There was an article in Field and Stream or Outdoor life a few years back that profiled a professional deer killer who was hired by local governments where the deer numbers were out of control and freeing up lots of tags was a hard sell to the citizenry. His method? from a tree stand at night over a pile of corn, head shots. His gun? a noise-suppressed .223. He kills lots of deer and I know that's not hunting but in the right hands .223 works. I have different rifles for different game because I want them and I'll buy more, same reason. Happy new year everyone, hope you get that new gun you want.
What is the fascination with smallest caliber?
- Thread starter open-sights
- Start date
It's good to put things in perspective here. Many would condemn the use of a 22-250 or 220 Swift on a deer, yet they might consider whacking a wolf with the same rifle quite alright. I do not consider the 22 centerfires a good choice for deer-sized game or anything larger, but have shot a few wolves that weighed over 100 lbs with the 220 Swift. Many deer do not outweigh these wolves, so why should a decent bullet out of these not work OK for them? As I stated, I would not deliberately hunt deer with a 22 CF unless it was all I had, but have killed a truckload of deer with the 6mm Remington. It pays to avoid "iffy" shots with the smaller bores, but they are capable of getting the job done. I do NOT like to put the 6mm's in the hands of a novice shooter to hunt deer, because they require a degree of precision often lacking in a new hunter. My kids all did their first hunting with the 6.5x55 or the 7x57, loaded to recoil levels they could tolerate. These are better rounds if a shot is a bit off the exact spot intended, a very real possibility with an excited newbie. I still grab the 6mm if I am on a doe draw, but prefer just a little more rifle for serious deer hunting where a big fellow may present himself out past 250 meters. My 270 or the 264 often get the nod, and the 6.5x55 has accounted for a fair number as well. Regards, Eagleye.
klopp_daddy
New member
- Location
- BC, Canada
I think the reason people use .22 centerfire on things like deer is for the challenge, if you were to use a 50bmg then you could hit the dam thing anywere and it would go down. i think that they like the idea of having to be a better marksman in order to get the kill!!!!
just my 2 cents
regards
just my 2 cents
regards
- Location
- north vancouver
Eagleye said:
Interesting point of view!!!
I bought a 6mm for 'haggis' jnr as his first hunting rifle because of it's killing power for deer and it's low recoil (my son was 13 years old)
The rifle is a Remington and, although very accurate, is a little on the heavy side for Scott, i was thinking of selling it and buying him a 7x57 as you, and many other 'Gunnutz' have suggested.
If anyone has a 7x57 that would wish to sell (L/H bolt action with clip) please let me know.
OOPS, sorry if i hi-jacked the thread----no intension to do so
Interesting thread. I think alot of guys can't stand the recoil. Also in the old days a box of ammo for your 243 was loaded with bullets that were built the same as the 270 or 30-06 bullets. Nowadays you get thin skinned bullets or thicker jackets for larger animals. Guys buy a 243 for coyote hunting, end up taking it on a deer hunt or antelope and wonders why the bullet blows up on the hide at 150 yds. I shot a deer once with a target grade HP boatail that never even opened up. The deer was shot up the ####### and recovered in the front chest area, cal was 308. In conclussion I think the cal does make a difference but not as much as the bullet type and proper placement----Cowboy
- Location
- north vancouver
klopp_daddy said:
The whole idea is to have enough rifle to have as close to an instant kill as possible, not play games as to see how small a cal. you can use and see if it falls, chances are that the animal will run, you loose it, and it suffers a long and painful death. This is NOT hunting (in my mind ) in the true sense that we as hunters should be doing.
If you really want to see how good of a marksman you are with a .22 cal., try shooting at paper targets at greater distances, then you can really have bragging rights without wounding an animal.
yeah, a bigger caliber is a guarentee to an instant kill.... excuse me for being blunt but caliber has very little to do with killing an animal.... proper shot placement is king.
frankly with todays bullets construction and bullets purpose built for the type of game your hunting no one should feel under gunned with a .223 or similar caliber..... hell you want to hazard a guess on how many deer are shot in the USA with ar15's per year ???
go over to ar15.com and search for the hunting threads....
It's easy for me. I only hunt deer and moose, sometimes I will go for elk. The rifle I use is a 270wsm. I have taken a couple of deer and a moose with this rifle in the past 3 years. I find that this 270wsm with a 150 gr Nosler partion is excellent on moose and of course deer. I have not tried for an elk with this rifle yet, maybe next year.
- Location
- The Conservative part of Ontario
I figure it's reverse ##### envy. Mine is smaller than yours...
I like the big stuff myself
i think shot placement is key but having enough horsepower just in case doubley important. i would rather shoot a deer with my 300wsm than a smaller rifle because its very acurate and hunting in bc you never know if its to be 50 yrds or 250 yrd shot. with careful placement i don't lose any meat other than a couple of ribs. hunting isn't like fishing, catch and release. i want it dead on the spot.
- Location
- north vancouver
I definately will excuse you for being bluntWesticle said:
it's like getting to the point That's what i'm confussed about,the never ending search of a smaller caliber to 'Kill Game' in the name of 'Markmanship'
Bigger bullets will not gaurentee a kill(as you mentioned) it will however blow a bigger hole in a misplaced shot therefore, once again, wounding game.
In my mind, there should be a balance of caliber for the intended game combined with shot placement. Shot placement is always a factor,it's up to the hunter to ensure (as TB said) 'use enough gun !!!
I subscribe to the "shoot the biggest caliber you are comfortable with" train of thought. I shoot a 338WM and have used it on caribou, deer, and moose and do not feel as though I am over-gunned. Having said that, I did pick up a 45-70 this year so the 338 may not be going on every trip in the future.
Last edited:
open-sights
Regular
- Location
- Aldergrove BC
Westicle said:
I don't understand how this argument makes this acceptable - the last place I would go for justification on hunting ethics would be ar15.com. Bullet selection is part of the argument to go to a respectable caliber, as long as the bullet does not fail drastically under non-extreme conditions the meat loss argument is ####-canned. A deer shot with a .338 or .375 will have no more meat loss than one properly harvested with a light caliber.
Again let me state for the record that it is possible to kill any animal with a slingshot if you try hard enough, in fact you can club a deer to death with a 4 iron if you ever got close enough. Nobody is disputing the fact that shot placement is king or arguing possibilities, we all know it is possible to kill polar bears with a .22, but my question is,,, - Why ? ? ?
klopp_daddy
New member
- Location
- BC, Canada
when i said that people might feel like marksmen doing it, i said people, me not included, i think enough gun is a must, but some people might not have enough money to buy the new short mags and all that.. they have to use what they have. i agree an animal shouldnt have to suffer but that is not as important as someone who needs food for himself or his family, and improvising with wat he has!
regards
regards
I may be new to the hunting thing, but as an avid target shooter I suspect that -some- folks spend almost no time at the range practicing in the off season, and then try to overcome by getting a case of the "Magitus".
IMHO If my .303 Enfields could reach out and Death kiss Nazis at 500+ yards in their day with a FMJ bullet clean through the helmet and into the anal cortex I'm pretty sure at 200 - 300 yards with an expanding hunting bullet Mr. Deer is going into our freezer.
Now since my 6.5x55, M/38 Swedish Mauser groups even better, and kicks less I'll prob' be using it instead...
Mind you in Grizzly country I'd want prob' want my Bubba'd Enfield...as it has 10 rnds, and can be used as a jack handle in a pinch. Hehehe.
IMHO If my .303 Enfields could reach out and Death kiss Nazis at 500+ yards in their day with a FMJ bullet clean through the helmet and into the anal cortex I'm pretty sure at 200 - 300 yards with an expanding hunting bullet Mr. Deer is going into our freezer.
Now since my 6.5x55, M/38 Swedish Mauser groups even better, and kicks less I'll prob' be using it instead...
Mind you in Grizzly country I'd want prob' want my Bubba'd Enfield...as it has 10 rnds, and can be used as a jack handle in a pinch.
Hehehe.
for me it is not about the smallest caliber, i like what i can shoot for cheap. for this reason, if i was to buy a 22 CF, it would be a .223, perfect for coyotes, more than adequate for meat hunting does and spike bucks (with the right bullet). if i had any intention of shooting a mature buck (or if elk season was open) i would gear up to a 6.5mm as a minimum.
animals aren't armour plated, but if guys want to use a 338 WM or 300 WSM on deer... hey, whatever blows your hair back. for general big game i will stick with standard calibers in 6.5 to 8mm.
22LR is a small game round, chickens, gophers, skunks, etc. i wouldn't even use it on coyote.
animals aren't armour plated, but if guys want to use a 338 WM or 300 WSM on deer... hey, whatever blows your hair back. for general big game i will stick with standard calibers in 6.5 to 8mm.
22LR is a small game round, chickens, gophers, skunks, etc. i wouldn't even use it on coyote.
BigUglyMan
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- New Scotland
25-06...my "small" bore
ive shot deer with a 223 and wasted meat cause it hit bone
and ive shot deer with a 300 mag that liquified the inside but you could hardly tell where it was hit and wasted little meat
i wouldnt hunt with a 22 unless for survival but i say its more the hunter than the gun. having a 300 just allows me to take something that much farther away
and ive shot deer with a 300 mag that liquified the inside but you could hardly tell where it was hit and wasted little meat
i wouldnt hunt with a 22 unless for survival but i say its more the hunter than the gun. having a 300 just allows me to take something that much farther away
