Posted By: shox27
Is a .223 enough? - 11/14/08 01:30 PM
Borrowing a buddies .223 this weekend - is it enough for a hill country size deer? What size cartridge is best?
Is a .223 enough?
Posted By: Sethfish
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/14/08 01:33 PM
yep it works pretty good for the military on "deer size targets" 
Posted By: buster2balls
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/14/08 02:00 PM
yes it will be fine within a reasonable distance. up to 300 tyds
Posted By: Crazyhorse
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/14/08 02:18 PM
Quote:
yes it will be fine within a reasonable distance. up to 300 tyds
At maximum, a 55 or even 60 grain bullet out of a 223 is a 100 to maybe 150 yard round on deer. Not 300 yards, now or ever.
If a person is accurate enough with a head or neck shot, then out to 150 might work, for a body shot I would keep it 100 or less if possible.
Notice this statement right here:
Quote:
Borrowing a buddies .223 this weekend
He does not say whether he has ever even shot this gun before or give any reference as to how experienced a hunter he is, or the conditions he will be hunting under.
Claiming that he should be good out to 300 yrds. with that gun does not seem like very sound advice to me. JMO.
Posted By: hookemhorns
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/14/08 02:32 PM
yes it is plenty but dont buy cheap ammo. Buy winchester silver tips or the hornady.
Posted By: TEXASLEFTY
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/14/08 02:44 PM
the military's intent is to injure not to kill at any distance so you be the judge. It is enough bullet but not for a marginal shot.
Posted By: shox27
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/14/08 02:50 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Notice this statement right here:
Quote:
Borrowing a buddies .223 this weekend
He does not say whether he has ever even shot this gun before or give any reference as to how experienced a hunter he is, or the conditions he will be hunting under.
Claiming that he should be good out to 300 yrds. with that gun does not seem like very sound advice to me. JMO.
Never shot the gun, I'm told the scope is zeroed in. I'll be hunting fairly close range - nothing over 100yds.
Posted By: KC
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/14/08 02:51 PM
Quote:
yes it is plenty but dont buy cheap ammo. Buy winchester silver tips or the hornady.
NO! NO! NO! NO! Do NOT use Silvertips out of a .223 for deer size game! Those are think skinned varmint loads, and they will fragment on impact on a deer (*read No kill Just Wound). I have no problem carrying a .223 out for deer, I usually take a doe with a smaller caliber rifle later on in the season. Just make sure you have a good clear shot, and if you are comfortable with the gun and your ability, head/neck/spine shots are always best (especially if using FMJ's). For body shots (not the tequila kind
) look for a winchester super x powerpoint load. Good bullet, stays together well. Don't use any of the ballistic tip loads commercially available for the .223. These are almost always varmint loads that will do nothing more than wound a deer...
Posted By: Jasb
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/14/08 02:52 PM
The military kills alot of people with It trure, but they are looking to replace it as we speak for a bigger round....
Posted By: Sethfish
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/14/08 02:53 PM
Quote:Quote:
Quote:
Notice this statement right here:
Quote:
Borrowing a buddies .223 this weekend
He does not say whether he has ever even shot this gun before or give any reference as to how experienced a hunter he is, or the conditions he will be hunting under.
Claiming that he should be good out to 300 yrds. with that gun does not seem like very sound advice to me. JMO.
Never shot the gun, I'm told the scope is zeroed in. I'll be hunting fairly close range - nothing over 100yds.
You need to shoot that gun before you make the decision to pull the trigger at an animal, just my two cents.
Posted By: buster2balls
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/14/08 02:54 PM
if you chose to shoot 300 yds, go ahead. it will kill a deer at that range.if crazy horse doesnt want to shoot at that distance, then thats his call. if i were in ks shooting at a 300 lb white tail then no, but a 95 lb hill counrty buck, yea.
Posted By: dogcatcher
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/14/08 03:00 PM
Quote:
if you chose to shoot 300 yds, go ahead. it will kill a deer at that range.if crazy horse doesnt want to shoot at that distance, then thats his call. if i were in ks shooting at a 300 lb white tail then no, but a 95 lb hill counrty buck, yea.
Some people would consider this poor advice, some have already said so on this thread, you can add one more to the list.
Posted By: Crazyhorse
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/14/08 03:03 PM
It will also wound a deer and at that range very few people would be able to tell whether they evn hit the thing or not.
At the ranges the man stated he will be shooting 100 yards + or -, then he should be alright, but to recommend a 223 on ANY size deer out to 300 yards is not good advice UNDER any conditions.
There is only a small margin of error at 100 to 150, there is NO margin of error at 300 with that small of a bullet.
At the ranges the man stated he will be shooting 100 yards + or -, then he should be alright, but to recommend a 223 on ANY size deer out to 300 yards is not good advice UNDER any conditions.
There is only a small margin of error at 100 to 150, there is NO margin of error at 300 with that small of a bullet.
Posted By: shox27
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/14/08 03:04 PM
I can't see 300yds in any one direction at the place I hunt - so this is not an issue. 100yds from blind to feeder - no farther.
Posted By: buster2balls
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/14/08 03:04 PM
so you are saying i should give advice that i dont believe to be true? had i not have killed deer at 300 yds with a 223, then i would have said it. been there, done that, bought the t shirt.
Posted By: dogcatcher
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/14/08 03:18 PM
Quote:
so you are saying i should give advice that i dont believe to be true? had i not have killed deer at 300 yds with a 223, then i would have said it. been there, done that, bought the t shirt.
He wasn't asking if you should do it. If you had read his question he was asking if it was enough for him. A 223 is fine for someone that has experience with that particular weapon, but not okay for someone that is not experienced with the weapon. He did not even know the proper ammo to use should have set up a red flag saying look at this as a newbie situation. And I still stand behind the the answer that he should not be shooting the 223 at 300 yard. He has now clarified that it would be less than 100 yards. I would consider that a marginal shot since he has never shot the rifle and would recommend a head or neck shot.
Posted By: shox27
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/14/08 03:23 PM
Granted - I'm fairly new to the game. I used a .30/06 last year, but felt it was too much gun for where I'm hunting...hence the move down to the .223. Not concerned in the least about my ability with the gun (or guns in general)...just didn't know much about the particular caliber - just what I've read.
Posted By: dogcatcher
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/14/08 03:26 PM
At 100 yards, go for the neck or head shot and you are okay.
Posted By: RedBone
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/14/08 03:32 PM
There are specific reasons why the military uses the rounds they do (can carry twice as many rounds and far less collateral damage, etc...). The rounds they use are NATO and Geneva approved to specifically kill not injure. Do larger rounds kill more effectively- yes. But the larger round is a harder round to fire in automatics. If you want a smaller more mobile force the 5.56 is just fine. Also, regardless of the round if you are properly trained and skilled you can kill all the same.
Posted By: Big Daddy K
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/14/08 04:51 PM
I'm going to use some Hornady Match BTHP sin 75 gn for my Thanksgiving does' I hope.
I think those cheap 68 gn Brown Bears is some really good ammo too. They seem to have a pretty good whack when they hit.
I think those cheap 68 gn Brown Bears is some really good ammo too. They seem to have a pretty good whack when they hit.
Posted By: ssgp2
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/17/08 12:23 AM
Big Daddy, does your 75g .223 shoot to the right, after zeroing in with 55g. rounds? mine is about 1.5" right at 25yards
Posted By: Stax
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/17/08 01:43 AM
My 10 year old son shoots a Rossi 223 with Winchester Ballistic Tips and has killed 6 deer and 4 pigs {up to 300lbs on the pigs} and NONE of those animals has run any further than 20 yards, most have dropped in thier tracks! I usually dont let him shoot it beyond 100 yards on deer, however he did shoot a hog last year at 137 yards because we had a bet....He won!
Shoot it, but keep it close....
Shoot it, but keep it close....
Posted By: BowsnRods
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/17/08 01:58 AM
I use a 223 to to back up young hunter's when needed. But I would not recommend any shot over 150 yards and I always aim for the neck you will either kill the deer you are aiming at or you will have a clean miss. also 55 grain soft point is my choice.
Posted By: BBDhillcountry
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/17/08 02:08 AM
I grew up using a .223 in the hill country...worked fine on all my deer....I have just started using a 6mm and feel more comfortable shooting a longer ranges but I promise the .223 never let me down!
Posted By: DFWPI
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/17/08 02:33 AM
Well, the .223 killed a big old doe this afternoon. In the hands of a person that can call his shot, its great. His shot was under 50 yards in the head. DRT
Posted By: OFBHWG
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/17/08 12:00 PM
IN YOUR PARTICULAR SITUATION IT IS NOT A GOOD CHOICE.
Posted By: Jimbo
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/17/08 01:29 PM
Well he borrowed the gun to hunt the weekend, and now it's Monday, so lets hear a report on if that .223 was enough!
Personally I think it's a big mistake to borrow and gun, and go hunting without nothing but the guy saying it's zeroed in.
I would have found some way to shoot the gun at a white milk jug in the middle of the night just to be sure before I took it to the blind.
As far as being enough, he said his shots would be under 100 yards which is good, but then I would only take a neck or head shot.
Let's hear the report!
Personally I think it's a big mistake to borrow and gun, and go hunting without nothing but the guy saying it's zeroed in.
I would have found some way to shoot the gun at a white milk jug in the middle of the night just to be sure before I took it to the blind.
As far as being enough, he said his shots would be under 100 yards which is good, but then I would only take a neck or head shot.
Let's hear the report!
Posted By: shox27
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/17/08 02:08 PM
Boys - it was enough!!
Got to the blind at 5:45am, sat listening for an hour until it got bright enough to see a doe bedded up in the field at about 175yds. Feeder went off at 7am and startled her into getting up and wandering down towards the feeder. Another doe came in from the right, and they walked around together for 5 minutes or so. Then in from the left comes an 11pt'er. Not really planning on taking a buck, I still considered taking one of the does (both decent size). My buddy in the blind says, "you take that buck....you can't pass on that!!"
Well, watched him work his way to the does and then all of them came down to the feeder. He was begging to get shot, he must've stood broadside for 5 minutes before I got him. Went for the body shot, got him double-lunged - he ran about 30yds and dropped in the trees.
It was enough....but it's been interesting to see the different replies.
Got to the blind at 5:45am, sat listening for an hour until it got bright enough to see a doe bedded up in the field at about 175yds. Feeder went off at 7am and startled her into getting up and wandering down towards the feeder. Another doe came in from the right, and they walked around together for 5 minutes or so. Then in from the left comes an 11pt'er. Not really planning on taking a buck, I still considered taking one of the does (both decent size). My buddy in the blind says, "you take that buck....you can't pass on that!!"
Well, watched him work his way to the does and then all of them came down to the feeder. He was begging to get shot, he must've stood broadside for 5 minutes before I got him. Went for the body shot, got him double-lunged - he ran about 30yds and dropped in the trees.
It was enough....but it's been interesting to see the different replies.
Posted By: CleanKill
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/17/08 06:42 PM
Good job on shot placement. That's the biggest concern on ANY round. I personally would never use a .223. I have one for coyotes, but that's it. I use a .30-06. Always have and always will. I load my own ammo, Hornady 155 gr A-max at about 2900 fps. I never shoot the leg, always behind it. If you hit about 2 inches behind the leg the only thing you will damage is his lungs and heart. I've never seen a deer run more than 100 yds with that ammo and I've made shots to 300 yds.
Posted By: CleanKill
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/17/08 06:46 PM
Quote:
There are specific reasons why the military uses the rounds they do (can carry twice as many rounds and far less collateral damage, etc...). The rounds they use are NATO and Geneva approved to specifically kill not injure. Do larger rounds kill more effectively- yes. But the larger round is a harder round to fire in automatics. If you want a smaller more mobile force the 5.56 is just fine. Also, regardless of the round if you are properly trained and skilled you can kill all the same.
Hey bro what was your MOS?
About the small round. The military switched because you can carry more ammo. That is the biggest reason. I was in Iraq too, twice. I have seen plenty of times when Good Old 5.56 didn't do the trick. There is a reason we are currently looking at the 6.8. Headshots are one thing, body shots are another. 7.62 does WAY more damage to a human, and I have never seen one walk away. 5.56 sucks for a military round. Especially with FMJs. They penetrate very light armor and heavy clothes, but that is their only strong point.
Posted By: redchevy
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/17/08 07:57 PM
Yes and no. Ihave killed many deer with it, I shoot 60 gr nosler partitions and will shoot both head/neck and body shots within 150 yards. Anything past that is streatching it. My roomate shot a doe with my 223 at 300 yards last weekend, I told him not to but it took wounding and never finding a deer to convince him.
matt
matt
Posted By: CleanKill
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/17/08 09:23 PM
Quote:
Yes and no. Ihave killed many deer with it, I shoot 60 gr nosler partitions and will shoot both head/neck and body shots within 150 yards. Anything past that is streatching it. My roomate shot a doe with my 223 at 300 yards last weekend, I told him not to but it took wounding and never finding a deer to convince him.
matt
That sucks that had to happen, but some people will not listen. There's also the guys who say "I've done it before". Well, that doesn't mean it will always work. I choose not to risk it. .30-06 never lets the deer walk.
Posted By: new zealand hunting guide
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/17/08 10:36 PM
I know guys that have used them on different types of deer and are fine, but this caliber requires a head neck or heart shot with no room for error. Starting out with a larger caliber on bigger game means less chance of wounding and loosing that prize animal, perfect for becoming a marksman on varmit.
Posted By: DEERSTRANGLER
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/18/08 02:06 AM
I've used a .222 and .223 on deer for years. I've used handloads using either the 55 grain Sierra or the 55 grain Hornady V-max. The V-max will absolutly "blow up" once it hits a deer. I use it for Neck or head shots only. Like it was posted above it's either straight down or a clean miss. I've accounted for over 20 deer with .22 caliber centerfires in the last 10 years without one going farther than 10 feet.
Posted By: Chris
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/18/08 11:39 AM
It will be enough. My son uses one and got a nice 8 point a year ago and droped him in his tracks. I would keep you shot at 100 yards or less if possible. We use .55 grain Hornady. Good luck!
Posted By: Big Orn
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/18/08 12:27 PM
Quote:
Went for the body shot, got him double-lunged - he ran about 30yds and dropped in the trees.
Congrats!
Now, where's them pics!!!!
Posted By: shox27
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/18/08 03:00 PM
Posted By: Jimbo
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/18/08 07:29 PM
Nice buck, and congratulations!
I shot mine this morning, using my .270 and 130 Win. power point at 150 yards angling toward me, I hit him just behind the shoulder and found later why it didn't leave a blood trail.
The bullet lodged in the hip. I saw the deer fall after it ran 100 plus yards, and piled up, so I walked to where I shot it, being curious as to the distance of the shot, and found no blood anywhere, so if I hadn't seen the deer fall, and it had been in a brushy area which it wasn't I would have probably not known if I had hit the deer or not.
Moral of the story is if you take a body shot with a small caliber like a .223 it's rolling the dice!
Still, that's a nice buck!
I shot mine this morning, using my .270 and 130 Win. power point at 150 yards angling toward me, I hit him just behind the shoulder and found later why it didn't leave a blood trail.
The bullet lodged in the hip. I saw the deer fall after it ran 100 plus yards, and piled up, so I walked to where I shot it, being curious as to the distance of the shot, and found no blood anywhere, so if I hadn't seen the deer fall, and it had been in a brushy area which it wasn't I would have probably not known if I had hit the deer or not.
Moral of the story is if you take a body shot with a small caliber like a .223 it's rolling the dice!
Still, that's a nice buck!
Posted By: PrimitiveHunter
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/18/08 07:43 PM
Quote:
is it enough for a hill country size deer?
I don't know. You tell me.
That was the second doe I killed with that rifle that afternoon.
Posted By: CleanKill
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/18/08 08:20 PM
If your comfortable using it then go ahead. With the advice given, if you lose or wound an animal you will have to live with it. I'm not trying to be an [censored] or rude or anything. In the end it's your decision. You've been given both sides of the argument. Now you have to make a decision to continue to use the round.
Posted By: PrimitiveHunter
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/18/08 08:58 PM
Quote:
Moral of the story is if you take a body shot with a small caliber like a .223 it's rolling the dice!
That's true with most calibers but I agree that it may become more true as the bullet gets smaller. My first doe was shot in the head so she dropped. The second doe was double lung shot quartering away. She went about 30 feet. I was shooting Wolf phosphate coated cases with 55 gr soft points.
Posted By: Jimbo
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/18/08 09:47 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Moral of the story is if you take a body shot with a small caliber like a .223 it's rolling the dice!
That's true with most calibers but I agree that it may become more true as the bullet gets smaller. My first doe was shot in the head so she dropped. The second doe was double lung shot quartering away. She went about 30 feet. I was shooting Wolf phosphate coated cases with 55 gr soft points.
Shot placement is critical with any caliber because a bad shot is still a bad shot, but even a slightly marginal shot with a small caliber like a .223 can lead to a lost deer, where as with a larger caliber the same exact shot may mean the deer drops in it's tracks with massive internal damage.
The shot I made this morning wasn't a completely broadside, but it wasn't an extreme quartering shot either, and I would take that shot any day with that .270, but there is no doubt in my mind that same shot attempted with a .223 would have meant a lost deer.
I've shot deer with .22's back before I grew up, and with .222's and I killed deer with them, but I also personally lost a couple, and saw others shoot and lose deer with small caliber .223 rifles, simply because they took body shots, and hit bone which will deflect or cause the bulledt to disentigrate on contact, and you end up finding the deer a week later when you see the buzzards and find the deer with a broken front shoulder and a puss filled wound the size of a coffee cup!
It's up to what you want to use, and have confidence in, but I will promise you one thing, and that is that it will eventually happen, and then you will understand what is being said here, but to each his own!
That said, I own a .223 and I love the rifle, but I'll shoot hog, and I will take a doe, but with a head shot, and not over 100 yards, and I have confidence in how good it shoots.
Posted By: codym
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/18/08 10:08 PM
i will have to tell all the deer i have killed with it out to 300 yards they are really not dead.
Posted By: CleanKill
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/19/08 02:59 AM
Quote:
i will have to tell all the deer i have killed with it out to 300 yards they are really not dead.
I didn't want to get to aggressive on this topic, but I feel very strongly about it and I keep seeing posts like this. If I offend anyone, than I apologize.
As I've said before, I'm sure there are people out there who have made plenty of kills with the .223. There's always the guy who says "Well I've done it since 1927 and never lost one!" That does not mean it can't happen! Anyone who gives this answer to someone who asks the question that the OP asked needs to realize that they may be leading him to disaster.
There are many factors that go into a clean kill on an animal. Animal's size, whether or not the round hits bone, internal hydroshock caused by the round's velocity on impact, actual transfer of the bullets energy into the animal, the wound channel created by the round, the velocity of the round at impact, the angle of the round at impact and so on.
There are two main areas to shoot on a deer: neck and vitals. I'm not gonna put headshot because if you don't hit where the round will strike the brain you could blow a jaw or an antler off. A neckshot usually kills by way of impact and shock to the spine. This area doesn't take much to kill a deer. If you are using a small round, this is where you should aim if possible.
The vitals are different. You need to cause sufficient damage to the heart and/or lungs to kill the animal. If you can damage the heart the animal will go down. If you can damage at least one lung in its entirety it will go down. The quickest kill here is the heart, obviously.
Now, with all that said, SHOT PLACEMENT is the BIGGEST factor in ANY RIFLE. Now, does anyone on here know the OP in person? If so, this doesn't apply to you. I can bet that almost every single person on here does NOT know the OP. You have no idea how good of a shot he is or how much experience he has. YOU SHOULD NEVER ADVISE SOMEONE TO SHOOT A ROUND THAT MAY VERY WELL NOT KILL THE ANIMAL UNLESS YOU KNOW THE CAPABILITIES OF THAT PERSON.
It's plain and simple: THE CHANCE OF WOUNDING OR LOSING AN ANIMAL IS GREATLY INCREASED WHEN USING A SMALL CARTRIDGE SUCH AS THE .223. PERIOD.
Take what you will with this. There will always be the guys who say things like what I quoted. That doesn't mean its good advice. Again, if I offended anyone I'm sorry but I really don't want to have anyone back on here in the future saying "Man I lost a deer this weekend because my .223 didn't kill it."
Posted By: cody
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/19/08 03:12 AM
I agree CleanKill, it's not a shot just anyone should take with a .223. I've seen it done and I've seen it done poorly. I had a hunter shoot a wild spanish goat at 400 yards and drop it like a rock with a .223, when calling him on it he just smiled. The next day we came on the goats again, nailed another one from 350. That fool could shoot. I believe that the gun in question is very adequate in the hands of a capable hunter. I do not recomend you shoot it or any other gun for that matter until you have competently mastered said gun. I've seen shots botched with a .300 win mag also. I will reitterate what has been said over a million times on this forum...LEARN TO SHOOT THE RIFLE YOU'LL HUNT WITH. IF YOU HIT THEM RIGHT THEY WILL FALL!
Posted By: CleanKill
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/19/08 03:49 AM
Quote:
I agree CleanKill, it's not a shot just anyone should take with a .223. I've seen it done and I've seen it done poorly. I had a hunter shoot a wild spanish goat at 400 yards and drop it like a rock with a .223, when calling him on it he just smiled. The next day we came on the goats again, nailed another one from 350. That fool could shoot. I believe that the gun in question is very adequate in the hands of a capable hunter. I do not recomend you shoot it or any other gun for that matter until you have competently mastered said gun. I've seen shots botched with a .300 win mag also. I will reitterate what has been said over a million times on this forum...LEARN TO SHOOT THE RIFLE YOU'LL HUNT WITH. IF YOU HIT THEM RIGHT THEY WILL FALL!
That is true, but I am also an opponent of the .300 mag as well. I feel it has no place in the hunting world except for moose or bear. Elk can be killed just as effectively with a .30-06 with the right round and you don't risk demolishing meat. I also don't believe most people should attempt shots at elk at more than 200 yds. A .300 mag definitely should never be used on whitetail, I don't care how big they are. It has the potential to destroy a good part of the animal. I knew a guy when I was the Marines that was from Georgia. He said he had always hunted with a .300 win mag. He said he would shoot them in the front leg and would always kill the deer even though he lost a lot of meat. I don't believe this to be good ethics.
Posted By: TexasVine
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/19/08 04:02 AM
"Clean Kill" said it well. Placement is key. I shoot a 223, 300WSM and a 45-70. I know my guns and my capable range for each gun. I take the time to learn the ballistics on my loads being shot. Most deer hunters (not all) shoot a week before season at the range and then go to the stand. Shooting at the range from a bench rest is a good place to start (sighting in) but that is not practical shooting. Fairness to the game you are shooting is responsible hunting. Clean kills are in most part a learned skill. Skill is acquired by practice. Sure you can get lucky borrowing a friend's rifle and shooting from a seat in a blind but I have seen a lot of guys miss the vitals because they have lack of time with the gun there shooting. The question isn't if a 223 is enough, the question is are you good enough with a 223. If not, a larger caliber can be more forgiving. Good luck to you and shoot safe.
Posted By: DEERSTRANGLER
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/19/08 07:14 AM
Got to thinking about one of the guys that I was taking to shoot a management buck on this place down in Brownwood one time. He had shot a doe with a .223 and lost it, so he went out and got himself a Ruger 7mm Rem Mag. We get out to shoot a cull buck and one pops out and he lets the fur fly. Rifle kicks back I find a pile of guts on the ground and we track the deer 600 yards across 15 rattlesnake dens. We got within 50 yards of the still alive deer and he could'nt make the shot. I popped it with my AR-15 and it was lights out. Next week he found out that he did'nt lose the deer he'd shot with his .223 due to it's ineffectiveness. When he shot that deer it ran a ways and it was near dark. He went back to camp to get a light and a friend. When he came back the deer was gone and no sign of a deer was around. The ranchers son was coming back after dark and found the dead deer in the middle of the ranch road 50yds from the hit and put it in the back of his truck and took it home. Once Charlie found out he sold that 7 mag and went back to his .223 Since then he's moved up to a .243 and has'nt "lost" a deer since.
Posted By: PrimitiveHunter
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/19/08 12:23 PM
The same set of statistics can be 'spun' to prove or disprove anything.
I have never lost a deer I shot with a .223.
I lost 1 deer that I shot with a .270. Actually, I found it 3 days later but between the hogs and coyotes, all that was left was the head.
Anyway, statistically speaking, the .223 is MUCH better for deer than the .270.
I also have never lost a deer shot with a Glock .357sig.
So if you look at the statistics, the .270 is about the worst rifle you could hunt with.
While the "facts" above are true, the post is tongue-in-cheek. We all know the .270 is a great deer caliber. My point is that a lot of people make up their minds based on campfire stories and personal prejudices. I don't care what caliber you use. If you hit a deer in a place where that caliber is effective, the deer is dead. The only variable (besides our ability to hit where we're aiming) is knowing the effective point of impact.
I've killed deer with .357mag, .357sig, .44mag, .223, .338wmag, and never lost one. I have killed deer with .270 and 30-30 and lost 1 with each. I vote that we quit preaching about the "best" round or the "worst" round and just agree that different rounds work for different people based on their technical skill. Yeah, that's going to happen!
I have never lost a deer I shot with a .223.
I lost 1 deer that I shot with a .270. Actually, I found it 3 days later but between the hogs and coyotes, all that was left was the head.
Anyway, statistically speaking, the .223 is MUCH better for deer than the .270.
I also have never lost a deer shot with a Glock .357sig.
So if you look at the statistics, the .270 is about the worst rifle you could hunt with.
While the "facts" above are true, the post is tongue-in-cheek. We all know the .270 is a great deer caliber. My point is that a lot of people make up their minds based on campfire stories and personal prejudices. I don't care what caliber you use. If you hit a deer in a place where that caliber is effective, the deer is dead. The only variable (besides our ability to hit where we're aiming) is knowing the effective point of impact.
I've killed deer with .357mag, .357sig, .44mag, .223, .338wmag, and never lost one. I have killed deer with .270 and 30-30 and lost 1 with each. I vote that we quit preaching about the "best" round or the "worst" round and just agree that different rounds work for different people based on their technical skill. Yeah, that's going to happen!
Posted By: buster2balls
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/19/08 02:09 PM
I've killed deer with .357mag, .357sig, .44mag, .223, .338wmag, and never lost one. I have killed deer with .270 and 30-30 and lost 1 with each. I vote that we quit preaching about the "best" round or the "worst" round and just agree that different rounds work for different people based on their technical skill. Yeah, that's going to happen!
10-4 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted By: Jimbo
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/19/08 07:28 PM
Quote:
I've killed deer with .357mag, .357sig, .44mag, .223, .338wmag, and never lost one. I have killed deer with .270 and 30-30 and lost 1 with each. I vote that we quit preaching about the "best" round or the "worst" round and just agree that different rounds work for different people based on their technical skill. Yeah, that's going to happen!
10-4 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Using this logic we might as well include the .22 rimfire into the mix, because after all it will also kill if the shot is placed correctly.
Posted By: PrimitiveHunter
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/19/08 08:54 PM
Quote:
Using this logic we might as well include the .22 rimfire into the mix, because after all it will also kill if the shot is placed correctly.
Nope. That's against the law. Do we actually have to denote that the discussion only applies to legal means?
Posted By: Jimbo
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/19/08 10:07 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Using this logic we might as well include the .22 rimfire into the mix, because after all it will also kill if the shot is placed correctly.
Nope. That's against the law. Do we actually have to denote that the discussion only applies to legal means?
Sorry about that! Just used it hypothetically since we are talking anything goes, but I guess we should mention as long as it's legal anything goes using that logic.
Posted By: texasd
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/20/08 01:30 AM
all i know about carring the more of the nato rds in my ruck then the same wieght in a differ caliber.... i guess what im saying is i would rather carry 300 rds of 223 then 150 rds of a heavier caliber.... cause i would rather have more of a lighter wieght bullets then a few heavy weight bullets....
Posted By: ForneyRider
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/25/08 04:37 PM
I shot my first deer this year with 50gr .223 in my bull barrelled AR. Bullet went exactly where I wanted it. Deer flopped down and never got up. It was dead when I walked the 120yards up to it.
My dad shoots deer, hog, coyote regularly with his .22-250 and 50gr V-Max.
One guy, in our hunting party, shot a doe last year with 150gr 7mm mag gut shot and had to chase it all over the place. He came back all scratched up and cussing. The doe had a fist sized exit hole.
All about shot placement.
My dad shoots deer, hog, coyote regularly with his .22-250 and 50gr V-Max.
One guy, in our hunting party, shot a doe last year with 150gr 7mm mag gut shot and had to chase it all over the place. He came back all scratched up and cussing. The doe had a fist sized exit hole.
All about shot placement.
Posted By: CleanKill
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/26/08 04:07 AM
Exactly what I said. Shot placement is the biggest factor here. But none of you know how good of a shot this guy is, or how much experience he has, or how good at estimating range he is, or how strong his self control is if he sees a big buck out of range. Therefore, and someone please PLEASE tell me if I'm wrong, but we should not be telling this guy that a .223 is is a super round for deer hunting. Plenty of you have used of for deer. That's fine. I'm not saying your lying about it. All I'm saying is don't give advice to people who you have no idea what there skills are, especially when it comes to using small rounds on larger animals.
About the "I'd rather have 300 rds in my truck then 150" What the hell do you need 300 rounds for? Besides, get an ammo can. They hold plenty of ammo. That's what I do.
About the "I'd rather have 300 rds in my truck then 150" What the hell do you need 300 rounds for? Besides, get an ammo can. They hold plenty of ammo. That's what I do.
Posted By: Crazyhorse
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/26/08 04:36 AM
CleanKill, you are fighting a brave but losing battle.
until some of these folks shoot and lose a deer or two, they are going to believe that the 223 is the Medicine for deer, regardless the range or the experience level of the shooter.
Unfortunately, one of the things I do not agree with TP&W on is the concept that not all hunters are out there trying to be conscientious sportsmen.
Other states have placed a minimum on the caliber to be used, in most or all cases 243. for hunting deer.
People make a few kills, and instead of looking at everything associated with the kill, distance of shot, hunting from a blind or stand, relaxed animal at a feeder, and they declare the caliber being used as The Ultimate Texas Deer Rifle.
Conversely, there are some folks that will try to overcome lack of experience with the latest/greatest, lightning bolt thrower on the market, and over power themselves, and get something that they believe will suck enough oxygen out of the atmosphere, that a close miss will cause an animal to succumb to that drain on its oxygen supply.
The 222/223/22-250, have all accounted for many deer in Texas, and will continue to do so.
Do I think that they are THE PERFECT DEER ROUND, NO.
I also, think that for the average persomn the 30 mags and larger are not the perfect deer round either.
I just think that the various 224 diameter cartridges are borderline and that there are better choices. JMO.
until some of these folks shoot and lose a deer or two, they are going to believe that the 223 is the Medicine for deer, regardless the range or the experience level of the shooter.
Unfortunately, one of the things I do not agree with TP&W on is the concept that not all hunters are out there trying to be conscientious sportsmen.
Other states have placed a minimum on the caliber to be used, in most or all cases 243. for hunting deer.
People make a few kills, and instead of looking at everything associated with the kill, distance of shot, hunting from a blind or stand, relaxed animal at a feeder, and they declare the caliber being used as The Ultimate Texas Deer Rifle.
Conversely, there are some folks that will try to overcome lack of experience with the latest/greatest, lightning bolt thrower on the market, and over power themselves, and get something that they believe will suck enough oxygen out of the atmosphere, that a close miss will cause an animal to succumb to that drain on its oxygen supply.
The 222/223/22-250, have all accounted for many deer in Texas, and will continue to do so.
Do I think that they are THE PERFECT DEER ROUND, NO.
I also, think that for the average persomn the 30 mags and larger are not the perfect deer round either.
I just think that the various 224 diameter cartridges are borderline and that there are better choices. JMO.
Posted By: Deerhunter61
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/26/08 04:48 AM
Will it kill a deer...yep...so will a 22...
I will not bring up "hunting ethics" in this but....
I just do not think this is a good cartrige for deer. Again will it work...yes but when I think about the chances you will wound the deer vs putting it down especially on marginal shots...
I think a 243 should be the smallest caliber used on deer.
I will not bring up "hunting ethics" in this but....
I just do not think this is a good cartrige for deer. Again will it work...yes but when I think about the chances you will wound the deer vs putting it down especially on marginal shots...
I think a 243 should be the smallest caliber used on deer.
Posted By: CleanKill
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/26/08 04:54 AM
Same here deerhunter61. I just really don't want to see anyone lose a deer on here.
Posted By: Bucket
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/27/08 03:26 AM
Quote:
"Clean Kill" said it well. Placement is key. The question isn't if a 223 is enough, the question is are you good enough with a 223.
Well said. 3 deer thus far this year with my Rem Mohawk 600 in .222. Devastating what that 50 grain softpoint does...
Posted By: Earl
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/27/08 03:51 AM
You can count me in the not convinced category. I won't use my AR for deer hunting, I just won't trust it. But I did take it out for hogs/predators. Weekend before last a big boar comes out and I take a head shot on it - ammo was Federal 50gr HP. The hog stumbled and ran - I'm sure it was hit. But there was no blood, not one drop and no hog was found. Since it was a hog, I didn't particularly care as I just want the things gone from my deer lease. This hog has been seen on the cameras daily, but has not been on my cameras since.
But last weekend I carried my .270 with 130gr core lokts and when the opportunity repeated itself on another hog - it DRT, deader than dead with a pool of blood you could have taken a bath in.
I'm not convinced on it's ultimate performance as a deer round at distances over 100 yards (and even less if the shot is marginal). But that's just me.
Earl
But last weekend I carried my .270 with 130gr core lokts and when the opportunity repeated itself on another hog - it DRT, deader than dead with a pool of blood you could have taken a bath in.
I'm not convinced on it's ultimate performance as a deer round at distances over 100 yards (and even less if the shot is marginal). But that's just me.
Earl
Posted By: CleanKill
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/27/08 05:26 AM
I know people are gonna keep using it. At least make sure you use the right bullet. DO NOT USE MILITARY AMMO! Try to use soft points. They expand a little slower than v-max. V-max can expand too quick if they hit bone. I really do worry about people losing deer to the .223. I'm not on here trying to be a "Well your wrong because that's not what I do" kind of guy. The worst thing you can do while hunting is lose an animal.
Posted By: Jimbo
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/27/08 01:04 PM
I pretty much did the same thing on a big boar hog I shot the other day.
I had been seeing him a couple weeks in a row, so when the weather got nice and cool I decided I'd take him and he was out about 80 to 90 yards broadside, so I put the crosshair right behind and below his ear and squeezed off the shot...
I heard the bullet plop and the hog went down right now, and started wildly kicking and I thought to myself, that was fast and now the work starts.
No sooner I had those thoughts he jumped up and ran off, and it sounded like a bulldozer going through the brush as he broke huge limbs trying to escape.
I figured he's bound to be lying just a ways into the brush, but I still can't believe it, because I found not a trace of blood or the hog.
I could see where he ran, but nothing but a bunch of broken logs, and limbs and no sign of the hog whatsoever...
Went back the next day even looking for help from the buzzards and nothing.
So I guess the moral of the story is keep using the .223 for large game if you are confident, and just rest assured that your time will come when you loose an animal to the varmint round..
I had been seeing him a couple weeks in a row, so when the weather got nice and cool I decided I'd take him and he was out about 80 to 90 yards broadside, so I put the crosshair right behind and below his ear and squeezed off the shot...
I heard the bullet plop and the hog went down right now, and started wildly kicking and I thought to myself, that was fast and now the work starts.
No sooner I had those thoughts he jumped up and ran off, and it sounded like a bulldozer going through the brush as he broke huge limbs trying to escape.
I figured he's bound to be lying just a ways into the brush, but I still can't believe it, because I found not a trace of blood or the hog.
I could see where he ran, but nothing but a bunch of broken logs, and limbs and no sign of the hog whatsoever...
Went back the next day even looking for help from the buzzards and nothing.
So I guess the moral of the story is keep using the .223 for large game if you are confident, and just rest assured that your time will come when you loose an animal to the varmint round..
Posted By: CleanKill
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/27/08 03:46 PM
Quote:
So I guess the moral of the story is keep using the .223 for large game if you are confident, and just rest assured that your time will come when you loose an animal to the varmint round..
Well said.
Posted By: Crazyhorse
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/27/08 06:05 PM
That is unfortunately the way it has to evolve.
But, that does not just apply to the 224 calibers for deer, but for nearly everything humans do.
As long as what they are doing is working and things are turning out for the good in their opinion, the will keep doing it.
Then when the odds finally catch up to them, it will be a Murphy's Law situation where the odds run out at the most inopportune time. JMO.
But, that does not just apply to the 224 calibers for deer, but for nearly everything humans do.
As long as what they are doing is working and things are turning out for the good in their opinion, the will keep doing it.
Then when the odds finally catch up to them, it will be a Murphy's Law situation where the odds run out at the most inopportune time. JMO.
Posted By: Texas Dan
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/27/08 06:19 PM
Quote:
You need to shoot that gun before you make the decision to pull the trigger at an animal, just my two cents.
Absolutely. The first of the Hunting Commandments is "thou shalt not use a borrowed rifle without first shooting it."
Posted By: PrimitiveHunter
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/28/08 05:00 PM
Quote:
But none of you know how good of a shot this guy is, or how much experience he has, or how good at estimating range he is, or how strong his self control is if he sees a big buck out of range.
Apparently, you know all these things or you wouldn't be so concerned.
Maybe I'm just getting to be a grumpy old man but I really get tired of people telling me what caliber, what range, what scope, etc I should be using. None of you have ever hunted with me. Other than a few transactions, none of you have even met me. How do you figure you have the moral authority to dictate how I hunt? What's my max range for shot at a deer? Do you know? Do you have any inkling that I may consider the weather conditions, the time of day, the type of weapon, the position of the animal, my physical condition at that very moment, my mental condition at that moment, or even whether I feel like gutting a deer right then? Because believe me, I've been killing deer for 42 years and I take all those things into consideration; especially the last one.
I shoot a longbow. Am I stupid for not shooting a compound? Should I be banned by the TPWD from shooting a stickbow because compounds exist? Do you even have any idea how many bucks I’ve let walk by at 30 yards because I won’t shoot that far with my longbow? Better yet, why don't we ban all archery equipment? I mean, we all know that Joe Blow over there is going to be attempting 100 yard shots and wounding deer every week. Since a bad hit with a gun will kill quicker than a bad hit with an arrow, let's ban arrows because we‘ve already made the decision that people take irresponsible shots. We can't possibly trust all hunters to know their limitations and stay within them so let's just force our vision down everyone's throat.
Again, I vote that you hunt ethically within whatever limitations you have and I'll do the same. I promise I'll never sit in judgment of you or lament your limitations or try to force my limitations on everyone else. Further, I promise that when you finally lose a deer, I will not think any less of you as a hunter or a person.
Here's something I can virtually guarantee. Most people will lose a deer at some point if they hunt enough. I don't care if you're using a .223 or a .375 or a bow or a muzzle loader. Deal with it or quit hunting. But most of all, get off your high horse and quit telling the rest of the World what is right for me.
Posted By: huntandfish
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/29/08 01:15 AM
I gew up shooting alittle .22 hornet. I killed five or six deer before I started shooting a larger caliber. Longest shot was a little over a hundred using the 45 grain remmy psp. The .223 has double the energy at 100 yards. At 200 it has three times the energy. The longest a deer ran was probably 50 yards with blood everywhere. Just use a good bullet, place your shot well and your good to go!!!!
Posted By: CleanKill
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/29/08 02:51 AM
Quote:
Quote:
But none of you know how good of a shot this guy is, or how much experience he has, or how good at estimating range he is, or how strong his self control is if he sees a big buck out of range.
Apparently, you know all these things or you wouldn't be so concerned.
No, I have never met this guy. I don't know any of these things about him. The reason I'm concerned is everyone who told him it was a great round assumes that he is a completely competent shooter, aware of all the things I mentioned before. I'm not saying he isn't, just that nobody should assume he is.
Maybe I'm just getting to be a grumpy old man but I really get tired of people telling me what caliber, what range, what scope, etc I should be using. None of you have ever hunted with me. Other than a few transactions, none of you have even met me. How do you figure you have the moral authority to dictate how I hunt? What's my max range for shot at a deer? Do you know? Do you have any inkling that I may consider the weather conditions, the time of day, the type of weapon, the position of the animal, my physical condition at that very moment, my mental condition at that moment, or even whether I feel like gutting a deer right then? Because believe me, I've been killing deer for 42 years and I take all those things into consideration; especially the last one.
I never told him any of those things. All I said was that I dissaprove of the .22 caliber rounds as cartridges that should be used on Deer sized game. Don't put words in my mouth. If you come here trying to debate, don't try to change what I've said to fit your needs. Maybe next time you should read it a little better before making a comment.
I shoot a longbow. Am I stupid for not shooting a compound? Should I be banned by the TPWD from shooting a stickbow because compounds exist? Do you even have any idea how many bucks I’ve let walk by at 30 yards because I won’t shoot that far with my longbow? Better yet, why don't we ban all archery equipment? I mean, we all know that Joe Blow over there is going to be attempting 100 yard shots and wounding deer every week. Since a bad hit with a gun will kill quicker than a bad hit with an arrow, let's ban arrows because we‘ve already made the decision that people take irresponsible shots. We can't possibly trust all hunters to know their limitations and stay within them so let's just force our vision down everyone's throat.
I don't even know what to say about this one. The fact that you state you have let many deer shows that you have great self control. This tells me alot about the decisions you would make in the field, and it also shows me that you understand your limitations. There is nothing wrong with this. However, nobody knows if the OP has the same qualities. Again, I'm not saying he doesn't, just that we shouldn't assume. With you having told me that, if you asked the same question, I would have had no problem with someone telling you the same because I know you probably wouldn't try anything crazy. This is totally opposite of the OP. Do you understand what I'm saying?
As far as Joe Blow, we can't do anything about him. But let me make a sample thread along the lines of this one.
Joe: Is a 100 yd shot with a compound bow ok for deer?
Me: It's probably not a good idea to shoot over 30 yds. I would keep it under that if possible. The chances of losing a deer increase quite a bit after that.
Person1: I guess we should tell all the deer I've killed at 60 yds that they aren't dead.
Me: Well, we shouldn't assume this guy is that competent with a bow.
Person2: I do it all the time out to 70 yds. I've never lost a deer.
Me: Nobody knows how much experience this guy has. Don't assume he is very experienced......
and so on. Do you see the similarity?
Again, I vote that you hunt ethically within whatever limitations you have and I'll do the same. I promise I'll never sit in judgment of you or lament your limitations or try to force my limitations on everyone else. Further, I promise that when you finally lose a deer, I will not think any less of you as a hunter or a person.
Again, I have not tried to force anything on anyone, except that we should not assume anyone on here is as competent as ourselves and we should be cautious with the advice we give out. I'm not judging anyone. You have just taken it that way.
Here's something I can virtually guarantee. Most people will lose a deer at some point if they hunt enough. I don't care if you're using a .223 or a .375 or a bow or a muzzle loader. Deal with it or quit hunting. But most of all, get off your high horse and quit telling the rest of the World what is right for me.
I have no see in the future, but I know plenty of old guys that have never lost an animal. Not every one loses deer. And there are things you can do to improve the chance that you won't. Don't make assumptions. And again, Don't put words in my mouth. I'm not telling anyone whats right for anyone. All I said was that we should not assume.
You, sir, have taken this way out of hand and obviously misunderstood everything I have said. Next time maybe you should read the whole post twice to insure you understand what is being said.
And the biggest thing is you need to stop putting words in people's mouths. I never said most of the things you put on here. If you can't have an intelligent debate then stick to the other threads.
Posted By: PrimitiveHunter
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/29/08 04:28 AM
Quote:
The reason I'm concerned is everyone who told him it was a great round assumes that he is a completely competent shooter
Sorry I can't get my point across. My point is that the validity of the round does not hinge upon his skill. A bad hit is a bad hit.
Quote:
All I said was that I dissaprove of the .22 caliber rounds
No, that's not all you said. You agreed with/supported the following quote.
Quote:
So I guess the moral of the story is keep using the .223 for large game if you are confident, and just rest assured that your time will come when you loose an animal to the varmint round..
While your archery conversation is somewhat entertaining, it proves that you know little or nothing about bowhuntings most successful bowhunter. Have you ever heard of Chuck Adams? Mr. Adams holds 5 World records and has 122 animals officially entered in the Pope & Young books. Why does that matter? Because Mr. Adams regularly shoots animlas at 60 and 70 yards with his bow; even though the hunting world is full of people that assume he is an irresponsible hunter. Dang. There's that ASSUME word again.
Quote:
Me: Nobody knows how much experience this guy has
Again, this bears no relevance on the validity of a round.
And finally, just to let you know that I understand you aren't picking on the .223, here's another bit of your wisdom. I was thinking of buying a 50 cal muzzleloader for shooting does but now you've convinced me otherwise. 50 cal is just WAY too big!
Quote:
I am also an opponent of the .300 mag as well. I feel it has no place in the hunting world except for moose or bear. A .300 mag definitely should never be used on whitetail, I don't care how big they are.
In leaving, all I can say about your statement below is that you have been truly blessed to have never been hunting when someone is bitten by a rattler, broken a leg, or heard of the loss of a loved one.
Quote:
The worst thing you can do while hunting is lose an animal.
Posted By: TreeBass
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/29/08 04:41 AM
Pretty decent thread, great advice from several of you...and I'm going to throw my 02 in here..
I shoot the smaller rounds, shot a Rem .222 for years, it accounted for two of my personal best deer. The one that was most impressive was the 260yd 10 pointer, DRT, never took another step. Now, was I familiar with the round? yes sir, all hand loads, and I shot that gun just about 2-3 times a week at the range, out to 300m. 5 rounds under a dime was the norm.
The important thing is knowing your weapon, and WHAT YOU are capable of doing with it. that Rem in someone elses hands might not be the right cal, or range...but practice makes for a lesser chance of a wounded deer...
Oh, and my other fav is .221 Fireball
I shoot the smaller rounds, shot a Rem .222 for years, it accounted for two of my personal best deer. The one that was most impressive was the 260yd 10 pointer, DRT, never took another step. Now, was I familiar with the round? yes sir, all hand loads, and I shot that gun just about 2-3 times a week at the range, out to 300m. 5 rounds under a dime was the norm.
The important thing is knowing your weapon, and WHAT YOU are capable of doing with it. that Rem in someone elses hands might not be the right cal, or range...but practice makes for a lesser chance of a wounded deer...
Oh, and my other fav is .221 Fireball
Posted By: CleanKill
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/29/08 05:02 AM
Quote:
Quote:
The reason I'm concerned is everyone who told him it was a great round assumes that he is a completely competent shooter
Sorry I can't get my point across. My point is that the validity of the round does not hinge upon his skill. A bad hit is a bad hit.
Then that's my fault, I didn't clarify well enough what I was trying to say. Let me put it more clearly. I do not like the use of a .223, .22-250, .222, .224 or other such round for use on deer. However, I do understand people will continue to use this round. But, let me quote some of my other posts on here.Quote:
Good job on shot placement. That's the biggest concern on ANY round. I personally would never use a .223. I have one for coyotes, but that's it. I use a .30-06. Always have and always will.Quote:
If your comfortable using it then go ahead. With the advice given, if you lose or wound an animal you will have to live with it. I'm not trying to be an [censored] or rude or anything. In the end it's your decision.Quote:
If I offend anyone, than I apologize.
As I've said before, I'm sure there are people out there who have made plenty of kills with the .223. There's always the guy who says "Well I've done it since 1927 and never lost one!" That does not mean it can't happen! Anyone who gives this answer to someone who asks the question that the OP asked needs to realize that they may be leading him to disaster.Quote:
Now, with all that said, SHOT PLACEMENT is the BIGGEST factor in ANY RIFLE. Now, does anyone on here know the OP in person? If so, this doesn't apply to you. I can bet that almost every single person on here does NOT know the OP. You have no idea how good of a shot he is or how much experience he has. YOU SHOULD NEVER ADVISE SOMEONE TO SHOOT A ROUND THAT MAY VERY WELL NOT KILL THE ANIMAL UNLESS YOU KNOW THE CAPABILITIES OF THAT PERSON.
It's plain and simple: THE CHANCE OF WOUNDING OR LOSING AN ANIMAL IS GREATLY INCREASED WHEN USING A SMALL CARTRIDGE SUCH AS THE .223. PERIOD.
Take what you will with this. There will always be the guys who say things like what I quoted. That doesn't mean its good advice. Again, if I offended anyone I'm sorry but I really don't want to have anyone back on here in the future saying "Man I lost a deer this weekend because my .223 didn't kill it."Quote:
A .300 mag definitely should never be used on whitetail, I don't care how big they are. It has the potential to destroy a good part of the animal. I knew a guy when I was the Marines that was from Georgia. He said he had always hunted with a .300 win mag. He said he would shoot them in the front leg and would always kill the deer even though he lost a lot of meat. I don't believe this to be good ethics.Quote:
Shot placement is the biggest factor here. But none of you know how good of a shot this guy is, or how much experience he has, or how good at estimating range he is, or how strong his self control is if he sees a big buck out of range. Therefore, and someone please PLEASE tell me if I'm wrong, but we should not be telling this guy that a .223 is is a super round for deer hunting.Quote:
I know people are gonna keep using it. At least make sure you use the right bullet. DO NOT USE MILITARY AMMO! Try to use soft points. They expand a little slower than v-max. V-max can expand too quick if they hit bone. I really do worry about people losing deer to the .223. I'm not on here trying to be a "Well your wrong because that's not what I do" kind of guy.
Quote:
All I said was that I dissaprove of the .22 caliber rounds
No, that's not all you said. You agreed with/supported the following quote.
Quote:
So I guess the moral of the story is keep using the .223 for large game if you are confident, and just rest assured that your time will come when you loose an animal to the varmint round..
I do agree with that statement. I'm not gonna say I don't.
While your archery conversation is somewhat entertaining, it proves that you know little or nothing about bowhuntings most successful bowhunter. Have you ever heard of Chuck Adams? Mr. Adams holds 5 World records and has 122 animals officially entered in the Pope & Young books. Why does that matter? Because Mr. Adams regularly shoots animlas at 60 and 70 yards with his bow; even though the hunting world is full of people that assume he is an irresponsible hunter. Dang. There's that ASSUME word again.
I don't know any famous archers. But again, you are misconstruing my words. I never said that guy is wrong or unethical. Obviously he is an awesome shot and knows his own limitations, however crazy they are. I simply made an analogy since you were trying to make one.
Quote:
Me: Nobody knows how much experience this guy has
Again, this bears no relevance on the validity of a round.
No, but it does have relevance to people making assumptions about his ability to use this round within ITS limitations.
And finally, just to let you know that I understand you aren't picking on the .223, here's another bit of your wisdom. I was thinking of buying a 50 cal muzzleloader for shooting does but now you've convinced me otherwise. 50 cal is just WAY too big!
Quote:
I am also an opponent of the .300 mag as well. I feel it has no place in the hunting world except for moose or bear. A .300 mag definitely should never be used on whitetail, I don't care how big they are.
No, you are way off. A .50 cal muzzle loader has nowhere near the energy a .300 mag does. I'm not talking about the actual caliber .308, I'm talking about a .300 winchester magnum. A .50 cal muzzleloader is nowhere near that. Again, putting words in my mouth. And it seems you don't understand the difference between a caliber and a cartridge.
In leaving, all I can say about your statement below is that you have been truly blessed to have never been hunting when someone is bitten by a rattler, broken a leg, or heard of the loss of a loved one.
Quote:
The worst thing you can do while hunting is lose an animal.
No, I haven't but I wasn't necessarily talking about snakes and family deaths. I didn't even think about that.
Posted By: CleanKill
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/29/08 05:04 AM
Quote:
Pretty decent thread, great advice from several of you...and I'm going to throw my 02 in here..
I shoot the smaller rounds, shot a Rem .222 for years, it accounted for two of my personal best deer. The one that was most impressive was the 260yd 10 pointer, DRT, never took another step. Now, was I familiar with the round? yes sir, all hand loads, and I shot that gun just about 2-3 times a week at the range, out to 300m. 5 rounds under a dime was the norm.
The important thing is knowing your weapon, and WHAT YOU are capable of doing with it. that Rem in someone elses hands might not be the right cal, or range...but practice makes for a lesser chance of a wounded deer...
Oh, and my other fav is .221 Fireball
Exactly.
Posted By: PrimitiveHunter
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/29/08 05:21 PM
In the interest of preserving some of JPs bandwidth, maybe we can go through this one without any quote boxes and a plethora of bold font.
In one of your posts, you say "A .300 mag definitely should never be used on whitetail, I don't care how big they are." You don't say "I personally would never use a .300 mag" or "I don't see much reason to use a .300 mag". You say that it should definitely never be used on any deer of any size. By anyone (that's a question from me; not a quote from you)?
What should we infer from that statement? You don't waffle about it. You say "definitely". What about the guys that do. If you ask around, you'll probably find 1 or 2 guys that use a .375 and more than a few that use .300 mags. What are you saying to them? In this case, I'm just asking out of curiosity cause the biggest modern caliber I own is .270. I bought a .338 mag for Elk hunting in Colorado but never shot at one. I sold the rifle but not till after I had killed a few Texas Whitetails with it. I mean, I spent $1,500 on a rifle and scope so I figured I might as well kill something with it before I sold it. I know...I probably shouldn't have.
The .50 cal muzzleloader statement was a facetious jab at your line of reasoning. Sorry you didn't get the point.
In one of your posts, you say "A .300 mag definitely should never be used on whitetail, I don't care how big they are." You don't say "I personally would never use a .300 mag" or "I don't see much reason to use a .300 mag". You say that it should definitely never be used on any deer of any size. By anyone (that's a question from me; not a quote from you)?
What should we infer from that statement? You don't waffle about it. You say "definitely". What about the guys that do. If you ask around, you'll probably find 1 or 2 guys that use a .375 and more than a few that use .300 mags. What are you saying to them? In this case, I'm just asking out of curiosity cause the biggest modern caliber I own is .270. I bought a .338 mag for Elk hunting in Colorado but never shot at one. I sold the rifle but not till after I had killed a few Texas Whitetails with it. I mean, I spent $1,500 on a rifle and scope so I figured I might as well kill something with it before I sold it. I know...I probably shouldn't have.
The .50 cal muzzleloader statement was a facetious jab at your line of reasoning. Sorry you didn't get the point.
Posted By: Crazyhorse
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/29/08 11:47 PM
I go along with what PH is saying, simply because I have killed texas White Tails with everything from a 22 hornet up to and including a 458 Win Mag..
Your statement about 30 mags. DEFINITELY should not be used is total on your part because I have killed many deer with both a 300 Win Mag and a 300 Weatherby Mag, and yes I could be wrong on this but I think PH is refering to the fact that I have also killed a bunch of deer with a 375 H&H and it is my favorite all around hunting rifle.
It is one thing to say, "In My Opinion", this or that caliber should or should not be used, but you really need to have some experience and knowledge to back even that up.
To stand up and declare that something DEFINITELY should not be used is implying thaty you have a vast amount of experience in the matter and you feel that you are an authority.
I don't believe any of the 224 calibers are adequate, even though I know that thousands of deer are killed with the various 224's yearly.
I just believe that they are a marguinal choice, especially for those that do not have the experience or ability to place their shots properly each time.
Your statement about 30 mags. DEFINITELY should not be used is total
on your part because I have killed many deer with both a 300 Win Mag and a 300 Weatherby Mag, and yes I could be wrong on this but I think PH is refering to the fact that I have also killed a bunch of deer with a 375 H&H and it is my favorite all around hunting rifle.It is one thing to say, "In My Opinion", this or that caliber should or should not be used, but you really need to have some experience and knowledge to back even that up.
To stand up and declare that something DEFINITELY should not be used is implying thaty you have a vast amount of experience in the matter and you feel that you are an authority.
I don't believe any of the 224 calibers are adequate, even though I know that thousands of deer are killed with the various 224's yearly.
I just believe that they are a marguinal choice, especially for those that do not have the experience or ability to place their shots properly each time.
Posted By: CleanKill
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/30/08 06:14 PM
Ok, next time I'll make sure to put IMO so nobody gets confused on that part. Besides, the word "Definitely" was used in relation to my first line, which said "I feel there is no place in the hunting for the .300 mags except for Elk and Bear". The word that should be emphasized there is "FEEL". As far as the guys who use the .300 mags, there's nothing I can do about it. That doesn't I don't dissaprove of it. And at the same time, in the hands of a more skilled hunter it has less potential for drastic results then it does with Billy Bob Deer Hunter. But there are a lot of guys who buy rifles that shoot huge rounds to attempt to make up for bad shooting. I have a really great example of that, but I'm not gonna type it on here.
But that is how I feel, in other words In My Opinion, I don't like the use of the .300 mags on anything except Elk and Bear, and I also don't like the use of .224 cartridges on deer sized game, due to the very small margin of error. Also, we should be cautious of advice we give on this forum to people who we know nothing about and not assume that he/she is as competent or skilled as ourselves and may not have the experience needed to utilize such info as we have given in an ethical manner.
There, I don't know how to put it any clearer.
On another note, and this is completely off topic, but why do you shoot that Wolf ammo in your AR, PH? Your not afraid of those steel cases damaging your rifle? I would never use that ammo in my bushmaster, just my opinion (don't get mad, I'm not trying to aggravate you, just curious.)
But that is how I feel, in other words In My Opinion, I don't like the use of the .300 mags on anything except Elk and Bear, and I also don't like the use of .224 cartridges on deer sized game, due to the very small margin of error. Also, we should be cautious of advice we give on this forum to people who we know nothing about and not assume that he/she is as competent or skilled as ourselves and may not have the experience needed to utilize such info as we have given in an ethical manner.
There, I don't know how to put it any clearer.
On another note, and this is completely off topic, but why do you shoot that Wolf ammo in your AR, PH? Your not afraid of those steel cases damaging your rifle? I would never use that ammo in my bushmaster, just my opinion (don't get mad, I'm not trying to aggravate you, just curious.)
Posted By: Crazyhorse
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/30/08 07:07 PM
I will let PH address the issue of the brand of ammo in his AR.
As for the rest of your post, I agree with a lot of it.
Personally , and this is Just my Opinion , but I would have no problem what so ever with TP&W making the minimum caliber for deer in Texas, the 243/6mm..
Other states have that as their minimum, and I believe that is a good choice.
As for your comments about the 30 mags and larger, again, I agree with most of what you are saying, except that for the folks, and I consider myself one of those folks, who have learned how to use those larger guns and use them simply because they want to and know how to.
As for other people, yes, I remember when Weatherby brought out the 30-378.
Many "Gun Afficianados" bought them and claimed that they were "The Deer Rifle".
Many of those guns today are setting in the back of gun safes and have not been shot in a couple of years or more.
As for your advice about giving advice, unless it is a special circumstance, I never recommend the majority of the calibers I shoot.
The exceptions are the 257 Roberts/6.5x55 and some times the 35 Whelen.
Occasionally I will recommend the 300 Win. Mag. or 300 Weatherby Mag., but usually only to hunters with experience with the 270 and 30-06, that are wanting something to use on elk or possibly bigger critters.
Using the larger rifles on white tails and even smaller game does not constitute over kill, as long as the hunter has had the experience using such calibers.
I also agree with your assesment that some folks try to replace lack of hunting skill and knowledge with, in my opinion, not only larger more powerful rifles but also high dollar optics.
The use of either should be done to enhance a persons skills, not try to make up for a lack of those skills.
As for the rest of your post, I agree with a lot of it.
Personally , and this is Just my Opinion , but I would have no problem what so ever with TP&W making the minimum caliber for deer in Texas, the 243/6mm..
Other states have that as their minimum, and I believe that is a good choice.
As for your comments about the 30 mags and larger, again, I agree with most of what you are saying, except that for the folks, and I consider myself one of those folks, who have learned how to use those larger guns and use them simply because they want to and know how to.
As for other people, yes, I remember when Weatherby brought out the 30-378.
Many "Gun Afficianados" bought them and claimed that they were "The Deer Rifle".
Many of those guns today are setting in the back of gun safes and have not been shot in a couple of years or more.
As for your advice about giving advice, unless it is a special circumstance, I never recommend the majority of the calibers I shoot.
The exceptions are the 257 Roberts/6.5x55 and some times the 35 Whelen.
Occasionally I will recommend the 300 Win. Mag. or 300 Weatherby Mag., but usually only to hunters with experience with the 270 and 30-06, that are wanting something to use on elk or possibly bigger critters.
Using the larger rifles on white tails and even smaller game does not constitute over kill, as long as the hunter has had the experience using such calibers.
I also agree with your assesment that some folks try to replace lack of hunting skill and knowledge with, in my opinion, not only larger more powerful rifles but also high dollar optics.
The use of either should be done to enhance a persons skills, not try to make up for a lack of those skills.
Posted By: PrimitiveHunter
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/30/08 07:17 PM
Quote:
why do you shoot that Wolf ammo in your AR, PH?
Mostly, I shoot it cause I can shoot 800 rounds in an afternoon and it's relatively cheap. I haven't heard any reports of it damaging the rifles but I guess that's possible. I shoot the phosphate coated rounds; not the lacquered rounds so I don't worry too much about stuck cases. I never leave a round in a hot chamber if it's going to cool down.
But that's not the only brand I shoot. When I'm shooting tennis balls floating down the Red River, close is close enough for me to enjoy it so I mix other brands (like Ultramax and Remington) as well. The other brands are brass cased. Again, I never let the chamber cool down with a round in it.
I just bought some Federal Premiums loaded with Nosler 60 gr Partitions, Hornady Match with 75gr HP, Winchester Ranger LE with 55gr SP, and Hornady LE NATO 5.56 with 60 gr SP. I'll pattern these and see which group most consistently for future hunting.
Posted By: CleanKill
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/30/08 08:38 PM
Crazyhorse, that last post was well thought out. I think that is a good idea also. I actually don't know why they have it where you can shoot .224 rounds. Honestly, I never even knew people hunted deer with them until not too long ago. Most people I know shoot either 30-06 or .270 or 7mm Mag. My wife's rifle is a 7mm-08 but were gonna trade it in. It's a browning a-bolt. But you can't cycle the weapon with the safety on, and I never thought about that till this weekend but that's a different story. So we're gonna go get a Ruger or Remington instead. Both of those cycle with the safety on. And every rifle I buy from now on will.
I guess I've never seen the phosphate ones. I was thinking of the lacquer ones. We buy those in 7.62x39 but that's it. My bushmaster is a varminter. I shoot Hornady v-max, but I don't shoot volume. I usually hand load but I lost my damn scale and haven't bought a replacement yet. Not the actual scale but the bowl that hangs and holds powder. When I shoot volume I just borrow my bro's ak-47 or his m1 carbine. I know its a little more expensive but that gun is a blast! The m1 garand is fun too, but obviously not cheap.
I guess I've never seen the phosphate ones. I was thinking of the lacquer ones. We buy those in 7.62x39 but that's it. My bushmaster is a varminter. I shoot Hornady v-max, but I don't shoot volume. I usually hand load but I lost my damn scale and haven't bought a replacement yet. Not the actual scale but the bowl that hangs and holds powder. When I shoot volume I just borrow my bro's ak-47 or his m1 carbine. I know its a little more expensive but that gun is a blast! The m1 garand is fun too, but obviously not cheap.
Posted By: CleanKill
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/30/08 08:39 PM
Oh and I forgot to put IMO. Sorry
Posted By: PrimitiveHunter
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 11/30/08 08:46 PM
I loaned all my reloading stuff to a cousin, he died, and I guess his family sold it all in a garage sale.
I don't know if Wolf makes 7.62 phosphate cases. I know they make it in .223 and 5.45x39.
I don't know if Wolf makes 7.62 phosphate cases. I know they make it in .223 and 5.45x39.
Posted By: Crazyhorse
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 12/01/08 02:27 AM
Don't worry about the IMO or JMO, most of us know that it is just an opinion.
The problem some folks have is that most people have those IMO's or JMO's from personal experience.
All of us have had different experiences in our hunting and shooting careers, I Hope That Never Changes.
Where the problem comes in is when some folks believe that all opinions have to be based on facts, and because everyone has had different experiences, those opinions m,ay not be based on accepted facts, simply because the person that established the "Accepted" fact, never had those experiences.
The problem some folks have is that most people have those IMO's or JMO's from personal experience.
All of us have had different experiences in our hunting and shooting careers, I Hope That Never Changes.
Where the problem comes in is when some folks believe that all opinions have to be based on facts, and because everyone has had different experiences, those opinions m,ay not be based on accepted facts, simply because the person that established the "Accepted" fact, never had those experiences.
Posted By: CleanKill
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 12/01/08 04:15 AM
Ya'll are gonna rip on me hard for this but I've got a story to tell.
Saturday morning my wife and I were hunting. When we got back to the truck she was unloading her Browning A-bolt 7mm-08. We had the tailgate down and she had opened her case to catch the rounds when she ejected them. I was on the right of her doing the same thing with my Remington .30-06. Both rifles were pointed down at the bed.
Browning rifles will not cycle with the safety on. You have to take it off.
She got the first two rounds out ok. When she was trying to cycle the third round it was kind of sticky so she was wiggling the bolt to get it to come loose. The rifle fired! She had her left hand around the grip part of the stock, her finger wasn't anywhere near the trigger. Her right hand was clasped around the bolt, also not anywhere near the trigger. Luckily the rifle was pointed at the bed of the truck and not me! Now there's a big hole in the bed and a small dent where it hit the outside of the bed. It pays to practice proper safety, although it would've been better if it was pointed at the ground.
Well, now she is scared of that rifle, and I'm pretty nervous myself. I'm taking it to the gunsmith in the morning to get it checked out. We're not keeping it though, she'll never be able to shoot it again. If its ok I'm gonna sell it and get a Ruger.
Here's the part ya'll are gonna mess with me about. She can't shoot my .30-06. The eye relief is too long on my scope. We won't have the money to get the new rifle for a while. So that leaves us with my .22-250. I really, really don't like her using it, but I know she can shoot it well and our deer stand is only 100 yds from the feeder. I'm still very nervous about using it though. But it's our only option. I can't tell her she can't finish the season just because of her rifle.
Go ahead. I'm ready for whatever ya'll have to say.
Saturday morning my wife and I were hunting. When we got back to the truck she was unloading her Browning A-bolt 7mm-08. We had the tailgate down and she had opened her case to catch the rounds when she ejected them. I was on the right of her doing the same thing with my Remington .30-06. Both rifles were pointed down at the bed.
Browning rifles will not cycle with the safety on. You have to take it off.
She got the first two rounds out ok. When she was trying to cycle the third round it was kind of sticky so she was wiggling the bolt to get it to come loose. The rifle fired! She had her left hand around the grip part of the stock, her finger wasn't anywhere near the trigger. Her right hand was clasped around the bolt, also not anywhere near the trigger. Luckily the rifle was pointed at the bed of the truck and not me! Now there's a big hole in the bed and a small dent where it hit the outside of the bed. It pays to practice proper safety, although it would've been better if it was pointed at the ground.
Well, now she is scared of that rifle, and I'm pretty nervous myself. I'm taking it to the gunsmith in the morning to get it checked out. We're not keeping it though, she'll never be able to shoot it again. If its ok I'm gonna sell it and get a Ruger.
Here's the part ya'll are gonna mess with me about. She can't shoot my .30-06. The eye relief is too long on my scope. We won't have the money to get the new rifle for a while. So that leaves us with my .22-250. I really, really don't like her using it, but I know she can shoot it well and our deer stand is only 100 yds from the feeder. I'm still very nervous about using it though. But it's our only option. I can't tell her she can't finish the season just because of her rifle.
Go ahead. I'm ready for whatever ya'll have to say.
Posted By: Crazyhorse
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 12/01/08 04:29 AM
Well, let me see if I can't take the heat off you on this one.
With a feeder at 100 yards from the stand, and if she is confident in shooting the 22-250, then either a neck shot, or a high shoulder shot, right at the top of the shoulders about 2 or 3 inches down from the top line of the back, and any deer she hits should drop like a rock.
I do not advise a behind the shoulder, heart/lung shot, but a shot directly on the shoulder, to try and both break the shoulder and hopefully injure the spinal column/chord, enough to drop the animal on the spot.
Have her reload as fast as possible after the shot, and to set for at least 5 minutes after the initial shot.
If the animal attemopts to get up at any point during that time, have her put a second round into the same area as the first shot.
That should keep the animal down for good.
I do not like the use of the 224's as a deer cartridge, that has already been established, but, they can and do account for many thousand deer yearly across the USA where legal.
I also do not like neck or head shots, but, if a person is capable of making it, then by all means go for it.
If there is any doubt on the part of the shooter, then go for breaking the animal down by taking out a front shoulder and possibly injuring the spine so that even though the animal might not die out right from the shot, it will be anchored to the spot and can be finished off. JMO.
With a feeder at 100 yards from the stand, and if she is confident in shooting the 22-250, then either a neck shot, or a high shoulder shot, right at the top of the shoulders about 2 or 3 inches down from the top line of the back, and any deer she hits should drop like a rock.
I do not advise a behind the shoulder, heart/lung shot, but a shot directly on the shoulder, to try and both break the shoulder and hopefully injure the spinal column/chord, enough to drop the animal on the spot.
Have her reload as fast as possible after the shot, and to set for at least 5 minutes after the initial shot.
If the animal attemopts to get up at any point during that time, have her put a second round into the same area as the first shot.
That should keep the animal down for good.
I do not like the use of the 224's as a deer cartridge, that has already been established, but, they can and do account for many thousand deer yearly across the USA where legal.
I also do not like neck or head shots, but, if a person is capable of making it, then by all means go for it.
If there is any doubt on the part of the shooter, then go for breaking the animal down by taking out a front shoulder and possibly injuring the spine so that even though the animal might not die out right from the shot, it will be anchored to the spot and can be finished off. JMO.
Posted By: CleanKill
Re: Is a .223 enough? - 12/01/08 04:08 PM
That makes sense. I was gonna have her try for the neck, I'm confident she can hit it there. I just haven't figured out what ammo I should buy for it. All I have is Sierra Varmtiners. I don't want to use those cuz I'm afraid they're too explosive. I'm gonna look at the store today and see what they have.
I'll also be in the stand with her with my .30-06 so if a problem arises with her shot I'll be there to make sure it goes down. I don't think she'll have a problem though.
I'll also be in the stand with her with my .30-06 so if a problem arises with her shot I'll be there to make sure it goes down. I don't think she'll have a problem though.