Minimum cartridge trend?

[lockedcj7]

Not too many years ago, it seemed like everyone wanted a bean field rifle and 7mm Rem. Mag. was very common in my neck of the woods. 30-06 was the deer cartridge with .270 and .308 following close behind. 30-30 was considered the minimum and 7-08 was a gun for kids and women. .243 was the gun for younger kids and was thought of like a .410; it's okay but one should endeavor to move up as soon as possible. Heck, .300 win mag was not uncommon for whitetails, but was acknowledged as overkill. Then came all the WSM and SAUM cartridges. Nobody considered 30-06 to be overkill.

It seems like now we are seeing the opposite trend. It's like a race to the bottom with everyone seeing how small and underpowered they can go. 6.8 SPC II and .300 AAC Blackout are all the rage and plenty of people are advocating 5.56/.223 for deer (where legal). I realize that some of this has to do with modern bullet design, more efficient cartridges and the popularity of the AR platform but it doesn't explain everything.

I've seen several threads lately where the venerable 30-06 is poo-poo'ed as "too much gun" for whitetails. I personally don't understand this. I don't want to rely on perfect bullet placement and bullet construction to make up for a lack of horsepower. I take only high percentage shots from under 300 yds so I'm not worried about poor shot placement, I just want to know that the cartridge is not going to be the weak link.

Dead is dead but light bullets that fragment or punch tiny holes and don't leave blood trails are unacceptable to me. I've killed deer with .50 cal muzzleloaders, 00 Buck, 7mm-08, .270 and 30-06. None of them wasted much meat and none of them was overkill.

[SJCbklyn]

I think that with newer and improved hunting bullets on the market, the smaller calibers can get it done more efficiently than in the past. If that's the case, than why get hammered by an 06 or 300 win. when your .243 can get the job done.

[mikejonestkd]

With the improvements in bulilet construction and better powders it is more feasible to use a slightly smaller cartridge and still duplicate the performance of more traditional rounds.

For example - the .308 win easily duplicates the original load for the .30-06, and a modern 260 remington or 7mm-08 is in the same ball park as favorite loads for the 270 winchester from years ago.

Deer are not hard to kill- any decent expanding bullet at a reasonable velocity that gets in the boiler room will work well. I would not feel
undergunned with a .243, nor would I slight my brother that thinks a .300 win mag with 180 grain bullets is perfect for him.

Its great to have so many choices that work well. For me, I shoot mild and mid range rifles more accurately, and can practice more often before I get fatigue from the recoil and muzzle blast.

[HiBC]

First,I AM an advocate of using enough gun.I am opposed to "stunt" hunting where its about "look at me,I can do it with a littler gun"or farther away.
I believe we owe our game animal a quick,merciful kill.

I think folks read magazines and look at charts .They come up with numbers that,by themselves,mean little. 3000 fps? That one is no good,only 2950 fps.
2700 fps? Nah the 300 Sav only gets 2600

General concensus is a 30-40 Krag at what 2200? 2300? Kills big critters dead.

We have embraced our battle rifle cartridgeas a standard of effective hunting cartridge for a long time.45-70,30-40,30-06,308,...and ,over time,with decent bullets and easy to shoot rifles,the 223 is finding success among hunters who use it appropriately.While maybe a few hunters would not care about wounding game,I think the vast majority of hunters would not accept a cartridge that failed to give a merciful kill.People enjoy,prefer success.If the .223 did not work,folks would say so.This does not mean I advocate for .223 on deer size game.I've never used it .I have other great choices,including my .257.If you have success with .223,its good by me.If not,do something different.

Lets remember something else.Folks were cleanly,successfully hunting with non-battle rifle modest cartridges for a long time,with lead bullets,not fancy ones.With iron sights.

The 38-40 and 44-40 killed critters they had no idea they were inadequate for.

On the lower end,the 25-20 and 32-20 hunted deer,even if they weresmall game cartridges. 25-35,32- 40,30-30,38-55,etc.

And lets not forget a quiet bunch of folks who have smiled around a bite of venison killed by a 250 Savage or a 257 Roberts.

Enjoy life your way! No problem.

But a little CZ or Howa in 6.5 Grendel is just not that far from the old original loadings of the 6.5x54 Mannlichers,..The 7.62x 39 IS a viable reasonable range deer cartridge.

A 100,or 120 gr,or so,bullet at 2400,or so,fps orso,from 6mm through 30 cal,has everything it needs for medium deer,antelope,etc out to 200 yds,anyway.

All you really need to go with it,is a little bit of self control. "I do not have to shoot.Its too far" or whatever.

A .250 Savage with 10in twist is a perfectly wonderful deer rifle to 300 yds.Some folks don't care to shoot farther.

I can understand theselection of the magnum bean field rifle as the most effective ballistic tool.

But a lot of folks figure they are just going hunting. They just use the gun Grandpa handed them for their first deer. They use the box of ammo they bought 4 years ago. A test shot hits a spot on a box at 50 yds.

It just works.

[Scorch]

Why go the minimalist route? Because, quite frankly, you don't need 3,000 ft-lbs of energy to kill a 150 lbs deer. My old hunting partner (and I do mean old) told me he killed his first deer with a 25-20 at 50 yds. Pop, dead. I have killed deer with a 45ACP. Bang, flop. I have also killed deer with a 375 H&H. Now there's some overkill! Basically, my point is you don't need a lot to kill a deer, they are not tough, they are thin-skinned, and they are prone to standing still and staring when approached. The 44-40 nearly wiped out deer on the North American continent. Ponder that next time you see a 300 RUM.

Even old Elmer Keith was a fan of minimalist cartridges. He claimed the best elk rifle was a 25-35 because you could haul it up into the mountains so you could shoot an elk and the bullets penetrated well. Elmer also said to "take enough gun", so that must mean he wasn't too worried about the elk shrugging it off.

Is there anything wrong with a 30-06 or 270? No! But it is "more than enough". So let's not go condemning others for their choice of rifles or we run the risk of sounding like a guy I met while out hunting about 30 years ago. He had a 270 and told me I was unethical because I was toting my 7X57. I asked what bullet weight he shot. 130s. How fast? 3,100 fps. OK, so how am I unethical shooting 139 gr bullets at 2,900 fps? He didn't have an answer. Neither do I. If it kills 'em dead, it's enough.

[USCS]

Well, for me the evolution started with my 10 year old daughter, she wanted to hunt but was not a big fan of her mother's 243. She did however, handle an AR well, so she hunted with that. I, however was less than thrilled with the performance of the 223 round on deer. Wanting a little more penetration, And not having a lot of cash on hand, I switched out barrels and went .300 BLK. My daughter loves that rifle and it is all she wants to use now. We kept her shots under 150 yds and all was right with the world. My son of course saw his sister hunting with an MSR and suddenly HIS 243 bolt action wasn't so appealing. I had a little extra money, so I built him a 6.8. The 6.8 turned out to be a handy little deer rifle and the round performed well on deer, so I started taking it hunting when my son was in school or whatever. Naturally, I built myself one when funding became available. Both the 300 Blk and the 6.8 have proven themselves on SC white tails, they aren't 400 yard across the bean field rounds but when your longest shot is about 250 yards they don't really need to be.

[USCS]

Well, for me the evolution started with my 10 year old daughter, she wanted to hunt but was not a big fan of her mother's 243. She did however, handle an AR well, so she hunted with that. I, however was less than thrilled with the performance of the 223 round on deer. Wanting a little more penetration, And not having a lot of crash on hand, I switched out barrels and went .300 BLK. My daughter loves that rifle and it is all she wants to use now. We kept her shots under 150 yds and all was right with the world. My son of course saw his sister hunting with an MSR and suddenly HIS 243 bolt action wasn't so appealing. I had a little extra money, so I built him a 6.8. The 6.8 turned out to be a handy little deer rifle and the round performed well on deer, so I started taking it hunting when my son was in school or whatever. Naturally, I built myself one when funding became available.

[jmr40]

#1, people are getting smarter.

#2, bullets have changed to the point that a 243 will now do exactly the same damage as a 30-06 would do 50 years ago.

#3, much better optics.

The trend years ago was to shoot the lightest bullets reasonable as fast as possible out of magnums in order to get them to shoot as flat as possible so range estimation was less critical. The magnums never killed any better, just shot flatter. The routine was to zero 2-4" high at 100 and being able to aim at the center of an animal and count on a hit out to 300-400 yards and not have to worry about hold over.

With todays better optics and range finders flat trajectory is a non issue. I can load some of the high BC 30 caliber bullets in my 308 and have more energy on target at 400 yards than an old school 180 gr bullet from a 300 magnum at the same range. My 308 will drop more at 400 yards, but by using a range finder and a scope with dots or dials I can still make the hit with no guess work.

Dead is dead but light bullets that fragment or punch tiny holes and don't leave blood trails are unacceptable to me

You're basing your thoughts on 50 year old technology. A 130 gr Barnes TTSX can be loaded at 3100 fps in a 308. It will stay together and retain 100% of its weight and out penetrate an old school 180 gr bullet fired from a 300 WM at 3000 fps.

[Mobuck]

For many years, I was a solid 30/06 type of guy. I used the 06 for everything (mainly cause it was the ONLY centerfire rifle I had access to). Then I bought a new 243 and used it for everything cause it was the only centerfire rifle I owned. The 243 was definitely DIFFERENT and not always in a good way. This was back in the days when you used whatever brand of ammo the local hardware store had on the shelf and it wasn't always the BEST choice for the purpose.
Over the years, I've shot deer with rounds from 22 WRM to 300 Win mag with varied levels of results. Actually, the 22WRM had an excellent success rate since I was so much more careful with delivery angle and shot placement but it's certainly NOT an everyday deer hunting round.
I feel the trend is somewhat "show-off" and I'm not at all happy with this. I've seen quite a few deer shot with the .223 and I stand by my comments made previously of the low-end of the ladder effectiveness of the little rounds. They work OK under best case scenarios and are bound to cause problems sooner or later.

[lockedcj7]

I've always been in the middle personally, and was simply making an observation. My favorite round is the 7mm-08 since I find it to be pleasant to shoot from a light rifle and deadly on deer.

I confess that I put together a 6.8 for my son since he is paranoid about recoil. He just hasn't shot a deer with it so we don't know how it will perform first hand.

[ZeroJunk]

I still don't see anything wrong with shooting the biggest thing you can shoot well. If it's 223 so be it. But, if you can shoot a 30/06 comfortably that makes more sense to me.

The idea that you will never lose a deer with a small choice that you would have gotten with something larger simply defies physics.

But, people are followers for the most part and they are following the minimalists now.

[Sure Shot Mc Gee]

Calibers have remained the same. Although ammo manufactures have decided to advertise aftermarket bullet selections in hopes to increase sales. In doing so the ammo manufactures have without a doubt bettered their products reliability.

[JohnKSa]

It seems like now we are seeing the opposite trend. It's like a race to the bottom with everyone seeing how small and underpowered they can go. 6.8 SPC II and .300 AAC Blackout are all the rage and plenty of people are advocating 5.56/.223 for deer (where legal). I realize that some of this has to do with modern bullet design, more efficient cartridges and the popularity of the AR platform but it doesn't explain everything.

I think that the highlighted section does explain everything, at least in terms of the cartridges you listed.

At least until we see a trend to chamber non-AR rifles in the 6.8SPC, 6.5Grendel, .300AAC Blackout, etc...

[Panfisher]

Minimum acceptable cartridge implis that while minimum it is enough still. Good bullets and opticw, better understanding of when and where to shoot, willingness to practice more with lower end rounds, thus better shooting all combine to make some deadly minimize rounds. A .223 with a Nosler PartiRion or Barnes x type bullet is very deadly, have seen them work perfectly more than once, again I make sure that the shooter, whether me or a youth wait for the correct shot and place it properly. My wife just this morning used her Ruger carbine in .243 with some downloaded handloads, very mild almost no recoil, 100 grain Hornady Interlock bullet. Both lungs destroyed, deer went maybe 8 feet. Big bodied 7 pt. She is picky about her shots, has a lot of confidence in her rifle and ability, and shoots from a solid rest in a permanant stand. I am not one to complain about over-kill could she use a .30-06 sure, but she wouldn't enjoy it as much and the deer will be no less dead from the soft shooting .243.

[22-rimfire]

I think ARs are the primary reason for people choosing lighter smaller bullets for deer. I like them for varmints, but really don't want one for deer or larger game. But people have their AR's and they want to use them. Add to that better bullet construction and we are where we are in terms of trends.

I see no big deal with the recoil of a 30-06, 308, or 270 for deer hunting. I don't shoot these calibers for fun. A couple shots during deer season is typical for me if I hunt, but I have been using revolvers lately anyway. Other than more extreme ranges, you really don't need to practice much with a rifle to be effective deer hunting.

I have turned into my Dad. As kids we used to always comment on his getting his -06 out just prior to deer season and checking the scope and rifle funtionality; often just three shots. I can always remember him saying.... good enough for me.... That was when us boys were trying to get 1/2" groups with our rifles.

[T. O'Heir]

"...people are getting smarter..." HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! Where's that? snicker.
"...improvements in bullet construction and better powders..." Bullet construction, yes. Powders are pretty much the same.
The use of magnum cartridges was championed by the assorted gun rag writers(most of who are just extensions of the assorted manufacturers marketing departments.) over the last 30 to 40 or so years. Most successful marketing campaign in history. There is no game animal in North America, including big bears that require a magnum of any kind to kill.
The WSM and SAUM cartridges are not magnums. They are, in most cases, the natural progression of smaller cases being enough to give the same or similar velocities seen in "Standard" cartridges using newer or the same powders. The reason there is such a thing as the .308 Win and all it's children.
The 7.62 x 39 is a different beast. Same principle, but never intended to be a hunting cartridge.
And then you get unelected civil servants making decisions about hunting regs that are not based on science. No semi-autos in PA, pistol calibre rifles only in Indiana?, nothing greater than .275 calibre in parts of Ont., etc, etc.

[xandi]

In ga the min would be a .17 centerfire cartridge, wouldn't that make a 223 somewhere closer to the middle(;

[dahermit]

The 7.62 x 39 is a different beast. Same principle, but never intended to be a hunting cartridge.

The 30-06, .303 Brit., 8x57, 30-40 Krag, and the 6.5x55 Swed. were all not intended to hunting cartridges either...but they are now generally accepted as such.

[JohnKSa]

Powders are pretty much the same.

I don't know about that. Hornady has made some fairly impressive advances in improving velocities without raising pressures in their Light Magnum line and in some of their LeverEvolution loadings.

I would say that the potential for manipulating pressure curves to provide significant additional velocity without additional pressure is an improvement.

We've also seen powders come on the market that reduce/eliminate metal fouling--that's not specifically applicable to this topic, but it does speak to the general idea that powder technology has not been static.

[CarJunkieLS1]

For me I like my AR style rifles. I have absolutely no qualms about shooting a deer with them. The longest shot I could possibly have is 217 yards.

I will not repeat will not use a .223 on deer, even though it's legal in my state. My AR's are chambered in 6.5 Grendel, 30 Rem AR, 7mm Valkyrie (wildcat) and .260 Rem.

The .260 is the only one that isn't in the AR-15.
There isn't a round I've mentioned that won't take a deer at ~200 yards. Dead is dead and if I can drop them just as efficiently with them as I can with a .270,30-06, 7mag etc. Why would I shoot something that burns more powder and kicks harder? Plus I like semi autos because of the fast follow up and less recoil. I've had shoulder surgery recently.

You get 100 shooters and have them shoot a .30-06 10 times, then the next day have them shoot 10 shots from a lighter recoiling rifle. I guarantee more times than not they shoot tthe lighter recoil rifle more accurately.

[Gunplummer]

I have used the 7.62x39 for years. I had to build a bolt gun because there were none available. It is really an accurate rifle. I have used the .223 and the .22 HiPower. I know of people that used the .222 and the .22 Hornet. I don't know if it is a trend. It may have not come up in conversation years ago. Lots of people have used what are called "Underpowered" cartridges for a long time. BUT, these people were not hunting power lines or out west. Different areas-different cartridges. We have laurel so thick that tree stands are useless. Close range almost anything works. If you are worried about a blood trail, just drop them on the spot.

[Sarge]

To the OP- Most of what you're seeing is folks using cartridges suitable to the fad rifle of the moment. While I generally favor heavy hitters, on the 'light side' I have cleanly killed deer with the 40, 45 ACP, 223 and 7.62x39. I really don't care what other people use.

[gunrunner1]

I have now shot three deer with the Federal Fusion out of a 20-inch barreled AR15. Last year, I shot a doe through the shoulder at about 10 yards and an 8-point buck in the chest from 80 yards with the MSR Fusion. Today, I shot a doe through the shoulder from 50 yards using the standard Fusion. Both does were shot on the run in an open field, and both piled up as soon as they were hit. There were quarter sized exit wounds both times in the ribs, but there was very little bleeding from them. When the buck was shot, he turned to his right, staggered about 10 yards and fell over. Although there wouldn't have been a blood trail from any of them, it wasn't needed. The bullet really tore up the insides. I couldn't tell that there any performance difference between the two Fusions.

I have killed a lot of hogs with the 65 grain Sierra Game King and those were also mostly one shot affairs. I shot them in the butt, the mid-section, and through the shoulder. It didn't matter, they all died right there, or shortly there after. Modern bullets make all the difference.

I like ARs. With the exception of the Bushmaster Carbon-15, I have found them to be accurate, reliable, durable, and easy to carry and shoot.

[ZeroJunk]

Well, I am an average shot. I try to make the best shot I can, but it doesn't always go exactly where I intended.

The best shot I have ever seen in hunting conditions has made a bad shot or two over the last 40 years.

If you run across the buck of you lifetime in less than optimal conditions and you had just as soon have a 223 as a 270 or 30/06 you are nuts IMO.

[Gunplummer]

In such a case, you let it go. You are probably not a bow hunter. I have been out with the bow and let a few really big deer go because it was a dicey shot. Have done the same thing with a rifle. I have shot a lot of moving and running deer, but if does not "Feel" right, you just let it go.