.223 or 22-250 for deer

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sure, a skilled shot with precision hits killed deer, but it was often "iffy" as to ethical kills without wounding.
Click to expand...

I've seen kids get so excited they had to ask which end the head was on
Click to expand...

This question is going to come off as flippant. Its not intended to be. It is intended to be illustrative.

At what caliber does a bad shot become a good shot?

What caliber overcomes the second concern of a hunter not being able to tell what end of the animal the head was on?

My point is... these are not concerns that any caliber is going to overcome. .223 or .375 Holland and Holland are not making up for a lack of skill or knowledge
 
I assume he means a bad angle or not perfect broadside shot, not a bad shot per say. With a higher caliber rifle I would feel comfortable taking a deer at any angle. A .223 not so much. I just don't understand this latest fetish of going smallest caliber for the game as you can? Is it recoil, do you think it's more sporty, what? I tend to respect the game I'm hunting more than using something just enough to be legal. I'm not trying to criticize the really good hunter who only takes head shots or perfect broadside with their weapon of choice but we all know that is typically not the norm.
 
Too many conditions for me but --- at least a 60 grain bullet made for deer ,premium better yet, proper twist to stabilize the bullet ,1:8. 150 yds max .
 
I assume he means a bad angle or not perfect broadside shot, not a bad shot per say. With a higher caliber rifle I would feel comfortable taking a deer at any angle. A .223 not so much. I just don't understand this latest fetish of going smallest caliber for the game as you can? Is it recoil, do you think it's more sporty, what? I tend to respect the game I'm hunting more than using something just enough to be legal. I'm not trying to criticize the really good hunter who only takes head shots or perfect broadside with their weapon of choice but we all know that is typically not the norm.
Click to expand...

I think that we are trying to dial back an idea that crept into American hunting of being no such thing as too much power. The sportsman of days gone by were able to successfully hunt with cartridges that many consider anemic by today's standards. I have read stories of guides who insist on their clients "sighting in" the rifle before the hunt only to discover, not by accident, that the client is recoil sensitive or has not put many rounds down range because of recoil. The inverse is true... one guide I recall reading had insisted those with him (the professionals) carry at least a 338 after a bear incident in which a "lucky" shot by a clients .270 had been required. Not personal experiences so take it for what it is worth.

I know for a fact one of my grandfathers took more deer with a .22 Hornet then I ever will but he was also a far better outdoorsman.
 
I think that we are trying to dial back an idea that crept into American hunting of being no such thing as too much power. The sportsman of days gone by were able to successfully hunt with cartridges that many consider anemic by today's standards. I have read stories of guides who insist on their clients "sighting in" the rifle before the hunt only to discover, not by accident, that the client is recoil sensitive or has not put many rounds down range because of recoil. The inverse is true... one guide I recall reading had insisted those with him (the professionals) carry at least a 338 after a bear incident in which a "lucky" shot by a clients .270 had been required. Not personal experiences so take it for what it is worth.

I know for a fact one of my grandfathers took more deer with a .22 Hornet then I ever will but he was also a far better outdoorsman.
Click to expand...

They also hunted with calibers that made much larger holes and enough punch for a not perfect shot. I haven't heard anyone ever claim you need a magnum to take a whitetail. Pretty much the only arguments I see recently is a magnum needed to kill a grizzly. The way I see is is now we've gone from "you can't have too much power" to well "this meets the minimum and can do the job for the most part". And every time someone brings up "I know someone who who killed lots with a .22 is not doing the current sportsmen a favor. Those were different times and circumstances. There is a reason they don't allow a .22 or less caliber for deer hunting. I'm not slamming your reasoning it just seems kind of like as pointless as using a 300 magnum for deer with the other side of the argument.
 
I'm not slamming your reasoning it just seems kind of like as pointless as using a 300 magnum for deer with the other side of the argument.
Click to expand...

I have intentionally hunted "Russian boar" with a .375 Holland and Holland. In my defense I may have been oversold on how tough they were. After dropping my .270 I was pressed into use the same rifle on a whitetail hunt and passed on the shots because I realized how ridiculous it was. This year I will hunt deer with a .243 because that is as small as I am comfortable going (I realize we are discussing slightly smaller). I get both sides of the argument and the lengths they go to.

Part of it I think has been the desire to "own just one gun" by people who primarly hunt whitetail. They buy a big enough gun to hunt Moose and as time passes the 30/06 becomes a "whitetail" gun with things like the .338 (and more) "needed" for larger game.

I think its kind of like a pendulum and it has been, in recent years, swung too far to the "too much power" side. It will swing back and we will likely have those hunting with too little power as a result. The problem is we cannot seem to agree on where "just right" is. I guess its a bit like Goldilocks.
 
I've killed deer with cartridges from .223 to 300 Win mag with the majority taken with 30/06, 7x57, and the 25's( 257 Rob and 25/06). I used to tote my "buck buster" 30/06 until I'd filled my buck tag then move to the lighter recoiling rifles for my "meat gun". The 30/06 will make a kill from any angle.
With most decent game bullets, the 30 cals will put a deer down rapidly even with a less than optimum hit(not a gutshot). The 7x57 is basically equal in this respect. The 25's are on the edge of handling certain angle shots and often would require premium bullets to handle those severe quartering shots.
For those proponents of the "little gun" theory, I can only say that sooner or later you WILL lose an animal or kick yourself for having to pass a shot you could have made with a more powerful round.
 
Its possible to use both cartridges for the taking of deer at those distances. But of the two choices I think the 223 is more appropriate for the purpose..
22-250 is a really fast bullet which more than likely will fragment upon contact. If you ever encounter a deer shot with a ultra high velocity varmint bullet that fragmented on the animals ribs or front shoulder. > Its a horrible thing to do to a Big Game animal. Without a doubt a bloody site I guarantee most fellows won't forget anytime soon.
 
Sure Shot Mc Gee said:
22-250 is a really fast bullet which more than likely will fragment upon contact. If you ever encounter a deer shot with a ultra high velocity varmint bullet that fragmented on the animals ribs or front shoulder.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of bullets that will hold together at .22-250 velocities like Barnes TSX/TTSX, Nosler Bonded Perfomance, E-Tip, and Partitions, and Cutting Edge Raptors. You'll not have a bullet leave the kind of damage on a deer that you're talking about. Bullet selection is the most important thing when using smaller calibers.
 
There are plenty of bullets that will hold together at .22-250 velocities like Barnes TSX/TTSX, Nosler Bonded Perfomance, E-Tip, and Partitions, and Cutting Edge Raptors.
You'll not have a bullet leave the kind of damage on a deer that you're talking about. Bullet selection is the most important thing when using smaller calibers.
Click to expand...

I totally agree bullet selection is important as is bullet placement. No worst shot can a hunter make on thin skin big game than one accidentally aimed at the front leg ball & socket. Hit squarely. Meat destruction beyond anticipated is assured. ~~Hopefullly you agree?
The few varmint shooters I know wouldn't shoot {any} rodent with such spendy all copper or Noslers best.
More likely those fellers I know would buy the cheapest HP or plastic tipped bullet seconds sold.
 
I've killed a few deer with the .22-250, but none over 150 yards. Back then (55+ yrs. ago) the only bullet that I used was a Nosler solid-based 55 grain Zipedo (no longer made).

My .22-250 was not accurate with 60 grain bullets, due to rifling (twist 1-14"?). In any case I wouldn't shoot another deer with less than a .243 Win, using tough bullets like the Hornady GMX.

A newbie hunter should use a cartridge that will give greater room for error, like the 7mm-08, IMHO. Recoil isn't bad and it will kill a deer at angles that would only cause painful wounds with lighter bullets.

One thing we need to consider is that the .223 was developed as a war round, and, as such, wounding the enemy is considered better than killing quickly, since it takes more people out of fight.

Hunting, on the other hand requires quick kills or blood trails to be able to find game that may have crawled off to tight cover before dying. (We've found too many deer that people have shot, but never recovered.)
 
Basic training

Yup, the .223 / 5.56 MILITARY bullets are indeed designed to wound.

I remember our drill sergeant telling us that you could shoot em in the left elbow and the bullet could come out their right knee or some such BS. That was early 1970's BMTS in the USAF.

We got a grand total of one day on the range with the M16. It was the best day of basic however. There's a dubious distinction if ever I hear one.
 
The .223 was developed as a HUNTING round for varmints. The changes in the past decade of bullet technology make it useful as a deer cartridge. Would it be my "across the farm" caliber? No but I think most of us harvest white tail under 150 yards. In that range the .223 will do the deed if you put it where it needs to go. It's a cheaper round to practice with aswell. Nothing trumps shot placement, so practice all you can.
 
The .223 was not designed as a varmint hunting cartridge. It owes it's heritage directly from the military desire for a lightweight combat rifle. Remington introduced a commercial .223 that could reach 3200+ fps a few years after military testing. It became popular because it fit the need of two previously popular calibers, the .222 and the .222 magnum. That was mainly in the US because other countries wouldn't allow the sale of military caliber weapons. It just so happens it's best use is in the varmint hunting category.
 
zipspyder, does the original intent for a particular cartridge matter? The .223 is basically a .222 Magnum, so it's basically in the general category of "varmint cartridge". Bullet-maker R&D during these recent 15 or 20 years has produced bullets which are now known to work well on deer--for all that there are caveats for appropriate types of shots, as to angles and distances.
 
@ Art, not at all. Shoot what you want with it. Just correcting another poster that said is was "designed" as a varmint hunting cartridge. Don't want misinformation or half truths floating around do we? Does it matter so much that I corrected the post for clarification?
 
Yup, the .223 / 5.56 MILITARY bullets are indeed designed to wound.
Click to expand...
I was under the impression that the so called Geneva convention mandated full metal patch bullets. Therefore, full metal jacket .223/5.56 bullets are designed in regard to the rules of war and whether or not they kill or wound is a moot point. ;)
 
Sorry, zipspyder; I had not recalled the earlier post.

dahermit, I don't recall that the US signed the Geneva deal, but we've gone along with it. Irrelevant to hunting, though. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top