When I went through my PAL and RPAL the instructor had a slide that showed all the various calibre's and what animals they could effectively kill, but for some reason, the government took it out of the book. Is there anywhere to get that kind of chart online?
your rifles for different game - what do you use?
- Thread starter Mr. Friendly
- Start date
Wrong Way
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
A 223 will kill a deer.......deer arent that hard to kill. The problem lies with the idiots shooting surplus FMJ at them. Use a proper bullet and good shot placement.
A 22-250 is a great LR deer cartridge, but again...the problem arises from idiots shooting deer with varmint bullets. Use a proper bullet and good shot placement.
Look at the ballistics between the 22/250 and the .243 (arguably one of the most popular deer cartridges in the country) and do the math for yourself. Do you think the deer will be able to tell that the 22/250 bullet was .020" smaller?
A 22-250 is a great LR deer cartridge, but again...the problem arises from idiots shooting deer with varmint bullets. Use a proper bullet and good shot placement.
Look at the ballistics between the 22/250 and the .243 (arguably one of the most popular deer cartridges in the country) and do the math for yourself. Do you think the deer will be able to tell that the 22/250 bullet was .020" smaller?
C Broad Arrow
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
375 H&H Cape Buffalo, Elephant, Rhino, Lion, Hippo, Grizzly
338 WM Elk
7mm RM Moose, Black Bear, Pronghorn, Mule and Whitetail Deer(West)
270 Sheep
308 Whitetail Deer (east)
22-250 Coyote, Wolf, Ground Hog
.223 Zombies, Taliban, Al-Quida,
.22 Squirels, chipmonks, rabbits, raccons, skunks
338 WM Elk
7mm RM Moose, Black Bear, Pronghorn, Mule and Whitetail Deer(West)
270 Sheep
308 Whitetail Deer (east)
22-250 Coyote, Wolf, Ground Hog
.223 Zombies, Taliban, Al-Quida,
.22 Squirels, chipmonks, rabbits, raccons, skunks
Last edited:
I have and its hard to compair the two
The .243 with a 80gr Speer Hot-Cor goes 3051fps@100yds with 1654ftlbs of energy
The .22-250 with a 60gr Partition goes 3043fps@100yds with 1234ftlbs of energy
From 100yds and farther the .243 is faster and holds 400+ftlbs more energy right out to 500yds how can you really say they are compairable?....is 400ftlbs not alot of energy?
I'm sure shot placement is key as always but if you mess up and say hit the shoulder I cant see a 60gr bullet penetrating through the bones and hitting the vitals like a 100gr+ bullet would????.....
Energy does not kill an animal. Blood loss and/or shock to the central nervous system does.
If energy was required to kill animals archers with their typical arrows delivering ~ 75 fp of energy would never eat meat.
Also, as mentioned, it is the BULLET that does the killing not the CARTRIDGE. A 300 Weatherby shooting a 110 grain V-Max for hunting deer would be a much poorer choice than a 22-250 shooting a 60 grain Partition.
If energy was required to kill animals archers with their typical arrows delivering ~ 75 fp of energy would never eat meat.
Also, as mentioned, it is the BULLET that does the killing not the CARTRIDGE. A 300 Weatherby shooting a 110 grain V-Max for hunting deer would be a much poorer choice than a 22-250 shooting a 60 grain Partition.
Just for arguments sake, energy does contribute to putting the animal down faster and easier, it's just not the primary contributor. As you said about the guy and his arrows, typically he wounded it, but if his aim was off just slightly, he then had to track it for God knows how long. Where as nowadays, one well placed shot can put the animal down flat. One could argue it all comes down to shot placement and the accuracy of the hunter. But I'm pretty sure if we took one accurate bow hunter, and one accurate rifle hunter, and they both got a deer each, hitting the same area, that the rifle hunters' deer would be going down faster and harder.
So, while you are correct that blood loss and shock to the animal are the primary reasons an animal went down, sometimes the energy behind the shot can contribute to that. It's like saying," Do you want to be hit by Sly Stallone swinging a 2x4 at you, or by McCauley Caulkin swinging a 2x4 at you?" Guaranteed both are gonna hurt, but which one is going to put you down faster?
Threemorewishes
CGN Regular
- Location
- Ottawa Ontario Canada
My 12 gauge does it all. From birds to deer and everything in between.
]
Because we don't need more regulations, and I don't need some pencil pusher telling me that a .223 is a bad choice, when they probably have never done it.
I always ask how many of these people have actually tried the .223, what bullet they used, shot placement, distance, etc. Most people have never tried it, never tested the .223 and other cartridges etc.
Because we don't need more regulations, and I don't need some pencil pusher telling me that a .223 is a bad choice, when they probably have never done it.
I always ask how many of these people have actually tried the .223, what bullet they used, shot placement, distance, etc. Most people have never tried it, never tested the .223 and other cartridges etc.
- Location
- Back in the Peace Country
If the .223 is adequate with certain bullets, but not with others, should that be specified in the regs?
Not unless we are going to specify adequate bullets for every cartridge, and pay someone to keep a updated list featuring the latest and greatest bullet offereings.
Keep in mind we can turn a .300 magnum into an inadequate moose cartridge by using a certain bullet....
- Location
- Back in the Peace Country
So then why have any restrictions?
Not arguing with you, just being honest,
What would decide whether a calibre is good enough or not.
The hunter? Or Factory loadings specs for a particular cartridge.
I'm sure there would be people hunting deer with a .22 or 17 hmr
just because they can.
Would it be OK to hunt black bear with 222?
Is there such a thing as a humane calibre for a certain size animal? or only a humane shot.
I support some regs for calibre size, but mainly because there is no shooting component to the PAL or to get your tags.
In Newfoundland, Only about 12 years ago, you still had to qualify with your rifle. I have no idea the logic behind taking this component out. It at least got guys out to the range and eliminated a few ####ty rifles and ####ty marksman.
I saw a moose shot 13 times with a .303
Should there not be some , I don't know, regulation...
The rifle was capable, but the hunter was not.
The Moose was shot 4 times in the hind quarters, 3 times in the face. twice in the leg , twice in the gut, and twice behind the ear.
The twice behind the ear was the most awful, ... at point blank they went to finish it off and still screwed up, the second shot killed it.
I watched from about 400 yrds away on my belly.
Not arguing with you, just being honest,
What would decide whether a calibre is good enough or not.
The hunter? Or Factory loadings specs for a particular cartridge.
I'm sure there would be people hunting deer with a .22 or 17 hmr
just because they can.
Would it be OK to hunt black bear with 222?
Is there such a thing as a humane calibre for a certain size animal? or only a humane shot.
I support some regs for calibre size, but mainly because there is no shooting component to the PAL or to get your tags.
In Newfoundland, Only about 12 years ago, you still had to qualify with your rifle. I have no idea the logic behind taking this component out. It at least got guys out to the range and eliminated a few ####ty rifles and ####ty marksman.
I saw a moose shot 13 times with a .303
Should there not be some , I don't know, regulation...
The rifle was capable, but the hunter was not.
The Moose was shot 4 times in the hind quarters, 3 times in the face. twice in the leg , twice in the gut, and twice behind the ear.
The twice behind the ear was the most awful, ... at point blank they went to finish it off and still screwed up, the second shot killed it.
I watched from about 400 yrds away on my belly.
Last edited:
I have shot 2 black bears with an arrow and broad head and neither went more than 20 feet, and both were dead within 20-30 seconds. I made one bad shot on a bear with a bow and it only went 30 yards. The animals don't react to a silent arrow the same way they do to a loud gunshot.
Most big game animals (except for moose, not much seems to faze them) I have shot in the chest with a rifle have bolted, most make it 30-50 yards, some 100yards.
in my experience, the 22-250 drops they typical "meat" whitetail like they were hit by lightning.
i would quite happily fill my freezer with whitetail with a .223, but prior to the whitetail rut, it is elk season so it is best to carry an elk gun.
i would quite happily fill my freezer with whitetail with a .223, but prior to the whitetail rut, it is elk season so it is best to carry an elk gun.
]
I was sure someone was going to bring this up....
In BC, we dont' have many restrictions. No rimfire, which I think most can live with, since there is a fundamental difference between a rimfire and centerfire.
We have some restrictions on bow weight, which I htink should be amended to differentiate between large and small game
We have some restrictions on bullet weight/energy when used on bison, which I think are a poor regulations, since it doens' t take in account bullet construction. Still, I havent' heard reports of CO's pulling bullets and weigth them...
Depending on the hunter and the bullet, why not? I'd use a a .223, but I dont' have a .222.
Is there such a thing as a humane calibre for a certain size animal? or only a humane shot.
Perfect case in point that cartridge doesn't = Killing.
I know guys that have taken big Canada moose cleanly with .243's with one shot.
I was sure someone was going to bring this up....
In BC, we dont' have many restrictions. No rimfire, which I think most can live with, since there is a fundamental difference between a rimfire and centerfire.
We have some restrictions on bow weight, which I htink should be amended to differentiate between large and small game
We have some restrictions on bullet weight/energy when used on bison, which I think are a poor regulations, since it doens' t take in account bullet construction. Still, I havent' heard reports of CO's pulling bullets and weigth them...
Depending on the hunter and the bullet, why not? I'd use a a .223, but I dont' have a .222.
Is there such a thing as a humane calibre for a certain size animal? or only a humane shot.
Perfect case in point that cartridge doesn't = Killing.
I know guys that have taken big Canada moose cleanly with .243's with one shot.
- Location
- Back in the Peace Country
So how do you avoid joe blow with his .222 torturing a black bear, but still be allowed to use the .222 I think you'd agree the allowance for error with a .222would be much less than say with a 375 H&H.
Do you think it should be the hunters morals or ethics, in light of his skills, that guide the rifle he uses?
What are your thoughts on the fact that getting your tags in nothing more than paperwork?
Should there not be some form of practical skill assesment?
Just to add the 13 shot moose story. These guys were maybe 15 years older than me, good fellas, salt of the earth, just the ####s with a rifle. After the first 3 shots they said they knew he ws hit and just wanted to finish the poor thing off. But thry didn't have the skill.
They get a moose license every year but this was the only time I ever saw them hunting in our local area.
3 or 4 or 5 shots sounded the norm to them for killing a moose, and a one shot kill was not the norm, but a damn fine shot.
This is what I don't get.
Do you think it should be the hunters morals or ethics, in light of his skills, that guide the rifle he uses?
What are your thoughts on the fact that getting your tags in nothing more than paperwork?
Should there not be some form of practical skill assesment?
Just to add the 13 shot moose story. These guys were maybe 15 years older than me, good fellas, salt of the earth, just the ####s with a rifle. After the first 3 shots they said they knew he ws hit and just wanted to finish the poor thing off. But thry didn't have the skill.
They get a moose license every year but this was the only time I ever saw them hunting in our local area.
3 or 4 or 5 shots sounded the norm to them for killing a moose, and a one shot kill was not the norm, but a damn fine shot.
This is what I don't get.
Last edited:
Whereas for others,a one shot kill is the norm and a 300+ yard one shot kill is reason to declare a damn fine shot.
I guess it boils down to experience and education.The sad fact is,I'd guess a disturbingly high percentage of "hunters",or weekend-warriors if you will,don't have a clue about ballistics,trajectory,delivered energy,bullet construction,etc...and are fair to poor to terrible shots? If they bother to "sight-in" their rifle at all prior to opening day,often times being able to hit a pie plate 2/3 times @50 yards is considered "bang on" and good to go.Bigger is better,therefore a 32.Special must obviously reign superior over a .270..yes??Don't laugh....I've heard it argued by a newb at deer camp.This is the mentality and just sheer lack of knowledge that makes a good argument for govt. imposed caliber restrictions....to save us from ourselves.
- Location
- Back in the Peace Country
So wouldn't you think that rather than calibre restrictions, we should have hunter restrictions.
I mean for any given calibre and rifle we know everything, MV Trag BC fps down range, etc etc etc and as much about the bullet.
so why do we have all this information on a rifle, but not so much as a test for a hunter to show he can at least hit a 9x9 square at 100 yrds?
I mean for any given calibre and rifle we know everything, MV Trag BC fps down range, etc etc etc and as much about the bullet.
so why do we have all this information on a rifle, but not so much as a test for a hunter to show he can at least hit a 9x9 square at 100 yrds?
]
Same way we do it now. There arent' any laws against using a .222 right now (in BC) There are very few guys using them or .223's for big game. Most hunters take a education course, and usually either there or at the gun store, or conversing with other hunters, they learn what are "normal" cartridges. Once a hunter has some more knowledge, it is up to them to decide if they want to change things up a bit.
Yeah, maybe. A good shooter with a .222 is far more deadly than a poor one with a .375.
Of course.
In a perfect world, sure, but it woudl kill hunter recruitment, as there are already so many more obstacles to going hunting than there used to be. Next people will want proficiency tests for hunters every 10 years, and what happens when Uncle Bob who kills a moose and deer every year, cleanly with one shot, fails the exam?
Sounds to me like they are poor shooters using horribly inaccurate rifles. Doubt it woudl have mattered if the rifles were chambered in .375 H&H, either....
Same way we do it now. There arent' any laws against using a .222 right now (in BC) There are very few guys using them or .223's for big game. Most hunters take a education course, and usually either there or at the gun store, or conversing with other hunters, they learn what are "normal" cartridges. Once a hunter has some more knowledge, it is up to them to decide if they want to change things up a bit.
Yeah, maybe. A good shooter with a .222 is far more deadly than a poor one with a .375.
Of course.
In a perfect world, sure, but it woudl kill hunter recruitment, as there are already so many more obstacles to going hunting than there used to be. Next people will want proficiency tests for hunters every 10 years, and what happens when Uncle Bob who kills a moose and deer every year, cleanly with one shot, fails the exam?
Sounds to me like they are poor shooters using horribly inaccurate rifles. Doubt it woudl have mattered if the rifles were chambered in .375 H&H, either....
