When I lived in WV, I reloaded for several locals. They shot .222s and .223s. Certainly not ARs but old well worn 340s and 788s. The bullet I used was 55gr Rem core lokts. I bought them in bulk since I did a lot of Pdog shooting then. The locals were more than pleased with them. But then, I doubt that any of them shot a deer over a 100 yards if that.

Wyatt,
I agree with you, but was only making a statement of what I used during the great depression and the choice was my fathers..It was a learning experience that I was passing on for what its worth..A different time and place, today in Idaho, I hunt deer with a 250-3000 or 30-06 type rounds..Elk with a .338 Win. or 300 H&H., maybe my .348 win...sometimes I get nostalgic and hunt either with my 25-35 very carefully...

African Leadwood,
In answer to your post I have mostly used the 60 gr. Hornady SP or HP, both have worked well for me on deer up to 225 yards, longest shot. My kids, grandkids all used that bullet in the .222, and Ive used it in the 223 and 22-250, it killed well on cull hunting both in Texas and Africa. I have recovered a few of them perfectly expanded but mostly got exit holes on Coues and Mule deer in Texas, not so many exits on Mule deer, but got mostly instant kills. My grandson who works on a big ranch still uses my (his) 6x45 and sees no reason to use anything else as does his wife. my daughter still uses the 25-35 and sees no reason to use anything else..they have never lost a deer and in fact I don't recall any deer they shot going more than a few yards..

35whelenman--If this was something I had done a time or two might be thinking I lucked out. Doing it repeatedly I wont say you are full of it--but getting there.

Seems we're talking about different things. from reading the posts, it seems that the deer are lost because of poor shot selection, poor shot placement, and lack of experience. This sort of thing can lead to disaster regardless of what calibre you're using.
I would not presume to take a beginning hunter into the woods and put him in a stand without me in the stand with him. I would not presume to take a beginning hunter into the woods that wasn't well grounded in marksmanship and totally familiar with the firearm he'd be using. And I don't mean just shooting off bags. I mean considerable time spent dry firing and live firing using field positions. And finally, knowing the limitations of the weapon you're using and YOUR limitations is an absolute.

This thread is exactly what is wrong with AR these days. Has anyone read the initial post? The posts are exactly what he asked not to get. The gentleman hunts in Wisconsin not pigs in Texas. Deer are bigger and the terrain different.
The old lecture of hitting them perfectly every time is boring. In the real world that does not always happen.
Answer the man's question. Don't launch into a defense of what you do complete with insults to others posting.

Maybe worth mentioning again that the fit of the rifle is important to good shooting and shooter comfort and perceived recoil.

No matter the calibre choice I would try to get that right.

Lots of opinions and generally good advice. I will say that the arguement that smaller calibres are for experts and not beginners does have some relevance. There is a fine balance between low recoil and shot placement and performance with a slightly imperfect shot.

We all know really bad placement is no good.

If a 223 get a twist that allows use of the better and heavier bullets. The 60gr NP seems to have a great reputation but won't shoot in my 1 in 14s. Hence my earlier question as I like to hear from others with experience. 6x45 is a nice choice and quite liked here for impala and similar game but as it is a custom option it's something people like but that isn't used much if I've expressed it properly. The 6x45 "popularity" stems no doubt from the chambering being a favourite of Gregor Woods, long hunting and field editor of Magnum magazine.

CRbutler--Do you think in the examples you mentioned that a bigger gun would have changed things? If the shot is iffy, you pass.

Wasbeeman +1

quote:

Originally posted by LJS:
This thread is exactly what is wrong with AR these days. Has anyone read the initial post? The posts are exactly what he asked not to get. The gentleman hunts in Wisconsin not pigs in Texas. Deer are bigger and the terrain different.
The old lecture of hitting them perfectly every time is boring. In the real world that does not always happen.
Answer the man's question. Don't launch into a defense of what you do complete with insults to others posting.

The title is Smallest Cartridge for deer and the OP states his daughter's accuracy drops off on anything bigger than 223 because she is recoil sensitive. Is everyone supposed to ignore that information and talk about theoretic calibers she can't shoot accurately?

I would say let her hunt with a 223 with good bullets or make her wait to hunt deer until she is more comfortable with recoil. There aren't many realistic options.

quote:

Originally posted by JabaliHunter:
6mmBR would be as small as I'd go, but I doubt that I will ever replace the 6.5x47 Lapua that I use now

Or perhaps a 6mm PPC ?

quote:

Originally posted by AFRICAN LEADWOOD:
Not to highjack but I'm very interested in the bullet choices in 222 / 223. I'd like to see what guys favour that works in the 1 in 14's of the older Sako's (got a couple of them and not wanting to convert to 6x45!).

You might consider trying the Speer 70 grain Semi Spitzer. It's what I've loaded in my 222 Remington and 22-250 both with 1:12 twists. I've heard they will also stabilize in a 1:14 twist barrel but I've never tried them in one.

The 70gr Speer works in my 22-250 which has a 14" twist

Carpetman - obviously we agree to disagree.

To me this is the same as suggesting a young shooter starts out with a .410 for pheasants. How long did you shoot and hunt before switching to the .223?

Staying with the intent of the original question, I say that calibers under a certain size do not belong in the hands of a new deer hunter, and even in the hands of an old salt are not necessarily appropriate.

If the girl has to wait until she can comfortably handle a larger caliber, so be it. Not fair to her or the deer to try and rush something just because you want to have your child kill a deer.

There is a way to work a person, regardless of age or sex up to a larger caliber, if a little patience is shown and time taken.

Moving from one of the .224's up to a .243 should not be all that big an ordeal.

With recoil being the issue here, when first starting out to see if the switch is possible, get the person to fire two or three shots with the gun they are used to, then get them set up to shoot the larger gun, one time. Keep in mind, this first go round is nothing more than an exploratory situation.

Show them the differences in the weights and feel of the gun, if any. Show them the differences in the size of the cartridges. Talk to them about the differences between the calibers, without getting TECHNICAL.

Let them set at the bench and handle the gun, look thru the scope, even dry fire it a couple of time to get used to the trigger pull.

Then when they are ready, load one round and tell them when they are ready to go ahead and shoot. Do not be as concerned about where on the target the shot hits, be more concerned about how they felt about shooting the gun.

I have seen and talked to a lot of kids/parents, that got turned off of hunting/guns because "Someone" got too intense with the situation.

The hardest thing I have found for too many men to get into their minds, is that kid or the wife/girlfriend, is out there trying this stuff because they want to spend time with YOU, works the same way with fishing or nearly anything else a Man gets into, the kids want to spend time with Dad/GrandDad and the wives/girlfriends want to spend time with their Husbands/boyfriends, and their ACTUAL interest in the activity, especially in the beginning stages, can be nullified if the male involved gets too wrapped up in trying to gain perfection or the same level of interest/expertise in the activity as he has.

Back to the subject. After that first shot with the larger caliber, ASK, the shooter if they want to try again, just be sure to let THEM make the decision.

After the ice is broken with that first shot, quite often the transition takes place fairly quickly. Sometimes it proceeds more slowly, but it has to be done at their speed, not yours.

That is all from past observations made while working with first time hunters.

35whelenman---Yes very much we disagree. You implied my use of cheap bullets was all but unethical. These bullets are probably Remington Core lokt and Winchester equivalent. I'd suspect if you started telling all the folks that have used Remington core lokts they were unethical it would get you into some trouble. Most of these bullets have shot through and were not recovered. We did recover two bases on the off side. They were just about identical. Both were the perfect mushroom and weighed 40 grains--they started out at 55 grains so that would be 72.7% retention which I'd say is very good---nothing unethical about that.
If you take a new hunter, let them shoot and get comfortable with the rifle. Put them on a stand with a good rest and wait for a proper presentation shot, they can do everything and experienced old pro salty hunter can do. The old timer can't put on English, top spin or anything else the youth can't do. It really becomes a matter of could they hit a basketball at that range. I started out with a 30-06 and it was too much for me then. I would have been better off starting with a .222 or .223. Back then I didn't have the experience I now have with the small calibers and would have thought they wouldn't work. I now know they do work. If it didn't work, I'd agree with your suggestion of waiting. It does work and I hope she presses on and we see some pictures of her deer and her smile.

Crazyhorse, moving up from a .223 to a .243 may not be that big of a jump---to you. If a kid is bowling very well with a 12 pound ball, then moving to a 14 pounder should be no bid deal because you are using a 16 pounder. If the .223 is killing deer, what is there to gain? Gonna kill em deader?

quote:

Originally posted by carpetman1:
CRbutler--Do you think in the examples you mentioned that a bigger gun would have changed things? If the shot is iffy, you pass.

Wasbeeman +1

The point was that folks didn't even think they hit the animal most of the time and a smallbore does not usually give very good blood trails. The lung hits, I personally think they would have found eventually with a bigger bore rifle, if they knew they hit it. The gut shot ones, if they knew it was hit and got some of the experienced guys out helping them, maybe.

The guy with the .22-250, using Bergers...he would have had that deer using a .308 or -06. No doubt about it. He's shot many deer over the years, and while he learned his lesson and no longer brings a smallbore to deer hunt, it was a hard lesson for him.

I look at it as if a guy with 20 years experience did what he did, don't you think a kid will do the same most of the time?

IMO, the smallest I would go for deer is a .243 with well constructed bullets. Keep the velocity under 2700 if you want to use cup and cores due to penetration. Where I hunt we get 1 tag a year, so I would stay away from the light gun that may not be usable in the one chance I get in any given year is suboptimal.

Guys hunting in higher density areas who see multiple deer a day, if you know yourself well enough that you WILL pass on any iffy shot for that gun, then a high velocity rapid expansion small bore bullet will do a great job if you put it in the right spot.

That is about the DUMBEST analogy I have ever heard ANYONE ever make.

You just want to and get a match going, nothing more.

The .243 is not that big a step up from a .222 Rem Mag/.223 or a 22-250.

All I am saying is to work with the child and see if they can step up to the .243.

Not all children/women or men are the same, just as not all hunting conditions and methods, continent wide are not the same, just as all white tail deer continent wide are not the same. Variations exist among humans/locations/methods and among the species depending on where they are located.

Additionally, the individual in question, may not be content just hunting whitetails, maybe they will decide they want to hunt elk!

Jumping from a .224 caliber to a .243 is one thing, jumping from a .224 to a.308 caliber is a whole lot different, especially if the person has been CONDITIONED to just shooting one of the smaller calibers.

In all honesty, I don't think a .243 is THAT much better than a .223, especially at ranges under 200 yards. If all I had was a .223, I wouldn't be looking for a .243 as an upgrade in killing power.

I have to agree. Yes, .223 has taken a lot of deer but it is not best choice by far and the .243 is not much of a step up from there. A couple of years ago I bought a .243 that I used to shoot an antelope and a deer. Both animals eventually died but they clung to life and their death was a lingering death even though they were both shot in the heart/lung area, one right through the heart.

Personally, I think a larger diameter bullet is better even if it doesn't go as fast as the .223 or .243 bullets would. Any modern .25 caliber, 6.5 mm or .270 (6.8 SPC) caliber would be a much better choice.

I mentioned earlier the possibility of my son using an AR after he was flinching somewhat severely with his .243. It is still an option and he shot the AR last saturday quite well with 62 grain soft points. However, I still like the idea of something with a little more oomph.

Last night I loaded up some 58 grain vmaxs and shot them this morning. At two grains above the minimum charge of H4895 his little remington printed a four shot group at 1.1" and impacts within an inch or so to the right of the POI for his 85 grain TSX hunting load. Recoil is minimal to say the least but still averaged 3155 fps.

Time to load up 100 or so and get to work on some milk jugs from 50-300 yards. Hopefully that will be the ticket for working through his issue and building some confidence.

quote:

In all honesty, I don't think a .243 is THAT much better than a .223, especially at ranges under 200 yards. If all I had was a .223, I wouldn't be looking for a .243 as an upgrade in killing power.

How many deer have you killed in your life?

The concept has nothing to do with what an experienced hunter can do, as many deer have been killed over the years with .22 Short/.22 Long Rifle and .22 Magnum Rimfire ammunition.

No one is arguing that deer can not be killed with the various .224 centerfire rounds, people are just expressing their PERSONAL beliefs that the .224's may not be the BEST choice in all circumstances.

quote:

Originally posted by monttrap04:
I mentioned earlier the possibility of my son using an AR after he was flinching somewhat severely with his .243. It is still an option and he shot the AR last saturday quite well with 62 grain soft points.

I sent you a PM.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting: [ . . . ]

All I am saying is to work with the child and see if they can step up to the .243. [ . . . ]

I agree. Especially if you take note that if you load a .243 with H4895, you can download it to 60% of max. http://tinyurl.com/zv55jfe This would allow a kid to become accustomed to increasingly more powerful loads incrementally.

What, precisely, is the argument against this? Other than: "I don't reload."

This is a formula I use to get a recoil factor. It is not foot pounds it is just a factor that can be used for comparison. Bullet weight plus powder charge (both in grains)times muzzle velocity (in fps) divided by 3500(constant) divided by weight of rifle in pounds. Using my data the .243 has a factor of 17.50 and a .223 has a factor of 10.05. That is a significant difference to me and to a 50 pound kid it would be very significant. And for what? the .223 is going to kill the deer if bullet was properly placed and if not Houston we have a problem---same same .243 and oh yes 300 magnum same same.(the 22-250 has a factor of 13.955 so even it is a pretty big jump from a .223. The deer gets away, you can't say a bigger gun would have worked. It is purely speculation. The one thing that can't be argued is that you don't know until you have pulled the trigger.

I used a 243 for about three years and it pains me to say that my experience with it was less than satisfactory. I really wanted to like it, but Ill never hunt mulies with that caliber again. Ive had much success with a 257 roberts though.

quote:

This is a formula I use to get a recoil factor. It is not foot pounds it is just a factor that can be used for comparison. Bullet weight plus powder charge (both in grains)times muzzle velocity (in fps) divided by 3500(constant) divided by weight of rifle in pounds. Using my data the .243 has a factor of 17.50 and a .223 has a factor of 10.05. That is a significant difference to me and to a 50 pound kid it would be very significant. And for what? the .223 is going to kill the deer if bullet was properly placed and if not Houston we have a problem---same same .243 and oh yes 300 magnum same same.(the 22-250 has a factor of 13.955 so even it is a pretty big jump from a .223. The deer gets away, you can't say a bigger gun would have worked. It is purely speculation. The one thing that can't be argued is that you don't know until you have pulled the trigger.

The whole problem with your "Formula", is that YOU do not know if the "Kid" is 8 years old/10 years old or 12 years old, or how much they weigh, and from experience, without having EVER Fathered a child, No Two "Kids" are the same, boy or girl.

I have seen big kids/even adults that had problems with anything other than a .224 caliber. On the other side of the ledger I sat and watched a 14 year old girl kill a small spike buck at 109 yards during a Youth Only season here in North Texas, the First time she had ever shot her Dad's Remington 700 in .375 H&H without any problems.

Was that deer any deader than if she had been using her .270, the gun she was used too, the gun she had moved up to from a .243, NO, it was just dead.

As far as I can tell in looking at this discussion, NO ONE is saying that any of the various .224's can not/will not kill a deer. They are simply stating that they believe there are better choices.

I have a hard time understanding why you so adamantly defend the .224's, and turn around and claim that you NORMALLY use a .243.

quote:

[ . . . ] I really wanted to like it, but Ill never hunt mulies with that caliber again. Ive had much success with a 257 roberts though.

I guess my point is that Hodgon's data suggests that, if in their manual, a cartridge (any cartridge) can can use H-4895, whatever the maximum H-4895 load for that cartridge might be, can be safely down-loaded down to 60% of maximum, why not work with that? http://tinyurl.com/zv55jfe

Why not limit the range and not the caliber?

The principle, it seems to me, is simple: if the issue is recoil, why not begin with a 60% load of H-4895 using deer-appropriate bullets for recoil-sensitive people, see if the person can tolerate it and work up to an acceptable load from there?

IMO, whatever bullet weight with whatever caliber one likes delivers "enough" (however you define "enough") for humane kills, at some (you pick) maximum range, you can use that combination of bullet weight/charge/distance to build an acceptable load for within a lesser distance.

For a purely theoretical example, if you feel a .30-30 with a 150 grain bullet is fine for 150 yards on large deer, you could build a reduced load for a .300 WM (using H-4985) that duplicates the .30-30 load at 150 yards and use it up to 150 yards without sacrificing your principles or what's necessary to deliver to kill at 450 yards . . . isn't that acceptable?

I mean, if 1200 lbs energy and (whatever) penetration is good at 450 yards (and closer), why would it not be good for 150 yards (and closer)?

Similarly, if you feel a full load 95 grain .243 bullet (or any .257 bullet in any caliber) is fine for mule deer at 300 yards, why wouldn't the energy/penetration/etc. of that same bullet be fine for 150 yards, if that's what your reduced load . . . the one that the recoil sensitive shooter could tolerate and shoot well within 150 yards . . . be fine?

Crazyhorse--When my grandson was about 7 we started him off with .222 and about age 9 he started shooting .243. The reason for the switch was not that he needed a bigger gun, it was that both his dad and I were using .243 and he would use our gun. The .222 and the .223 both served him well, but the switch was really just for practical reasons. When he was 16 I gave him a .308, again this was not for need of a bigger cal, it was practical. I had a .308 I thought he would like. I was right. It is a Win 88 (pre 64 1957 to be exact) I had a Pachmayr decellerator recoil pad on it, a Leupold 2x- 7x compact scope, had an extra magazine with a leather pouch that fit on the sling. (What was there to not like about that rig?). He has taken a bunch of deer with it. Then there came a time that I made a trade for a Remington 600 in .222 and I already had one just like it. When I traded, I knew I'd be giving it to my grandson. He got it and shot a spike buck with it for old times sake, even though he had the .308. My reason for using the .243 is pretty much the same. I was using the .243 before I saw how effective the .222's and .223 were so I stuck with the .243 for practical reasons, but do plan on using my .223 on my next deer if I decide to shoot another deer. BTW I was using a 30-06 before the .243 and switched as my son in law was using a .243 and if we both used same, not likely one or the other would not have ammo. I ran across an absolute steal on the .243 and bought it. Again practical reason--nothing to do with performance. Not a knock on the 30-06, but the .243 has performed as well as the 30-06 could. I defend the use of .224's because I have seen them work so many times. I bet if truth were known, many that put them down have zero experience with it, they are not speaking from experience, but from an opinion with no practical basis. I can honestly say I have passed on a whole lot of shots. Not one time I can think of that I would have tried the shot had I had a bigger gun.
BTW my formula gives a comparison regardless of who is doing the shooting. For example how does a .308 compare to a .270? Lots of variables there. Use the load data you will be using and the weight of the rifle and you can make a comparison.

quote:

Originally posted by carpetman1:
This is a formula I use to get a recoil factor. It is not foot pounds it is just a factor that can be used for comparison. Bullet weight plus powder charge (both in grains)times muzzle velocity (in fps) divided by 3500(constant) divided by weight of rifle in pounds. Using my data the .243 has a factor of 17.50 and a .223 has a factor of 10.05. That is a significant difference to me and to a 50 pound kid it would be very significant. And for what? the .223 is going to kill the deer if bullet was properly placed and if not Houston we have a problem---same same .243 and oh yes 300 magnum same same.(the 22-250 has a factor of 13.955 so even it is a pretty big jump from a .223. The deer gets away, you can't say a bigger gun would have worked. It is purely speculation. The one thing that can't be argued is that you don't know until you have pulled the trigger.

In the cases I quoted we did find the deer, just not in time to do anything with them.

The 10 pointer I was interested enough to cut it open and see. If it had been shot with a .308 the bullet track would have gone into the heart/lung area. This was a rare case where a bigger gun would have had a practical diffeerence. You can argue that we found it dead so what is the difference, but given we found it after the season was over, it didn't count for his deer.

I will grant you that a high velocity round with a frangible bullet, when it is in the right place is much more dramatic than a larger controlled expansion bullet, but I guess I don't hang around with good enough shots or something.

Personally, I have seen too many horror stories with .22 centerfires to think they are a good choice for a deer gun. You asked what experiences I had and I told you. All of the above were dead deer, just not fast enough in my opinion.

I will say that putting a suppressor on a .308 makes it recoil in my experience more like a .22 rimfire than anything else. If I was going to teach a kid to deer hunt, that would be what I taught him on- but legally I would have to be with him in the stand for him to have the suppressor.

The .243 is not my idea of an ideal deer cartridge, but its my bottom line. (along with a .300 blackout.) 7.62 x 39 or 6.8SPC are a bit better yet. I like penetration depth, frontal area, wound cavity size, and velocity in that order. The .223 is lacking in 3 of the 4 in my opinion.

As to recoil tolerance, that is very individual, but I will have to say I have never seen anyone who could not learn to handle a .308 with some modifications (like a heavy gun and a muzzle break/suppressor) given acceptable stock dimensions and a scope with enough eye relief that they didn't give themselves a good case of Kaibab eye every time they shot from prone.

CRButler--Are you saying he missed by .084? Bummer. That is some mighty fine autopsy work you did.

quote:

Originally posted by carpetman1:
CRButler--Are you saying he missed by .084? Bummer. That is some mighty fine autopsy work you did.

You are obtuse. You are so convinced that a small bore is the answer because it has worked for you so far.

It was a hard quartering shot from the left side. He needed about 6-8" more straight line penetration to get into the chest. The stomach was jelly when we found it, but the heart and lungs were fine.

Yes, if he had walked away from the shot, no issues.

Yes if he is as good a shot as you portray yourself to be, there are no issues.

Unfortunately, my experience is inexperienced hunters do take suboptimal shots, they don't hold as well as one could hope and they don't have the field judgement to know a miss from a bad shot sometimes.

Personally I wouldn't fixate on the .243 when a 6mmBR can do the same job (arguably better) with less recoil

I believe that you must always "use enough gun" and that if you respect the animal you must use expensive ammunition. My personal minimum for rabbit is therefore the 458 Lott though I'd admit a 460 Weatherby would be better. If you make a head shot they hardly ever get away and you usually don't even need a blood trail. It's not that much of a step up from a 243 and anyone who isn't a wimp should be able to handle it.

quote:

Originally posted by Grumulkin:


I believe that you must always "use enough gun" and that if you respect the animal you must use expensive ammunition. My personal minimum for rabbit is therefore the 458 Lott though I'd admit a 460 Weatherby would be better. If you make a head shot they hardly ever get away and you usually don't even need a blood trail. It's not that much of a step up from a 243 and anyone who isn't a wimp should be able to handle it.

Very true

Carpetman, Dude what is it that you do not understand that some folks simply Do Not agree with you line of thought concerning the best caliber to start a child/youth/inexperienced hunter out with.

You have had your experiences, no one is disputing that. The rest of us have had ours, and You ARE disputing those experiences.

You seem to believe that ALL kids/youths/children are carbon copies of each other, They Aren't.

You seem to believe that All White tail deer are the same, and they are All hunted under the exact same conditions.

Yet you openly admit that you NORMALLY hunt with a .243. No one is disputing the FACT that millions of deer have been killed over the decades with all the various .224 chamberings from .22 Short RimFire on up. We all know that, we all know it has been done, can be done and will continue to be done, That Is Not The Issue except in YOUR mind.

Just to refresh YOUR and everyone else's memory, PLEASE pay close attention to the Last two sentences from the OP.

quote:

Rather, what is smallest chambering that you would feel comfortable taking deer hunting?

One more thing, please don't turn this into a pissing match on how the .223 is not suitable for deer sized game.

quote:

quote: Rather, what is smallest chambering that you would feel comfortable taking deer hunting?
One more thing, please don't turn this into a pissing match on how the .223 is not suitable for deer sized game.

I don't think it's Carpetman that is turning this into the pissing match, he has stated his answer and it is .223, accept it guys, if you don't agree then that's your opinion.
I think no matter what rifle you shoot care should be taken with your shots when hunting game animals. Just because you are toting your 7 mag or 300 whizzum does not mean that a deer "sighting" is a shot at a deer. That is poor judgement and poor sportsmanship. I pick my shots carefully on game animals no matter what cartridge I am hunting with and I instruct my kids the same.
Many shooters and kids included can benefit by using .223's or other soft recoiling (as well as limited muzzle blast) for hunting. It gives them the opportunity to be a better shot and bullet placement trumps caliber every time.
believe it or don't but .224" caliber bullets kill deer dead. I've seen it way too many times for it to be a fluke.
If you are in the bigger is better camp then that's fine but don't deride people that first hand have seen the ability of the .224's to kill deer sized animals cleanly and repeatedly.

crbutler--Where did I say I was a good shot? I said if it's iffy I pass. Take good shots only and you don't have to be a precision shooter--just good enough to hit a basketball would cover it. In your example a guy takes an iffy shot and you blame the cal. You SPECULATE that a bigger gun would have done the job. Pure speculation, can't re-do and find out. But that thought that a bigger gun would have worked does sell a lot of magnums. Inexperienced take suboptimal shots and you blame the cal? Oh I forgot a bigger gun will make up for those iffy shots.
Crazyhorse--I don't dispute others choices. I don't say .224 is the only choice. I do defend the .224 when arguments against it are presented that are false. (bigger gun would have made up for a bad shot as an example). Many of these false claims are made by folks that actually have zero experience with the issue. All children created equal? Where did I imply that? Last year my great nephew wanted to hunt, but when we put a rifle in his hand to practice, he was obviously still a year or so away. I have 5 year old twin great grandsons. One is chomping at the bits (still too small) the other may never have a desire to hunt. I hunt wit a .243, so what? I'm not a youth. (I do have to show my ID every time I buy a drink--I wish)

Snellstrom, you are making the EXACT same arguments as Carpetman.

quote:

I think no matter what rifle you shoot care should be taken with your shots when hunting game animals. Just because you are toting your 7 mag or 300 whizzum does not mean that a deer "sighting" is a shot at a deer. That is poor judgement and poor sportsmanship. I pick my shots carefully on game animals no matter what cartridge I am hunting with and I instruct my kids the same. Many shooters and kids included can benefit by using .223's or other soft recoiling (as well as limited muzzle blast) for hunting. It gives them the opportunity to be a better shot and bullet placement trumps caliber every time. believe it or don't but .224" caliber bullets kill deer dead. I've seen it way too many times for it to be a fluke. If you are in the bigger is better camp then that's fine but don't deride people that first hand have seen the ability of the .224's to kill deer sized animals cleanly and repeatedly.

Just for the record, I have killed a deer with one shot from a .22 Hornet, GraveYard dead where it stood, never took a step. That is not the point. This is not an Election, votes are not being cast/counted or winners announced.

The OP clearly and concisely asked: what is smallest chambering that you would feel comfortable taking deer hunting?

Every one of us that has ever hunted with or around others have seen bad shots made, whether it was lack of experience on the shooters part, a poorly placed shot for whatever reason, bad bullet selection. But because of those experiences/observations we form opinions.

Sometimes those opinions are based on One Single Incident, sometimes they are based on multiple events, but in the end, OPINIONS is all they are, nothing more.

Personal preference also comes into play. I have seen a few deer killed with one shot from .222's/.222 Rem Mag. and .223's. Personally I think something a little bigger, would be a better choice and were I the one doing the shooting I would be carrying something bigger, but that is not the real premise of the original question in the original post.

Crazyhorse---Snellstrom is making exact same argument as me? This place must be blessed to have not one but two geniuses.