why is it marginal?

[CTS]

I read every post from the beginning and I just went back and reread the first post. The OP said that he had done it plenty of times when he was young, Not that he thought it was a wise choice of weapons for deer sized came now. He even later re emphasized the fact that he didn't condone the use of .22lr for deer sized game and only used that to make a point in his original post.
My Granfather, my Father and several of his brothers killed a large number of feral hogs with a .22 single shot rifle back during the depression in So Florida. Not because it was a wise choice of weapons, but because there were 11 kids in the family to feed and that was the only gun they had at the time. Not one of them would likely try the same thing today.
Edit: BTW, a 300lb feral hog is a lot tougher than any white tail deer.

 

[Scorch]

Here, let me throw a little fuel on this fire:
* People describing rifle rounds as "marginal" are often describing their own abilities, and project those abilities (or lack thereof) on others. I watched a friend drop a mule deer at 400+ yds with a shot to the chest. DRT. 22-250.

* People often describe certain cartridges as "marginal", then in the same breath describe some other cartridge as adequate even though it may have less ability to kill an animal. 30-30 Win is marginal for deer, but 44 Magnum is a great deer round? I had someone get all huffy with me once for hunting with a 7X57, said it was a 100 yds round and inadequate for game. Really?

* Check the numbers. Recent discussions on the merits of the 30 Carbine and its performance in past wars, then some of the same posters elaborate on why and how the 357 Magnum is a great cartridge for the same purposes that they were putting the 30 Carbine down for.

* Many people get their facts from their Cracker Jacks box or something. 223 shoots flatter than a 22-250, 375 H&H will blow a huge hole through a deer, 6.5mm bullets are somehow magical or ignore the laws of physics, and game animals are somehow immune to a well-placed bullet unless the cartridge has a belt or ends in 06.

* Consider that a little over 100 years ago, the 30-30 was a flat-shooting, high-powered rifle cartridge, 44-40 was a good all-around cartridge, and the 32-20 was considered adequate for deer. Of course, they got a lot closer to animals back then, and were better at tracking. And they ate a lot of venison.

* And in closing, if the man says he shoots deer with a 22LR and kills them, don't tell him that you heard or read that it won't work. I know many people who have killed elk with 22LR as well as pointy sticks. It doesn't take much energy to penetrate skin and chest walls, and an animal that drops because of collapsed lungs is just as dead as one that gets blasted with a magnum. And BTW, if you check penetration tests of 22LR compared to 223 in gelatin, you will be surprised.

 

[Sweet Shooter]

What gets my goat is why people—back in this thread—think hunting has to be sporting? I'm not into giving the animal a chance. When I shoot I shot for the pot. When I fish, it's for supper. If I wanted sport I'd play football. Ethics? give me a break. What I find unethical is the idiots who take out a gun that is too big for them to shoot, they'll broadside an animal because they can't hold a bead. then they'll say that their 300 only just made it... when in fact they shot the animal in the rump.

Learn your gun, learn the round... stay within it's limits and the law. If you don't know what they are, stay home or at the range.

I can't believe I contributed to this thread again. It gets me every time.
-SS-

 

[Tim R]

I think the problem for the need for large caliber hunting rifles is us because we as Americans seem to have the mind set if a little bit is good more is better. For example, how many of use have lubed something to a adequate level and then gave another squirt just to make sure.

I hunt with an '06 and it does every thing I need. I wouldn't mind a 243, or a 25-35 pre war lever. Or how about a 257 Roberts in a Feather Weight....
And we all know a 25-06 won't kill a deer. In 1996 I had a good year for killing deer. I shot one with the '06 and killed another with a 1994 Chev.

 

[BlueTrain]

I don't wish to question the sporting aspect of hunting and in fact I'd even go so far as to say that hunting is a sport. Sport has to do with killing wild animals or something to do with horses. Football and baseball are athletic games, although the athletic aspect of baseball is suspect. To say you harvesting deer is a euphamism. But don't take these statements too seriously as I don't wish to start an argument.

 

[darkgael]

adequate

killed another with a 1994 Chev.

Yeah, a pick-up or an SUV is perfectly adequate for deer. I took a big eight-pointer with my Rodeo in 1999. Stopped him on the spot. And the car too.

Marginal? In the hands of an unskilled shooter, any gun is marginal. In the hands of someone who has poor judgement, ("I wonder what will happen if I hit that deer with my .22 (or .32 pistol, or .45 1911). It's only 200 yards away. If I hold over a bit and shoot fast, maybe I can hit it.)....any gun is marginal.
Pete

 

[HKGuns]

It's not marginal. It's inadequate. Not inadequate as in not capable of killing deer, but inadequate as in no margin for error in placement, penetration, expansion, range etc.

A Daisy BB gun will kill under the right conditions, but it's adequate only for sparrows.

^^This^^

I've personally put a magazine and a half of .22LR hollow points from a Ruger 10/22 into a porcupine at point blank range and the animal was still moving up the hill. I gave up killing him with the .22 after 15 rounds and used the butt stock to finish him off. I felt terrible afterward and swore I'd use at least a .410 on my next porky. Say what you want but I'll never believe your story about never tracking one past 200 yards.

I would NEVER shoot a deer with a .22LR.

 

[tahunua001]

I do wonder what state that you lived where it was legal?

Montana raised

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.

see I think we agree on many bullet points here. just reiterating one more time that I am not advocating a 22lr but I am saying that many 22s have done the job that many people wholeheartedly say is the domain of nothing less than a 270. and as it's been pointed out, there's a guy on this thread that had a 1500 cow dropped with a single 22lr to the head but at the same time ive watched a 22 bounce right off a little 200 pound 4H pigs skull. there are just some oddball animals out there that are tougher than others and no matter how large of round you pack, you are going to lose one eventually.

Say what you want but I'll never believe your story about never tracking one past 200 yards.

everyone is entitled to their own opinions and I respect that. if you really don't want to believe that then I'm not going to fight an uphill battle trying to convince you, especially since the 22lr is not one of the rounds being discussed. I was merely using the 22lr as a method of emphasizing that a vastly inferior round when compared to a 223 or 25-06 is capable of doing the job(unethically apparently) and yet a much better suited round like 30-30 and 243 are still inadequate.

 

[HKGuns]

when my family lived in a state without ammo restrictions for hunting we regularly bagged 180LB+ deer with nothing more than american eagle bulk pack 22lr. we weren't forced to rely on head shots, we didn't have to aim for the spine, we didn't have to keep to archery ranges, and we didn't have to track the deer for miles after we took the shot. we just had to get a good broadside shot and know how the bullet would act at the range and angles we were shooting.

especially since the 22lr is not one of the rounds being discussed

Huh? I re-read your first post and you certainly were discussing .22LR and shooting deer. I'm not an advocate of overkill rounds, but I'm also not an advocate of under kill rounds either. So, if I missed your point completely you have my apologies. However, I still don't buy your .22LR story!

 

[lawnboy]

why is it marginal?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

hello all,
this is probably going to get heated and closed very early on but I figured I'd ask anyway. I have been noticing an ever increasing number of people with ever increasing standards for a rounds effectiveness. when my family lived in a state without ammo restrictions for hunting we regularly bagged 180LB+ deer with nothing more than american eagle bulk pack 22lr. we weren't forced to rely on head shots, we didn't have to aim for the spine, we didn't have to keep to archery ranges, and we didn't have to track the deer for miles after we took the shot. we just had to get a good broadside shot and know how the bullet would act at the range and angles we were shooting.

People are calling you out about .22lr because you spend the entire first half of your post talking about using .22lr on deer. Now you did edit your post hours later to add a disclaimer blurb about not advocating .22lr for deer, but damage done.

People are answering your question in the spirit of how it was asked.

 

[tahunua001]

Huh? I re-read your first post and you certainly were discussing .22LR and shooting deer... However, I still don't buy your .22LR story!

did you try reading anything other than the first post? or maybe the additional remark I made at the end of the OP so we could try to get off of the anti 22lr bandwagon and have a real discussion about the ever increasing standards that seem to be leveled about certain round's effectiveness?

again and again I've tried to meet you half way, allowing your voice be heard and your opinions aired. yet for some reason you just repeatedly call me a liar and contribute nothing of interest to anyone in an already volatile thread.

maybe special emphasis is required:
I only mentioned 22lr to illustrate the point that even though a 243, 257, 22-250, 223, 222, 30-30, 7.62x39, 5.45x39, 357 and 7.62x25 are all considered inadequate/underpowered/marginal, a round that is inferior to all has been used by many with consistent success.

 

[briandg]

Okay, what do you call "used by many" and "consistent success?"

It's been shown that a .22 is a very deadly antipersonnel round. Not because it kills people, but because people who are shot with one and survive sometimes avoid treatment, and bleed to death or die of gangrene later.

We just have differing ideas of "success," I guess. My idea of success doesn't involve letting something bleed out in the woods, or die of infection. It really disturbs me that someone would take head shots with a .22 at any game animal. I can't even begin to count the number of people I know of that took bullets in their heads and lived to tell about it.

Going back to the main idea, I'd like to point out that I believe that the .243 is adequate for deer. I consider it the minimum effective deer round. Sure, a .223 with good bullets will, too, but you can't control what people carry. There are plenty of people who would go to the woods with their AR rifles loaded with 45 grain varmint rounds.

There's nothing macho, or stupid about carrying a rifle that is in the upper ranges of effectiveness, unless the hunter deliberately did that very thing, like buying a 45-70 so he'd have the biggest gun in the family. the key is to get something you can shoot, and still have effective wounds. if that is a 30-30, a .44 magnum, a .270, 243, or even .375 h&H for a deer, that's all good, because what matters is killing that thing rather than wounding and losing.

 

[CTS]

There is a lot of truth in an old song's lyrics from Simon and Garfunkel:

All lies and jests
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest

 

[tahunua001]

hmmm... well in summation I guess that I kind of figured this would steer this direction to begin with. lessons learned

1. never lead a potentially volatile topic with a controversial comment
2. if it's illegal in 1 state or more it's definitely unsportsmanlike or immoral
3. monkey see, monkey do. if grampa tells you that you need a 300 to hunt deer then it MUST be true
4. new calibers must take an old ones place so marketing suggests that useful rounds are outdated/ineffective
5. arguing rarely ever changes anyone's mind and agreeing to disagree rarely works since someones always going to want the last word.

leaving anything out guys?

 

[RevGeo]

Wow, this is a weird one to get into, but what the hey! That's never shut me up before.
As far as destroying tissue and bleeding out an animal, well isn't that what an arrow or spear does? An arrow can cause an immense amount of internal bleeding, and cause a pretty quick death, but I've seen too many deer shot with arrows to do it myself.
I hunt with a wildcat cartridge that is the ballistic equivalent of a 30-06. It kills game really well, so far at least. Over the years I have shot several deer with a 22-250 and never had one go further than maybe 25 yards after being hit in the boiler works. I've shot several more with a 6mm Rem with more or less the same results. Same with a 30-30. A friend of mine regularly shoots deer out of his back door (in daylight) with a .22 mag and has never had one get away.
I find it interesting that people hesitate to state that a .243 is an adequate deer round because they don't know who might read that in cyber-space and then go wound some poor deer due to bad shooting with a small caliber round.
In my great-grandfathers time and before, many, many, many deer and bear were shot and killed with Kentucky long rifles in calibers as small as .32 or .36 that had about the same muzzle energy as a .25-20. The trick was the hunters knew how to hunt, hunted for their food and, more than likely, didn't take too many less than optimum shots. Especially with bears.

There's the rub - it's not about the gun, it's about the gunner. Thinking that a bigger gun will make up for a poor shot is simply foolishness.
If someone wants to hunt deer with a modern repo .45 cal muzzle loader no one bats an eye. They are expected to shoot within a reasonable range for their weapon. Same with a bow, isn't it?
If some idiot goes out with a gun he or she can't handle well or shoots at ranges that are beyond their skill level, well, the problem lies not with the gun.
Too many inexperienced people are hitting the woods without the skills necessary to be a skilled hunter. Things are different now than they were when I first started hunting in the '60s. Back then a new hunter was usually a kid who was mentored by an older relative or family friend. He (for he was usually a boy) was first trained in firearm safety and woe be it to the kid that screwed up with a gun, even once. Only after showing reasonable competence with a firearm was the tyro allowed to go along on the hunt. Not so nowadays. People can take the 'Hunter Safety' test on-line with the answers readily available. Too many yahoos in the field these days. If you don't believe me just watch the news during hunting season.
If my life or my family's life depended on my killing a deer with a .22rf I have no doubt I could do it. I'd rather have something bigger, but it wouldn't be about the gun, it would be about the hunter.
Have respect for the game you hunt. Like Rourke said, use enough gun. What comprises enough gun is up to you. You must know how to shoot, but more importantly you must know how to hunt.

 

[Bamashooter]

Im fixin to walk out the door to go deer hunting with my marginal and ineffective .223. My son is carrying his equally ineffective .243

 

[Sarge]

hmmm... well in summation I guess that I kind of figured this would steer this direction to begin with. lessons learned

1. never lead a potentially volatile topic with a controversial comment
2. if it's illegal in 1 state or more it's definitely unsportsmanlike or immoral
3. monkey see, monkey do. if grampa tells you that you need a 300 to hunt deer then it MUST be true
4. new calibers must take an old ones place so marketing suggests that useful rounds are outdated/ineffective
5. arguing rarely ever changes anyone's mind and agreeing to disagree rarely works since someones always going to want the last word.

leaving anything out guys?

Beautifully put.


#1 is usually intentional, #2 is a personal pet peeve, people should be able to see through #4- but apparently don't.

#5 is one reason these topics keep surfacing, although there are indeed folks looking for first-time info on them. For those folks, we should make our best effort at well considered and informative replies.

 

[Panfisher]

Centerfire .224's will work just fine on white-tailed deer. I have killed them with .22 hornet and .22-250, admittedly I was very picky about the shot with the Hornet and passed on several opportunities and was woefully under-impressed with its performance, but the .22-250 is in a different class completely. I have used a .22 LR to kill many hogs for slaughter and almost muzzle contact range and they work just fine, (.22 WMR and .45 ACP worked better though).

As so many have stated .224's will work, but its more about the shooter than the caliber stamped on the barrel. The old .22 WMR is the poachers choice here and I have encountered several deer in the woods near roadways with jaws broken from bullets after attempted head shots and others that I suspect had bullets in lungs or guts but were too far decomposed to look for it. Overgunned or undergunned is much of a personal opinion, would I be overgunned if I shot a deer at 100 yards with a .378 Wthby? what is overgunned? Unless a deer exploded like a prairie dog I don't see the overgunned part, messy and probably deafened yes. If I carried a .22 Hornet on an antelope hunt would I be undergunned, in my opinion yes, but could it be done sure if the shooter picks his shot and makes it right, bad idea, but then again isn't the idea of bow hunting to introduce some more difficulty and challenge? Much of the over-gunned/under-gunned arguments are simply what deer camp fun is made of.

Bigger critters or things that can bite back are a different story. Who would you rather take on an elk hunt, the hunter with a .30-378 Wthby who is scared to death of it and can't make use of its power at 100 yards let alone 500, or the guy with a scuffed up old .243 and 100 Barnes X bulelts or Nosler Partitions who can hit a coffee can at 200 yards all day long. I would go with the .243 guy and make sure my camera batteries were charged up for the victory photos.

 

[USMCGrunt]

Personally, I have no problem with .243, .30-30, .223 or any of the lighter calibers as long as the shooter is up to snuff with their marksmanship. The .30-30 is a classic brush deer rifle and the .243 was pretty much designed for whitetail so the idea that these calibers are too small or obsolete or somethign IMHO is bull. The .223 may be a little light but as long as placement is good, I have no problem with this caliber either. I tend to think it follows the saying, "it's the indian and not the arrow." that dictates what is too light for hunting.
That being said though, when I was in Alabama with the ex, the thing that blew my mind was the number of 7mm and .300 magnum rounds being sold. You would be far more likely to find these calibers in gas stations rather than the old .30-30 that I think would be great in that bush country. The 7mm and .300 magnums are great for areas like back home here in ND where long ranges of 200m + are far more common and these are excellent open country calibers but I never considered them for use in heavy cover areas mainly because the rifles are heavier and longer where as a .30-30 Marlin or Winchester being shorter and lighter would be a better choice in these areas IMHO.

 

[CTS]

Truth be told, at least here in the southeast, a 30-30 is probably the best deer gun money could buy. I have been an avid hunter for over 40 years and have never taken a shot over 175yds. Even when hunting Dall Sheep in Alaska, I stalked to a point where I was able to make an easy kill with an old worn out octagon barrelled Winchester Lever Action 30-30.