cjwink

It has been interesting watching the posts on the 223 and 22 Hornet.. I movedto MS from South Tx 12 years ago. In South Texas I killed deer with everything from a 220 swift to a 243. But here in the Southeast everyone has magnumitusand considers a 243 a youth gun at best and anything else childs play (even though they are legal). IMO an ethical kill is one that drops the deer dead in thier tracks. That is going to be a head/neck shot, and your going to be a better shot with a rifle that does not blow your shoulder off.Now if yourswinging from aPine tree and shootingbehind the shoulder a223 or 22 hornet or evena243 may not be your cup of tea. Butfor those that can consistentlydrop a deer with a single shot to the head/neck,I just don't see how that is being unethical.

Simp

I'm gonna stick around this bait pile and see what wanders by!

matters

I'm more concerned about ethical shots than ethical calibers. If your going to use a small caliber than you must know its limits. I have took several deer with a 22-250 and .222 so has my son. But you have to be prepared to let deer walk if the right shot doesn't present itself. A deer shot in the heart or lungs can not live long, but you have to make sure your going to get it there. To each his own, use what you want but be responsible in doing so.

nchawkeye

It really doesn't matter as long as a guy can place his bullet where it needs to be...

We killed 44 deer this year, I had to track just as many hit with a .270 as a .243...

btw...Don't tell my 16 year old niece a 22-250 won't kill deer, she has dropped 7-8 in the past 4 years with the 60gr Nosler Partition...Never lost a one, always exits...Frankly, I would bet she is a better shot than many who slam the smaller cartridges...

If it's legal and you feel froggy, shoot a 50 cal. BMG as far as I'm concerned...

isatarak

It depends on shot placement and distance. I don't see how the ethics nazis can proclaim a caliber is not ethical to use if it is legal. I don't see anything wrong with using a .223 or similar caliber if it's used within it's limits. I wouldn't try a shot with a .223 that I would with my .270. If you were hunting in the mountains and were facing a 400 yard shot I would prefer something more powerful than the .270. I would want something with ample power that would knock down a deer at a great distance. Remember just because you can type on a message board, that doesn't mean you can credibly declare someone who doesn't do it the way you do to be of unsound ethics.

Paul L Mohr

I actually wouldn't consider a head or neck shot ethical, especially with small caliber rifles. So to each his own I guess.

I my opinion anything that will poke a hole in the lungs of a deer will kill it and is ethical. What it boils down to is knowing your weapon and what it's limitations are. I don't believe there is a center fire rifle made that isn't capable of taking deer sized game as long as you have the proper bullet for the job and keeping range and shot placement in mind when hunting.

Ethics has absolutely nothing to do with whether a certain weapon will kill deer or not, it has to do with what you personally feel will work in your situation. Some people have no qualms about killing them with a bow and an arrow, others feel they need a 7mm mag or 300 win mag. Both will give you dead in under 10 minutes if you know what you are doing.

I have killed injured deer on the side of the road with a hunting knife before, they are not mythical creatures that require weapons with special powers to kill them. Put a hole in the lungs and/or heart and they expire in short order.

My opinion anyway.

Paul

zrexpilot

I have had to pass up shots on some pretty nice bucks (3times) because I was carrying to biga weapon

newguy23

Ethical shots = vital shots.

In my opinion the .243 is the minimum deer cartridge. Having said that I am sure a .223 or .22-250 would ethically kill deer. I personally would not hunt deer with less than a .243.

cal516

I have been shooting long guns for the past 10 years in the military. IMO I don't think that the caliber of the ammunition is the ethical question here. It has to do with the skill of the shooter and shot placement. We usually use a .308 or .300 for all our long range stuff...out to 800+ meters .. some longer. At that range you are getting into environmentals (wind, barometrics etc) and skill of the shooter. I was amazed as to how much effect the wind can have on a .223 round...obviously lighter....the wind pushed the round at least 6 inches in a 5 mph wind at 300 meters...there are formulas for this....Now ethically would you take a 300 meter shot with a .223 round knowing the effects the environment (including shooter stability and position) can have on the bullet? I would be a little hesitant and maybe wait for the deer to move a little closer. With a .308, no problem...but I would pick the high percentage shot...shoulder or right behind it...I have more room for error to still hit vitals etc...My whole point is...the ethics is in the shooter and shot placement not the caliber of weapon. Just my .02!

matters

Could you explain?