.223 or 22-250 for deer

[Deer hunter88]

Does anyone have any experience with the .223 and 22- 250 on deer and deer size game? Which one would be the better choice for deer at 200- 300 yards?

[Capt Rick Hiott]

22-250................................

[Mobuck]

I've killed several deer with both options and don't recommend either. Simple enough?

[taylorce1]

55 grain TSX bullets in the .223 Rem work very well on white tail out to 150 yards. That's as far out as my experience with the cartridge goes. The only issue with small bullets is lack of blood trail, so make sure to use excellent shot placement.

[Don Fischer]

Of the two, I'd take the 250-3000!

[Dranrab]

Deer Hunter88, you are all over the map with what you are considering. Everything from a 223 all the way up to a 35 Whelen.

[Wyosmith]

Both are fine with bullets that hold together. The best one for such hunting in the 22-250 is the Barnes X, and the Nosler 60 grain Partition is good in the 223 also.

If you are going to buy a new gun however, I might recommend a 243 Win or 260 Rem instead.

[deerslayer303]

Anything center fire and .24 cal and UP is my general rule of thumb. Then learn to shoot THAT rifle and shoot it often. Learn to put that bullet in the boiler room and down it will go.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[jmr40]

It depends on the barrel twist rate. Many bolt rifles in both calibers are twisted for lighter 40-55 gr varmint bullets. If the barrel is designed to shoot heavier bullets designed for big game both will work. But there are more options in 223 with barrels twisted for heavier bullets.

[T. O'Heir]

Either one will do with the right bullet. No long range shots though.
Like jmr40 says, the rifle needs the right twist too. That'd be fast twists. The 1 in 7 or 8 twists. Not many .22-250's with those twists though.
Hornady loads a 60 grain SP specifically for deer sized game in .223. No suitable bullets at all in .22-250. Even that .223 is marginal, but sighted in at 200 it drops fast past 300 and really doesn't have enough energy past 100.
Federal's .223 60 grain Vital Shok is pretty much the same.
Federal's 55 grain Fusion SP in .22-250 is better. You might get to 150 with enough energy with it. You will get to 200 with their 60 grain Nosler Partition.

[Buzzcook]

Check your state regulations. Here in WA. .24 cal is the minimum.

[dahermit]

I've killed several deer with both options and don't recommend either. Simple enough?

No. However, a report describing the wounds and if (or not) the deer were recovered would be helpful. Just not enough information to be helpful.

[HALL,AUSTIN]

No suitable loads for the 22-250? I can't imagine that's correct, assuming it throws .223 bullets.

[hagar]

I shot lots of coyotes, a couple of javelina and 2 deer with my 22/250 (24 inch 1 in 14 twist) using the 64 gr Winchester PP bullets under 38.5 grains of 4350.

That bullet performs extremely well, never had a failure with it.

[taylorce1]

Originally Posted by HALL,AUSTIN

No suitable loads for the 22-250?

That's just Mr. O'Heir providing bad information again. While it's true Hornady doesn't load anything other than Varmint bullets in .22-250 which I guessing he was talking about in that comment, other manufacturers of ammunition offer bullets suitable for taking deer in the .22-250. I haven't heard of a .22-250 yet that can't stabilize a 64 grain Nosler Bonded Performance, 64 grain Power Point, 63 grain Sierra SMP, 60 grain Nosler partition, or 55 grain TSX all of which can easily handle deer sized game.

Another thing Mr. O'Heir likes to say is that rounds drop too fast beyond a certain range. I don't know why he thinks just because a round drops it isn't suitable if the shooter knows how to compensate. Plus he likes to talk about energy, but I haven't found a bottom number where bullets bounce off deer at distances most hunters shoot.

I used to believe hunting with a .223 for deer was a horrible choice, but when you have kids who want to hunt you have to find what works for them. I tried both the .250 Savage and .243 for my daughter when she asked to go hunting at the ripe old age of eight, and she couldn't shoot either as well as her .223. So I loaded her up with 55 grain TSX Barnes Vortex ammo and took her hunting. She bagged her first white tail at 90 yards with that load perfect broadside shot bullet exited and the doe went about 25 yards. Next doe was about 50 yards and she smashed the onside shoulder and had the bullet exit about three ribs behind the offside shoulder DRT. I then took a larger Oklahoma doe at 150 yards myself with her rifle, broadside shot took out heart and lungs with no bullet recovered another 25-30 yard death run. My only complaint was there is a lack of blood trail with the .223 as it has a small entrance and small exit IME, but it easily kills deer.

The first year I took my daughter hunting I carried a rifle to back her up. However, after that first year we only took her rifle to Oklahoma just to save on space in the car. She was able to make well placed shots that left me confident in her ability to secure whatever she was aiming at. We used her little .223 until she was able to work into something bigger, she has almost exclusively switched to the .300 Savage shooting 125 grain NBT for deer or pronghorn and 130 grain TTSX for elk. I don't think she would enjoy hunting if I had forced her to use something she wasn't ready for.

I don't know what experience level the OP has hunting deer or anything else for that matter, but judging by the questions he's asking in several different threads I'm betting he's either young or just starting out hunting. He's from Mississippi and I can't imagine the deer being much bigger than the pronghorn I hunt in Colorado. I'm guessing they compare in size to the deer I saw in Georgia when I was at Ft Benning where a 130 pound deer is a large one.

[xandi]

5.56X49 all they way.
Ammo is cheap and every where, 22-250 not so much

[Scorch]

5.56X49 all they way

Never heard it called that.. Let's see. Uhm, 222 (5.56X43), 223 (5.56X45), 222 Magnum (5.56X47). Hmmmmm.! 22-250 is 5.6X48.6, but I never heard it called that.

Anyway, any 22 centerfire will require a lot more finesse than anything larger. Start out with something larger, there is always time to go back and play with small stuff when you get good at killing deer.

[Art Eatman]

Prior to the year 2000, .223 bullets were primarily intended and designed for varmint loads. R&D since then has created designs for game larger than coyotes.

Sure, a skilled shot with precision hits killed deer, but it was often "iffy" as to ethical kills without wounding.

Still, angling shots and ranges beyond a couple of hundred yards make the smaller-diameter cartridges marginal for quick, clean ethical kills.

[bamaranger]

We see the deer and .22 centerfire for deer theme alot, and here's another. My usual comments:

Bamaboy as a very young lad, killed his first two whitetails with a .223 MiniMauser and 6x scope, shooting bonded factory ammo from Federal, 62-55 grains, not sure which anymore. One deer was close, (30 yds) the other about 3 times that. We did not get an exit on the close deer, and recovered the slug. I suspect the velocity was high enough that the expansion was great enough to allow the bullet to be caught by the hide on the other side. The other deer was a pass through. Velocity had likely dropped enough to limit expansion and allow more penetration, or so I think anyhow. The hit on both was near identical, broadside through the ribs, double lung, though one was a tad farther back than I'd like. The pass through ran about 50-60 yds with ample blood. The non exit dropped within 35 yds or so, after bolting into thick cover, but there was no blood of which to speak. I knew he had hit her hard, , but had we been fools, that deer could have conceivably been lost. (evening shooting) So .223 on deer can be done, and is done more frequently as the AR craze is in full cry these days. . If the little cartridge is chosen, one must pay attention to the correct "big game" bullet. But because there are better options, that can be shot nearly as well by nearly everyone, I do not normally recommend the .223 as a deer rifle. And if chosen, the .223 shooter must be well prepared as a good shot, and disciplined enough to pick their shots and ranges.

The 22-250 is a bit more of the same. It's higher powder capacity allows driving the .22 cal big game slugs to higher velocity than the .223. If they will group (most 22-250's have slow twist rates that may not like the longer slugs) the alloy 64 gr TSX as a reload might be a good choice, so to the 60 gr Nosler Partition, which was designed a bit stubby to make it short enough to be stabilized in slow twist barrels. I think Winchester also makes a 64 gr Power Point for 22-250 that is billed as a deer load. I have a brother in law that states he has shot a number of PA whitetails with 22-250, as it was the only centerfire rifle he had for a while. I suspect that he was shooting the 64 gr load, and claimed his 22-250 kills were all ribcage/double lungs with pass throughs.

Again, I believe there are better choices. But the .223/22-250 will do the job, shot well, under say 200 yds, with the right slugs.

[Mobuck]

"No. However, a report describing the wounds and if (or not) the deer were recovered would be helpful. Just not enough information to be helpful."

OK
Most of the deer were recovered BUT some showed evidence of either too little or too much expanse of the bullets. Yes, a properly designed .224 bullet will kill deer given proper placement.
There's always the chance of a poor hit failing to kill with any cartridge BUT there's far less room for error with the little .224 bullets.
Recommending the use of such small bullets for general use by shooters of unknown capabilities is unethical(IMHO) and leads to wounded and lost game.
An analogy: the 410 shotgun is considered an "experts' gun" yet is handed to amateurs simply due to low recoil-big mistake. Expecting an amateur hunter to take a tiny bullet and place it precisely during a possibly first time experience is totally unacceptable.
I'm a very experienced deer hunter but still make the occasional "off hit". If I'm using the .223, I pass shots that would be acceptable with a bigger cartridge. Can a newbie make these decisions? Can a newbie make the determination of shot placement on angled presentations? I've mentored several beginning hunters and can most certainly say NO. I've seen kids get so excited they had to ask which end the head was on. During ALL our hunts with new hunters using little cartridges, there's a backup shooter and as much open space around the target animal as we can manage.
I simply can't/won't recommend the use of .224 caliber rounds for general use under any/all scenarios. Simple enough?

[Lohman446]

Sure, a skilled shot with precision hits killed deer, but it was often "iffy" as to ethical kills without wounding.

I've seen kids get so excited they had to ask which end the head was on

This question is going to come off as flippant. Its not intended to be. It is intended to be illustrative.

At what caliber does a bad shot become a good shot?

What caliber overcomes the second concern of a hunter not being able to tell what end of the animal the head was on?

My point is... these are not concerns that any caliber is going to overcome. .223 or .375 Holland and Holland are not making up for a lack of skill or knowledge

[zipspyder]

I assume he means a bad angle or not perfect broadside shot, not a bad shot per say. With a higher caliber rifle I would feel comfortable taking a deer at any angle. A .223 not so much. I just don't understand this latest fetish of going smallest caliber for the game as you can? Is it recoil, do you think it's more sporty, what? I tend to respect the game I'm hunting more than using something just enough to be legal. I'm not trying to criticize the really good hunter who only takes head shots or perfect broadside with their weapon of choice but we all know that is typically not the norm.

[mete]

Too many conditions for me but --- at least a 60 grain bullet made for deer ,premium better yet, proper twist to stabilize the bullet ,1:8. 150 yds max .

[Lohman446]

I assume he means a bad angle or not perfect broadside shot, not a bad shot per say. With a higher caliber rifle I would feel comfortable taking a deer at any angle. A .223 not so much. I just don't understand this latest fetish of going smallest caliber for the game as you can? Is it recoil, do you think it's more sporty, what? I tend to respect the game I'm hunting more than using something just enough to be legal. I'm not trying to criticize the really good hunter who only takes head shots or perfect broadside with their weapon of choice but we all know that is typically not the norm.

I think that we are trying to dial back an idea that crept into American hunting of being no such thing as too much power. The sportsman of days gone by were able to successfully hunt with cartridges that many consider anemic by today's standards. I have read stories of guides who insist on their clients "sighting in" the rifle before the hunt only to discover, not by accident, that the client is recoil sensitive or has not put many rounds down range because of recoil. The inverse is true... one guide I recall reading had insisted those with him (the professionals) carry at least a 338 after a bear incident in which a "lucky" shot by a clients .270 had been required. Not personal experiences so take it for what it is worth.

I know for a fact one of my grandfathers took more deer with a .22 Hornet then I ever will but he was also a far better outdoorsman.

[zipspyder]

I think that we are trying to dial back an idea that crept into American hunting of being no such thing as too much power. The sportsman of days gone by were able to successfully hunt with cartridges that many consider anemic by today's standards. I have read stories of guides who insist on their clients "sighting in" the rifle before the hunt only to discover, not by accident, that the client is recoil sensitive or has not put many rounds down range because of recoil. The inverse is true... one guide I recall reading had insisted those with him (the professionals) carry at least a 338 after a bear incident in which a "lucky" shot by a clients .270 had been required. Not personal experiences so take it for what it is worth.

I know for a fact one of my grandfathers took more deer with a .22 Hornet then I ever will but he was also a far better outdoorsman.

They also hunted with calibers that made much larger holes and enough punch for a not perfect shot. I haven't heard anyone ever claim you need a magnum to take a whitetail. Pretty much the only arguments I see recently is a magnum needed to kill a grizzly. The way I see is is now we've gone from "you can't have too much power" to well "this meets the minimum and can do the job for the most part". And every time someone brings up "I know someone who who killed lots with a .22 is not doing the current sportsmen a favor. Those were different times and circumstances. There is a reason they don't allow a .22 or less caliber for deer hunting. I'm not slamming your reasoning it just seems kind of like as pointless as using a 300 magnum for deer with the other side of the argument.