I agree with Swamp...It ain't the killing, it's the finding...

In my younger days, when I had long hair...(70s)...I used a 22-250 with the only bullets I had, the Remington 55gr varmit loads...I killed about 25 deer with it over 3-4 summers that were eating our peanuts during August...

When I shot them in the lungs, they ended up 75-150 yards away from the hit...If shot where the neck and shoulder meet, they dropped...

Blood trails were very sparse, tracking was done by looking for other sign...

When I moved up to a .243 in 1980, I discovered what a REAL deer caliber would do.....

Dang, did I just open another can???

OHHHHHH LORD ....here we goooooooo

dd

IMO if you can take short range shots it will work.(100 yards or less)I know someone on here is going to tell me they killed one @ 500 yards,thats great but I hunt for large Mo mature bucks.They weigh 200 +lbs.I will use my .300wm,45/70,.270wsm or my 6.5X284.Some are over kill but very effective.

Using a larger caliber doesn't always mean the deer will drop in it's tracks, especially if you still make poor shots. The percentage might go up, but it isn't a guarantee. If you deer hunt you will have to track deer sooner or later. I gun hunt with shotguns and muzzle loaders which push a very heavy bullet at decent speeds and deliver quite a bit of energy to the target. I haven't had a deer drop in it's tracks yet, they all run 50 to 100 yards.

Hawkeye, while a 22-250 wouldn't be my first choice in deer rifle I don't really think it was the caliber that was your problem, it was the fact that you were using the wrong type of ammo for the job. If you would have used a bullet more designed for the game you were hunting and limited your range I bet you would have had the same success as you would have with just about any other rifle when taking a shot in the vitals. I really wouldn't have suggested taking shoulder or neck shots with that rifle either because of the lack on penetration, but it seems to have worked for you.

I bet if you would use the same 55 grn varmint bullets out of your .243 you would see the same results. It doesn't matter what rifle fired it, you would still be using a similar projectile moving at near the same speeds. The reason the .243 worked better was because you used ammo better suited to the game you were hunting.

My opinion anyway.

Paul

I look to kill an animal right now! With the lighter bullets a twig, a puff of wind etc. I hink the excitement quotient comes into play here as well. That 06' let's them know there hit hard and rocks them. You can play sniper all you want, it just ain't right, kill them quick!

BH I think your point is well made ....the faster the bullet the less forgiving ...if you flinch its more exaggerated causing a bad hit ...

dd

Twigs knock big bullets off line just as much as little bullets. I remember reading a study that said a .223 55gr. FMJ was less affected by striking brush than any other bullet tested. However, ALL bullets were knocked off course.

Moral of the story: Regardless of caliber, don't shoot unless you have a clean shot.

And I've seen plenty of deer run just as far hit with .270's, 7mm's, and .30 calibers. There's nothing magical about them, either. They still don't make up for poor shooting.

Paul...They didn't have Nosler Partitions for a 22-250 back in 1971...

Paul...You are correct, but they didn't make the 60gr Nosler Partition for a 22 caliber back in 1971...I used what was avaliable at the time...

I have seen a few killed by my niece with her 22-250 and the 60gr Partition, it kills them, but the damage still isn't what you see out of a .243...The off side hole is about the size of a dime...

To answer the original question, I firmly believe that a 223 or 22-250 is ethical and effective on deer up to 200 lbs, BUT I also believe that bullet selection is more critical than with larger calibers. I started both my sons with a NEF 223, and we never had a deer take more than a step or two after being hit.

DD
If you want a 223, buy another barrel for your Blaser.