minimum caliber? why?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Shot placement, period.

How many hunters actually shoot a rifle more than 3-4 rounds before the season opens? That's about all it takes to say "yep, still dead on". That's not the same as knowing where you and your rifle consistantly shoot under less than ideal conditions- wind, rain, cold, adrenaline.

I figure the guy shooting 100 rounds or better a year has a far better idea (and judgement) on taking a deer/elk with a smaller caliber. If he knows as the trigger breaks he's a half inch off. Then he knows where his shot will end up. 1/2 to 1 inches doesn't make a lot of difference most of the time. 2-3-4-5 inches do.
 
"A .223 firing a modern hunting bullet is on a another level of effectiveness beyond the best .357 mag loads. So what makes it a bad choice?"

If they legalized .223 for deer in Virginia I'm certain there would be a lot of folks out there using ball ammo. I suppose the law and hunting regs could include a list of acceptable ammo brands/bullet types, but I don't see the state government getting into ammo testing.

John
 
"If you're a normal, healthy man, the 7 is not causing you to flinch. Poor marksmanship is causing you to flinch. Stay home if you can't handle an adequate caliber. JMHO, though."

For those of us crazy enough to spend the time and money to practice with our assorted centerfires - that sounds (almost) like good reasoning.

But for every hunter who will do (or can afford to do) any substantial amount of centerfire practice there are at least 500 who won't/can't - either due to lack of interest, lack of opportunity or lack of funds, or some combination thereof.
As "DryHumor" notes - many hunters go from one hunting season to the next simply assuming their rifle will do what they bought it to do and "Good 'Nuff". Their car starts every morning when they turn the key - why shouldn't the deer fall over when they jerk the trigger on their rifle? Isn't that what it's for? Any Hunter Safety Instructor will meet hundreds of that type. If all those folks "stayed home" until they could shoot a 30/06 or 7Mag well the Game Dept. would be broke for lack of licernse sales and want rest of us to cover the shortfall.

I have a good friend who is 6' and 280lbs. He's a farmer with a fat % of probably no more than 14%. I've seen him lift a 10-ft. section of railroad iron and put it on cement blocks stacked two high. I watched him shoot three deer at 200-250yds., within a couple minutes, unsupported offhand with his bull-barreled, Savage target rifle (.22/250). He's like a human Ransom-Rest.
The point is... no one in their right mind would call him a "girly-man", and he is a good shot.
But he recently bought a ported .25/06. The noise from that thing will rattle the sides of a grain wagon from a distance 50ft. And my friend is now struggling with a major flinch. Oddly, he also just bought a 7Mag and was shooting that fine - UNTIL he got that ported .25/06.

Is he a wimp? Nope, not hardly. Does he need to learn to shoot. Nope, not hardly. He could probably easily outshoot a great many macho types with a sensible weapon, or even his 7Mag. Does he need the explosive roar of that ported .25/06 to prove his manhood or worthiness to hunt. Nope, not hardly. Will his ego allow him to do the sensible thing and sell the ported .25/06. Nope, not hardly.

And another "safe queen" is born.

:cool:
 
Last edited:
Some of it - AR & AK Owners

I'm sure there are lots of reasons - a couple being that most folks don't want to handle any more recoil than they have to, another that they have a limited number of choices in the guns they already own and don't want to buy yet another gun (I know, doesn't that sound odd?):scrutiny:

We all know Grandpa hunted deer with his .22 squirrel gun in the Depression.

But, oh, yeah, if I had a nickel for every time I went to the (50 yard) range to shoot handgun and a bunch of Rexall Rangers with their ARs/AKs and black SWAT outfits were there.... augh....:barf: I keep wanting to ask them how long it's going to be while they zero their weapons so they can go shoot at the RIFLE range :banghead: Some of them bring girlfriends to impress (okay, I'm jealous) and I'm sure they'd love to hunt deer with their ARs to make them feel like they'd been man enough to enlist instead. Remember - it used to be the same way when M1 Carbines were under a hundred bucks and guys wanted to hunt (wound) deer with THOSE.
 
there is a reason the 223 is not legal to hunt whitetail deer with in many states. there HONESTLY, AND TRUTHFULLY just isnt enough power there do do a good, quick clean kill in MOST hunters hands.
dont get me wrong, i own a 223, it is a lot of fun to shoot, and my next rifle purchase will be a 223 ar-15 type (although i have not decided which one yet).
but it is not a good deer gun. the problem is the bullet is just to small, can easily be sent elsewhere INSIDE the body if it hits something substantial instead of blowing a hole through it.
i think a 270 is a fine gun for deer, even though i do not own one. you just need a bullet of sufficient size and weigh to penetrate all the way through the animal, while mushrooming to twice its original diameter, AND retaining 80% of its original weight ALL OF THE TIME, EVERY SHOT, NO MATTER WHERE IT HITS.
i am not trying to start an anti 223 thing. like i said, it is a nice, fun gun. just not for big game. 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.
and if you are using a marginal caliber to begin with, you are going to loose the animal, or worse, wound it so it will die a long miserable death.
i admit it, i once shot a deer, with my 300 win mag. the deer dropped, then to my suprise, got up and ran about 70 yards. this had never happened before, so i was suspicios that somehow, something went wrong. after carefully studying the situation, i found a bullet hole through a 2" hunk of tree limb, that i didnt see through my scope that was between the deer and i. how i missed seeing it i will never know. but anyway, the 180 grain silvertip continued on to reach the deer. punching about a 3" hole at the entrance, and penetrating all the way through and stopping at the hide on the other side of the animal.
try doing that with a 223. it will just result in a wounded or missed animal.
as far as excessive recoil goes, i can reccomend thiese options. 1) buy some managed recoil ammunition from remington to practice with and target practice exclusively with those, OR download your own to an acceptable level. then when you shoot full power loads at an actual animal, you will be anticipating the mild recoil. when the full power one goes off, it will be no big deal, as your adrenalin will be pulsing through your veins and you will hardly even notice the difference.
2) practice, practice, practice with full loads and REALLY CONCENTRATE ON THE POINT OF AIM, AND TRIGGER PULL. you would be amazed how affective this really is. like a previous poster said, this is just basic rifle marksmanship. the gun going off should ALWAYS be a suprise.
3) have a muzzle brake installed. they make a world of difference. i just had one installed on my 45/70, mostly because i was tired of having my shoulder turn back/blue/orange. it does a great job. no more bruising, way less recoil, and for my ears, not really perceptably louder ( yes, this is a plug for the Gentry Quiet Muzzle Brake ).
i have grown up with magnums, but i honestly do not, (now in my older, more experienced years) really believe that everybody needs to run right out and buy a magnum cartridged rifle.
the 30-06 / .308 winchester are fine 30 caliber guns that will do EVERYTHING my 300 mag will do out to 400 yards. and how many shots do you really take at that range?

now western hunters, who shoot muelies, and elk, may need a magnum. but for the most part, most hunters are in the woods, not open praries.
my wife has been a great shot with her 30-30, now there is a mild recoiling gun, and being a lever gun, great fun to shoot as well. she has droped several deer with it, and one we had to chase over a mile, with a good shot.
the big advantage to a magnum is the increased hydraulic shock you get. often, i think this is the biggest reason for them. i havent killed a deer with my 45/70 yet, but i am thinking that it will carry a huge hydraulic shock with it as well.
like i said in the beginning of this thread, this is not a 223 bash, it is simply about using enough gun!
 
I shot my first buck in 2006 with a 270 ballistic tip, hit him square in the chest at 108 yards. He ran 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. I know shot placement is everything, but I would rather take a chance of ruining some meat and get my deer, then not ruining any meat and loosing him. This year I will be hunting with a 300 wsm, cause it has less recoil then the 300 winn mag. I don't think anything is wrong with smaller caliber's just not for me, but I think a 243 should be minimum.
 
Last edited:
"there HONESTLY, AND TRUTHFULLY just isnt enough power there do do a good, quick clean kill in MOST hunters hands."

Can't say I disagree much with that statement. But I'm not sure I've heard anyone say the .223 is a good deer caliber.It is a doable deer calliber under some sensible restrictions. Maybe the poster who opined that the AR-type rifle fanciers overrate the caliber for personal reasons is homing in on a Truth. :confused:

I really like the .243 a lot. I'm sure I could drop and Elk or even a Moose with a .243. Do I think it's a good caliber, or even an appropriate caliber, for most Elk or Moose hunters? Nope, absolutely not.

I also happen to really like the 7mm Rem. Mag. and could drop any deer with one. Do I think it is a good caliber, or even an appropriate caliber, for most deer hunters. Nope, absolutely not.

To me, the imoprtant thing is not the minimum caliber that will kill the quarry but the minimum and maximum calibers that Joe Average Hunter can make clean kills with using a hunting rifle under field conditions. Being a Hunter Safety Instructor for nearly 30 years - I've seen a huge parade of "Joe Average Hunters" and for a whale of a lot of them the .243 or 6mm Rem., or the .250 Savage or the .257 Roberts or the 30/30 is all the deer gun they should ever consider.

Yet many, many times I've had guys say they and their wife kill their deer every year - she with a "little" .243 and he with a 30/06. If his wife can limit out with a .243 why does Mr. Hairy Chest need a 30/06? If his wife is a better shot and a better hunter than he is - what the heck is the knucklehead crowing about?? Sounds like he desperately needs to take some lessons from his "little" wifey to me.

:cool:
 
One problem with the tacticool crowd hunting with the .223 is many of 'em ain't got a clue about bullets. FMJ is as illegal as .223 in many states, but that don't seem to stop 'em from using it. :rolleyes: The .223 being best applied to woodchucks, not deer, most of the bullets out there for hunting are designed for varmints. There are bullets available now, the Barnes and such, that work better.

I understand all this bullet stuff and handload and, still, I'd take a 6mm bullet over a .22. I do NOT buy that the .223 is a great deer round, not even close. It's barely pushing 1000 ft lbs in its best loadings at 100 yards. Me, I'd keep it to 100 yards. I'd use a .30-30 to longer ranges even with flat nose bullets. BTW, the .257 carries over 1000 ft lbs all the way to 400 yards in my handloads and with more effective bullets. Might that be four times more effective? It's a much better choice, I can tell ya that! If ya don't like the .257 for some reason, just substitute the .25-06 for it, pretty close in factory loads to my .257 handloads and even more capable when handloaded. If I just HAD to use a .22, it'd be a .22-250, a popular caliber in Texas for kids and women and people that can't handle the massive, bone shattering, retina detaching recoil of the .243...:rolleyes: It's got more zap farther out, though, gives you at least another hundred yards and in most guns is surgically accurate. Me, I'll stick to the .243 as a good minimum for whitetail and give the animals a break.

BTW, for the last 10 years I've been in love with the .308 Winchester. My .257 rarely comes out of the safe. I need some new brass for it to load some rounds, but I keep putting it off. It's still a great little gun even though it's 50 years old. Just that I like that little M7 and the .308 is an awesome hunting round that's light on the shoulder, believe it or not. I can't imagine why anyone would think they needed a .300 win mag for deer. The .308 kills 'em just as dead just as fast as far away as I wanna shoot. In the field, I can place its bullets just as accurately as I could a varmint rifle in .223 and they pack a hell of a lot more whop when they hit. And, I love the little compact, lightweight, laser accurate M7 whether in the stand, still hunting brush, or scoping canyons in New Mexico.
 
Last edited:
Ya know, McGunner, I usually agree with you, and I too have a special place in my heart for the .257 Roberts, but I disagree with you here. My uncle bought a Winchester bolt action .218 Bee from my dad in the '50s, and took I don't know how many dozen big northern Michigan whitetails with it. Why? Because he loved that rifle and never missed with it. He only took neck shots, he never missed, and his deer were always DRT. That man could and often would shoot sparrows at 100 yards for practice. What possible practical arguments could there be against his prefered caliber, given his abilities with it? It's no different in my mind from the guy who uses a single-shot rifle, or the guy who goes after big bass with 4lb test line and homemade rod. I do both. He has to do it right too. Simple as that. Do I use a .22 for deer? No, not because I couldnt, but because the smallest centerfire I own that meets Michigan's .22 centerfire minimum is a .243, but if I could use the .17 Fireball I'm building on one, I'd go head-shooting at least once...
 
For those of us who still enjoy hunting, though, the 220 can be a good bullet.

Why? Is it to slow to cause as much damage? I know the deer I shot last year with 180gr. federal fusion ammo dropped immediatly. Took out about 4.5" of the spine, part of the back strap, and broke some ribs. Leaving a spot in the deer you could put your two fists.
 
"I love the little compact, lightweight, laser accurate M7 whether in the stand, still hunting brush, or scoping canyons in New Mexico."

After watching literally thousands of riflemen shooting, I strongly suspect having a rifle one likes and has confidence in is a LOT more important and more valuable than having any specific caliber.

:cool:
 
Moose - just use your 50BMG for everything from squirrels to buffalo, right? :neener:

Edit: if there's a thread in hunting, and MCGunner posts, "tacticool" will be used lol

I just hunt everything with a tactical 5.0 slingshot. Keeps it easy, and it fits right between my titanium leg armor and kevlar underwear.
 
Why? Is it to slow to cause as much damage? I know the deer I shot last year with 180gr. federal fusion ammo dropped immediatly. Took out about 4.5" of the spine, part of the back strap, and broke some ribs. Leaving a spot in the deer you could put your two fists.
The 220 grain .30 caliber is a good bullet for those concerned with excessive meat damage. In my experience, the heavy, slow bullets hit pretty darn hard and kill very quickly, but expand to a moderate diameter and don't tear up a whole lot of meat.

Honestly, when shooting much beyond 200 yards is not a concern, I find that very heavy-for-caliber bullets -- 6.5/160, 7mm/175, .30/220 -- do a better job than most anything else available. But they are so out of fashion that people at the range will actually laugh at you -- or offer heartfelt advice on the assumption that you truly don't have a clue -- so if that matters to you, you should probably stick with some type of cool looking projectiles. ;)
 
I think the missing part in the argument here is WHO is doing the shooting. Everyone agrees that a .22lr can and has killed MANY deer. We also agree that the .223 is not the best choice for deer but in the right hands yields good results. When someone I don't know asks me what caliber for deer I have to take into account that they may not be the perfect shot that some of you .223 buffs obviously are. Like it or not a more suitable cartridge is more forgiving when the shot is not right on. When someone here asks if .223 is enough to hunt deer or pigs I have to say no because by asking the question they are telling me that they have not hunted much and probably don't have a lot of real life (as in shooting in the field at something other than a piece of paper) shooting experience.
 
If they legalized .223 for deer in Virginia I'm certain there would be a lot of folks out there using ball ammo. I suppose the law and hunting regs could include a list of acceptable ammo brands/bullet types, but I don't see the state government getting into ammo testing.


You guys act as though .223 is the ONLY caliber where you could use ammo not suitable for deer hunting..



A slob could just as eaisly use 110 V-max .308 ammo

55grn 243 ammo

110 grn .357 magnum ammo.

An uninformed slob is just that no matter what caliber they choose
 
Varmint loads in .308 are the exception. In .223 they are the rule. Not to say that an informed hunter couldn't figure that out, but that still don't make the .223 the ideal, or even an adequate big game round. Yeah, it'll kill deer, so will a Louisville slugger properly applied to the CNS, just stay within range, right?
 
Varmint loads in .308 are the exception. In .223 they are the rule.

It is NOT 1977 anymore. Varmint .223 ammo is NOT the rule any longer and hasn't been for some time.

http://www.midwayusa.com/eproductpage.exe/showproduct?saleitemid=161368

http://www.midwayusa.com/eproductpage.exe/showproduct?saleitemid=564348

http://www.midwayusa.com/eproductpage.exe/showproduct?saleitemid=891153

http://www.midwayusa.com/eproductpage.exe/showproduct?saleitemid=402682

I've yet to find a .223 revolver. I mean, it's a HANDGUN, apples and oranges.


No it's not. Both are tools used to achieve the SAME goal. Killing deer. If a 357 handgun is OK to use within it's range envelope why isn't a cartridge that's twice as powerful and penetrates just as deeply while damaging more tissue inside the vitals.

Anyone who uses a 357 mag but thinks a .223 is underpowered is just being a hypocrite.

Both are more than up to the task of killing the crap out of small southern deer out to 100yds + in a rifle.
 
With an iron sighted handgun, you accept the fact you're going to have to limit yourself to bow hunting ranges. That's sorta why I do it. And, as I said, the .357 bullet is significantly heavier and bigger and can cause enough trauma without ANY expansion, seen it done, and it will fully penetrate in the process. 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. Mostly, when I hunt with a handgun, I use my Contender in a rifle caliber. Theoretically, it's good for 200 yards, if you have a good enough rested position to shoot from, but I've not taken anything with it past 90 yards to date.

Okay, I give up, the .223 is the best big game caliber in America. :rolleyes: The naught six ain't squat, old and antiquated and not chambered in guns that have enough picante rails. You need them picante rails, ya know. And, it kicks to much. No one can possibly hit anything with all that recoil.
 
I could be a slob and start taking potshots and wound deer 300 yards away with a 30-30 would that mean that 30-30 is completely incapable of cleanly killing deer. No it would not. Just like the 357 handgun or ANY other cartridge the .223 user must employ his rifle within the cartridges performance envelope. If this is done on the correct sized game and proper ammo is used then the .223 is every bit as effective as a 300 win mag.

Will a .223 kill deer at 400yds like a 300 magnum NO it will not. But will a deer shot at 80 yds be any deader cause the big 300 was used over a well placed 64grn PP from a .223 NO

The .223 rem is a bowhunters rifle cartridge. It's not for your average 1/2 box of "shells" a year shoot em in the poopchute if they wont turn round Jackie Bushman wannabee
 
Am I going to chose a .223 when I have a .257, a .308, and a 7 mag to deer hunt with? Uh....NO! Would I buy a .223 rather than a .308 or a .270 or about a bazillion more capable rounds for deer hunting when they cost the same? Uh....NO! :D Can't really understand why anyone else would, either. Do I hunt with a .357, well, yes, I have. It's not my primary game getter, but when you sit in the same old stand year after year, you have to do SOMEthing to entertain yourself. AR15s just ain't my choice of entertainment and the .223 is just not my choice for deer hunting. I cannot see a reason to get one. If I'm going to hunt with a deer rifle, I'm going to hunt with a REAL deer caliber. Handguns, well, I had the .357 and it shoots well. I now have a Contender and it works mo bedda.
 
BTW, if the .223 is the greatest deer caliber ever made, does that mean the .22 Hornet is adequate? Maybe I should get a hornet barrel for my Contender and toss the .30-30. Hell, why do that, I already have a .22 Long Rifle match barrel with a scope and I can hit the head with it at 50 yards just as easily as I hit squirrel's heads at that range. The perfect deer gun! :D Oh, yeah, that barrel is pretty accurate with CB shorts, too, AWESOME!
 
"With the exception of the .30-06, right?"

LOLOL !! :D:D

If someone has a rifle they like and have confidence in and it happens to be a 30-06, I figure that is the rifle (and caliber) they should hunt with. But I don't think it's the rifle/caliber they should tell everyone they meet to buy. Less robust calibers are simply easier for inexperienced people to use and develop skills with - that is just everyday fact.

I knew a fellow with a Winchester Model 88 carbine in .308. I am lukewarm to both the rifle and the caliber but he loved it and shot it very, very well. It was simply the "best" caliber and rifle for him.

:):cool:
 
Hey, Shawnee, the M88 I fired once, friend's gun and in .243 Winchester, was danged accurate! Weren't the best trigger in the world, but it was capable of near 1 MOA with factory ammo. I was kinda impressed with it. In modern lever guns, I would rather prefer a BLR, though. :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top