What is the minimum rifle you would use?

[A_Gamehog]

I have a friend who states, "people on the east Coast hunt deer with AR-15's"

we argue back and forth. I think the .223 is too small for deer and I had a

friend who shot a 22-250 and wounded many only to cripple nice sized bucks.

I feel it is not ethical to hunt with a .223 on any deer. The 243 is as low as

anyone should go. I know a head shot would kill any animal but some states

say the .22 cal guns are too small also.

What is the minimum rifle you would use?

[fisherman66]

Depends on the hunter and his/her shot selection. I wouldn't recommend a new hunter try a broadside shot with a .223 and many states have restrictions in place to prevent wounding. That said, I know several hunters who use a .223 and do it successfully. They are excellent shots and use neck shots exclusively.

I'd prefer to have a .25 caliber or bigger.

[rodwhaincamo]

I live in Texas and usually hunt in the Hill Country where the deer aren't much more than 120 lbs on the hoof. It is legal to hunt with any centerfire .22 caliber. I usually use a 270 Win, and know of people that use 222 and 223 Rem on the lease I'm invited to. I personally feel .243 should be the minimum as I've heard that it has taken as many as 5 shots to down a small deer. Some have been taken with 1. Don't know about their shot placement or skill level, and I suppose that's for each to figure out (appropriate caliber to skill level). I won't get into a debate with these people, though I may poke a little fun. I personally go for neck shots (so many deer here that I can pick and choose - could fill my limit in a weekend if I wanted to clean that many) and a 22 caliber may be sufficient, but as I stated, I feel something in the .243 or greater ought to be used.

[davlandrum]

I am with you, the minimum I would use is .243.

And I know there are plenty of people who successfully use smaller. The problem comes because the regs can not force ethics. If a 22-250 is legal, the regs can't differentiate between the guy who practices a lot and will only take the right shot from the guy who walked into the store and bought one at the same time he bought his ammo, license and tags the night before the season.

It does not help that Oregon does not require Hunter Ed if you are over 18, so you can have first-timers who have nothing to base their choices on.

[GeauxTide]

260 Remington for me.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Depends on the skill level of the hunter. Here in GA, any .22 caliber center-fire or larger cartridge is legal for whitetail. I shoot an AR-15, but don't hunt with it because I have other rifles more suitable for the task. If I only had a .223, I would hunt with that and restrict myself to shots reasonably certain to produce a humane kill.

Someone with hunting experience, ethics and good aim isn't a problem with a smaller caliber. It's the folks who give new shooters/hunters small caliber rifles because they "kick less" that cause a lot of unnecessary suffering for animals every year. Combining inexperience with bullet placement on the animal, a merely "adequate" caliber and poor marksmanship is a bad recipe.

(or "what davlandrum said")

[fisherman66]

Combining inexperience with bullet placement on the animal, a merely "adequate" caliber and poor marksmanship is a bad recipe.

Add poor bullet selection to the list too.

[mikejonestkd]

My personal minimum is a .243 with 95 or 100 gr bullets, even then I am careful about taking only broadside shots through both lungs.

[Bigfatts]

.30-06 is the smallest I currently hunt with because that's the smallest caliber I own that is viable for deer/hog. Where I hunt you are more likely to run across a nice hog than a shootable deer so .30 cal is a nice choice. If I were to go any smaller I would use 6.5x55. That's as low as I would go. Sure, I know a guy who regularly takes deer/hog with a .22-250 and I know I am a good enough shot to do it as well, I just don't think its ethical. If what I'm shooting at flinches or I don't have quite as good a shot as I thought I did I don't want to take a chance on crippling an animal. That's not fair to the animal. You can kill an Elephant with a .303 Brit, been done plenty of times. That doesn't mean its appropriate.

[taylorce1]

Really I don't feel the .22 caliber center fire rifle is too small if the proper bullet is selected and used within the limitations of that caliber and if it is legal in the State you hunt. I feel that at a minimum a Premium bullet such as Barnes TSX or Nosler Partition should be used and shots from should be kept to short ranges. Using these bullets I feel that there is enough energy to make a .223 a 100-150 yard rifle and the .22-250 a capable 200 yard rifle on deer. They are not ideal calibers that is for sure and I even prefer somthing larger to hunt with, but they will do the job as long as the hunter does theirs.

[rantingredneck]

I have never hunted with a .223. .243 is the minimum I have used thus far. That being said, I wouldn't hesitate to use a .223 within it's limitations and with a proper bullet.

Here in NC .22LR is a legal caliber for deer..........Not saying I'd do it, but there are people who do and are not breaking any laws.

[PRONE2]

My wife and I both use 223 Winchester 64gr PP for deer up to 150 yds with NO problem. However we shoot about 400 rounds per month each so we know our limitations, and we take almost all neck shots. For 150yds and out I use the 308.

[awaveritt]

+1 to Taylorce1. Bullet selection can make the .223 viable on deer.

[sc928porsche]

Nothing less than .25 caliber for me

[greensteelforge]

If your goal is an ethical, clean kill, you would be well served to use as large diameter a bullet as you can handle that will perform well at the ranges you intend to shoot. The factor that makes a bullet effective in "dropping" an animal, is the transfer of kinetic energy from the bullet, to the tissues and organs of an animal. Allot of people tend to think that if a bullet leave a massive wound channel, shattered bones, and a gaping exit wound, that it will effectively drop the critter. I've seen some wounds in whitetails from 7mm magnums that look for all the world like "lights out", but the deer made it several hundred yards before lying down. Small bullets rely on speed and fragmentation to transfer energy, and do so in a very concentrated area (hence the shredded wound channel). This is most definitely lethal, but not reliably quick. I consider .30 caliber to be a good minimum for ethical deer hunting, and have only used an AR once when I was younger, dumber, and more prone to listening to people who make hitting the spine and jugular vein of a living, moving animal sound easy, and reliable. I also advocate using round nose bullets for any hunting under 400 yards, since they tend to hit like a truck, and leave a very clean, humane kill. I now use a .375 H&H (I know some of you will get a hoot out of that), which does less tissue damage than any other rifle I, or anyone I hunt with have ever used. My brother shot a deer with it two years ago, and you could visibly observe the body cavity expand when the bullet struck, and the animal fell where it stood, and was expired by the time we reached it. This round leaves any un-struck organs intact, but tenderized, and mushy feeling (like everything inside the cavity got mashed with a bat. I don't suggest that this is the only, or best type of weapon to use, but it fits my purpose very well. I do not go out looking for a challenge in killing any game, I make sure I have enough gun, and I pass on questionable shots. I do think that unless you live in a part of the country where the deer don't get much above a hundred pounds on the large side, the small caliber rifle game has more to do with treating the hunt as some sort of game, where making something more difficult than it needs to be gets you extra points.

[Daryl]

It depends on the hunter/shooter and his or her abilities.

Lots of people hunt deer with a .223 without any trouble. Good shot placement results in a dead deer as long as the range doesn't get too long.

I prefer a .243 as my minimum; not because the .223 won't work, but because the .243 offers more distance for making an effective and efficient kill.

Your buddy that keeps wounding deer needs to learn the abilities of his rifle, cartridge, and load as well as his own abilities.

Some won't admit their own inabilities, and blame it on their gun, but it's the shooter that's responsible for the failure by failing to recognize the limitations of their own inabilities and those of their firearm/weapon of choice.

Daryl

[PRONE2]

Well said Daryl, hit the nail!

[Osageshooter]

I would agree with the 243 minimum sentiment; however, I have seen two deer hit with a 243 that took a long time to find due to poor tissue damage. These were both with 100 grain factory.

For not much more recoil, the 260 and 7-08 do an outstanding job. I don't have experience with the 257 Roberts, but it seems to have a good reputation.

[Buzzcook]

.24 caliber is the legal minimum here and I'm fine with that.

If the deer are very small and the hunter is skilled enough I don't see why a smaller caliber wouldn't work. But what happens when that hunter runs into bambizilla?

[koolminx]

I too am a 30 caliber guy for taking deer and elk, but to be honest, ANY caliber will take a deer if proper shot placement and optimal environment are achieved when the shot it taken...

But to be fully honest and justifiably so, those conditions rarely exist in the woods and mountains and plains. So the safest route is, bigger is better, but go with what you're comfortable with.

If improperly hit a 460 WBY Mag will only wound a deer...{it's unlikely with that kind of massive energy, but it's possible all the same}

So bigger and better is only relative to the shot's potential. But it's far safer to go larger than to stick with those 22-250's, .17's, 222's and 223's...

I prefer a 150 Grain slug or larger, regardless of caliber for taking deer.

[Noonan]

Read here for more info:

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...d.php?t=329141

[jmr40]

A 223 with softpoint ammo will kill any deer in Georgia. I don't use one because where I hunt there is the possibility of bear or hogs. Not my 1st choice either, but I've seen too many dead deer to argue with someone. In other places where deer may be larger I would agree that a 243 is about minimum.

[FrankenMauser]

Talking about the typical White Tail... I would prefer .243 Win, or larger.

However, I spent a few years in Florida. The Florida Coastal White Tail, native to the panhandle, produced 'big' bucks smaller many dog breeds. Not only was it a legal weapon, but I wouldn't have hesitated to use my .380 Auto to harvest an animal.

In Utah, any centerfire rifle cartridge is legal. You could technically use .10 Squirrel Popper; as long as it was fired from a rifle. (Think of a centerfire .22 Short, necked down to .10 caliber.) Most hunters chose to go with .308, .30-06, .270 Win, or various 7mms; since mule deer can be fairly tough.

Edit: I forgot to add... For the Florida Coastal White Tail, a .243 Win would be too much gun, in my opinion. I would actually prefer the .223 or a slow moving projectile from a larger bore; say, .38 Special, .45 Colt, low power .35 Rem, or .44 Special.

[Crankylove]

So if you think .223 is too small, I take it ya probably don't want to hear about the .22 Hornet I take elk hunting?

[Swampghost]

I feel that the .223/5.56 round is adequate in the 200-300 yd. range for OUR deer which tend to be small and shot at much closer ranges.

The 5.65 round was developed to take out a man (about the same size as your average deer) @ 200 yds. during a firefight where accuracy is secondary.

It kinda ticks me off that one of the leases that I hunt just made the.243 a min. when I've killed plenty of deer/hogs with a .22LR.

I guess that you have to take it up for the newbies and morons.