.223 is enough for whitetail
 

Hi,

I think .223 is enough for whitetail. That's really as big as you want to push it though. If you have 30-30 is still more powerful and therefore you don't have less room for mistakes.

____________________
South carolina hunting

its enough but not recommended due to the fact that .223 is a varmint cartridge. But i have heard of people killin deer with it.

Wh Whu What? LOL! Sorry, I have to disagree there. I'd have no problem to "push it" to a bigger caliber. Below are my favorite deer calibers with the .260 being #1 & #2 being the .243...

* .260 Remington
* .243
* .257Roberts
* 6mm
* 7mm-08
* .270

They are all bigger than the .223. Now I don't have a problem using a .223 on deer. Matter o' fact, I reckon several will chime in and say they use that caliber often. Now the 30-30 takes a big chunk of the pie when it comes to piling up deer. It's not fancy, not a gun to use much over 200 yards, but does the job nicely.

Now if you meant the .223 is about as small as you want to push it, then that's different. A typo perhaps?

iSnipe

Syntax error.

I believe the real debate about the .223 for whitetail is bullet selection. Obviously a .22 caliber v-max shot into a whitetails body cavity probably isnt the answer. While an X bullet is another matter entirely.

Barnes Varmint Grenade, quartering-to shot, right through the shoulder of a 300lb buck.

Good choice if you have a concurrent black bear season as well.

If you need to stop a charge, I'd move up to the 55gr bullets.

Varmint Grenade?The name says it all.Barnes describes these as designed to explode on contact to minimize pelt damage.Hardly what you want for deer.While it's true deer have been taken with the .223 there are far better bullet designs than the VG.I wont use my .223 for deer.Most states have a .243 minimum for deer hunting with good reason.I wouldn't use the VG in .243 either
Barnes VG-
http://barnesbullets.myshopify.com/c...rmint-grenade/
Barnes makes some of the finest premium bullets available.No argument there but Id look to their TSX or MRX for medium/big game as well as a .243 min.
http://barnesbullets.myshopify.com/c.../tsxtm-bullet/
http://barnesbullets.myshopify.com/c.../mrxtm-bullet/

at close range ( inside 100 yards), my buddy is tradin in his 30-06 fer a 223 because of meat damage, or a smaller hole were his words...the 223 will drop deer in their tracks using a "range round"..its always has been and always will be about shot placement...
i agree with snipe...typo

It appears it was a joke.

First off, I won't use a 223 for deer.

But here's a question that might help you answer.

If you was starving to death, and had a 223 with 55gr FMJ and a compound bow tipped with a broadhead. And you saw a deer at 40 yards, which would you grab?

Oh boy BC that ones loaded. If I had to say Id go with the .223 just because archery isnt one of my strong suits. An FMJ in the melon is definitely lethal.

not to mention, aint that what the troops are usin over there? hollow points im sure

Big Country, I really like your point if its what I believe it is, took me a second look for it to sink in. Even the most dimunitive firearm is still an advance from more primitive technology like archery. Too many hunters forget that deer were killed with far more crude tools.

Your correct, it is a loaded question. I 95% hunt archery and am successful and I believe ethical. But I have other guns than a 223 for deer hunting. . But a M193 FMJ 55gr round would rip thru both shoulders like butter. An 855 would rip thru a deer lengthwise.

Now if you was to change this question to not a 223 but 22LR with remington plinker ammo, I would pick the bow all day, and twice on Sunday.

A 30yard neck shot even with varmit bullets is devastating. I have seen it, but still ain't going to use a 223.

What about a good old fashioned pointed soft point, like a Remington Corlokt? I have a .22 Savage HI-Power and use 70 grain psp bullets on deer. Works O.K. and is loaded way under a standard .223 factory round. I never shot a deer over a hundred yards with it, and am not sure it would be a good idea, but out to a hundred yards the psp bullets work fine.

Would you take a 2" bladed knife into a knife fight???

Sure it would kill if perfectly sliced.
But as Crocadile Dundee says, as he pulls out his Bowie knife, "now that's a knife"!!!

Indeed it was. The quartering-to shoulder shot on the 300lb deer was suppose to be the give away :D

I wouldn't count on that. Those fast, frangible bullets will probably produce a lot more bloodshot meat. He'd be better off sticking with the 30-06 and using a heavier, slower bullet.

My .270 win tears up much more meat than my .50 caliber muzzleloader. Most of the time with the smokepole you can eat right up to the hole if someone shoulder shoots them. Bullet diameter has nothing to do with meat damage. Velocity and bullet construction are the factors involved.

through out history, i have heard of people taking a whitetail with a .22 long rifle. a well placed shot will take down anything permitted you are with in range.

with that said, i started out hunting whitetails with a .243.. not too bad, but i got far more kills faster with less tracking as soon as i went to a .30-06, and honestly, even more yet when i switched to a .308

today, I have four deer guns.. and i love them all:

modern day winchester model 94 .30-30 (for in the brush)
Remington model 700 BDL in .30-06 (for more or less everything)
Browning A-bolt stalker in .308 (favorite gun)
Tikka T3 hunter in 7mm rem. mag. (for hunting on the power lines and open fields)

if i cant take.... anything in north america with one of those four, really, i dont belong out in the woods.

a .223 will do the job, not recommended, but legal in many states to do so. i wouldnt, but thats me. .243 for me would be a very minimum.

the .25-06, .260, and calibers like that are better suited for white tails.

they are considered "varmints" in their literal sense, but they are BIG varmints. they are not woodchucks, ground hogs, or prairie dogs. they are many times bigger.

controlled expansion. thats what is needed here. i use winchester power points in all four of my guns (175gr. in the 7mm, 165gr. in the .30-06, 150gr. in the .308, and 175gr. in the .30-30) never a problem. they mushroom out nice, usually always get an exit channel, and they bleed out if nothing else.

too many people use bonded bullets, like nosler partitions and trophy bonded. not a good choice.

something with a thin jacket and lead exposed at the tip, so it mushrooms out, NOT fragments. (save that ammo for on the streets taking care of other varmen LOL)

nosler ballistic tips are useless too, in my opinion. they either go in and explode half way through, or go right through and do nothing but ender and exit the same diameter. myself, and my grandfather have had the same experience with these bullets and will never use them again.

.223 (or the 5.56 mm) has a lot of energy, and has killed a lot of people in wars who were mostly men weighing upwards of 150 pounds. I don't see any reason why it would not be sufficient to kill small to medium deer. Most of the common deer killed in the US are below 150 pounds. I think if you are using a 223 for big deer in the 150 and up class, then you would be coming in a little on the light side for a quick clean knock down and be generally better off with a little more weight and energy. Placement is still the primary issue, but loads with greater diameter and weight will give you a little more collateral trauma which is an advantage that you need when talking about larger deer, but I think the 223 is good enough for the small and medium deer. JMO.
PS: Personaly my minimum choice for deer is a .243, but not given the choice I think a .223 could do the job.

Who goes out in search of small to medium deer? We all want to get the big one.

I tip my hat to you because any deer to me between 100 and 150 is fine, but yes I agree that the the bigger calibers have a clear advantage. The question was can it do the job. You can tow a 3500 pound speed boat with a 4 or 6 cylinder, but it's clearly not the best tow vehicle. On the other hand if a guy only needs that small engine to launch the boat in the spring and pull it out in the fall and lives within short distance to the lake, then yeah it's good enough and may not be worth replacing the vehicle or getting another just for that purpose, but given the choice I agree that bigger is better. I answered the OP thinking that the someone might be looking to just get by without getting another gun for an occasional hunt where smaller deer are the norm. If he said he was hunting big mulies in Wyoming, I'd say he's way under gunned for that purpose. If he's in Florida and usually takes a small doe then I'd say he could get by.

Hey leave my antlered greyhounds outta this....... :)

That's funny becuase here in NJ I've taken a lot of small deer myself, and my friend and I jokingly call them dog deer. But a dog deer is better in my book than no deer and I'm not including fawns.

Hell Id hunt Key deer if theyd let me. Huntings hunting and the dinks are usually tender.

I always liked hunting with a .243 when I lived in pa. It will get the job done if you place your shot correctly and it dont have much if any kick to it. my friends are always talkin bout this gun kicks like a mule like they are happy about it. I personally dont like a gun that knocks the **** out of my shoulder. I dont understand the need for it. it really confuses me when people are buying young hunters these guns that kick the **** out of their shoulders. what a great way to mess up their shooting abilities by making them cringe everytime they shoot. if you really enjoy the kick, more power to you but me personally, i like to draw the line at a 12 gauge. more than that and im not enjoying that gun. a friend of mine was having trouble with his shooting once and it was because it gun slammed the hell out of his shoulder. I told him to grab his .22 and start shooting with that for a while. after a while his shot come back to him cause he wasn't waiting for that slam on his shoulder.he could start focusing on his fundamentals instead. I do think a .223 is not enough for a deer but if it is kick you are concerned with, I believe a 243 would suit you just fine. and a smaller caliber dont make you less of a man. just my 2 cents

If the pond has 50 sunfish that average about 6 inches a piece and about 5 bass that are from 12-15 pounds, I would probably get by on most days with my cane pole and 2lb test.

But every day that I fished there, I have a chance to hook the 15lb bass, even though I will be hooking mostly sunnies.

If I hook the 15 pound bass on the cane pole, I'm SOL. If I hook the sunny on the baitcaster with 15lb test, I can still put him on the dock.

The 30-06 is fine for the 120lb doe who is broadside at 50 yards. The 223 is not fine for the 300lb buck who presents a quartering-to shot.

And no, the buck of a lifetime is not going to give you an hour and every possible shot opportunity. Maybe the doe in the food plot or at the feeder will. But the buck that will be your crown achievement will only give you a fleeting glimpse and you better be ready and prepared.

I see your point. I guess it all comes down to preference. I wouldn't use a .223 either. I just thought it might work out for some people but it's not my cup of tea. I guess you wouldn't think that it's very wise to hunt Kodiak Bear with a standard 30.06. Well in any case, I knew an old timer from Wyoming who used to go to Kodiak Island and killed many Kodiak Bears with his standard 30.06. He's one of the guys that taught me that: " it's not the arrow, but rather the indian that makes a good hunter" In this case I took that more as the hunter rather than the gun, and while I agree that it makes sense to always have an appropriate caliber for the task, it still really is more about shot placement.

True. And I know lots of guys who made it home when the gas guage was on "E". But I'd feel a lot better if I had a full tank :D Especially if I end up sitting in traffic. :eek:

You can bang a nail into a board with a wrench, but I prefer to use a hammer.

In this case;
.243 for smaller deer
.270 for bigger deer

Now;
.223 is good for predators and varmints.

Good question. The tracking distance might even be longer using the 55 gr FMJ in the vitals. I'd probably just shoot it in the side of the head if i was using the FMJ. Notice that the bow was never grabbed and I have plenty of confidence in shooting my bow. It's time to eat not play tracker.

The bottom line is this: If you head out every time with the bare minimum, sooner or later, something will go wrong.

223 for deer
 

223 for deer or bear is a joke,,,the whole point here is ethical shots,,sorry but 223 dont cut it,,if i was lost and all i had was 223 or bow at 40 yrds ,,come on get real,,,some of these coments border on stupidity,,how many bear have you shot with a 223,the us military took on the 5.56mm because it was easy to shoot with little or no recoil.that dont make it a bear or deer bullit.why would someone buy a 223cal rifle to use for big game when a 243 or larger firearm cost the same...come on boys grow up and step up:mad:

You can never be to sure whats meant as a joke in some hunting forums.I got into a debate in another forum regarding head shots with the .223 for culling deer.IMO head shots on deer are not an ethical choice.Far to great a chance the deer will move or the shot might be off a bit.I finally gave up in frustration.See it here-
http://forums.accuratereloading.com/...3/m/8751055531

The .223 with proper bullets works fine on deer. I know a guy who quit using his .25-06 and .30-06 because he says his .222 puts them down quicker. I know another guy who says he found the .222 to be a better deerslayer than his .30-06 also. I carry a .22-250 for deer occassionally.

I used to hunt in Maryland and was talking to an older hunter that had a .30 carbine. He said it worked for him. I would not want to use a .30 carbine but don't think twice about my .223 0r 22 Hi-power. I did not stand in the woods and argue with him about his favorite rifle because I never used one. When I was a kid I was convinced a .243 was too light for deer. That was from listening to older guys that never used one. I have used all kinds of calibers over the years and now I can barely remember the time I had to blood trail one. When I was younger I listened to the same nonsense about shooting deer in the "vitals" from older guys. I now use mostly lighter calibers and hit them in the neck,shoulder or head. Yes, I said head.
Of all the different rounds I have used to shoot them in the so called "vitals", the 7-30 Waters is probably the one that made me track the farthest. I would definitely take a .22 center fire over that. I hunt public land, and usually in two states. My buddies and I have dropped a lot of deer that were already hit near the vitals(Within a 16" radius). Some are hit in such weird places we can't figure out what was being aimed at. Some of my friends are magnum fans, but I don't preach to them, as they seem to do O.K.

But when a hammer is not readily available a wrench could be an easier way to bang in a small nail rather than make a trip to the work bench for that one small particular job

While I have agreed in this discussion all along that a small 223 or 222 could work, it sounds like your friend is trying to be contrary. I guess he also thinks that Subaru's are better luxuray cars than full sized Buicks. A 30.06 for most intents and purposes is an excellent deer cartridge.

I believe you're incorrect about the US military's reason for going with the 5.56. I believe it was primarily because the ammo was lighter and allowed a soldier to carry more ammo in the field. I think it was a secondary strategy to incapacitate the enemy (still being ultimately lethal) causing their comrades to care for them rather than have them continue fighting as they would when more immediate kills were achieved with the bigger 30 cals. One more thing; lets not distort the OP. I don't recall any discussion about bear hunting wiith a 223, but rather only deer