Home› Main Category› Hunting
Deer hunting .223
Anyone have experience hunting with .223 Remington? Neighbor wants to take his 12yr old and was thinking of using his Remington .223. Recommendations on bullet weight???
Thanks.
Patrick
Thanks.
Patrick
Replies
I've killed them with 50/55/62/64/77gr bullets. The heavier the bullet (of proper design) the more leeway allotted for adequate penetration.
Fairly sure it is just a marketing thing. I shot consecutive groups with rounds from both boxes through the same rifle. I got the same group sizes and same POI.
Dad 5-31-13
Nephew got a deer last year with Fusions. They work well.
It's not enough for big game. It's not legal in many places for that reason.
Having shot many animals from deer sized up to wild steers with my 222 using 50gr psp's I feel reasonably qualified to comment on similar sized projectiles from a 223.
They will, with proper shot placement drop deer on the spot. Neck or head shots are dead deer standing, shoulder shots will still do the job but on midsized animals and above, may not give you a pass through and subsequently there will be no blood trail to follow. Lung and heart shots are similar if taken behind the shoulder on a quartering angle.
Just my experience...........
Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
I don't know how that first sentence came from. It was designed to allow troops to carry a lot more ammo in a lighter-weight weapon. Never in history that I know of has any government designed a firearm specifically to wound people.
It's OK for deer if you use the proper bullets for it.
I have only shot Federal Fusion through one rifle with a 1:12 barrel.
That is a .22 short case next to the group. Fired from my H&R Handi Rifle.
Dad 5-31-13
I've heard both reasons given for the army switching from the .308 to the .223. The idea was that it took two enemy combatants out if one was injured. The injured guy and someone to take care of or carry him. It makes sense to me, assuming the enemy cares about fallen comrades.
Gun control laws make about as much sense as taking ex-lax to cure a cough.
If you had been around here a bit longer, you would have seen that we, as a group, have pretty much debunked the whole "It's not enough for big game" argument. Many of those states in which the .223 has been illegal for deer hunting are changing their tunes due to advances in bullet design and changing the regulations to read "Any centerfire rifle"...
Huh?
It was designed to bolster ammo capacity and primarily to accommodate the castrated AR-10 when it was downsized to the AR-15.
It's wound potential was desired in practice, but not of original design.
Shot placement notwithstanding, probably.
As far as mil-theory goes, I imagine wounded is acceptable and dead is preferable. A wounded soldier occupies other soldier's attentions.
FMJ bullets were never hunting bullets anyways.
I'll bet that states with game larger than deer will not allow 22 caliber centerfire rifles, or at least restrict them to certain game animals. I wouldn't have a problem hunting Texas whitetails with a .222 or .223, but would want to hunt country where close shots are the norm. I would not want to use it on a hunt of a life time for big northern whitetails or mule deer, and anything larger.
Gun control laws make about as much sense as taking ex-lax to cure a cough.
I agree.
Me neither. And I will say one more thing. With such a small bullet like a .22 Centerfire, I reason it like a .410 Shotgun. It's more for an experienced shooter. To kill consistently it requires more precise shot placement. In my opinion it's not the best for a first time hunter. I like something on the order of a .30-30 for a beginner. It has soft recoil but still packs plenty of punch. And even a 150 grain flat nose it will kill DRT within reasonable ranges.
Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
When the .223 was adopted, the enemy didn't escort their wounded off, we did. I takes more than two soldiers to carry off and bury a dead guy. Everyone followed the US's lead and went down to .223 caliber bullets. The .308 was a mistake; a fine round but heavy and I think retrograde of the .30-06 Garand. Shows you how conservative (I don't mean politically) the military is...or was. We still carried M 60 machine guns, maybe the worst MG since the Chauchat.
Encourage your friend to get the kid a gun that fits in a more suitable cartridge. .243 (and I don't care for that choice) would be the minimum starting point with 257 Roberts, 260 Rem. 7-08 etc being far better rounds.
We should not be teaching kids to kill. We should be teaching them to be ethical hunters with the skills and tools to take game efficiently and humanely.
JMHO
Also, the military's strategic thinking has always been that wars are won with massive amounts of exploding projectiles (artillery, aerial bombs). Artillery, mortars and machine guns kill the most enemy combatants in a conventional battle, with the small arms being considered mostly for self-defense, during what many generals have portrayed as 'mopping up' operations. Unfortunately, winning is not always the task given to the generals by the politicians, and ground troops often find themselves in unsupported, or poorly supported battles.
Granted that, for a grunt, the war is about whatever is in front of him, but he has to use the weapons that the generals give him, and they are often thinking more about logistics and politics than the individual contests being fought by each soldier. The AR-15 looked great, on paper, to Robert S. McNamara (SecDef for JFK and LBJ), and he 'improved' their cost efficiency even more by eliminating the chrome lined barrel and the cleaning kits, in the early models. Not surprising, since he was previously a bean counter for Ford Motor Company. The AR-15 evolved into a good battle weapon, best suited to close range engagements, but it has always had its detractors, who found themselves in need of heavier duty battle rifles.
Freezer, you hit it on the head bro. I agree 150%. There's a lot of discussion of ethics and what are ethics on this forum. Some definitions I feel personally miss the boat completely. To me if you have the right raising and teachings there is no teaching of ethics, it's already in your system. People know pretty well before you pull a trigger if what you're doing is right. There is no one size fits all ethical question and answer. It's something you just know. If it feels right do it. If not get your finger out of that trigger guard.
Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
Better penetration, pass through shot, better blood trail, better bullet performance and tissue damage ..........
Use enough gun for the job.
Get a gun that fits the person and recoil won't be an issue.
If a .223 can take anything on earth why do we have so many choices? There are better cartridges for deer! Why handicap a beginner with a .223?
Teach them to shoot a bb gun, then a .22 then fit a rifle to them and let them learn how to handle mild recoil. (243.257,6.5x55......)
Teach them right and recoil isn't a factor to be concerned with.
Maybe you an expert. Maybe you have trained your child correctly. If that is the case you don't need to ask this question. Its my HO, I don't believe a .223 is anything but an experts cartridge for deer.
If you do this the question won't be "can I use".......... if you ask "can I use this" your unsure and questioning the minimum. The answer is NO!