why is it marginal?

of course it works. I've seen 1500 lb Holstein bulls dropped with head shots from a .22 rifle, so why not a 100 lb deer? :-)+ What you saw was a shot thaat you THOUGHT was 200 yds, but wasn't, or some sort of fluke, cause big game sp's don't expand much, if at all, at less than 1800 fps, and no, the 30030 does NOT retain 1800 fps at 200 yds. Not with typical rn or fp bullets. The new polymer bullets, or handloaded spitzer shaped sp's, maybe, with a 24" barrel, most likely, too.
Click to expand...

ok I dont know where this is coming from. how can a head shot shred a deers lungs? I am very very confused with that logic. I did not mention any head shots because anything will die if you stick the barrel down the ear and pull the trigger. the 30-30 in question was a 18" lever action with soft tip ammo(more than likely 125gr ammo since we were poor teenagers at the time and always bought the cheapest stuff behind the counter).

you've seem a holstein bull dropped with a 22lr to the skull? that's impressive, I've watched 22lr bounce off a juvenile pigs skull. so now you're saying that a 22lr can take very large game...thank you...I'll have to be sure to pack one next time I go bison hunting :D
 
who decides what makes a round marginal?
Click to expand...

1. Companies that want to sell you something. They have the "latest and greatest!". I'm not saying the progress they are making in ballistics and accuracy is a bad thing, you just have to remember they are there to make money.. because that's what business do. You just have to keep that in mind when listening to them.

2. People who read things online or in magazines and accept it as fact because they don't have personnel experience to fact check it against. Those sources are the subject matter experts that we go to look for information right? Not always.. remember they are funded by people who want to sell you more products via advertising (see point #1). Again, not knocking it.. just saying as consumers it in your best interest to research purchases thoroughly.

3. As others have mentioned, people who rely on more power from the bullet and less on shot placement from the themselves. This I am knocking.. but I'm not judging because we all miss shots occasionally. Better equipment is never a substitute for practice, though.

On a side note, I would personally never shoot a deer with a .22lr unless it was point blank in the head. And I don't recommend hunting with calibers that aren't legal to use in your state which the .223 is not always legal.
 
All I know is that Sunday before last when a county animal control officer showed up to deal with a whitetail deer with two broken legs behind my house, she used a .22 rifle. I don't know where she shot it but I do know the deer did not just sit there and let itself get shot in the head. It took two shots.
 
My Pop grew up in the depression,,,

He is one of those guys who had to hunt to eat,,,
All he had was a J.C. Higgens .22 single-shot rifle,,,
He tells how he has taken several deer with that rifle.

One time I asked him how many deer he hit with it that got away.

He looked at me and said, "too many".

It's not enough gun to have reasonable assurance the animal will die quickly,,,
No one is arguing that it can't make a kill under the right circumstances,,,
But how many times are you going to get the "right circumstances".

I believe in this day and age,,,
It's wrong to even try.

As to who gets to make the decision as to what's marginal,,,
Your legislators and game officials get to decide,,,
Right or wrong they make the laws,,,
Obey or not at your own peril.

It's really a moot point.

Aarond
 
Wow, .22lr for deer eh? Why stop there? Why not use .177 or a good pellet rifle? How about a Red Ryder?

I have seen deer and other mammals hit with rounds much more powerful and rounds larger than .22lr get hit and keep going.

If you want to shoot to wound and maim and it is legal in your state so be it. I do wonder what state that you lived where it was legal?
 
I'm really not pushing the 22lr in this discussion.
Click to expand...

Thats why I mentioned it....The fact that you used it as an example led to the focus on 22lr instead of the other cartridges that you were really asking about.

I believe that .223 is the most underestimated cartridge discussed here. It is quite capable of taking many animals, It has limitations as in any cartridge. I personally wouldn't use it past 200-250yds.....and looking at most peoples blind to feeder distances not too many people go past 50 - 100yds around here LOL
 
I have nearly 50 years experence in the big game fields and was an elk and deer guide for 9 years. I have either taken myself or seen over 100 elk taken and hundreds of deer and antelope. I am a student of terminal ballistics and have removed the innards of over 200 big game animals while studying the wounds. I mention this to qualify my opinion. I have met many sucsessful hunters that have no interest in the wound channel. To answer the OP's original question is difficult. Many factors come into play. From my experences the major factors that enter into the debate is inexperence and word of mouth. An example, in a Colorado gun shop, the owner told eveyone within ear shot for decades that anything smaller than a 300 Win Mag would not kill an elk reliably. When questioned about his experence elk hunting he had shot only one small spike bull. I have seen an elk killed at 300 yards with a 243, the bullet didnt even expand. Poor bullet placement and improper bullets also lead to many wounded animals. Jack O'Conner told of a man that shot an antelope 5 times in the lungs with a 270 and it got away. When questioned how he knew he hit the goat 5 times in the lungs if it had gotten away, the hunter was miffed and said he doesnt EVER miss and the cartridge was not powerful enough for antelope. This is where so much of these debates start. Then you get the oddball instances. I saw a bull buffalo shot in the brain at 5 feet. The gun was a 300 Win Mag and 180 grain bullets. Five minutes later the buffalo was still alive but unconcious. Had to be killed with a 30-30. When autapsied the brain was jello but he didnt die. These things happen now and then and just add fuel to the fire. As to the debate about 22 lr on big game being inhumane I have some thoughts to share someday on another thread maybe.
 
If you really want to have fun with this thread start asking which is a better protection round in bear country? 30-30 or .44 mag.
 
tahunua001, I can tell you quick why most of these "hunters" need far more power than necessary, just go by any public rifle range and look at the targets of the shooters. Probably 3/4 of the targets are shot all over the place. Can you imagine what these same clowns with small arms will do to an animal.
 
I shot a trapped hog in the top of the head with a buffalo bore 45 long colt, it came out of the bottom of his chest and blood drained like he had a drain plug. He locked down and fell over like any animal with a fatal head wound. I went back to the truck to get some rope to drag him with while the twitching finishes, and a couple minutes later he was back on his feet. So sometimes the results are unpredictable.

Maybe this is how some of these 243 stories get started, one or two freak things and its not sufficient.
 
Here is my take on it. it doesn't matter who you are or what you shoot, there are going to be occassions when your dead on aim at the heart is going to wind up missing and doing nothing but chipping off a piece of lung and tearing open some intestine.

now here's a simple fact. Smaller and lighter bullets cause less damage than bigger/heavier ones do. Slower bullets cause less damage than faster ones do. When the shooter fails to "do his part" for whaever reason, maybe even because the bullet was deflected by a bumblebee 100 yards out from the muzzle, if you have a wound that didn't hit real vital tissues, the one who shot with a .22 is going to lose the game, where the guy with the .577 NE will pick it up.

There are always going to be poor hits, and in all of those poor hits, using light calibers will result in a low quality wound, but a big cartridge will cause a more dangerous and more quickly lethal wound.

This is what defines a marginal round to me. Sure, if you put it through the lungs or heart, it will drop that animal. When God is on your side and promises that you will never miss the heart, I'm fine with you taking a 17 rimfire after moose.

But, for all the hunters who don't have absolute control of fate, you are never sure that your .243 will go right through the thing's heart without deflecting, breaking up, or just plain missing the vitals.

Some people are going to say that missing the vitals with a .243 is no different than missing the vitals with a .300 winchester, but come on.
Give me a break. A .243 will bleed out an elk or moose, PROBABLY. a hit in the same place with a 300 magnum, or even .270 will bleed it out quicker.

So, marginal? it is a cartridge that can be counted on to kill the intended game quickly and reliably when "you do your part," but if you bungle that shot, will possibly leave wounded game on the hoof that a more powerful weapon would have stopped much quicker.

Shooting with "marginal" weapons means that you have no room for error, and that a hunter is either ignorant of reality, overconfident in his skills, or just doesn't give half a poodlestick about the game.

This isn't like light tackle fishing, when a trout breaks off my 2 pound leader, he gets away with my fly. Big deal. When an elk walks away with a hole in his esophagus and no damaged arteries because that .22 hornet missed his arteries, its a crime against nature, IMO.

Once again, I'd like to point something out. Using a .243 to hunt elk instead of a .30-06 is in my opinion about the same as carrying a .32 ACP instead of a 9mm or .45. Unless there's a real good reason for carrying a .32, it's just plain foolish to do so.

The same goes for bear. Whenever bear defense is brought up, the discussion starts out with rounds capable of dropping a rhino, and work down from there, and the one sure thing to freak everyone out is to say that a .243 is good enough to defend against a bear.

I'd be an idiot to carry a .32 into east st louis, i'd be an idiot to take my .243 into black bear territory, but heck, carrying a .30 carbine after a bull elk, a .243 after moose, of for the love of god, a .22 lr after deer, is fine!?

Sorry, I really take issue with people who decide that it's better to go with light rounds than to go with heavier weaponry. It makes just as much sense as replacing your seatbelts with macrame.
 
I am no expert by any means but, I have never lost a deer that I've shot with a .243. It is the only gun I have used in the last 10 years to hunt deer. My brother in law takes his .223 when he is planning to shoot does and takes head shots so as not to waste any meat. I have never seen him miss. Personally I am not confident enough to try head shots but, I have no problem punching holes in the 10 ring at 200-300 yds.
As the OP has stated several times, he is not advocating the use of a .22lr for deer sized game, just mentioned it to make a point. I believe it all boils down to using something that you are comfortable with and know you can make the shot. Shot placement is the key. Truth be told, the majority of people use more gun than they need most of the time but, too much gun is better than not enough gun, as long as you are comfortable with it and can put the shot where you intend to. In the same token, if you are scared of the recoil of a 30 06, you are much better off shooting something smaller.
BTW anyone who knows about defending themselves against a grizzly will tell you that a 12 gauge shotgun to the head is about as good as it gets.
 
Last edited:
22 rifles are for plinking, shooting rodents and relatively short range targrt practice. i supose someone could argue that they could take a 180 pound deer with a .22 caliber pellet rifle too. i read a while back that some kids took some head shots at a deer with a pellet rifle - I'm sure it eventually died from its wounds or infection.:mad:confused:
 
about 15 years ago, a guy was holding a hostage with a knife. one of our police took a shot with a rifle, and MISSED. he blew the hostage takers lower jaw off.

It doesn't matter what round he used, because he blew the shot. he had absolute confidence in himself, his superiors trusted him, and he gambled with the life of a civilian, and he blew the shot! Not even 50 yards, and he couldn't make a head shot, with a tested police rifle, under better conditions than I have ever had when deer hunting, and this professional did worse than just maiming a whitetail, he endangered a hostage by flinging bullets where they didn't belong, and by shooting the guy who had a knife at a hostage's throat without disabling him. does anyone here really believe that he just pulled the trigger and hoped that he'd hit? I'm sure that before he fired that weapon, he was absolutely, 100% positive that he was going to put the bullet exactly where it needed to be, and HE BLEW IT!!!!



Misses happen. There is nobody here, or even on this planet, that can claim that he will never, ever miss his mark when hunting. it's absurd. This is why it's wrong to shoot minimal cartridges. Because you have only so much control over the shot, and if you flub the shot, you should be shooting something with enough power to make a poor hit at least bleed out faster.


I once read a review on walmart.com of a .177 pellet gun. Imagine how stunned I was when I got to the part that said it was an excellent weapon for wild turkey.
 
I have killed racoon with my .177 pellet rifle. One shot to the head and they fall out of the tree dead as dead can be. I would imagine it would kill more than a racoon or squirrel if you were able to make the shot, which is what it boil's down to with any caliber gun anyway.
I certainly dont condone shooting deer with a .22lr but to say that they are just for plinking, shooting rodents, and relativly short range target practice is just plain silly.
 
Misses happen. There is nobody here, or even on this planet, that can claim that he will never, ever miss his mark when hunting. it's absurd. This is why it's wrong to shoot minimal cartridges.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is arguing that point. I suppose it depends on what you consider a "minimal round". Are you saying that a .243 is not an adequate deer rifle? I believe I said that too much gun is better than not enough gun. I still believe that you should not carry something that is larger than you are comfortable shooting. I have seen people who deer hunt with a .300 Win Mag, who unwittingly flinch every time they pull the trigger. Is that wise? Is showing everyone what a he man you are smarter than shooting something you are comfortable with?
 
I have respect for animals I aim to kill and try my best to put them down with the least amount of suffering as is possible.

To even suggest that a 22lr is adequate for deer sized animals makes me lose all respect for the person saying such nonsense.
 
I haven't seen anyone in this thread saying that at all. Do people even read these threads before posting a reply?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top