Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

smallest caliber to kill deer

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by AJACKS View Post
    I personally think everyone on here needs to read PO Ackleys Handbook for Shooters and Reloaders and what he says about the 220 Swift. While I don't have a Swift, I do use a 22-250 and I run 45 gr Barnes TSX pretty hot, (right at 4100 fps) and I promise that it doesn't matter if you hit them square in the shoulders or right behind the shoulders, they don't take a step! Square shoulders = exit holes every time. At my place, I would much rather see a hunter get out of the truck with a well worn 22-250 or 220 Swift, than a shiny new 06 or whatever magnum.
    If this guy is new to rifles, I advise him to get a 223 and burn a a** load of that cheap ammo through it, then come season, get some barnes tsx or ttsx, resight with it, and go kill some deer.
    I like you now. We are friends.

    Comment


      Here is my 2 cents, I know it doesn't matter.

      Anyone that wants to pick up a rifle and kill a deer or pig should have enough respect for the animal to learn to shoot efficiently in order to make a quick kill.

      Shoot the caliber you want, as long as it's legal, and practice with it until you are confident. Then practice a little more. Know your limits.

      The act of taking an animal's life should be taken seriously and I think we owe it to the animal to not make them suffer any longer than necessary.

      For most people, lighter calibers are more enjoyable to shoot and therefore more accurate. Although a heavier caliber can have greater penatration.

      There. I managed to dance all around the question.
      Personally I have never taken a deer with anything smaller than 25-06. My wife on the other hand has recently become very attached to my 223 and she is deadly with it.

      So, my answer to the original question would have to be &!\/÷$/.......

      Comment


        Best deer rifle is always a good way to start a bar fight.

        That said, pretty much anything will kill a deer. My grand dad swore by his 25-20. It was the only rifle he owned. My dad was the same with his .270. My uncle shot a 250-3000 and it was the only rifle he over owned. I broke the mold and have had more guns that I can even remember. Finally settled on the .270 30 or 40 years ago. They all work. But, there's always a chance of a misplaced shot, especially if your not hunting over a feeder. So I'd go with a .243 or larger just to be on the safe side. The animal deserves it. Yup, even a pig.

        I have to say, I'm not a fan of the 5.56. I pretty much got soured on it in the military. Seen too many guys take half a mag to go down. The m14's (.308) put them down with one round. I feel the same way about the 9 mm replaceing the .45. If it's such a great round, why was the .40 developed?

        Sorry for the rant.
        Last edited by EdO; 10-25-2014, 06:10 PM.

        Comment


          22-250

          Comment


            I personally love my 7 mm mag and I always will, and that's my go to just because I can hunt most anything with it. My wife and my kids shoot .243s which I also killed my first few deer with as a kid, and have never had issues. My recommendation to anyone with the scenario you said is the 30-30. Great gun for those 125 and under shots, and I know some guys are getting on out there with the better ammo these days. I do agree with the others and say the most deadly would be the one that you practice with and are the most accurate and confident with even in the smaller calibers. My biggest question has always been when this question comes up, why push the limits and see just how small you can go? I guess my belief is go a little bigger and leave no margin for error.

            Comment


              Originally posted by M16 View Post
              Let me be the first. What a worthless caliber. Too big for the small stuff and too little for the big stuff.
              Ever heard of Jack O'conner? And don't try and play the sarcasm card hand! Ever heard of... If b.s was music you'd be a brass band all by yourself!!!

              Comment


                Originally posted by EdO View Post

                I have to say, I'm not a fan of the 5.56. I pretty much got soured on it in the military. Seen too many guys take half a mag to go down. The m14's (.308) put them down with one round. I feel the same way about the 9 mm replaceing the .45. If it's such a great round, why was the .40 developed?

                Sorry for the rant.
                Remember that anything used by the military is an FMJ... so no expansion, at all.

                And .45 is the best pistol cartridge of all semi autos. Slow, heavy, big. It penetrates more than enough, and yet doesn't have excessive recoil. It's as big as a expanded 9mm prior to expansion, and hits hard.
                You sacrifice capacity for it though. And the .40 was developed so that a managed recoil 10mm could be put in a smaller framed pistol.

                Comment


                  Originally posted by FJTMEGA View Post
                  Ever heard of Jack O'conner? And don't try and play the sarcasm card hand! Ever heard of... If b.s was music you'd be a brass band all by yourself!!!
                  Two guys I've always thought highly of. Jack O'Conner and Elmer Keith. Kind of opposite sides of the spectrum. One with the smaller caliber (at that time) rifle and the other with pushing the limits of the hand gun. One we can thank for the popularity of the .270 and the other for the eventual development of the .44 Mag.

                  Comment


                    .204 to the neck works rather well.

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by EdO View Post
                      Two guys I've always thought highly of. Jack O'Conner and Elmer Keith. Kind of opposite sides of the spectrum. One with the smaller caliber (at that time) rifle and the other with pushing the limits of the hand gun. One we can thank for the popularity of the .270 and the other for the eventual development of the .44 Mag.
                      Right on! Also O'conner liked a .275 rigby but Definatly put the .270 on the map and helped it to become so popular.

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by EdO View Post
                        I feel the same way about the 9 mm replaceing the .45. If it's such a great round, why was the .40 developed?
                        To sell more ammo. Plain and simple

                        Comment


                          Anything will kill deer but for me the smallest gun I will even consider taking is a 25-06

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by EdO View Post
                            I have to say, I'm not a fan of the 5.56. I pretty much got soured on it in the military. Seen too many guys take half a mag to go down. The m14's (.308) put them down with one round. I feel the same way about the 9 mm replaceing the .45. If it's such a great round, why was the .40 developed?

                            Sorry for the rant.
                            Saw the same thing and feel the same way,

                            JC

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by Paslaw0311 View Post
                              .204 to the neck works rather well.

                              Anything to the neck works well. I'm thinking we are talking boiler room shots.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X