Undoubtably many animals are lost each year to a variety of calibers and poorly placed shots. The issue here is that a .17 caliber bullet in the hands of an inexperienced shooter, or in less than optimum shooting conditions is a recipe for disaster. The hunter's in question here tracked that deer as best as they could for a long way but with little or no blood they eventually lost the trail. IMO I believe that this is a direct result of poor penetration, small entry hole and possibly poor shot placement( I don't know I wasn't there). I do know from all accounts that the deer was flattened (twice) and then hit a third time. Ackley may have shot horses and mules with his .17 but at what range and where were his shot placements. No argument from me on the fact that small calibers can kill effectively in the hands of an experienced shooter that spends time with his firearm on the range and can wait for a good shot! How many of the Average Joe hunters do that however? I 've seen scads of guys that don't even sight in from year to year unless they all of a sudden "miss" an animal, then they're off mto the gravel pit for a few quick shots. Do I think that a cartridge like a .30-06 is morally superior to a .17 Remington? In most cases I'd say Yeah, just like I would say that Long Range shooting isn't moral unless you have taken the time to become proficient at it. In this case I firmly believe that a larger cartridge would have afforded at least a better blood trail and possible recovery of the animal. Cheers, Mark
How much gun is too little?
- Thread starter Big Game
- Start date
Undoubtably many animals are lost each year to a variety of calibers and poorly placed shots. The issue here is that a .17 caliber bullet in the hands of an inexperienced shooter, or in less than optimum shooting conditions is a recipe for disaster. The hunter's in question here tracked that deer as best as they could for a long way but with little or no blood they eventually lost the trail. IMO I believe that this is a direct result of poor penetration, small entry hole and possibly poor shot placement( I don't know I wasn't there). I do know from all accounts that the deer was flattened (twice) and then hit a third time. Ackley may have shot horses and mules with his .17 but at what range and where were his shot placements. No argument from me on the fact that small calibers can kill effectively in the hands of an experienced shooter that spends time with his firearm on the range and can wait for a good shot! How many of the Average Joe hunters do that however? I 've seen scads of guys that don't even sight in from year to year unless they all of a sudden "miss" an animal, then they're off mto the gravel pit for a few quick shots. Do I think that a cartridge like a .30-06 is morally superior to a .17 Remington? In most cases I'd say Yeah, just like I would say that Long Range shooting isn't moral unless you have taken the time to become proficient at it. In this case I firmly believe that a larger cartridge would have afforded at least a better blood trail and possible recovery of the animal. Cheers, Mark
I am always amazed at how much damage is done with a small calibre bullet going very fast. I shoot 22.250 exclusively now - and I do not lose animals - it does not happen.
I understand that a lot of fellows only get a little time to hunt, so must take shots that are less than ideal if there is to be venison in the freezer.
There are times and places for larger calibers - like jump shooting - where the deer is only seen briefly - or when there is no tracking snow - or if it is wet swampland or thick cover where it is impossible to see the fallen deer if it runs fifty yards from where it is shot. If there is little time to track before dark ( actually tracking is good by the light of a good flashlight) - and there is no puppy handy to follow the scent to the fallen animal, an exit hole is nice then.
For some folks though - things are different - hunting at home - on familiar land - with lots of trigger time and absolute confidence in shot placement - no pressure to take this shot if it ain't ideal - and lots of time to go back to the house and get the kids to help "find" the deer and hold the legs wide.
I like the 22.250 because there is less recoil - for me and the kids - less meat damage - cheaper to target shoot with - and the deer die in much the same time - although I do concede that if one or both shoulders get ripped out with a big bullet, the deer drops on the spot - but that amount of meat damage is ... dare I say "unethical?" If it isn't unethical, then it is just kinda sad in a "gee - that's too bad" sort of way. We cut our own meat so we can see how much nicer it is not having great bloody pulp where stew should be.
Really, I don't think that there are many deer lost to .17s - I think - as others have mentioned, that there are far more lost to shoulder thumping magnums and/or buck-fevered shooters and hunters that can't track.
I would be interested in shooting a deer with a .17 Remington - just to see what damage it does - if it is legal in Ontario, I will set one up and take a deer with it next fall - I'm out of tags now. It would be interesting to get pics on here - some real evidence rather than just supposition.
Back to the loading bench - I wonder what powder for a .17? Has anyone got a rifle in .17 Remington to sell or loan me?
I understand that a lot of fellows only get a little time to hunt, so must take shots that are less than ideal if there is to be venison in the freezer.
There are times and places for larger calibers - like jump shooting - where the deer is only seen briefly - or when there is no tracking snow - or if it is wet swampland or thick cover where it is impossible to see the fallen deer if it runs fifty yards from where it is shot. If there is little time to track before dark ( actually tracking is good by the light of a good flashlight) - and there is no puppy handy to follow the scent to the fallen animal, an exit hole is nice then.
For some folks though - things are different - hunting at home - on familiar land - with lots of trigger time and absolute confidence in shot placement - no pressure to take this shot if it ain't ideal - and lots of time to go back to the house and get the kids to help "find" the deer and hold the legs wide.
I like the 22.250 because there is less recoil - for me and the kids - less meat damage - cheaper to target shoot with - and the deer die in much the same time - although I do concede that if one or both shoulders get ripped out with a big bullet, the deer drops on the spot - but that amount of meat damage is ... dare I say "unethical?" If it isn't unethical, then it is just kinda sad in a "gee - that's too bad" sort of way. We cut our own meat so we can see how much nicer it is not having great bloody pulp where stew should be.
Really, I don't think that there are many deer lost to .17s - I think - as others have mentioned, that there are far more lost to shoulder thumping magnums and/or buck-fevered shooters and hunters that can't track.
I would be interested in shooting a deer with a .17 Remington - just to see what damage it does - if it is legal in Ontario, I will set one up and take a deer with it next fall - I'm out of tags now. It would be interesting to get pics on here - some real evidence rather than just supposition.
Back to the loading bench - I wonder what powder for a .17? Has anyone got a rifle in .17 Remington to sell or loan me?
Take a look around the Small Caliber Forum on Saubier.com, if you are interested in loading for a .17 of any flavor.
IIRC, Ackley was using solid copper swaged bullets for his shooting.Might be something to that. Barnes may offer up something similar.
I don't shoot at running deer. Prefer them either standing broadside, or head down in whatever food they are eating. Way less tracking, way less frustration, way less second guessing myself.
People that choose a rifle/bullet combo, based on it's ability to shoot through the deers ass and penetrate through the body lengthwise, are hunting differently than I do. FWIW, if a .17 will shoot through a coyote, it'll penetrate to the vitals in a deer just as well. You cannot shoot the deer in the ass and expect any good results though.
As per my comment earlier. Shot placement, and the choice of whether to take the shot or not.
I'll not starve, if I get tag soup for the season. Seems a hard thing to convince some of, though.
Situations and circumstances vary, as do appropriate means of dealing with them.
Cheers
Trev
IIRC, Ackley was using solid copper swaged bullets for his shooting.Might be something to that. Barnes may offer up something similar.
I don't shoot at running deer. Prefer them either standing broadside, or head down in whatever food they are eating. Way less tracking, way less frustration, way less second guessing myself.
People that choose a rifle/bullet combo, based on it's ability to shoot through the deers ass and penetrate through the body lengthwise, are hunting differently than I do. FWIW, if a .17 will shoot through a coyote, it'll penetrate to the vitals in a deer just as well. You cannot shoot the deer in the ass and expect any good results though.
As per my comment earlier. Shot placement, and the choice of whether to take the shot or not.
I'll not starve, if I get tag soup for the season. Seems a hard thing to convince some of, though.
Situations and circumstances vary, as do appropriate means of dealing with them.
Cheers
Trev
Ackley did in fact use homogeous copper bullets custom built for him by a company named Sisk. He was also hunting the wide open deserts of Nevada and Arizona in an attemt to reduce the competition for forage for Desert sheep. His motivation was completely different as was the terrain and a lost animal was of no concern. It was strictly a culling program and should not be compared in any way to a hunting situation. His conclusions can be read in his books but he was not impressed with the 17 and found the 220 swift produced more one shot bang/flop kills than either the 30-40 Krag or 30-06 that his buddies used. It was also alluded to, that his buddies were using military surplus ammo (read FMJ) and he was also using Sisk bullets in the swift. His entire experiment was to determine the effect of velocity regardless of caliber on flesh and bone critters and reduce the competition for food for the Deserts.
I may be corrected on a couple of things said here as I haven't read his report on that shoot for many years, but that was the jist of it as I recall.
One cannot compare a culling program to sport hunting or even the terminal ballistics unless using exactly the same bullet and velocity. I personally know of no homogenous bullets for the 17 or even the 204, I could be wrong but I know of none.
To say a bullet exits on a coyote and therefore should make it to the vitals on a deer, is vey naive. The bullets available today for the 17s are designed to blow up on a gopher, period. This was never envisioned as a big game cartridge by Reminton as hence no bullets were ever made to penetrate more than 1" of gopher. Yes I know big game has been taken with a 22 rimfire, still doesn't make it right and certainly not a responsible act. I really don't think anyone here, regardless of their penchant for small caliber hunting big game, would recommend or say it was responsible to use a 17 for jump shooting whitetails in the bush.
I have seen at least 6 whitetails in the past 5 days that I could have easily taken with a 17, in the eye or behind the ear at 15 - 25 yds or even in the head with a bow, but this is not the same as jump shooting them and it is not allowed here. To execute an unknowing animal at 20 yds is a whole 'nother ballgame and cannot be compared. Just because a caliber and cartride can kill an animal under these conditions does not mean it is an ethical choice to hunt with where conditions are nowhere near as controlled.
Many a horse and cow have been executed with a 22 rimfie, does this make it a suitable and ethical cartridge to hunt this size of game? I THINK NOT!!!!!
I may be corrected on a couple of things said here as I haven't read his report on that shoot for many years, but that was the jist of it as I recall.
One cannot compare a culling program to sport hunting or even the terminal ballistics unless using exactly the same bullet and velocity. I personally know of no homogenous bullets for the 17 or even the 204, I could be wrong but I know of none.
To say a bullet exits on a coyote and therefore should make it to the vitals on a deer, is vey naive. The bullets available today for the 17s are designed to blow up on a gopher, period. This was never envisioned as a big game cartridge by Reminton as hence no bullets were ever made to penetrate more than 1" of gopher. Yes I know big game has been taken with a 22 rimfire, still doesn't make it right and certainly not a responsible act. I really don't think anyone here, regardless of their penchant for small caliber hunting big game, would recommend or say it was responsible to use a 17 for jump shooting whitetails in the bush.
I have seen at least 6 whitetails in the past 5 days that I could have easily taken with a 17, in the eye or behind the ear at 15 - 25 yds or even in the head with a bow, but this is not the same as jump shooting them and it is not allowed here. To execute an unknowing animal at 20 yds is a whole 'nother ballgame and cannot be compared. Just because a caliber and cartride can kill an animal under these conditions does not mean it is an ethical choice to hunt with where conditions are nowhere near as controlled.
Many a horse and cow have been executed with a 22 rimfie, does this make it a suitable and ethical cartridge to hunt this size of game? I THINK NOT!!!!!
I like what Ganyana wrote in his piece "On Sectional Denisties and Wanabee Big Game Hunters"
I should point out that to me, a bullet hanging up on the off-side hide is = being driven through.
Edit to add:
Part 1 of the article:
http://huntnetwork.net/modules/wfsection/html/Ahof%20Sectional%20Densities%20and%20the%20Wanabe%20Big%20Game%20Hunters%20Pt%20.pdf
Part 2
http://huntnetwork.net/modules/wfsection/html/Ahof%20Sectional%20Densities%20and%20Wanabee%20Big%20Gme%20Hunters-Pt%202.pdf
I should point out that to me, a bullet hanging up on the off-side hide is = being driven through.
Edit to add:
Part 1 of the article:
http://huntnetwork.net/modules/wfsection/html/Ahof%20Sectional%20Densities%20and%20the%20Wanabe%20Big%20Game%20Hunters%20Pt%20.pdf
Part 2
http://huntnetwork.net/modules/wfsection/html/Ahof%20Sectional%20Densities%20and%20Wanabee%20Big%20Gme%20Hunters-Pt%202.pdf
I'e heard of someone trying it in this area, but it's not for me. A 223 would be the minimal, and if I used one, I'd lean on a 60 grain or more bullet. The 243 is a better starting point for deer, and it wouldn't be out of character to add that the venerable 30-30 is a great gun in the right conditions at reasonable yardages.
antiqueguy
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- windsor ontario
there is also a difference between subsistence hunting and sport hunting
subsistence hunting is a use what you got to put meat on the table type of thing this is where .22lr comes into play most of the time
subsistence hunting is a use what you got to put meat on the table type of thing this is where .22lr comes into play most of the time
I don't care how you cut it, a 20 or 25 gn bullet at 4000 fps and 240,000 RPM in a cup and core design is not a big game bullet. And it is the utmost irresponsibility to hunt big game with this bullet at this velocity. The bullet is barely staying intact just from the centrifugal force, add hitting a 200 lb animal and expecting any sort of penetration is ludicrous. I'm vaporizing 80 gn bullets at 3700 fps in a 1-8 twist 22 cal rifle at about 30 mtrs from the muzzle. How can anyone say they are getting any penetration from a 17 @ 4000 fps. I know for a fact Sisk bullets has been out of business for at least 40 years.
bearkilr
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Nowhere, ......just past the middle
So the .17 is the new "metrosexual" deer caliber?
Man up and get a real gun. Seems some could really use testosterone injections these days. If you can't handle the recoil of a 243, perhaps it's better to take up knitting and bawling during sad movies.
Man up and get a real gun. Seems some could really use testosterone injections these days. If you can't handle the recoil of a 243, perhaps it's better to take up knitting and bawling during sad movies.
What you say is true - well - 'cept for maybe the irresponsibility part - I'll still be responsible if I shoot a deer with a ridiculously small bullet.
I've shot quite a number of deer with a high-speed bullet out of a 22.250 - and I expect little penetration - like you say - but the energy does not just dissipate harmlessly, but seems to become a predictable shock wave that does kill. There are limits I'm sure - and I'm not about to do a gut shot or a hip shot or a leg shot in an attempt to find the limits of the little bullets. I can't say what fast .22 bullets would do in those shots - but I can say what the bullets do in certain other shots.
This could get long - sorry.
I've done three high shoulder shots - those were years ago - remembering what was recommended in old Outdoor Life magazines - and all anchored the deer - the shock wave is transferred into the spine and no tracking is required - but kill shots are - and there is too much bloodied meat.
I started to shoot back further. The lungs are really delicate of course - and if I shoot a little high of centre, I don't damage the heart meat - if I can see and have time to choose, I'll wait until the near leg is forward - to be sure that the bullet doesn't damage leg meat. If the bullet hits a rib, the bullet stops - I suppose - I never find them in the mush that is made of the lungs by the bone shards and shock wave.
Twice, the bullet has hit a little higher than I intended - the shock of impact going up the ribs and - like shoulder shots - going into the spine and anchoring the deer.
Digging up memories - but this is taking too long - and we have deer to cut today - so I'll continue this later.
...Cuppa tea while warming up - skinned our last two for this year - one 22.250 and one with 243. What a hole that 243 left! - entry from high forward rib cage - going down to leave an exit hole big enough to put a fist through - bloody from high on the neck all the way to behind the exit hole. The 22.250 damage is much more local - thank goodness. Cutting time.
...Okay - that's done - two pressure cookers warming up with 14 jars of choice cubed meat in them. Roasts and burger bagged - and lots of scraps for Fido. What a mess that 243 made of the deer - both sides of the skinned carcass were bloodshot. I took a picture of it - but what a mess - I said that before. The bullets would have been handloads - nothing special.
Back to memories of light fast bullets out of a 22.250 - if the shot is a little high, the spine is taken out - a little low and the heart gets wrecked - a little forward and high and the shoulder shocks the spine. I did one high and back a bit from the diaphragm - a slightly cornering shot from the rear and it cut the - uh - spleen? - which bled out well too - same as a lung shot.
Occasionally, the bullet does not take out a rib on the way in - and so may leave an exit hole - had one like that this year - and once had an exit hole the size of a loony on a bear - but exit holes are really really uncommon - so bleeding is almost always internal with no blood to track until the deer starts coughing blood.
In my experience, deer that are hit where they live by a 22.250 have a very limited lifespan - about 50 yards would be max - but usually half that.
Once, I used a 243 at 240 yards on a walking deer - I was waiting for the boy to shoot and he never did - so I took a last-second shot as it left the field - gut-shot, it still died less than 40 yards into the bush. If I can't see the deer go down, I sure prefer to leave it for 20 minutes to settle down and expire. That was a desperate last second shot that... I guess that a 22.250 would kill - but it would definitely be further away and harder to find - that was a few years ago - I've been pickier of my shots since then. Some guys need to take every possible shot - and for that - a 270 would be more likely to knock 'em flat - but like we all know - more power doesn't make up for bad shot placement.
About the possible .17 experiment - I will get a .17 Remington set up and shooting well for me - maybe try it on coyotes or wolves yet this winter - then decide whether I can take a deer with it. Maybe it has too little power - but I'll leave off supposing until I have more evidence to consider.
The pressure cookers have a head of steam up and it is time to put the studded tires on the family car.
Last edited:
hometownhero
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Toon Town, Sk
Chuckbuster
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Even then, is there any .17 Rem ammo that has anything but a frangible varmint bullet? I don't even think non frangible component bullets are available.
A very bad situation caused by human stupidity. Legal and right aren't always synonymous.
