I love these arguments, Inuit, Afrikaaners... The guys touting this stuff do realize neither are stewards of the land, both responsible at times for shooting randomly into herds (Caribou in our country, antelope in theirs) and just picking up what falls down? They used / use .22 Hornet, .222, .223 up north because its cheap, not because it's a good choice. Thousands of animals have and continue to be wounded and lost, with far fewer concerns than your recreational hunter like you or I would feel. I was talking just yesterday with a coworker who's done years of Arctic flying, some of the stuff he saw literally made him sick, the complete disregard for humane treatment of the animals and ethical kills. It's a different set of standards, and perhaps if our surviving winter depending on it our standards would be lower too and we'd hose herds with .223. I'd like to think not.
Use enough gun, and practice enough you're as competent with it as your .22 Hornet. It is your responsibility, you're killing something, have the respect to use the best tool for the job not one that will just barely work under supreme conditions.
I have a small and disgusting collection of Wood Bison photos shot with 7mm Mag, .270, .308, etc that didn't work and they went off to suffer and die because people truly believed the arguments stated here. That is that all chamberings are equal with perfect shot placement; they are most certainly not. Even more different with imperfect shot placement. The Bison two days again, was wounded with a perfectly placed 7mm Mag heart shot that didn't reach the heart, and a 7mm Mag throat shot. I had to put it down with my .375 after it suffering for hours. The 7 Mag on Bison is a good allegory for the .22 Hornet on deer.
