.223 input needed!

[waksupi]

An acquaintance believes the .223 is an adequate deer round. He used this link as a reference.

http://www.americanhunter.org/blogs/223-for-deer-hunting/

I will make no more personal comment upon the subject here at this time. Please give your practical input, and I will link him to this thread.

[krag35]

I have killed Mule Deer with my 223. Adequate, yes, preferred, NO.

[nhrifle]

I was once told by a very old LEO that anything that would kill a man will kill a deer. Ask anyone who has served in the US military during the last 50 years how the .223/5.56 does on enemy combatants. Will it kill a deer? Of course. However, I prefer to be a humane as possible, which means 85 grain or larger in .243 Win as an absolute minimum. When I go after deer, I just grab my 1903A3 Springfield in 30/06.

Sure the .223 will do the job, but it is far from adequate.

[Jim Flinchbaugh]

Depends on the hunter IMO. IF you are a capable person, who knows how, when, and where to shoot, it will kill a deer.
Should it be the choice to make if you have a better one? No

[Blacksmith]

Like many answered It depends. Short answer marginally adequate in selected loadings.

Will it kill a deer? Yes but so will a .22 rimfire and poachers have long used them. In at least one state the .22 magnum is a legal round.

Will it kill humanely and quickly? Very dependent on the skill and ethics of the hunter in shot placement and passing up shots that are marginal. In most loadings the .223 is on the low end of what is generally considered adequate.

In my state the game laws establish a minimum muzzle energy of 1,200 foot pounds for hunting deer and bear and the use of only ammunition of soft point (expanding) construction. If we look at a ballistics chart for .223 we see some loadings exceed this level and some don't. One of the referenced loads in the article only exceeds the minimum by 50 foot pounds.
http://www.ballistics101.com/223_remington.php

If we consider what the majority of experts think are minimum, adequate, and recommended calibers/loadings for humanely taking game of a particular size I think the .223 comes out on the low end of the list. Here is one expert opinion:
http://www.outdoorlife.com/articles/photos/2007/09/best-big-game-calibers

So if that is your only option it will work with care and discretion. BUT there are much better choices than the .223.

[Bad Water Bill]

Many years ago I purchased a SAVAGE 99 in 22 Hi Power from a friend. Carl had used that rifle and his handloaded PB boolits to feed himself for many years.


Yes that gun in Carls hands in his location did kill northern Wisconsin deer with one shot TIME AFTER TIME. A follow up shot might bring the game warden.

Would I try it ABSOLUTELY NOT.

So yes a 223 can kill a deer but why not use something more practical. A 30-30 costs far less than an AR15 and has killed more deer year after year than any other caliber.

Just my .02:)

[Bob Krack]

There is a story about how a villager in Africa killed an elephant with a .22 short. ----- could be.

My choice is .30/30 power level or above. It is NOT about whether you can kill'm with a .223 - ya can kill'm with a sling shot. Ya can actually kill'm with a "Benjamin" air rifle in .17 caliber.

No yellow snow intended,

Bob

[dale2242]

Any 22 cal. center fire is legal for deer here in Oregon. That does not make it adequate in my mind.
Next we are going to hear how they can be killed with a head shot.
Head shots are very unethical. If you have seen deer with the jaw shot off you will know what I mean. They die a slow agonizing death. Not what we, as ethical hunters want.
Broadside shots to the heart, lung, liver area with gun with enough energy to drop them is needed.
The short answer. 223 is not enough gun for deer.....dale

[Blammer]

If your acquaintance believes it to be inadequate, make sure he doesn't use one.
Confidence is sometimes most of the battle.

[btroj]

Wait for the right shot and it will work. Use a 55 gr soft point and put it thru the lungs.

Watched my wife and daughter shoot deer sized animals in Africa with a 222 rem and nether went far.

Like others said, it will work but it is hardly ideal. Heck, I often shoot deer with a 45-70.

[41 mag fan]

Any 22 cal. center fire is legal for deer here in Oregon. That does not make it adequate in my mind.
Next we are going to hear how they can be killed with a head shot.
Head shots are very unethical. If you have seen deer with the jaw shot off you will know what I mean. They die a slow agonizing death. Not what we, as ethical hunters want.
Broadside shots to the heart, lung, liver area with gun with enough energy to drop them is needed.
The short answer. 223 is not enough gun for deer.....dale

You're pretty much right on with this. I shot the jaw off a little 6 pt buck once, back in '94 IIRC. Had no choice, he came charging at me, after i grazed his belly with the first slug. Had me shaking when he went down, he was kicking my feet as he was dying, so I put a hasty slug in his skull.
But a 22 can and will kill a deer, it just wont do alot of damage internally like a slug or bigger bullet would.
But so will #6 shot from a 12ga. Did that back in '90. Freak accident, hunting squirrels. Had a squirrel on a limb, just at eye level 15yrds from me, cutting a nut. There was a ditch inbetween us, I couldn't see from all the undergrowth. She popped her head up just as i pulled the trigger, she went down like a sack of rocks and didn't move. Very precarious predicament there, but i was laid off, no unemployment, so she didn't go to waste.

You go down to places like Tx where the deer are not behind game fences, they're only the size of a German Shephard, a 223 would adequately kill one that size.

[Larry Gibson]

Well over quite a number of years I've killed numerous deer and even elk with the .223.......in Oregon.......and found it quite "adequate" in the killing end using heart/lung shots and not "headshots". Some of those deer, including the very nice 4 point hanging on my wall, were taken on tags. Others, including the elk, were dispatched as an LEO. In some hunting scenarios (like hunting over bait from stands as in Texas) or in open terrain when the hunter can put the bullet in the boiler room from a reasonable range it is perfectly adequate for deer. However, for general hunting as in stalking/still hunting where shots are quick and many times not precisely placed it is a poor choice.

As already mentioned; it depends and the answer is not "cut and dried" as the OP may have wanted. BTW; my favorite big game cartridge is the 30-06 for deer and elk. However, having shot 3 deer in Texas from a stand (2 with the '06 - neck shots BTW) this fall I'll be using the '06 again only with cast bullets at 30-30 velocity and with the .35 Rem using the same cast 35-200-FN HP'd as used before. The wife may very well use a .223 though.

Larry Gibson

[Olevern]

I have loaded a .223 rifle for beginning hunters (8-11 years of age) to hunt deer with here in the Pa. northwoods with great success. However, that was with the excellent 60 grain nosler partition, I don't think I would want to do it with any other bullet.

The gun (a mini-mauser) and load were intended to get a slightly built, recoil shy boy out in the field until he was able to physically handle a more appropriate round. And I was prepared with a second firearm to back up the boys shot, although I never had to do so.

It is not a caliber I would choose for anyone who is able to handle something more suited, however, I don't know but that I may be limited to using it this coming season, as I need surgery on my rotator cuff and the docs are dragging their feet with two months between tests (MRI) and follow-up appointment with the surgeon to discuss the results (already saw the results online and with over one half the diameter of the ligament torn, clearly surgery is indicated). Seems like things are going south with our medical system and our private insurance (which was taken over by ObummerCare) and they want to delay or deny every sort of treatment to us older folk....we're not worth it, don't ya know....why don't you just go on and die. Never had a bit of trouble with my private insurance until Jan 1st, when some parts of ObummerCare kicked in.

Anyways, sorry for the unrelated rant, bottom line is if the season comes and I am unable to handle heavy recoil, my choices will be to go afield with the .223 or not hunt, and I can tell you where that will go.

[cbrick]

It would be at the very bottom of the list for me but I wonder how many people now think it's a fine deer caliber because after all, we have just learned that it can stop trains and bring down aircraft. :mrgreen: Jesse told us so.

Rick

[Love Life]

It will do the trick, but there are much better options out there.

Experience: I have killed 6 deer with a .223 during cull hunts. I shot them in the head and usually within 100 yds. None ran away. I selected pull down green tips for my bullet of choice to ensure penetration through the skull.

ETA: Why are headshots unethical? I believe people incapable of putting a bullet where they want, and who take headshots, are unethical.

[gbrown]

I have a Contender carbine in 223 with a youth stock for my grandsons. When the oldest was 6 years old, he killed his first deer with it. 100 yd shot thru lungs/heart. Deer ran 30 yards, dropped dead. Nosler Balistic Tips. Killed several more with it over the years. My 10 year old grandson has not had that luck, yet. He carries it now. We have hunted the last 2 years without seeing one (when he was with me). It's not my gun of choice. 30-30 or 30-06 is my choice. The older grandson (19) uses his great-granddad's Win 70 Featherweight in 30-06 now. As others have said, I think it is a fine choice for a child. Just my 2 cents.

[429421Cowboy]

The .223 is a perfectly effective deer round, if placed right.

Used out of context, that statement might make you think i support the use of .223 as a general purpose deer rifle. But any perfect shot will kill a deer, after a friend was burned badly at work and could not handle centerfire recoil, i saw him shoot a large buck with a .17 HMR rifle, it only took one shot through the lungs and he died as fast as any deer. Lots of people kill deer with .22 lr or Magnums with head shots (legal in MT) but that doesn't make it a good idea. Yes, .223 is more powerful than and of those rimfire rounds, and placed right leaves deer just as dead. I however have seen enough deer go further than i like after being hit with a .243 to prefer it as a deer round, and even seen deer go pretty darn far after being marginally hit with a .270 or .30/06, which none of us thinks is too light for deer, i consider the .270 or .7mm/08 to be the ideal deer rounds. So yes, the .223 will kill deer 99 times stone dead, but once you get to no 100 and something goes haywire and you hit that deer in the wrong spot, I personally do not think the .223 packs enough extra heat to do the job with a bad hit.
Granted in Montana, we can't hunt until we are 12, so generally a .243 or 7mm/08 is a good fit, in states that allow kids to hunt sooner there may be need for it, but i personally would rather see a new hunter with MORE rather than LESS gun, since they might be inclined to make a bad shot than somebody more experinced.
I consider the .243 bare minimum for our deer, and prefer something larger.

[375RUGER]

The cartridge is adequate if the shooter can use it proficiently.
I experimented once, I shot a button buck during antlerless season with a 223 55g SP. 70 yds right into the boiler but that is as far as the bullet went (about 3-4" penetration)and it was just tiny pieces of schrapnel left. It was a sure shot and the only reason I pulled the trigger. My experiment was a success-I now know that I can bring down a small deer quickly with that load, but I don't use the 223 as first choice. I do think that the heavy partitions are a better choice for hunting deer size game with a 22 caliber rifle.
Even my wife who has very little experience hunting, when given the choice to use the 243 win(adequate with proper bullet and proper shot placement) or 7mm mag for her cow elk hunt, chose the 7.

[JonB_in_Glencoe]

Thread subscribed to !
I have no practical experience to add, but I get into this conversation often with people who know my main hobby of guns and shooting...although they usually don't know my hunting experience is extremely limited. I can point them to those who have already answered this querry in this thread.

BTW, I do follow laws fairly closely. MN hunting laws did NOT use to allow the 223rem cartridge for Large Game (Deer), but recently (3 to 5 years ago) changed the wording of the law and now includes 223rem for Deer. I don't recall the exact wording, but know it now also includes 25acp :roll:
Jon

[GREENCOUNTYPETE]

222 rem was a long time favorite in the area we hunt , something about Nordic people Finns , Norwegians and Swedes drawn to that round I never fully understood. but they were all to cheap to waste a round that didn't = a deer. not sure anything but a neck shot was ever used that's the shot they all favor wastes the least meat

so 223 that with the right loading is better than 222 should do , as long as the hunter does his part.

the 64gr power points or similar are recommended by a coworker who has taken deer with his 223

[quilbilly]

Of course it will work but there are better choices. I got my first deer with a triple deuce but moved up shortly afterwards. Even as a teenager new to reloading, I figured that reducing the velocity would prevent explosive impact to give better penetration to the 222 and was right. Dropping the MV to 2300 fps seemed to work with jacketed projectiles of the time. Would I do this now - not a chance unless I had no choice. That velocity won't operate most AR actions these days anyway.

[Rangefinder]

I think sometimes too much emphasis is placed on cartridge and not enough on the shooter. If you re-ask the same question about whether a 22-250 is adequate for deer, there will likely be a lot more that say "sure, it works fine with a good placement..." But, it fires the same caliber bullet with very little increase in potential velocity. Ask the same question again about the 220 Swift, and the answer will likely lean more toward the "no" side of things. BUT, they're all using the same bullet at near-identical performance factors. So what's the real difference? Answer: The Shooter. I don't hesitate to take my 6mm Remington after Elk. I've never had one take more than a few steps after the first shot before they folded DRT. Does that make the 6mm Rem. adequate for elk? Only in capable hands. In the wrong hands, NO cartridge is adequate for game of any nature or size.

[montana_charlie]

The original question askes if it is an "adequate" deer round. The answer would have to be predicated on the definition of "adequate" in practical hunting conditions.

The input so far mainly agrees that when the situation is right, the .223 Remington will kill a deer with some reliability.
But (in my mind), the definition of 'adequate' would be that the round can be expected to deliver a humane kill in most reasonable hunting situations. ... not just in the right situation.
Therefore, I would say the .223 is not 'adequate'.

Having provided an answer, that also earns me the right to ask one, which would be ...
Why would the person choose to consider the .223 for hunting deer?

CM

[Phoenix]

It sounds like hunter skill is more unethical that the caliber. I know a few people that user 20" and 24" Varmint ARs to drop deer first shot every time. They are skilled marksman They shoot 77gr handloads that are amazing even at 200 yards. I cannot fault them for using it. Then again I know someone I used to work with that hunts whitetail with a 338-378 Wby and routinely has to chase his deer. So we have skilled people using a 223 and an unskilled person using 338-378 Which is way too much to just call adequite. but he shoots 16" groups at 100 yards. I say the cartridge has far less to do with it than the skill of the hunter. Every hunter has to find a cartridge he can be consistant and accurate with.

[km101]

I would not say adequate. I would say marginal. In the smaller calibers and lighter bullet weights, shot placement becomes more and more critical to the successful, humane harvest. Using the .223 there is less margin for error and less tolerance for inexperience in shot placement, with the increased likelihood of wounding or losing an animal. This is something that no one wants, so why use a marginal caliber/bullet weight combination when there are so many better choices? You are not being a responsible sportsman/hunter if you dont use the proper tool for the job. Step up to something which is better suited for the job.

Just my $0.02

[jonp]

When I was a kid we used to use a 22 Hornet for deer hunting. It worked. Is the 223 large enough for deer? Well, for the deer here in North Carolina that top out at 140lbs yes with the proper bullet and placement. I, however, prefer something bigger and consider the 243 the minimum deer caliber but that's just me. Use what you have in a centerfire and if your patient and a good shot it will work.

[jonp]

I guess the question here is if you are heck bent on using the 223 because you have a favorite AR you want to use. If that is so then mucho practice and choose your shots but with all of the far superior rounds out there including oldies like a 38-55, 35, 30-30 or 30-06 all of which I have taken deer with why would you want to? If a 30-06 can't take what you are after then you need to give up hunting or practice a whole lot more.

[1Shirt]

Agree with the majority, adequate with proper placement and right bullet, poor choice without proper placement and right bullet.
Agree with whoever said they prefer something along the line of 30-30 balistics.
1Shirt!

[wgr]

Not my first choice. but here in Indiana they allow the .410 shotgun,IMOA the .223 is a more adequate cal.

[shdwlkr]

Is the .223 adequate for hunting deer? No in my mind and I have shot a lot of those .224 rounds and like the 60-on up grain bullets. Now with some of the more modern bullets in the heavier weights it might be under some conditions but you know something a 243, 257, 264, 270, 308 diameter bullet in any cartridge puts the advantage in the shooter side of the scale and I like that.

To many today think that a 55 grain or smaller weight is good for anything you want to hunt. But we also owe it to what we are hunting for a human death and for that the .223 comes up short many times.

Just like the hype today is that you need a magnum to hunt this or that because you can't get closer than at least 1000 yards to the animal you are hunting. That is total **** to sell a firearm, if you know how to really hunt, take time to get into position you can cut that range in half or less many times. I just acquired a rifle that is considered the best for hunting elk and will most likely use it for that purpose but not at the levels many do because I don't need to be able to hit that animal from a county away if I can't get within my range then it gets to live another day simple as that.

Yes the 55 grain bullet will kill a person but so will a rock so does that mean we should all start hunting with rocks? No this is a stupid concept and to much reading by those who think they know and really have no clue what is or is not a good caliber, bullet weight, charge for a given quarry to be hunted. I have long been more interested in energy at the target then if it gets there 1/10 of second faster, I also like bigger holes, I prefer to not be kicked from one state to the other while doing so also. I have had a rifle wake me up a few times and yes it was my fault every time.
I look at the .223, 222, 22-250, 5.56mm etc. as small game rounds and yes I had an M16 and M14, and 45 auto in the military and even a 12 gauge shotgun they all have their uses but I still prefer a bigger hole upon impact call me old fashion but I like the 45-70 seems a long time ago a fellow dropped and indian at what was it 1700 plus yards with black powder for propellant so I guess we really haven't learned a whole in the time since.

[Taylor]

The 223 is now legal in Tn,my opinion---not enough bullet.I would not use it,if something else was available.A friend told me story a few years ago,he shot a enemy soldier 17X,took him 1 1/2 hours to time,(he timed him).

[MT Gianni]

A close friend started all his kids on deer with the 223. 55 gr minimum with 60 gr preferred he had a back up gun and restricted them to under 200 yards and rib shots. The family was dissapointed when the legislature limited them to 7 tags each. It worked for them.

[GabbyM]

Speer 70 grain semi spitzer is a good solid bullet for 223.
That bullet from a 223 would perform better on deer than the varmint bullets so many use in 243.

[DCM]

Can he put a bullet in the cigarette pack size brain 100% of the time?
Can he put it through the spine 110% of the time?
If the honest answer is no then I would never use this on Deer.
The folks I know that do use the cartridge on Deer do it in very controlled "hunts" at very short ranges over bait and those are the only shots they take 100% of the time.
They get payed to do it 100% right 100% of the time as quietly and humanely as possible.
Deer running off to die in someones backyard is not an option which is why they only take those perfect shots.

Those same folks would not consider using that cartridge during any of their real hunts ever period.

EDIT: The only reason they are using the 223 in these areas is because they are required to use nothing larger than 22 cal.
Sad actually as there are better quiet choices too, but those are the rules.

[Ed Barrett]

Last year during the youth hunt here in Missouri a little 12 year girl used a .223 to take two does. She weighs about 70 pounds soaking wet. She used my CZ and hunted with her uncle on my place. One with a neck shot and one with a heart/lung shot. Both were at about 125 yards from a blind. It was an excellent choice for her, I use a .454 lever with 400 grain cast bullets which sure wouldn't suit her at all.

[longhorn]

I've decided a fast-twist, long-barreled 22-250 with premium bullets would probably be be the ideal Texas whitetail rifle. A .223 with premium bullets? Sure, all day long-but I'd try to limit the shots to 200 yards or so. A big panhandle muley or well fed Midwestern buck? Then I'd like more bullet weight. My observation has been that Texas whitetails are more lightly muscled and constructed than the average hunter! In this era I believe bullet construction is more important than caliber.

[firefly1957]

I will vote no on the 223 as a deer round. As stated over and over above it can do it i just think it is to light for any but perfect shots and then there are branches and brush.

[Phoenix]

I will vote no on the 223 as a deer round. As stated over and over above it can do it i just think it is to light for any but perfect shots and then there are branches and brush.
What is this branches and brush you speak of? Never seen any of those round here...

[bearcove]

22lr will do the job. But...

[MtGun44]

It's not the arrow, it's the Indian.

With the right bullet and placement, it will work, but not my first choice.

Bill

[David2011]

It'll work but not the best choice. A .223 is even adequate for hogs if you can place every round in the ear. If not, ya need more gun. Not trying to hijack, but New Year's Day this year I shot a hog in the head with an AR in .223. Sure, they're tougher than deer but the shot caught her right behind the ear and blew the back of her head out but she didn't die from that shot. It was an ugly lesson in "use enough gun" when she charged my buddy and me when we approached what we thought was a dead hog.

From now on I'll use something bigger when hunting anything larger than a coyote.

David

[Blacksmith]

Any caliber will do the job in the hands of a true marksman, one who worries if it is a ten or the X-ring. No caliber will do the job for someone who thinks hitting somewhere on a steel plate most of the time is good shooting.

A true hunter knows not only which above category he is in but also knows woodcraft to get in position, ethics of when to pass up a poor shot, anatomy for effective shot placement, and experience to avoid "Buck Fever".

So Waksupi where does your friend rank in this list.

[waksupi]

I've not stated my opinion in this thread, so as not to appear to have tainted the answers. I'm sending him a link.

[runfiverun]

over on another forum there is a thread that's been going on for a few months now about this same thing.
it seems the further south and the closer to a feeder you get, the more a 22 cal is used.
i'm still not convinced a 257 roberts is a good deer round.

[429421Cowboy]

over on another forum there is a thread that's been going on for a few months now about this same thing.
it seems the further south and the closer to a feeder you get, the more a 22 cal is used.
i'm still not convinced a 257 roberts is a good deer round.

Both my uncles shoot a .257, and they place their shots well and generally don't have to go looking, but i really do prefer something with a better margin for error, as i said in my first post in this thread, i and not sold on the .243 as a deer round, especially for someone like a kid that may make a poor shot out of buck fever or stress.

7mm/08, 7x57, .270 are all my favorites for deer guns and just about anybody can shoot one. Miss K weighs 100 lbs and shoots a .270, three Nosler Partitons accounted for a bull elk, antlerless elk and buck whitetail last season, if she can shoot enough gun, so can anybody!

[Flinchrock]

It's not the arrow, it's the Indian.

With the right bullet and placement, it will work, but not my first choice.

Bill

+1
But I usually take my .308

[KCSO]

Will it kill a deer, yes if the bullet is in just the right place. Is it a DEER round, well I would prefer a 32-40 with a cast lead slug at 1350 fps before i would grab a 223. I have killed deer with everything from a 22 lr and a 40 roound ball to a 75 caliber round ball and although a 223 will work just fine for a carefull hunter who chooses his shots I would not recommend it for general use. BTW I don't think much of it as a military round either.

[cbrick]

BTW I don't think much of it as a military round either.

I went in the Marines in 68 and training & qualifying was all with the M-14, then they told us in Nam they would give us a nice 22. Huh? Say what? :roll:

Rick

[Blacksmith]

A deer and a human are similar size. If you were going to be in a gunfight with another human and could pick the caliber of the one gun you could use from several identical except for caliber guns which would you pick? A .223, .243, .270, .308, or .30-06.

[Bad Water Bill]

A deer and a human are similar size. If you were going to be in a gunfight with another human and could pick the caliber of the one gun you could use from several identical except for caliber guns which would you pick? A .223, .243, .270, .308, or .30-06.

Who makes a NON printing holster for my Garand?:mrgreen:

[Chihuahua Floyd]

I won't use it. It's bout being sure, not about using the minimum possible.
I beleive the quote is "Never use a gun that will work when everything goes right, use a gun that will work when everything goes wrong."
CF

[savingprivateyang]

Like it's been stated time and time again, it will do the job, but isn't ideal. When I was stationed in Alaska, I heard many stories about the natives taking elk and moose with Ruger Mini 14's and AR 15's in 5.56/.223. I personally would use it with confidence if it was all I had, but do prefer a larger bullet/boolit. I do handload all my hunting ammo though.

[MtGun44]

Combat and hunting are not at all similar. In a combat situation, I would want low recoil
and high round count in the mag. These are far less important when hunting.

Apples and oranges.

Bill

[David2011]

Who makes a NON printing holster for my Garand?:mrgreen:

Kinda what I was thinking when I read Blacksmith's post. If I had the time to make such a decision, if I HAD to make a decision to shoot defensively, I decided years ago that the Garand would be first choice. Fewer rounds than the AR but no questions about efficacy.

David

[GabbyM]

Good point MtGun44.
Another apples to oranges is comparing what a 55 grain varmint bullet does compared to the Speer 70 gr SP. Not sure what twist rate is required. I shoot them out of my 1:9” and that’s plenty. Another decent 22 bullet is the Sierra 65 SBT Game-King. The Sierra frags a little and really blows up a coyote. Speers bullet has been around a couple decades at least. Will still weigh 60 grains when it comes to a stop or goes out the far side.

To you all who think you have to shoot hogs in the ear with a 223 to kill them. Look up the you tube videos of guys shooting hogs from helicopters with AR’s.

My 223 Rem Prairie Dog loads with 50 grain Blitz-Kings will flatten out on a dogs hide even before they penetrate. Great effect on picket pins but those who’ve tried the BK bullets on coyote have been disappointed. On a deer results would be tragic. Use the correct bullet in a 223 and deer will go down about the same as they do to a 243 Win. Just not as far a range. That’s just common sense there.

Few years back I was shopping for 6mm bullets for my 243’s. Reading the reviews on Midway USA was a bit shocking. Number of people using extremely frangible 6mm varmint bullets to kill deer. All just praised them. Guess most people don’t like telling horror stories. My daughter shot an Antelope in WY last fall with a Hornady 140gr SST from a 270 win. Blew an entire front quarter out on the exit side from 150 yards. They don’t call them “super shock tips” for nothing. Guess that was enough gun.

[captaint]

Guess I'll throw in here. I'm a big fan of exit wounds. Makes tracking, if necessary WAY easier. An old professional gunsmith friend tried using a 6MM Rem for a few years. He was older and enjoyed the reduced recoil. Due to lack of exit wounds with the 6MM, he went back to his old
300 Savage. Any questions ??? enjoy Mike

[762sultan]

Back in the middle 70's I bought a used 760 Remington in 223 from an old timer that had used it for deer. I asked him why such a light caliber for deer and he said he could no longer handle the recoil of his regular deer rifle. Then I asked how did it do and he replied that he had shot a lot of them but had never got one. He should not have been hunting. At his age he could not shoot well enough to make a humane kill. His hunting buddies took him aside and explained how unethical it was to not be able to dispatch a deer quickly. He did the right thing and sold all of his guns. That is not to say that a good marksman who placed his shots well would have this problem. This all took place in the middle 60's and the ammo available at that time was not really made for big game. Today's hunters have a better selection of bullets to choose from.

[shdwlkr]

A deer and a human are similar size. If you were going to be in a gunfight with another human and could pick the caliber of the one gun you could use from several identical except for caliber guns which would you pick? A .223, .243, .270, .308, or .30-06.

If it is me then I want a 375 winchester, 38-55 or a 45-70 and yes all would have heavy bullets I like the way the say down and stay there. Now for bullet choices in the 375 and 38-55 300-350 grains is about right and then in the 45-70 350, 425, 450 grains seems about right.
I like big heavy bullets

[Area Man]

Like others have said I would consider it the minimum. Buddy of mine has done it several times.

[DLCTEX]

My son and DIL have taken more than 100 deer in the past few years with 223, most with Barnes 68 gr.(I think) bullets. None were lost or went very far. Black rifle shooter killed 6 does in one stand this year with one shot per doe. The only wounded deer we have had in the recent years were shot by people using much larger calibers. We had one in which another son shot a buck with 300 Win. Mag in the shoulder and had the bullet (Rem soft point) blow up and we found it the next day and dispatched it after a chase with a dog. By this evidence large calibers are inadequate for deer, but small calibers are good.

[gew98]

When I was a wee little lad there were almost zero 223 cal rifles around for hunters to use. The 222 .218,219, 221 , 220 , 22-250 , 22HP , 22 mag , 22 rimfire were the choices of the poachers back then. And they as far as I knew never missed bringing home the 'bacon' quietly and cleanly.... they were all about the meat. Before I went in the Army I got my first AR15 and joined a couple of these old fellows... yessir the little pill will do the job with all the prerequisites as already noted.
MOST hunters are not skilled enough to stalk and or get the best shot for the bullet they use. I see more guys out in the woods these days with 'death ray magnoomz'.... amazing overkill methinks using such to make up for lesser skill foremost.

[Blacksmith]

Combat and hunting are not at all similar. In a combat situation, I would want low recoil
and high round count in the mag. These are far less important when hunting.

Apples and oranges.

Bill

I said the rifles were the same. Same capacity, same action, etc. Apples to apples except for cartridge.

[MT Gianni]

A friends father, now long gone, had two Elk rifles. One was a genuine 333 OKH and the other a 222 Remington. The man was a Veterinary Dr. and absolutely knew anatomy and shot placement.

[snuffy]

Good point MtGun44.
Another apples to oranges is comparing what a 55 grain varmint bullet does compared to the Speer 70 gr SP. Not sure what twist rate is required. I shoot them out of my 1:9” and that’s plenty. Another decent 22 bullet is the Sierra 65 SBT Game-King. The Sierra frags a little and really blows up a coyote. Speers bullet has been around a couple decades at least. Will still weigh 60 grains when it comes to a stop or goes out the far side.

Nope, not the 70 grain speer "varmint" bullet.Here's one tested in the "bullet test tube" alluded to in the NRA article that led this discussion;

http://photos.imageevent.com/jptowns/general/websize/expansion%20test%20num2%20009.jpg

http://photos.imageevent.com/jptowns/general/websize/expansion%20test%20num2%20012.jpg

http://photos.imageevent.com/jptowns/general/websize/expansion%20test%20num2%20011.jpg

The limited penetration, the weight loss, made the 70 G. speer a bad choice.

I tested 5 different .223 bullets supposedly meant for deer hunting with the little .223. All in that heavy wax test media.

Here's the Barnes 62 g. TSX BT;

http://photos.imageevent.com/jptowns/general/websize/expansion%20test%20num2%20022.jpg

http://photos.imageevent.com/jptowns/general/websize/expansion%20test%20num2%20023.jpg

http://photos.imageevent.com/jptowns/general/websize/expansion%20test%20num2%20025.jpg

I put a tube stuffed with rags on the end of the test tube to catch any bullets that completely penetrate the test medium. The Barnes was caught in it AFTER it went through 6 layers of old denim!

The next best,(the best was the Barnes), was the 64 G. winchester power point:

Pic of wound channel is washed out, and I did not weigh the bullet, but it penetrated 7" and expanded to .403.

I tried the Nosler 60 partition, while it expanded as they always do, the front bit of lead from the front compartment was almost gone. That resulted in a very dirty wound channel, lots of lead shards. But it penetrated the entire test tube, 8" and came to rest in the rags.

http://photos.imageevent.com/jptowns/bullets/websize/expansion%20test%20002.jpg

http://photos.imageevent.com/jptowns/bullets/websize/expansion%20test%20003.jpg

I also tested the 60 G. Hornady spire, it failed, only penetrated 5" and lost 50% of it's weight.

Another bullet, the 70 G. Berger VLD, also a very dirty bullet, came completely apart, but penetrated the entire test tube to be caught in the rags. 55.3 retained weight.

all in all, I would hunt with my AR 20" used in the above tests. I DO have better suited rifles, and have accounted for many deer with them.

Right now, I would hunt with my handloads with that 62 Barnes without worry of the final outcome. Even on an not perfect broadside shot.

These discussions usually end up 50-50, those that would absodamntively NOT hunt with one, to those that will/would/have used them.

[Silvercreek Farmer]

I consider the .223 to be the bare minimum. Use good bullets, keep it under 150 yards, and don't try busting through the shoulders. That being said, factory rounds with premium bullets can be hard to come by, especially nowadays.

[Adam10mm]

I've used the .223 on deer. Everyone of them I shot died from that single gunshot and fell for good within 100y of being hit. None of my shots exceeded 100 yards.

Like anything, use the proper bullet and place your shot properly. Then get out your knife. A 40gr JHP varmint bullet is the wrong bullet. Controlled expansion is the key. Most of my deer kills have been with the Winchester 64gr Power Point soft point.

I really get a kick out of people that cite minimums of cartridge, bullet diameter, kinetic energy, etc but fail to realize thousands of game were killed ethically with muzzleloaders generating far lesser numbers than their standards. A roundball from a smoothbore musket at ~600fps wasn't enough to kill deer so that our settlers could survive to procreate? Spare me the nonsense.

[MtGun44]

Snuffy,

That Barnes looks pretty darned good, and the Win PPt (recommended by several folks that have used
it) looks like it is right in there.

Bill

[pipehand]

Bought a bulk of Winchester 64 grain Power Point bullets a while back for about what 55 grain FMJ's were going for. Thinking being that I wouldn't want to use a defensive rifle round that I wouldn't feel comfortable using on deer. My AR's are all 1-9" twist or faster, and while the Sierra 69 grain Matchking is more accurate than the Power Points, I'm giving the edge in effectiveness to the softpoint bullet designed to expand. Haven't taken a deer with the AR, or any other game animal for that matter, but I feel pretty confident that Bambi would get to go to Freezer Camp if I put one of those 64 grainers through his ribs.

State regs that require a certain number of "foot pounds" of energy for a cartridge to be legal must be put forth by a bunch of doofuses. The 223 with 55 grain bullets makes a whole lot more numbers in energy, but I'd feel a lot more confident with a heavy, wide meplat cast boolit fired from a 45 Colt. At least I'd be confident of an exit hole.

[Boerrancher]

Yes the 55 grain bullet will kill a person but so will a rock so does that mean we should all start hunting with rocks?

I personally take offense to this. I have killed many deer with rocks over the years. The last one was a very nice nine point buck. I have done more less damage with 300 win mags on deer than with a rock. As far as sheer destructive power a rock is far more effective than steel.

Now on to the the original question: The 223 is not my first choice for a deer rifle, but I would not feel handicapped using one, even with a 55gr BTSP. I have seen lots of kids kill some nice deer with 223s in the past and I am sure they will continue to do so.

Best wishes,

Joe

[KinkBreaker]

i have carried a mini 14 deer hunting before (around 13 years ago) and in complete confidence, your friend should just use the 223 issue as an excuse to buy another rifle though

[shdwlkr]

Ok so if I were to have only one rifle and it is a 5.56mm/223 and I am using a 62 grain or heavier bullet I might see where this could be an effective deer rifle. But I like big holes so tend towards larger calibers.
I like the 257 rob with 100 grain bullet, 264 with 140 grain bullet, 270 with 140-160 grain bullet, 30-30/30-06 with 150 grain bullet, 375 winchester with 300/350 grain bullet, 45-70 with 350-460 grain bullet. I am more interested in the amount of kinetic energy then caliber or even fps the bullet gets there with.
I am just beginning to look at heavier than normal .224 bullets so just maybe if you keep it inside of 175 yards or less and put it in the right place it is a good deer rifle but like I have said I like big holes.
Joe the hunting to rocks statement is one of first assault weapons used next was the bow and arrow and spear(some of my ancestors used these) and they did kill a lot of animals but also wounded a lot until the people using them learned where to put them. I would like to hear how you killed that deer with a rock must be an interesting story and just how big a rock did you use and how close did you have to be to effective. I am interested as at my age I don't think I can throw a good sized rock far enough and with enough energy for a deer to even know that I hit them. Its and age think something else we have to look at when hunting with anything. One day I will have to have something that doesn't kick me so hard and the 5.56mm/223 just might be the rifle of choice. So I am reading this thread with interest.

[Boerrancher]

Joe the hunting to rocks statement is one of first assault weapons used next was the bow and arrow and spear(some of my ancestors used these) and they did kill a lot of animals but also wounded a lot until the people using them learned where to put them. I would like to hear how you killed that deer with a rock must be an interesting story and just how big a rock did you use and how close did you have to be to effective. I am interested as at my age I don't think I can throw a good sized rock far enough and with enough energy for a deer to even know that I hit them.

Well to tell the 100% truth my rocks that I have been using successfully since I was a kid have been chipped down to form a nice point and razor sharp edges, and flung from hand made bows. The first bow I ever used was a hickory bow of around a 35 lb draw weight. As I got older the draw weight increased to around 70 lbs and then I finally settled on 55 lbs. I usually rifle hunt like a bow hunt. On the ground and up close and personal. More often than not I get blood splatter on me when I pull the trigger. That is not to say that haven't made some very long distance shots with a rifle the longest being a 790+ yard shot according to the laser range finder, but that is not hunting that is just shooting. Hunting is when you can hear the animal breathing when you choose to end it's life or let it live. Anything else is just shooting. If you are truly hunting a rock and a stick works perfectly. Hence the reason I wouldn't feel handicapped with a 223, but prefer 24 and 30 cals for my up close and personal work, just like I prefer a stone broad head an inch wide and an inch and a half long. Larger holes let out more blood, and that is the one fact that can not be denied.

Best wishes,

Joe

[snuffy]

Snuffy,

That Barnes looks pretty darned good, and the Win PPt (recommended by several folks that have used
it) looks like it is right in there.

Bill

Bill, I tend to agree the 64 PP is a good one. Freak, that's some field tested confirmation!

I found a couple of pics that somehow went missing of the 64 G. power point winchester;

http://photos.imageevent.com/jptowns/general/websize/expansion%20test%20num2%20018.jpg

http://photos.imageevent.com/jptowns/general/websize/expansion%20test%20num2%20017.jpg

http://photos.imageevent.com/jptowns/general/websize/expansion%20test%20num2%20014.jpg

Also, I found the expanded bullet, and weighed it. 55.2 grains. For an inexpensive bullet to do what it did, why buy a premium bullet!? Over 8" of penetration, means two holes in a broadside lung hit, or at least one hole in a shoulder hit with enough drive to get to the boiler room.

I wanted to test the 65 grain Sierra game king,,, BUT nobody had any in stock. It seems they don't make many and don't set-up but once a year for a run. I put them on my wish list @ midway, when they got some in 6 months later, I got a box.

I also discovered that Hornady has come out with their excellent GMX in .223!:) A flat based 55 grain solid guilding metal bullet. It SHOULD work as good as, maybe better than the Barnes. If I can find some, I WILL test them, along with the Sierra game-king.

http://www.hornady.com/store/22-Cal-.224-55-GR-GMX/

[429421Cowboy]

Snuffy, that is some very nice, professional quality info you are sharing, I love seeing this stuff on here, that helps us really see what actually happens! Thank you for sharing.

P.S.
That is impressive with the little PP, not a round i would have guessed to do that well. The .223 is one place I could see myself going with the Barnes, I generally am not a fan of all copper but I would want the penetration from a solid.

[snuffy]

Snuffy, that is some very nice, professional quality info you are sharing, I love seeing this stuff on here, that helps us really see what actually happens! Thank you for sharing.

P.S.
That is impressive with the little PP, not a round i would have guessed to do that well. The .223 is one place I could see myself going with the Barnes, I generally am not a fan of all copper but I would want the penetration from a solid.

Thanks!:) I sometimes wonder if it's worth the effort. I guess you could say I'm just curious. Or, I want to try to prove something. It keeps me interested.

One test of one bullet is certainly not comprehensive, it proved ONLY that one worked. The next one may separate core from jacket.

Problem is; it takes at least 6 hours to re-cast those test tubes. The waxy medium has to be melted at low heat, and re-cast at barely liquid temp to prevent shrinking.

http://www.thebullettesttube.com/

Their website is still up, but they don't answer emails, and the phone is disconnected. So I don't know if they're still in business, or shut down. I got the tubes I have from Brownells, but I don't know if they have any left. I have enough material to do 5 of the big tubes or maybe ten of the smaller handgun tubes. They used to sell the empty tubes for re-casting the medium, but again no contact from repeated emails. So I found a supplier of mailer tubes, uline.

[ErikO]

While many deer in Missouri have been taken with .223, I'll be building a 300BLK upper. :D

[NSP64]

I have killed deer with 250gr projectiles going 300fps. A 90 gr bullet @ 2500fps ought to work.
Just like with real estate.
Location, Location, Location.

[mpmarty]

223 is suitable for killing small deer and small people slowly but effectively. The 223 is after all nothing more than a pipsqueak load made for mouse guns.

[Adam10mm]

Perpetuating more nonsense.

[kavemankel]

.223 for killing deer sized animals is relative to the size of the deer in question. I have and would use a .223 to down deer anyday. Have done it and have put down 250 and 300 lb wild hogs with one shot out of a .223 and no movement. Argument for its ability to down an animal would better be summed up as many have said on this post already, it can and will but its ability to do it cleanly is dependant upon the shooters ability to place it properly. If the shooter lacks skill then the better option would be larger bore.
I too like up close and personal stalking rather than supermarket hunting in a blind over a feeded area.

[dakotashooter2]

Well to tell the 100% truth my rocks that I have been using successfully since I was a kid have been chipped down to form a nice point and razor sharp edges, and flung from hand made bows. The first bow I ever used was a hickory bow of around a 35 lb draw weight. As I got older the draw weight increased to around 70 lbs and then I finally settled on 55 lbs. I usually rifle hunt like a bow hunt. On the ground and up close and personal. More often than not I get blood splatter on me when I pull the trigger. That is not to say that haven't made some very long distance shots with a rifle the longest being a 790+ yard shot according to the laser range finder, but that is not hunting that is just shooting. Hunting is when you can hear the animal breathing when you choose to end it's life or let it live. Anything else is just shooting. If you are truly hunting a rock and a stick works perfectly. Hence the reason I wouldn't feel handicapped with a 223, but prefer 24 and 30 cals for my up close and personal work, just like I prefer a stone broad head an inch wide and an inch and a half long. Larger holes let out more blood, and that is the one fact that can not be denied.


Best wishes,

Joe


This somewhat goes to the point. For a person with the skills need to get close to and to track game there is nothing wrong with the 223. The problem is few and fewer hunters are bothering to obtain these skills. Modern hunters seem very impatient. When they see a deer they want the ability to kill it right then and there whether it is 20 yards away or 500. Hence Mangnumitis........... Even when I have the opportunity I rarely will shoot at deer that are further than 50 yards out. I always try to get as close as possible first.That is part of the hunt to me. One can also take into account the deer you are planning to shoot. Shooting a 300 lb Canadian buck is going to be different than shooting a 115 lb texas buck................

It should be noted that the .222 and 22-250 were very popular with the eskimos for many years for shooting everything from seals to polar bears..................

[snuffy]

Here's one bullet I mentioned in my original post , but didn't show these pics. The 60 grain Hornady spire point. It's a classic example why the .223 is considered too light for deer hunting;

http://photos.imageevent.com/jptowns/general/websize/expansion%20test%20num2%20002.jpg

http://photos.imageevent.com/jptowns/general/websize/expansion%20test%20num2%20006.jpg

http://photos.imageevent.com/jptowns/general/websize/expansion%20test%20num2%20007.jpg

In my experience, with the limited penetration, weight retention, and excessive expansion, this bullet would NOT get through a shoulder. It would most likely not get into the boiler room, certainly NOT provide complete penetration for 2 holes for tracking.

Okay I know the shoulder is NOT the place to aim. not even with "enough gun". But joe smuck with his AR is not concerned about bullet performance. Mostly he's concerned about price!.

He goes hunting, shoots a deer, is certain he hit it, but couldn't find it. So the .223 AR is not considered "enough gun". It gets a bad rap, not deserved, but still the myth survives.

Then we get back to the young shooter that's handed a mini 14, or a single shot .223. Little or no training and no experience, with a minimal cartridge could turn a young hunter off real quick. Then dad or uncle Jim,(me), doesn't buy the right ammo.