Lowest Caliber for Deer

[kmrcstintn]

I'm surpised there nobody here with magnum erectus and touting the WSMs

just got back online...here's what I have to say about 'magnumitis'

I thought that I needed a big ole bad magnum...a .300 Win Mag in a Tikka T3 Hunter format; shot it 2 sessions of 20 rounds trying to get it sighted it; shooting it was absolutely MISERABLE; sold it; banked the money; shopped at another shop found a Marlin 1894C in .357 magnum that is an absolute hoot to shoot...using a 'deer' vitals target and open sights at 50 yards using an unsupported standing position, I shot 1 1/2" 3 round groups several times within the heart/lung area...hmmm

might be a good choice for my father since he is thinking of just using his .357 magnum revolver (S&W 686 PowerPort topped w/ Bushnell trophy red dot); this will allow him a more stable platform to use a nice low recoiling round that is lethal within 75 yards...especially with Buffalo Bore ammo! he might need some optical assistance since he's up in age and his eyesight isn't too good...

 

[MCgunner]

The price is a little higher than inflation, if you say a deer lease cost $700.00 30 years ago, but then again look at the percentage of budget that $700 represented back then, and that is about what $3,000.00 is today... In some places it is more than that, in which case it is tracking the realestate market...

I am with you, I wish they were cheaper, but they are not a bad deal now.

I guess that depends on your income. I make, combined with my wife's social security disability, about 35K a year right now, about what I made 25 years ago. Only good thing is everything is paid for, no debt at all other than utilities and the ever present taxes. I belonged to a hunting club for a while that had leases around the state. That was fun, costly at the time, but a lot less than a good lease. I dropped it, though. The best lease was 13 miles west of Langtry, 13,000 acres, and I miss hunting there, but it started going up big time and I had to drop it.

I bought my little place in 1988 and it has appreciated big time, though there's still little development around there and the hunting has only gotten better. 300 bucks a year for taxes, figure that's a lot cheaper than a lease. It sorta gets old lookin' at the same trees, but at least I get to hunt and the hunting is real good there, not exactly managed, never seen a real wall hanger, but have shot a lot of older bucks off it over the years. It beats sitting at the computer net hunting. LOL And after all, you can't eat the horns. But, I'm out on the 3K leases, no thanks. I can run to New Mexico and hunt mulies for way less than that if I want an adventure. Ain't guided, but I know the Guadelupes pretty well, have spent some time there and taken a mulie there before. Just hunting in that beautiful country is worth the trip even if you don't shoot squat. I'm a big time duck hunter and have lots of duck hunting for little or nothing around here, so I'm pretty happy with my hunting activities now days, lease or no lease.

As to the magnum thing, I was in New Mexico one year with my 7. Me and a buddy walked into a store in Queens (only store for 60 miles) and a bunch of hunters were in there yakkin' about guns, asked what we were totin'. My bud has a BLR in .300 win mag, me and my 7, they all roared. Don't think there was a gun there bigger than .308 and one even was totin' a .257! Now, truth be told, my .257 is all I needed. It pushes 3050 with a 117 grain Hornady, 3150 fps with a 100 grain Game King, factory .25-06 territory, but in my defense, when I bought the 7, all I had was the .257 and I'd thought I'd get to hunt elk, which I never did. When we told 'em what we had, those other guys all roared with laughter and wanted to know why we were walkin' around with cannons. LOL

I now have a .308 Win in a little stainless M7 Remington and all the rest have sat in the gun case for the last 10 years. The little M7 does it all, very accurate, handy length, light to tote, love that thing. It's plenty of gun for the hogs, deer, even if I wanted to go elk hunting with it. I ain't gonna sell the 7, surely not the .257 (grandpa's old gun and killed my first deer at age 11 with it), but the .308 does it all for me now.

One of the "monsters" I've shot off my place. LOL! Does it really take a magnum to kill something this size????

Big pic
http://imageigloo.com/images/2893PICT0073.JPG

 

[quatin]

Half of you guys are talking about an "all round deer caliber" and the other half is talking about "a minimum deer caliber".

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Half of you guys are talking about an "all round deer caliber" and the other half is talking about "a minimum deer caliber".

To my way of thinking, they are one and the same.

Some say, "Under ideal conditions, what is the miniumn caliber?"

Others point out that in hunting, there is no such thing as ideal conditions, and you can't run home and get a bigger gun when you find yourself in a situation where you need it.

So the minimum deer caliber is the one I'd feel comfortable with, knowing as I do, the sort of things that can happen when deer hunting. And that turns out to be the all around deer caliber.

 

[kmrcstintn]

Half of you guys are talking about an "all round deer caliber" and the other half is talking about "a minimum deer caliber".

half of half of us know what is going on half of half of half of the time...the rest are just plain ole dazed and confused...

hahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!

 

[quatin]

To my way of thinking, they are one and the same.

They shouldn't be the same. The more important variables such as distance and size of game you can control. Why is it so hard to just say a .223 will take smaller deer at shorter distances? If you ever find yourself in a situation with a larger deer at longer distances, well then you should have though about that before you brought a .223.

 

[marksman13]

Quatin, I've been preaching the same thing all along. Distance and shot placement are variables that can be controlled by the hunter. I said from the beginning that a 223 is the minimum cartridge that I would consider effective for deer. I don't know that anyone here will change his/her mind about it.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

They shouldn't be the same. The more important variables such as distance and size of game you can control.

Actually, you can't -- too many factors are outside your control. A large deer may look like a smaller deer under certain conditions, and vice versa. A distant shot may look closer than it is, and vice versa. The angle of presentation may deceive you when chosing the shot. You may not make a perfect shot (gasp) and have to shoot again at a fast-disappearing deer.

I'm reminded of Elmer Keith's famous 600-yard kill of a mule deer with a .44 Magnum -- that deer had been wounded, and they were tracking it when they saw it on the opposite ridge. If you don't have Elmer Keith with you, you may have to make that shot yourself (although hopefully not that long.)

 

[KINGMAX]

270

270 is my choice.

 

[quatin]

Actually, you can't -- too many factors are outside your control. A large deer may look like a smaller deer under certain conditions, and vice versa. A distant shot may look closer than it is, and vice versa. The angle of presentation may deceive you when chosing the shot. You may not make a perfect shot (gasp) and have to shoot again at a fast-disappearing deer.

Well if you have that kind of problem then don't bring a light caliber rifle. If anyone has problems sizing up game that badly under 100 yards then bring something else. For other people who don't make those type of mistakes or have a range finder it should be fine.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Well if you have that kind of problem then don't bring a light caliber rifle. If anyone has problems sizing up game that badly under 100 yards then bring something else. For other people who don't make those type of mistakes or have a range finder it should be fine.

It's been my experience that the person most likely to make a serious mistake is the man who thinks he can't make a mistake.

 

[quatin]

I thought it was the person who prepared the least.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I thought it was the person who prepared the least.

They are one and the same.

The man who thinks he can't make a mistake isn't prepared to deal with conditions he didn't anticipate.

 

[quatin]

Fine...so bring as many buddies with guns as you can to cover more mistakes. Multiple shots from multiple angles ought to do it.

 

[RubenZ]

Half of you guys are talking about an "all round deer caliber" and the other half is talking about "a minimum deer caliber".

Well the Minimum Deer Caliber is actually supposed to mean kill a dear ethically with the smallest round.

I mean heck, Minimum could be a .17HMR. Just shoot a deer in the eyeball and hope the bullet bounces around its brain.


There you go folks. Minim. Caliber is a .17hmr. Or heck, even a airsoft gun make work.

 

[Logos]

Very well-said by both Vern and Ruben, and I agree.

Whether it's the eyeball shot or the neck shot.....the strange logic is the same.

The purveyors of such logic have simply not hunted enough to know that their beliefs are not realistic.

 

[marksman13]

I think the neck shot has been proven to be as effective over the years as any other shot. I think that there are a bunch of Zumbos among us who feel that any way other than their way is the wrong way. The head shot works. The neck shot works. If you don't have the patience, skill or terrain to allow you to make those shots then stick with what works for you. It's as simple as that. The minimum caliber for deer will vary from person to person. There are those who are skilled enough and have terrain features that allow the use of a caliber deemed inferior by those who have a limited skill set and a different set of terrain features.

Many of the areas I hunt allow shots no further than one hundred yards. In those settings a 223 is perfectly suitable for the job with a 70 grain bullet. When I hunt over bean fields or hay fields, I opt for the 7mm WSM because my shots are often in excess of 250 yards, and I prefer the better terminal ballistics of the 7mm at those ranges.

To sit around on an internet forum and bash someone else's cartridge choice without knowing the their skill set or terrain features is immature and misinformed. Maybe Aaryq is hunting over wide open fields. Perhaps he is hunting in a thicket. Or maybe he is hunting in a fairly open hard wood forrest. All of those situations could call for a different caliber of firearm. Perhaps Aaryq is as much of a shooter as he is a hunter. Perhaps it is the other way around. We don't know these variables so it is impossible to rule any caliber out of this discussion.

 

[Logos]

But.....if you stick with the .270 power class and above (within reason......since we haven't discussed MAXIMUMS here) you can rest easy knowing you are ready for ANY situation that may come up and won't have to waste time and energy "controlling" a lot of "factors."

 

[marksman13]

But what to you say to someone who can not handle the recoil of a .270, but can easily shoot a 223? Should that person not hunt? The OP asked what the minimum caliber of rifle was that could humanely harvest a deer. With proper shot placement, the answer to that is a 223. Had he asked the best caliber for deer my answer would have been different.

Some seem to be under the illusion that a 223 can not kill deer humanely. I think ignorance is the culprit here. Many of the people bashing the 223 as a deer hunting round have no experience with the round. After killing nine deer with a 223, I know that the round is quite capable, though not ideal. I grew older, and I moved on to larger calibers. My small statured wife however will probably pick up a 223 for deer season this year.

 

[Logos]

I don't think anybody is ignorant enough to believe the .223 can't kill deer humanely in perfect circumstances.

I'd be very surprised to have anybody that ignorant turn up here.

I've never met anybody who couldn't handle the recoil of a .270 class rifle when properly trained (the 7X57 Mauser with 139 grain ammo is very mild).

If such a person turned up I'd want them to go with the .243 class and be aware of the possibility that they'd have to turn down some shots.

 

[marksman13]

My wife does not handle the recoil of a 243 very well. She grew up in a totally different environment than I did. If it takes buying her a 223 to get her in the woods until she gets accustomed to shooting heavier recoiling rifles, then so be it. She actually shoots a 22LR quite well, so I do believe that she will be able kill deer quite effectively with a 223 as long as shots are kept under 100 yards.

 

[MCgunner]

IMHO, and that's what it is, if you can't handle the recoil of a .243, you really don't need to be hunting deer. Are you going to be a good enough shot to place that .223 where it needs to be? If so, I reckon .223 will do the job, but a .243 is anything, but a cannon. JMHO, though.

The .22-250 is pretty popular down here for feeder watching. It is a precision tool and head or neck shots at out to 200 yards ain't a problem. I still prefer more bullet, but hey, the .223 or .22-250 WILL work, I just feel why limit the power of the gun when I can shoot more gun that will be more than just a feeder watching gun? For handicapped, I can see it. But, if you're good enough marksman to put a bullet in a deer's head at 200 yards every time with a .223 and you're not handicapped, I don't see why you can't do it with a .25-06, frankly.

I'm not into black rifles. Some folks, I feel, just wanna shoot their tacticool guns at deer, give 'em a reason to own the things other than paper and that "shtf" thing they all talk about. Well, fine, but wouldn't something in, say, 6.8 be better? They make ARs in other than .223. I've even seen 'em in .308! But, the .223 will do the job feeder watching which is the sort of deer hunting that 99 percent of the hunters around here do. But, I ain't no kid, I can handle a better caliber.

Actually, the whitetail down here aren't very big, 125 dressed is a mature buck. Even the 55 grain .223 can handle a shoulder shot on a deer that big with total penetration. A .308 can handle ANY shot with total penetration, though. I've never seen those 300 lb monsters they hunt up north, but I can say a mulie is quite a bit more deer than the whitetail I hunt around here. On these pathetic little things, a .243 is sorta overkill, LOL! So, maybe I'm being too critical, but I still prefer .243 and up for general whitetail hunting. That's where I, personally, draw the line. .223 is totally legal in Texas for deer, though, so if it hangs your hooter, go for it.

 

[Logos]

Yes, if you can shoot a .223, you certainly could master the much better 22-250.

Seriously, Jack O'Connor's wife was as petite as you can get and she used the .257 Roberts and the 7X57 Mauser with great success during a stellar hunting career. She hated recoil and agreed to use the 30-06 only once, I think it was to take a lion.

She respected the animals she was hunting and endured a little discomfort for the privilege of hunting them.

 

[R.W.Dale]

Yes, if you can shoot a .223, you certainly could master the much better 22-250.

There's a bit of cruel irony in that. You'll have better ammo choices up to the task of taking whitetail for the .223 due to the slower twist rate that 22-250 "suffers" from.

The winchester 64grn PP for .223 comes highly reccomended

 

[Logos]

Right, the 22-250 is great, but on the other hand, the much better .243 would get you all the way up to 80 grains......and with an incredible display of valor you could even brave the risk of serious bruising from the crunching recoil of the massive 100 grain bullet.