I'm a bit bored today, so will stir the pot a bit. I will agree that on broadside shots through both lungs a bow will work just as well as a .243, but on average, a deer will run further with a bow hit. On just about any other hit that would normally be vital with a .243, such as 1 lung, frontal quartering, liver, etc... a bow is not even in the same ball park. I hunt 2 states a year with bow and 3 with gun (usually centerfire, but every so often, it ends up being shotgun or ML for one hunt). The wounding rates I see in camps is not even close when comparing bows to the others, especially in the hands of somebody inexperienced (where a .243 normally ends up and has a vastly better rate of recovery).

-Lou

Lets keep stirring this pot till the soup gets hot.

I am of the Elmer Keith school of " If A 30-06 Will Kill It, A 470 Nitro Express Will Kill It A Little Deader".

Earlier I listed some of the calibers that I have killed whitetails with, and as far as my hunting experience goes, 35+ years, I have lost one deer that I know for a fact that I hit. I shot that animal with a 22 Hornet.

Do I think that a 22 Hornet is the worst caliber, No, because I had already killed a whitetail with one shot from that same 22 Hornet, 2 years earlier.

Will I try the Hornet on another deer, not likely.

Now, to pull this up to present day experiences, I made a perfect behind the shoulder shot on a whitetail buck with my 375 H&H, using a 250 gr. Barnes "X" bullet. One from the same group I had loaded for my Musk Ox hunt in 2000.

When I field dressed that deer, the whole top third of his heart was gone. When I made the shot, I saw all sort's of tissue spray out the exit wound on to the tree that was behind that buck. I walked down and looked, and there were chunks of meat and tissue and blood all over that tree.

When I took the shot, that buck was about 40 yards off the muzzle of my rifle. I hit that animal in a really vital area, at close to muzzle velocity and energy, with what I consider the best hunting bullet going.

At the shot, that S.O.B. clamped his tail to his ass, and hauled balls for 60 yards, right off a 20+ foot high bank, into a creek, and was stone cold dead when I got to him.

Do I consider the 375 the worst deer caliber, No. The next buck I had a chance at was over twice the distance and fell in mid stride.

Just to stir this pot a little further, I question this "DRT, in its tracks crap.", I have been hunting too long, and I have probably had a third of the animals I have killed, drop where they were standing when hit. Admittedly, they may have moved less than 5 yards, but they did move. JMO

I'm bored too, but I'll be helping my son soon with his homework. I'll have to side with Jarrod's line of thinking but with respect to bowhunting.

He did say something along the lines of "if you can't kill a deer with a 243, then you need to learn to shoot."

I'll take that position when it comes to bowhunting. If someone is continually losing animals from bowshots, then they need to practice more or put the bow down.

One mistake bowhunters certainly make is they shoot when there's not enough light. They see that deer and put the pin on the dark silhouette where they THINK the arrow should go, then let it fly. I just had a discussion with a new bowhunter about this very thing. It is unacceptable.

I guess I'll jump in again.

Shot placement is what it is about no matter what you are using.

I kill several deer a year with firearms and bows.

I well place bullet or arrow kills remarkable fast.

But that said if I really had to kill a deer to eat I'll take a rifle any day over a bow.

And if that was a 243 I would be eating deer really soon.

Being able to kill from point blank to out past 300 yards makes it a lot easier to get meat then waiting for one under 50 yards or so.

But this is nice trouble to have being able to talk about killing numberous deer a year and aruging about what weapon to use. It wasn't that many years ago we were limited to one deer a year. And that had to be a buck.

When I first started deer hunting 40 years ago seeing several deer a year was good. Now lots of people are able to kill many deer a year.

Personally I don't piss and moan about what others hunt deer with as long as they do a good job with it.

I see people do a good job with many differant cailbers from the 224s to the over 40's.

I also see many deer wounded with the 30's more then any other why more of them out there.

A poor shot is poor shot.

quote:

Just to stir this pot a little further, I question this "DRT, in its tracks crap.", I have been hunting too long, and I have probably had a third of the animals I have killed, drop where they were standing when hit.

Well, perhaps it's only 'crap' because of your own personal statistic. I've not hunted near as long as you but I've had my share of rifle kills. I'd say maybe only 1/10 or less did anything except drop right there. Probably because I always try to hit the framework.

It's all subjective, and based on what we've seen, and I respect that. It is how we form our opinions. I was on the phone with another AR member this afternoon. We were discussing how all of these opinionated and pot stirring threads keep going. (even though they are fun to stir anyway).

I brought up this particular thread. He said that it is his opinion that in many cases, those who argue in favor for smaller calibers for certain game animals are advocates only because it's the only rifle they own. I agree. I'm sure it's true for many.

What we don't understand is the mentallity: "What is the smallest possible caliber I can use to still get the job done?"

I want to hit whatever I'm shooting at with all I can, overkill or not. I like an animal to fall like a 5 ton truck just fell on it. That is a lot more enjoyable to me than watching them run up and over some hill I'm not familiar with. Worrying whether or not there will be a blood trail, or other hunters that ultimately put it down.

I think the "DRT, in its tracks crap" on deer is a very reasonable statement. The vast majority of the time, you hit a deer reasonably well with just about any centerfire and it goes down fast, most of the time in a few yards, but you can't expect it to happen. The subjective part happens if it runs past 30-50 yards or so. As far as I can tell, the only real advantage big bore fans have when this happens is they can rationalize "it was a tough deer". When the same thing happens with somebody hunting with a smaller caliber, the same guys will jump all over the shooter for using a smaller round or saying if I would have shot that deer with my .338 remchester, it wouldn't have moved.

-Lou

how about a .22 starter pistol

quote:

Originally posted by molar1:
Originally posted by Doc:

quote:

I'll take a 3 blade muzzy over a 6mm bullet anyday too.

And furthermore, I would take a 50 cal muzzleloader over your beloved 270 win anyday of the week

Want to have a deer shooting contest? You with a .50 cal muzzle loader, me with a .270!

I think more importantly than caliber, is the person behind the gun.

MG

Doc, I guess my deal is more with the fact that I don't shoot at the framework, especially the front shoulder that often. My normal shot is behind the shoulder, heart/lung.

I think one of my problems with the "DRT" statements and the advocacy of using the 224's as deer guns, comes from seeing beginners basically go out with these guns, taking a questionable shot for a larger caliber, and then not even make an effort to see if they hit the animal. Classic statement I have heard many times, " Well I shot and the deer jumped but took off running."

Myu whole deal may be more of a mental hangup, on not giving less experienced hunters a false impression of the performance level of a certain caliber.

I will recommend a 243 or 25-06 or 30-06, but I normally don't recommend the calibers I use, because they are more than what most people will ever have need for, and even though I used to recommend the 222 and 223 for youths and women just starting out hunting, I don't recommend anything smaller than the 243 now.

Yes I know those last 3 calibers aren't considered deer capable rounds by lots of folks, but I base my recommendations from the point that the folks in question will be using these guns in Texas, shooting at an animal feeding at a spot a measured distance from the blind, usually 100 yards or less. I have been of the opinion that if the person doing the shooting is using a gun they are comfortable with they will be able to place those shots more accurately. I have modified that opinion, after a couple of incidents where a person didn't go for a neck shot on a doe with a 224 caliber, and went for a heart/lung shot instead. In both cases we found the deer, but it was after some serious tracking with nmo blood trail, just broken brush and plowed up wet ground. JMO

quote:

I'm a bit bored today, so will stir the pot a bit. I will agree that on broadside shots through both lungs a bow will work just as well as a .243, but on average, a deer will run further with a bow hit. On just about any other hit that would normally be vital with a .243, such as 1 lung, frontal quartering, liver, etc... a bow is not even in the same ball park.

You need better broadheads



Reloader

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
Doc, I guess my deal is more with the fact that I don't shoot at the framework, especially the front shoulder that often. My normal shot is behind the shoulder, heart/lung.

Well, that makes all the difference right there. I will agree whole heartedly that if all the bullet does is hit soft tissue, the probability of a DRT is reduced.

I'd also be willing to challenge myself and take a 243 out for deer for an entire season (with stout bullet), and put the bullet in the shoulder region to see what happens. I am inclined to believe that I'd get DRT each time.

Generally speaking I have to agree that anything below 25 caliber is marginal. You cannot be overgunned for deer. A 45 caliber at a slow speed will probably tear up far less meat than the .270 etc. due to speed and bullet construction. Arguing over the .270, '06, .308 etc. is rediculous as they are all great calibers for deer. What irritates me is that people try to use piss poor bullets in any caliber and especially the light ones. If you are going to use a puny caliber, at least use a good bullet-not a target or varmint bullet! Most of this argument comes down to the ability of the shooter more than caliber. The larger calibers just make complete penetration more likely.
I don't know how bows got into this discussion, but if you think they aren't effective, you have either no experience, are a bad shot or use dull broadheads. A double lung hit with a SHARP broadhead goes no farther than a rifle-hit one and usually less. Frontal shots should not even be discussed as that is absolutely taboo to ethical bow hunters, and for that matter, marginal for rifles. You are comparing apples to oranges.

Thank You Sir, but that is a bet I wouldn't take.

I have shot enough stuff thru the shoulders, especially high shouldewr shots, and they drop like they had been struck by lightning. From my experience, a neck shot is usually as effective.

I guess to re-phrase my statement, I question the validity of some folks that claim everything they have ever killed was DRT, and nothing had ever run even if just for a short distance. I question as to how many animals they may have wounded, and not went looking for, simply because the animal ran and didn't go straight down at the shot. As I say, I have heard people say that they got a shot, but the animal took off, and they didn't see any blood.

Then a week or two later they, or someone else finds the remains piled up in the brush, 30 or 40 yards away.

Really , I guess my point is that maybe it isn't as much to me that there is or are calibers that aren't really adequate for the job of shooting whitetails, in as much as the choice the shooter makes as to where he puts the bullet into the deers anatomy. JAT.

243, 243 and 243.

I don't think calibre has a lot to do with it. There was a time many years ago when I shot deer, not hunted, to feed my family. I used a 22 LR and never had one move. That's 100% success rate of this DRT garbage. Is the 22LR all that effective? NO! The same shot's with any cartridge would have rendered the same results. I also seldom reccommend the 6mm's and never the 22 centerfire's. To many people using these are relatively inexperienced and choose the wrong bullet's or use bad shot placement and judgement for what they are using. I've had deer drop at the shot with a number of cartridges and seen more move off away's with the same cartridges, Neither proves anything.

But I've also seen bad shot's with the wrong bullets and that is usually ugly. I've also seen great shot's with the wrong bullet's and it gives the impression that lighting has struck. It seem's to me that there are really no bad cartridges so long as the shooter knows how to use what he's using!

In this country we have far to many shooter's that don't have a clue of what it takes to kill a deer. We discuss cartridges a lot but not enough discussion on killing. No I don't harvest animals, I just kill them!

I concider some cartridges unexceptable or margional because of the bullet's most avaliable rather than the cartridges abitily to kill. The hunter that is well aware of what it takes to kill an animal sure doesn't need anyone to tell him what cartridge will work, they all do! But you have to wonder about the guy that want's to know what's the best "rifle" for deer, a 7mmx08 or 308.

We who have seen a lot should really understand that cartridge discussions for deer are really nothing more than splitting hair's about what "we" like and have nothing to do with the ability of a lot of different cartridges.

Over on another site, I no longer go to, is a guy that teaches hunter safty and recommends to kids they use a 223 Rem for deer as it's easier for them to shoot. He also recommends shooting at 150yds or less. Is that a good idea? I don't think so and would pull my kid out of his class. Not because the 223 won't do it but because there are low recoil cartridges with much better bullet's that are certainly capabile.

I think the impression we give sometime's is that some cartridges just aren't capabile of killing and other times that any cartridge is well capabile under any condition. Both are wrong.

There is no worst cartridge but there are a lot of poorly educated hunter's.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Doc:
243 --- hands down, the shittiest caliber ever invented in terms of deer use, as it does nothing but promote the "let's see how much less of a gun we can use to 'git-r-dun' syndrome" already mentioned.

the 270 is by far the best deer caliber, period. end of story.



The 270 is definately not the best, the 280 Rem is!!

I'm sorry, I just had to throw that in here!

The worst possible caliber for someone to take deer hunting is one that is hyped-up to the point of where the shooter has developed enough false confidence in the round that he/she would be willing to risk a marginal shot at an unwounded animal, just because they think the cartridge has some supreme lethality.

Dave

quote:

Originally posted by Doc:

I'd also be willing to challenge myself and take a 243 out for deer for an entire season (with stout bullet), and put the bullet in the shoulder region to see what happens. I am inclined to believe that I'd get DRT each time.

I would almost bet you would. I've done it and seen it done over and over just like clockwork with a lot of bullets. More of them were ballistic tips the biggest percentage of the time. But also a lot of other bullets also. My now 13 year old nephew aims for the point of the shoulder and it is lights out. ALthough most calibers will do that if placed in that spot because it knocks their t
transfer case out. The 243 does it also.
It boils down to shot placement with a good bullet. Its really not that complicated at all.

I will deer hunt with a 7-08, 308, 243, 25-06, 260, 270, 280, 7mm, 30-06, 30-30, 223, 300 etc etc etc. and kill any deer that walks with any of them period. Its not that hard to kill a deer

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

I am of the Elmer Keith school of " If A 30-06 Will Kill It, A 470 Nitro Express Will Kill It A Little Deader".

Not true. The 470 Nitro Express is likely cause the shooter to flinch, meaning that he/she will not place the shot well, so the animal will not be deader, but less dead.

Second, the 30-06 is likely to wear a scope, meaning that the shooter will have a huge additional advantage, while the .470 is likely to be unscoped.

Finally, the .470 has a big curve of a parabola for a trajectory, so shooting at a distance over about 100 yards gets difficult and iffy, while the 30-06 has a much flatter trajectory, so that shots out to 250 yards are no problem, and shots to 350 yards can be taken with just a bit of allowance.

Elmer Keith was wrong on nearly every point.

I know this has been said befor but it really does come down to a persons skill and knowing and respecting the limitations of the equipment you are using. Be it bow, muzzleloader or modern rifle. I have killed deer with a bow, used 125 grain Muzzy's if memory serves. I have also used .45 and .50 cal muzzleloaders traditional using patched round ball and modern with saboted pistol bullet. I have also used many centerfire rounds: 30-06, .308, .300 Sav, 7mm-08, 7X57, and .243. What I can say is that I have only failed to recover one bow shot deer and that was not a failure on the quipment. It was a failure of the shooter.

If a hunter knows the capabilities and limitations of this equipment and himself and is willing to respect them then he will enjoy success with a variety of equipment including the .243, bows, and muzzleloaders ... even flintlocks.

quote:

Originally posted by Don Fischer:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Doc:
243 --- hands down, the shittiest caliber ever invented in terms of deer use, as it does nothing but promote the "let's see how much less of a gun we can use to 'git-r-dun' syndrome" already mentioned.

the 270 is by far the best deer caliber, period. end of story.



The 270 is definately not the best, the 280 Rem is!!

I'm sorry, I just had to throw that in here!

Hey, no problem, while you're in a 'throwing' mood, you can toss that 280 back into 5th place or there abouts, where it belongs. (that's about 3-4 spots BEHIND the 270).

270 rules in the deer woods. It is and always will be the best for deer.

my .410 loaded with rock salt never fails to leave em standing, I've stalked 200 and never killed one yet, tell me what I'm doing wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by dustoffer:
Just got back from the lease and killed my first deer with a rifle below .25 cal. No, it wasn't a .243, but a 6mm Rem. Shot a doe at 192 lasered yds, right in the eye. She dropped, and didn't twitch. I was using 100 gr Hornady Spire Pts at 2925 fps, and the rifle shoots between .5" and .6" for 3-shot groups off the bench at 100 yds. Since I was in a tower blind, no wind, sandbag on the window ledge with butt resting on my folded jacket on the chair back, it was just about like shooting off a bench. Would a .243 do the same thing? Most likely, but then a .22 Hornet in the eye would kill the deer as well. Why the 6mm instead of the .243? Well, I just happen to like the looks of the round and its performance numbers as opposed to the fatter .243 with its stubby neck. Matter of choice. If you want to use a .243 and shoot them "where they live" with proper bullets, go for it.

First deer I killed was with a 30-06 at about 20ft through the left eye. I was aiming between the eyes but at the last second the deer must have moved. I also shot one between the eyes at 15ft with a 300 Win Mag you could call it a mind blowing experience.

Originally posted by Don Fischer:

quote:

The 270 is definately not the best, the 280 Rem is!!

Thank you Don! Glad to see someone else in touch with reality

So far, that makes 2 that are definitely still feasting on mushrooms, you guys are still hallucinating about this 280 bit....C'mon back to reality and realize the 270's superiority.

(check sales, that will bring you to reality).

Nope, no mushrooms here. Actually, Doc, I am beginning to wonder if you keep PCP or LSD around the office.
As far as number of sales go, that is by no means an accurate depiction of a caliber's usefulness. The average Joe usually buys a rifle in a particular caliber either b/c that is what his grandaddy's cousin's brother used or b/c they are somehow allured by the name of the cartridge, such as the case with the magnums. Hence, the popularity of the .270,30-30,30-06,7mm RM,etc.

quote:

Originally posted by molar1:
Originally posted by Don Fischer:

quote:

The 270 is definately not the best, the 280 Rem is!!

Thank you Don! Glad to see someone else in touch with reality

Do they even make .280's anymore?

quote:

Actually, Doc, I am beginning to wonder if you keep PCP or LSD around the office.

(both, shhhhh, just don't tell anyone, BTW, PCP means primary care physician)

quote:

Do they even make .280's anymore?

I don't think they even make 280 reamers anymore! Why bother? Especially with the 7-08, 7mm Rem Mag, and 280 AI around. Weren't they about as popular as a Delorean?

.32-40

quote:

both, shhhhh, just don't tell anyone, BTW, PCP means primary care physician)

Doc, I've got to give it to you. That's pretty clever. However, I was thinking more along the lines of phencyclidine

LE270, sarcasm is wasted around you isn't it???

While my personal choice of rifles does tend to be more in line with what Elmer Keith liked to use, the point I was getting at, is that no matter how well a caliber performs on game, someone will always find a reason to berate it. A lot of those folks will, as Mr. Keith would, swear that even though a 270 or 30-06 could reliably kill a deer, a 333 OKH or a 375 or a 470 NE would do a much better job. Nothing has been said about range or anything else, this is just a fun discussion about peoples thoughts on calibers for hunting deer.

Lastly, while you may think Mr. Keith was wrong on everything, I think personnally I'll stick with his assumptions about the size, both diameter and grain weight of the bullets I am shooting, and the amount of power necessary to insure consistent one shot kills, regardless of the angle of entry. JMO.

quote:

regardless of the angle of entry

Crazyhorseconsulting,

Elmer Keith had some valid points, but this wasn't one of them. Improper angle of entry is not compensated for by using a large, potent caliber. Kieth's accounts of extreme "raking" shots and "Texas heart" shots has encouraged many hunters to take shots that should have never been taken. Shots of this nature require pinpoint accuracy to insure a correct angle of entry and bullet travel to the vitals. A raking shot that enters a ham and exits from the paunch will likely result in a very inefficient wound, regardless of the caliber. Everything else you have mentioned has merit and seems logical, but the angle of entry comment is somthing I can't agree with. JMO

Dave

How many times have you been in a situation where the only shot you had on a deer, elk, moose, whatever, was a quartering away raking shot on a running animal at fairly close range, 100 yards or less.

I am not talking DG here, just normal american wildlife, that you may have walked up on and had to make a decision to shoot or not shoot, in about one half of a nano-second.

Not all shots that a hunter gets are the perfect broadside 100 to 300 yard broadside with a 5 mile per hour or less crosswind.

Sometimes, you get in situations where the only shot you may get during a 5 day moose hunt is on a spooked animal at 50 yards, headed for thicker brush.

I just believe that Mr. Keith had a far better handle on the subject than me or you, but, I have been well pleased with the results I have obtained following his line of thought, and see no reason to change.

Each of us are entitled to our opinion on a subject, and while I respect you for yours, I just don't agree with it.

Stopped one of the F.N.G's in our camp from loading a .270 win cartridge in a 7mm mag rifle.
That would of been a VERY BAD whitetail cartridge!!!!

This is a stupid thread. Make mine a .300 Win Mag.