Looking at the bullet I recovered from my last deer I shot with a 223 WSSM and a 55 TTSX.

The bullet next to it is a 165 TSX shot from a 308 winchester.

Here is my thought I was having. Looking at the size of the bullets one is 1/3 the size of the other.

Why is there so much opposition to using the smaller one on deer?

BTW the 308 was recovered from an Alaska Moose about the size of five deer together.

quote:

Originally posted by RMiller:
Looking at the bullet I recovered from my last deer I shot with a 223 WSSM and a 55 TTSX.

The bullet next to it is a 165 TSX shot from a 308 winchester.

Here is my thought I was having. Looking at the size of the bullets one is 1/3 the size of the other.

Why is there so much opposition to using the smaller one on deer?

BTW the 308 was recovered from an Alaska Moose about the size of five deer together.

Pretty pictures.

You know the answer to your question, of course.
It's the marginal shots that make the difference. When an animal turns at the break of the trigger, or the wind gusts over 200 yards, or a bone is clipped on a funny angle, then the heavier, wider bullet, with a better BC has the advantage.

Much of the "resistance" comes from people seeing a deer shot with a 22 centerfire using a bullet that was intended for use on much smaller animals. Thin jacketed bullets that are only meant to penetrate 1-2" and then self destruct can result in spectacular kills and failures- and sadly it is the failures that are remembered. That said, poor shot placement results in a wounded animal no matter how big the cartridge. The 22-250 is used for deer all over ND. Some hunters use it with no issues and others wound more deer than they kill. Having shot a few deer with a 22cf, I prefer to use a larger diameter bullet.

My personal thoughts on 22 cal. bullets is that you really don't need a barnes, or nosler even though I have them both, a soft point hornady seems to do more internal damage because of it expanding more. This takes out more of the vitals. The nosler partition and barnes tsx definetly will penetrate more anad usually leave exit holes. But I tend to stay away from the more explosive vmax and ballistic tips for deer, not saying they want kill but if you hit the should blade things could go wrong quickly.

RMiller--I have only recovered two .22 cal bullets from two deer. (All the rest were complete pass throughs) These two were both just under the skin on the off side, thus full penetration was obtained. Both were a base that looked about like the picture you posted. Both were Winchester bulk packed bullet that started out at 55 grain and the recovered bases weighed 40 grains each. Some "experts" say this is a varmint bullet and will shatter on the skin. Hammer2506--my great nephew did hit one in the shoulders and got complete pass through and deer dropped dead in tracks.

Why not try it with a .17 of some sort?

Using the logic that a 55 grain bullet is way too small for deer why is a 500 grain bullet not considered way too small for moose? They weigh ten times more than a deer.

quote:

Originally posted by RMiller:
Using the logic that a 55 grain bullet is way too small for deer why is a 500 grain bullet not considered way too small for moose? They weigh ten times more than a deer.

How dare you bring logic to this discussion (sarcasm)!

This smells like another 223 on deer thread

quote:

It isn't energy that kills, its holes.

Try making holes without energy.

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:

quote:

It isn't energy that kills, its holes.

Try making holes without energy.

Arrows only have a fraction of the energy of centerfire bullets and they seem to kill deer fine.

arrows make a 1 to 1-1/2 cutting bleeding hole[s] in an animal.

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:
Why not try it with a .17 of some sort?

1) 17 bullets are half the mass of .22 bullets. These .22 cal bullets penetrate like crazy on a deer. I was very surprised to find this bullet. I am confident in using these bullets on deer and think they are great for Antelope. Personally I dont have any desire to use a smaller caliber for deer hunting.

2) 17 bullets dont come in Monometal style.

3) There is no try, do or do not. Couldnt help it.

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:

quote:

It isn't energy that kills, its holes.

Try making holes without energy.

Yes I realize it takes energy to get the bullet from this side of the critter to the other side of the critter. I think most people realize I am refering to foot pounds of energy.

yo dudes, com'on.
Cliches won't answer the question.

Do you want to hunt with a .224" bullet? Your call. There are some strong bullets out there.

Will it kill? Yes.

Reliably? Depends on the size of the animal, the structural integrity of the expansion of the bullet, the accuracy of the delivery mechanism, the restraint of the hunter, and the impact energy/momentum.

Are there better diameters and bullets than any .224" combo on the market? Yes. Absolutely.

Anecdote:
Long ago I used to limit my son to animals under 175 lbs with a .222 (.224"). One day he begged to take an 'easy' neckshot on a waterbuck. I let him. The waterbuck ran away wounded, never to be seen again.
Previously to that, I had once shot a cob in the back lungs with the .222 and we recovered it after a 4-mile tracking.

After the waterbuck incident, we limited my son to game 100 lb or less. He immediately decided to graduate to a pre-64 270 with a solid buttplate and was rewarded with many DRT animals of cob, hartebeest, and warthog size. We sold the .222. Later, when a teenager, he decided that a 338 would be better than a 270 and he has never looked back, though we still think of the 270 as a great rifle up to hartebeest size and capable of more. But even hartebeest are better anchored by the likes of the 338, 375, and 416. The larger bullets are effective, without any question, and my son had watched and compared many animals shot with the 270 and the 338 and 375.

Now that is just our personal experience, but it should be weighed before someone takes a marginal shot on a deer with a .223. And even an 'easy' shot can go sour with an animal turning as the trigger breaks, with slight deflection from a hidden branch, or an unexpected puff of wind, expecially at ranges over 150 yards. Larger calibre convert some of those unforseen hunting experiences into wound channels that drop the animals within 400-yard runs. Did I say 400 yards? Yes. I once had a hartebeest run 400 yards after taking a 270 softpoint through the bottom half of its heart. First blood spore was after 375 yards. Yes, it was face on and didn't seem to bleed until the chest cavity filled with blood.

quote:

Reliably? Depends on the size of the animal

This is what I was getting at. Shooting a moose with a 308 is at least twice as marginal as using a .223 on a deer. Should be more like quadruple. It should be right there with using a .17 on deer. But no one thinks twice about a 308 on moose except for the guys that like thier 338's.

quote:

Originally posted by RMiller:

quote:

Reliably? Depends on the size of the animal

This is what I was getting at. Shooting a moose with a 308 is at least twice as marginal as using a .223 on a deer. Should be more like quadruple. It should be right there with using a .17 on deer. But no one thinks twice about a 308 on moose except for the guys that like thier 338's.

You are not comparing the right items.
The name of the game is guaranteed penetration, size of hole, and trauma. Basically, one wants a bullet that will have a good chance of exiting the broadside chest cavity and will provide some trauma along the way. Though I've never hunted moose and only know African game, I naturally side with those that would choose a 338WM over the 308Win for moose, though I'm aware that a 270 will kill them dead.

There is a basic fact of physics that affects projectiles that get smaller in diameter. The diameter goes down linearly, the cross-section area goes down by square, and the weight goes down by a cube if shapes are kept proportional. This can be demonstrated quite nicely by studying a bullet chart of sectional densities and ballistic coefficients. Notice what happens to bullets as the calibre gets smaller. Sectional densities start to drop down to .200 and then below. The corresponding BC's for spitzer bullets drop from the .400's to .300's to .200's and then into the .100's. These can be further modified if one calculates the sectional density of a deformed, mushroomed bullet. In order to maintain a sectional density around .2 to .25 a bullet must start to stretch longer and longer as one approaches 22 calibre. That requires a faster and faster twist. If you are using traditional lead technology, then you probably want a strong bullet in the 75-85 grain range for a reliable .224" deer bullet. Technology like CEB 'non-con' will allow a lighter bullet because of the resulting 'solid core', but it, too, needs a fast twist. Lesser bullets will kill some of the time, maybe most of the time, but NOT with the reliability of the larger bullets.

BTW, the proportionality argument also leads to admiring a round like the 50BMG. It looks like a grown up 270 and would be fantastic buffalo medicine if only a 10 lb rifle could be made that would allow a shooter to keep a shoulder intact and ears functional. Since I can't do that, I carry a 416Rigby loaded to 270 trajectories and heavier SDs. And I get a bruised shoulder every year when sighting or adjusting loads/scopes after a lay off of several months. But it feels sweet.

No, I am just stirring the pot....

Saying that, I do think I am right.

I also think you are right as well.

I just dont like the way some unexperienced folks trash the .22 centerfires on deer when I know from experience that the .22 centerfire does more damage to a deer than many larger calibers do on larger game.

The right equation in all of this is to use the right bullet. Not neccessarily a TSX style but that is the style I like.

I know of a guy who loves the 165 Nosler Ballistic tip in his 30-06 for moose, while many dont like it for deer. There is a lot of personal preference involved that is for sure.

I really like my 223 wssm and 55ttsx for antelope and know it works fine on deer. But mostly I carried my 25-06 with 80 grain TTSX for deer this year. The 55 grain works fine but the 25 cal 80 grain is noticably more destructive.

I am thinking about a 6.5x284 next year for deer but then again a 270 is about the same thing. But with a 25-06 why would I want to get a 270? They are all so close .

Then again I already have a 308 win for when I want to get the big gun out .

My son is 13 and I bought him his first rifle. A 30-06 that he shoots 130 TTSX and 150 Sierras in. He didnt get to shoot anything with it this year. He shot his Antelope with my 223 wssm after missing and short stroking his 30-06 and he shot two deer with 20 guage slugs. Last year he shot his first two deer with a 30-06 and 150 Sierras. He wants to elk hunt more next year so I am thinking about giving the Barnes 175 LRX a try.

Back to the point IMHO I think the 175 grain LRX from a 30-06 will duplicate the tissue damage on an elk that a 22 cal 55 grain does on a deer. Put a nice wound channel through the lungs and exit on most broadside shots or at least make it to the offside hide. Definatley avoiding raking shots.

The one 22 cal 55TTSX I have recovered entered one ham went through the femur then under the pelvis into the next ham and was recovered on the offside hide. Lost a little meat but not that bad which is why I love Barnes X bullets. The second shot which went through the belly and out the offside lung at an angle exited.

quote:

Back to the point IMHO I think the 175 grain LRX from a 30-06 will duplicate the tissue damage on an elk that a 22 cal 55 grain does on a deer. Put a nice wound channel through the lungs and exit on most broadside shots or at least make it to the offside hide. Definatley avoiding raking shots.

Point in hand: the 175 grain .308" bullet has a much higher SD (.263) than the 55 grain .224" (.156SD),
meaning that you can more confidently bite off more of an angled shot on an elk with the 175 grain .263SD, .308" bullet. Since monometals love velocity, I would also choose the 30-06 handloaded over the 308.
Also remember, while the .224" bullet has 40% less SD, a mule deer is not 40% shorter than an elk.

That is some hair splitting there. Ssectional Density is more of a guideline than an actual rule. Comparing the sd of a 22 to a 30 cal is not reasonable.

Also you could shoot 1000 rounds each between the 308 and 30-06 and never see a difference on an animal. There are pages upon pages of discussion about the difference a couple hundred fps makes on game. Its nil.

Elk are quite a bit more than 40% larger than a deer.

The 22 will still spank the deer harder than the 30 spanks the elk. The use of the 30 on the elk wont raise an eyebrow. While the 22 on the deer is just crazy talk

---------------------------------------
Running out of time to fill my quota of posts for the year but this thread is helping

quote:

Originally posted by RMiller:
... Ssectional Density is more of a guideline than an actual rule. Comparing the sd of a 22 to a 30 cal is not reasonable.

Huh? That's why sectional densities are calculated, in order to make cross-calibre comparisons. The fact that it calls into question your argument doesn't make it unreasonable.

quote:

...
Elk are quite a bit more than 40% larger than a deer.

Well, the 40% was going from large to small. Are you saying that deer are shorter than 60% high against an elk? Or that elk are 60% fatter than a deer? (or that deer are 40% thinner than an elk?) I would have guessed something more in the area of 25-30% shorter. We're talking single dimension, not volume or weight of the central carcass. But I've never hunted elk or mulies.

quote:

The 22 will still spank the deer harder than the 30 spanks the elk. The use of the 30 on the elk wont raise an eyebrow.

First, as mentioned previously, it depends on penetration of the bullet, angle of shot, velocity, bullet integrity, etc. My eyebrow does raise with a 308 for eland, roan, waterbuck, and thus elk. They work, and are great for whoever needs to use that calibre and works within its limitations. But I would be happier with a monometal and a 30 cal magnum, or even better a 338WM or more. As for comparisons, I've seen a couple hundred animals taken with 270/30-06 class rifles vs. 338/375 and there is certainly a difference in anchoring and killing power. The extra diameter, weight and energy take their toll on game. I've also seen 222's and 223's fall short on game from cob (150-175 lb) and up.

On 'spanking', the same kind of argument is sometimes used to use frangible, "explosive" bullets on deer-sized animals because they can produce dramatic kills, while ignoring the limitations.

If the 22cal penetrated 12" raking a mulie, but the 30cal penetrated 20" through both elk lungs, then the elk goes down with the 30cal, but the mulie may keep running a long long way with his 22cal wound.
However, if the same raking shot into the mulie were made with the 30cal, its 20" penetration may have dropped that mulie right there.

That is why people choose larger calibres.

Most everything is a trade-off, hunters wanting maximum penetration and wound channels with minimum recoil and muzzle blast in an easy-pointing rifle.

Choose a bullet that resists the wind, penetrates, penetrates, penetrates, and disperses heavy trauma along the way. Make sure that you can shoot it well in whatever cartridge/rifle combination you have.
That is your deer cartridge.

For some that will be a 223Rem fast twist and TSX bullets or CEB 'non-con's. Most will be much better off with something heavier.

[PS: I just checked mule deer and elk sizes and I stand corrected on one dimension about mule deer size, they are closer to 40% than 25-30% shorter than elk:
"The mule deer is ... on average, with a height of 80–106 cm (31–42 in) at the shoulders and a nose-to-tail length ranging from 1.2 to 2.1 m (3.9 to 6.9 ft)"
"Elk cows average 225 to 241 kg (500 to 530 lb), stand 1.3 m (4.3 ft) at the shoulder, and are 2.1 m (6.9 ft) from nose to tail. Bulls are some 40% larger than cows at maturity, weighing an average of 320 to 331 kg (710 to 730 lb), standing 1.5 m (4.9 ft) at the shoulder and averaging 2.45 m (8.0 ft) in length."

Of interest to me is that the male elk is "40% larger" than the female elk but only a few inches taller at the shoulder (4'3" to 4'9"). On the other hand, the 3' mulie is less than 40% shorter than an elk: 4.75 feet - 40% is 2.85 feet, so the 3' mule deer is taller.

Nevertheless, maybe one should look for 50% more penetration in a good elk round over a good mule deer round. ]

quote:

Nevertheless, maybe one should look for 50% more penetration in a good elk round over a good mule deer round.

I would.

The other noticeable difference and which makes the difference in weight is the sheer muscle mass that elk have over deer.

Sectional density can go much higher for a larger caliber than for a smaller caliber. The 70 grain bullet is to the 22 what a 160 is the 6.5 or 175 to the 7mm, 220 to the 30, 250 to the 338. 400 to the 416, 500 to the 458. As you go higher in caliber the SD goes up but these are all considered heavy for caliber bullets.

In theory the .22 with a 110 grain bullet with a .325 SD would finally put it in a heavy for caliber class of bullets. The twist rate would have to be 1 in 5 though. That is why I have noticed that the smaller the caliber the lower the SD would be to compare between calibers.

Which is also why I like to go up in caliber for bigger critters.

quote:

In theory the .22 with a 110 grain bullet with a .325 SD would finally put it in a heavy for caliber class of bullets. The twist rate would have to be 1 in 5 though. . . .

Which is also why I like to go up in caliber for bigger critters.

Now we're talking bullets.

And for some good news for the smaller calibre, the monometal technologies do not need sectional densitites of .300+ because they retain mass much better than lead core bullets. In practical terms for the .224" calibre, that means that an 88 grain copper hollowpoint or tipped bullet would work fine. The sectional density would be .250, something that I consider sufficient for medium and large beasties.

For deer sized game I would be happy with a monometal SD of .200, which would mean a 70 grain "TSX" in .224", if such were made. So for now, a 224" on deer should be limited to broadside shots, since only 50 grain TSX are available, and will do a fairly reliable job.

They do make a 70 grain TSX for the 22 but I have only used the 55 TTSX. Out of four bullets in game this year I only found the one pictured above. All the others exited.

Thanks. I opened the Barnes site but didn't notice the scroll possibility on the .224".

I was pleasantly surprised to see that a 9" twist was able to stabilize the TSX, though they recommend 8" twist for the 62 grain TTSX. I would rate both of those (70 gn TSX, 62 gn TTSX) as 'deer' capable, though some penteration testing is in order before taking any and all angled shots. Likewise, one must consider the total trauma inflicted, so the ability to do damage at distances like 200+ yards must be calculated. At some point (750 ft lbs, 500 ftlbs?) the heightened chances of only wounding an animal and losing the animal will become significant and should block a responsible hunter.

The problem here is that very few hunters will admit to shooting at deer that were not harvested. They shoot at a deer, it runs off, they go over and look for blood (frequently not even in the right spot), not finding blood or deer, they assume that they missed. When in reality they hit and crippled the deer, just didn't kill it. At least didn't kill it quick enough to be found. What a crying shame. At least a larger caliber will leave blood and hair on the ground which almost never happens with the .22's. I've killed deer with a 22-250 but don't use it anymore because I now know better.

The one 55 TTSX I found was shot at 350 yards.

For the same reason you would not carry a .25 automatic instead of a .357mag or 45ACP for self defense. The .25 might stop the assailant...but I know the .357 or .45 will. Deer are tougher than people, but roughly similar in mass so it makes for a great example.

quote:

Originally posted by Woodrow S:
For the same reason you would not carry a .25 automatic instead of a .357mag or 45ACP for self defense. The .25 might stop the assailant...but I know the .357 or .45 will. Deer are tougher than people, but roughly similar in mass so it makes for a great example.

Its funny you'd say that.

My carry gun is a 25 auto.

Back in the 60's there was a hero spy that got into trouble because of using a little calibre. It was a Beretta something, maybe a .25. afterwards, his boss called it a ladies' gun for a purse, not something for 007. Of course, the spy wanted to look cool in black tie, so there were more things to consider than terminal ballistics.

Scaninavian ammo manufacturers makes 6,5, 7mm,.30 and 8mm intened for moose, boar and bear. Not many hunters think what they dont work, of cause they are heavy for caliber as 6,5-160gr 7-160gr .30-180gr and has a reliable expansion.