least powerful for deer?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Gunplumber,

I re-read your .257 Roberts failure story today, and something strikes me as odd, namely the bullets failure to expand. The 117gr RN is meant for the 25-35, and its lower starting velocity. At speeds around 2900 one wouldn't expect that target-arrow hole. That isn't to say that I question your account. Not at all. I know it can happen because I saw 2 failures to expand in one season some years ago.

2 deer (recovered after 3/4 mile tracking jobs) that were hit with a 7mag/150 where the bullet just ice-picked through the critter. One was a WT doe at 400yards, and the bullet didn't take a rib coming or going, just poked a small hole in the lungs. Okay, longer range, slower impact velocity, sure....but the other was a mulie buck at about 75 yards, and it DID cleanly perforate a rib going in, but still performed like a FMJ. These were factory Rem Core Lok't bullets (early 2000's) showing little in the way of exposed lead to start expansion. A switch to Winchester PSP seemed to solve the problem. Leastwise it hasn't happened since.
 
I will defend the .223, ...

citing the article authored by the Late Finn Aagraad, written for the American Rifleman, back in 1983. He as a guide in Texas, found that new /inexperinced shooter, had better shot PLACEMENT with the .223, with some deer running off some distance {about 70yds?}. He felt that the commercial WIn 64gr PP was the best available for deer.

I have known two hunters that used the .30 Carbine, one took two deer @ 35 and 65 yds and DRT, here in MI.

Another was from WI., and used the Carbine on drives, because the "dumping" five fast shots. [not my idea of hunting or proper round to be used.]
 
If anything, the "Proof and data" in this thread presented to support a minimum cartridge for deer does just the opposite. Before the coming of the rifled shotgun barrel, the shot gun was one of the most deer wound and lose guns out there. Actually, until the gun and ammo companies got it together and focused on shotguns, the rifled barrels were not too great either. How do you explain that in terms of power on deer?
 
In my experience .357 magnum and .223 remington are the low end. I have heard all the statements that deer are easy to kill and a .223 is all your need for black bear.

I will say this. A .223 will surely kill a big black bear same as a .22 short will kill a deer. The question is what works for your hunting situation. If you are comfortable with a marginal cartridge that probably will not exit leaving no blood trail then great. I had a .223 shatter on a fair size, not giant 8 points neck ( c spine) and not exit. Here in eastern NC I want to poke two holes and leave a blood trail. My shots are from 7 to 400 yards. I would consider using anything less than a 30 30 or 7.62 by 39 killing not hunting, so I will go with the Russian round as my personal minimum. That is here . Not everywhere. Deer are not armor plated but they can run and without a good blood trail they will run into the pocosin never to be seen again. Just my $.02
 
Last edited:
If you are comfortable with a marginal cartridge that probably will not exit leaving no blood trail then great. Here in eastern NC I want to poke two holes and leave a blood trail.
Click to expand...

With the new solid copper/gilding metal bullets, and a short broadside shot, you'll get two nice holes and a short blood trail with the .223. Don't try to break shoulder/leg bones with it. Don't attempt a "Texas Heart Shot" ...... don't attempt to shoot deer beyond Ft. Mudge. Used within it's limits, it works.
 
Too many don'ts there. I can use a bow if I want to limit myself.I look at it like this. Waht if the biggest buck of my life was out. I font want to be holding a .223. I have seen a barnes 55 gr tsx deflect off a rib and angle straight towards the anus. F I understand it in one of the stomachs after a heck of a track with Harvey my buddies dog. Even the solid copper bullets can and will deflect.
 
Last edited:
I'm not a fan of this thread because anything can kill a deer when the unknown happens. I believe you should use enough gun to get the job done and sometimes a bit more.

But since this is a minimum load thread I vote 12 gauge buckshot.

I have an uncle who was out hunting and somehow fell asleep under a tree when a big 8 point walked in front of him. He raised the gun and shot before it was shouldered. The deer turned and ran the opposite way right into a tree and broke its neck.
 
For little whitetails, I think I'd settle on .25-20 or .22 Hornet at the low end.

For 'Bama bucks and Muleys, it's .223 Rem / 6x45mm or better.


No matter what I'm hunting and what cartridge I'm using, I must have the correct bullet for the job and the shot must be appropriate.
I wouldn't be taking chest shots with a 30 gr HP in .22 Hornet.
 
I see a lot of "Blood trail" on this forum. The farthest I ever had to track a deer (With a good shot) was with a 30-30 double lung shot. The 7.62x39 a close second with the same kind of shot. Either deer I could have easily found without a blood trail. If I was that worried about a blood trail, I would aim somewhere else. Where is it written in stone that you have to shoot deer in the heart/lung area?
 
I have been hunting deer for over 1/2 a century and done so in various states where several deer a year were allowed. So I can't count the number I have killed. I have killed them with arrows, handgun bullets, and rifle bullets as well as muzzle-loader bullets and round balls.

I have received crossways looks from others for using weapons that were "too big" (like 50-140 Sharps, 458s, 460s and 416s as well as 62 cal flintlock) and "too small" (like 357 magnum handguns,one time loaded with 38 specials, 45 ACP handguns and a wood arrow shot from a 42 pound bow.) I have never used a single weapon on any big game animal that I was unsuccessful with. Not one! This is not to say I have been 100% successful in every outing, but what I am saying is that EVERY weapon I have used, I have killed game with.

So what I know to be true is that it's the wound you inflict that kills. Not the gun. Not the shell, not even really the bullet.

It's the hole.

The deepest hole you can have any any animal is through and through lengthwise.

If you have a weapon that will give you sufficient penetration the only thing left to vary is the diameter of that wound. Those 2 things are the only 2 things that can be varied from weapon to weapon. We call them "Penetration" and "cavitation".

Every other variable is about the man shooting,(or choosing not to) not the weapon used.

I do not use super small rifles on deer just because it makes no sense to do if if I have something bigger. I do.
But I have no doubt that I could.

I have an acquaintance in Susanville Calif who is in his mid 80s now, and has killed so many deer with a 22 rim-fire that he had lost count before he was 30, and he's still doing it. He told me he only lost 3 in his life, and all of them were when he was a young teen before he learned where to hit them.

In my collection of rifles now, the smallest rifle I have that I will take for deer is my 6.5X54, my 30-30, my 7.62X39 or my 25-06.
Why? Because I have nothing to prove. I know I'd do fine with my 223s or even my 222, and probably would do well with a 22 LR, but I have nothing I feel I need to prove.

The 22 LR and the 222 Rem are not legal here and I see no reason to take a chance on getting a citation, but I know that if I needed to for some reason, I could kill a deer with a 22LR.

But pushing "right to the edge of the envelope" just doesn't make sense to me. I need to ask myself what I am trying to prove that is not already proven by thousands of men, over 100 years?

I have gone hunting with several men and women and a few kids who used 223s. In fact, I loaded the ammo for 4 of them. They all shot carefully and all have taken deer and antelope, and so far all have done it with one shot per animal. So far every one has given us an exit wound too. No antelope or deer shot with those 223s that I have seen killed went more than about 25 yards.



So this is all good material for banter back and forth, but in the final analysis it's always the shooter and his/her skill that makes up 99% of the equation.

The real trick to having a super high shots-to-kills rate is to NOT SHOOT when you should not shoot.
That's about ethical hunting, not what tool you have in your hands. Holding fire until you know you can kill is what it's all about.

That's how I have killed deer with 45 ACPs a 38 special round, and a wood arrow with a 2 blade broad head only 3/4" wide, shot from 42 pound bow.

When I shot I KNEW I was going to kill.

I didn't have to think "maybe I can do this".

The maybe's I turn down and I hold my fire. Not shooting is the key. Know when to NOT shoot and you'll do fine
 
You must be disciplined with whatever cartridge you choose.
.223 will do it easily with disciplined shots.

I don't know about too many other calibers, .303 I've used, 308 and .223.

I think that archery is way less humane than any bottleneck rifle cartridges.
 
I've taken coyotes, pronghorn, whitetail deer, mule deer, elk and black bear with center-fire rifles. I've taken many whitetail deer with a compound bow. Virtually all of the deer taken with a bow died as quickly as the animals taken with rifles (or the deer taken with shotgun Foster slugs or sabot slugs.) The target is always the center of the lungs and it does not fail regardless of the projecticle (bullet, slug or arrow.)
 
Looks like this horse has been beaten down enough. I have no doubt that the subject will show up again, somewhere down the road.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top