.223 Rem. enough gun for deer?

[Unregistered user]

Granted it is not lawful for most of us to hunt big game with this round in Alberta. Should the law be changed? Older farts like me remember a time when bullet diameter was not the only criterion. Interesting article here that asks if the laws are not keeping up with the times.

http://www.americanhunter.org/blogs/...paign=Exploded

[BANG]

Of course it is.if used properly.heck i seen a large polar bear killed with one round from a 223 of course it was crap your pants close and held at bay with dogs.(on video not my life unfortunatly)
Its a common deer round in many places.
There are many less ideal rounds that are legal here the minimum caliber rule should not exist.

[elkdump]

millions of people have been killed in conflicts with a solid point .223 Rem military bullet,

the frame work/body mass and bone structure of a deer compared to a human is negligible in differences,

the GO-TO caliber( .223 Rem) for INUIT sustenance hunters,,, mind you, muskox , sea lions,seals, occasional polar bear,,,,, hmmmm??


. 223 is fine for deer, with good expanding bullets

[twofifty]

In BC the game laws specify that the rifle must be a centrefire and that
rimfires are illegal for big game.

The only exception is bison, where the bullet must weigh a minimum of 175 grains and the 100 metre muzzle energy must be at least 2,000 ft. lbs.

[catnthehat]

Many States and Provinces allow the use of 22 centerfire cartridges, and there have been many vehemently opposed to them - normally the ones that have never used them.
They work well when properly and sensibly used , same as any other cartridge, the main variable being the operator.
Cat

[elkdump]

Originally Posted by catnthehat

Many States and Provinces allow the use of 22 centerfire cartridges, and there have been many vehemently opposed to them - normally the ones that have never used them.
They work well when properly and sensibly used , same as any other cartridge, the main variable being the operator.
Cat

for many years one of my best friends' wife shot her elk every year with a 22-250 Rem 700, mind you she had an advantage,,,,,,,,,,,

she could consistently shoot a 5 inch, 1/2 inch thick steel plate/gong at 300 yards,

and she had killed about 30 elk in her hunting years of experience

it is called Marksmanship, and planning /waiting for optimum moment to make the shot,

[southernman]

I have shot hundreds of deer (reds, sika, etc) when culling and meat hunting, in New Zealand. Within sensible ranges and with good shot placement, its works just fine,
I used a .222 but shot placement and good bullets are critical.

[twofifty]

A neighbour used lightweight (60gr ?) Partitions for deer out of his 22-250, during his small caliber phase. The guy is a phenomenal field position marksman and hunter.

[Tactical Lever]

No problem. A good angle, a decent 70 gr. bullet designed for controlled expansion will dump one without issue.

There are a few guys that get quite a bit of use out of their .223 with good bullets.

[Dick284]

There is zero reason why it would not work.... And a great big pile of if's attached.....
All those if's equate into a great big quagmire, dealing with choosing proper bullets, picking perfect shots, not shooting too far, and the list goes on, and on.

How is a seemingly endless list of if's dealt with from a bureaucratic standpoint?

By regulating or legislating the use of the item that brings a bunch of if's into the equation.

Unfortunately our rules and laws are written to the lowest common denominator.

Unfortunately the lowest common denominator is far to common in the hunting community.

[ACKLEY ABE]

Originally Posted by Dick284

There is zero reason why it would not work.... And a great big pile of if's attached.....
All those if's equate into a great big quagmire, dealing with choosing proper bullets, picking perfect shots, not shooting too far, and the list goes on, and on.

How is a seemingly endless list of if's dealt with from a bureaucratic standpoint?

By regulating or legislating the use of the item that brings a bunch of if's into the equation.

Unfortunately our rules and laws are written to the lowest common denominator.

Unfortunately the lowest common denominator is far to common in the hunting community.

Perfectly put, Dick.

I'm not sure why one would pick a 22 centrefire for deer, but adequate within their limitations. I don't particullarly like 6's in the field because ppl tend to ignore their limitations, but they are legal, so.......why not the 22's.

[abbgdr]

It's legal in the state of Idaho,, has been as long as I can remember. My brother kills his deer every year with one

[Unregistered user]

Many states allow the use of .224 center fire and I'm sure they have their fair shares of common denominators. Over the years I have seen a number of women who enjoy shooting lighter recoiling rifles but are afraid of the smack and blast of even a 7mm-08. If .223 is allowed for hunting perhaps more wives/moms/girlfriends etc. could enjoy the hunt that much more resulting in more families spending more great time together.

[Texican]

Originally Posted by twofifty

In BC the game laws specify that the rifle must be a centrefire and that
rimfires are illegal for big game.

The only exception is bison, where the bullet must weigh a minimum of 175 grains and the 100 metre muzzle energy must be at least 2,000 ft. lbs.

At the coast the blacktail deer aren't much bigger than a German Shepard dog.

[3blade]

Originally Posted by Dick284

There is zero reason why it would not work.... And a great big pile of if's attached.....
All those if's equate into a great big quagmire, dealing with choosing proper bullets, picking perfect shots, not shooting too far, and the list goes on, and on.

How is a seemingly endless list of if's dealt with from a bureaucratic standpoint?

By regulating or legislating the use of the item that brings a bunch of if's into the equation.

Unfortunately our rules and laws are written to the lowest common denominator.

Unfortunately the lowest common denominator is far to common in the hunting community.

^^^That's why it isn't legal.

ask a few northern caribou guides about what happens when 223 is used...it ain't pretty....a large percent their harvest has 223 imbedded somewhere. Sure helps out the wolves too. Wouldn't want that here.

I remember someone on here stating we will see an additional cartridge requirement next year...

[Marty S]

Hate to say it but a .223 is way more lethal than an arrow, especially when people shoot at questionable ranges. People sometimes shoot arrows at big game at 100 yards, not often, not considered ethical, but it happens. I watched a guy put a hit on an antelope once at 108 metres with an arrow.

I'd much rather use a .223 or 22-250 for deer than a bow.

When the fish cops were shooting deer out of their helicopters they used .223's as they are above the law, right?

22 caliber should be legal for does, would be a superb meat gun, put a less than desirable hit (as in edible muscle) and you won't lose a whole hind quarter, front quarter or half of your New York strips!

[Cowtown guy]

Originally Posted by Marty S

Hate to say it but a .223 is way more lethal than an arrow, especially when people shoot at questionable ranges. People sometimes shoot arrows at big game at 100 yards, not often, not considered ethical, but it happens. I watched a guy put a hit on an antelope once at 108 metres with an arrow.

I'd much rather use a .223 or 22-250 for deer than a bow.

When the fish cops were shooting deer out of their helicopters they used .223's as they are above the law, right?

22 caliber should be legal for does, would be a superb meat gun, put a less than desirable hit (as in edible muscle) and you won't lose a whole hind quarter, front quarter or half of your New York strips!

By making it legal for does only what would be accomplished?

The short answer is of course it is enough gun. The long answer is that the gov thinks, once again, that they need to make a law that is for the small percentage of shooters that would lob 50 grain V-max bullets at 400 yards at deer.

There must be a better solution.

[Big Sky]

Question: What's the biggest 'positive' that would come about if we were allowed to use 223 for deer?

Answer: I'd never have to read another thread debating the suitability of 243Win for deer.

[kayaker]

The theme is consistent: while the cartridge is adequate and bullet choice is important the user has to practice restraint, be able to place shots and shoot within their known abilities.

A .338Lapua becomes a terrible deer cartridge when some yahoo users his bonus check to buy himself a fancy new long range sniper rig with a fat scope and starts flinging 900 yard shots without a second thought.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by elkdump

millions of people have been killed in conflicts with a solid point .223 Rem military bullet,

Though I thought small military rounds were designed more to wound than kill. More stress on opposing forces to take care of wounded soldiers than dead ones. No?

All kinds of weapons, in the hands of experienced shooters, would be deadly on various game. However, many hunters aren't experienced, so a bit of overkill is useful, IMHO.

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by Marty S

Hate to say it but a .223 is way more lethal than an arrow, especially when people shoot at questionable ranges. People sometimes shoot arrows at big game at 100 yards, not often, not considered ethical, but it happens. I watched a guy put a hit on an antelope once at 108 metres with an arrow.

I'd much rather use a .223 or 22-250 for deer than a bow.

When the fish cops were shooting deer out of their helicopters they used .223's as they are above the law, right?

22 caliber should be legal for does, would be a superb meat gun, put a less than desirable hit (as in edible muscle) and you won't lose a whole hind quarter, front quarter or half of your New York strips!

I'm not so sure about the meat loss; the wrong bullet out of a .223 can cause a fair bit of wrecked meat also. And a bad hit on top of that, or even a good one with the wrong bullet could mean a lost animal.

Of course the wrong bullet with almost anything doesn't work so hot either. It is amazing, the number of hunters and shooters that think a large FMJ will blow things apart. Or guys that unwittingly use varmint bullets on big game thinking that it has a ballistic advantage, or will wreck less meat.

I would use one here if legal.

[jcrayford]

Originally Posted by Marty S

Hate to say it but a .223 is way more lethal than an arrow, especially when people shoot at questionable ranges. People sometimes shoot arrows at big game at 100 yards, not often, not considered ethical, but it happens. I watched a guy put a hit on an antelope once at 108 metres with an arrow.

I'd much rather use a .223 or 22-250 for deer than a bow.

When the fish cops were shooting deer out of their helicopters they used .223's as they are above the law, right?

22 caliber should be legal for does, would be a superb meat gun, put a less than desirable hit (as in edible muscle) and you won't lose a whole hind quarter, front quarter or half of your New York strips!

I'd have to argue that aspect of it......

Put in the hands of the right people that proceed to put in the practice with either weapon, either choice above can be as deadly as the other. An arrow will put down an animal (if placed in the RIGHT spot), just as well as any caliber round (if placed in the RIGHT spot)....

As far as the questionable range portion of the highlighted text.... That's a totally separate argument and not even being discussed here.

J.

[HyperMOA]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

Though I thought small military rounds were designed more to wound than kill. More stress on opposing forces to take care of wounded soldiers than dead ones. No?

That is correct, using FMJ. We have to use expanding bullets to hunt though. Making the round much more lethal

On a side note, I feel the .223 or the 5.56mm is far more suitable round to hunt deer with than say a 9mm Luger which would be legal now. Especially at distances that can be typical for deer in the open prairies.

[Unregistered user]

The NATO ammo was designed to fly straight but upset and tumble in flesh causing devastating wounds/deaths.

[dshaw]

I'd love to use it for a cat! would work perfectly

[338Bluff]

Originally Posted by Marty S

Hate to say it but a .223 is way more lethal than an arrow, especially when people shoot at questionable ranges. People sometimes shoot arrows at big game at 100 yards, not often, not considered ethical, but it happens. I watched a guy put a hit on an antelope once at 108 metres with an arrow.

I'd much rather use a .223 or 22-250 for deer than a bow.

When the fish cops were shooting deer out of their helicopters they used .223's as they are above the law, right?

22 caliber should be legal for does, would be a superb meat gun, put a less than desirable hit (as in edible muscle) and you won't lose a whole hind quarter, front quarter or half of your New York strips!

That is absolute bull durham and horse hockey. I have been bowhunting for 25 years and I only shoot within my limits. If I had a choice between a .223 and a sharp broadhead....I would take the arrow every time. Most archers I know are like minded. The guys that lob the long shots are in the minority.

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by Unregistered user

The NATO ammo was designed to fly straight but upset and tumble in flesh causing devastating wounds/deaths.

The old twist was a lot slower, and the military (and the general populace) began to use the heavier weight projectiles, consequently the bullets were "barely" stabilized.

Being FMJ, the did not deform on impact and the heavy end on cup and core spitzers is on the base. This would give it a propensity to turn over (once) so it would naturally lead with the heavy end.

I am not sure that this was planned; as Oki said, the idea is to wound and maim, to use up resources. This is dependent of course on who you are fighting, somewhat. If you are fighting Zulus, for instance, that might not be the best tack.

Todays fast twist .223, 5.56, "Wylde" chambered barrels are designed to handle the 70+ weight .224 bullets that are common now. I don't believe you see very much turning over of the bullets anymore.

[ACKLEY ABE]

Originally Posted by 338Bluff

That is absolute bull durham and horse hockey. I have been bowhunting for 25 years and I only shoot within my limits. If I had a choice between a .223 and a sharp broadhead....I would take the arrow every time. Most archers I know are like minded. The guys that lob the long shots are in the minority.

Hmmmm...
There is....a reason that the military doesn't use bows and arrows any more.....

[nsc86]

Sure it would be. But regulations state that .23 cal and anything less cannot be used on big game.. Be sure to READ your regulations.

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by ACKLEY ABE

Hmmmm...
There is....a reason that the military doesn't use bows and arrows any more.....

The rate of fire is much lower with a bow than a semi or fully auto machine gun in .223

LC