Deer Hunting With a .25-20 Winchester

DeerHunter898 said:
If it’s all someone had, it shouldn’t hold them back from deer hunting, but I think that’s an unlikely scenario in 2026.

I consider it as more of a novelty for an experienced hunter. If you are willing to take your time, hunt within its limitations, and pass up shots when you should, there’s nothing wrong with using something like that. I have a 100+ year old 44-40 that I’ll take out again someday, just for fun.

It’s funny, in another 50 years, someone will be writing this same type of comment about “underpowered” 30-30s being too light for whitetails.
Click to expand...
According to some, that 50 years is already here. :p
 
I take big game hunting to seriously to be undergunned with a pee-shooter. Equally/morally, I value the life of an animal with a humane kill.
FYI, the James Jordan buck (previous world record typical whitetail deer 1914) was killed with a 25-20 WCF, winchester 1892 however, people used what they could afford in that era.
 
Last edited:
FLHTCUI said:
mattgoulding, in this day and age there are far better choices.
I am pretty sure you know that and I know I know that there are better choices and a 25-20 would fit in bare minimum imo.
I am not going to be the guy that uses a rimfire round for deer unless it is the end of the world and there in the one and only blk tail left in Burns Bog in Delta.
We are biotchin about hypothetical situations well maybe some of us are biotchin I mean.
It wasn't two months ago and someone was going on about how great a 223 Ackley Improved is the next best thing to sliced bread for deer.
It is unfortunate that I went to school with and eventually worked with relatives of poachers who shot before , after hours over their daily limit used rimfire for migratory game birds and big game local to me, so I have heard the stories before I started hunting.
Anyways, I'm out lest a certain moderator comes on and calls me daft again for voicing my opinion regardless of whether it fits the conversation or not.
Click to expand...
^^ So, up the road is an 80 some year old guy - his Grandma used to open the farmhouse kitchen window and shoot deer in the farmyard, at their farm in rural Saskatchewan - with a Stevens Favourite rifle chambered in rimfire 25 Stevens - at the time, Saskatchewan law only required "more than" .23 caliber - so that thing was "legal" to use for deer - I presume, but he did not say, about deer tag or deer season. I have no clue what the Muzzle Velocity or Muzzle Energy was - 60 grain bullets, says the empty shell box here for the CIL "Canuck" 25 Stevens Long - the other empty shell box for that one says "25 Stevens Short" - 65 grain bullets. He recalls as a boy - riding in grain truck with his Dad, to Winnipeg - they ended up at SIR store - where they got a box of shells for "Grandma's deer gun". He now has that rifle; I got a couple hundred rounds for him - he is sure his son or grandson will fire off the last of those rounds. That thing worked - then - so I think my 22 Magnums or 22 Long Rifle rifles, today, would also "work" - would not be "legal" though. And probably best used by someone who has killed several dozen deer with other rifles, first - someone who can get close and turn down "shots" that are "not there".
 
bibatoad said:
Unethical, many jurisdictions using this pop gun cartridge to hunt dear would be illegal as hell.
Click to expand...
And many jurisdictions dont make sense. As an example, 25-20 would be legal for moose in BC, but a 12ga slug is not.

Killing stuff with a 25-20 isn't unethical in and of itself. But it's relatively low power means it is easy to do things that are unethical with one. Don't mistake unethical actions for an unethical cartridge - It's not the cartridges fault if Cletus takes a shot he has no business taking.
 
So for the ones that clame unethical the use of that cartridge by a guy that obviously did kill a dear at short range successfully, would you be more inclined to claims the use of a magnum cartridge with a really fast bullet of a fairly light construction destroying 20% of the edible meat more ethical? Or the use of a magnum this or magnum that shooting games at over 500m and having way more chances to failure/miss or even worst wound the game you are after more ethical? They sure used the latest bestest new chambering out there that has more than enough muzzle velocity and more than enough muzzle energy… but the “hunter” using it has no fvcking clue what he’s doing… where that guy in the video obviously knew what he was using and the limitation of it and was successful with it. Which one is less ethical?
Like I said I’m not the one who would choose that cartridge for my hunting, we don’t even hunt deer here, but I could compare that to our biggest heaviest game up here the wood bison, minimum cartridge is 30-06 with 180gr bullets of a suggested good quality construction what ever that means, lots of people think it is totally inadequate for such a big tough animal and yet it is legal and lots of them have been successfully harvested with the 30-06.
Anyway again what is ethical to some can be none to others. But as long as it is legal and as long as the kill is clean to me it is ethical. We have a guy here that shoots moose every year at 800+ yards and always kill them… go tell him he his not ethical in the way he kill his moose. Not something I would ever attempt same as I wouldn’t attempt hunting moose with a 243 or 6mm cm eve if it is totally legal to do and knowing that others have done it!
But man I did too much writing about this debate hahaha point is the deer in the video is dead and it took only one shot!
 
Kinda surprised a little that some fellas talk about lack of foot pounds with the kind of surety that it really means anything on it's own.

A warm .45 Colt load is right around that touted 535 foot/pounds. Heck, Elmer Keith's heavy load was probably only about 500 until he tried blowing a gun up.

EK says:
"I much prefer the .44 Special and the .45 Colt cartridges for sixgun use. For the handloader, the .44 Special is by far the best of all sixgun cartridges for serious work, either target, defense, or game killing. The cylinder walls are thicker over the case body than in the .45, and the cartridge is superbly accurate. The old black powder loads with 250-, 255-, and 260-grain government bullets and 40 grains of FFG black powder gave 900 feet in the .45 Colt and would surely penetrate. I planted a 250-grain Remington black powder load in the seat of a goat's pants and it penetrated through to the left shoulder, which it broke. On broadside shots on both elk and goats, it went clean through unless heavy shoulder bones were hit. The .38-40 and .44-40 factory loads stopped under the skin on the off side on lung shots on elk. With the heavy 260-grain .38-40 handload, penetration was excellent."

And on the 32-20, parent case to the 25-20 and .218 Bee he says:
"I have killed three mule deer with the .32-20 low-velocity smokeless soft-point load, and the cartridge proved entirely adequate."
 
Last edited:
mattgoulding said:
For the guys saying it not a good choice, yall need to learn how to hunt. And no not drive around in your pick up or atv and spot a deer and shoot it but actually hunt. Walk the land get close to your target and be patient enough to wait for the right shot opportunity. The 25-20 is more than enough gun to kill a deer.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between being enough to kill a deer and being "a good choice" and it's very situation dependent. It doesn't matter how good your hunting and stalking abilities are, if your cartridge choice limits you to a perfectly broadside 50 yard shot, you will have to pass up shot opportunities. That isn't necessarily a bad thing if you want the challenge, but don't kid yourself that you won't ever lose an opportunity.

I'm a wildlife photographer. I have a big portfolio of stunning images that required getting, not only close, but also in the perfect spot to capture the moment, the lighting etc. I think my field craft is good; but, for every amazing shot I got there were many shots I got busted before getting into position. Or wildlife was there, but a good image was just never going to happen because getting into position was never going to happen due to the terrain.

How does that tie into our discussion? Well you can have decades of experience in sneaking and reading the wind, you still aren't going to get into the perfect position every single time. There are going to be times where you couldn't make the shot with a 25-20 that you could have with an accurate .30-06, and if you're okay with it, that's fine, just don't think that perfect fieldcraft will always bring you the same opportunity.
 
cam1936 said:
There is a difference between being enough to kill a deer and being "a good choice" and it's very situation dependent. It doesn't matter how good your hunting and stalking abilities are, if your cartridge choice limits you to a perfectly broadside 50 yard shot, you will have to pass up shot opportunities. That isn't necessarily a bad thing if you want the challenge, but don't kid yourself that you won't ever lose an opportunity.
Click to expand...

Nobody is arguing with "25-20 has limitations", we all agree on that, what we're arguing against is "25-20 is unethical".

Of course a 30-06 will kill deer from more angles, and at greater distances. That doesn't make it a more ethical choice unless the shooter can't resist taking those shots though - at which point it's no longer about the cartridge at all, now it's the shooter who's the problem.
 
^^^ exactly, the 30-06 is only as ethical if the hunter knows his limitation and the cartridge limitation… just like 338 Lapua is as ethical as the hunter using it. If you can’t hunt, if you can’t shoot, is you don’t know #### about what you can do or what your rifle/ammo can do then it doesn’t matter if you use a 22lr or a 50bmg.
 
Suther said:
Nobody is arguing with "25-20 has limitations", we all agree on that, what we're arguing against is "25-20 is unethical".

Of course a 30-06 will kill deer from more angles, and at greater distances. That doesn't make it a more ethical choice unless the shooter can't resist taking those shots though - at which point it's no longer about the cartridge at all, now it's the shooter who's the problem.
Click to expand...
That way the point I was trying to make, I did a poor job of it. A 300 win mag is no better for some one who can actually hunt then a 25-20. A good hunter and someone who can shoot and know the limitations of the 25-20 will kill just as many deer as guys sticking the barrel of a 300 win mag out the window of a pick up and shoots at game.
 
Suther said:
Nobody is arguing with "25-20 has limitations", we all agree on that, what we're arguing against is "25-20 is unethical".

Of course a 30-06 will kill deer from more angles, and at greater distances. That doesn't make it a more ethical choice unless the shooter can't resist taking those shots though - at which point it's no longer about the cartridge at all, now it's the shooter who's the problem.
Click to expand...

Thats what it is

Its hard to find a "bad" choice of a centerfire cartridge to kill deer. They're deer.

You can put it in the organs they need to survive or you can't. A bigger gun aint always the solution anyway.
 
Shot my first deer with a win 25-20 about 50 years ago. It worked but I went on to a .270. The 25-20 was specifically named as illegal for big game a few years ago. At the same time it became legal to use most center fire .22 cals. One of the very few intelligent changes made in Saskatchewan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom