CraigC
Sixgun Nut
It's not about shooting deer in the ass or through the guts. Folks that hunt with minimal gear must not realize how carefully they pick and choose their shots.
Which of my two rifles would be your choice for the upcoming deer season?
- Thread starter Hokkmike
- Start date
Do yourself a favor and go buy a savage axis in 30/06, 308, 270, etc. heck, even 350 legend. No way i’d use a 223 with any bullet. Just too small, fast and zippy for me. Savage is running a $50 rebate on them right now. If you cannot and can keep shots under 100yards that 45LC with a good Hornady Leverevolution bullet or Buffalo Bore hunting bullet will do the trick.
dranrab
Member
For the OP and anyone who is willing to learn, read this about hunting with the .223. There are a lot of pictures to support what the posters are saying. Posters who have actually hunted deer and larger game with the .223. Not keyboard warriors who have never used it and just don't "believe" it's adequate. It is not at all marginal. It's extremely effective. I have helped a lot of people who were using heavy kickers try to find their deer. Seems their marksmanship suffers a bit on account of recoil. I have never had to help anyone find a deer shot with a .223.
rokslide.com
.223 for bear, deer, elk and moose.
DON'T HAVE TIME TO READ 176 PAGES? HERE'S THE CHEAT SHEET. “Bullets matter more than headstamps.” “Spent primers offer the supreme tutorial”. I’ve read it here and elsewhere online. It got my attention. I started digging and asking questions and listened. The 77gr TMK delivered by a .223...
rokslide.com
Last edited:
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
I don't think the .243 is sufficient for deer unless using premium bullets. So why would I ever use less? You're never going to convince me the .223 is "extremely effective". No keyboard warriors here but the result of hours spent digging through gut piles to figure out how bullets actually work.
Here's what I think is the biggest disconnect. A great many people, mostly rifle hunters, think "dead deer = success". They don't care what the bullet did as long as the deer is dead and didn't run far. For me, not only am I interested in terminal ballistics but as a handgun hunter, it matters more than it does to rifle hunters. Always did, always will. Two examples....
A) Rifle bullet enters deer's ribcage and penetrates 6", completely fragments and destroys the deer's heart. No exit. Deer drops on the spot. The average rifle hunter is going to call that a win. I consider it luck and an utter bullet failure. The next time, I will either know that the bullet needs to stay far away from shoulder ones or more likely, I won't use it at all.
B) Hardcast revolver bullet enters the ribcage, pokes a really big hole through the heart/lungs and exits. Deer runs 100yds and piles up. Most rifle hunters would consider that a failure and conclude that handguns are not suitable for hunting. I'm going to call it a textbook example of how hardcast bullets out of revolvers work with boring regularity.
Here's what I think is the biggest disconnect. A great many people, mostly rifle hunters, think "dead deer = success". They don't care what the bullet did as long as the deer is dead and didn't run far. For me, not only am I interested in terminal ballistics but as a handgun hunter, it matters more than it does to rifle hunters. Always did, always will. Two examples....
A) Rifle bullet enters deer's ribcage and penetrates 6", completely fragments and destroys the deer's heart. No exit. Deer drops on the spot. The average rifle hunter is going to call that a win. I consider it luck and an utter bullet failure. The next time, I will either know that the bullet needs to stay far away from shoulder ones or more likely, I won't use it at all.
B) Hardcast revolver bullet enters the ribcage, pokes a really big hole through the heart/lungs and exits. Deer runs 100yds and piles up. Most rifle hunters would consider that a failure and conclude that handguns are not suitable for hunting. I'm going to call it a textbook example of how hardcast bullets out of revolvers work with boring regularity.
The Happy Kaboomer
Member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2012
- Messages
- 393
Neither. I hunt with 5 rifles. All scoped When I kill a deer with one I switch to another. NO WAY I'd hunt with any .22 cal. Your open sighted .44 will work in the daylight. But early or late you lose out.
The Happy Kaboomer
Member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2012
- Messages
- 393
I one killed a doe standing in a ditch with a 2 inch S&W .22 cal. revolver........Did work? Yes. But no way is it an optimal deer cartridge...........Leave the .22 cals for varmits.For the OP and anyone who is willing to learn, read this about hunting with the .223. There are a lot of pictures to support what the posters are saying. Posters who have actually hunted deer and larger game with the .223. Not keyboard warriors who have never used it and just don "believe" it's adequate. It is not at all marginal. It's extremely effective. I have helped a lot of people who were using heavy kicker try to find their deer. Seems their marksmanship suffers a bit on account of recoil. I have never had to help anyone find a deer shot with a .223.
.223 for bear, deer, elk and moose.
DON'T HAVE TIME TO READ 176 PAGES? HERE'S THE CHEAT SHEET. “Bullets matter more than headstamps.” “Spent primers offer the supreme tutorial”. I’ve read it here and elsewhere online. It got my attention. I started digging and asking questions and listened. The 77gr TMK delivered by a .223...
dranrab
Member
I once shot a crow with a 30-06. I hit it and knocked feathers off of it, but it flew away.
luv2safari
Member
Telling Tall Tales here, too?
herrwalther
Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 8,140
Only 5.56/.223 round I would consider taking a deer with would be with a premium round like a 77gr Sierra Match King bullet or something similar. Definitely not the everywhere rounds like M855 or M193. 5.56 is better at range than a 45LC would be. It all depends on the distance you are hunting deer and how well you can put the round where you want it. A 45LC or 5.56 likely isn't going to harvest a deer with a leg shot. Accuracy is more important than bullet selection. Ballistically neither are what I would consider great choices for deer compared to others like 30-30, 35Rem, 308, and a ton of others.
Steve Milbocker
Member
I shot this buck a few years ago with an 1873 Winchester chambered in 45 Colt. I actually used Fiocci cowboy action loads. The shot was about 35 yards. Made a perfect heart shot, complete pass through and he piled up In about 75 yards or less. What I didn’t get was a blood trail which surprised me. If there wasn’t snow on the ground I would have had a helluva time finding him. I suspect a better bullet choice would have given me better results in that department but the 45 Colt is definitely enough cartridge within its / your limitations. I’m a fan of cast bullets and have seen them used to great effect. The bullets used by Fiocci were basically a cast bullet albeit swaged and it still gets me wondering about the lack of blood to this day. Perhaps you guys could shed some light on that. No matter what choice you make I wish you a great and successful season.
Attachments
Since the discussion of energy came up it jogged my brain. I dont think the 45 colt is technically legal as a rifle round here.....1200ft/lbs minimum.
Its fine in a handgun however....so.... arguable at least.
Anyway, I've killed enough stuff with the .223 using cheap "Varmint" bullets to be confident in it for my uses, especially with newer harder projectiles.
Ive used a muzzle loader enough to be confident in 200-250gr .45 cal bullets also (granted at significantly faster velocity than the colt). My buddy shoots a colt, and has had good success, so that reinforces things also.
IME the .45 rounds will out penetrate the .223 and can break larger bones, but the actual lethality from a good hit isnt any better.
If y'all want anecdotes of cartridges failing, or shooters failing to properly apply them......we can hunt every day of the year with no bag limits in many locations, and weve spent alot of time hunting. I also grew up on a shrimp farm and had a damage control permit, as well as friends with DCPs for the neighboring corn fields.
Ive SEEN every common round fail to anchor our relatively small animals (and some of the big ones), ive also seen small rounds put to good use.
No round is magic, no shooter is perfect...you apply either enough times and there will be anomalies.
Gotta make your own choices as to confidence in a round tho, and confidence matters.
Same goes for equipment. I chose the 527, simply because of its optic.
IME I have much more confidence in a scoped rifle than one with iron sights. Especially in any less than perfect lighting situations.
Does that/should that hold true for someone else....maybe if we have the exact same eyes and experiences.....
Its fine in a handgun however....so.... arguable at least.
Anyway, I've killed enough stuff with the .223 using cheap "Varmint" bullets to be confident in it for my uses, especially with newer harder projectiles.
Ive used a muzzle loader enough to be confident in 200-250gr .45 cal bullets also (granted at significantly faster velocity than the colt). My buddy shoots a colt, and has had good success, so that reinforces things also.
IME the .45 rounds will out penetrate the .223 and can break larger bones, but the actual lethality from a good hit isnt any better.
If y'all want anecdotes of cartridges failing, or shooters failing to properly apply them......we can hunt every day of the year with no bag limits in many locations, and weve spent alot of time hunting. I also grew up on a shrimp farm and had a damage control permit, as well as friends with DCPs for the neighboring corn fields.
Ive SEEN every common round fail to anchor our relatively small animals (and some of the big ones), ive also seen small rounds put to good use.
No round is magic, no shooter is perfect...you apply either enough times and there will be anomalies.
Gotta make your own choices as to confidence in a round tho, and confidence matters.
Same goes for equipment. I chose the 527, simply because of its optic.
IME I have much more confidence in a scoped rifle than one with iron sights. Especially in any less than perfect lighting situations.
Does that/should that hold true for someone else....maybe if we have the exact same eyes and experiences.....
Last edited:
Bazoo
Member
I voted for the 45 colt lever gun. Partly because I like lever guns, partly because the round is "better" for deer under all conditions.
I know folks that use the 223. I would use it myself if it was what I liked.
Bullet selection and shot placement are paramount regardless of caliber.
I know folks that use the 223. I would use it myself if it was what I liked.
Bullet selection and shot placement are paramount regardless of caliber.
redneck2
Member
Hopefully not too far off topic, but your best choice would have been a regular .22 LR headshot. That’s what they used in slaughter houses for years
OP
OP
Hokkmike
Member
Thanks all for your responses. Much appreciated... Sighting in the .45 tomorrow.
