This should settle the trophy smaller deer species debate. Now we're definitely talking about much larger animals.

Question:
How many of you would hunt the larger deer, that is Mule deer, Elk, and Moose, in addition the larger bears like Brown and Grizzly, with a 223?

Choices:
I would take use it without a thought
I would rather take a larger caliber and if I didn't have one I wouldn't go.

 

I shot many mule deer bucks with my .223, my 22-250 loaded with NBT in 40g and 50g.

Simply works.

You guys gotta be jokin'??
The 223 is for animals from 50 pounds and down to the varmints..

m

Can't wait till hunting season when most people are actually busy doing something outdoors instead of finding a loophole to further their "bigger caliber makes up for my bad shooting" agenda.

quote:

Originally posted by Snellstrom:
Can't wait till hunting season when most people are actually busy doing something outdoors instead of finding a loophole to further their "bigger caliber makes up for my bad shooting" agenda.

Can you positively 100 percent make that statement about all hunters that DON'T use a 223 for hunting big game? I don't use BIG calibers for my deer hunting. My favorite whitetail rifle is the 7mm-08. For Ell and Moose I like the 7mm Mag, 300 Mag, the 30-06. The 338 Mag is nice because it retains energy at longer distances and shoot fairly flat. Not all Elk shot are close. For the big bears I like the 338 and 375 H&H. Now out of all those mentioned above, except for the 7mm-08 I would only use the 30-06 on whitetail deer as the others are either too destructive or just too big and have never used large or magnum caliber for whitetail. I have used the 45-70 on them with cast bullets with excellent results. In fact I think the 30-30 and 35 Rem are two of the best whitetail cartridges for closer distances ever made.

PRO
apposed
roger

Bigfoot is just a blurry creature. It's not the photographers fault.

Thought I would add something useful to this thread.

Putting deer in with elk & moose, and then topping it with Grizz is like putting Fox in with Coyotes & Wolves, and topping it off with Lion.

If you want to shoot everything you run into you should plan based on the biggest or most dangerous.

Big Nate nailed it. Yes I'd use .223 on mule deer. The eskimos use .223 on it all.

quote:

Originally posted by BigNate:
Putting deer in with elk & moose, and then topping it with Grizz is like putting Fox in with Coyotes & Wolves, and topping it off with Lion.

If you want to shoot everything you run into you should plan based on the biggest or most dangerous.

Mule deer are way larger then whitetail deer. I used a wide range to see how far the 223 lover would press their rifles.

Reckon the 223 owner feel their caliber in invincible. Guess that's why our military chose it.

quote:

Originally posted by SmokinJ:

quote:

Originally posted by Snellstrom:
Can't wait till hunting season when most people are actually busy doing something outdoors instead of finding a loophole to further their "bigger caliber makes up for my bad shooting" agenda.

Can you positively 100 percent make that statement about all hunters that DON'T use a 223 for hunting big game?

With Polls worded the way you and Crazy horse word them and your above statement it's obvious you are just being inciteful and looking for an arguement. Your poll isn't for gathering information it's bait to keep your little fight going.
By the way you don't need to school me on what's appropriate for Elk either. Not only do I have "some" experience with Elk but I'm hard headed and won't listen to you anyway.

I would prefer a larger caliber but if I didnt have one I would still go.

Mule deer and brown bears have zero in common btw.

quote:

Originally posted by Snellstrom:

quote:

Originally posted by SmokinJ:

quote:

Originally posted by Snellstrom:
Can't wait till hunting season when most people are actually busy doing something outdoors instead of finding a loophole to further their "bigger caliber makes up for my bad shooting" agenda.

Can you positively 100 percent make that statement about all hunters that DON'T use a 223 for hunting big game?

With Polls worded the way you and Crazy horse word them and your above statement it's obvious you are just being inciteful and looking for an arguement. Your poll isn't for gathering information it's bait to keep your little fight going.
By the way you don't need to school me on what's appropriate for Elk either. Not only do I have "some" experience with Elk but I'm hard headed and won't listen to you anyway.

Yadda yadda yadda, but yet you still participate.

quote:

I'm only pointing this out just to see if we can keep beating this for 4 or 5 more pages.

You might just achieve what you are after on this one.

quote:

Originally posted by SmokinJ:
Mule deer are way larger then whitetail deer.

You need to get out more. Deer vary greatly in size not because of species, but because of where they are, and whats available to eat. A Whitetail in B.C can be double any Whitetail in Texas. I've been able to hunt both as well as Blacktail, and can tell you for a fact that what you are using to hunt them with is of very little issue if you are compentent. If you stay within your personal limits you will always have satisfactory results. If you have established your limits as only taking shots no farther than a couple hundred yards and only with a .30-06 then by all means, don't shoot at anything farther away with any other rifle. You may wind up out of your comfort zone.

I have been on hunts where I had several different tags in my pocket but chose to bring a rifle for the most likely target. If an opportunity came up for something else it's simply a judgement call. My squirrel gun works on coyotes. My deer gun works fine on elk, my coyote rifle works on deer, and my elk guns work on about anything I'd bump into. Just don't tell my wife. She'll be wanting me to get rid of my toys.

If you really want to screw with your head, look at the ballistics for some popular handguns used for hunting, or roundball muzzleloaders. They work for hunting just fine but are anemic compared to most hunting rifle cartridges. -Nate

quote:

Originally posted by carpetman1:
Big Nate nailed it. Yes I'd use .223 on mule deer. The eskimos use .223 on it all.

I know Eskimos/natives who use the 223 (mini 14) on caribou and moose - they take head and neck shots. I still feel warm and fuzzy carrying my 375 H&H when wondering around Alaska.

My late season turkey tag became valid today. I'm going hunting!

Mule deer, definitely. They're no bigger than a northern whitetail. But everything else, no. But that doesn't negate the .223's effectiveness on small- medium deer species. An elk is more than 3 times the size of an average whitetail.

The beauty of these arguments, is that NO ONE is saying that the various .22 caliber center fires, CANNOT/WILL NOT or DO NOT kill deer, only that these cartridges MAY NOT be the best choice under all circumstances. If it is the only gun a person wants to use, then so be it, it is their business. To claim that others should feel the exact same way is ludicrous in the extreme.

In a lot of states, especially the southeast, whitetail deer often aren't as big as German Shepherds. Yes there are exceptional size whitetails that can grow beyond 250 or 300 pounds. Those are the ones that a hunter shouldn't be using a 223 on.

In your opinion

One aspect I have not seen mentioned in any of these discussions, centers around the fact, that not everyone hunting deer has the exact same level of knowledge or proficiency.

Someone that shoots a lot and understands the limitations of the caliber they are using, regardless of the caliber, is in better shape than someone who goes to the range one or two times and then goes hunting one or two times during the season.

It is the people that simply do not work with their guns, regardless of caliber, that has caused some states to place minimum size/energy levels on rifles used for hunting Big Game.

It has nothing to do with using magnum rifles, it has to do with individual abilities with the firearm of the individuals choice.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
One aspect I have not seen mentioned in any of these discussions, centers around the fact, that not everyone hunting deer has the exact same level of knowledge or proficiency.

Someone that shoots a lot and understands the limitations of the caliber they are using, regardless of the caliber, is in better shape than someone who goes to the range one or two times and then goes hunting one or two times during the season.

I very much agree with this.

I could use my 375 Ruger for everything, but it would be very boring to have and hunt with one gun only

The issue is not the caliber, the issue is how you use what you have..

I have shot a number of deer and antelope and Plainsgame with the 222, 223 and 22-250..Limit the range to say 200 yards max, preferably less, take broadside standing shots, Use a rest and carefully place your shots, I use the 60 gr. Horndady HP or SP as they work..Even the lowly 22 Hornet will work great at 100 yards. This kind of hunting is mostly for the rancher or PH family in Africa feeding a family..Its mostly a meat hunt, or a cull operation.

If one is trophy hunting and willing to take less than desirable shots, long shots, or is not willing to pass up shots like a light caliber hunter is, then by all means use at least a 30-30,or 270, 06 or even the bigger bores, it just makes since..

Not a case of caliber, velocity or bullet weight, its a case of common since.

quote:

A Whitetail in B.C can be double any Whitetail in Texas.

Not true - you have no idea what the heaviest deer killed in Texas weighed.

quote:

Originally posted by Snellstrom:

quote:

Originally posted by SmokinJ:

quote:

Originally posted by Snellstrom:
Can't wait till hunting season when most people are actually busy doing something outdoors instead of finding a loophole to further their "bigger caliber makes up for my bad shooting" agenda.

Can you positively 100 percent make that statement about all hunters that DON'T use a 223 for hunting big game?

With Polls worded the way you and Crazy horse word them and your above statement it's obvious you are just being inciteful and looking for an arguement. Your poll isn't for gathering information it's bait to keep your little fight going.
By the way you don't need to school me on what's appropriate for Elk either. Not only do I have "some" experience with Elk but I'm hard headed and won't listen to you anyway.

Just where does a sensible line get drawn of shot placement vs lack of power?
Do we go to Africa and discuss what is the limit for a .223 there?

I'm disappointed that we even discuss this. Anyone who gives a first thought to using a 22 centerfire on game this big needs to back off on the Androgel. It bothers me that we can get into a pissing contest when quick, efficient and dependable killing should be the only priority.

quote:

Originally posted by SmokinJ:

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:

quote:

Originally posted by Snellstrom:

quote:

Originally posted by SmokinJ:

quote:

Originally posted by Snellstrom:
Can't wait till hunting season when most people are actually busy doing something outdoors instead of finding a loophole to further their "bigger caliber makes up for my bad shooting" agenda.

Can you positively 100 percent make that statement about all hunters that DON'T use a 223 for hunting big game?

With Polls worded the way you and Crazy horse word them and your above statement it's obvious you are just being inciteful and looking for an arguement. Your poll isn't for gathering information it's bait to keep your little fight going.
By the way you don't need to school me on what's appropriate for Elk either. Not only do I have "some" experience with Elk but I'm hard headed and won't listen to you anyway.

Just where does a sensible line get drawn of shot placement vs lack of power?
Do we go to Africa and discuss what is the limit for a .223 there?

As much as I don't get along with SR4759 I have to agree with him in this instance. Apparently he's the only that got what I was trying to convey.

quote:

The issue is not the caliber, the issue is how you use what you have..

Bingo! Thank You Sir. That is the whole point of these exercise's/discussions.

Understanding the limitations of both the shooter and their choice of caliber.

Native Alaskans have been killing polar bear for a long time using .22 caliber rifles. That proves that it can be considered common in at least one area. Is it the caliber I would choose? NO! I would choose something larger than was necessary - like 338, 375 or 50 BMG. Do I think I could kill a big bear with my 3006 or my 358? Sure! but I would feel better with a larger, more powerful cartridge.

If you can't shoot, it makes no difference how big your gun is, you're still going to lose a lot of deer. In my opinion, a novice shooter is better off with a .223 than a .300 Win Mag. The .223 is much easier to shoot if you're not used to recoil.

quote:

The .223 is much easier to shoot if you're not used to recoil.

While that is a true statement, going up from a .223 to a .243, is not all that big of a jump.

The recoil is not that bad.

quote:

As much as I don't get along with SR4759

you work at it

quote:

Originally posted by PaulS:
Native Alaskans have been killing polar bear for a long time using .22 caliber rifles. That proves that it can be considered common in at least one area. Is it the caliber I would choose? NO! I would choose something larger than was necessary - like 338, 375 or 50 BMG. Do I think I could kill a big bear with my 3006 or my 358? Sure! but I would feel better with a larger, more powerful cartridge.

The natives you mentioned use the 223 because they are lazy and cheap, much like those who use it for big game in the lower 48.

Also, they have the option of waiting for the bear to die, and fetch it with a boat or follow it with a snow machine. It's a subsistance harvest situation, where the hunter can stay out of harms way till the bear dies and shoot it multiple times. This is not the normal scenerio for the non subsistance hunter or fair chase hunter.

Also, the native has the mind set that if one gets away, it was the mighty spirit's will, (or whatever) and they just go shoot another one. I've been there and seen their methods and attitudes first hand on game like caribou and seals, wolves, etc. Same thing applies to bear.

KB

This "discussion" is actually about personal ideologies rather than what any particular gun can do. If you want to compare terminal ballistics of the different 22 calibers that is one thing but to question another's use of a particular firearm that they have successfully used many times is a rediculous stance. The person using the firearm, knowing the limitations (however slight) can take advantage of his weapon and skill to better results than 90%? of the "hunters" out there.
If something works for someone then it obviously has enough power for the way that person shoots. Denying that is no different than denying the wind blows. It may not be a tornado or a hurricane but it does move.
The 22 calibers are not legal in my state anymore but when they were there were quite a few deer taken with them. If you listen to the magazine writers it is impossible to kill deer or elk with the muzzle energy of a 50 front loader which has less power than some of the 22s. Both have been and still can be effective against the game animals that are hunted with them.
I choose to use a larger caliber but I know that what I prefer has little to do with the effectiveness of any cartridge. Bullet performance combined with placement is the central issue with any gun when hunting. PERIOD!

Yea, you are right about ideology. It's my ideology to not do certain things re fair chase and ethics when "hunting", and I oppose the rationalizations and behavior from others, and their so-called right to be ignorant. There is a very good and legitimate reason why the 223 is not legal in some states for big game.

I'm opposed to chasing down animals with snow machines or boats. I oppose the waste of big game, regardless of ethnics. I oppose the use of small cartridges on big game, and those who simply cover the inadequacy with multiple shots. I don't care if it's traditional, subsitance or native heritage, or whatever.

My opinion is based on the ballistics of the cartridge and what it's capable of using physics, not some idiot's made up estimation of personal capability, shot placment or other rationalizations.

quote:

Originally posted by PaulS:
Bullet performance combined with placement is the central issue with any gun when hunting. PERIOD!

BS

Bullet performance varies with the type of bullet used. Many of those who stoop to use the 223 on big game don't give a shit what bullet they use, and are in fact really intentionally ignorant of the performance of the different weights and designs.

Shot placment is another thing. Surely with each consecutive shot an animal is slowed somewhat, so the final shot can be dealt. One can say (rationalize) that each shot is correct placment - all 20 of them.

KB

quote:

but to question another's use of a particular firearm that they have successfully used many times is a rediculous stance.

No it isn't. In the case of 22 centerfires most of the proponents advocate 22 CF because they cannot tolerate the recoil or muzzle blast of even the most basic deer rifle. They try to hide their inadequacy behind the shot placement smokescreen. They simply are not able to admit they cannot hack it.
Preach shot placement and bullet performance all you want. You should be preaching about honesty... A bigger bullet is more effective.

This old arguement has gone of for decades, but I consider the 22s capable of killing deer cleanly at up to 150 and perhaps 200 yards with properly placed shots, but there is NO room for error, none! I have shot quit a few plainsgame with the 222 and 223, less with the 22-250. In some states its legal so that settles it.

I don't to use 22's anymore because they normally ruin a lot of meat with blood shot jelly going everywhere, that is the problem with velocity. Even with the newer improved bullet they can and do on rare ocassions blow up on the surface, even the better bullets will on ocassion and thats a bad situation. I have seen this on head shots and shoulder shots, its worse with the 223 and 22-250 than with the 222 btw..

If I'm the one eating the deer then I would much prefer one shot with my 25-35 or 30-30 or even a 180 gr. 30-06, and btw my 375 and 404 just cut a clean hole in a deer size animal, let out a ton of blood, kills them quickly and you can eat up to the hole with 0 waste of meat...

I'm not the balistic cop, so just offering some food for thought, what someone uses is up to them. some folks use the 22s well and may never wound and animal, others do not, but I suppose that applies to any caliber..

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:

quote:

Originally posted by PaulS:
Native Alaskans have been killing polar bear for a long time using .22 caliber rifles. That proves that it can be considered common in at least one area. Is it the caliber I would choose? NO! I would choose something larger than was necessary - like 338, 375 or 50 BMG. Do I think I could kill a big bear with my 3006 or my 358? Sure! but I would feel better with a larger, more powerful cartridge.

The natives you mentioned use the 223 because they are lazy and cheap, much like those who use it for big game in the lower 48.

Also, they have the option of waiting for the bear to die, and fetch it with a boat or follow it with a snow machine. It's a subsistance harvest situation, where the hunter can stay out of harms way till the bear dies and shoot it multiple times. This is not the normal scenerio for the non subsistance hunter or fair chase hunter.

Also, the native has the mind set that if one gets away, it was the mighty spirit's will, (or whatever) and they just go shoot another one. I've been there and seen their methods and attitudes first hand on game like caribou and seals, wolves, etc. Same thing applies to bear.

KB

So, what we've learned from Kabluewy this thread is:

(1) He still doesn't like the 223 for much bigger than a dog...surprise surprise! I'd have never guessed.

(2) His personal hands-on experience with native Americans proves the following:

They're all lazy

They're all cheap

None of them resepect the animal kingdom

From time to time they let arrogant dumbasses observe their hunting practices.

quote:

Originally posted by tiggertate:
From time to time they let arrogant dumbasses observe their hunting practices.

"let"? -- well maybe they "let" others observe sometimes, and perhaps some of those observers are arrogant dumbasses who don't understand what they are observing.

In my case no one "let" me observe, or even knew I was observing, and I did understand what was going on. Being a dumbass is a matter of opinion.

I'll concede arrogance.

BTW, have I told you recently of my opinion of you?