.223 or 22-250 for deer

Status
Not open for further replies.
Different angle

I’m coming in a little late, but…

The way I see it, from the Original post and the majority of the debate, in this post and every other conversation in which it has come up, are coming from the wrong angle. Are the .223 and 22-250 capable? Sure, under the right conditions in the hands of the right shooter.

But why are we choosing them? We can debate the origins of their respective intentions, but it safe to say that neither cartridge was conceived with deer in mind. And sure, bullet technology has come light years, but that is only compensation, not optimization. Even in the hands of the best shooter who makes no mistakes, a larger bullet has a better chance of ending the life quickly.

So we’re using this round because we like it, then we want to apply that to our intended use. This is, for me, where the ethics come in. I have a lot of experience with both of these rifles, but I won’t use them for deer.

I generally hunt Virginia white tail, and I would classify them as medium on the white tail size scale. I know I can kill them with .223 of whatever bullet/cartridge combination has come out in the past decade with deer in mind. In the 150-200 yd range I have confidence in my shot placement. But I know I can kill them better, reduce fluke chances, and more ethically expedite their demise with a 6mm Rem, a .270, or a 30-06.

For me it is really important to handle it that way because I think the ethical hunt should trump gun preference. 22-250 and .223 are not ideal for deer hunting. Larger bullets are.

Of course, if it’s legal in your state to hunt with .224 center fire, you have to make the call for yourself when it comes to ethics. But I think it strains the argument to debate if these smaller cartridges are right for deer.
 
AR's

I think what is driving the ".223 for deer" theme is the incredible popularity of the AR rifle. Twenty-30 years ago, few folks had an AR pattern rifle, the carbine was experimental, and Colt was the only game in town. Now.....

Folks have bought the things, now what do you do with it? Well I know, I'll take it deer hunting. And away we go.......... I've even heard adults state (or put in print) well I bought this AR for Junior to hunt deer. Sure ya did.

I posted earlier that my boy had killed deer with a .223 bolt rifle and that "it can be done". He was VERY prepared for those first kills, having spent time in the shooting houses, and much .22 and later .223 practice, and he did just fine when the time came. But we moved very quickly as he matured and gained size, to larger and more effective calibers. Now I have to wrestle him for the Hog .308. Much gun , but he likes it. The fast .22's fill a niche, but it is a very narrow one, with limited application. I'd encourage anybody that wants to hunt their AR on deer, to buy a second upper in a heavier cartridge.

Oh yeah, there is no " front ball & socket" joint on the front shoulder/leg of a whitetail (or mammalfor that matter) . The rear legs have such a joint. That's the end with the tail, no antlers. Up front, there is a shoulder blade, which I have shot through with a compound bow, errantly I might add, on more than one occassion, when the angles are right and the thinner portions are hit.
 
Strange how nobody seems to post their failures with .22 caliber rounds on medium sized game. I have no doubt a lot of deer have been wounded and lost with those rounds, and telling everyone to become "expert" with it, I wouldn't consider the best approach. I would never even consider a .223 for deer hunting...and I doubt a lot of serious hunters wouldn't either.
 
My oldest daughter killed three mule deer with three shots using my Savage heavy barrel .223 rifle. This took place 2001 - 2004. The shots were about 125 yards or so and taken from a steady rest. All three deer were taken with Winchester 64 grain ammo and the bullets penetrated all the way out the other side of the chest and were not recovered. Based upon these observations, I'll endorse the .223 as a good choice for 125 yards or less.

My daughter tired of my heavy barrel varmint outfit and claimed my Glenfield 30-30 carbine for her mule deer hunting in western South Dakota. She had good success with this carbine, too.

Jack
 
I get so tired of seeing the ethics card played every time someone has an issue with this cartridge or that bullet being used, or shooting past a certain distance. There is a ethics standard for all in that we should try to kill the game cleanly within the limitations of our skill, accuracy of the rifle and ammunition, and limitations of the bullet. But that standard applies
differently to all of us, what is ethical for one may not be ethical for another.

If you are not comfortable using a particular cartridge or type of bullet for whatever game animal, that is fine. I respect your opinion and why you
believe that way. I happen to think that with certain bullets, the .223 is a very effective deer and hog killing cartridge, as evidenced by my experience and that of hundreds of other hunters.
 
Strange how nobody seems to post their failures with .22 caliber rounds on medium sized game. I have no doubt a lot of deer have been wounded and lost with those rounds, and telling everyone to become "expert" with it, I wouldn't consider the best approach. I would never even consider a .223 for deer hunting...and I doubt a lot of serious hunters wouldn't either
Click to expand...

There is a bit of fallacy implied here in that it implies that the larger caliber would overcome the circumstances of the failed or faulty recover.

In the vast majority of cases a bad shot is a bad shot and more power is not going to solve the issue. When I was young I wounded and failed to recover a large buck from about 30 yards with a 30-30 because I did not take the time to line up the shot. Before I learned I did the same with a .270. Yes they were errors in my judgement and ability to stay calm. In both cases a well placed shot with a .22 (probably even a rimfire) would have been far more effective.

If we are throwing out the theoretical as argument, such as medium game animals not cleanly dispatched with a certain cartridge that would have been cleanly dispatched with a larger / more powerful cartridge, can I conversely argue that poor shots that could result in a less than ideal dispatching of a game animal are increased by recoil sensitivity due to too large of a cartridge that prevents a shooter from being as comfortable with a rifle as he or she should be?

I mean if we are going with the "I wonder..." portion of it I could probably argue the later are just as common as the former.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, but I never intended to imply fallacy in the caliber conversations. I imagine a lot of folks will find ways to justify their caliber choices, and find a lot of instances where others used small calibers to accomplish their hunting endeavors. I merely just don't consider using such small calibers as the best options, and think a lot more animals have probably been wounded and lost using calibers such as the .223 than other more suitable calibers.
I'm sure a lot of hunters can state instances where the .223 worked wonders for them....I just think there are probably a lot more instances where it didn't do the same for others.
I knew a man that lived in California that loved shooting deer with his 17 Remington caliber, doing only head shots....but that wouldn't lead to me recommending that caliber either.
I've shot many deer over the years (and I'm an old man)...but just wouldn't use less than a .243.
 
Old Stoney said it pretty well. I've killed deer with my 223 and my 220 Swift, but I really don't consider them efficient cartridges for that purpose. If i shoot a deer or hog with either, they tend to run straight into the thickest briar patch around. They try to do that when I shoot them with the 260, but they don't get too far normally.

That said, I could feed my family by hunting with the 223 and being picky with my shots.
 
There is nothing magic good or bad about calibers, smaller calibers (lighter bullets really) tend to deliver their energy shallower in the wound canal and penetrate less. A high power 22 caliber creates a wicked wide wound on impact but runs out of juice after only a few inches, and even with bonded/mono metal bullets that do achieve adequate penetration the wound tract after the initial shock cavity is tiny. Me personally I would not hesitate to use a centerfire 22 on a smallish Texas whitetail under ideal conditions; clean broadside, good shooting rest, close range, premium bullet, open pasture. Sadly in the real world we rarely get such ideal shots so I stick to 264 caliber and larger, they create significantly greater wound trauma at much longer ranges then any 22 caliber could ever dream of.
A 22 can certainly kill a deer, but recovering it afterward can be significantly more challenging.
 
Last edited:
I've shot many deer over the years (and I'm an old man)...but just wouldn't use less than a .243.
Click to expand...

This is the part that intrigues me - the cut off lines. For the record I happen to agree with you on this one in practice and my own personal cut-off is the .243 for Whitetail and what I will hunt with this year. Others have a different cut-off - be it "nothing less than 30 caliber, a .270, or whatever the case may be". I've even heard some go as far as arguing against the 30-30 as a proper deer rifle.

I wonder are these cut-off lines... well why are they valid? Is it personal anecdote which, as you note, tends to allow for cherry picking? Is it something deeper?
 
Probably just a personal peramater, but I like to have a tool that is designed and capable of the job to be done. I use a truck with a V8 instead of a 6 Cyl. to tow things, and some will probably be able to cite instances where they have used the 6 Cyl. and gotten a job done.
Most people have some personal rules they follow through their lives and some are maybe debatable. For instance I have a personal rule where I will not purchase anything advertised as "badass"...as I consider it a low class and offensive term to be used in a public venue.
Other people probably would have a different caliber they would consider a minimum for large game.....to each his own. They have to live with it...
 
.22,even a 22-250, at 250-300 yards is a poor choice. Gonna result in a lot of wounded deer. A .243 ain't got much punch left at 300. Better off with a 25-06 or .270 for long shots.
My 2 cents.
 
We've been hunting hogs at my farm for 20+ years using various 223/5.56 rifles with good success. We originally used Winchester 64gr PSP (I think they used to call it something else back then) in Bushmaster AR rifles with 1-9" twist barrel. They were effective out to about 150 yards or so and would put down good size hogs effectively with good hit. Now we use mostly Barnes 55gr TTSX, Speer Gold Dot 55gr or 64gr, Federal Fusion 62gr MSR and couple others. They are all capable of putting down good size hogs with one well placed shot so I'm sure they would be effective on deer size game too.
 
To answer the OP:

Two years ago my then 11 year old daughter dropped a button buck with my M4gery and a 53gr TSX FB, pushed to near 3200 f/sec from 132 yards. Perfect behind the shoulder shot and the deer went 30 yards and piled up...... bullet exited the far side making about a 1" exit wound.....

Last fall she hit and we failed to recover 3 larger deer with the same bullet and rig...... two of which ran off on 3 legs...... looking for a better answer this fall.
 
A .243 ain't got much punch left at 300.
Click to expand...

A 100gr SBT pushed to 3K at the muzzle will still be packing 1 1/2 times the energy that the average 44 Magnum load has at the muzzle..... at 300 yards. You hit a deer in the boiler room with that and they WILL die..... they are animals, not armored vehicles.
 
Serious question. Where are you people taking 300 yard shots at deer with these dinky calibers? Save those calibers and ranges for varmits or yotes. i guess I'm old school and prefer kids start with a .243 or better and keep the range within reason.
 
Where are you people taking 300 yard shots at deer with these dinky calibers?
Click to expand...

South Central Nebraska. My first deer rifle was a .243WIN. 300 yards is well within it's effective range.

I shoot a .270WIN now.
 
Speaking only for myself, I would not dream of shooting a deer at 300 yds, using my 223 or 220 Swift. But....I sure will shoot at a hog or coyote at up to 400. My experience with that shows that it's very hard to put down even a medium sized hog at 300 or 400 with those calibers. It would help if they'd just stand still for 10 seconds, but that seldom happens. The coyotes generally drop on the spot, but the hogs stumble, sometimes hit the ground, get back up and keep on trucking. Used to be that on our place I saw mostly coyotes, so I hunted with the 220. But then the pigs started showing up in numbers, and here I was with my peashooter. I'd have gone to a 243 but didn't have one, so I started taking the 260. With that, I dropped hogs and coyotes out to 400.

I was up in my blind once with the 220, and here was a whopper hog, going away from me. I put a 55 grainier on the back of his head and got not the pink mist, but the dirt mist. And he shook his head and kept going.
 
Serious question. Where are you people taking 300 yard shots at deer with these dinky calibers? Save those calibers and ranges for varmits or yotes. i guess I'm old school and prefer kids start with a .243 or better and keep the range within reason.
Click to expand...

I interpreted your post to suggest that 300 yards was an unreasonable distance.... was I mistaken?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top