Outdoor Life worships The Black Rifle

[El Tejon]

mtnbkr, shooting them as varmits.

[mtnbkr]

What a shame.  Dunno about that state, but in Va you can get damage tags if you're a farmer.  He could've done it legally and donated the meat to Hunters for the Hungry or something.  Deer aren't exactly endangered (they're almost a pest species here in Northern Virginia), but still...

Chris

[Tallpine]

We found a .22 caliber centerfire bullet in the back of an old doe that I shot a couple years ago.  It was all healed over and didn't appear to have been bothering her much.

Hey, you can shoot a deer with a .17 HMR if you like.  I still say .223 isn't an ideal big game cartridge.  Whether is is a military pattern semi-auto matters not a bit either.

You could hunt with a civil war era muzzleloader and it would still be a military (horrors!) rifle.

I personally don't think a semi-auto is that ideal for deer hunting.  Mostly, I just fire one shot and there is no reason (or desireability) to have a live cartridge in the chamber after that, unless I need a second shot, in which case there is plenty of time to operate a bolt or lever.  But like I said before, I've hunted with my Saiga in cold snowy weather - you can shoot it with heavy gloves on if you need to

A scoped AR for coyotes would be handy.

[Lee]

He could've done it legally and donated the meat to Hunters for the Hungry or something.

I don't know how it works there, but in Ohio you have to provide the finished meat- not the deer- which tends to discourage most folks.

[Monkeyleg]

I know very little about hunting, so please bear with me.

The .223 round is used by the military, the police, and ocassionally by the public for offensive and defensive shooting of people. Most people weigh as much as a Wisconsin deer does.

If the .223 caliber is sufficient for killing 200-pound humans, why isn't it sufficient for killing 200-pound deer? Or is the .223 not sufficient for the one-shot kills hunters require?

[Perd Hapley]

Monkeyleg,

Police and military use the .223 because weeny bureaucrats don't want them to actually hurt anybody.  Fortunately, they usually bounce off the skin and annoy lots of bad guys at once, so it's not like they don't work at all. 

[Tallpine]

If the .223 caliber is sufficient for killing 200-pound humans, why isn't it sufficient for killing 200-pound deer? Or is the .223 not sufficient for the one-shot kills hunters require?

Deer aren't people.  For one thing, their hide is thicker (okay, I've never skinned a person, but it sure seems thicker to me) and they're built differently.  For another thing, they don't go "oh my gosh I've been shot I'm gonna die" and just conveniently fall down and wait for the end.  Shooting and killing them is one thing, recovering the carcass is another.

If the deer run after being shot (they usually do a least a little) then you
a) want them to bleed out and drop as quick as possible, and
b) want as big a hole as possible to leave an obvious blood trail.

[Fly320s]

...and the .223/5.56 NATO round was not designed to be an excellent killing round.  It's a compromise between weight and power.  Less weight means soldiers can carry more ammo, but it also means the cartridge will be less powerful.

If you really want to guarantee a one-shot, instantaneous kill, your best bet is to use a very large caliber bullet, moving very quickly, and hit the central nervous system.

[K Frame]

In deer hunting you want to kill the animal quickly so you can take it home and eat it. The last thing you want to do is to have to chase a wounded deer, and possibly lose it.

In warfare you want to either kill or wound your opponent and negate their ability to fight you. You're not going to carry him home and eat him.

[Bogie]

Yeah, you shoot a people, it'll get all shocky and everything. You shoot a bambi, and it's in the next county before you can say "Well... I think I got some fur..."

[Perd Hapley]

Monkeyleg,

I'm not a hunter, either, but the impression I've always gotten is that animals require more powerful cartridges because they don't realize what has happened to them, so they just stupidly keep going.  Humans, of course, think "Ah!  Oh man, I've got a big hole in my stomach it's bleeding please don't shoot me anymore!" and give up.  And with humans, a quick kill is not so important as just surviving the encounter.  A lower recoil cartridge helps you do that.

[Tallpine]

In warfare you want to either kill or wound your opponent and negate their ability to fight you. You're not going to carry him home and eat him.

Don't count on that.  I've heard that eating the heart and brains of your enemy will give you strength. 

<insert rebel yell>

[roo_ster]

In sub-Saharan Africa, it is a common enough occurrence for the victor to eat (at least in part) the vanquished.

[Brad Johnson]

In warfare the goal is to tie up as much of the enemy's resources as possible, not necessarily to kill the other guy.  A wounded soldier ties up more resources than a dead one, both tactically and logistically.  If you can would seriously enough, the soldier will A) Not come back to fight again and B) use up a bunch of precious resources and funds in the process of being rehabilitated.

In hunting, the object is the most sure and most humane kill with a minimum of lost meat.

Brad

[Monkeyleg]

Thanks for the replies. I figured that deer hide was probably thicker than human skin, but wasn't sure. I also know that principled hunters don't want the animal to get away wounded and suffer.

I met a young guy at the range a few years ago whose job it was to shoot deer at night in a suburban park. He used a tricked-out Remington 700 in .22-250, suppressed, and with a 6.5x20 Leupold. Of course, the guy was the national high-power champion. He probably just sat there all night at work and asked himself, "should I shoot it in the left eye or the right this time?"

[Tallpine]

I know lots of folks around here that shoot anything from coyotes to elk with a 22-250.  That's a bit more powerful than a .223.

Of course, these aren't the "take a wild shot at anything that moves" city folk "hunters", but rather serious ranchers and outdoorsmen/women.

[Perd Hapley]

M-Leg, I'm sure you're aware of the fact that .44 Magnums and such are not usually recommended for self-defense, partly because many people are not skilled enough to shoot them accurately, especially under stress.  The reasoning behind .223 is much the same.  Whereas the hunter is not being fired upon, the soldier or cop might be facing incoming rounds.  So, the idea is that he should have a more controllable weapon, especially in fully-automatic or burst mode.  For hunters, there is the ethical problem of losing a wounded animal.  For people-shooting, there is the question of whether .223 takes the fight out of them like a fighting gun ought to. 

[nico]

Deer aren't people.  For one thing, their hide is thicker (okay, I've never skinned a person, but it sure seems thicker to me) and they're built differently.

I have skinned a person, and you're right.  Deer skin is thicker.