Here is a quote from "Obsessions of a Rifle Looney" by John Barsness. pg 133, paragraph 3
Fittingly Chapter 13.

"some hunters recognized that the failures of .224's and 243's on big game weren't due to a lack of bullet weight, but a lack of bullets that would penetrate deer. I've personally taken dozens of smaller big game animals with various .22 centerfires and the .243 Winchester, and have yet to encounter any catastrophic bullet failures. In fact, I can't tell much difference in how any of these cartridges work on deer or pronghorn or any other big game."

If you haven't read the book, I urge you to. It is a good read, filled with an awful lot of common sense which I have come to appreciate from John Barsness. Truly one of the best active writers out there right now.

Whoever heard of using a .22 centerfire or a .243 for deer? It has been scientifically proven right here on this forum it can't be done.

I love the fact that the resident anti-224 caliber for deer memebers are unwilling to argue with a statement put in print by John Barsness.

Their silence is golden.

I agree with you regarding Barsness. I believe he's the best currently writing.

Does he also say its to be recommended as the best caliber? or one for the masses, in all situations? deer of all sizes? in every presentation?

Yeah...right!!!!

Have you seen the Nosler reloading manual #6 I believe?

At the beginning of every new cartridge data section there is a blurb written about the chambering by some gun writer. The blurb for the .223 Remington was written by a writer from Tennessee who states that the best big game bullet is the 60 grain .224 Nosler Partition out of the .223 Remington

Frigging Unreal

Takes a rocket scientist atleast to figure out you drive an almost 1/4" pointed piece of metal through a deers vitals it will kill them.

Yep.

Problem is when you don't drive it through anything vital because you were undergunned FOR WHAT YOU TRIED.

This is relevant "a lack of bullets that would penetrate deer". Then: "how any of these cartridges work on deer or pronghorn or any other big game." I'm not sure what that means as I don't think all big game is created equal. There's "big" and "bigger" for example. Deer and pronghorn may be another matter.



It depends on a lot of parameters. Not all bullets perform the same, not all impact velocities are the same, not all angles are the same, obviously not all quarry is the same, and most importantly not all hunters are always clear thinking, or mature, enough to pass up on the marginal shot with the .224's or on the game animal that can't be reliably taken with the .224. If you are clear thinking and you chose carefully, and turn down some opportunities, you will MOSTLY do just fine.

I live in South Africa. Lots of antelope are shot here with .222 and .223's. Even more probably with 243's. Most are smaller antelope up to say Blesbuck and Impala size. But I've seen enough to know that the .224's specifically have application for certain (fairly narrowly defined) circumstances.

I will certainly use these calibers, but if offered a choice I'd generally take a rifle other than a .224 from the rack.

By the way, as a kid I met a well respected farmer and game breeder who had no rifles larger than a .222 and regulary lung shot Kudu bulls with it. Apparently they were "always" down in 50 yards.

That sounds like a good read. Thanks for the heads up.

quote:

Originally posted by SDhunter:
I love the fact that the resident anti-224 caliber for deer memebers are unwilling to argue with a statement put in print by John Barsness.

Their silence is golden.

People that have read a bit of his "wisdom" realize he has a lot to learn.

barsness is also totally WRONG about:
1. The above, 22cals are great on Deer.

2. You can Anneal cases with a Candle.

3. There is absolutely NO NEED for a scope with an Objective lens over 40mm.
4. CHE doesn't work.

And yet, there are still folks who thinks his "wisdom" is endless. Some even recommend his books.

Actually no body has said you couldn't kill deer with a 22 only that it is unethical. There should be no margin of error or doubt when you pull the trigger so using a larger caliber limits this margin of error and anything less is considered unethical.

In regards to Mr Barsness, my suggestion is to read some apposing arguments and test the theories out for yourself before you start citing him as the gospel.

quote:

Originally posted by Captain Finlander:
Actually no body has said you couldn't kill deer with a 22 only that it is unethical. There should be no margin of error or doubt when you pull the trigger so using a larger caliber limits this margin of error and anything less is considered unethical.

In regards to Mr Barsness, my suggestion is to read some apposing arguments and test the theories out for yourself before you start citing him as the gospel.

OK, I'll bite. Please tell me how to eliminate "all margin of error". In my limited experience with risk assessment, one identifies the risks before an action is taken by lising all the known risk factors. Then you establish actions or procedures to mitigate each to an acceptable level. "Acceptable level" being the key; risk cannot be eliminated.

The risks of hunting with a smaller caliber are well known and knowlegable hunters on this site have listed the actions and procedures needed to mitigate them to a level commensurate with bigger calibers.

Seems all the naysayers can do is stick their fingers in their ears and go "la-la-la-la".

quote:

Actually no body has said you couldn't kill deer with a 22 only that it is unethical. There should be no margin of error or doubt when you pull the trigger so using a larger caliber limits this margin of error and anything less is considered unethical.

I found the statement very interesting from an experienced writer stating that the difference between a 243 caliber and 224 caliber is in undifferentiated in his opinion. I tend to agree from my personal experiences.

I am glad you don't want to argue about the effectiveness of 22 centerfires on deer, myself and others have more than enough real world experience to refute it. To argue against it, is, well,

Why is it unethical to use them? Please expand on that statement.

quote:

In regards to Mr Barsness, my suggestion is to read some apposing arguments and test the theories out for yourself before you start citing him as the gospel.

Thanks for the advice, I can read, think for myself, and to top it all off I have BTDT when it comes to ethically using 22 centerfires and 243's on deer.

How about you? Used any 22 centerfires for deer? 243's?

SDHunter--Why even ask if experienced? Very easy to pick out those with armchair experience ONLY from those that have done it in real life. Stuff like EXTRA MARGIN--lol--yea right a magnum kills everytime and skins em too. Well placed but doesn't penetrate deep enough. Gets into the vitals it's deep enough. Test theories--armchair types talk theories--been there and done it--it's no longer theory--it's been practically applied. Theory to the armchair type though. Sorta like being politically correct and not racial profiling---it aint racial profiling it's statistical application when you know the catagory that fits.