Deer hunting with a .223

[marineimaging]

Suffice it to say, many, many deer are poached every year by guys with .22 rifles, as in .22LR. Not that I feel that it is an adequate round for deer under ANY circumstances (short of SHTF survival), but true nonetheless. The .223 with 69 grain bullets comes up with just short of 1400 ft-lb energy, the 6mm Rem is in at 2100 with a 95 grain bullet, so about 2/3 the energy. No reason the .223 would not be effective for deer with proper shot placement.

My great grandfather-in-law was a sustenance hunter. In almost 90 years of hunting he only every owned a .22 rifle and he would go into the woods and come out an hour or so later with a deer slung over his shoulders. The game wardens in the area knew him and knew, as we did, that he never missed or made a shot he was unsure of. There was never a case of finding a carcass in his woods or the area around there with a poorly placed .22 bullet. The problem isn't that a .223 isn't capable of being used as a legitimate hunting round. It is those who would abuse the privilege of using it if it were allowed in all 50 states.

[00tec]

Last deer I brought home was an Axis doe that met her end via a .223 tula hollow point. Worked just fine for me (in TX). 16" barrel.

[marineimaging]

I was thinking, with the right shot placement, I could use my break-action .177-pellet gun to harvest an elk..... or maybe even a grizzly...

I wouldn't do that if I were you. Last time harvested my one allowable moose with a .177 Ruger Airhawk the pellet went through the moose, took out two bull elk and a black bear, then embedded in the wall of the ranger station 3 miles away. Had a heck of a time explaining why I didn't know the rangers station was in line with my shot. Got to take the moose home but had to donate the two elk and the black bear and fix the hole in the rangers station (Sarcasm backatya, LOL)

[TRnCO]

seems easy enough to me. There needs to be a minimum set point, and apparently there are differing opinions of what the minimum should be. Has it kept anyone from hunting? Probably not...so what's the beef. Just because it's allowed in some states doesn't make it right for this state.

[hatidua]

seems easy enough to me. There needs to be a minimum set point, and apparently there are differing opinions of what the minimum should be. Has it kept anyone from hunting? Probably not...so what's the beef. Just because it's allowed in some states doesn't make it right for this state.

Dear Sir,

Please do not attempt to inject logic into this. It will be sorely lost on some.

[Duman]

"Just shoot its eye out, kid."

LMAO!!

[Duman]

I wouldn't do that if I were you. Last time harvested my one allowable moose with a .177 Ruger Airhawk the pellet went through the moose, took out two bull elk and a black bear, then embedded in the wall of the ranger station 3 miles away. Had a heck of a time explaining why I didn't know the rangers station was in line with my shot. Got to take the moose home but had to donate the two elk and the black bear and fix the hole in the rangers station (Sarcasm backatya, LOL)

Well played....

[Irving]

In the future, I plan to hunt all my deer with wolves. I wanted to get into falconry, but what a hassle.

[marineimaging]

Well, I have come to the conclusion that defending the .223 for deer hunting is pretty much a lost cause. So far nobody has answered my original question. Where are the facts? Who hunted deer with a .223, took an ethical shot, and watched the deer jump up and run off with a .223 bullet in it. Deer is deer in Texas or Colorado or Maine or New York and they will fall to a .223 just as sure as a .243. I say that as with any firearm the distance, placement, the proper bullet, ethics, and accepting responsibility are all key factors in making a humane shot - but for some reason the majority will acquiesce to the makers of the laws no matter how unreasonable or how old, or how lacking in facts the law is. And, they will give away rights and freedoms rather than argue because there is the assumption that studies and data are foolproof, if, and that is a BIG IF, they were even considered. And therein is the problem. People will just go with the flow until we no longer have any freedoms left. To my knowledge nobody with reason and ethics can leave the camp and engage a deer and NOT know that they are incapable of making the shot. The same shame would apply to a .243, 308., 30-06, or 338. Don't take the shot if you can't be sure of making it. Because there are people who have no ethics, because there are outlaws, because there are just plain stupid people in the woods is not a reason to outlaw a gun or a caliber which science says is more than adequate. The End.

[spqrzilla]

Well, I have come to the conclusion that defending the .223 for deer hunting is pretty much a lost cause. So far nobody has answered my original question. Where are the facts? Who hunted deer with a .223, took an ethical shot, and watched the deer jump up and run off with a .223 bullet in it.

Your question was answered. I'm baffled why you pretend otherwise. But because its the kind of guy I am, I will repeat again slowly.

It was. not about .223 Remington. specifically no matter how much you pretend it was.

Deer is deer in Texas or Colorado.

False actually. Clue: there are about a half dozen species of deer in the United States.