How much gun is too little?

It's all fun and games to some people as long as there are no consequences for bad behaviour. I think that hunters should take any shot with any rifle that they feel comfortable with - as long as they also accept the consequences.
He killed a deer slowly, and wasted it. So, did the yahoo in question cancel his tag? No valid excuses for this situation come to mind that make any sense!
Inadequate bullet or cartridge, or too far, or inadequate practise, or not sighted in, etc, etc, are bad choices that far too many people make which result in wounded and wasted game. They would hunt and shoot with a lot more care if they actually held themselves accountable for the results.
 
My cousin got into the 17 remington craz a number of years ago an decied to try it on a deer. The 17 blew up just under the skin at 200 yards, with a rib cage shot. It did open a big hole in the chest so the deer would haved died, just not quickly.

The only difference between him and the OPs guy, is my cousin knew it might not go good so a second shooter also took the shot at the same time but with a 270. Between the two hits apparently the deer was DRT. He decided the 17 wasn't a deer cartridge.
 
Manitoba 2012 hunters guide states that it must be a centerfire rifle. As for calibre, I've dropped deer faster and more efficient with a .223 in the neck area than a .30-06 in the heart/lung area. Shot placement is usually a more deciding factor over calibre used.
 
You can't legislate morals/ethics...what's more ethical, a .223 at a relaxed deer at 50 yards or a .303 at a deer running full out at 200 yards? Which is more likely to produce a wounded deer?
What's not ethical, a small caliber sighted in by someone who is experienced, or the guy with a 300 mag he bought the day before that's bore sighted?
There's all kinds of reasons deer end up wounded, and you can't pass a law for every one of them. At the end of the day, there will always be idiots out there, that's life.
I've been hunting 22 years and have seen a CO twice. Pass whatever laws you want, they only keep honest people honest, while those with lower morals will still do as they choose.
 
TK-Hryciuk said:
As for calibre, I've dropped deer faster and more efficient with a .223 in the neck area than a .30-06 in the heart/lung area. Shot placement is usually a more deciding factor over calibre used.
Click to expand...

I'll take the.30-06 everytime whether it's a neck or boiler room shot. I know people use the .22-250 as well but I don't think it's meant for big game. Unless you can't handle recoil why use a small bullet? Bullet placement may be everything but the shocking power of 180 grain bullet can sometimes compensate for a less than ideal shot. The shots in question here with the .17 were broadside boiler room at less than 100 yds. Good shot placement? Maybe. Would a 175 grain bullet fired out of my 7mm been more effective? I don't think I need to answer that. I would venture to guess that most hunters out there spend less than 1 hour a year on the range with their firearms......shot placement has been taken out of the equation for most of them!
 
i like a challenge of setting limitations for deer hunting with cals most people would think is not good enough for deer(and i make sure i have a good shot or i dont shoot) but a .17 come on man what the heck if i seen that id tell that guy to go home the fact he weasted the deer is even worse he should hang up the camo and gun and not step a foot back into the woods
 
Xs24-7 said:
You can't legislate morals/ethics...what's more ethical, a .223 at a relaxed deer at 50 yards or a .303 at a deer running full out at 200 yards? Which is more likely to produce a wounded deer?
What's not ethical, a small caliber sighted in by someone who is experienced, or the guy with a 300 mag he bought the day before that's bore sighted?
There's all kinds of reasons deer end up wounded, and you can't pass a law for every one of them. At the end of the day, there will always be idiots out there, that's life.
I've been hunting 22 years and have seen a CO twice. Pass whatever laws you want, they only keep honest people honest, while those with lower morals will still do as they choose.
Click to expand...

I love the way that morals always comes up when someone is trying to shove their own down somebody else's throat.

FWIW, I opened up a mulie doe that had taken two shots from a .223 last week.
First shot was a fatality, though not DRT. The second shot broke it's front leg and trashed its lung on the near side.

The first shot was a little low, behind the leg. When the deer was opened up, I thought it looked gut shot, until I found the diaphragm intact. The liver was chopped to bits. Exploded, literally.
Bullet was a 50gn spire point.

Based on that, I'd say it worked fine.

Based on the dead deer in the OP's telling, I'd say the failure was the hunter that failed to seek and follow the deer he shot, not the cartridge choice.
Feel free to differ, but I have seen and heard of, many, many critters that were badly shot by more 'ethical' calibers than this, that went to the ravens and coyotes.

Placement is key. Choosing the shot is right up there too.

IIRC, Ackley shot a fair pile of feral horses and mules with his .17.

Cheers
Trev
 
I don't even hunt, and I know that a .17HMR or .17HM2 is WAAAY to small to take on a deer.

Like really? A .17? Yikes. Why not just go out with a high powered air gun... :rolleyes:
 
Maybe we need to tell MB Conservation to put a minimum caliber. I'm surprised they haven't seeing as how they're so against food plots, antler traps and soforth that ARE legal in other provinces. A$$ backward if you ask me.
 
Drewz said:
You mis-read it, .23 and less not .23 minimum in Sk. It has been this way for a long long time now.
Click to expand...

Ok, for discussion sake; and yes you are correct, but the "and less" vs. "minimum" point is largely irrelevant as there is no .23" projectile, unless I am mistaken it is only bracketed by .224" and .243" projectiles.
 
trevj said:
I love the way that morals always comes up when someone is trying to shove their own down somebody else's throat.

FWIW, I opened up a mulie doe that had taken two shots from a .223 last week.
First shot was a fatality, though not DRT. The second shot broke it's front leg and trashed its lung on the near side.

The first shot was a little low, behind the leg. When the deer was opened up, I thought it looked gut shot, until I found the diaphragm intact. The liver was chopped to bits. Exploded, literally.
Bullet was a 50gn spire point.

Based on that, I'd say it worked fine.

Based on the dead deer in the OP's telling, I'd say the failure was the hunter that failed to seek and follow the deer he shot, not the cartridge choice.
Feel free to differ, but I have seen and heard of, many, many critters that were badly shot by more 'ethical' calibers than this, that went to the ravens and coyotes.

Placement is key. Choosing the shot is right up there too.

IIRC, Ackley shot a fair pile of feral horses and mules with his .17.

Cheers
Trev[/QUOTE

I disagree with this, and despite Ackely's observations to the contrary, the .17 isn't a big game cartridge. As I said in my earlier post, no matter how small it is, someone will have slain some great beast with it. That doesn't make it the right tool for the job. A .17 will shoot through a fox or a coyote alright, but the greater density of a big game animal makes acceptable results suspect. When you have to pick your shot to rule out quartering shots, or head on shots, you're packing the wrong gun. Using these little rifles on big game isn't fair. You must consider what the bullet must do in order to kill the animal in a humane fashion. If your shot requires 20" of bullet penetration to get to the vitals, but yours only produces 12", and only then if no big bones are encountered, is it still a good choice? In addition to the penetration problem, if a .17 expands to double its diameter, the diameter is equivalent to an unfired 7mm, even if it reaches the vitals, will it do sufficient damage to result in the blood loss necessary to prevent the animal from escaping? It takes more than velocity to produce a good kill on a big game animal.
Click to expand...
 
Boomer said:
I disagree with this, and despite Ackely's observations to the contrary, the .17 isn't a big game cartridge. As I said in my earlier post, no matter how small it is, someone will have slain some great beast with it. That doesn't make it the right tool for the job. A .17 will shoot through a fox or a coyote alright, but the greater density of a big game animal makes acceptable results suspect. When you have to pick your shot to rule out quartering shots, or head on shots, you're packing the wrong gun. Using these little rifles on big game isn't fair. You must consider what the bullet must do in order to kill the animal in a humane fashion. If your shot requires 20" of bullet penetration to get to the vitals, but yours only produces 12", and only then if no big bones are encountered, is it still a good choice? In addition to the penetration problem, if a .17 expands to double its diameter, the diameter is equivalent to an unfired 7mm, even if it reaches the vitals, will it do sufficient damage to result in the blood loss necessary to prevent the animal from escaping? It takes more than velocity to produce a good kill on a big game animal.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Colouring the issue by calling it one of morality or ethics doesn't change the fact that it just makes good sense to use a proper tool for the job.
 
Boomer said:
You must consider what the bullet must do in order to kill the animal in a humane fashion. If your shot requires 20" of bullet penetration to get to the vitals, but yours only produces 12", and only then if no big bones are encountered, is it still a good choice? In addition to the penetration problem, if a .17 expands to double its diameter, the diameter is equivalent to an unfired 7mm, even if it reaches the vitals, will it do sufficient damage to result in the blood loss necessary to prevent the animal from escaping? It takes more than velocity to produce a good kill on a big game animal.
Click to expand...

I think that says it best. I took my buck with my .303 backup rifle this year because I knew my shot was going to be within 100yds (was actually closer to 35yds) and I didn't trust how the 257wby would perform at such close range even with Barnes bullets. In fact using that rifle in that situation sounds retarded, hell I wish I didn't sell my 30-30. Ethics aside, any intelligent hunter should be choosing the tool that he knows will get the job done in any of the circumstances which he is likely to encounter on a specific hunt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom