Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles Hunting Deer With Smaller Calibers

I'm picky, but I'm not that picky.

Quartering angles don't bother me at all.

You must never have hunted whitetails in northern New England, where the majority of shots presented are on moving deer under 100 yards in thick cover, probably the reason that pumps and semi-autos are popular among still-hunters and snow tracker.

I don't let my friends from NH carry their rifles on the first day of hunting season when they come to Nebraska, 'cause almost all of them want to shoot the first legal deer that they see. They aren't used to seeing a couple dozen deer nearly every day that they go afield, so they have to learn to be a little selective. I remember the day that I took a high school buddy out to an alfalfa field at dusk during the late antlerless season and there were at least 100 deer in the 80 acre field. My friend said that he'd never seen that many deer in all the time that he'd hunted in NH and VT, much less that many deer at one time and in one field.

Different situations dictate the use of different methods.


i grew up hunting/fishing northeastern new york state adirondacks/along with its lakes ponds rivers and streams and vermonts green mountains and all over maine {,which we still hunt ny & maine every year ] so I'm extremely familiar with hunting/ fishing the east coast and what where when and how its done there .
ill stick with my bolt action browning x bolts from heavy timber in maine to wide open prairie here in montana my 280 ai & 6.5cm have killed animals just as fast and effectively at 10 feet in heavyy cover in maine as they have at 500 yards[which is my maximum distance i will shoot ] here in montana
seen to many biggame animals lost or need multiple follow up shots due to trying to shoot it on the run in heavy cover or shooting at ranges they miscalculated distance /angles on {thankfully I've never in 40 + yrs of hunting needed a second shot or lost an animal NEVER] ,
and i atribute that to the fact i won't shoot at a running animal no matter how big it's rack is [ i dont get all crazyy and weak kneed over the size of an animals head gear ]
i won't pull the trigger unless i have a perfect broad side shot .
if i don't feel comfortable shooting i don't pull the trigger i either pass or i wait it out to see if it will give me a broadside shot
i won't hunt with anyone or allow anyone on our ranch who insist on trying to hit big game on the run or claims they can accurately kill big game @ 700+ yards
like you said different strokes for different folks

If you didn't reply to my posts in such a dogmatic manner, and were a little more courteous, then I wouldn't reply to you in a manner you dislike.

I've read this entire thread, and one thing many hunters apparently don't realize (and perhaps wouldn't accept if they did) is that a 6mm bullet's diameter is just about the same as a .224 bullet's diameter when wrapped in an average (not deluxe) business card. In other words, there's no magical difference in diameter--or the hole made in animals, which is what kills 'em, not some magic amount of bullet diameter, weight or foot-pounds.

The difference, if any, between ".22" caliber bullets and 6mm bullets is basically in construction these days, since many modern .224 bullets overlap the weight of 6mm bullets. The big deal USED to be the difference in weight between typical .224s and 6mms, since there were very few .224s weighing as more than 55 grains, due to typical rifling twists of 1-12 or even slower. 6mm twists were generally at the very slowest 1-12 (as in the original .244 Remington) but more often 1-10 or 1-9. This made a difference in the weight of bullets that could be used, and that generally meant meant 6mm bullets were also started slower.

This was the typical solution to bullet penetration 100 years ago, when cup-and-core expanding bullets were the only ones available. But that started to change considerably in the 1930s when RWS developed their H-Mantle bullets, and changed even more in the late 1940s when the Nosler Partition appeared. But apparently some hunters are still operating under the "rules" of a century ago--which were extended in many U.S, game departments in the years after WWII due to old farts running the game departments, many of whom hated the very idea of using a ".22" on deer, or any other sort of big game, even javelina or pronghorns.

This has changed in recent years. I did some research a few years ago on U.S. "caliber regulations," and over 2/3 of the states now allow .22 centerfires on big game. Some states never had any restrictions, including my native of state of Montana--where even when I started hunting many years ago you could legally use a .22 rimfire. Apparently the Montana game department believed hunters were capable of choosing something that would work, while other states tended to micro-manage--including not only limitations on caliber, but bullet weight and even cartridge length.

Personally, I've not only killed quite a few big game animals with .224 bullets, but seen a lot more used successfully. Also know several guys who've killed elk neatly with .223s and .22-250s and didn't even use "premium" bullets! One was a U.S. Army sniper who did more than one tour in Afghanistan, who's been hunting and guiding since he was a teenager. He killed a mature cow elk with a 77-grain Hornady ELD-M (one of those horrible "target" bullets) at 450 yards, using a fast-twist .223. He put the bullet in the ribs behind the shoulder, and the elk went less than 50 yards before going down. He found the expanded bullet poking partly through the skin on the far side of the chest.

Could provide far more examples, but anybody who categorically denies that smaller-than-6mm cartridges aren't enough for big game doesn't know what they're talking about. It does NOT depend on a tiny amount of extra bullet diameter, but a bullet that penetrates and expands sufficiently, put in the right place.

In a way, these threads tend to remind me about those discussing the best brown bear cartridges. Generally, 90% of the answers are from hunters who've never seen a brown bear--and who tend to ignore the answers from guides who've seen dozens or even hundreds taken.

Mule Deer, the argument though isn't whether the .22 centrefires kill dear, it's whether they kill exactly the same as perhaps a .270 which has a 52% larger unexpanded hole size. Now its accepted that much of the time there won't be any identifiable difference in the results, especially on smaller game at close distances, but to say that all the time the results would be the same is where there is the differing point of view. Even in terms of weight alone, a 150 grain .270 bullet has double the weight of a 75 grain .224 bullet. Happy to hear your thoughts.

You need to check your math. The percentage difference in diameter between a .22 CF bullet (.223") and a .270 bullet (.277") is only 24%, not 52%. (.227-.223 divided by .223 = 24.2%)

You’re making a pretty bad case for yourself. Throwing around false absolutes like they’re common knowledge and making excuses for your poor judgment. Then making crude attempts at insulting remarks. And so far facts have done nothing to dissuade your inaccurate comments. There are quite a few people here that know a hell of a lot more about shooting than I do, let alone you. You would be well served to let your brain act as a sponge rather than a rock. Done with rebuttals. No need to hijack a thread with petty arguments.

Are we comparing diameter or area for the hole size?

You need to check your math. The percentage difference in diameter between a .22 CF bullet (.223") and a .270 bullet (.277") is only 24%, not 52%. (.227-.223 divided by .223 = 24.2%)

105 grain Speers were used mostly. And one more thing, he was National Benchrest champion...so there goes the argument of "you just need good bullet placement" down the drain.

What does that have to do with what I said. Being a BR champion means very little in regards to bullet performance and I’d put any TTSX, PT up against the old 105 Speer all day long.

As said before, you're referring to diameter differences (which I think you got wrong too, on a few points). He was talking about surface area of the front plane of the bullets.

Fair enough. Still not a [bleep] bit of difference when each the bullets mentioned go through things vital for life of the animal.