223 and Deer. Anyone actually had a confirmed good broadside vitals shot fail?

[No4Mk1*]

No, the deer was not harvested by us, so we cannot confirm the shot was placed well, but I agree that if we have cases where 243 failed on shoulder shots with cup & core bullets, then definitely 223 will fail at times as well with cup & core bullets.

 

[777funk]

Very good point there. I'd guess shoulder hits could be questionable with either cal. Something with a little more energy... not so much. Deer's going down and shoulder bones are giving way (experienced a shoulder shot oops about 7 or 8 years ago with a 30 cal and it worked well). But with good aim and a stable position or rest within 100 yards, keeping it out of the shoulder should be pretty easy. Definitely within 50 yards even for a kid who's practices. At least that's what I'm hoping for. But in the real world, scopes can get out of whack, shots can be in awkward positions etc.

 

[H&Hhunter]

If you have to add a qualifier IE; The .223 works every time IF the deer is perfectly broadside, IF you are using the right bullet, IF you are inside of 200 yards, IF you don't hit any big bones ETC ETC. Then that round is a compromise. Yeah it'll work under certain circumstances. Of course it will kill a deer and no it's not ideal.

That's why you never see a thread here on the .270 being capable of taking deer. Because that round is NOT a minimal deer round or a compromise.

 

[777funk]

I don't think it's a good idea for most guys in the field to take 200+ yard shots with any caliber. I'd doubt most hunters are practiced up in shooting from a standing position or even from a stand at those kinds of distances. Within 200 yards and with the right shot, I don't think the hole a .223 pokes will leave a deer in the woods. I don't consider the constraints of: under 200 yards, and the right shot serious limitations.

Sure you're not going to pull of a 'Texas heart shot' with that caliber, but who cares. If it works with good broadside or even slightly angled shots, why not. EDIT: No offense to anyone from Texas... not sure why they call it that but we all know the shot! lol.


.270 is a fine caliber. I've owned it as well as the same in WSSM. I much prefer to lose the recoil of the second if not needed. .270 Win with a limbsaver isn't bad. Still not something I'd want to practice all day with.

Another thought on the 200 yard number being a limitation, a 30-30 lever gun (Marlin, Winchester, BLR, etc) is usually considered a 100 yard and under rifle due to it's lack of accuracy. That's not something that stops it from being a great deer hunting gun.

 

[X-Rap]

If you have to add a qualifier IE

Exactly, these caliber threads seem to always boil down to the qualifiers be they defensive handguns, war fighting, dangerous game, deer, elk or squirrels. One must just weigh the pros and cons in each circumstance with regards to the shooters capability and ethical responsibility to what's being shot at.

 

[Nature Boy]

It'll be good to hear if anyone has lost a deer or had to track for long distance with a shot placed in the heart or lungs region

My experience has been that lung shots aren't always DRT, but they are always dead inside 75 yards from where they were shot.

 

[H&Hhunter]

I don't think it's a good idea for most guys in the field to take 200+ yard shots with any caliber. I'd doubt most hunters are practiced up in shooting from a standing position or even from a stand at those kinds of distances. Within 200 yards and with the right shot, I don't think the hole a .223 pokes will leave a deer in the woods. I don't consider the constraints of: under 200 yards, and the right shot serious limitations.

Sure you're not going to pull of a 'Texas heart shot' with that caliber, but who cares. If it works with good broadside or even slightly angled shots, why not. EDIT: No offense to anyone from Texas... not sure why they call it that but we all know the shot! lol.


.270 is a fine caliber. I've owned it as well as the same in WSSM. I much prefer to lose the recoil of the second if not needed. .270 Win with a limbsaver isn't bad. Still not something I'd want to practice all day with.

Another thought on the 200 yard number being a limitation, a 30-30 lever gun (Marlin, Winchester, BLR, etc) is usually considered a 100 yard and under rifle due to it's lack of accuracy. That's not something that stops it from being a great deer hunting gun.

If you want to hunt deer with a .223 and it's legal in your state you should feel free to do so. If you want to hunt deer with a .30-30 by all means hunt deer with a .30-30. And know that with either you will have to hunt within the confines of the capabilities of the round. In the places that I hunt deer the .223 is an absolutely stupid idea, not to mention it is illegal for use on ANY big game in Colorado.

We hunt wide open western landscapes where a 300+ yard shot is the norm. We don't hunt from stands so all of your shots are from field positions. Rarely do you ever get that hunting magazine style, perfectly posed broadside deer shot. And the wind, she blows across the plains at high velocity. Therefore you need something that bucks the wind, has enough punch at long range and gets the job done from off angles. A .223 is simply not a good choice in these conditions.

In tight cover from a stand or a blind at closer range over a bait or a feed plot? That's a different story. If you've got the time to carefully pick your shot and wait for the deer to turn and give you what you need for shot presentation then a .223 can be pressed into effective service as a deer hunting caliber.

No matter how you rationalize it, no matter how many times times it's posted on here, no matter how it's presented in those posts. The .223 no matter the bullet used, like any .22 CF, is a marginal/minimal deer round. Use it with caution and care. If you are going to use these minimalist calibers be prepared to pass on shots that could easily be accomplished with an adequate big game hunting caliber. That's the crux of it in the most simple terms.

 

[H&Hhunter]

.270 is a fine caliber. I've owned it as well as the same in WSSM. I much prefer to lose the recoil of the second if not needed. .270 Win with a limbsaver isn't bad. Still not something I'd want to practice all day with.

.270 WSSM? I've never heard of that round. Did you wildcat one off of a .25 WSSM? If you are interested in a really good no nonsense, low recoiling deer round look no further then the various non magnum 6.5 millimeter rounds. To include but not limited to the .260 Rem, 6.5 Creedmore, 6.5x55, and the 6.5-06. These rounds will give you any and everything you need on deer sized game. They have superior long range ballistics and all have very low, very manageable recoil. My daughter started shooting her 6.5-06 with full power loads at age 14. Recoil simply is not an issue.

 

[ironworkerwill]

.270 WSSM(WSM) Typo probably.

 

[No4Mk1*]

Most of H&H's qualifiers are acceptable to me in compromise for the ability to use 223 as a youth round. Under 200 yards- definitely, really more like 50 yards. Right bullet- agree as well. Now regarding "the right shot" and hitting the shoulder, 223 is not acceptable to me if it fails in a shoulder hit as even if aim was off, I don't want to lose a deer due to a shoulder hit. Thus why I'm limiting to TSX / GMX bullets. I have not heard much report of them failing in close range 223 / 5.56mm use.

 

[777funk]

Sorry! Just invented a new caliber with my mistyping! lol. Yeah, what I meant was WSM (not super short mag).

And you're right about those who do require long range bullets. I guess my statements come with a bit of tunnel vision since I grew up hunting woodlands with tight cover and 100 yard or less shots. There's NO way the .223 would fit your style of hunting. I would say, it's probably useful in a similar hunting style to the 30-30 but with 50-100 more yards of accuracy (not bad for woodlands). I know from experience that .223 and any brush/branches in front of the game do not get along well. But perhaps this applies to most bullets. I read a study on various calibers a while back where a guy shot a bunch of common cartridges through brush and none did well. Although some did worse and .223 was on the 'worse' list.

I've got a neighbor who swears by the 6.5 not sure which one but he's huge into making 1/4 mile shots on game and is an avid bench shooter. He said the same thing you did about the recoil and that his wife loves it. That'd be something I'd like to check out. My #2 son will be hunting tomorrow with .223 in very thick woods. He's a good shot. He'll be using Hornady 55gr Soft Points loaded max charge. We also have Partitions but we're zeroed with the Hornady load. Hopefully he'll have a chance to bring home a deer.

Side note: I used a partition on a yearling buck a couple years ago (bought a .223 for my #1 son and had to test it). It made a big hole (golf ball sized) and tore the ribs up pretty good. Found the bullet in the meat and it had broken into 2-3 pieces when hitting bone. I think it hit brush on the way in. Still not sure exactly what happened with that shot. I grew up hunting with 20GA slugs (never could afford a rifle AND a shotgun so I used my Browning A5). I'd feel more comfortable with a .223 (accuracy) than that old Browning with rifled slugs any day! I'm not a good slug shooter... my grandfather hunted with slugs all his life and almost always got a deer (short shots). He hated rifles for some reason. So different strokes for different folks.

 

[MCgunner]

So, I am breaking some rule shooting deer with a .308 in the woods? I kinda like using my inline percussion CVA .50 caliber, too. Something about that 385 grain chunk of lead gives me confidence I won't have to blood trail far and I'll have a bunch of blood to do it with.

Hunt with what you wanna hunt with. Don't need MY approval.

 

[stiab]

My experience has been that lung shots aren't always DRT, but they are always dead inside 75 yards from where they were shot.

My personal experience has been that if you take out both lungs, the deer will travel about 50 yards. If only one lung (angle shot), then the deer will travel about 100 to 125 yards.

 

[jim in Anchorage]

Why use a marginal gun if you don't need to? I don't ever recall noticing recoil shooting at game, and that includes .375 H&H.

 

[MCgunner]

^^^^^^^^^^
Exactly

 

[777funk]

I think this thread has had lots of good points and some examples of failures (seems to be shoulder blade shots) that would also include .243. But with the few failures there are listed many of examples of success in my search for failures. This has been an interesting thread and worth the while in my asking I think. No one wants to go out into the woods and 'plink' on deer if the round wouldn't get the job done. At least no one with ethics.

If the .223 is indeed Marginal, then yes! We should not use it. It's use for deer is relatively new so I don't know if we can classify it as marginal yet. We haven't found much failure data yet which is interesting I think. I was expecting to see several stories of runners when hit by .223 and we've found very few and even some of those are unconfirmed in 90 posts. So based on that, I'm not sure we have concluded .223 as a deer bullet to be marginal. I'm kind of surprised actually.

This has been extremely useful to me (and hopefully to others) because I don't want to have my boys use it if it'll just wound what they hit with good shooting on their part. I'd rather not do that research first hand if it's already been done. That's the beauty of the internet!

Reasons to use it:
1. Shooting/practice is cheap and enjoyable
2. It's best to know the gun that's used to hunt with very well
3. Light weight platform
4. Very low recoil and enjoyable to shoot
5. If it works in the given constraints (SP bullets, good vitals shots, within reasonable range) why not? If not, it shouldn't be considered. Better to know before than after a failure.

Thanks to all who've posted.

 

[Panfisher]

It is always tough to document the failure of a properly placed bullet. The only way to know for sure is to have the animal to necropsy. Every cartridge I can think of is some sort of compromise between weight, recoil, pow er s, long range shooting, etc. Some rounds have more compromises than others. The .223 does have limitations, it is most.definitely not equal to a .308, however keep it within its parameters and place good.bullets properly it will work.

 

[MCgunner]

Whether anyone else does, I classify the .223 as marginal. Of course, I really like to break shoulders. Woods are thick out here and I prefer to put 'em down and not have to trail a deer through stickers and such.

So, you say you hunt woods and that limits range. Well, yeah, but think about trailing a deer through those thick woods after dark. I guess if you had hounds, that wouldn't be such a big concern. BUT, it don't stop me from bow hunting. I just shot my first with a bow. I use a crossbow, so I can pin point my POI. It's a precision stick rifle far as accuracy goes. I'll limit shots to inside 30 yards. I still don't like the fact that they normally run after being shot with a bow, but man, they DO leave a blood trail! At least that's a bonus over a small caliber rifle. Never seen a deer bleed like that.

Now, only reason I'm hunting with the bow is the special early season and the fact that the rut seems to occur then and the fact that doe are legal during bow season, by permit only during gun season. Now, if they had a .223 only season, hey, I'd pick me up a Ruger American in .223. But, I'm not gonna handicap myself for nothing.

 

[jim in Anchorage]

Whether anyone else does, I classify the .223 as marginal. Of course, I really like to break shoulders. Woods are thick out here and I prefer to put 'em down and not have to trail a deer through stickers and such.

So, you say you hunt woods and that limits range. Well, yeah, but think about trailing a deer through those thick woods after dark. I guess if you had hounds, that wouldn't be such a big concern. BUT, it don't stop me from bow hunting. I just shot my first with a bow. I use a crossbow, so I can pin point my POI. It's a precision stick rifle far as accuracy goes. I'll limit shots to inside 30 yards. I still don't like the fact that they normally run after being shot with a bow, but man, they DO leave a blood trail! At least that's a bonus over a small caliber rifle. Never seen a deer bleed like that.

Now, only reason I'm hunting with the bow is the special early season and the fact that the rut seems to occur then and the fact that doe are legal during bow season, by permit only during gun season. Now, if they had a .223 only season, hey, I'd pick me up a Ruger American in .223. But, I'm not gonna handicap myself for nothing.

By the way congratulations on your bow deer!
I used to bow hunt when I lived in NY. It's tough but man do you learn the animal. As you say the early season is the charm. Undisturbed deer, behaving as they always do and you're perched in a tree, watching. I would never shoot doe's- to me they where the bait for the buck I wanted-but they where sure fun to watch!
On the .223 I have 5 30-06's. Why in the world would I want to take out a pea shooter when I have real gun's?
I think the whole .223 thing for deer is just part of the AR craze.

 

[H&Hhunter]

On the .223 I have 5 30-06's. Why in the world would I want to take out a pea shooter when I have real gun's?
I think the whole .223 thing for deer is just part of the AR craze.

I absolutely agree.

If you need to make a case on the internet for your chosen round on a specific game animal. The obvious answer is NO, that round is not ideal. No internet case needed. How ridiculous would it be to post the very same question about the, .25-06 .260 .270 .308 .30-06 7MM .338 .358 .300WM ETC ETC ETC? If you have to ask you already know the answer. Everything beyond that is rationalization.

 

[silicosys4]

There have been several seasons lately here that if I'd been hunting with a .223, I wouldn't have harvested an animal.
I simply wouldn't have ethically been able to take the shots that I did.
The reason I did harvest animals was because I was carrying a large enough caliber to make some less than optimal shots.
Two years ago, for instance, I took a deer with a quartering away shot, only shot I had before the deer stepped into very dense underbrush, gone forever.
If I had a .223, I would have had to let the deer go, because I knew I had to pound through at least a foot of intestines before I even reached the vitals.
I don't trust a .223 to have that kind of penetration.
The 30-06 I was using, however, didn't care, pounded through the gut cavity, destroyed a lung and clipped the heart, and that deer was down within ten feet. The bullet went in just in front of the hip, traversed the whole animal diagonally, and exited out the opposite front shoulder.

Last year I had the opportunity to harvest a deer off of private property, surrounded by other private properties. I shot a deer as he was running from my area towards another privately owned area. I put a 7mm mag through his shoulder on purpose to stop him, as he had only about another 25 feet to go. I usually shoot for behind the shoulder, this time I shot to break bones and put him down immediately. If I had not, he would have been on someone elses property momentarily. Again, last day of late buck season, my one and only opportunity all season.
Would I have been able to confidently break a deers shoulder with a .223? Personally, I don't have that confidence in the .223 and I would have had to let him go.

Hunting around here is tough going. Lots of cover, very shy animals, lots of competition from other hunters.
I don't have time to mess around with a caliber like the .223. I need a caliber that will take any reasonable shot, as I might only get ONE opportunity at a shot all season, and that shot will likely be sub optimal.

 

[the7thson]

Bullet placement,and Barnes Triple Shock,or Nosler Partition bullets equals dead deer where you shot it 99 percent of the time, .223 or any caliber larger.

 

[redbullitt]

No problems here, I just like to keep it inside of 100 yards. Use a good bullet !

 

[777funk]

I still don't think we have a thread with more than a summary of many opinions that it may be be less ideal (which we all agree) in comparison to the bigger calibers (223 is less ideal than 300WM). Few and far between interspersed in this thread are one failure and one unconfirmed failure both seem to be shoulder bone hits. We do have, however, plenty of good successful experiences listed.

What I gather from this thread is said by others here and I think best summed up by Sylicosys4 3 posts back:

...

If I had a .223, I would have had to let the deer go, because I knew I had to pound through at least a foot of intestines before I even reached the vitals.
...

In other words, I'd say it's safe to summarize, .223 will work fine with good shot placement and situations. It will not work fine with no shot situations where a 30-06 or 300WM will make it through bone and a couple feet of gut in those same situations without question. But this isn't about those calibers (which are obviously a LOT more wallup and can take advantage of longer range and non ideal shot situations). Also, my sons under 12 aren't going to have good range experiences with either of those. Neither would I for that matter (my shoulder gets sore after 20 30-06 shots), but I don't mind nearly as much as they would!

I don't think we've found evidence that .223 will not do it's job (as in evidence of failure) if placed into the vitals from reasonable distances. Is that safe to say? i.e. broadside shots within 200 yards through ribs as in the picture in the first post.

EDIT:
to add... a young man from a local church who's parents own 240 acres of beautiful property took my son and I out hunting yesterday. He's 16 and I asked him if he'd taken many deer on the property. He said he has and that his first 3 or 4 were taken with .223 before he switched to 243. I asked him if he ever had a problem before the switch and he said not one bad experience.

 

[H&Hhunter]

I still don't think we have a thread with more than a summary of many opinions that it may be be less ideal (which we all agree) in comparison to the bigger calibers (223 is less ideal than 300WM). Few and far between interspersed in this thread are one failure and one unconfirmed failure both seem to be shoulder bone hits. We do have, however, plenty of good successful experiences listed.

What I gather from this thread is said by others here and I think best summed up by Sylicosys4 3 posts back:



In other words, I'd say it's safe to summarize, .223 will work fine with good shot placement and situations. It will not work fine with no shot situations where a 30-06 or 300WM will make it through bone and a couple feet of gut in those same situations without question. But this isn't about those calibers (which are obviously a LOT more wallup and can take advantage of longer range and non ideal shot situations). Also, my sons under 12 aren't going to have good range experiences with either of those. Neither would I for that matter (my shoulder gets sore after 20 30-06 shots), but I don't mind nearly as much as they would!

I don't think we've found evidence that .223 will not do it's job (as in evidence of failure) if placed into the vitals from reasonable distances. Is that safe to say? i.e. broadside shots within 200 yards through ribs as in the picture in the first post.

EDIT:
to add... a young man from a local church who's parents own 240 acres of beautiful property took my son and I out hunting yesterday. He's 16 and I asked him if he'd taken many deer on the property. He said he has and that his first 3 or 4 were taken with .223 before he switched to 243. I asked him if he ever had a problem before the switch and he said not one bad experience.

Use a good bullet. Wait for a perfect shot. Limit your range to under 100 yards and you should be fine. Not my idea of deer capable round but if you are willing to hunt inside of those confines the .223 can be pressed into service.