least powerful for deer?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Perceptions change...

The popularity of handgun hunting has moved the 10mm to stagefront center as an effective deer hunting round.

Looking a little further, recall the original 1880s black powder .38WCF, (aka .38-40), pushed a 180 grain .40 caliber bullet to nearly 1300 fps from a 24 " barrel. The old .38-40 was second only to the .44-40 as a popular and effective rifle round for deer hunting in the late 19th and early 20th centuries

Well then, the amazing thing is, a 21st century 10mm pistol could be said to deliver the same ballistics as a 19th century Winchester .38-40 lever action rifle. Imagine that, an effective deer gun, so convenient, that it can be worn on the hip!
 
Big slow bullets, small fast bullets whatever. Many will work. For a while belted magnums were the rage, then short magnums, now it's super accurate 6.5s and anything that can be fired in an AR. I have fit into many if not all of those categories at various times and in differing conditions. As for the smallest, I will have to admit to being a barbarian I guess.
 
Ok so I'm over my rant earlier, sorry if I offended anybody. My personal smallest I've ever taken deer with is a 22-250. A well seasoned gentleman I worked with at the time was very fond of the 22-250. He was a very calm and patient kind of fellow and only took neck shots. I valued his opinion because he killed atleast one good buck a year and sometimes several. I have since learned that where you hunt means more than what you hunt with but I was young and impressionable then.

I bought a used remington in 22-250 just to try. When I finally got a chance to take a deer with it I was too scared to try the neck shot. I placed the cross hairs behind the shoulder and squeezed. Deer ran about 20 yards before I lost sight of it. All together it only ran about 40 yards. Bullet passed completely thru and blood trail was impressive. When I started bragging about my new deer rifle, everybody close to me started telling me how big of a fool I was for shooting a Prairie dog gun at deer. I sold the gun and felt ashamed to tell anybody else about it.

I've since killed quite a few deer with many different calibers. I've shot a couple dozen with a 300 weatherby and most didn't leave a blood trail like that 22-250 did. Please understand I shoot low and tight just behind the shoulder. I try to take out the top of the heart and as much lung as possible. Even if no blood trail the deer won't be far. I hated nosler partitions for years because they wouldn't expand on our Lil deer down here but I loved them for elk.

I have a weakness for the 264 winmag, 300 wsm, and 338 winmag. That said, I wouldn't feel under gunned with a 22-250 with a good bullet. Fact is after all the deer I've killed with all the different cartridges I can't tell the difference between a 243 or 338 winmag when it's a ribcage shot.
 
OK, to answer the OP.

My choice as to minimum cartridge for deer I choose the 41 Rem. Mag. My reasoning is that the state of Washington used to have a minimum requirement of 24 cal. And it had to generate at least 1,000 ft lbs of energy at 100 yards. I studied several cartridges and there ballistics when deciding on a handgun for hunting. The 41 was the smallest I could find that met those requirements, and only with a few loads. Furthermore I want a complete pass through on a broadside shot. Chuck Hawks has a chart that show penetration test results of many handgun cartridges into ballistics gel. The least powerful load that made it over 16 inches with a hunting bullet was 41 mag.

I am not one to settle for the one that barely passes muster, so I purchased a 44 Rem. Mag:D
 
.17 HRM?

In post #4, std7mag stated that the .22WRM "might/could" have been used (and I take it) in his home state of Central Pennsyltucky, but that would've been illegal for deer. Here in Wyoming, and has already been stated, the .223 Rem is legal for deer as long as one uses a 60 grn. bullet as minimum in the ammo. I have one, and may try it sometime on a doe whitetail once I've settled on a handload for it.

Now in Montana, I'm pretty sure there's no caliber restriction to hunt anything one wants to hunt whatsoever. So, if one would want to hunt deer in Montana with the .17 HRM, he or she could have at it. I can't imagine that someone up there didn't try that out. I'd sure like to hear/read that performance report, but then again, I can't imagine that I would, will or want to...

I do suppose that a .17 HRM, with the right angle behind the ear, would/could do the job. I've never owned one, and probably never will, as my .22rims suffice just fine for plinkin' and rabbits. Back on the family farm, and a long time ago when I saw it more times than once, a .22 short was all it took to start the butchering process on a yearling steer. That was an absolute shot-controlled situation there, though, and the performance of the .22 short was totally adequate in that application.
 
I killed two deer with my 44 MAG carbine shooting 240 grain 44 Special ammo. The bullet was a semi-wadcutter design. Distance was approx 35 yards and in each case the bullets were discovered curled back under the hide on opposite side of entrance wound. 44 Special has no power for distance shots but up close its a serious cartridge.

Jack
 
The statement that rings closest to me is Scorch's, "I am not prone to judging other people's choices, but there are some cases where you can look at their choice and say with certainty that it would not work in your case". Because I lean towards the "have enough gun" side what works best for me is the 30-30. Because I have 2 moa SKS I may bring that as a back up. The reason I pick the 30-30 is because it has a history of getting the job done in Michigan and it carries well.
 
My Minimum

6.5 Grendel with a 123SST at 2500fps. Shoots 1/2" from my Alexander Arms AR.
Handgun - 44 Special with 255 at 950fps, or 45 Colt with 280 at 1050.
 
Boogershooter, you had made good points. Gave me something to think about on my end.

I kind of have an automatic kick reaction when I hear of people using gargantuan magnums on deer. Stems from growing up in the south and listening to so many morons brag on about the giant gun they use to kill #80 does along with how many bud lights they drink while sitting in the elevated blind, they they rattle on about how great of a hunter they are. That aint hunting to my, thats harvesting. Aint nothing wrong with harvesting especially if you have a family to feed, but it aint hunting. To me.
 
I was pretty much thinking what RMcL posted. Seems like most of the under powered deer cartridges were used heavily before the 1940's. I have used my .22 HiPower for deer with out a problem. Although they do not come right out and say it, most Gunwriters insinuate that it is not adequate for deer. I don't doubt they have never held one, let alone fired one. What we have here is nothing more than a campfire discussion. None of the "Facts" are provable. Nothing new to be learned.
 
Although they do not come right out and say it, most Gunwriters insinuate that it is not adequate for deer. I don't doubt they have never held one, let alone fired one. What we have here is nothing more than a campfire discussion. None of the "Facts" are provable. Nothing new to be learned.
Click to expand...
I believe you are correct. As a matter of fact, that is what I was trying to get across by the original post. All those people who will unequivocally state that a particular cartridge is "too small for deer", have not shot even one with the cartridge they deem as inadequate let alone the many that they would need to shoot in order to have a basis for their opinion. They just seem to assume that it would not work because it looks too small in comparison to other cartridges.
 
...nd what data can you cite for your choice for determining that minimum?
Click to expand...
Here in Oregon the minimum legal caliber to hunt deer with is a "22 centerfire", no specification on actual caliber. yes, it does leave a lot open to interpretation technically a .380 auto is legal under that definition.

I do think its adequate but while it wouldn't be my first choice, personally I wouldn't go below a .223
 
This question brings us back to many old proverbial problems. Which straw will break the back of the Camel? Which drop of Water will sink the ship. etc etc.
If we include all the proprietary, and Wildcat cartridges into the mix, we basically have individual straws and individual drops. Is it .22 cal? 6mm? .257?
Is it a total energy number that bullet dia. is simply a variable in? Is a .17 Cal appropriate? Would it be appropriate if an X bullet was made for it? What about if that X bullet was in a wildcat that pushed it 4300 fps?
My 6 year old has shot 3 deer with his .223 this year. A five point buck at 120 yards, a 10 point buck at 90 yards, and a large doe at 192 yards. The five point piled up DRT. The 10 Point dropped like a box of rocks and then got up and ran 30 yards and piled up dead. The doe never went down, ran 40 yards and died. All were pass through lung shot. The difference between the .223 and my usual rifle (7wsm) is the blood trail. The two deer that ran left no blood until they had run over 20 yards. The 7 WSM leaves a river of blood on the ground. I have not seen how the .223 would perform on a shoulder shot.
The .223 does the job, but I do not think I would want to go any smaller or slower than the .223 Winchester. (62 grain Fusion)
 
Chainsaw I surely didn't mean that directly at you. There is a large number of people on here that get all bent out of shape when the word magnum comes up. I know u were trying to lighten the mood and be funny. I can appreciate that. But what I truely find funny is most (not all) of us start our kids out on a low recoil rifle and shotgun. I did it myself because my kids enjoy shooting and hunting. I wouldn't have turned them loose with any gun I wasn't 100% confident in. But buy them larger guns later as they grow. And as far as ourselves, as we get older we migrate back to those low recoil rifles. There are several on here that have scolded the 223 and 243 but allowed their kids to hunt with one. I guess maybe, just maybe, they are more confident in their kids abilities than their own.
 
In hunting, it all depends on your technique. I have become more traditional in my practices but my brother and I used to shoot head and neck shots only. It is not difficult if you are a good shot but there are times you have to let an animal go because you can't get that head or neck shot. The good part of it is that you don't ruin much meat like you do with a shoulder shot. We hunt for food so that kind of hunting necessitates a light, explosive, bullet in just the right spot. The same bullet would be marginal, at best, for a body shot. So it is less a function of the power level as it is how it is used.
 
Depending on the situation depends on what rifle I use. Still hunting gets a light 22-250 or .243 and a neck shot almost all DRT or very short track with tons of blood. I may or may not have also heard/seen the 22 WMR neck shots DRT or short track also. Deer drive gets the 30-06 or 12ga due to running shots that can be less than perfect hits.
 
Okay then, with evidence:

I've shot 4 antelope, 2 mule deer, and one whitetail with the .233 and 64 grain soft points. All were heart/lung hits. One, just one, went down DRT. The others all went a ways, or stood there a while and laid down rather than falling over. One antelope took a double lunger and ran 75 yards before stopping, then another double lunger, then finally LAID down, but with its head up, following a heart shot. A fourth round was placed in its noggin, ending it.

These were northern deer which are large in body, and antelope which can be tough for their size.

The .257 or the 30-06 would have fared better, and 400 or so head of game taken by myself and those around me can attest to that.
 
Okay then, with evidence:
I've shot 4 antelope, 2 mule deer, and one whitetail with the .233 and 64 grain soft points. All were heart/lung hits. One, just one, went down DRT. The others all went a ways, or stood there a while and laid down rather than falling over. One antelope took a double lunger and ran 75 yards before stopping, then another double lunger, then finally LAID down, but with its head up, following a heart shot. A fourth round was placed in its noggin, ending it.
These were northern deer which are large in body, and antelope which can be tough for their size.
The .257 or the 30-06 would have fared better, and 400 or so head of game taken by myself and those around me can attest to that.
Click to expand...
Of the 4 antelope, 2 mule deer, and one whitetail you shot with the .233 [Sic, .223], how many were lost?

What does shooting 400 head of game with .257 and 30-06 got to do with the .223 being not as effective, ("...257 or the 30-06 would have fared better...") as the .257 or 30-06? Did you shoot 400 head of game with the .223 to compare to the effectiveness of .257 and 30-06 to enable you to conclude that the .223 is ineffective? The only relative experience here seems to be the 4 antelope, 2 mule deer, and one whitetail, which you evidently recovered, or at least you did not say you lost.
 
I had a REAL bad experience with a .257 Roberts +P with a Hornady 117 Grain RN. It was a big doe trotting past and I thought I shot through the lung area. All she did was pick up speed. No indication of being hit. I was lucky and got another shot, through the shoulder. Surprise! The first shot went through the lungs like a target arrow. Two other people (Reliable) told me they had problems with the same bullet at close range. On the other hand, I never had a problem like that with 6MMs or smaller. I worked with a guy that went somewhere out west for antelope. He used a 25-06 and said the first one he shot just picked its head up and looked around. Thought he missed so he gave it another one. It jumped that time and stumbled and went down. I have used a 7.62x39 to hunt deer a lot of times, but have always loaded 30-30 bullets for expansion at the pressures it produces. I would say it is not so much the caliber as the bullet matched to it that makes the difference.
 
No, I never lost an animal I'd shot with the .223, but it was apparent to me that I was risking just that. I guess it all depends on what you're looking for in a big game cartridge. I was always led to believe that reasonable steps should be taken to kill quickly and with as little suffering as possible. My limited experience with the .223 suggested that FOR ME and for the type of hunting I do, there might be better options. Do what you like.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top