Calibers and Decisions

[adirondackbushwhack]

Something doesn't sound right with that story. And I don't think a perfect shot is a few inches above the elbow. The .243 is a more than ADEQUATE round for whitetail deer. If in fact the shot placement was good, than we can only assume he was using the wrong bullet. That can be done with any caliber. I saw a moron once using a 30-06 accelorator rounds to hunt deer. I don't think the cartridge should take the blame for that situation. I don't deer hunt with my .243, but if I ever decided to, I'm 100% sure it would do the job just fine.

Certainly this shot should have the deer down if the bullet had penetrated. As I said earlier I don't know what ammo the guy was using.

[Larry]

I have killed 2 deer whith 6mm's 1 was 150yd shot with a rem 6mmbr in a xp100 and a 80gr single shot pistol bullet the other was with my 700 rem at about 70yds useing 100gr btsp. Both bullets went though and they did a lot of damage on the way. 1 deer went about 50yds the other went about 5ft. you have to use the right bullet and put it where it needs to go

[WNYBuckHunter]

I shot 1 with my Encore handgun that was chambered in 260 Rem (6.5mm). Hit her in the cage at 200 yards, she went 10 or 15 yards and keeled over. No tracking needed, but there was a good blood trail and a huge splatter mark where she was standing when I shot her.

[Pygmy]

The discussion goes on and on,whether the .243 is adequate for deer..

Interestingly, on the western forums, the discussion goes on and on whether the .270 is adequate for elk...

[adirondackbushwhack]

The discussion goes on and on,whether the .243 is adequate for deer..

Interestingly, on the western forums, the discussion goes on and on whether the .270 is adequate for elk...

If you mean by adequate; barely suitable or as good as necissary than I can tell ya that is the exact reason I stopped useing the 30-30. It wasn't up to the job that I required even though it is a known deer gun. I see the 243 as the same. Sure it will kill deer and do so really well a lot of the time but on those other times there are other more powerful cals that will do a better job. That was my experiance with the 30-30 and the 25-06 and I see no reason to believe that the 243 will outperform them.

[Gthphtm]

It must be nice for these to be able to sit in a tree house or whatever on the edge of a farm field with a heard of deer out there eating and be able to pick the deer out that you want to shoot with and be able to place the shot where you want with your .243.

[WNYBuckHunter]

It must be nice for these to be able to sit in a tree house or whatever on the edge of a farm field with a heard of deer out there eating and be able to pick the deer out that you want to shoot with and be able to place the shot where you want with your .243.

Oh look, the "your style of hunting isnt as good as mine" card. Havent seen that one in a couple of months....

[Pygmy]

Adirondack..I applaud you for presenting sound arguments for your opinions and not getting defensive or offended when other posters question you.

This is all in the spirit of good discussion.

I have remedied the light recoil/bullet performace quandry to my satisfaction by switching to Barnes X bullets for all of my hunting rifles. I get superb performace and nearly always get an exit hole, even with light for caliber bullets, such as the 120 grain TSSX in the 7mm08. They are very accurate in my rifles and kill well whether you have a perfect broadside shot or a shot at the south end of a northbound buck.

[adirondackbushwhack]

Adirondack..I applaud you for presenting sound arguments for your opinions and not getting defensive or offended when other posters question you.

This is all in the spirit of good discussion.

I have remedied the light recoil/bullet performace quandry to my satisfaction by switching to Barnes X bullets for all of my hunting rifles. I get superb performace and nearly always get an exit hole, even with light for caliber bullets, such as the 120 grain TSSX in the 7mm08. They are very accurate in my rifles and kill well whether you have a perfect broadside shot or a shot at the south end of a northbound buck.

I like talking about this stuff and listening to and understanding the other guy is how i learn. I have a belief that all perspectives are only partial perspectives limited by our personal experiances. Others should question me so as to gain an understanding of what I am saying and I should question them so I can understand them too.

Light recoil isn't a concern for me as you may have guessed with my use of the 444.

Honestly the 120's in 7mm08 do seem light and lack frontal area to perform as I wish but I have no personal experiance with it. I should expect you to get a pass through with the majority of shots when a perfect broadside shot is presented. It is the not so perfect shots that concern me most. So I would have to ask how many deer you have shot with it and of those that were not perfect broadside shots how much tracking was involved and how many of those less then ideal shots have you taken. Of course your idea of killing well and mine might be different and so I wonder what your idea of it is.

[Pygmy]

Thankfully I have not yet had a paunch or gut shot with this bullet....

I've killed about a dozen whitetails with it, and most were broadside. Two were shot head on in the brisket. Most of them dropped within sight.. Two brisket shots dropped straight down.

Of the two deer that I shot that ran out of sight, one was another brisket shot that got just one lung..The deer ran about 75 yards but left a blood trail Stevie Wonder could follow...The other was a broadside liver shot last season...She went about 100 with a fairly sparse blood trail,but that is common with liver shots, in my experience

Before I switched to the Barnes 120 I used Nosler 140 ballistic tips. I never had any problem with them either. However the Barnes kills just as well and the recoil is lighter.

As far as frontal area goes, it is not a big issue with me...I have killed dozens of head of big game ( deer, antelope, caribou, moose)with 7MM bullets, in the 7mm08 and .280 Rem, and I have also killed dozens of deer with 12 gauge slugs and 50 cal muzzleloader bullets. With similar shot placement, I never really saw much difference as far as how well they killed.

My main requirement in a bullet is to get enough penetration for an exit hole at any reasonable angle, and a bullet that will expand enough to disrupt some tissue on its way through.

[Lawdwaz]

The discussion goes on and on,whether the .243 is adequate for deer..

Interestingly, on the western forums, the discussion goes on and on whether the .270 is adequate for elk...

And a pile of those CRAZY western hunters will use 223 for DEER!! Can you believe that?

The 243 is a cannon.............................................<grin>

[adirondackbushwhack]

Thankfully I have not yet had a paunch or gut shot with this bullet....

I've killed about a dozen whitetails with it, and most were broadside. Two were shot head on in the brisket. Most of them dropped within sight.. Two brisket shots dropped straight down.

Of the two deer that I shot that ran out of sight, one was another brisket shot that got just one lung..The deer ran about 75 yards but left a blood trail Stevie Wonder could follow...The other was a broadside liver shot last season...She went about 100 with a fairly sparse blood trail,but that is common with liver shots, in my experience

Before I switched to the Barnes 120 I used Nosler 140 ballistic tips. I never had any problem with them either. However the Barnes kills just as well and the recoil is lighter.

As far as frontal area goes, it is not a big issue with me...I have killed dozens of head of big game ( deer, antelope, caribou, moose)with 7MM bullets, in the 7mm08 and .280 Rem, and I have also killed dozens of deer with 12 gauge slugs and 50 cal muzzleloader bullets. With similar shot placement, I never really saw much difference as far as how well they killed.

My main requirement in a bullet is to get enough penetration for an exit hole at any reasonable angle, and a bullet that will expand enough to disrupt some tissue on its way through.

Certainly those are good results that can't be argued with. But not the same results I've gotten with the 444. I don't mean anything by it when I say I've shot many more deer with the 444 it is just the truth. I don't often get those broadside shots and so my shots are from every angle I guess. Of those shots and I guess there are 100 deer or more none have run further than 30 yards. Of those I guess I could count on my fingers the number of deer that needed a second kill shot. If I see that the deer is still alive when I chamber another round he gets it, I don't like them to suffer at all. One particularly big one Just kind of stumbled forward when I hit him back and high in the rib cage and heading back and down towards the hind leg. He stood there for a couple of seconds just looking around and I missed with the second shot I guess i was wound up a bit and as I was steadying up for the third he just fell over. On another occassion I hit one that did give me a broadside shot really poorly but I didn't know it because he dropped at the shot. I waited and watched and after a few minutes i walked up on it and found it still alive' I had gut shot it but I guess that the shock of that big medium speed bullet had put the deer into shock and it went down and stayed there until i walked up on it. The majority of deer I shoot with it go down right there or within a couple of yards and i believe I only had just one go as far as 30 yards. I don't know about that one it was strange. The entrance wound was probaly 6 to 8 inches long and a couple of inces wide and took out several ribs. I got pics of it somplace but not on the computer it was probably 15 or more years ago. Anyway that one went maybe 30 yards and i never could believe that with that massive hole in the rib cage. I think the bullet must have hit something in front of the deer. That is the only explanation i could come up with for such a massive entrance wound. Anyway I want the deer to die instantly or at least really quickly and not move a muscle after the shot. Now i don't quite get that performance but it's close enough that I am happy with it. Should i ever get a deer that runs 100 yards with the 444 then I would question my ammo. I only use flat nosed bullets because I believe that they hit much harder than either pointed or hollow point bullets do. With this set up the entrance hole is actually bigger than the exit hole and I can put my thumb in the entrance hole while the exit hole is only as big as the expanded bullet. I once did have a bear go maybe 40/50 yards when hit with it though. It was a broadside shot and the bullet broke both shoulders and I recovered it just under the skin of the opposite shoulder. I used a flat nosed 270 grain on that occasion and well the stories of break both shoulders and the game is down just aren't true 100% of the time. I don't really worry about getting complete pass through with this set up and don't mind at all if the big flat nosed bullet gives all of it's energy to the deer. The entrance hole is plenty for blood to leak out of should the occassion ever arise that I should need to track one. I've only ever killed deer and bear with it though.

[Pygmy]

Adirondack....You must be related to Elmer Keith..

I know that Lawdwaz is Jack O'Connor's great grandson...<<GRIN>>....

[MountainHunter]

If I feel limited with a caliber I am not using it. Meaning if I believe I am losing particular shots because of a caliber being light I am not using that caliber. I know that can be taken to extremes and that is not my intention.

I don't want to worry about shots at steep angles. The majority of deer hunting I do I do with a .270, 130 grain Barnes X bullet. I have never had a penetration problem, and have never lost a deer due to caliber or bullet.

The thought of working my tail off to be in a position to take a great buck and then not being able to because of caliber would be to much for me.

[adirondackbushwhack]

Adirondack....You must be related to Elmer Keith..

I know that Lawdwaz is Jack O'Connor's great grandson...<<GRIN>>....

Ha! Certainly seems that way. I'll bet Lawdwaz probably hunts more open country while I'm in the thick stuff too which further cements the shot placement/knockdown power differences.

[Pygmy]

Adirondack....I find your narrative very interesting because I have never shot a deer or other big game animal with a centerfire riife bigger than my 9.3 x 62... It uses a .366" bullet and my pet load is a 250 grain Barnes X at about 2500 FPS. I have limited experience with it, because I have only shot half a dozen critters with it. One moose, two caribou, two whitetails and a coyote. The only one that took a step was the coyote, and he just made a couple of spasmodic leaps.

However, I have shot perhaps 70 or 80 whitetails with shotgun slugs and .50 caliber muzzleloader bullets. These projectiles weigh in the 400 grain range, albeit they are launched at a lower veocity than your .444.

With similar shot placement, I have never seen much difference in the heavy slugs and the lighter ( mostly 7MM) fired from a 7 x 57, a 7MM08 and a .280 Rem as far as how far the animals went. Dead center double lung shots, they run 15 to 100 yards.. Shots that effect shoulders or the CNS, they drop in thier tracks..

Perhaps the higher velocity of your heavy rifle rounds makes the difference in what you call "knockdown power".. My experience with shotgun slugs suggests that bullet weight is not the only factor.

Edited May 14, 2012 by Pygmy

[Lawdwaz]

Ha! Certainly seems that way. I'll bet Lawdwaz probably hunts more open country while I'm in the thick stuff too which further cements the shot placement/knockdown power differences.

You using brush busting bullets?

[hunterguy1961]

What do you all think about a .222 I have a chance to buy one for next to nothing

[adirondackbushwhack]

Adirondack....I find your narrative very interesting because I have never shot a deer or other big game animal with a centerfire riife bigger than my 9.3 x 62... It uses a .366" bullet and my pet load is a 250 grain Barnes X at about 2500 FPS. I have limited experience with it, because I have only shot half a dozen critters with it. One moose, two caribou, two whitetails and a coyote. The only one that took a step was the coyote, and he just made a couple of spasmodic leaps.

However, I have shot perhaps 70 or 80 whitetails with shotgun slugs and .50 caliber muzzleloader bullets. These projectiles weigh in the 400 grain range, albeit they are launched at a lower veocity than your .444.

With similar shot placement, I have never seen much difference in the heavy slugs and the lighter ( mostly 7MM) fired from a 7 x 57, a 7MM08 and a .280 Rem as far as how far the animals went. Dead center double lung shots, they run 15 to 100 yards.. Shots that effect shoulders or the CNS, they drop in thier tracks..

Perhaps the higher velocity of your heavy rifle rounds makes the difference in what you call "knockdown power".. My experience with shotgun slugs suggests that bullet weight is not the only factor.

I also believe that bullet weight is not the only factor. Bullet construction, frontal area and speed are also factors in delivering knock down power I believe. Muzzle loaders using a patched round ball or a flat nosed bullet especially with todays magnum loads work great.

The 9.3x62 fits perfectly into my idea of a round that would deliver great knockdown power. Have you noticed a differance in performance between it and your 7mm/280? I'd be willing to bet that the 9.3x62 does a better job of anchoring shot game. When I was serching for a cal to replace my 30-30 I had it down to two. The 444 and the 35 Whelen. The deciding factor was that the 444 was available in a lever gun and the Whelen was not. I had been hunting with a lever gun forever and thought the transition would be easier staying with the same rifle only in a larger cal or else I may have gone with the Whelen. Actually I had my eye on a single shot rifle way back then too but with two kids I felt I should spend a bit less and get the lever gun. At that time there either was none or I was unaware of anybody producing any of the modern so called lever gun 45-70 ammo or that would have been in the running too. But at that time the 444 was flater shooting and harder hiting than the 45-70 and the old ammo. Of course that was before computers and so somebody might have been making lever gun 45-70 ammo and I was just unaware of it. 9.3x62 would work for me I think. Of course time would tell but it fits into mt scheme of things.

[adirondackbushwhack]

You using brush busting bullets?

The idea isn't to bust brush. Maybe a slower heavier bullet does better at that than a light fast bullet does but that never entered into my reasoning for going with the 444 and never enters my mind when choosing ammo. Any bullets flight is altered when in comes into contact with anything solid even 444 bullets.

[adirondackbushwhack]

What do you all think about a .222 I have a chance to buy one for next to nothing

Should be fun for varmit or paper.

[moosemike]

If you mean by adequate; barely suitable or as good as necissary than I can tell ya that is the exact reason I stopped useing the 30-30. It wasn't up to the job that I required even though it is a known deer gun. I see the 243 as the same. Sure it will kill deer and do so really well a lot of the time but on those other times there are other more powerful cals that will do a better job. That was my experiance with the 30-30 and the 25-06 and I see no reason to believe that the 243 will outperform them.

Well I agree with what you've said. I used the the .30-30 for a little over a decade and now don't use it at all because I've found the .270 and .30-06 to be quicker killers that leave better blood trail if needed. My BIL has used the .243 for about thirty years and he always gets his deer but not always with one shot and he doesn't always have a good blood trail to follow.

[Grouse]

The .222 was a good varmint round in it's day, but since the .223 came around, it's headed for the obsolete cartridge pile. It's OK, but ammo is more expensive than .223 and you can't get military surplus for it. I know a few guys who have older rifles chambered for .222 that are real tack drivers, so they still use them. But I wouldn't buy a new one if I were getting a .22 centerfire rifle today. But if it's real cheap and shoots well, I probably would buy it.

Edited May 15, 2012 by Grouse

[Culvercreek hunt club]

There sure are a whole lot of old time hunters across the country that would be shocked to hear that all the deer they had taken with the ol favorite 30-30 were taken with such an inferior firearm.

[Pygmy]

There sure are a whole lot of old time hunters across the country that would be shocked to hear that all the deer they had taken with the ol favorite 30-30 were taken with such an inferior firearm.

The deer have just gotten tougher over the years....

I heard a rumor that The Arabs are selling them steroids and Kevlar vests...<<wink>>...