223 Fallacy

[Walkalong]

With the right shot placement with the right bullet it can work, but it is a marginal choice for the job. I would rather give my self a better margin for error and the deer a better chance of being killed quickly and cleanly.

If you have the shot, and are good enough, a .22 LR to the brain will kill them instantly, but that is illegal for the reason that the placement has to be perfect and many deer would be maimed if it were allowed.

Many hunters are not gun enthusiasts, don't shoot particularly well, nor do they practice. Unlike like the majority of people here.

 

[j1]

How big the hole is not as important as where the hole is located. The Hornet also kills deer well if you limit the range further and shoot very precisely.

 

[Jcinnb]

25-06

Plus you can reload 30-06 cases!

 

[sage5907]

Any hunter who uses a 223 for deer hunting should be asked one question. Would you be willing to hunt with only 1 round in your rifle? There are very few semi-auto rifles where I live except for the 223. Too often I hear the bang, bang, bang, bang associated with the AR15. One bang and the deer starts running and they shoot as long as they can see the animal standing. I was against using the 22 caliber rifles for deer hunting in Oklahoma and I still am. Oklahoma limits the magazine capacity to 7 rounds specifically because of rifles like the AR15.

 

[alsaqr]

How big the hole is not as important as where the hole is located.

Very true.

Used to track a lot of wounded elk and deer for other hunters. Most of those animals were gut shot. Very few hunters would fess up to a gut shot. They usually blamed the bullets and broadheads.

Typically, it went like this: "i don't understand what happened; i put a double lung shot on that deer/elk". One guy claimed the nice buck we recovered was not his: "My deer was double lunged".

i do not hunt deer with a .223:: That's not because i consider the .223 inadequate for deer. It's because all my deer hunting is done with a muzzleloader. i have killed oodles of wild hogs using a .223/5.56mm. With the proper bullet the .223 is deadly on hogs. IMO: Deadly on hogs=deadly on deer.

The .224 60 grain Nosler Partition bullet is a fine hog killer. The Barnes .224 Triple Shock bullets 53 grains and heaver are also fine hog killers.

BTW: The .223 is legal for elk hunting in OK. The bullet must be a soft point or hollow point that weighs at least 55 grains.

 

[Reloadron]

Oklahoma where the wind comes sweeping down the plains and the waving wheat can sure smell sweet when the wind comes right behind the rain...

I'll venture a few pure guesses here as to why "most of the hunters here for some reason shoot 270 and 30-06" when hunting deer. The 223 Remington was designed around 1964 making it a relatively new cartridge, especially to those who were hunting deer long before 1964. The 223 Remington was the spawn of the 222 Remington which many see as a varmint cartridge and the 223 Remington was originally touted as a varmint cartridge. Many hunters, especially those older ones might have a hard time classifying a deer as a varmint. One aspect of hunting is matching the gun to the game and to be more specific the cartridge to the game.

The 30-06 cartridge is the spawn of the 30-03 (1903) and the 270 Winchester it can be argued is the spawn of the 30-06 or 30-03, here nor there but the 270 Winchester came along around 1925 and the guy who really popularized the 270 Winchester more than anyone else was the late Jack O'Connor. Both cartridges, the 30-06 Springfield and the 270 Winchester are well suited for deer, as well as other medium sized game in my opinion. Matter of fact the 308 Winchester, 25-06 Remington, 270 Winchester, 7mm Remington Magnum, 30-06 Springfield and the 300 Winchester Magnum are likely the most popular deer rifle cartridges used in the US and also suitable for larger game.

There is no shortage of rifle calibers capable and potent enough for taking deer with the 22 centerfire rounds like the 223 and 22-250 on the bottom of the scale. Heck, even the lowly little 17 Remington can take a deer. The fact that any of those cartridges can take down a deer does not, in my opinion, mean they are the best choice for taking down or hunting deer sized game. I am reasonably sure that a 375 H&H Magnum, 458 Winchester Magnum or for that matter a 416 Remington Magnum would also take down a deer. That doesn't mean they would be my choice to lug around deer hunting.

When it comes to matching the gun to the game or cartridge to the game I prefer cartridges like the 30-06 or 270 Winchester over the 223 Remington. I won't argue that the 223 is too anemic as it will in fact kill deer sized game very dead, well as dead as dead can get anyway. I just feel there are many, many other better suited cartridges to do the job. I also won't even begin to get into the argument as to the effectiveness of the 5.56 NATO being effective as to shooting people. Nothing to do with hunting or matching the gun to the game there.

Finally, as RC mentioned, several states prohibit the use of the 223 for deer hunting.

Just My Take...
Ron

 

[OrangePwrx9]

I will bite, go ahead and explain your theory. Just my opinion, our military has used it for years to kill people. Deer aren't trying to kill you and your buddies. It makes sense to use something effective.

Kill people or take them out of action?? The military considers a round's job is done if an enemy combatant is incapacitated (i.e. can no longer wage effective resistance), not necessarily killed. In fact, some view incapacitation as a better goal than killing as it ties up other enemy troops in evacuating wounded from the field and exposes them to fire.

Getting back to deer, many hunt on public land that is used by a number of hunters. A deer that runs any significant distance after being hit, may be shot at and tagged by someone other than the original shooter. A caliber such as .223 which is marginal in terms of putting large game down would be at great disadvantage in such an environment.

My personal favorite for deer is a .54 muzzleloader shooting a Patched Round Ball, because it puts them down right-now. But I rarely take shots over 70 yards and never beyond 100.

 

[Slamfire]

I have a bud who is a very good shot, shoots over farm land, takes his time and he says with proper shot placement and bullet the 223 is a bang, flop cartridge. The deer he is shooting are less than 100 pounds. I believe his experience would be basically true with most any cartridge given proper shot placement and proper bullet construction.

But, under less than ideal situations, hunters should use something larger.

 

[Tirod]

Somewhat a hoot to read about hunters insisting that .270 and .30-06 are the minimum needed to shoot deer, when the reality is that their fathers and grandfathers likely used .30-30 - an intermediate non-military caliber.

Some historians note it was the .30-30 that nearly exterminated whitetail deer in America. It's an intermediate cartridge in the same class as the 7.62x30, .300 BO, 6.8SPC, or 6.5 Grendel.

What made it so successful? It carried 1,000 foot pounds of force out to 250m, which is the effective range of most hunters in broken woodland anyway. And some hunting surveys indicate that more shots are taken under 125m than anything else.

Using the intermediate calibers also reaps the benefit of reduced recoil, which means on average, the hunter - who doesn't practice all that much at the range- will be more accurate in the field, with less flinch and a steadier aim.

That same result was documented by numerous armies in the last 100 years, and has been the #1 reason we no longer use the larger battle rifle calibers. It may very well do to retain the .30-06 thru WWII, but the decision to do so was based on not spending money to go to a smaller caliber in the Depression. The government simply couldn't afford it. It also goes to the development difficulties of the Garand, and why they also had to download the military issue round, to reduce power and prevent malfunctions with the gun.

So, the traditional reliance on the .30-06 is one based on myth, not fact. Had we been in better financial shape, we may very well have gone into the war with the .276 Pedersen. That was the prototype Garand cartridge when first reviewed.

If all we need to effectively hunt deer is a cartridge that retains 1,000 foot pounds out to 250m, then there are a lot of ethical choices on the market. And since shot placement is much more important than having an excess of power, then better to choose an effective cartridge with less recoil, and use a good optic, rather than go for the big sticks that would require even more proficiency in use.

What we are really seeing is that a number of hunters choose a gun that enhances their image, much the same as the vehicle they drive to get to the hunting grounds. That's why these discussions generally degrade into chest thumping contests - the facts are ignored, just defend the social status inferred by the choice of gun.

Sorry, the history of deer hunting isn't all about battle rifle class calibers in America. It's generally been a period since WWII up to the 1990's, with a lot of myth handed down along with the bolt action rifles of that era along with it. The actual facts are quite to the contrary - as many like me have found out.

Old habits do die hard, tho, when I adopted the AR15 as my hunting rifle a few years ago - sold off the .308, and retired the .30-06 to loaner class for my boys - I still had some reservations about .223. I don't think it's ineffective anymore, but I do agree that for those of us with less than world class skills, having more power to some degree does contribute to having more ethical kills. So, I built it in 6.8SPC - 50% more power than the .223.

About the same level as a .30-30. Things in some ways come back full circle.

 

[crazysccrmd]

I will bite, go ahead and explain your theory. Just my opinion, our military has used it for years to kill people. Deer aren't trying to kill you and your buddies. It makes sense to use something effective.

Other folks pretty much covered this for me already. When shooting at people a quick, clean ethical kill has no bearing on the round's performance. I can carry a lot more 5.56 per pound than other larger rounds and that is what matters generally in real life.

There's also the fact that people die a lot easier than deer. I've seen deer shoot with any number of standard hunting calibers still run 100m. When gutting we found the round had gone through the heart. I've never seen or heard of a human doing that, even with 5.56.

 

[mtrmn]

If it's legal and you want to use it go for it.

 

[loose noose]

Further the .223/556 was designed to put an opposing enemy out of action, (not necessarily dead) as it generally takes two of the enemy to carry him off the battle field, thus less enemy to deal with, not designed to establish humane kills. Whereas hunting is supposed to deliver a humane kill.

 

[W L Johnson]

Further the .223/556 was designed to put an opposing enemy out of action, (not necessarily dead) as it generally takes two of the enemy to carry him off the battle field, thus less enemy to deal with, not designed to establish humane kills. Whereas hunting is supposed to deliver a humane kill.

That myth has been debunked more times, and on this very forum, than I can count.

 

[C-grunt]

Further the .223/556 was designed to put an opposing enemy out of action, (not necessarily dead) as it generally takes two of the enemy to carry him off the battle field, thus less enemy to deal with, not designed to establish humane kills. Whereas hunting is supposed to deliver a humane kill.

That's a myth. There were many reports from early testers of the XM16 about its incredible lethality in the jungles of Vietnam.

 

[W L Johnson]

It's so non-lethal that it's been pretty much adopted by most Western counties and copied by the Soviets/Russians (5.45) and the Chinese (5.8)

 

[Potatohead]

And .223 for deer or other big game are against the law in some states.

rc

Yea, I thought that was the main reason there's not much hunting with 223.

 

[Risky buisness]

My take on this is simply: is it ethical to use a sub caliber round to humanly harvest a game animal? I say no, oh sure theirs some guy saying hey I whack deer all the time with my .223, best ever woohoo! but taken in context the 223 was never designed as a medium game rifle cartridge, many of the rifles chambered for it happen to be a very popular design so sooner or later form will follow function to the game fields. Whether or not to use one is ones personal choice, if allowed by local regulation. But , as many posters here have said " best choice? no. Some even allude to " if it's legal use it'. I compare this to an adage, just because you can, does it mean you should? With a plethora of non marginal calibers available why would some one choose on purpose, one that is /

 

[Arizona_Mike]

My personal opinions on .223/5.56 and deer were different in the '80s vs. today and the difference is bullet technology and weght (and the twist rates that go with them). I would never hesitate to use a 77gr. Barnes on even fairly large whitetail.

Mike

 

[Art Eatman]

This is the umpteenth iteration of the .223 as a hunting round.

Simplest put, R&D in bullet technology, these last fifteen years or so, has made the .223 a reasonable cartridge for deer hunting--with some caveats.

You can figure that it's range-limited, pretty much. Not the tool for 400- or 500-yard shots. And shot placement is more critical, particularly on angling shots.

It's not the proper cartridge for those who "aim at the brown" instead of a specific point on a deer. What might be a quickly-fatal bad hit from an '06 might well be a crippled-and-lost bad hit from the .223.

Outside of a busted spine, there's no "always" in Bambi-bashing.

 

[Hangingrock]

I'm somewhat surprised that someone hasn't said the 375H&H is the minimum for deer and a 458 Win-Mag wouldn't be better. Deer are not that difficult to kill repeat deer are not that difficult to kill. In my younger days we had an older neighbor that regularly took deer with a 25-20 which I believe was considered a small game/varmint rifle of the period.

I recently started letting hunters back on the property with the understanding that shots taken must equal deer taken or don't come back.

Poor shot placement is poor shot placement it has always been shot placement and will continue to be shot placement.

 

[jmr40]

Further the .223/556 was designed to put an opposing enemy out of action

Not true at all. The 223 was adopted as a varmint hunting round. It was later adopted by the military. Unlike many of our most popular hunting rounds that started as a military round, the 223 started as a hunting round.

Any hunter who uses a 223 for deer hunting should be asked one question. Would you be willing to hunt with only 1 round in your rifle?

Long before the acceptance of AR's as hunting rifles the 22-250 caught on like wildfire here in GA as a deer hunting round. Going back to the late 70's and early 80's a lot of the most prolific hunters around here made the switch from traditional calibers. I was still pretty young, and never made the switch myself, but all of the guys who were brining in the most, and biggest deer were swearing by their bolt guns in 22-250. They swore nothing put one down faster. With todays better bullets and barrels designed for them the 223 is even better.

 

[Reloadron]

Originally Posted by rcmodel

And .223 for deer or other big game are against the law in some states.

rc

Potatohead mentions:

Yea, I thought that was the main reason there's not much hunting with 223.

Now along those lines I did find this:

It is legal to hunt deer with a .223 Rem in these states:

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, N. Carolina, N. Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, S. Carolina, S. Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, W. Virginia, Wisconsin.

It is not legal to hunt deer with a .223 Rem in these states:

Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio, Rhode Island, Virginia, Washington, Wyoming.

That's 36 legal, 14 illegal. Moreover, of the 14 states where it is illegal, exactly half of them (7) don't allow the use of any modern rifles. Those states are:

Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio, Rhode Island.

So, there are only 7 states that allow the use of modern "deer rifles", but don't allow the .223 Remington for deer, while 36 states allow the .223. This is exactly the opposite of what most people believe.

How much of that is factual? Beats the heck out of me. Prior to this year Ohio was one of those states which did not allow any deer hunting with a rifle. As of this year I believe straight walled cases in rifle are permitted so the 223 is still out n Ohio, but I may be wrong on that note. Regardless as can be seen, the number of states which do not allow the 223 for deer hunting is really a small number. Someone also pointed out that some states merely eliminate the 223 through a minimum bullet diameter regulation rather than specifically call out the 223 by cartridge.

I also agree with Art where he points out:

This is the umpteenth iteration of the .223 as a hunting round.

Simplest put, R&D in bullet technology, these last fifteen years or so, has made the .223 a reasonable cartridge for deer hunting--with some caveats.

You can figure that it's range-limited, pretty much. Not the tool for 400- or 500-yard shots. And shot placement is more critical, particularly on angling shots.

It's not the proper cartridge for those who "aim at the brown" instead of a specific point on a deer. What might be a quickly-fatal bad hit from an '06 might well be a crippled-and-lost bad hit from the .223.

Outside of a busted spine, there's no "always" in Bambi-bashing.

Bullet technology has come a long way in recent years. The 223 deer hunting has also been beaten to death many times.

Personally I don't hunt deer with a 223 in my bolt gun or my semi-auto 223/5.56 guns. This is simply because I have other rifles more or better suited in my opinion for taking deer. Within a reasonable range the 223 will, without a doubt, kill a deer so if I only had a 223 then I would use it. The fact is that there are better cartridges for deer hunting out there to choose from.

Back to the original post I would choose the 270 Winchester or 30-06 over the 223 given the choice. That does not mean the 223 is not suited to kill a deer, there are no shortages of dead deer as a result of the 223.

Again, as to the validity of states that prohibit or allow hunting of deer with the 223? I am not positive on those numbers, they look reasonable but I am not plastering them as gospel.

Ron

 

[6.5swede]

Agree. These cartridge debates get ridiculous. Bullet placement with a well constructed bullet for the task at hand = success, regardless of cartridge choice. Know your own shooting capabilities, know your rifle and how it shoots with intended load/ammo, then get off the bench and practice, practice, practice from field shooting positions.

 

[WNTFW]

For me it is just this simple. See post #6 and #47.
If I jump up to say a .243 I can have a much more flexible rifle in terms of crossing state lines if need be.
A little over kill is not necessarily a bad thing. After that don't spend much time worrying
about folks that won't see it your way.

 

[Cee Zee]

I live smack in the middle of huge buck country. Some of the monsters I've seen around here go way more than any 120 lbs.. Here's a photo of one from my area taken from Outdoor Life's web site.