When My grandson started deer hunting, he used an AR in .223. The low recoil, adjustable stock and accuracy worked great for him. he shot a deer his first two seasons and a coyote, all one shot DRT. When he got bigger he took over my .243 Remington 700 in a youth stock and won't give it back, LOL.We are pretty deep into this thread and unless I missed it, we haven't determined what size youth we are talking about. A 12-14 year old kid can be closer to adult proportions than to child proportions. The size matters because the fit of the gun is a greater consideration than the chambering. If the shooter is child size, get a gun with a child size stock. Putting a small child on an adult proportioned gun is setting them up for failure. They have a hard time getting set up behind the scope and the gun wil often ride too far out onto the shoulder bicep area. A CVA 44 magnum will kick pretty good. I would advise against it for a new shooter. I'd also recommend a scope with generous eye relief and eye box. Where a 223 is legal, I strongly recommend it for a new shooter deer gun. While a 243 doesn't kick much, it has considerably more muzzle blast than a 223.
You have a point, a friend sent his grandson out with almost no training. He made many mistakes including missing a deer a few ***** away and an accidental discharge. The caliber gun doesn't matter. The first thing a kid should be taught is how to shoot well and how to place shots. I trained my grandson myself. I am a certified instructor. Both how to shoot and how to place shots. He made one shot kills every time he shot with a .223 and .243. In my opinion, poor shooting isn't made up for by a bigger caliber, but I do understand that plenty of kids don't get the instruction that they should have.In my mind, the .22 centerfires are better for experienced hunters than for brand new hunters because shot placement is so critical
I know where I would hit it but my point is that I have shot enough deer that I know where to put it and am likely not going to be unclear of the anatomy and suffering from a bit of buck fever. A bad shot is a bad shot but you get a bit more leeway with a bigger/more robust caliber if that hit is "around the edges". Possibly a better blood trail etc. With the smaller calibers, bullet placement is of even greater importance. That is my only point is that the margin for error decreases with the decrease in calibers.
I am sorry that you don't understand my point, that being that a young or first time hunter might not place the shot exactly where they want and a bit bigger round may help in this regard
I make a pretty good student. I kinda understand deer anatomy. What part of a deer anatomy can a youth hit with a 7mm-08 that a hit in the same spot with a 223 wouldn't yield similar results?I am sorry that you don't understand my point, that being that a young or first time hunter might not place the shot exactly where they want and a bit bigger round may help in this regard
For the sake of the integrity of the thread, I will concede that the effectiveness of the .22 centerfire is equal that of any larger cartridge and we can move on.I make a pretty good student. I kinda understand deer anatomy. What part of a deer anatomy can a youth hit with a 7mm-08 that a hit in the same spot with a 223 wouldn't yield similar results?
In 25yrs of shooting .44Mag rifles, I've always found the opposite to be true.A hard no on .44 mag. It kicks more than a 30-30 and doesn't have near the range.
The point here is that dranrab thinks that "margin for error" doesn't exist. And apparently everybody always makes a perfect shot on a perfectly presented deer.For the sake of the integrity of the thread, I will concede that the effectiveness of the .22 centerfire is equal that of any larger cartridge and we can move on.
The shoulder or virtually any quartering shot that may encounter bone. As we have already discussed, I gave you a perfect example. The buck I shot 2-3yrs ago with a 7mmTCU Contender. It was downhill and I hit him too high, missed the heart, just got the top of the lungs. Deer ran about 300yds. A larger cartridge that does more tissue damage probably would've anchored him faster. Or at least that's what virtually everybody but you accepts to be true. That's the point of larger cartridges that produce more tissue damage than a .223. That's the whole concept behind "margin for error". You're right, there's little difference, when everything is perfect. The margin for error takes into account when everything is not perfect.I make a pretty good student. I kinda understand deer anatomy. What part of a deer anatomy can a youth hit with a 7mm-08 that a hit in the same spot with a 223 wouldn't yield similar results?
.243, for sure. This from someone who has never fired a .243 and has killed 20+ deer with a .44 mag. I didn't have the option of a .243 when I lived in Ohio, since they're not legal for deer there. I use a .308 now but I may get a .243 for my kids for next year. Had my 9 year old out shooting my Ohio deer gun, a single shot .44 mag, the other day and while it's fine with light loads, the recoil was a bit much with the loads I used to use for deer. .243 is going to be lots more versatile.shots inside 100 yards deer hunting. These are the 3 calibers I'm thinking of starting off my kids with. For conversation seeing if anyone has any thoughts. CVA 44 mag is what im thinking with a 3-9 scope. I have a few more years but I'm thinking of getting a head start.
Not wrong there, my buddy's 788 (.243) Uber lightweight short barreled hard plate kicks disproportionate to expectations too! STILL trying to talk him into a different pad or stock but hard to want to modify a legacy gun with lots of sentimental value. Just mounting a scope was a big win.Without a heavier rifle and a decent recoil pad, the .44 mag does have a pretty decent kick. Especially in some of the lever guns that are light and have zero recoil pad
In 25yrs of shooting .44Mag rifles, I've always found the opposite to be true.
The OP's range requirement is 100yds.
The point here is that dranrab thinks that "margin for error" doesn't exist. And apparently everybody always makes a perfect shot on a perfectly presented deer.
The shoulder or virtually any quartering shot that may encounter bone. As we have already discussed, I gave you a perfect example. The buck I shot 2-3yrs ago with a 7mmTCU Contender. It was downhill and I hit him too high, missed the heart, just got the top of the lungs. Deer ran about 300yds. A larger cartridge that does more tissue damage probably would've anchored him faster. Or at least that's what virtually everybody but you accepts to be true. That's the point of larger cartridges that produce more tissue damage than a .223. That's the whole concept behind "margin for error". You're right, there's little difference, when everything is perfect. The margin for error takes into account when everything is not perfect.
Deer ran about 300yds. A larger cartridge that does more tissue damage probably would've anchored him faster.
Actually a .223 with the right bullets does a large amount of tissue damage. I trust a .223 way more than a 12-gauge slug. i have used both and a bunch of other cartridges. I am talking about 200 plus pound Minnesota deer including a 14 pointer. You should really look at the damage a cartridge does.
Thank you or your service. As a user of the M-16, M-14 and M-60 I agree.As do I. I've personally used .223 on 20-25 deer out to around 275 yards and the most any of them have ever went is about 30 yards, most dropped in their tracks. I've also used 5.56 shooting Mk262 on other living targets out to 650 yards in my former line of work and none of them moved every much afterward either, though in fairness I did prefer my 7.62 rifle with M118 for those targets.
That being said, given the OP's options, I am firmly in the .243 camp. Personally wouldn't even consider the others even though they would certainly work given his criteria.
And thank you for yours as well.Thank you or your service. As a user of the M-16, M-14 and M-60 I agree.