is a .223 enough for a deer?
- Thread starter Kyler
- Start date
- Location
- Lakes District BC
if you would stop grasping at uneducated facts it would be nice as well, obviosly you dont hunt with a bow either as most animals are dead within meer minutes, a hole in the lungs from a broadhead is no different than a hole from a bullet, cannon ball, knife, missle etc
Head shots are deadly on deer. Only take the shot if presented though for all those who are gonna freak out about it. i shoot most of my deer within 80 feet in the head. With a 30-06. heck a .22lr would work fine. never hunted deer with a .223 cuz my ar is restricted ( i would though if i could, it'd work) use it responsibly and you'll be ok. don't #### around. When i carry my 06 i feel 120% confident i can get the job done no matter what shot i get presented with.
deer hunting is like a gateway drugs. you'll want to kill bigger different stuff so you'll be upgrading down the road anyway mark my word. go buy something bigger...trust me you'll like it...
deer hunting is like a gateway drugs. you'll want to kill bigger different stuff so you'll be upgrading down the road anyway mark my word. go buy something bigger...trust me you'll like it...
yes a 223 will kill a deer. but why would you move your apartment with a smartcar when a small pickup is the same price?
going small just because you're to cheap to buy a proper deer caliber is retarded. the animals deserve better.
give yourself a slap and go buy a .243, 7-08, etc.
if you had to ask the question you're not ready to shoot large game with such a small round.
going small just because you're to cheap to buy a proper deer caliber is retarded. the animals deserve better.
give yourself a slap and go buy a .243, 7-08, etc.
if you had to ask the question you're not ready to shoot large game with such a small round.
- Location
- Ft. Mac. Alberta
The small cased .22 centerfires I have seen being used in the States are mostly shot from elevated block houses over bait.
There are thise however, that stretch them out .
It takes a person that knows his rifle well, and has the proper bullets loaded to do the job.
Sorta like fishing for big lakers with a 4 wht rod IMO, lottsa fun, but why bother?
Cat
There are thise however, that stretch them out .
It takes a person that knows his rifle well, and has the proper bullets loaded to do the job.
Sorta like fishing for big lakers with a 4 wht rod IMO, lottsa fun, but why bother?
Cat
One of the rteasons the US is looking at moving to the 6.8 is because they are finding that it may take between 4 to 6 shots to put down a 170 to 200lb+ enemy. Quite often he or she ends up getting wounded. As I recall one of the reasons the 5.56 NATO was chosen was to wound not necessarily to kill outright, so why would anyone use a rifle chambered in this calibre as their 'go to' hunting rifle?
In a few US states they have even made hunting with the .223 illegal. Will it do the job? Yes it will. Are there better calibres for hunting? Absolutely. If you don't have much money to spend then obtain a nice .303 British Lee Enfield. It was my first hunting rifle and it put a lot of ethically harvested meat on the table.
My 2 cents to this thread.
In a few US states they have even made hunting with the .223 illegal. Will it do the job? Yes it will. Are there better calibres for hunting? Absolutely. If you don't have much money to spend then obtain a nice .303 British Lee Enfield. It was my first hunting rifle and it put a lot of ethically harvested meat on the table.
My 2 cents to this thread.
Last edited:
- Location
- big sky country
- Location
- Ft. Mac. Alberta
I was told the same thing by a canadian sniper instructor about the 5.56.
It stemmed from the vets coming back after getting hit with small caliber , high velocity bullets, recouping, then getting infections later.
The opinion wass formed that the high velocity bullets were killing more tissue than originally thought, but not killing the soldier right away.
Cat
It stemmed from the vets coming back after getting hit with small caliber , high velocity bullets, recouping, then getting infections later.
The opinion wass formed that the high velocity bullets were killing more tissue than originally thought, but not killing the soldier right away.
Cat
- Location
- Lakes District BC
you better explain it to the history channel then cause thats what there telling folks
- Location
- big sky country
The move to 5.56 had nothing to do with desiring a round that would only wound and stop killing.
I would be happy to explain it to you further, just not on this thread. I don't want to hijack it.
If you are interested PM me.
I would be happy to explain it to you further, just not on this thread. I don't want to hijack it.
If you are interested PM me.
Last edited:
Thanks for the informed opinion.
After newspaper testing out some 53gr TSX bullets in the 223, and looking at the "wound channels" in the newspaper, I started packing my 223 for bear last year, with a self imposed 100 yard limit. Never had a chance last year on a bear I wanted to shoot, at 100 yards, with my 223 in hand, unfortunatley.
The 53gr TSX penetrated just as much or more than some traditional bullets fired from 30-30's and .303's, and nobody woudl question those cartridges. Wound channel was almost as wide, too.
How many have the naysayers have actually used the 223 or done any sort of penetration tests in medium? Be interesting to hear actual experiences.
Last edited:
There are some interesting drawings of the wound channels created by various cartridges on this site:
http://www.chuckhawks.com/energy_transfer.htm
http://www.chuckhawks.com/energy_transfer.htm
- Location
- Lakes District BC
Clarke I do know that we have recovered bullets that didnt preform on dogs out @ 200 yards + mind you they were winchester cheapo ammo but it is still a smaller wound channel and easier to f@ck up with than a 30-30 or 7mm or whatever, it boils down to capability, responsability, knowledge and common sence
.223 is an excellent round for killing... people! Soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are getting tons of one shot, head shot kills. I'm pretty sure that would work for deer as well, and with a .223 a head shot at 100 yards is child's play. I can shoot gophers at 200 yards easily with my .223 so I'm sure at 100 I could hit a deer in the eye if I wanted to. That's my only beef with what's been said, the .223 is a very lethal round if it's used as it should be.
The law on the other hand says we have to use higher calibers and that makes sense to me. It's important to be humane.
The law on the other hand says we have to use higher calibers and that makes sense to me. It's important to be humane.
Takujualuk
CGN Regular
- Location
- Whitehorse, Yukon
No problem....I think the 223 isn't much inferior to the 30-30. Only problem is that unlike the 30-30 the trajectory might tempt you to shoot past it's useful range.
Here is some bullet testing with a varietry of 30-30 bullets from a Stevens 325B on the outside and inside are a 60 grain Nosler and the 64 grain WW Powerpoint. Target was wet newsprint. The 60 grain Nosler made the best penetration! The Powerpoint was very similar to 30-30 bullet action good depth and width.
The 22 - 250 has a little more jam than a .223, but it is the only .22 centre fire that I have hunting experience with. It always impresses me. I have taken three bucks and a doe with it and watched the same gun take a deer for another hunter. It would take too much to describe each, but one thing which is always surprising is the penetration. Heart/lung shots in my experience never drop in their tracks, so I have a favorite shot that anchors them - a high shoulder blade shot dislodges the spine and drops the animal immediately. Instead of the animal running, I can run up and get at the field dressing. The little meat that is up in that area is not the best anyways - so losing a pound or two is not so bad. The doe was a facing head shot last fall so that doesn't help much in research - a .22 LR would have done the job. Oh – and I shot a bear last fall with it too – stone dead only thirty feet from where I hit it . What surprised me on this one was the exit hole – a quarter – sized hole on the other side of the rib cage. I expected the lead to be just inside the offside hide. It was only a medium sized black bear at 100-110 yards ( couldn't pace it directly) but that is still a lot of penetration for a 53 grain bullet – I think. The 22 – 250 does not have the power to take both front legs out from under a deer – say a bad running shot – it just doesn't have the smashing energy.
I use a .22-250 for stand and sniper shots.
I use a .243 for bush hunting when I think the deer might be moving – say in a drive.
One more thing of interest – I took my .50 cal muzzle -loader to the range today and used the chronograph on 129 grain patched round ball.
The average calculated energy at eight feet was 695 ft-pounds. The fastest load had only 1024 ft-lbs. Extreme spread was crazy.
I read on another site that it would likely only have one-third of it's energy left at 100 yards. I'm not going to risk my chronograph trying to get a reading at 100 yards. I think that a hunter that uses round ball should leave enough daylight to track for a while.
I use a .22-250 for stand and sniper shots.
I use a .243 for bush hunting when I think the deer might be moving – say in a drive.
One more thing of interest – I took my .50 cal muzzle -loader to the range today and used the chronograph on 129 grain patched round ball.
The average calculated energy at eight feet was 695 ft-pounds. The fastest load had only 1024 ft-lbs. Extreme spread was crazy.
I read on another site that it would likely only have one-third of it's energy left at 100 yards. I'm not going to risk my chronograph trying to get a reading at 100 yards. I think that a hunter that uses round ball should leave enough daylight to track for a while.
