Tumbling bullet to knock down a deer?

[Bigbubba]

Given what has been said about the performance of the bullet my guess is that it exploded/expended on contact with the hide - thus the big bruise.
I doubt it was tumbling.
My opinion is the same as most of the others here in that this is a rather poor choice of bullet & caliber for deer hunting and a larger caliber would suit this need better. Even 6mm/.243/.25 cal SP bullets would be a huge improvement.

To each their own

 

[Scanner_66]

Your government should change their minimum caliber law for wildlife humane reasons.

yeah we NEED more nanny state..

 

[MiG25]

Maybe you really hit it else where?

I shot an elk once, it dropped like a sack of hammers, best I could tell after skinning it was that it had a heart attack or something at the shot.

 

[ljones]

Hooey!

Dead is dead.
You do know that the wildlife managers that have been shooting potentially CWD deer in Alberta have been shooting them with 22-250 yes? From helicopters.

Once again, it's opinion, not facts, that have brought us this line about the supposed 'explosiveness' of varmint bullets. Somehow these bullets that cannot reach a deer, are reliably reaching the coyotes, wolves, groundhogs, gophers, and whatever else they are aimed at, under similar conditions. But they blow up, if there are deer in front of them?. Give yer head a shake!

As one writer put it succinctly, and I do paraphrase, the folks that complain about the ineffectiveness of a particular round, may well be unwittingly commenting on their capabilities rather than the cartridges'.

Cheers
Trev

Explosive...No. We don't use exploding bullets. But varmint bullets are designed to be frangible. The fact that they vaporize a groundhog or prairie dog just proves the point we are trying to make. They are designed to come apart on contact in a short distance after impact. Thus not being able to retain weight for penetration. This is good on an animal that is a few inches to 14 inches wide, not for bigger bodied animals. Period.

 

[rral22]

yeah we NEED more nanny state..

The problem is, if you are not able to make smart decisions on your own, you DO need a nanny.

If people would stop doing things that really don't make much sense (like not using a cartridge that is properly suitable for deer) nanny state suggestions would be more objectionable and inappropriate. But this "argument" that the .22 center fires are good deer cartridges (even in the face of proof of problems that can result like this thread) is just silly. There are LOTS of cartridges more suitable for deer than "tumbling" .224 bullets from a .223. Why would you not use enough gun?

I agree with the law we have here that no one should hunt deer with a .22 center fire. I like the law because it keeps people from doing what someone did in this thread. The fact that the deer did not escape is irrelevant to the fact that the cartridge was inadequate for the task.

 

[antiqueguy]

im going to say what I have always said deer have not changed much over the last few thousand years and have been taken along with other bigger game by everything from spears to under powered bows(by todays standards) and under powered rifles pistols and buckshot from shotguns and smooth bore muskets.

thing is placement is everything so is not taking iffy shots because a magnum to the guts will never beat a .22 cal to the heart/lungs stopping them stops the animal period.

in this case the OP screwed up he did not lose the deer and probably use a bullet that mite not have been a good idea since most are frangible then again there are some areas down south that want frangible bullets used on deer(mostly in culls) they seem to work no problem

 

[trevj]

Explosive...No. We don't use exploding bullets. But varmint bullets are designed to be frangible. The fact that they vaporize a groundhog or prairie dog just proves the point we are trying to make. They are designed to come apart on contact in a short distance after impact. Thus not being able to retain weight for penetration. This is good on an animal that is a few inches to 14 inches wide, not for bigger bodied animals. Period.

I have never seen a gopher "Vaporized". I've shot a LOT of them with the same loads I used on deer. They come apart pretty good, but it ain't vapors, it's chunks, and it's the logical extension of a high energy transfer into an area that is essentially larger than the critter you hit with it. Now when you take it under due consideration that I (and several other CGN'ers) have killed more than one gopher at a shot, we can reasonably say that there is some energy not transferred to the first gopher hit, yeah? I got three off one mound one day. It was...messy.

A deer isn't smaller than the affected area.

If we look at the size of a groundhog as being about the margins between blowing it apart and not, and superimpose the affected are into a carcass the size of a deer, you still get penetration, expansion, and an energy dump, and I really don't give a damn HOW superfrangibleexplosivevarminatorblasteringest you bullets are, they are not going to 'blow up on the skin, and leave a bruise'

Smack that same bullet into the ribcage of a deer and open up a 4 or so inch diameter cavity in behind it, plus the residual energy being spent by the still moving bullet parts, and you have a right messy, right dead, deer.

Just how far into a deer did you figure you needed to go to reach the heart anyways? About 6 inches. Less for the lungs, or the liver. Oh yeah, mine, this year, somewhat better than 12 inches total, with pretty good odds of exit-ting the deer had the parts not hit the leg bone

Put that many foot pounds of energy into a ribcage, and you get burger, not a bruise. Deer are not made of steel plates, but you'd never know that by the way some dudes go on. Sideways, end facing the wrong way, or point-on, equals hole and messy inside bits.


rral22, there IS no PROOF of problems here, only opinions, mostly by folks with strong beliefs and no experience whatsoever to back them up.

My money is on that the OP's deer was not hit by the bullet, where he thinks it was hit. But that's just a theory, and I cannot prove otherwise nor will anyone prove otherwise to me, without having the opportunity to pick over the carcass and be involved with the skinning and butchering.

I have seen enough problems that should not have happened to not be convinced that more hand holding is the answer.

Maybe I need a 25-20 for next year. The internets all say it won't kill a deer either!

Cheers
Trev

 

[9.3mauser]

im going to say what I have always said deer have not changed much over the last few thousand years and have been taken along with other bigger game by everything from spears to under powered bows(by todays standards) and under powered rifles pistols and buckshot from shotguns and smooth bore muskets.

thing is placement is everything so is not taking iffy shots because a magnum to the guts will never beat a .22 cal to the heart/lungs stopping them stops the animal period.

in this case the OP screwed up he did not lose the deer and probably use a bullet that mite not have been a good idea since most are frangible then again there are some areas down south that want frangible bullets used on deer(mostly in culls) they seem to work no problem

The deer may not have changed, but our ethics certainly have. Subsistance hunters would not have been overly concerned about how quickly or cleanly an animal died, as long as it died, and if they had lost 2 in order to gain 1, I doubt that would have bothered them much either. We have better tools at our disposal today, and there's no reason not to use them.

Shot placement isn't everything, as this thread, and Ardent's thread on the wounded bison illustrate. Bullet placement was adequate; calibre and bullet were not.

 

[MiG25]

I'd bet you creased the spine on the neck and that the bruise is from another buck. I've taken deer with big bruises and punctures in the hide before.

 

[track]

I have never seen a gopher "Vaporized". I've shot a LOT of them with the same loads I used on deer. They come apart pretty good, but it ain't vapors, it's chunks, and it's the logical extension of a high energy transfer into an area that is essentially larger than the critter you hit with it. Now when you take it under due consideration that I (and several other CGN'ers) have killed more than one gopher at a shot, we can reasonably say that there is some energy not transferred to the first gopher hit, yeah? I got three off one mound one day. It was...messy.

A deer isn't smaller than the affected area.

If we look at the size of a groundhog as being about the margins between blowing it apart and not, and superimpose the affected are into a carcass the size of a deer, you still get penetration, expansion, and an energy dump, and I really don't give a damn HOW superfrangibleexplosivevarminatorblasteringest you bullets are, they are not going to 'blow up on the skin, and leave a bruise'

Smack that same bullet into the ribcage of a deer and open up a 4 or so inch diameter cavity in behind it, plus the residual energy being spent by the still moving bullet parts, and you have a right messy, right dead, deer.

Just how far into a deer did you figure you needed to go to reach the heart anyways? About 6 inches. Less for the lungs, or the liver. Oh yeah, mine, this year, somewhat better than 12 inches total, with pretty good odds of exit-ting the deer had the parts not hit the leg bone

Put that many foot pounds of energy into a ribcage, and you get burger, not a bruise. Deer are not made of steel plates, but you'd never know that by the way some dudes go on. Sideways, end facing the wrong way, or point-on, equals hole and messy inside bits.


rral22, there IS no PROOF of problems here, only opinions, mostly by folks with strong beliefs and no experience whatsoever to back them up.

My money is on that the OP's deer was not hit by the bullet, where he thinks it was hit. But that's just a theory, and I cannot prove otherwise nor will anyone prove otherwise to me, without having the opportunity to pick over the carcass and be involved with the skinning and butchering.

I have seen enough problems that should not have happened to not be convinced that more hand holding is the answer.

Maybe I need a 25-20 for next year. The internets all say it won't kill a deer either!

Cheers
Trev

You may be within the rights of your provincial laws, however; I will be so impudent to mention that your ethics, values, respect and life standards for wildlife lacks. I'm a well seasoned hunter and shooter and would never belittle myself to your level and unfortunately there are a few like you.......let us not cross paths.

 

[KodiakHntr]

But we have no idea of placement now do we? We have a bruise, that may or may not have been caused by a bullet.

A big whitetail in my field this year was shot with a 223. He was running as hard as he could go, quartering away when the trigger tripped. Hit him 2 ribs in from the last one, and the bullet broke 4 ribs, went in the cavity, and then broke 6 vertebrae, and ended up in his neck just under the hide.... I measured that at about 3 FEET of penetration.

And all that at about 175 yards.

Fairly positive that the OP did not hit said buck where he figured he did. There isn't a deer alive that will shake off ANY bullet applied to the rib cage. Period.

How can I possibly be sure of that? Two springs ago I rolled into my yard after doing some load work up with a 223AI and 40 gr vmax's. My kids were outside, gf on the other side of the house in the garden. Black bear comes slinking out of the brush about 100 yards from my kids, dog goes insane, bear still walking towards them. Being a believer in dancing with the one that brung you, I bailed out with said 223AI and stuffed a 40gr vmax in the spout, bear is angled quartered away slightly, and takes one just ahair far back. Hit the ground so hard he bounced. No running, no thrashing, just dead. Autopsy showed that most of his liver had turned to soup, as had his lungs. Holes on the far side of the ribs, but mostly bullet frags, and the jacket. 150+ yards.

Have since shot a couple more bears with tsx's (45 and 53gr versions) and a few deer.

Adequate for deer? Absolutely, based off EXPERIENCE. Not emotion.

 

[KodiakHntr]

You may be within the rights of your provincial laws, however; I will be so impudent to mention that your ethics, values, respect and life standards for wildlife lacks. I'm a well seasoned hunter and shooter and would never belittle myself to your level and unfortunately there are a few like you.......let us not cross paths.

Thats an incredibly ignorant statement to make. It truly shows how small minded you are.

 

[rral22]

Based off my EXPERIENCE, I have thought up a new catch phrase that I think may catch on: Use enough gun. I bet most truly experienced hunters actually understand the fundamental truth in that statement.

Can't wait to see if my little phrase becomes popular.

 

[c-fbmi]

I dunno where you're from, but around these parts we don't exactly refer to clear cuts as "a screen of brush".
Reading posts before you reply to them. You should try it sometime

Recently shot a 8 point buck in a clear cut that was chasing does. Shot it in the ribs area and then a finishing shot to the back of the head as he was trying to get up. On skinning the deer there was no hole in the ribs just a big bruise. Is it plausible that I hit a branch or sapling that would cause the bullet to tumble yet still had enough force to knock the air out of him to knock him down ? I was shooting a 223 loaded with Hornady 60 grainers and 8208 powder at about 125 yards. Never had a problem with his load before and it has performed beautifully . Interested to hear your opinions

Not only had I read every post in the thread, I was referring specifically to your original post.............apparently the clear cut you referred to wasn't 100% clear if you need to ask this question. I have seen many clear cuts in my day and they always have saplings and small patches or scrub and brush left standing, hence my comment.

 

[c-fbmi]

Based off my EXPERIENCE, I have thought up a new catch phrase that I think may catch on: Use enough gun. I bet most truly experienced hunters actually understand the fundamental truth in that statement.

Can't wait to see if my little phrase becomes popular.

Great catch phrase rral22, almost as though I heard it somewhere before..........I really do think it might catch on with those of us who are beyond "stunting" with sub calibers on big game. And who's ethics demand that the outcome of hunting be as humane as is within our powers to make it. But hey, JMHO.........

 

[trevj]

Use enough gun.

I do. I did.

And I know enough about mine to know what shots to take and which to pass upon. Simple as that.

Y'all preaching ethics are busy trying to ram yours, into the rest of us. Keep it, because much like Religion and #####es, we know that you have them, we just don't want them rammed into us, thanks!

Enough gun sounds like a grand little catch phrase. Who decides? Should we require everyone to carry a .416 Rigby at the minimum? Lots of guys around here seem to think that they need to have a belted magnum as the minimum for deer. I know better.

I know my capabilities. And those of my chosen rifle and ammo. Based upon what I expected for performance, I have had far better than what I expected, as far as penetration and internal results. I expected quite adequate performance and got better than that. First hand Not theoretical. No hand wringing.

I have had, as detailed previously in this thread, strange events that still amounted to a recovered deer, occur. Oh. With a .308 Winchester. So by those standards, maybe that was not enough gun, eh?

Cheers
Trev

 

[trevj]

You may be within the rights of your provincial laws, however; I will be so impudent to mention that your ethics, values, respect and life standards for wildlife lacks. I'm a well seasoned hunter and shooter and would never belittle myself to your level and unfortunately there are a few like you.......let us not cross paths.

Lets just say, I doubt you would feel that way if you met me in person, but if you are like this in person, I doubt we'd have much to talk about anyway.

You seem like such a cheery and upbeat individual. Nice to know your world is so well defined.

Cheers
Trev

 

[KodiakHntr]

Great catch phrase rral22, almost as though I heard it somewhere before..........I really do think it might catch on with those of us who are beyond "stunting" with sub calibers on big game. And who's ethics demand that the outcome of hunting be as humane as is within our powers to make it. But hey, JMHO.........

Question: to you, what defines "stunting"? Or better yet, what parameters make it not "stunting"?

 

[MiG25]

using a 22 cal at close range = stunting
shooting at 1000 yards = not stunting

 

[KodiakHntr]

Laughing..... Fair enough.

So one could *almost* make a correlation there, no? Using a bullet that will reach the vitals with enough upset to impair function, that couldn't possibly be called "stunting", now could it?