I also am a firm beliver in the HOrnday 60 gr. HP or the soft point, both work in my 222,223 and even the 22-250. Like you I have used a goodly number of 22 bullets, including the premiums, and the HOrnady always wins.

In my years of hunting, guiding and being in the hunting business, I would venture to say most all the animals Ive seen wounded were wounded by bad judgement, not caliber..Ive seen more deer wounded by larger calibers than smaller calibers btw, but Ive seen more animals hunted with larger calibers so that's probably a push..dunno??

Little calibers, shoot shorter ranges, know your shooting capability, discipline yourself not to take iffy shots,and you will be successful 99.9% of the time...Anyone can wound an animal and will if they hunt enough, it just happens with any caliber...but if one wounds more than on a very rare occasion, its time to look within ones self, and take up another sport.

Well said Ray.

A bad hit from a 30/06 with a premium bullet is just as ineffective as a bad hit from a .223 with a premium bullet.

.223 or similar is a reasonable bottom end where legal and in many cases the best choice for accurate shot placement.

I had a 10 year damage control contract with a Vineyard management company in NY to kill deer. I shot them with everything from .22 LR - 12 bore rifle. All worked and all failed. When they failed it was my fault. At an average of 350 deer per year, I was able to gather some solid facts about what works and what doesn't.
Most of the deer lost or needing to be tracked and finished were shot with bigger guns and less than perfect shot placement.
Shots ranged from 10-200 yds
Statistically the fewest deer lost were with the .223

quote:

Originally posted by TREE 'EM:
A bad hit from a 30/06 with a premium bullet is just as ineffective as a bad hit from a .223 with a premium bullet.

I am fully in the camp with those who feel the 223 Remington is adequate for deer hunting but a bad hit from a 30/06 with a premium bullet or otherwise is not just as ineffective as a bad hit from a 223 with a premium bullet.

I would define a bad hit as one that impacted a body part not usually targeted for a quick kill like a leg or abdomen. A higher velocity heavier bullet is more likely to do enough damage to kill fast even if the hit isn't in the best place.



Notice the wound through the rear legs of this Klipspringer. It was about 180 yards away on the top of a mountain. I was told that it started to jump off a rock just as I shot with a 460 S&W Magnum handgun. I suspect the recovery could have been problematic with the same shot in a lesser caliber.

I agree with TREE'EM. We have culled enough aoudad (couple hundred) and whitetail does to know that bad hits area bad hits, regardless of caliber, and good hits WITH ADEQUATE BULLETS, kill pretty quickly. I could not disagree more with the comment (nothing personal) that "a higher velocity heavier bullet is more likely to do enough damage to kill fast even if the hit isn't in the best place" mentality. My personal experience just doesn't support that claim.

Those that promote the theory that a bigger gun minimizes a bad hit are probably the reason magnums are so popular. In my books, a .300 magnum doesn't do a thing a .30-06 wont do except kick harder and use about half again as much powder. Oh the deer might die 1/2 micro second faster as the bullet arrived that much quicker. Another concept to consider is that badly hit animals can usually travel, often times a long distance and not be found. If hit with a smaller cal and this happens, do they have a better chance of surviving?

quote:

Originally posted by carpetman1:
Another concept to consider is that badly hit animals can usually travel, often times a long distance and not be found. If hit with a smaller cal and this happens, do they have a better chance of surviving?

A gut shot deer is going to die eventually from its wonund whether it's with a small rifle, a big rifle, or Broadhead.

quote:

Originally posted by carpetman1:
Those that promote the theory that a bigger gun minimizes a bad hit are probably the reason magnums are so popular. In my books, a .300 magnum doesn't do a thing a .30-06 wont do except kick harder and use about half again as much powder. Oh the deer might die 1/2 micro second faster as the bullet arrived that much quicker. Another concept to consider is that badly hit animals can usually travel, often times a long distance and not be found. If hit with a smaller cal and this happens, do they have a better chance of surviving?

I agree. I can't shoot far enough accurately for the 300 Win Mag to make a difference over the 308. I shoot moderate velocity rounds that are efficient. It takes a lot of powder and recoil for that extra 300-400 fps.

quote:

A gut shot deer is going to die eventually from its wound whether it's with a small rifle, a big rifle, or Broadhead.

That is not entirely true. Unless the bullets expands completely, or hits the liver or kidneys, deer can and do survive gut shots, whether made with a rifle of any caliber or a broadhead.

In fact on a standing whitetail, there is a space between the lungs and spine, that a bullet or arrow can pass thru and the animal usually lives.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

In fact on a standing whitetail, there is a space between the lungs and spine, that a bullet or arrow can pass thru and the animal usually lives.

He said gut shot, not a shot in "no mans land" that you described. You're right though....I've had 300lb aoudad rams get hit there with a 300 WBY and drop like a rock, lay there 3-4 minutes, then run off never to be seen again. My experience is that gut shot deer will die eventually, but it may take a few days.

Everyone has had their own experiences!

I can't belive the life of this thread!!!

About gut-shot animals surviving. If the "gut" (referring to that part of the digestive tract in the abdomen, specifically the stomach or large or small intestine) is compromised, it's hard for me to imagine any animal surviving.

It's hard for me to believe that the spillage of gut contents into the abdominal cavity would not cause a massive peritonitis that would inevitably cause death, perhaps slowly and painfully.

If the abdominal cavity were pierced by a projectile without the gut being opened, I think there would still be the possibility of peritonitis (due to contaminated foreign bodies being introduced into the cavity) though that probability would not be as high as were the gut itself compromised.

bartsche---for the most part this thread was shot with a totally inadequate .223. Had it been shot with a magnum would have died long time ago.

this thread has about run its course in that we are coming up with this can happen and this can happen..These things are instances that in many cases can not be helped, they are just going to happen, such as a big rifle with a poor hit is better than a small rifle with a poor hit, this is true in some cases and not true in others..Many such instances crop up in these campfire conversations, and they all make a point..but they are not correct in every case or visa versa.

Some will profess the smaller caliber is effective if used properly, I am one of those, others refuse to believe that, and I congratulate them for their approach, they are not necessarily wrong, just have a different opinnion..Some opinnions are based on experience and others are stated based on some article they read in a magazine or just assumed on their own..but they are legitimate opinnions for the most part..Each of us make our decision as to what we believe or surmise..that will never change. Sorta like free will.

As to gut shot animals surviving, I have never known of it..they cannot heal if the guts or stomach is perforated..They die of pertinitus, excuse my spelling, or they dehydrate and starve to death. I have seen lung shot animals survive a double lung shot on two occasions where in the bullet path basically appeared to form 3 lungs out 2 from a double lung shot. One on a cape buffalo the other, less severe but there however on a large bull elk..

Wow...this topic always brings out some good posts. I have taken quite a few whitetails with 22 cals, mostly 222,223,224 WBY,22-250,22-6mm. I am a bore guy, but cannot doubt the effectiveness of a 22 caliber in the right place. My first deer was taken with a 222 in a Sako...nice little gun my dad carried in his truck to shoot coyotes, it worked great on a broken horn little buck at 40 yards, my brother and I shot quite a few does under permit with a 224 WBY, and a 22-6mm...both of these guns are tackdrivers, and we mostly used the 60 grain nosler partition for most of the shots, but also used some 65 grain SGK, and also a few 80 grain A max out of the 22-6mm. Most of the shots were neck shots, but a few were on or behind the shoulder. I never, had to go over 40 yards to find one. The only deer I can remember that we had problems was a headshot from a 223 rem...poor bullet placement.

Now on the other hand, our loaner guns on the farm are Styer pro hunters in 260. We shoot 120s and they do a great job.i will also say if I had to go hunt deer tomorrow, I would take a 243 rem, 260 rem, 257 WBY, 25-06,ect before I would any of the 22 I talked about above, but to say a 22 cal is not adequate, is not right either...one of the most dramatic shots I have ever seen, was out of the little Encore 224 WBY and 60 grain NP...dropped so fast I didn't see it in my scope....I think he grazed for 30 min after he was dead...

Ed

quote:

Wow...this topic always brings out some good posts. I have taken quite a few whitetails with 22 cals, mostly 222,223,224 WBY,22-250,22-6mm. I am a bore guy, but cannot doubt the effectiveness of a 22 caliber in the right place. My first deer was taken with a 222 in a Sako...nice little gun my dad carried in his truck to shoot coyotes, it worked great on a broken horn little buck at 40 yards, my brother and I shot quite a few does under permit with a 224 WBY, and a 22-6mm...both of these guns are tackdrivers, and we mostly used the 60 grain nosler partition for most of the shots, but also used some 65 grain SGK, and also a few 80 grain A max out of the 22-6mm. Most of the shots were neck shots, but a few were on or behind the shoulder. I never, had to go over 40 yards to find one. The only deer I can remember that we had problems was a headshot from a 223 rem...poor bullet placement.

Now on the other hand, our loaner guns on the farm are Styer pro hunters in 260. We shoot 120s and they do a great job.i will also say if I had to go hunt deer tomorrow, I would take a 243 rem, 260 rem, 257 WBY, 25-06,ect before I would any of the 22 I talked about above, but to say a 22 cal is not adequate, is not right either...one of the most dramatic shots I have ever seen, was out of the little Encore 224 WBY and 60 grain NP...dropped so fast I didn't see it in my scope....I think he grazed for 30 min after he was dead...

The various .224's can and do kill a lot of deer annually and have done so for years.

The one point I always find interesting however in these type discussions, when the discussion turns to hunts when actual Trophy Bucks are a possibility, the majority of the .224 supporters, readily admit that they prefer something a little larger, although were conditions right they would use a .224.

I have seen plenty of deer killed with one shot, DRT, with .22 Hornets/.222-.223, the various .224's. It is done annually on thousands of deer, nation wide.

I just find it odd, that those so adamant concerning the use of the .224's, openly admit that if an actual Trophy Buck is a possibility, they prefer a larger caliber.

It's amazing that in VA, 223's are not allowed for deer. But it's OK in all the surrounding states.

Moral of the story: Once they cross the border, deer suddenly become tough SOB's.

quote:

Originally posted by carpetman1:
bartsche---for the most part this thread was shot with a totally inadequate .223. Had it been shot with a magnum would have died long time ago.

Cman,
Don't you find this thread to be just the continuance of 47 other theards echoing the Manifisence of the .223? roger

Yes this thread has the same happy ending as the 47 other threads like it. I keep seeing the same theme.
There are people who have actual and first hand experience with .224 bullet kills on large numbers of deer, then there are those that don't "approve" of .224 bullets on deer so they gather up stories of poor shooting and blame it on the smallish caliber.
Same info over and over.

Yes bartsche--pretty much the same stream with many of the same fish and a few new ones.(I'm an old fish on these threads) Snellstrom's last post nailed it.

Crazyhorse, whether shooting a spike, doe or trophy, if the shot isn't right I pass. If the shot is right, I don't see that a large rack, or a very large rack would make an animal bullet proof. Probably a little bigger, but without a liver, lung or heart, it will die very soon.

quote:

Crazyhorse, whether shooting a spike, doe or trophy, if the shot isn't right I pass. If the shot is right, I don't see that a large rack, or a very large rack would make an animal bullet proof. Probably a little bigger, but without a liver, lung or heart, it will die very soon.

You really don't get it do you. Look at your response, or I can pick it apart for you, that might save time.

quote:

if the shot isn't right I pass.

That can be and is said by everyone that has EXPERIENCE, regardless of the caliber used.

Having EXPERIENCE as to when to shoot and when to pass, is a major part of the equation. An EXPERIENCED hunter KNOWS when to not shoot! An INEXPERIENCED hunter does not have that knowledge.

Regardless of the caliber, an inexperienced hunter can/will/does make bad shots.

Carpetman. you are not Everyman, and in discussions on other sites, a repeated concept is that if a person is going out and hunting in a situation where actual trophy buck are shot annually, people openly admit to carrying a larger caliber than when hunting does.

Crazyhorse, I get it, inexperienced hunters should be trophy hunting. In past discussions of this subject, you ALWAYS bring it up about needing bigger for a trophy animal and that doesn't compute with me.

quote:

Crazyhorse, I get it, inexperienced hunters should be trophy hunting. In past discussions of this subject, you ALWAYS bring it up about needing bigger for a trophy animal and that doesn't compute with me.

You have not got ANYTHING, and you never will. I Do Not FUCKING recommend any of the calibers I normally use to anyone.

Your comments might mean something if I did, but all I am saying that in MY PERSONAL opinion, which was the ORIGINAL premise of this discussion(????), I think a .243 is a better choice, than one of the .224's.

That is not that big a step up, and you OPENLY claim that you normally use a .243.

The difference I SEE between me and you, is that YOU honestly believe kids should be started with a .224 due to possible "Recoil Sensitivity", I believe in letting the kid decide what they can tolerate.

quote:

The difference I SEE between me and you, is that YOU honestly believe kids should be started with a .224 due to possible "Recoil Sensitivity", I believe in letting the kid decide what they can tolerate. If you're so irritated, have you considered leaving?

Crazy you can't seem to let this die you must get the last word huh? You must be thinking that the last word means you are right.
Look at your above quote and then go back and look the OP said his daughter was recoil sensitive, no shit dumbass that's what this thread is all about recoil sensitive kids. You will never face the facts that many of us have brought up and given some pretty irrefutable experiences but you refuse to listen, carry on Crazy and come back with yet another inane argument "not" proving your point if you even have one, you just love to argue until you get the last word in, I've seen it enough times.

Crazyhorse--go back a few posts and read what you said. " Majority of .224 supporters prefer something bigger for trophy animals." "I find it odd that those that are so adamant concerning the use of .224's openly admit that if an actual trophy buck is a possibility they prefer a larger caliber. Where did I say anything about the cal Crazyhorse uses? When is it known if a trophy buck might show up? There is always that possibility---and they are hunting with a .224, do they run home real fast and switch guns? Certainly the kid can decide what they are comfortable with. We are talking young kids here. In your opinion, a .243 is a better choice and not that big a step up. From what I've seen, again shot placed right, the .223 is every bit as effective and there is a pretty big difference in recoil between the two. Yes I explained to you that I use a .243 for practical reasons not for performance difference.

Dude, you are a waste of space, many folks have openly stated on this site that if they were doing a hunt where an actual Trophy Buck was a possibility, they would be using something larger than a .224.

You have openly admitted on here that YOU normally use a .243. If you had the actual ability to pay attention, you would be dangerous. How many times does anyone have to stoke your ego, and state that the various .224's will and do kill deer in North America annually?

quote:

After coming to the range with me throughout the summer, I am playing with idea of buying my daughter her first center-fire rifle. She loves to shoot her 10/22 and my wife's 223, and to the amazement of everyone around, my 338 edge (very light recoil). Her issue is recoil. I've noticed that her accuracy really tapers off with anything more then that 223. This becomes an issue when deciding on what to get her. I want her to shoot enough to become proficient, but excess recoil might discourage that. Which brings me to the whole point of this thread. What is the smallest cartrige that you would use for deer? Let me remind everyone
by saying that this is not a thread on the theoretical minimum for deer, we all know that a 22LR will do the job. Rather, what is smallest chambering that you would feel comfortable taking deer hunting?

What is there about the OP you do not comprehend?

You harp the virtues of the .224's on one hand, yet admit that you NORMALLY use a .243. Why do you have a problem with your own words. How many times do people have to state that while the .224's, will/can and DO kill thousands of white tails ANNUALLY, PERSONALLY< they prefer something different.

What do you find wrong with Freedom Of Choice??????

Crazyhorse--another fine display of your incomprehensive reading ability. BTW change that many folks to crazyhorse has said repeatedly that people will use something bigger when an actual trophy buck is a possibility. Tell us more about how to know when it is a possibility and when it's not so we know when to carry a bigger gun.

Blah, Blah, Blah. Same broken record BS you put out every time.

You want people to kneel at the altar of the mighty .224's.

How about you show everyone where I have ever said the various .224's will not kill deer, can you do that? No you can't and you know you can't.

The question as originally asked, concerned each individual's Personal Beliefs/Experiences in regards to the Smallest Caliber, THEY are comfortable hunting deer with, Not just ME and Not just YOU.

I PERSONALLY, am not comfortable using a .224 for deer, and I have killed a deer with a .22 Hornet and gutted and skinned out quite a few deer that clients have killed with .222's/.223's and .22-250's.

Crazyhorse--You have already said you don't like .243, .270, 30-06. You do like .257 Roberts, so I guess that's your smallest. I stated I have not tried nor seen a .204 Ruger used on a deer, but I suspect it would do so I would try it.

Crazy horse,
Absolutly, you made a good point, although Im a fan of the 222, 223 and 6x45 for use on deer, when I use them I don't shoot beyond 200 yards and that's just been on three occasions, best I recall, and Ive had to watch some mighty big bucks walk off unscathed..

When Im trophy hunting Mule Deer I will have at least a 250 Savage but more likely my 300 H&H. When Im trophy hunting Whitetail in the Texas Senderos, again the 300 H&H or at least an 06...

The 22s have their place, and that's within 150 yards for an average, careful bullet placement, and shoot only under good conditions, not a lot of room for error with them that you have with say a .270..

quote:

Crazyhorseconsulting one of us

posted 09 August 2016 20:28

I am going to go along with the .243 and 100 grain bullets. I personally don't like the .243, but it has a proven track record.

Carpetman, what is there about the above quote that you simply cannot comprehend????

Like everyone else, there are certain cartridges I personally do not like for my OWN use, that is merely Personal Preference, what do you have against people exercising their right of Personal Preference in deciding what caliber of cartridge they choose to hunt with?

The only point I have been trying to make, is that the OP concerned individuals Personal Preferences in regards to the smallest caliber a person is comfortable using on deer.

quote:

What is the smallest cartridge that you would use for deer?

Let me remind everyone by saying that this is not a thread on the theoretical minimum for deer, we all know that a 22LR will do the job.

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 think that the majority of people on here will agree that the various .224's, including, as you mentioned the .22LR can/have and will kill deer.

That was never meant to be a part of the discussion. The discussion was started merely to get an idea of the Personal Preferences of Individual hunters on what the smallest caliber was that "They" felt comfortable using to hunt deer with.

quote:

I stated I have not tried nor seen a .204 Ruger used on a deer, but I suspect it would do so I would try it.

I have done it from 252 yards! But it was a heavy bullet; all 45 grains of it. An yes, it was legal.

Shooting air rifles, I've used .177 pellets and .22 cal. Have also used 5mm (20 cal) and they are my favorite. I consider them the best of both between the .177's and .22's. For that reason, I had thought a .20 cal rifle would be neat. I thought this before the .204 Ruger ever came out. I like the CZ rifle, the weight of it and all, except the backwards safety. The other choices for .204 Ruger seem atleast a pound heavier. So I don't have a .204 Ruger, but think I'd like it. Thanks for posting the picture Grumulkin, about what I expected.

Speaking of air rifles; I know of two cases of them being used on deer. In both instances guys were trying to protect their landscaping and wanted to scare rather than kill the deer.

In one, after the deer's demise, the guy was asking around to find out if anyone could use the meat. I don't know how far the deer went, where the shot hit or other details.

In the other case, a guy shot the deer with a .177 caliber air rifle. The pellet went up a nostril and dropped the deer in its tracks. I was told it was loaded and transported to a far away location to be disposed of by wild fauna.

338 Win mag with 210gr Nosler partitions --


Hasn't failed yet---


That said---i have lost count of the whitetail i have seen killed with a 22WM. My Ex-wife was a huge fan of a 22-250 for elk.


of course this was all with a spotlight.

Ok, I'll change my minimum to an air rifle--If I have Crazyhorse backing me up with his .375 H&H.