rifle for new youth hunter, .357 mag, 44 mag or 243.

[tdbmd]

In my mind, the .22 centerfires are better for experienced hunters than for brand new hunters because shot placement is so critical

 

[d2wing]

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.

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.

 

[dranrab]

In my mind, the .22 centerfires are better for experienced hunters than for brand new hunters because shot placement is so critical

Shot placement is critical no matter the chambering. Where would you hit this with a 30-06 that a .223 hit in the same spot wouldn't kill?

 

[d2wing]

In my mind, the .22 centerfires are better for experienced hunters than for brand new hunters because shot placement is so critical

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.
Her's a pic of him with the Coyote hat he had made from one he shot and with a deer he shot.

 

[tdbmd]

Shot placement is critical no matter the chambering. Where would you hit this with a 30-06 that a .223 hit in the same spot wouldn't kill?

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.

 

[dranrab]

you get a bit more leeway with a bigger/more robust caliber if that hit is "around the edges". With the smaller calibers, bullet placement is of even greater importance.

Can you tell me or show me where on this deer you get that "leeway?"

 

[tdbmd]

Can you tell me or show me where on this deer you get that "leeway?"

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

 

[Riomouse911]

To put this back on the rails, based on the three calibers you listed I would opt for a .243.

I have .357, 44 and 45 Colt lever guns and a Ruger M77 RSI .243. The .243 is more versatile than the pistol caliber rounds, IMHO.

Stay safe.

 

[dranrab]

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?

 

[tdbmd]

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?

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.

 

[CraigC]

A hard no on .44 mag. It kicks more than a 30-30 and doesn't have near the range.

In 25yrs of shooting .44Mag rifles, I've always found the opposite to be true.

The OP's range requirement is 100yds.

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 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.

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?

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.

 

[bearcreek]

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.

.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.

 

[horsey300]

Ok.... so I still pick .243 of the 3 choices, but I don't want to lead on misinformation. Out of a 7 lb rifle, a .44 with 225s @1400 has 8 ftlbs of recoil energy, with 240s @1500- 10 ftlbs of recoil energy, a lighter rifle? Yeah, a little more recoil, but we are in standard .243 deer load country here if not including reduced recoil. I prefer the massive wound cavities of the .243 with 95 gr btip and 100 gr prohunters, where I get very WIDE channels often with clear through penetration, I could include the 90 gr ab, and 80-85 gr monos as well. But recoil differences vs a .44 mag? That's a non topic. Versatility only comes in for longer ranges and it's been stated that 100 yds is the range, so again, not much of a topic, .44 can run light loads for varmints (but again for ME) not as fun, and heavy loads for big nasties (where the .243 becomes more questionable at best). In this exact situation, the performance is a draw depending on whether you prefer splodey insides or not. Either would be preferable to .357 terminally, and they're both gonna "kick" about the same, both have similar recoil energy and speed so not even a "snappy" vs "push" topic can be made one way or the other.

 

[tdbmd]

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

 

[horsey300]

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

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.

 

[dranrab]

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.

At 7mmTCU velocities, I wouldn't expect as much of a temporary stretch cavity "tissue damage" as I would with a 223 or 243. Maybe if you had been shooting a 223 rifle, you wouldn't have missed the heart. Most people shoot mild recoiling rifles much better than they do handguns and harder recoiling rifles. That's what make them great choices.


This is a moose "shoulder" that was hit with a 223. The bullet then demolished the heart. As I told you earlier, the 223 with the right bullet, doesn't struggle with bone.

 

[d2wing]

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.

 

[crestoncowboy]

Deer ran about 300yds. A larger cartridge that does more tissue damage probably would've anchored him faster.

Farthest I've ever had a whitetail deer run in gun season was with a 338 lapua through the lungs. Id say 200-300 yards as well. By far the biggest blood trail though.

I've killed more with 223 than anything else. 300 magnum after that. 7mm rum maybe almost tied with 257 Robert's for third.

I don't believe the bigger guns offer anything to a child and even for 99% of hunter who can't shoot over 200 yards.

But I tend to grab enough gun rather than worry about it anyway

 

[someguy2800]

I’ve never been a fan of 243. Such an inefficient use of 45 grains of powder. I’ve never found it to be that mild recoiling either because of how much powder its ejecting. With the options we have available now I would go with an intermediate round. 6.5 grendel, 7.62x39, 6mm arc, or 6.8 spc. 350 legend would also be a good mild recoil option. Any of those are going to be more versatile than 357 or 44 mag for future uses. The 223 hunting thread on the rokslide forum makes a compelling case for these smaller rounds with very particular bullet selection.

 

[Hookeye]

I was a small kid. Hit 5 ft tall in 9th grade.
Already had a Ruger #1 in .243 win.
Gun length of pull, scope positioning and lack of upper body strength are issues for kids.

Shot mine off bipod for chucks.
Got some offhand but it was comical.

Also shot Ruger 44 carbine.
It wasnt bad but bopped me as hard or harder than my .243 did.

As for scopes, deer hunting, newbs.... straight 4x.
It wont be cranked up when it shouldnt be

 

[WisBorn]

Since you haven't bought the rifle yet. I strongly recommend an inexpensive bolt action rifle in 308win. It's a rifle your kids can start with and stick with. Low recoil loads available from Hornady and others are very effective and are very shootable. As they grow they can go to full power loads and have a rifle capable to hunt all of the deer in NA.

 

[zdc1775]

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.

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.

 

[d2wing]

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.

Thank you or your service. As a user of the M-16, M-14 and M-60 I agree.

 

[zdc1775]

Thank you or your service. As a user of the M-16, M-14 and M-60 I agree.

And thank you for yours as well.

 

[Hookeye]

I like using enough oomph to get the job done at various angles.
And don't mind blasting a shoulder in doing so.
Buck around here usually dress 150-200#.
We had one on cam two yrs ago, got shot over a mile south, dressed 230#.
So some big ones around LOL