Deer hunting .223

2

Replies

  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 15,126 Senior Member
    Gene L wrote: »
    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.
    Something to consider-- I am not sure the statistics in Nam' but in Afghanistan and Iraq, they are saying that 250,000 rounds were fired for every insurgent killed. If that is true (and I have heard similar about Nam') then the real name of the game is quantity of bullets vs. the ballistics of the individual round. For cover fire, the enemy is going to keep their heads down regardless if the bullets wizzing by them are .223, .308, or .510. Logistically, it is much easier to move the smaller .223 rounds to where they are needed.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,623 Senior Member
    Jermanator wrote: »
    Something to consider-- I am not sure the statistics in Nam' but in Afghanistan and Iraq, they are saying that 250,000 rounds were fired for every insurgent killed. If that is true (and I have heard similar about Nam') then the real name of the game is quantity of bullets vs. the ballistics of the individual round. For cover fire, the enemy is going to keep their heads down regardless if the bullets wizzing by them are .223, .308, or .510. Logistically, it is much easier to move the smaller .223 rounds to where they are needed.

    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.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,834 Senior Member
    Freezer wrote: »
    I would not encourage anyone to give a kid a .223 as their first deer rifle. Shot placement is too critical. A kid without a lot of practice time and buck fever is not a good receipt for success. Additionally some folks want to hand a small framed kid a rifle that's too big (their rifle) and designed for an adult. With a bad stock fit the kid will not shoot it well so how under a stress condition can they place a critical shot well. This whole subject is a bad idea. .223 when used for large game is an experts cartridge.

    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

    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.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • tubabucknuttubabucknut Banned Posts: 3,520 Senior Member
    Freezer wrote: »
    I would not encourage anyone to give a kid a .223 as their first deer rifle. Shot placement is too critical. A kid without a lot of practice time and buck fever is not a good receipt for success. Additionally some folks want to hand a small framed kid a rifle that's too big (their rifle) and designed for an adult. With a bad stock fit the kid will not shoot it well so how under a stress condition can they place a critical shot well. This whole subject is a bad idea. .223 when used for large game is an experts cartridge.

    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
    My childs first deer rifle will more than likely be a .223. There is not one thing unethical about that. And why in the world would you take a child out hunting without "a lot of practice"? That would be the unethical thing. Without "a lot of practice" how in the world are 257, 260, or the 7-08 any better? Bigger boom more likely to cause flinching, and still need " a lot of practice" to place the shot. Shot placement, and choice, is just as critical with these other cartridges.
    It's because I hate Trump.
  • FreezerFreezer Senior Member Posts: 1,491 Senior Member
    Shot placement is too critical for a kid with buck fever.

    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!
    I like Elmer Keith; I married his daughter :wink:
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 15,126 Senior Member
    Not all kids fire random, crappy shots. Unlike her father, CPJ's kid is the one shot, one kill type. Her first kill was with a 45/70, her second kill was with a .223, and I expect to see her third kill next weekend with a .430 SJS. Her daddy taught her right, and she waits for the perfect shot and puts it right where it needs to go. Not all kids are the same and do not deserve to be painted with such a broad brush.
  • tubabucknuttubabucknut Banned Posts: 3,520 Senior Member
    Freezer wrote: »
    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.

    Teach them right and recoil isn't a factor to be concerned with.

    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!
    With all that teaching you speak of, sounds like the child will be able to hit what it aims at. That being the case the 223 works just fine. You said "a kid without a lot of practice". So how does a bigger cartridge help "a kid without a lot of practice"? My children will be able to shoot long before they are ever allowed to carry a firearm into the field. They will also know to take a wise shot. All that being the case the 223 is more than adequate for white tail. Bigger bullets will never help someone who can not shoot.
    It's because I hate Trump.
  • FreezerFreezer Senior Member Posts: 1,491 Senior Member
    pjames777 wrote: »
    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

    Go back to the OP!

    Not an expert!

    Gun doesn't fit the child!

    Experience is at best questionable!

    Answer is NO!

    I taught my children the right way! Maybe you have too. I still don't recommend a .233 for deer when there are better cartridges available.

    IMHO any knowledgeable experienced hunter should answer the OP NO! Just because of the way the question was posed.

    There are no specifics what size and species deer, how long are the shots, stalk or stand, what type of rifle. NO!

    The op has a small caliber rifle that fits for him (not his child) and expects a 12 year old to shoot it well in a stress condition because it has minimal recoil? NO!

    NOT A GOOD IDEA!
    I like Elmer Keith; I married his daughter :wink:
  • tubabucknuttubabucknut Banned Posts: 3,520 Senior Member
    Freezer wrote: »
    Go back to the OP!

    Not an expert!

    Gun doesn't fit the child!

    Experience is at best questionable!

    Answer is NO!

    I taught my children the right way! Maybe you have too. I still don't recommend a .233 for deer when there are better cartridges available.

    IMHO any knowledgeable experienced hunter should answer the OP NO! Just because of the way the question was posed.

    There are no specifics what size and species deer, how long are the shots, stalk or stand, what type of rifle. NO!

    The op has a small caliber rifle that fits for him (not his child) and expects a 12 year old to shoot it well in a stress condition because it has minimal recoil? NO!

    NOT A GOOD IDEA!
    Again I am failing to understand how a larger cartridge helps. I agree with you, that I would not take a child that is not ready into the field to hunt. You suggested a large cartridge for this. How does this help in any way with an inexperienced shooter? You also stated you would not encourage anyone to give a kid a 223.
    Freezer wrote: »
    I would not encourage anyone to give a kid a .223 as their first deer rifle.
    This implies kids as a whole, not the singular child mentioned in the OP. If I misundertand then my apologies. However I read it as an indictment on the cartridge to handle deer. Please, deer are not tanks. Shoot them in the boiler room or a shoot on the neck and they go down. While I have not personally hunted deer with a 223, I see no reason whatsoever not to. I see no reason whatsoever not to start a child on the cartridge. It is accurate, and has very little recoil. These attributes add up to longer, better practice sessions. This in turn leads to a better more confident shooter.
    It's because I hate Trump.
  • FreezerFreezer Senior Member Posts: 1,491 Senior Member
    It's physics and education, Newton's law. I'm not going to argue ballistics with you.

    I didn't say take an inexperienced hunter out with a larger caliber. I said teach the inexperienced hunter with a rifle that fits and take them out with a caliber suited for the task at hand not an experts cartridge! For deer the 223 is an experts cartridge! So is the 22 LR and 22 mag.

    Look at previous posts, how many claim the 223 is a wounding cartridge?

    Re-read My quote, "I wouldn't encourage anyone give to a .223 to a kid as their first deer rifle" I stand by that statement. For deer, it's an experts cartridge.

    A .223 is a good varmint cartridge and in a perfect world it will drop deer in the hands of an experienced shooter. The shot has to be right and there are too many variables to predict for a person with limited experience. Accurate? In the right hands, in a good rifle, if the rifle fits? A .22 RF can be accurate and it will kill a deer also. 22rf and 22 mag are a poachers cartridge of choice. I shot a Ruger mini 14 in .223 that couldn't hold 4"at 50 yards.

    My point is: Get a kid a deer rifle that fits them well in a caliber that will get the job done in a situation that is less than perfect. Do you really want to track a deer with little or no blood trail after a quartering or less than perfect shot? Teach a kid right the first time and set them up for success.

    You can't play golf with one club! A putter won't drive a ball well or get it out of a sand trap. Choose the right club for the job and don't expect a club designed for a 6 foot man to work well for a man who is 5'4".

    Teach them about calibers and gauges, ballistics and trajectory the difference between hunting, killing and harvesting.
    I like Elmer Keith; I married his daughter :wink:
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 10,165 Senior Member
    Newton's law doesn't have anything to do with a .223, and I agree while there are better deer rifles, the .223's a good caliber to learn on. If I had a son and could only buy him one rifle, it would be a .223 because 99% of trigger time is NOT shooting deer. There are few better learning center fire cartridges, IMO. Better to learn accuracy and develop good shooting habits with something that will encourage shooting, not something that will cause flinching and develop bad shooting habits.

    A Ruger Mini is not a good deer rifle or a varmint rifle, and you demonstrated why with an 8 MOA rifle. I'm sure no one here would take an 8 MOA rifle hunting. Not a fan on Minis, but am a fan of the .223 and 8 MOA is hardly typical for the round. If I lived in Alaska or even Ohio where the deer are larger-bodied, but a solid accurate hit with a .223 is better than a total flinching miss with a .243. It's perfectly adequate for deer around here and with the heavier bullets (which I don't shoot) is I'm pretty sure fine for Northern Whitetail at reasonable ranges.

    But good judgement and accuracy are what you teach a kid when it comes to hunting and building confidence in his rifle.
    Not too many problems you can't fix
    With a 1911 and a 30-06
  • tubabucknuttubabucknut Banned Posts: 3,520 Senior Member
    Freezer wrote: »
    It's physics and education, Newton's law. I'm not going to argue ballistics with you.
    Ahh the passive aggressive approach. There are three "Newton's Laws". Which one specifically? Inertia, Vectors, or Equal opposite?
    Freezer wrote: »
    I didn't say take an inexperienced hunter out with a larger caliber. I said teach the inexperienced hunter with a rifle that fits and take them out with a caliber suited for the task at hand not an experts cartridge! For deer the 223 is an experts cartridge! So is the 22 LR and 22 mag.
    My apologies. I see nowhere where you advocate a larger cartridge and then further training. I see don't give them a 223 and the other cartridges better with a rifle that fits. I am curious though. How much more can you miss your shot by with a 257 Roberts, 260 Remington, or 7-08, over the 223?
    Freezer wrote: »
    Look at previous posts, how many claim the 223 is a wounding cartridge?
    You should do as you request I do. The wounding argument is about the adoption by the military. Full metal jacket argument and such. Now go look at the posts of those that have actually hunted with the cartridge. All good kills, and several by children. They must be experts no?
    Freezer wrote: »
    A .223 is a good varmint cartridge and in a perfect world it will drop deer in the hands of an experienced shooter. The shot has to be right and there are too many variables to predict for a person with limited experience. Accurate? In the right hands, in a good rifle, if the rifle fits? A .22 RF can be accurate and it will kill a deer also. I shot a Ruger mini 14 in .223 that couldn't hold 4"at 50 yards. My point is: get a kid a deer rifle that fits them well in a caliber that will get the job done in a situation that is less than perfect. Do you really want to track a deer with little or no blood trail after a quartering or less than perfect shot? Teach a kid right the first time and set them up for success.
    One of those ehh?
    In what instance does the shot not have to be right?
    I am sorry your Ruger sucked, but it is still a rifle I could take deer with out to fifty or sixty yards.
    It's because I hate Trump.
  • VarmintmistVarmintmist Senior Member Posts: 6,499 Senior Member
    Some of you need to go back and read the OP.

    Neighbors daughter. Thinks (not knows),,,,, his (not hers),,,, 223 would be good for her. It is getting close to deer season, where is the trigger time comming from.

    My answer is no also.
    I have seen stuff at least as dumb done to kids, like one of the Boy Scouts was using a 222R, and his (current) male role model told him he had to take head shots because it was a weak cartridge. Not everyone has a dad who knows a little bit about teaching a kid to take game. The op is asking for a neighbor who just asked him, Oct. about ammo for a 223.

    If the op said that his neighbor wanted to get an idea on proper bullet weight for his daughters 223 that she has been shooting for 2 years, then it is a different conversation.
    I am the last person that thinks anyone should substitute horsepower for talent, but a little room for error in this case wouldnt hurt.

    A 243 with 100 gr bullets has only slightly more recoil than a 223 in a similar package, moving at the same of more velocity, it starts as a larger hole, and should expand more, and carry weight better. Perfectly adequate for deer and black bear, it provides a bit of a margin for error.
    It's boring, and your lack of creativity knows no bounds.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,834 Senior Member
    Wouldn't anything that shoots FMJ ammo be more on the "wounding" end of the spectrum than the "killing" end? Isn't that part of the reason that FMJ is banned for MOST hunting situations? Saying a military round was "designed for wounding over killing" is kind of disingenuous when one considers the bullet profiles they're limited to.

    Yep, I don't think it's so much Caliber specific for wounding but rather bullet type and FMJ is more apt to pass through creating a survivable yet debilitating wound, on humans anyway. However, I've heard that Humans are exceedingly easy to kill compared to large game animals.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • Farm Boy DeuceFarm Boy Deuce Senior Member Posts: 6,083 Senior Member

    A 243 with 100 gr bullets has only slightly more recoil than a 223 in a similar package, moving at the same of more velocity, it starts as a larger hole, and should expand more, and carry weight better. Perfectly adequate for deer and black bear, it provides a bit of a margin for error.

    You are correct to a point. I have both a .223 single shot and a .243 single shot yout model. The .223 is just a little heavier because if the 4" longer, heavier barrel contour. The .243 has a much softer recoil pad though.

    Recoil from the .243 (IMO) is not a lot more than the .223. The muzzle blast on the other hand is significantly greater though. Muzzle blast can cause a flinch just as bad or worse than recoil. Most youth rifles have shorter barrels to as well as shorter stocks.
    I am afraid we forget sometime that the basic and simple things brings us the most pleasure.
    Dad 5-31-13
  • CHIRO1989CHIRO1989 Senior Member Posts: 10,843 Senior Member
    They make reduced recoil loads for all common calibers, my 85# kid shot his brand new Savage 11 in .308 with 125gr Hornady SST lite Loads and banged the first two into the bullseye at 50 yds ,after I sighted it in, while I had him shooting on the wrong side of the bench for his lefty brain, he shanked the 3rd one but was still on the horizontal with the bullseye on the 8" target and we called it quits because he was not liking the recoil, buy them a good gun in a good deer caliber and start with the factory light loads or roll your own.
    I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn away from their ways and live. Eze 33:11
  • FreezerFreezer Senior Member Posts: 1,491 Senior Member
    Actually all three of Newton's Laws apply to ballistics.

    A heavier bullet will penetrate deeper, most likely cause a larger wound channel, cause an exit wound and a better blood trail with a less than perfect shot.

    Not my Ruger! I said "I shot". I wouldn't own a rifle that shot that poorly.

    CPJ, look two lines down from your bold and you'll see what I'm talking about. I'd never dream of giving a 100lb kid a 30-06 with a 200 gr full house load,that's sadistic. A 135 gr reduced recoil load maybe but not before they're introduced to recoil from a milder cartridge..

    I stand by MHO, a .223 is not a good deer cartridge choice for anyone less than an expert shot with good judgment and shot discernment. That excludes 95% of all kids and at least 50% of deer hunters.
    I like Elmer Keith; I married his daughter :wink:
  • FreezerFreezer Senior Member Posts: 1,491 Senior Member
    I just went back to the OP. It's at best vague. The OP's address is California, I hunted there a lot. They have Blacktail (small deer), Mule Deer (very large deer), Black bear and too many cougar. Terrain can vary from desert to thick brush covered mountains. They also have a no lead projectile ban in California. It's in place now in many parts of the state and will be state wide soon.
    I like Elmer Keith; I married his daughter :wink:
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,834 Senior Member
    Jermanator wrote: »
    Not all kids fire random, crappy shots. Unlike her father, CPJ's kid is the one shot, one kill type. Her first kill was with a 45/70, her second kill was with a .223, and I expect to see her third kill next weekend with a .430 SJS. Her daddy taught her right, and she waits for the perfect shot and puts it right where it needs to go. Not all kids are the same and do not deserve to be painted with such a broad brush.

    I said this first and I will stand by it, a .223 isn't an ideal choice for a first time inexperienced hunter. I didn't say or mean just any kid. Some kids have killed more deer than the average hunter and I know from following on here that cpj's kids are that way. Like any of us here he has taught his kids and let them have experience at hunting. That's not who I was talking about. I don't think a .223 is ideal for even an adult who is lacking in experience. When I said kid I meant inexperienced new hunter.

    And why I say inexperienced I'm talking about inexperienced at shooting at game. Some people are good at shooting paper, but they have no trigger time with game. Remember first time hunters are subject to a few fits of buck fever before they get on track. And a rifle in something like .223 + inexperience at shooting at animals = a recipe for failure IMHO.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,623 Senior Member
    Let's just say a .223 is fine for anyone who uses a good bullet and doesn't get buck fever so bad that they forget how to shoot their rifle. A calm kid that shoots 2-3 inch groups should be able to handle it at 50-75 yards.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,834 Senior Member
    bisley wrote: »
    Let's just say a .223 is fine for anyone who uses a good bullet and doesn't get buck fever so bad that they forget how to shoot their rifle. A calm kid that shoots 2-3 inch groups should be able to handle it at 50-75 yards.

    Yeah, more or less, but I'd feel much better putting a kid out with a good 30-30 or other low recoil round of at least .244 diameter and preferably larger.

    Then there are some kids who are impervious to recoil. My youngest son, who was not a big kid, shot his first deer with my .270 at 80 yards with one shot DRT. We went out that afternoon about 2 PM and I had told him he could shoot a doe if one showed up. I had brought the .270 and he was carrying the 6mm Remington. When a doe showed up at the Feeder he was laying on the bottom of the blind sleeping. I woke him up and showed him the deer. I started to hand him the 6mm and he said "Daddy, I want to shoot it with the .270." I said, "Are you sure?" and he said yes he was. So I put the 6 back in the corner and picked up the .270. He got down on the rifle and squeezed off a perfect shot, hitting the doe right where he aimed in the base of the neck, dropping it DRT. That boy has never been afraid of recoil or blast or anything that causes flinch.

    He's 37 years old today, October 19th and still his two favorite chamberings are .25-06 Remington and .270 Winchester, followed a bit back by the 6mm Remington.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • VarmintmistVarmintmist Senior Member Posts: 6,499 Senior Member
    2-3 in groups at 100, front rest only, and as long as they know what are, and can pass up unrested, poor and mediocre shots, agree 100%.
    It's boring, and your lack of creativity knows no bounds.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,834 Senior Member
    bisley wrote: »
    Let's just say a .223 is fine for anyone who uses a good bullet and doesn't get buck fever so bad that they forget how to shoot their rifle. A calm kid that shoots 2-3 inch groups should be able to handle it at 50-75 yards.

    Seriously, I love the .270 and .280 size cartridge, but for a kid or first time hunter, I think the 7x08-.260 Remingtons are perfect, especially downloaded a bit.

    If I myself hunt with my .223, it will always be with the Speer 70 grain bullet. I can't say enough about the performance of that bullet on deer. It penetrates like it's a big bore. Nobody told it that it was only .224 diameter, it thinks it's a .30 caliber.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,623 Senior Member
    2-3 in groups at 100, front rest only, and as long as they know what are, and can pass up unrested, poor and mediocre shots, agree 100%.

    Yep, I was thinking of a supervised hunt with Pop helping make those decisions, but I agree.
  • Cheetoh734Cheetoh734 Senior Member Posts: 714 Senior Member
    Maybe it's because we have big bodied deer up here but .24 caliber minimum here by law. A .243, 7mm-08, or .308, even a 7.62x39 out of a bolt action would be smarter in my opinion. I have had personal experience with a big white tail doe and a blown archery shot by another hunter to know that a .223 isn't the best option for a deer of size. I watched a deer lose the entire lower half of its face with the bullet exiting within 2" of its spine through the back of its neck (it was a facing toward the shooter head shot) trot around for another 8 mins or so before it bled out...I know many guys on here, especially in Texas and the like do it regularly and it is proven to work. For a beginner however I wouldn't do it...just my opinion.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,623 Senior Member
    Good point, but after seeing the wounds on our small deer, I still think it would be OK with a good heart-lung shot, or even a double lunger.

    I'm fine with a .243 minimum, but my youngest grandson killed two small deer with a .223 55 grain, when he was 7 yo and still afraid of the .243. It was an unreasonable fear, but he still had it, and he was still able to participate without undue stress on the game he killed. So, I think it's marginal, but still reasonable for kids who demonstrate the ability and can act 'grown up,' when with grown men.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,834 Senior Member
    bisley wrote: »
    Good point, but after seeing the wounds on our small deer, I still think it would be OK with a good heart-lung shot, or even a double lunger.

    I'm fine with a .243 minimum, but my youngest grandson killed two small deer with a .223 55 grain, when he was 7 yo and still afraid of the .243. It was an unreasonable fear, but he still had it, and he was still able to participate without undue stress on the game he killed. So, I think it's marginal, but still reasonable for kids who demonstrate the ability and can act 'grown up,' when with grown men.

    Yes,
    With a bullet of 68-70 grains that is a good expanding bullet, I'd say yes a heart-lung or double lung shot will do just fine. But I'm going to step out on a limb here and say I prefer a neck or head shot with a .223 or any .22 CF. But here is why I say you need to be an experienced shot, because if not, you can do some crazy things to a deer. I've seen deer with their bottom jaw shot off, or their nose shot off because of bad head shots. If you're a good enough shot that you can consistently put one through in its ear or brain, it doesn't make much difference what bullet or bullet weight you use or even the size of the deer. A good shot there will always put the deer down DRT.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • JerryBobCoJerryBobCo Senior Member Posts: 6,520 Senior Member
    It depends.

    I think that pretty much sums it up.
    Jerry

    Gun control laws make about as much sense as taking ex-lax to cure a cough.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,623 Senior Member
    snake284 wrote: »
    Yes,
    With a bullet of 68-70 grains that is a good expanding bullet, I'd say yes a heart-lung or double lung shot will do just fine. But I'm going to step out on a limb here and say I prefer a neck or head shot with a .223 or any .22 CF. But here is why I say you need to be an experienced shot, because if not, you can do some crazy things to a deer. I've seen deer with their bottom jaw shot off, or their nose shot off because of bad head shots. If you're a good enough shot that you can consistently put one through in its ear or brain, it doesn't make much difference what bullet or bullet weight you use or even the size of the deer. A good shot there will always put the deer down DRT.

    So will any shot that causes massive hemorrhage in the 'bread basket.' You just have to sit still for 15 minutes and wait for him to bleed out. Chances are he will faint from massive blood pressure drop, and be within 50 yards of where you shot him, probably closer.

    I taught my grandsons to wait for a right-angle broadside and aim at the crease at the back side of the shoulder, 1/3 to 1/2 of the way up from the bottom of the chest. If they miss a little low, they will still destroy the heart. If they miss a little high, they still wreck the major arteries between heart and lungs, and probably hit both lungs. A head or neck shot is DRT, but also much more likely to be a moving target, so there's a better margin of error for a kill shot to shoot for the heart-lung shot, on a true broadside, and then you just have to be still for a few minutes and the deer will be nearby.
  • knitepoetknitepoet Senior Member Posts: 18,750 Senior Member
    The thing I find most entertaining are the folks who champion the 243 and pooh pooh the 223. I guess that 0.020" (yep 2/100ths) of an inch make ALL the difference.

    A GOOD hit with a properly constructed bullet from either will kill a deer quite nicely, and a poor hit from either (OR anything larger for that matter) won't, plain and simple.
    (And for the record, never been a fan of the 243, nothing wrong with it I guess, just doesn't warm the cockles of my heart)
    Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates, Rule #37: There is no “overkill”. There is only “open fire” and “I need to reload”.


2
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.