RE: 223 for deer?
 

Pro-Line you might be different, or just a gun hunter. But believe me, a deer is not the toughest thing to take down. If he can't do the job with a 223, then he needs to stay in the house. I use all kinds of guns to take deer down, including 308, 270win, 12ga, muzzleloader, 44 mag pistol, and I feel very confident with all of them, and never worry too much about recovering them.

You said
Nearly 100% of the deer I've killed with my bow I could have killed with a 22lr to the brain.

I am really not understanding your point. You say they are easy to kill as the above statement, and then try to say they are hard and you shouldn't hunt with this caliber, yada, yada, etc.

RE: 223 for deer?
 

Well, if this comment is at all directed at me I'd have to say that I'm a bit offended by this implication, since I have always done all my deer hunting with a muzzleloader, have never had to shoot a deer more than once, and have recovered all the deer I've hit. The one that ran the farthest went about 150 yards or so before piling up with part of one lung and its liver liquified. It was my one "I should've known better" offhand shot at a deer that was slightly quartering towards at about 75yards. The slug deflected off a rib on the way in, making the alright shot worse. I was fortunate that it did hit the one lung and the liver, and the shot was a through-and-through which left a decent blood trail. If I'd been using a .223 that deer probably would have been lost, but the big .45cal QT made a nice big hole in and out.

Mike

RE: 223 for deer?
 

[8D] yada ,yada yada if you can kill anything on the planet with a .223 you shouldn't be hunting. Take everything said here with a grain of salt cause opinions are like body openings some stink more than others.[:-]

RE: 223 for deer?
 

Nope, although it isn't relevant and I don't know why you insist on constantly comparing a 223 to a bow. It is apples and oranges. You of all people should know there is a big difference between hydrostatic shock from a bullet and massive hemmorage from a broadhead. Also, most bowhunters are more disciplined than your run of the mill rifle hunter who may shoot three shots before taking his or her rifle into the woods.

RE: 223 for deer?
 

BC...I am a bowhunter for nearly 90% of the deer hunting I do. Most of my shots are inside 50 feet. That's not the case gun hunting.

The deer are also undisturbed for bowhunting. Unlike most gunhunting. Anything will die when there is severe brain damage.

I'm done with this thread...too much nonsense. LOL To each his own. Yada, yada, yada...:eek:

RE: 223 for deer?
 

What are you smoking today?

RE: 223 for deer?
 

Why frizzellr, maybe cause I am a uncomplicated person. I shoot and throw things at animals, make a wound, some large, some not, they bleed, they die, I recover with great deal of success, I butcher, I eat. Simple. I kill more with a bow than a rifle. I kill more with a muzzleloader than with a rifle simply because the way the seasons are here in MD.

This is a hobby, and I think alot of us, myself included have gotten in this trap of picking pepper out of flycrap when it comes to our hobby. Worrying about if one bullet or the other. Wow, I think that bullet is worth 20 dollars more, because it damaged 3000 hairs on the animal and the other 2990.

Some of the best hunters I have ever seen, don't read the internet, or magizines, in fact pick up a bow and arrow, no matter how under or over spined the arrow is, and kills. Or picks up any old ammo and any old gun as long as it hits a paper plate at 100yards, they have success. I just think its important for people to come back down to reality, and realize that with a 223 or 30-06, we hunters are at a great advantage over the animal if we can get past thier nose and ears. Its not that tough to kill a deer with a firearm, case closed. Hey, if someone has tried something, and lost alot of animals, thats one thing, it just seems to me, to be alot of hearsay, or gun shop talk by alot. Since moving to this state I have learned alot about how an what kills. With the very generous amount of game you can take, you can do a little freelancing. When I lived in Ky and WV, the seasons and success rates made it tough to pick a 243 to go hunting. You can go for days, and see 100 does for every buck. And in buck only counties, you wanted that shot to count. but in Md, I see maybe 3 does for every buck. And big ones. 18 month old 8 points. The terrain is alot more open than WV or Eastern Ky. Alot more chance for broadsided shots. You can afford to let the animal pass. You keep hunting, you will see another that evening or tomorrow.

RE: 223 for deer?
 

Pro-Line, sure you do. You really sound like a bowhunter.

RE: 223 for deer?
 

Wow, “you guys”…. Is that kind of like “you people”…..

“One can knock over deer with a stick” figuratively speaking, but you do need a reasonably sound “stick”, if you are going to try to use a darned “twig” (read 22’s) to do the job then you better have a lot of time and/or a lot of talent. IMHO, what enrages a lot of folks on this subject is when someone endorses a “22’s for deer” without qualifying the assumptions that are imbedded in their endorsement (time, talent, practice, OUTSTANDING marksmanship, long time experience)…... These are the elements you WOULD find in a suburban contract game hunter, or a country boy on the dole, with no job, and nothing to do but hunt every day for a month.... but NO, .....

along comes Johnny Six Pack (or BeaverJacks PAMB’s) reads the post, whips into Walmart, picks up a 710 in .223, puts 5 for 5 in a pie plate and is out to get “ma self uh deer”. Ouch! Deceptive advertising, the poor boy didn’t know better, just doing what he read was okay.
==================

On a related note:

Personally, since I've adopted my latest "too-large" (whatever that means) caliber elk rifle, I've fired 3 rounds in hunting situations at 150 to 210 yards, put down 3 nice sized animals and had NO tracking to do and NO finishing shots.... just walk straight to them where they dropped, take the pix, and start field dressing. IMHO, that should qualify as ethical.

I am not sure how I am going to be able to improve on that. I am a fair shot, but I don't live my life at the range, don’t shoot a 1,000 rounds per year, don’t do two dozen tournaments, nor spend a month in the woods hunting for just a couple animals. With few exceptions, I go plenty heavy for the game in play, act aggressively on my hunting opportunities, and get down to business. I am simply at loss at how that approach versus someone who prefers (apparently) to wait for the perfect "underbore set up" should be a mandate for my not being allowed to hunt.

EKM

RE: 223 for deer?
 

O.K, how many of you guys have done, or know someone who shoots elk with a .243, or a 25-06? Is this too small? While I won't condone the use of a .243 on elk, people do it every year, and they bring home meat. Yes, some do lose their animals, but so do guys shooting deer with a 30-06! Think about how much muscle and bone really is in a deer sized critter. Now tell me that a 60 grain partition flying close to 3000 fps won't penetrate and destroy what ever gets in it's way. I will compare a .223 to a broadhead. The .223 will outperform that broadhead everyday of the week! Bold statement? Yes! Ignorant staement? Maybe, but think about this. Can you shoot your bow, confidantly enough to put that arrow in a deers heart (Standing still and broadside mind you) at a 125 yards? No. I don't care how good anarcher says he is, he cannot outshoot a marksman at longer ranges with a rifle he or she knows like their own child. At the same time, that same 60 grain partition bullet will deliver enough hydro-static shock to turn that deers heart into jelly. You may say the .223 is too small. Then don't shoot one. Leave that to those few skilled indivuals who can do the appointed job. I know I can't swim, so I stay out of the pool. If you cannot shoot a gun with enough confidence, than maybe you shouldn't be out in the woods.