neccesary bullet energy to bag deer

[david doyle]

One more vote for the swede. I can't imagine why it would'nt be capable of driving tacks at 200yds ( all the other swedes are). maybe a totally f'd crown or wierd bedding could derail it but probabley not.

With a 156-160 grain bullet the swede kills very very well.

handle up to 160gr bullets @ 2200fps

2200 is too slow! 2450FPS is a conservative loading . I have pushed at least a 1000 160 grain hornadys at 2600 in a 1918 swede and hundreds more in 38 husky. WORK UP YOUR OWN LOAD.

If you need to buy factory ammo try Normas 156 spire point vulcan load at >2450fps 35 bucks a box!! Check out the Norma web site ballistic calculator to see what the swede is easily capable of.

 

[impala]

I never under stood those charts to begin with.like was already said shot placment is the key here and in my opinion you will be just fine with a 243 for deer as long as you can make the shot.compensating for being a bad shot with a larger caliber is a bad idea as the recoil of a larger gun would probably make you a worst shot.in those charts does it mean that much energy has to be delivered to the animal?because 3500 ft/lb wouldn't do you a lick of good if the bullet doesn't expand and passed right through.I think the biggest thing is shooting a caliber you are used to,shot placment and bullet selection are what you want here.

 

[cdngunner]

I never under stood those charts to begin with.like was already said shot placment is the key here and in my opinion you will be just fine with a 243 for deer as long as you can make the shot.compensating for being a bad shot with a larger caliber is a bad idea as the recoil of a larger gun would probably make you a worst shot.in those charts does it mean that much energy has to be delivered to the animal?because 3500 ft/lb wouldn't do you a lick of good if the bullet doesn't expand and passed right through.I think the biggest thing is shooting a caliber you are used to,shot placment and bullet selection are what you want here.

Or one might look at it and say with a smaller caliber bullet placement becomes more critical.

I dont neccessarily agree with the charts either but they are what they are, a guide line, nothing more.
I'm sure as a hunters abilities become greater they are able to do more with less!

 

[Rick65Cat]

I agree about any chart being a guideline. Its probably a good idea to at least read it to see what the recomendations are and go from there. If .303s aren`t mentioned as being a decent killing bullet, well..I don`t know what to say to that.
But I totally agree about bullet placement. My first deer I ever shot I screwed the shot baaaad. Put a 123 grain SP 7.62 cal. bullet through the stomache of the deer. That poor bastard ran about 150 yrds and probably in great pain before it dropped. I`ve never made that mistake again.

Bullet placement.... placed a 32 grain .204 VMax bullet through a gopher at about 220 yrds this summer...HE didn`t suffer

 

[PGKris]

Maybe I shouldn't get myself banned

 

[todbartell]

Considering the skill of the majority of "hunters" I have seen, I would sleep better knowing that they brought more gun then they needed!

exactly wrong

they have no skill to shoot because alot of them are shooting more gun than they can handle, so they dont practice because their gun makes them flinch or is too expensive to shoot often

maybe you could put up another table describing how poorly you are at posting tables

 

[AP]

Or one might look at it and say with a smaller caliber bullet placement becomes more critical.

... I see that observation a lot... like I said earlier I have used a lot of calibers from 243W to 375H&H to kill Eastern whitetail ... I've never seen any evidence that the 13/100ths of an inch bigger bullet diameter difference between the two makes a lot of difference to where you need to hit them...

The target zone for a clean kill is about the same regardless. Under 250yds you will get the same results for the same shot ... personally I have difficulty with shots on game at unknown distances beyond that - regardless of caliber - however I have collected a quiver full of calibers... cause I "needed" them - and they are all great.

 

[cdngunner]

exactly wrong

they have no skill to shoot because alot of them are shooting more gun than they can handle, so they dont practice because their gun makes them flinch or is too expensive to shoot often

maybe you could put up another table describing how poorly you are at posting tables

Huh

Lets differentiate between too much gun for the person and not enough gun for the game.

Why is it that a lot of people get upset when someone mentions shooting deer with a .223. Its been done before, it will be done again. What the knowledgeable people will say is that a .223 in SKILLED hands should be no problem.

I'd rather have an average hunter shoot a deer with a .270 then a .233.

enough (and probably more) gun then is needed for the job, yet it would not overgun the hunter.

Oh any advice on how to properly post tables would be appreciated.

 

[cdngunner]

.The target zone for a clean kill is about the same regardless. Under 250yds you will get the same results for the same shot ... personally I have difficulty with shots on game at unknown distances beyond that - regardless of caliber - however I have collected a quiver full of calibers... cause I "needed" them - and they are all great.

And you are assuming that everyone will hit the zone 100% of the time.

A larger heavier bullet, in case of an off shot, has the ability to do more damage to big bones.

 

[manbearpig]

I do have a 1942 6.5x55 swedish mauser, but the barrel is cut to about 19 inches. I doubt it would be accurate enough at 200 yrds.

cutting the barrel to 19" (with a good recrown) most likely made it more accurate, rather than less.

up to a point you actually gain accuracy by cutting the barrel. you are losing a bit of velocity though - around 20-40fps per inch of barrel.

 

[TimC]

Age is irrellevant for accuracy provided the bore is good and the nut behind the butt does the job, as for shot placement, I personally wouldnt take a shot unless I knew I could make that magic 4" circle (minute of deer). I have a chart from the Deer Commission of Scotland which shows the kill area at different angles. If anyone wants it let me know and I'll e mail a pdf over.
Its not just the ridicule from my colleagues and clients but the time spent tracking a wounded deer, wasted meat and pish poor personal ethics on my part.
I have wounded deer and take a dog for tracking them but it tends to be clients that make those mistakes.
A short barrel shouldnt reduce accuracy as long as it is crowned correctly. Manbearpig has it right. It may reduce MV it may not!

 

[Rick65Cat]

I guess I`ll take out da svede yahh. And sight it for 100 yrds (3x9x40 scope) then simply switch to a 200 yrd target and see what happens. Might as well take the Sks back out too now that its back in its original wood and set it up for 100 yrds too (iron sights).

(still want another rifle tho)

 

[david doyle]

Sight it 3 inches High at 100yds and at 200 you'll find your bullet hole in the center of your POA.

oh yeah and buy another rifle just make sure it shoots .264 bullet!

 

[Northman999]

........................................MIN................Adeq..............Preferred

Deer and the like.................900.................1200..............1500ft/lbs
Elk Bear up to 600..............1500.................2000..............2500ft/lbs
Large bear Moose...............2100.................2800..............3500ft/lbs

You've got to be kidding! Crap like this is why young guys think a 300 win mag with hot handloads is barely enough as a starter gun. There's nothing in North America that trappers and natives haven't been killing efficiently for 100 years with a 150 grain bullet from a short barrelled 30-30! The whole ft/lbs thing is generally overstated as a useful tool for hunting anyway, but with guys like you thinking 2800 ft/lbs is "adequate" for moose, you really bring this whole concept to the point of silliness. I know guys who hunted for years with a .44 rem mag carbine (with it's totally worthless and pathetic ME of 1650 ft/lbs at the muzzle, and only about 800 ft/lbs at 150 yards) and routinely brought down everything in North America except Bison and Polar bears. And yes that includes big grizzlies and 50+ inch moose. Chuck Hawks rifle tables list the 45-70 with a 405 grain flat point as having only 1590 ft/lbs of energy at the muzzle; barely adequate for black bears and not even a contender for moose according to you! Don't tell that to the buffalo hunters of the last century who were dropping 1400 lb buffalo at 300 yards or more with similar loads. They only nearly wiped out the freakin' species! If someone wants to know what ME is needed for game, you're much better off finding out what the ME is of the weakest cartridge already known to be adequate for that game is and going with that, rather than having these pie-in-the-sky numbers that any experienced hunter can tell you are basically irrelevent.

 

[cdngunner]

You've got to be kidding! Crap like this is why young guys think a 300 win mag with hot handloads is barely enough as a starter gun. There's nothing in North America that trappers and natives haven't been killing efficiently for 100 years with a 150 grain bullet from a short barrelled 30-30! The whole ft/lbs thing is generally overstated as a useful tool for hunting anyway, but with guys like you thinking 2800 ft/lbs is "adequate" for moose, you really bring this whole concept to the point of silliness. I know guys who hunted for years with a .44 rem mag carbine (with it's totally worthless and pathetic ME of 1650 ft/lbs at the muzzle, and only about 800 ft/lbs at 150 yards) and routinely brought down everything in North America except Bison and Polar bears. And yes that includes big grizzlies and 50+ inch moose. Chuck Hawks rifle tables list the 45-70 with a 405 grain flat point as having only 1590 ft/lbs of energy at the muzzle; barely adequate for black bears and not even a contender for moose according to you! Don't tell that to the buffalo hunters of the last century who were dropping 1400 lb buffalo at 300 yards or more with similar loads. They only nearly wiped out the freakin' species! If someone wants to know what ME is needed for game, you're much better off finding out what the ME is of the weakest cartridge already known to be adequate for that game is and going with that, rather than having these pie-in-the-sky numbers that any experienced hunter can tell you are basically irrelevent.

Hey there "johnny-come -lately"

Whats all this "guys like you" crap? Been on the bottle again?

I'd like to tell you where you can stick your "Ithink its this way so everyones wrong" attitude, but I'd probably get in trouble.

Just for you and any other IQ challenged people who think that I publish tables, I am including the table. If you have any concerns over the numbers please take your "I'm God, so I must be right" Ideas and contact the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources , NRA, Alberta Department of Energy and Natural Resources and the Ontario Federation of Angler & Hunters who were responsible for publishing the info

DONT KILL THE MESSENGER!

page 174 from the Hunters Guide Copyright 1982

oh and :stfun00

 

[aulrich]

If the swede shoots use it,6.5x55 is a fab deer or bigger round. If you want a new gun, get a varmint gun.

From the one year I had a 243 it is like all compromises,not the best solution to either question, sort of small for deer and sort of big for varmints.

 

[Eagleye]

Hey there "johnny-come -lately"

Whats all this "guys like you" crap? Been on the bottle again?

I'd like to tell you where you can stick your "Ithink its this way so everyones wrong" attitude, but I'd probably get in trouble.

Just for you and any other IQ challenged people who think that I publish tables, I am including the table. If you have any concerns over the numbers please take your "I'm God, so I must be right" Ideas and contact the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources , NRA, Alberta Department of Energy and Natural Resources and the Ontario Federation of Angler & Hunters who were responsible for publishing the info
:

Sorry guy, I'm with Northman999 on this one. I've hunted for 50+ years, so hardly lack experience. The figures are published, but are basically meaningless in any practical sense. Just because Ontario DNR, etc, etc are involved, doesn't really mean much. Many of those who gave input were undoubtedly Denim polishers without loads of field experience. No one suggested that you published the tables, but if you subscribe to the information contained in them, then the "guys like you" shoe fits. Make your stand clear...do you think people should follow those charts or not? If so, then welcome to the delusion, and put on your asbestos suit. If not, then let everyone know. Incidentally, the epithets/personal slurs are totally uncalled for. Eagleye.

 

[woodchopper]

---- a 243 it is like all compromises,not the best solution to either question, sort of small for deer and sort of big for varmints.

and this is why I'll never buy one, the wife might think wow thats great you only need one gun now.

270 is the same, just can't buy onwe gun that sort of will do everything.

Like golf sure you could play 18 holes with a 5 iron but why would you want to.

 

[cdngunner]

I don`t have my Hunter training manuals anymore from the 80s. I can`t remember the ft/lbs required at 100 yrds to put down a deer. I`m remembering a number like 1100?

I'm just about to give up,



I just posted what he was looking for, wether I believe it or not is irrelevant

 

[cdngunner]

Just for you guys!

http://www.chuckhawks.com/energy_transfer.htm