22 cal for deer

[Curly]

Wow, new thread for a topic that had 2 threads going just a couple weeks back. 

Wyoming's law seems adequate to me for allowing .224" bullets. I think they  set a min grain weight of 60. 

I don't really care though if the state changes the law. Seems like too much opposition to the change so I sure won't worry about it.  Although it did seem like lighted knocks would never be allowed, so I suppose anything is possible.

[JimmyHoffa]

Right, it has a specific design to meet what was needed.  But it trades off a little of X to get a little better of Y.  I'm was just stating that rifle design has some effect on accuracy.  And when one of the main arguments for using small cal rifles is accuracy, then doesn't rifle design come into some kind of consideration?  A .22-250 of one model that is .3 MOA vs another model that is 1.3 MOA is a little different of argument than the .375 that is .3 MOA and a different one that is 3 MOA.

same argument can be made about any caliber at that point, because it's all shot placement, it don't matter the cal if you hit a hoof. should the FWL tell you what rifle brand and model you can & can't use in your bolt rifle because the MOA is different than the next rifle?

Yeah, gets tricky trying to think how WDFW would even go about trying to figure out how to approve rifles/ammo on individual basis.  Don't think anyone wants to even start going down that path.
I don't think the shot placement argument is as strong with the higher cal/higher energy.  Sure, you still have to get vitals/break bones/leave a wound channel for a bleed out; the larger cals/energy are more forgiving for a less precise shot.  A .220 Swift, a .22-250 and a .223 Rem all fire the same bullet but at differing velocity, which one is more forgiving?  A range mis-estimation or slight wind and you're not threading the needle anymore.

[jay.sharkbait]

Right, it has a specific design to meet what was needed.  But it trades off a little of X to get a little better of Y.  I'm was just stating that rifle design has some effect on accuracy.  And when one of the main arguments for using small cal rifles is accuracy, then doesn't rifle design come into some kind of consideration?  A .22-250 of one model that is .3 MOA vs another model that is 1.3 MOA is a little different of argument than the .375 that is .3 MOA and a different one that is 3 MOA.

same argument can be made about any caliber at that point, because it's all shot placement, it don't matter the cal if you hit a hoof. should the FWL tell you what rifle brand and model you can & can't use in your bolt rifle because the MOA is different than the next rifle?

Yeah, gets tricky trying to think how WDFW would even go about trying to figure out how to approve rifles/ammo on individual basis.  Don't think anyone wants to even start going down that path.
I don't think the shot placement argument is as strong with the higher cal/higher energy.  Sure, you still have to get vitals/break bones/leave a wound channel for a bleed out; the larger cals/energy are more forgiving for a less precise shot.  A .220 Swift, a .22-250 and a .223 Rem all fire the same bullet but at differing velocity, which one is more forgiving?  A range mis-estimation or slight wind and you're not threading the needle anymore.

They aren't all that different at Huntwa distances.

I think you guys are over thinking this...

[Lefthook]

I have both a .22-250 and a .223/.556 and you would think they would be pretty close and they are, but the damage from the .22-250 really seems stepped up. Maybe I feel more comfortable with the .22-250 because of the kills with it, way bigger number. But if I'm going to kill something I just feel like the .22-250 is the right rifle to grab.

Not sure if that makes sense to anybody that hasn't used both. The .22-250 is one wicked little cartridge.

I'm probably over thinking it, but it does come down to confidence also.

[theleo]

I would actually argue that to a degree.  The argument set forth by those wanting to use small caliber rifles is that "it's all about shot placement".  Much of that argument is true.  But not all rifle designs or rifles within a solid proven design are the same.  Some rifles (lever guns come to mind) have external hammers that take longer to strike after trigger pull or have separated stocks with a foregrip/magazine that attach and alter barrel harmonics.  ARs have spent a lot of time proving to be accurate enough, but one kind of wonders how much better it could be if the firing pin was spring driven like a bolt gun vs having to strike the pin with a rotating hammer.

Yeah... debating rifle design is pointless. Rifle design is and always will be an arbitrary line in-between X and Y. The lever action was the first assault rifle. Looking at the evolution of lever actions with external hammers one can see parlels in evolution to that of the AR/M16 platform, with the first lever action being the Henry with a high ammo capacity of relatively low power ammunition being the equivalent to the original M16 sent into service. Then you have newer Marlins like the 338 Express that has extended the original lever action abilities far beyond what it originally could just like many of the custom AR15's can do now compared to the early incarnations.     

The argument for the small caliber guys is that if I can use a lever action with 38 Specials how is it more effective than a .223 loaded with suitable rounds for deer?   

[Igor]

I know what I want to believe.........please don't confuse me with facts !!!

[Jimmy33]

I love the .223 with a good quality bullet for deer. I use one during the late whitetail hunt in Idaho when my shots will be close 100 yards or less) and I don't take shots that I feel I cant double lung them with. I have killed multiple whitetails with this caliber. I also feel that it is a great cartridge to get youth shooting if they start hunting at an early age. Great for teaching them not to flinch and learning how to be patient and passing up shots that aren't optimal.

[pianoman9701]

Most people wouldn't be able to make a quality shot to put the animal down in a sensible  and sportsman like way . I think it should stay at caliber rating we have now , plus let's be real some yahoo would empty his/her 20 round clip . I just see no good in it in my opinion 

I don't think it has to be all or nothing. The .24 requirement may be more than needed and a .22 may be less. It might be changed to include all centerfire cartridges. A .223 is plenty of velocity and bullet to kill a deer in its tracks.

[Lefthook]

Most people wouldn't be able to make a quality shot to put the animal down in a sensible  and sportsman like way . I think it should stay at caliber rating we have now , plus let's be real some yahoo would empty his/her 20 round clip . I just see no good in it in my opinion 

I don't think it has to be all or nothing. The .24 requirement may be more than needed and a .22 may be less. It might be changed to include all centerfire cartridges. A .223 is plenty of velocity and bullet to kill a deer in its tracks.

 

I can see both being correct in their own way.

I think where this all gets weird is like that other thread. When the pistol calibers come up, the States' argument get's a little iffy.

[Jonathan_S]

I love the .223 with a good quality bullet for deer. I use one during the late whitetail hunt in Idaho when my shots will be close 100 yards or less) and I don't take shots that I feel I cant double lung them with. I have killed multiple whitetails with this caliber. I also feel that it is a great cartridge to get youth shooting if they start hunting at an early age. Great for teaching them not to flinch and learning how to be patient and passing up shots that aren't optimal.

Wait...so real world experience? How about that 

 

[Lefthook]

I love the .223 with a good quality bullet for deer. I use one during the late whitetail hunt in Idaho when my shots will be close 100 yards or less) and I don't take shots that I feel I cant double lung them with. I have killed multiple whitetails with this caliber. I also feel that it is a great cartridge to get youth shooting if they start hunting at an early age. Great for teaching them not to flinch and learning how to be patient and passing up shots that aren't optimal.

Wait...so real world experience? How about that 

 

There is definetly a lot of real world experience, but once you go down that road you will here about all the "lost" animals also.

I wonder how many of these .22 threads pop up during a year?

[Curly]

I don't recall any threads on here about 22 cal for deer until a few on here this month.

[JimmyHoffa]

I love the .223 with a good quality bullet for deer. I use one during the late whitetail hunt in Idaho when my shots will be close 100 yards or less) and I don't take shots that I feel I cant double lung them with. I have killed multiple whitetails with this caliber. I also feel that it is a great cartridge to get youth shooting if they start hunting at an early age. Great for teaching them not to flinch and learning how to be patient and passing up shots that aren't optimal.

Wait...so real world experience? How about that 

 

There is definetly a lot of real world experience, but once you go down that road you will here about all the "lost" animals also.

I wonder how many of these .22 threads pop up during a year?

From hunting other states, the guys that seemed to do great with the small cals were shooting from fixed stands over bait/meadow or shooting an unspooked deer in the back forty.  They kill lots of deer that way with the .224 cal rifles.  But when doing a drive/still hunting and animals were moving and shooting offhand, it seemed like the small cals lost more than the guys with bigger cals--those using the .224s wounded/lost more than the .243s wounded/lost more than the 7 mags, etc.   That was my experience anyways.

[chuckster]

I did not realise it was a topic that had been brought up so much in the last couple mouths. I would not have posted this question of I knew that, however I I Think a poll would be cool on this.

[chuckster]

Let's be Americans and take a vote.