Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Advice for kids rifle

How many big game animals have you killed with .22 caliber centerfires?

Contrary to popular belief, terminal ballistics isn't guesswork. In the last 14 years (let alone the since the late 80's) more research and money has been spent on how bullets actually kill than in all of human history.

Neither "ft-lbs" nor "Taylor knockout" has any relevance on killing in any shap or form. Both of those tell you about as much on tissue destruction as the phase of the moon. Those who believe in either one of those need to either educate themselves on the subject, or kill more. Usually both.

How well a bullet kills is based on two things- what a projectile hits, and how much tissue damage occurs. The last is loosely based upon impact velocity and bullet construction (contrary to popular belief- deep penetrating bullets such as Barnes, etc., do not always, and frequently do not damage more tissue, and therefor they generally kill slower than rapid expanding/fragmenting bullets as long as sufficient penetration is reached with both).

The wound channels produced by some .224 diameter bullets are horrific and WAY more than sufficient to kill 200-300 pound mammals.


As has been said before-

Placement, bullet, headstamp. In that order.

Here we go.

You and Gruff would get along famously.

Did I buy a Hennessy Hammock from you?




Travis

THe jokes not your dick

Dude, this is a family site. Calm the fugk down.




Dave

I think so.

I have no experience shooting deer with a .223 and I only know one person who uses one. He's taken several deer and even a 300lb+ black bear with it. He tells me that he loves his .233 but has learned that head shots work best. I have no idea what ammo he uses but from what I know about him its probably not the premium stuff.

Perhaps our opinions differ because of different hunting methods. I like to track if snow is on the ground or still hunt in very thick cover. Shots tend to be very close and fired off hand with little time to decide to shoot or not. Shot angle is often quartering to, away, or straight on. If the shot doesn't put the animal down on the spot blood tracking is required. In super thick cover an animal that runs even 50 yards can be hard to find with a poor blood trail. I feel that a bigger bullet will not only have a better chance of putting a deer down but also leave a better blood trail to follow if need be. I started hunting with a 30-30 and for my style of hunting I feel like that's a great choice for recoil sensitive shooters.

I know many here have cleanly taken deer and more with the .223 just like Walter D.M. Bell killed many elephants with 6.5 and 7mm's. I just feel like there are better choices and I don't stand alone in my opinion.

http://www.chuckhawks.com/rifles_small_hunters.htm
http://www.chuckhawks.com/bad_deer_cartridges.htm

I know these two articles will stir up a hornet's nest.

I set it up last night before a big storm. Had my daughter sleep in it. If it worked well I may use it next month.




Travis

Chuck Hawks eh?

Chuck Hawks, Taylor KO..... It's all starting to make sense.

Do you drink beer?

Something like the last 5 or 6 deer I've shot were taken offhand, within 75ish yards, mostly with a 223 firing 40 grain Ballistic Tips. All were running shots. They died as promptly as deer shot in a similar manner with a host of larger cartridges.

Chuck Hawks is the IPA of the hunting world. Simply terrible.

Chuck Hawkes is the Hamms of Gun writers.

Travis,

Hammocks suck. Sorry you got stuck with it.

Higgins

Just having some fun getting everyone in a frenzy. The bottom line is if you have confidence in a cartridge than by all means go out there and stack up the deer like cord wood.

[quote=obie458]I have no experience shooting deer with a .223 and I only know one person who uses one. He's taken several deer and even a 300lb+ black bear with it. He tells me that he loves his .233 but has learned that head shots work best. I have no idea what ammo he uses but from what I know about him its probably not the premium stuff.

Perhaps our opinions differ because of different hunting methods. I like to track if snow is on the ground or still hunt in very thick cover. Shots tend to be very close and fired off hand with little time to decide to shoot or not. Shot angle is often quartering to, away, or straight on. If the shot doesn't put the animal down on the spot blood tracking is required. In super thick cover an animal that runs even 50 yards can be hard to find with a poor blood trail. I feel that a bigger bullet will not only have a better chance of putting a deer down but also leave a better blood trail to follow if need be. I started hunting with a 30-30 and for my style of hunting I feel like that's a great choice for recoil sensitive shooters.

I know many here have cleanly taken deer and more with the .223 just like Walter D.M. Bell killed many elephants with 6.5 and 7mm's. I just feel like there are better choices and I don't stand alone in my opinion.

http://www.chuckhawks.com/rifles_small_hunters.htm
http://www.chuckhawks.com/bad_deer_cartridges.htm

I know these two articles will stir up a hornet's nest. [/.



Jumped from his bed and shot on the run at 135 yards. Granted was a 22-250 but I think hi I a .223 with a Barnes would've dropped him just as dead.

Thanks friend.



TC

OK... 7-08 120 BT's


[img:left][/img]

The Taylor KO is kinda hilarious.....



guess its time for pics...


This one was with a .222 50 Gr. TTSX 231 Lazered yards...Taylor KO of 5 maybe?




.223AI 55 Gr. TTSX 239 lazered yards..




Same gun...55 gr. Hornady SP 100 yards




Little bit bigger one for you...53 Gr TSX..





I have a bunch more in case you need them....

I didn't post the chucky links. Quote feature was fugked trying to post from my phone.