.223 for deer?

S

stanmanplan

New member
What is this group's opinion of the new loads from Federal and Winchester in .223 that is rated for deer. 68 grain @ 2900 fps muzzle velocity. I'm a new AR owner but am concerned if this is an ethical load for deer.
Thanks,
Stan


------------------
"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future."
Adolph Hitler, 1935
 
Not relevant to your inquiry about those new bullets, but rather to the use of .223 for deerhunting.

The last deer my brother harvested (1998) was with his Remington .223 Varminter. He used a Barnes X bullet and took his buck with a chestshot. The bullet travelled through the body, losing a petal along the way, and finally came to rest near the hindquarters. Mind you, it was smaller buck than what my brother wanted, but he also wanted to test the bullet with a chest shot to learn more about its penetration and expansion - so he took it.

------------------
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt
 
Not in my deer camp.

My reason is simple: A shot which does not really hit a major vital area is likely to allow the critter to get away. Big no-no.

Now, from a stand where neck shots are quite possible, or for smaller deer at closer ranges, I might not be so hostile. But in open country where running shots are the norm, No Way. Trailing gutshot deer is a miserable deal, and finding a deer by the buzzards means no edible meat.

Now, my first deer was shot with a .222 Rem. It was a neck shot at about 20 yards on a very patient 80-lb doe...I wouldn't do that on a "real" deer at the more likely ranges commonly found.

FWIW, Art
 
My first deer was with a .22 Hornet. Head shot. Super accurate Thompson Contender pistol which was rested when fired. With handloaded ammunition, it would get a 1" group at 100 yards. Next time, I'd like to try a blackpowder rifle.

------------------
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt
 
I think the problem is "what's a deer?".

Here in SC your lucky to have one push 120 lbs. Up north that would be a fawn.

In the Hill Country of Texas, 120 lbs. is a huge deer.

We have used the .223 for deer, but it requires a lot of discipline and precise shot placement. Art is dead on the money and so is Gary. Different hunting methods, different criteria. The quantity of tissue damage is much less with a .223 than even a .30-30.

Personally, I would, but I would have the pre-set notion that unless I had a perfect shot, the deer walks.

Giz

------------------
"Shoot low boys, they're riding Shetland ponies..." LG, RIP
 
Gismo;

What part of SC ya from. Anywhere near Spartenburg?


Art ;

> A shot which does not really hit a major vital area is likely to allow the critter to get away. Big no-no. <

I couldn't agree with you more. Hence the reason I keep hounding Fernando Coelho and Tom Burczynski to come out with a .223 Quik-Shok. That and a .308 QS.

If you don't know the technology of the Quik-Shok check out Tritron Ammos Web Page. Basically it is a pre-fragmented bullet that breaks into three pieces after about 1" - 3". These three pieces then angle off of the original wound track.

IMO these would be perfect pill of using a .223 on deer.




------------------
Schmit, GySgt, USMC(Ret)
NRA Life, Lodge 1201-UOSSS
"Si vis Pacem Para Bellum"
 
David: No way. If there's one thing the .223 doesn't need when you're hunting medium game like deer, it's pre-fragmented bullets. One of the main issues with hunting deer, and one of the main shortcomings of many of the existing .223 bullets, is penetration. Super expansion and total energy transfer sometimes makes for some spectacular kills, but if you hit a rib wrong or hit the shoulder just so, you've got one running. I've seen this on an almost tragic occasion where a friend of one of the owners of the ranch I was hunting on shot a north Texas doe (120 lb) with a .220 Swift with 45g varminter bullet moving at about 4000 fps. An *enormous* hole opened on her shoulder, and she took off, hell-bent-for leather. My friend ended up making a very lucky shot at 200yards (offhand) with his '06 to solve the problem.

With a heavily-constructed bullet, at reasonable ranges (sub-150), with a very accurate rifle and by a shooter who knows he pulling a bit of a stunt, I'd say, sure, the .223 will do it. But with all the other rifles out there that will do it better, why would you want to?

Also keep in mind that there are shots that you simply must not take with a .223 on any deer that you would or could do with even a .243. You mustn't take ANY running shots, nor even moving shots. You mustn't take any quartering shots (penetration!). You mustn't take any shots from behind, unless you have a very close (sub-85 yd) head/neck shot (which I don't advocate, but that's another thread... :) ). And remember that, although you're in an are where a 125 lb deer is big, sure as you take out that little .223, you're going to spy the local record-holder MONSTER 175 lb 150pt B&C at 175 yards. And you're going to wonder if your rifle is enough.

The last thought through your mind as you squeeze the trigger should not be a question of confidence in your gear. This does not contribute to success.

Last year, I was in the Hill country on a high butte, and wanted some range, so I had my Sendero in .300 Win Mag, clearly too much for anything that walks in Texas. My alternative could have been a .243, or a .223, for that matter, for the two doe I'd already shot. Then, right at dusk, just as I was about to quit for the evening, out steps a humongous 200 lb buck at 150 yards. Of course, there was no doubt in my mind that the buck was mine as soon as he cleared the brush. Yes, I was overgunned, but at dusk, when tracking is going to be difficult, you don't want to be marginal.
 
Thanks to all on this subject. I believe that I have come to the conclusion that I will use my AR on selected hunts from a stand in my area (NC/SC). The deer are smallish and I have the patience to take a sure shot of the shorter variety.
Best Regards,
Stan

------------------
"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future."
Adolph Hitler, 1935
 
The last thought through your mind as you squeeze the trigger should not be a question of confidence in your gear. This does not contribute to success.
Click to expand...


Ding Ding Ding! I strongly prefer "Is this too much gun for ..."


Generally, if you have to ask if it's enough, it's not.
 
Sure it can. I never would unless I had nothing better and limited myself to CNS shots with a darn good rest. Trailing a wounded deer is no fun. Loosing a deer is miserable.
 
A .223 will kill a deer. It will kill an elephant. If pressed for food, I'd use it on a deer. For the life of me, I can't figure out why someone would use it as a first choice for deer, or hog. Why? Just about anything out there in a larger caliber will do the job much better.:)

Usually, it is someone who just got an AR and wants to hunt with it. If someone can afford an AR, then what is $250 more for a decent 30/30? My .223 is the last thing I'd ever use to hunt deer with. I acknowledge that my niece killed 8 deer with one, before she was 10 years old. A .223 NEF at that. :D

.223, 22-250, 222, did I miss any? They are all maimers and cripplers on deer. I acknowledge a friend who has killed probably a hundred with the 22-250, but again, why? Why do folks get hung up on a borderline caliber? :confused:

If you are going to go on a nice deer hunt, why not just take a well known deer caliber, capable, rifle, and not have to keep wondering about which shot you can take, and which you cannot. I'd bet that there are many hunters who just wouldn't be able to pass up a shot at a trophy buck, if they only were hunting with a 223, and the shot was risky at best.

This is only my humble opinion. ;) Also, Jack O'Connor observed that the 223 was a maimer and a crippler way back when, I haven't found reason to disagree with his words. Best - Ted
 
but again, why? Why do folks get hung up on a borderline caliber?
Click to expand...


i know one person who hunts with either a 22-250 or .223 for the simple reason that it allows him to not wear hearing protection and not suffer the consequences of a larger caliber


silly reasoning to some.... but it gets the job done every time he takes a shot, and he still has very good hearing.

more power to him imo
 
Lots of variables there. Florida wher deer are overgrown dogs (right hogdogs?:D) a .223 would be OK. Bigger deer like the ones I've hunted in WA state or mulies, could be done, but whether or not it would be considered OK would be based on individual ability and discretion in the shot.

I wouldn't recommend it for the baseline hunter.
 
dam so many posts that dont make a bit of sense..

shoot the deer behind the shoulder thru the lungs, NEVER IN THE NECK OR ASS OR ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE CHEST CAVITY That goes for ALL calibers, all you deer wounders keep shootn em in the neck and ass and keep giving hunters a bad name..

I havent shot a deer with a gun since 1988, just use archery equipment, and if you use the same philosophy for your rifle and any ETHICAL hunter does with a bow and should with a gun, then the .223 is fine, but you want ballistic tips, of PSP, hollow points in my opinion will blow up on a rib.
 
Personally I think the .223 is a little light for deer, but I have used it for Caribou with success. Sound like a contradiction ? Caribou are a lot bigger than deer, no doubt, but the habitat is vastly different. Both caribou and deer (as well as any other animal) will expire with a .223 bullet through lungs. However caribou are usually in open country where if they do not drop immediately or leave a blood trail it is no big deal, you can watch them fall. With deer, it can be a real problem with recovery if they do not go down quickly or leave a blood trail. I use the AR-15 for caribou in wintertime hunting because I do not mind subjecting it to the abuse of hunting on a snowmachine which can really take a toll on rifles. Also,the high mounted scope on carry handle allows use without removing face masks and hoods unlike rifles with low mounted optics. That being said, if you must use the .223 for deer that sounds like a pretty good load for the purpose.
 

Attachments

  • 485299-R1-22-3_023.jpg
    485299-R1-22-3_023.jpg
    145.1 KB · Views: 151
Many tens of thousands of red deer(similar in size to white tail) have been culled from New Zealand by profesional shooters, with the 222 being the favoured cartridge for many years. As the meat is harvested comercially, with helicopters flying multiple carcasses out, all deer are head/neck shot to achieve maximum return. Most hunters, however, will aim for a heart/lung shot if it presents itself, in which case your 223 with 68 grain bullets should be ok, with an unobstructed path, but forget angle shots or rear facing shots with a 22 centrefire. A 243 (minimum) works better for body shots on deer.
 
can of worms

I'm going to open A new can of worms. One PROBLEM with the 68gr. deer loads is that most 223cal. rifles will not stabilize the heavier grain bullets. The standard twist in almost all of the 223 cal. rifles is designed for the lighter grain bullets(40gr to 55gr.) after that the accuracy falls off rapidly.
 
There are bullets that are constructed for use on deer for the .223 caliber rifles. Let me start by saying that it would not be my first choice. With that out of the way I would not feel undergunned with a .223 that I could shoot it well. As mentioned by sureshots, make sure that you can get good accuracy out of the heavier bullets. I have read many posts that advocate the use of a 25-06 or 7mm08 for use on elk. If these cartridges will be OK for elk, that heavier constructed and extra weight bullet in 223 will work on deer. The key is to NOT TAKE BAD SHOTS and use properly constructed bullets. I'd much rather see someone with a 223 and the right bullets, that can shoot, takes good shots, rather than someone with a 30-06 with poorly selected bullets that can't shoot worth a darn and takes risky shots. A gut shot deer is just as gutshot with 30-06 as it is with a 223. A deer with a broken leg is just as broken with a 270 as it is with a 223. All things being equal I would rather see someone with a 270/280/7mm-08/308/30-06 with the properly constructed bullets, that can shoot, and only takes good, ethical shots. The guy pulling the trigger is far more important than the rifle he is shooting. IMHO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top