studying the hunter safety training and wants to get a license. He'd be able to put in for a deer tag next season. So now I'm considering a chambering that would be well-suited to mule deer.

I have some doubts that .223 is well-suited to deer. Surely, it depends on the range, the presentation, the shot placement, and the bullet, but I'm concerned .223 would be demanding of those things whereas a different cartridge would be more forgiving.

.243 Winchester is well-proven for deer and would seem the obvious choice, but it has higher recoil and uses toxic large rifle primers. The 6mm Creedmore is very similar within hunting range and Starline makes cases that use small rifle primers I have that are lead-free. But those .243/6mm cartridges probably have excess energy for deer within 200 yards. The .30-30 is a lower-recoil cartridge that's well-proven on deer out to at least 150 yards. The way I see it, in the case of the .243 Winchester particularly, we're suffering excess recoil in order to deliver high-drag bullets with sufficient energy by brute-force out to four or five-hundred yards where we're not going to hunt.

I started to look at more efficient intermediate cartridges like .224 Valkyrie. The problem I see there is the low-drag bullets in that caliber aren't well-suited for medium game. But one person in my earlier thread recommended a Howa Mini-Action in 6.5 Grendel. I hadn't really thought much of it because I just saw it as another chambering intended to chase improved AR-15 performance like so many others. But the Grendel's .264 bullets come in a wide variety, many of which are suitable for medium game, and it carries them out to three or four-hundred yards with sufficient energy despite having significantly less recoil than .243 Winchester.

The 123 grain Hornady SST seems to be the most popular for the Grendel, but I would go with the Barnes TSX or Hornady GMX all-copper bullets to keep lead out of the meat. We may even hunt in California where we'd have to (and no, despite my strong convictions against lead I don't think a ban should be imposed on people who think otherwise).

So I was considering the Howa Mini-Action in 6.5 Grendel with a lightweight, wide field-of-view scope (VX3i 1.5-5x20 or 2.5-8x36 Leupold), Harris bipod and sling. He should be able to get real comfortable with it by next fall. What do you think?

The alternative to the Grendel would be a .223 target rifle and working up to a higher-recoiling cartridge in a heavier deer rifle. A Ruger American Predator in 6mm Creedmore would weigh at least a pound more and still recoil significantly more than the lighter Howa. I realize there are some more obscure options like 6BR, but most of the mainstream alternatives with factory rifles chambered in them use Large Rifle primers. I did consider handgun cartridges. It would be .357 or .454. .357 would be limited to close range and while .454 has a little longer legs, it drops a lot and requires accurate range estimation. I think the kid will do better with something flatter-shooting.

I can tell you when I went through this, I was 18-19 and I just started with 8mm Mauser cause the rifles and Yugoslavian ammo were cheap, and then like .300 Magnum and 12 gauge 3.5" magnum because they were cool and ruled the charts. I didn't have anybody thinking smarter for me.

When I was about that age I took my first deer (an average muledeer buck) with a .243 Winchester. I remember being quite surprised with the recoil as it was the first time I'd actually shot a centerfire rifle (though I had some experience with shotguns at that point). That being said, I wasn't scared by the recoil, I just though of it as a "man's gun" and your son might too. My uncle allowing me to use his old deer rifle was an honor to me and certainly a "coming of age" thing with it being my first hunt. Maybe over-romanticizing it but really when you're taking one shot I don't think recoil matters. Just my 2 cents, but there are many older and wiser than I.
 
I dropped an antelope at 200yds with the Grendel last month. 123grn sst. It was running away and I got it kind up up the butt and got some internal organs, but it dropped like a stone. Now, it was not a large antelope, maybe 50-60lbs, but shot placement wasn't great, and it was a long shot, but it did the job. Recoil is on par with an sks. More tjan a 223, but Less than my 30/30 or 257 Roberts for sure.
 
There are some kids that can handle a 30-06 in their sleep at twelve and some that a .223 would be the upper limit they can handle. Both of my children received their first big game rifle at twelve; my son a 30-30 because he wanted a lever gun and my daughter a youth .243 because she told me to make the choice, she didn’t care what firearm she used, she just wanted to kill hogs. It worked out well for both of them. The very next year 30-30 was “gay” and my son commandeered my 30-06, which is what he uses today. My daughter is still using her .243 and she is 28. I’m not going to make a suggestion to the OP on rifle and cartridge choice because I don’t have a clue what would be best for his son. It could be anything from a .223 to a .30-06. When I was twelve I was using a milsurp 1903A3 that was bone stock original. The metal butt plate was not fun but I feel the weight of the rifle mitigated the effect of no recoil pad. When I was twelve I was 5’7”, 150 pounds and had been working in the hay field since the age of nine and had 24 first cousins, 16 who were males and enthusiastically with malice afore thought knocked around any cousin younger than they. I handled the 1903 ok but I also know I’d have been better served with a .243.

On the subject of .223, for most of my life I felt they should not be used for hunting deer and hogs. Over the last couple of years I’ve changed my mind and think they are viable and would be fine as a first deer rifle.

The toxicity of lead and other compounds found in ammunition is the last thing in the world I’d worry about.
 
Last edited:
In the context of this thread, I would say the 6.5 Grendel is PERFECT for what your thinking. I have a CZ 527 carbine in 7.62x39 and the 527 american in 6.5 Grendel. I am also a 6.5x55 Swede LUNATIC..........

Doubt he'll ever outgrow a 6.5 Grendel for deer. Maybe when he's a lot older and needs an Alaska or DGR/Africa gun he can buy one in a bigger caliber. I will say that the only minor disadvantage currently is that 6.5 Grendel is being pushed off the store shelves to make space for the newest,bestest, how-did-we-ever-live without, gift-from-god, the 6.5 Creedmoor. (insert vomit GIF here)
 
Mpd61,

I agree with you, I don't think one "outgrows" the Grendel I am 37 years old and I still like to shoot mine.

Also the creedmore isn't what is pushing the Grendel off of the shelves, it's the .224 valk, which I think is inferior to the 6.5 Grendel but for some reason every one seems to think it is the greatest thing since sliced bread...
 
Also I am going to say something that might ruffle some feathers, but I don't think the comments like "back when I was 12yo in 1832 I hunted with a .50BMG and walked 20 miles to get to school uphill both ways" are helpful.

Yeah I am sure OPs 12yo could handle a big rifle if he had too but why force a round peg into a square hole if you can avoid it? Why not go for one that actually is a perfect fit? I may be a little bias as someone who just likes the Grendel round, but for what the OP is talking about it really does make sense, so why try to talk him into getting a .30-06?
 
Mpd61,

I agree with you, I don't think one "outgrows" the Grendel I am 37 years old and I still like to shoot mine.

Also the creedmore isn't what is pushing the Grendel off of the shelves, it's the .224 valk, which I think is inferior to the 6.5 Grendel but for some reason every one seems to think it is the greatest thing since sliced bread...
Lol, not arguing in favor of the valkyrie per se, but .22-250 class performance with a standard fast twist (without a custom on the 250) in an ar15 platform certainly has its own appeal, my brother got one recently and loves it, with 70 abs or 75 sciroccos it's still plenty lethal out past 600 yds, recoil is negligible, and it's fun enough. If the .22 nosler or the val gain a following in bolt actions, the .22-250 slow twist will face real problems. I'm a bolt guy, but now am faced with the decision of getting my first AR in a fast 22 or get a custom barrel .22-250 for the bolt platform. Long high bc bullets at the velocity and recoil levels of such cartridges shall certainly have their place and where I am, long range varmints are a year round game and during certain seasons, they even pay for components. I firmly believe that the Grendel has a place, as does the spc, but the allure of the valkyrie is really not so obscure.
 
Don't mean to highjack the thread but the .224 valk doesn't seem like enough of a step up from the standard .223 / 5.56 to be worth the extra expense. I would think that .223 will still work well fir varmits. I still wouldn't want to hunt medium sized game with the valk but the Grendel, the blackout, or the SPC all allow you to do that.

I hear people talking about how the valk is supposed to be amazing at long range but the Grendel is at least a 1,000 yard capable cartridge and will be more resistant to cross winds because of the heavier bullet.

I know everyone has their own preference but I already have AR15s in .223 and 6.5 so for me at least I see no reason to buy a .224 valk
 
I hear people talking about how the valk is supposed to be amazing at long range but the Grendel is at least a 1,000 yard capable cartridge and will be more resistant to cross winds because of the heavier bullet.

Not so. The Valkyrie is far better at cheating wind than .223, measurably better than the Grendel at the same with demonstrably superior bullet drop. What the Grendel gives you in spades is power at distance; something that neither of the other two can match, but we’re talking further than anyone should be hunting medium game at.



70634E0C-68FA-4F49-973F-4827F87BF2F0.png
 
At age 12 I was hunting deer with a 12ga and 1oz slugs (thanks Iowa!) We are however a “Progressive” State now and as a 45 yr old I am permitted to hunt deer with a muzzleloader (thanks Des Moines!)

Even so, my father chose a Remington 1100 using a Spenco slip on gel pad to mitigate the remaining recoil from that auto-loader and I never developed a flinch. He incorporated the flinch into his driver training program.

One more thing on setup for kids is finding support for the rifle and it cannot be over stressed. Mine have used bipods, shooting sticks, BogPods, and this year we added a tripod to the mix. We often hit the range with layers to simulate hunting conditions or use LimbSaver shoulder pads and recoil pads when replacements are available. Recoil isn’t macho at any age or size and over a lifetime we are all subject to change (believe me I know).
 
I appreciate all the comments because they either confirm my thinking or get me to consider an alternative. But I have to say the ones about bigger, more powerful rifles, I don't get. How did you guys hunt when you were kids? Did you shoot from a truck? Did your bipod have wheels? Or did you have porters to carry your stuff? I know you didn't have the side-by-sides everybody is driving around in today, but even if you had an old Honda three-wheeler, I know you weren't sneaking up on bucks on one of those things.

I've carried an 8-pound infantry rifle all day and I think my twenties was the only decade in my life that I could have convinced myself it was fun. Even if a twelve-year-old is eager for that kind of punishment, he will hunt better with less weight. While ultralight rifles can be had in the big chamberings, the felt recoil is even higher and more disturbing. I know that I will hunt better at any age with a lighter rifle and without excessive recoil. I don't hunt from a blind or a tower with big artillery. I'm in the west with muleies, antelope, and boar. It's spot-and-stalk. I have an old-school 4x4, but the boys can hike too. Because I know they can hike better than most men, I don't want to lose that advantage by crushing them with a beastly rifle. If I was only hunting by myself, I would take the minimum needed to get the job done because I know myself also will hunt better with less. In the past, downsizing the rifle meant closing the effective range. With newer, lower drag bullets and the cartridges that give them the length to fit short actions, we've got short, light rifles that can deliver plenty of energy out to ranges that took a lot more muzzle energy in the past.

I think the lead free projectiles are also an important innovation in the last several decades and that because of their lower density of mass, some of the action length that's been dropped with newer cartridges and bullets is either gained back or even greater demand is put on terminal velocity to drive expansion of monolithic bullets. So I can see the value of 6.5x55 or 6.5 Creedmoor if someone wanted to hunt medium game with LFP' at 400 yards and beyond. But there is still a significant trade-off of weight and handiness from the increase in action and barrel length and if it's just for those last hundred or two-hundred yards, I think a person is better off having the energy and will to close that range or even better to find the many more opportunities that more hunting gives than just those rare long-shots.
 
I was slight of build at age 12 when i started hunting. I had a Savage 99DL in 243 WIN. Recoil was next to nothing. I shot 30-06, 32 Win Special and my brothers 270. All were too much. I used Frontier ammo with 100 grain bullets. i believe these were of Hornaday manufacture. It has the steel butt plate even. With nothing more than a sweat shirt recoil was fine. I shot it VERY well and I believe the light recoil was a big factor in that.
 
Last edited:
I appreciate all the comments because they either confirm my thinking or get me to consider an alternative. But I have to say the ones about bigger, more powerful rifles, I don't get. How did you guys hunt when you were kids? Did you shoot from a truck? Did your bipod have wheels? Or did you have porters to carry your stuff? I know you didn't have the side-by-sides everybody is driving around in today, but even if you had an old Honda three-wheeler, I know you weren't sneaking up on bucks on one of those things.

I've carried an 8-pound infantry rifle all day and I think my twenties was the only decade in my life that I could have convinced myself it was fun. Even if a twelve-year-old is eager for that kind of punishment, he will hunt better with less weight. While ultralight rifles can be had in the big chamberings, the felt recoil is even higher and more disturbing. I know that I will hunt better at any age with a lighter rifle and without excessive recoil. I don't hunt from a blind or a tower with big artillery. I'm in the west with muleies, antelope, and boar. It's spot-and-stalk. I have an old-school 4x4, but the boys can hike too. Because I know they can hike better than most men, I don't want to lose that advantage by crushing them with a beastly rifle. If I was only hunting by myself, I would take the minimum needed to get the job done because I know myself also will hunt better with less. In the past, downsizing the rifle meant closing the effective range. With newer, lower drag bullets and the cartridges that give them the length to fit short actions, we've got short, light rifles that can deliver plenty of energy out to ranges that took a lot more muzzle energy in the past.

I think the lead free projectiles are also an important innovation in the last several decades and that because of their lower density of mass, some of the action length that's been dropped with newer cartridges and bullets is either gained back or even greater demand is put on terminal velocity to drive expansion of monolithic bullets. So I can see the value of 6.5x55 or 6.5 Creedmoor if someone wanted to hunt medium game with LFP' at 400 yards and beyond. But there is still a significant trade-off of weight and handiness from the increase in action and barrel length and if it's just for those last hundred or two-hundred yards, I think a person is better off having the energy and will to close that range or even better to find the many more opportunities that more hunting gives than just those rare long-shots.

Oh come on now. The mini actions your talking about are 6 lbs, my Tikka T3 is listed as 6.1 lbs. A ruger American is 6.2.

I never had a problem carrying a 12 ga pump around all day as a kid because I wasn’t a sissy little snowflake, and nobody was going to take sympathy on me if I had. I never suffered to carry a gun, I was thrilled to have the chance!

As for the lead free projectiles and light weight calibers, I’m not drinking the coolaid. I shot about a dozen deer with Barnes TSX’s from a 25-06 and concluded they were much less effective than any other lead bullet I had used. They killed everything just as dead as anything else but everything I shot with them ran into the slough and left no blood trail at all, which made recovery a challenge every time. I finally had enough and threw the rest away and went back to lead bullets.

It’s been my experience with all the rifles I’ve witnessed used to take game that bullet weight and bullet construction are a bigger factor than the exact caliber or velocity but every increase in bullet weight and diameter has resulted in faster kills and easier blood trailing, so I always advocate the largest caliber a person can shoot comfortably and the heaviest for caliber bullet weight that works well in the cartridge. If the limit of a persons comfort is a 6.5g then so be it, put a 120 grain bonded bullet in it and go nuts, but it will never be as effective as another cartridge shooting a heavier bullet faster. They will both result in a dead deer but one will make recovery easier.
 
Last edited:
. But I have to say the ones about bigger, more powerful rifles, I don't get. How did you guys hunt when you were kids?
Rem 700 at 8-9lbs wasn't bad to carry.
I almost always still hunted. I actually spent 99% of my time afield alone, and hunted once or twice a week normally.

For big hunts with friends and family we used post and push. Those times I usually was a pusher.
 
I am not going to read all this....but good grief.

What happened to 30-30, 243....and a host of other choices that have been around and stood the test of time.....are children today that soft.

Hand the kid a lever 30-30 and tell him to go.

Now get off my lawn.
 
Rem 700 at 8-9lbs wasn't bad to carry.
I almost always still hunted. I actually spent 99% of my time afield alone, and hunted once or twice a week normally.

For big hunts with friends and family we used post and push. Those times I usually was a pusher.
I'll add in that I ran the m99(don't remember which letter but it was a later model) in .300 sav, a 24 or 26" octagon crescent butt winchester in .30-30, a mk2 .303 brit, and a .30-40 Krag for all of my youth, and even after I was old enough to buy my own rifles, grandpa's "too big guns" are still harvesting......the ones that weren't stolen anyway. I could take any one of them and stalk within 200 yds of the antelope and less for deer. First time I used the m700 in .243 i felt off balance! ;)
 
I appreciate all the comments because they either confirm my thinking or get me to consider an alternative. But I have to say the ones about bigger, more powerful rifles, I don't get. How did you guys hunt when you were kids? Did you shoot from a truck? Did your bipod have wheels? Or did you have porters to carry your stuff? I know you didn't have the side-by-sides everybody is driving around in today, but even if you had an old Honda three-wheeler, I know you weren't sneaking up on bucks on one of those things.

How are ya’ll intending to hunt? From the 50 yard speculation I figured it would be from a blind.

Getting a light weight rifle a pre teen won’t mind carrying around all day will just exacerbate the problem, if he is recoil sensitive.
 
[QUOTE="labnoti, post: 10955196, How did you guys hunt when you were kids? Did you shoot from a truck? Did your bipod have wheels? Or did you have porters to carry your stuff? [/QUOTE]

No. Learned to shoot well without a bipod with what I had. Also learned how to carry it. I guess nobody thought I needed a special rifle to do something my family has been doing for as long as we've been in this country. Either you are grossly underestimating your kids or they need to carry irrigation pipe/shovel bunks to toughen up. I hunted in the plains with that heavy old bolt action and I was just happy to have the chance to partake in the family tradition. If your kids need all the gear then by all means go for it. I didn't need it and when I have kids neither will they I suspect.
 
Leads-free bullets are a result of the idiots in California. The industry has tried to spin those bullets in a different, more positive light than simply saying “the nuts in California have banned lead bullets for hunting”. I’ve personally not seen anything a lead-free bullet do I can’t also do with a jacketed lead bullet. But that’s just me. I’m not going to buy anything lead-free strictly with on principle.
 
Leads-free bullets are a result of the idiots in California.

I don't agree. Randy Brooks conceived of the X bullet while hunting bear in Alaska in 1979. His company Barnes introduced the X bullet in 1985. California did not ban lead bullets in the Condor habitat until 2008. Take some time to consider your previous assumptions carefully because it should be obvious from these facts that liberal politics (for which I have no fondness whatsoever) have nothing to do with the origin or virtue of lead-free bullets.
 
The first rifle I used for deer back in my early teens over a half century ago was a 30-06.

My use of this rifle for several years gave me a flinch that took me years and hundreds of rounds with a 6 mm Rem to overcome.

In my opinion, a .223 is a kid's deer rifle just as much as a .410 is a kid's dove gun. Yes, both can kill within their limitation. But I regard both as precision weapons best left to use by experts that are looking for a challenge and are willing to accept the consequences if they fail at their challenge.

Kids are kids learning to be responsible grownups, and I regard learning to ethically take the life of a game animal in order to feed oneself as an important part of that process. I know that, at that age, I would have been emotionally devastated (and still get quite upset) if I lose a wounded animal.

With these caveats, and knowing that kids will grow up and not want a "kid's gun" forever, here is my list.

243 Win
6 mm Rem
250 Savage (If you can find one. It is likely the lowest recoil gun on this list. And, if found, these will tend to hold their value. I have seen some Savage 99's on the market recently)
257 Roberts (Ruger No 1 RSI currently in stock at Bud's
25-06
6.5 Grendel (under 200 yards. Precautionary on my part since I have no experience. But a CZ527 carbine is pretty neat.)
6.5 CM
260 Rem
6.5x55
30-30
7.62x39
 
How are ya’ll intending to hunt? From the 50 yard speculation I figured it would be from a blind.

Honestly, I don't know. I've hunted medium game, spot and stalk and always closed to less than 30 yards with a bow. I'm in the next State over now and I haven't hunted here yet, but it doesn't look much different. With a rifle, there's no need to close the range so much, but this isn't whitetail country. I don't know anyone who uses a tree stand.
 
I don't agree. Randy Brooks conceived of the X bullet while hunting bear in Alaska in 1979. His company Barnes introduced the X bullet in 1985. California did not ban lead bullets in the Condor habitat until 2008. Take some time to consider your previous assumptions carefully because it should be obvious from these facts that liberal politics (for which I have no fondness whatsoever) have nothing to do with the origin or virtue of lead-free bullets.

The idiots in California didn’t invent lead free bullets but I believe Olympus is on point and if it weren’t for California there would not be the proliferation of lead free bullets you see today. I see you doing a lot of counter-point in this thread. From the above quote it would appear you have a fairly sizable amount of firearms knowledge.

What I haven’t seen is any mention of input from your son. I’d ask him what he wants and go from there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top