I don't know what happened to my post however here is what I want to say:

Of late some mention that they shot some big game with some .22 centerfire and used some bullet or other.

To me they are bragging that they are so good that "Its all you need." is the mantra.

I see it as just that bragging but no concern if the animal suffers or in fact escapes with a wound.

My suggestion is to use all the gun that you can shoot well and if you can't then don't hunt that animal.

I'm with you there. Even if legal, it leaves little room for error. Perhaps that is the point? I'm such a good shot I can never miss by even a small amount? To me it screams I don't have the ability to handle a rifle with any amount of recoil.

.223 is/was illegal for hunting in some states. It used to be illegal in mine. Military FMJ ammo which many have for it, is also illegal for hunting here.

They changed the rules to allow any centerfire rifle in non-FMJ. Anyhow, I know that the .223 has been used to make plenty of clean one shots on deer. The ammo was whatever off the shelf hunting factory loads that were available..no premium bullet.

So officially you could say the state thinks that .223 is adequate at this point, which is another way of saying I guess "it's all you need".

As for the gun that shoots it, a popular one is the AR-15. With some it's their only rifle and they just like using it. It closely resembles what a number of guys used in the military. And some favor that style as a one weapon arsenal for personal defense and hunting.

Used within its capabilities I don't see anything to either brag about on using it or really to complain about either.

However, one guy who has taken deer with his didn't seem to mind borrowing my Mark V 30-06 when offerred to him...

I'm more of a middle of the road kinda guy. For whitetail, a 7mm08 is my favorite. I've also used a 7mm rem mag, because it is the first gun I ever bought for myself and I happen to love that particular gun. This brings me to my point of this coin having two sides. I feel a bit ridiculous when shooting the mag at whitetail, and I notice a bunch of folks who are carrying even bigger cannons after not so big game. Are they compensating for something else?

I will add a caveat to this for the guy going on an upcoming hunt for larger game and is using the same rifle close to home, for smaller game, in an attempt to get more familiar with it.

Guns a tool to get a job done.223 or 458 whatever works for your particular need.

there ARE people who take some sort of "pride" in the minimalist approach. Personally, I think they need to take up hunting like Tarzan did, leap out of a tree with a knife on the prey.

I was the proudest of my Elk the year I used a longbow and cedar arrows I made myself.

Rich

I don't know about you guys, but I do not like feeling "undergunned", or "overgunned. I very much enjoy the feeling of knowing that the rifle I have in my hands is adequate to the task. For example, I don't use my 45-70 guide gun when I believe my shots are going to be 200 yds plus. I don't use a 7 stw or a 257 weatherby or 7mag, when my shots are going to be 70 yds. and under.
GWB

We have all had to listen to our girlfriend brag about that guy that used the minimum caliber for the job....

John

Big Bore Boar Hunter:

Savage_99:

I am with you. (I would be with you, anyway, because of your user name -because as` we know, the 99 is the finest of all lever actions) Years ago (in my time, when dinosaurs roamed) there was a joke about what was, at the time, the most powerful hunting cartridge on earth to use on DG. It goes that someone asked a PH in Africa why he carried a 600 N.E.. He replied: Because I can't get anything bigger. There always has been a fine line between using what would be only a wounding cartridge in most instances in the field -and using a cartidge that will do the job -but requires markmanship. (Full confession - The first time I hunted black bear in Ontario (Nipissing District)my bear guide was appalled by the fact that I carried a 7x57 Mauser. (The 154 gr. bullet planted a black at some 85 yards on one shot) Being an Irishman, I have taken a roundabout way to answer your question. Never should any conscientious hunter use a cartridge less than his shooting abilities -and as all of us know, the more powerful cartridge makes up for errors - and as a veteran '06 shooter of white tails, I usually preferred to not trust my markmanship because I never thought I had the right to make one of the Lord's creatures suffer unnnecessarily for my poor shooting.

quote:

and as all of us know, the more powerful cartridge makes up for errors - and as a veteran '06 shooter of white tails, I usually

Really!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This thread looks like the makings of a 223/deer round fight. Guys, It’s to close to Christmas to get all worked up about this topic. But if you want to fight, I’ll watch.

I do not think so. The .223 is a deer killer when used properly and the bullet is properly placed.

Gerrypeters375 wrote:

quote:

and as all of us know, the more powerful cartridge makes up for errors - and as a veteran '06 shooter of white tails, I

What about the .223 WSSM, 64gr HP for deer?

quote:

Originally posted by dogcat:
I do not think so. The .223 is a deer killer when used properly and the bullet is properly placed.

...and therein lies the crux of this issue. If one is a good enough shot and patient enough to wait for the right shot the calber used isn't an issue at all. Unforunately we've all been there for an "iffy" shot. The reasons(excuses?) are legion be it accidential or simply taking a chance for one reason or another. You can say you'll do all those things necessary for a clean kill with a little bullet but then that buck of a life-time walks out and all beats are off.
Maybe they're OK for some of the small bodied deer found in some regions but as a general rule I call 6mm/243 the cut-off point. A pile of (poached) deer have been killed with .22LR's and .22WMRF's, I even know of one poacher who claims to have killed one with a 17HMR but that hardly qualifies them as deer calibers!

Iffy shots are best left to indirect fire weapons! I think most will agree that the 243win is a good place to start for deer. The 223 is a good cartridge, but calling it a deer cartridge is a bit of a stretch. The 223 is limited to head/neck shots, opens up the opportunity for wounded animals.

John

As for the .223 WSSM, I'm guessing it doesn't matter due to the same bullet diameter that isn't quite sufficient for desired performance. ???

I'm going to try on it a doe this weekend, eye shot, for it is a meat hunt...

quote:

Originally posted by CamoManJ:
As for the .223 WSSM, I'm guessing it doesn't matter due to the same bullet diameter that isn't quite sufficient for desired performance. ???

I'm going to try on it a doe this weekend, eye shot, for it is a meat hunt...

Just my personal prejudice but as to the twenty-two SSM, etc. bullet diameter is the issue. 64gr. in a .22 I'd think would be putting a strain on the twist. Unlike shotguns you can't simply shot anything that'll fit down the bore through a rifle and expect it to shoot straight. Your head shooting is OK. Assuming the range isn't too great, it'd be OK with a .22 long rifle to! The question however deals with what is or isn't an adequate deer rifle and I think that implies normal-type body shots.
Like I said its just my personal prejudice and not intended to offend anyone who sees diferently but I sure wouldn't take a body shot with less than a 6mm no matter how fast it's going. I prefer 6.5mm w/130gr. or larger bullets and up for deer-sized game.

quote:

Therefore: A man should shoot all the gun that he can handle well.

Oh horse manure. A man should shoot what he wants to shoot if he is capable of making killing shots with it. 99% of us are hunting for the pleasure of the hunt, not for survival, so enjoying what we do is part of the pleasure we get out of hunting. Shoot what you can kill with as long as it's legal and enjoy your hunt. If it's an ego thing with someone to use a smaller caliber, so what? It's their hunt. Just to be clear, I shoot a .300 Win Mag most of the time but well over a dozen deer have been killed on my ranch with a .223 and all died with one shot. Six or seven of those were the first deer for youngsters and they did a great job using a cut off .223 contender I made up for my son when he was younger. I took them to the range, told them how to use it, let them shoot a pie plate or target at 50 yards or so for a few shots using a rest, and they were good to go. It was always interesting to see the "city" kids smile when they realized the "deer" gun wasn't going to hurt them. I then explained how to kill a deer, "Picture a soccer/basket ball between and just behind his front legs and try to shoot through both sides of that ball", and they promptly went out, and "bam" killed a deer. Needless to say, the grown ups got nearly as big a thrill out of it as the kids.

gatogordo
i think if you re-read you will see that you both have said the same thing.
to some people it may be a point to brag from
the minimum caliber thing,tends to lean more to the magnum crowd,thou i think.
during deer and hog culls and most of my
texas hunting has included a micro sited 243.
by micro sited i mean 3 shot "cover with a dime" group @ 60 yds.
i promise you it was a quiet'er deadly killer.
our experience after years of hunting and being there,should include not only being able to make the shot but knowing when to make the shot and the familararity with a firearm that makes a deadly killer. call it finesse shooting.
just like shooting sparrows with the old red rider bb gun,you knew in order to kill them stone dead you had to hit them in the head and you knew what the red rider was capable of because you had packed it for the summer
and the pile of salt needed for the sparrow
trophys was considerable
smaller caliber require that you pick your shot
and are sometimes the right tool for the job.
IMO if you are going to leave the house with any weapon intending to take it and shoot it at an animal,you damn sure need to know "how" to shoot it.
smaller calibers have their place with the youth crowd for sure,killed a beautiful 6pt
bull elk with a first time 12 yr old elk hunter
this fall,shooting a 25-06.
bull was unaware at 105 yds and we waited for "the" shot.
result was a very happy "elk hunter"

quote:

Resorting to profanity will not win your argument.

If you think "Oh, horse manure!" is profanity, you are a fucking idiot. Now that is profanity.

vulgarity is never viewed as a sign of character. If you can't express yourself without profanity you would be better off keeping quiet.

That said: I have read that an ethical hunter uses the rifle (and cartridge) that will get the job done under "worst case" conditions, not under "ideal" ones.

Rich

Why don't we do this

1. Gato agrees not to use the F word
2. Idaho Sharpshooter take the stick out of his ass and agrees to let "horse manure" and "damn" exist as acceptable language between two adult males. (An alternative would be to change your moniker to Prissy Sharpshooteress from Idaho. Stop acting like a sissy.)

Sorry. I should have added:

3. Savage_99 needs to move to another forum where the "h m" word and "d" word won't upset his, or possibly her, delicate sensitivities. At a minimum remove the word "savage" from your moniker. I find it offensive, and nothing you say will win this argument.

quote:

Originally posted by Kensco:
Why don't we do this

1. Gato agrees not to use the F word
2. Idaho Sharpshooter take the stick out of his ass and agrees to let "horse manure" and "damn" exist as acceptable language between two adult males. (An alternative would be to change your moniker to Prissy Sharpshooteress from Idaho. Stop acting like a sissy.)

quote:

Sorry. I should have added:

3. Savage_99 needs to move to another forum where the "h m" word and "d" word won't upset his, or possibly her, delicate sensitivities. At a minimum remove the word "savage" from your moniker. I find it offensive, and nothing you say will win this argument.

Kensco:

Funny as hell, thanks for the laugh, but.......

Hell, no, I like my character just how it is.

I never liked those neon signed guy's characters who say, "Look, I don't use the F word, that makes me a superior person." Yeah, right. Anyone who reads just a few his posts knows he's an egomaniac who thinks he knows THE WAY to do ANYTHING. Yeah, right.

I've also read from time to time and found that mature ethical hunters can use any fucking caliber they want that is legal and will take the killing shots within the limitations of that cartridge and their shooting ability. Is that quiet enough for you, ISS?

Don, is it bragging to claim a one shot kill on a jack rabbit sized whitetail shot with anything?

This whole thread cracks me up!
It is the Keith vs O'Connor debate it is the .223 for deer debate in slightly different clothes!
For deer hunting I will not use the biggest rifle I can shoot well! Take that.
Why would I lug around a .458 or a .375 (that I shoot well) for deer when I can kill them with "one shot kills" with a 22/250 or a 257 Roberts or god forbid even a 243 ( I dare not even mention a .223)? The big bores will not up my percentage of one shot kills.
Just agree to disagree that the big bore camp will never approve of small bores and the small bore camp will never stop killing deer with a .223.
Same old arguement that will never be won or lost.
By the way I've seen ten fold more game thats been wounded with "suitable" rifles than I've ever seen with .224's or .243's. (just an observation over the last 40 years or so).

Snellstrom is right.

It's the same old argument, but a little different version.

Who cares if someone used a 243 and a friend used a 300 win mag to kill a deer, both with one shot kills.

I'll continue to use my guns however I would like, as long as, the caliber used is legal, which I've killed who knows how many deer with a 22-250 and even a 243!!!

.

I shot two deer during the 2008 deer season with a 458 Win mag just so folks would leave me alone. (I used a 400 grain Barnes bullet vice a 500 as I expected smallish deer.)

I used to catch so much grief for using a .223 on deer that I opted for something larger, as close to 2 X .223 as I could easily get.

Some folks complained that I used too much gun, imagine that!

Pretty funny, ole Savage 99 can't stand the heat in the PF so he's deleted his posts in this thread and left the site, according to him. I knew he was a f...ing idiot. Good riddance.

Savage_99 is gone?

Damn it, now I gotta go get that .223 back and sell this 458!

Snellstrom:

Your post caught my eye -for more than one reason. (I liked your reference to the 375) but also because I happen to think that your shooting philosophy is correct. What is totally important is the ability to shoot without flinching - and, yet.the shooter must accept that he has to fire cartridges sometimes that require that he truly adapt himself to recoil (and, of course, recoil is relative) I thought the 7x57 Mauser (7mm) was the finest cartidge I had ever used when I shot a 300lb black bear -but I adapted myself to shoot a 375 H&H when I wanted to hunt a Cape buff -and came to love the cartridge. I guess it all comes back to how we adapt ourselves as shooters. Fact.

I renewed my original post from memory.

I suggest that good hunters use enough gun so that the beast does not escape nor suffer longer that absolutely necessary.

Also to use all the gun that you can shoot well. That barely legal or illegal .22's are not good sportsmanship.

Thank you

I think the decision to allow the .223 was more of a political decision than a ethical decision. The flood of cheap milsup ammo and the fascination of the young folks with the rambo style rifles pretty much meant that the .223 was gonna be used whether or not it was legal.
When I lived in WV, many of the old timers used .222s and .223s to take their deer. And had been using them for years. (yes Virginia, I know it was illegal back then) But they were accomplished and careful hunters. If someone came in the store and bragged about shooting a deer at xxx, they'd just look at each other and smile. Obviously he wasn't much of a hunter. They used store bought 55gr Rems and Wins as a rule.
Then along came the platforms with their tight twist and heavier bullets. IMO this moved the .223 up quite a bit as a deer killing calibre. But it was still a cartridge that needed a cool and careful hunter to get the job done.
And that is the problem. I have read these post for years and when someone sez: "you can use a .223 if you're careful about bullet placement and range", no one has ever said "I'm not a cool and careful hunter, I plan on going into the woods and arkansawing the shit out of anything I see." But what can you expect from a guy that has to ask if he can kill a deer with his platform?
As far as the bragging part of it, I think the folks at both ends of the spectrum are kinda indulging in a bit of penis envy.
I know that the old wood hicks back in WV used the .222s and .223s 'cause that was all they had. If they had a larger calibre rifle, they certainly used it during deer season.

Personally, I wouldn't use or recommend using a .223 or .22-250 for deer under just about any circumstances. I accept that both are plenty capable of killing a deer under ideal circumstances (broadside shots, neck shots, or head shots) but I've also seen deer wounded with 22 CF calibers that likely would have been killed cleanly with a larger caliber. Most recently, a hunter shot and hit lung one a young (smallish) Texas buck with his 22-250 in thick cedar country around here. Now this was frontal shot (1st or 2nd mistake, depending on your perspective) with no exit. I know it got lung, because we found a nice puddle of frothly lung blood where the deer stopped . . . but when the deer was moving, there was no blood trail, and although I'm certain the deer was killed, it was never recovered. I've also seen double-lung pass through shot deer using a .223 where there was no blood trail (fortunately in open enough country where the deer was recovered by trailing the tracks). At any rate, enough of these situations make me unwilling to use these "marginal rounds" on deer, and I would never recommend them either.

Personally, I prefer .257 calibers and up for deer, but that's just me. In dense cover, I usually use something quite a bit larger - 9.3s or a .358 since I like making a big hole . . . and a big exit. In open country where I'm wanting a flat shooting round, I use a .264 or 300 of some sort (most of the time).

I don't particularly even like the ".223 as a kid gun" argument much either - which is why I bought a 7-30 waters for my daughter's first rifle . . . to my mind, there are simply better options. Just for example, a .250 Savage doesn't recoil in a particularly noticeable manner either.

All that said, if its legal, you're welcome to use it. If you like it, you're welcome to use it. However, if you were asking for my recommendation, I'd say stick with .257 caliber or higher. Just my 2 cents.

The passion people have to defend one position or other while berating others isn't much more than amusing.

We get caught up in the cartridge and bullet performance arguments all the time yet there is very little difference between them. Many argue about rounds or bullets they've never tested in any way that is measureable. When a post is made where testing has been done in ballistic gel it isn't enough "evidence" to prove someones reasoning.

I personally think the choice of firearm, caliber, and bullet while personal, has very little to do with the outcome. Bullet placement is by far the most key element. A wounded animal is wounded regardless of what it was wounded with. I think I've seen more game wounded with .270's and 30-06's than anything else. Is this because they are hard to shoot or inadequate? NO. Statistically they are more common and so the likelyhood of them being used to wound is higher. It's statistics not emotion.

I think when someone chooses to use a smaller caliber they usually have enough experience to use it well.

I don't usually recommend the .22 centerfires for first timers that are alone in their decision, but if an experienced hunter is with them, and coaching it can be effective. Again it's truth, no emotion.

Ultimately anyone who is using a mild recoiling rifle that they have shot enough to be confident with will kill what they shoot at without all the concern many express.

When someone asks for opinions thats what they get. Unfortunatly it can be confusing not clarifying and they wind up choosing to follow advice that may not be good for them. If someone has a particular rifle available to them and they ask for advice on what would work well in that gun they inevitably get advice to run out and buy a new , bigger gun. They may not be able to afford a new toy, or rebarreling one they have.
Instead of berating them for choice of cartridge, we should be able to explain that using rifle X may mean that there are only a few good choices of bullet for the job and range is best limited to X number of yards.

Much has to do with each situation as well. Kids are completely different than adults, and supervised kids are different than a teen who's got some experience but is now moving to bigger game, on their own. Which game is also part of the issue and where. Close shots at southern deer wouldn't compare very closely to a kid hunting Mulies out west.

I also think the relatively common call for a "premium" bullet is B.S. Most cartridges work fine with standard bullets. Why? Because today's bullets are actually that good.

I have offered my opinion for using a .223 or .22-250 for deer, but I've always made an effort to consider where they are hunting, and the method. Deer are not hard to kill, but even an exit wound doesn't meen they will be bleeding all over starting from where they were standing.

Advice and teaching woods skills related to recovering game and care of the animal should be common. I think there are lots of lazy slob hunters who shoot huge cartridges thinking that by using a bigger gun they won't need to stalk, and the animal will fall over right where it was standing. This leads to long shots, and no following up on the game. If they do get to where they thought it was standing, if there isn't blood right there they call it a miss. I've seen small deer shot that didn't leave blood for quite a few yards, even well hit.

Many of these threads are people baiting others for entertainment. Still others are such experts they don't read whats been written, don't consider whats been written, and quickly start with the insults. No different than that same person would be in real life except maybe the insults. Lots of tough guys on the internet. Nate

Damn good outlook on the whole issue.

Here's my 2 cents:
Use whatever rifle/cartridge combination you feel comfortable with, but you owe it to the game being hunted to know and respect both the gun's limitations and your own.

There are just as many people shooting big magnums at deer who have no business doing so as there are shooting pea shooters who have no business doing so. When deer get wounded and lost, it's usually more a case of operator error than a failure of the rifle/bullet/cartridge.

I don't really like the .22 centerfires or the 6mms for deer, but I can't deny that they work, because I've killed 20 or so with a .22-250 and another 5 or 6 with a .243. Most were one shot kills, and the only one that got away was my fault (hit low).

My reason for not liking such small calibers isn't because they won't kill deer reliably (under the right conditions), it's because I like an exit wound to help ensure a blood trail, and I don't like the amount of bloodshot meat I get from high-velocity light bullets.

I also like the added insurance of having a bit more bullet than the bare minimum in case I need to take a quartering shot or break the shoulders.