.223 for Deer Hunting
10-21-2009, 11:55 AM
#1
Spike
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 30
.223 for Deer Hunting
Let me first say that I know this thread is going to start a huge debate. I live in Wisconsin and this year they just introduce a Mentored hunting Program for 10 - 11 year olds to start hunting. I have a 10 year old daughter who I think really wants to hunt. She is pretty small framed and petite so I dont want to kill her or scare her off with the recoil. She has been shooting a .22LR for about a year and is actually very accurate with it. So now I have to introduce her into her deer rifle but I have been torn between a .223 and a .243... I want to be ethical about it, and I know a .243 is prolbably alot better caliber, but I do feel alot more confident in the recoil factor of the .223.... Any experiences good or bad with a .223..... Thanks
10-21-2009, 12:06 PM
#2
Typical Buck
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 679
.243 is the minimum for deer [clean kill ] get a good recoil pad a " LIMBSAVER" for her rifle and she should be ok ..
http://www.gunaccessories.com/limbsaver/index.asp
http://www.gunaccessories.com/limbsaver/index.asp
10-21-2009, 12:13 PM
#3
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: central and east texas
Posts: 4,894
you can kill deer with a 22LR , a 223 is only .003 bigger, jus a lil more powder ...some states have a minimum requirement..i would look at that before making and decisions...lol 243 is the minimum lol
10-21-2009, 12:20 PM
#5
Spike
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 60
one of my friends said he shot his first deer with a .223 from 200 yards. The other day I shot a coyote with a .223 from 300 yards so they are pretty good guns but a .243 doesn't kick at all just like a
.223 only a bigger caliber, but it's your choice which ever one you feel is best.
.223 only a bigger caliber, but it's your choice which ever one you feel is best.
10-21-2009, 12:28 PM
#7
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,304
Saying a .243 is minimum for a deer is a personal opinion, not a fact, a law or a caliber higher on the ethics ladder we all reside on. Each person has to weigh their abilities and make the decision for themselves whether the caliber is sufficient given their own hunting conditions.
Yes, we've all seen these threads where perceived marginal calibers are usually a bone of contention whether they should be used or not.
My typical reply is that the smaller caliber being asked about, is usually good enough for deer, but only broadside shots in the heart/lung area should be taken. The scapula, ie, shoulder blade and the large front leg bone are like armor to the deer and could cause a wounded animal if the hit is marginal.
And yes, like many others here, I have taken many deer with smaller calibers with no problems what so ever. My favorite smaller caliber for deer is my Remington 700 .222.
I would have no problems having a young person use a .223 for deer if I can teach them, through a lot of practice, and they can prove to me they have the marksmanship to use the gun. I would also teach them about waiting for the right shot and being patient or they should pass it up. I would teach them to wait for shots within a certain distance as well.
If after you reviewed more information on the use of the .223 for deer and feel it's not an adequate caliber, the .243 can be purchased in bullet weights of 75 or 80gr which may give a lighter recoil.(I use 100gr) In fact, if you have a .243 or the use of one, have her shoot it and ask what she thinks of it.
Something to think about.
iSnipe
Yes, we've all seen these threads where perceived marginal calibers are usually a bone of contention whether they should be used or not.
My typical reply is that the smaller caliber being asked about, is usually good enough for deer, but only broadside shots in the heart/lung area should be taken. The scapula, ie, shoulder blade and the large front leg bone are like armor to the deer and could cause a wounded animal if the hit is marginal.
And yes, like many others here, I have taken many deer with smaller calibers with no problems what so ever. My favorite smaller caliber for deer is my Remington 700 .222.
I would have no problems having a young person use a .223 for deer if I can teach them, through a lot of practice, and they can prove to me they have the marksmanship to use the gun. I would also teach them about waiting for the right shot and being patient or they should pass it up. I would teach them to wait for shots within a certain distance as well.
If after you reviewed more information on the use of the .223 for deer and feel it's not an adequate caliber, the .243 can be purchased in bullet weights of 75 or 80gr which may give a lighter recoil.(I use 100gr) In fact, if you have a .243 or the use of one, have her shoot it and ask what she thinks of it.
Something to think about.
iSnipe
10-21-2009, 01:30 PM
#9
Spike
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Grove OK
Posts: 74
I tried a 223 many years ago........I am sure it killed every deer I shot. We only found 1 out 3. The one we found ran about 80 yards and piled up. There was not a speck of blood anywhere between the shot location and death location. The other 2 were exactly the same way. NO BLOOD TRAIL at all and we never found um......
I tried a 2 different bullets and still had the same results. If I was gonna use one (223) the only shot I would take is a head or neck. The blood trail from the boiler room is way to inconsistent fo me.
I feel you pain about the kids though....A 223 is very kid friendly. If she has close shots and can hit a head shot I say go for it. If not, get her 243 and good recoil pad. Let her shot it with open sights a few times before adding the pressure of lookin through a scope. She will feel better when the scope does get put on. My 8 year old son weighs 65 lbs and can handle the 243 ok. It just takes a while to get um comfortble to the gun.
I tried a 2 different bullets and still had the same results. If I was gonna use one (223) the only shot I would take is a head or neck. The blood trail from the boiler room is way to inconsistent fo me.
I feel you pain about the kids though....A 223 is very kid friendly. If she has close shots and can hit a head shot I say go for it. If not, get her 243 and good recoil pad. Let her shot it with open sights a few times before adding the pressure of lookin through a scope. She will feel better when the scope does get put on. My 8 year old son weighs 65 lbs and can handle the 243 ok. It just takes a while to get um comfortble to the gun.
10-21-2009, 01:52 PM
#10
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,304
heinze57 my friend, you're 0 for 2. LOL!
.22 calibers can be centerfire. Here in MN the hunting regs require a minimum caliber of .220 centerfire. I know it's a matter of intention or wording, but what I think d-n-m meant was similar to what our regs here in MN say.
And yes, it he were speaking of a .22, as in short, long, LR, etc, then you're right, that particular .22 is a RIMFIRE.
iSnipe
.22 calibers can be centerfire. Here in MN the hunting regs require a minimum caliber of .220 centerfire. I know it's a matter of intention or wording, but what I think d-n-m meant was similar to what our regs here in MN say.
And yes, it he were speaking of a .22, as in short, long, LR, etc, then you're right, that particular .22 is a RIMFIRE.
iSnipe