least powerful for deer?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Back in the old days when we were kids, we used what our Dads gave us to hunt with.

I have personally killed them with 22 Hornet, 222 Rem, and my buds used 218 Bee, 32-20, and I even killed a few with a 22 LR.

Hell, the highest scoring white tail was killed with a 25-35 and an 86 grn bullet. That was back in 1914, before my time.

I have killed two in the past with a 1965 Pontiac. Cars were tough back then.
 
I'll pick and defend 3:

30-06. Is it minimum? No. I have, however, shot over a hundred of our large bodied Montana Mulies and Whitetail with it, and never lost a single one to a well placed hit. Ammo is so common you could almost buy it in a church. On deer, anything good to be said of the '06 could be said of the .270 as well.


.257 Roberts. My personal favorite "minimum" cartridge for large northern deer. It carries the mail with "Boom, Flop, DRT" authority, but with little felt recoil. It's Achilles' heel has always been its price, diminished supply, and a misunderstanding of how it is loaded: regular or +P (not really a true +P) and short action or long (factory ammo is loaded for short actions, hand loaders may seat bullets "normally" in a long action).


.22 Hornet. I wouldn't use this up north. People have, and itsworked to various degrees, but between the style of hunting (few stands are used, stalking is the norm) and the size of the deer... Poor choice.
That said, for southern whitetail at 50 yards over a feeder, from a steady rest, with careful shots...I can't really see the harm.
 
I was under the impression that that Record book Whitetail shot in 1914 was the "Jordan Buck". If so, I believe it was killed with a 25-20, which is even more anemic than the 25-35. Myself, I use a 30.06 most of the time. But next year, due to arthritic shoulders & neck, I got myself a nice Remington 600 in .243 and will be using it packing handloads with the proper Barnes TTSX or Hornady GMX lead-free bullets like I use in my 30.06.
 
I believe it was killed with a 25-20...
Click to expand...
That is how I remember the published story also. As I recall (the story in a gun rag), it happened in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. A steam locomotive was going down the track nearby and the buck jumped up and stood there when the steam whistle blew. The fellow proceeded to shoot several shots at that huge buck with his 25-20, which turned and ran. He found the buck laying half in a river, apparently dead. Inasmuch as he had forgotten his knife, he could not gut it, and left it there to fetch his knife (and some help I presume). When he got back, the buck, no one could figure out how, had slipped further into the river but was found a short distance down steam. I read that story in my late twenties...I am 73 now, so the details may have drifted a bit from what I read, but I am absolutely sure that it was a 25-20, not a 25-35.
 
Dahermit. The Jordan buck was killed in Wisconsin and was the State record for eons until that buck was surpassed a long time later by a Canadian buck.
 
Dahermit. The Jordan buck was killed in Wisconsin and was the State record for eons until that buck was surpassed a long time later by a Canadian buck.
Click to expand...
Wisconsin near the U.P. border? Also, how could a state (Wisconsin), record be broken by a buck killed in Canada? Ask'en for a friend.:confused:
 
The Jordan Buck was killed in 1919 on the Minnesota/Wisconson line (got shot a little on both sides, but died in WI, to a WI hunter). It was a WORLD record, which stood until 1996, when Ed Koberstein shot a bigger one in Alberta. The Jordan Buck was indeed killed with a 25-20, but while it did kill the Jordan Buck, the deer soaked up something like 7 hits before it expired, IIRC.

The 25-35 much more potent than the 25-20. It is certainly adequate for deer, and probably no less so than the .30-30 out to about 150 yards.
 
Last edited:
Seems to me this thread was asking for some honest opinions, but apparently some folks are using this as an opportunity to just start an argument. Sorry I put forth an opinion as it was obviously wrong.
 
Seems to me this thread was asking for some honest opinions, but apparently some folks are using this as an opportunity to just start an argument. Sorry I put forth an opinion as it was obviously wrong.
Click to expand...
To be honest, the original post was a trick question...one that you and several others did not get. If you read it carefully, and then read the posts that came after it, you may get it...or you may not. This is what it asked for:
...pick a [minimum] cartridge and defend it with logic and data.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Actually, Old Stony, I think you were spot on for logic.

At some point we should all admit that it isn't a deer rifle, but rather a varmint rifle that we have pressed into service for deer. I reckon you're about right at .243 as well, though a .223 wouldn't give me pause in the Deep South.

But then I think that's part of why no consensus is ever reached on this topic in Internet forums. We are really talking about several different critters here. A 120lb southern doe isn't the same as a 300lb mountain west buck, and both have different requirements than a Couse Deer hunt. Throw in yardages from 50-500 and beyond (not to mention running shots), and it's really not a fair question.

I thought you answered well, even if there wasn't any data.
 
Sam's mix, thanks for clearing up that Jordan buck story. It was indeed a Wisconsin State record as well as a World record that stood for decades. I have a book about the story....I'll have to dust it off and read it again. A .243 IMO with premium bullets is deadly on deer. I'll prove it this upcoming season I hope.
 
Back about the time they hauled in dirt, I had a couple of boards in small elm tree, maybe ten feet off the ground. A doe wandered out of the mesquite and lay down at the foot of my tree and began chewing her cud.

A .22 Short would have been quite adequate. :D

Circumstance. No one size fits all.
 
300 win mag for deer??? Are they wearing plate armor?

I would say for a side on lung/heart shot 223 is doable with the right bullet. Would prefer a step up for a quick clean kill, 7.62x39 is plenty.
 
Last edited:
I think the magnums were more popular before the intro of rangefinders. You could shoot a Lil further without having to correct as much. We couldn't simply pull up a ballistics calculator on cell phones back then. None of us did much work on a bench. Everybody talks about the new technology of bullets but I find the new technology in optics alot more beneficial. Our fathers and grandfathers may have never even shot a magnum, but I'm willing to bet a fair number of us were told by them that (that deer is a Lil too far, maybe one of them magnums could shoot that far).

I have a long list of magnums and still occasionally hunt deer with them but they are not the super light plastic rifles being built today. We used them more as a heavy bean field type rifle. But it's very common for us today to want one rifle that we fill confident will cleanly take deer or elk. There are alot of people out there now that their blood pressure skyrockets as soon as they hear the word magnum.

If we took time to look at who buys most of the magnums it's usually young men that want power and range. Maybe if we weren't on here bashing people for shooting them and out there trying to help these young whoopersnappers learn to shoot we wouldnt have blood pressure problems? That's prolly because of bacon grease but if we can voice opinions on one's choice of cartridge he shoots we may as well take a blood pressure pill before we log on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top