.223 for deer?

[HandGunner]

.223 for deer? out of a kel tec plr16 pistol 9.5 inch barrel?

MV is said to be 2600 out of the pistol. were i hunt max yardage id be able to shoot from my stand is only 100 yards and less most being 30-50 yards. Im in my 4th year of hunting deer. Not to brag but im a good shot and perform shots even better under pressure at times. seeing most of the deer shot by students in my class almost all of them have 2-5 shots in them all being from butt to belly shots and of all my years of hunting all my shots were in the vitals and one i have shot was quartering away and i knew were to place the shot it was a gut shot that led into the heart which dropped the deer so i know what im doing.

so .223 for deer with my kind of shots. Yes? No?

if your wondering about accuracy the pistol is said to have sub 2MOA which is sureley enough for a 100 yard shot. I plan to buy a Kel Tec PLR16

[picksbigwagon]

with the right bullet and good shot placement, yes a 223 will take a deer

[HandGunner]

with the right bullet and good shot placement, yes a 223 will take a deer

the right bullet?

I would only use expanding bullets for deer FMJ's are a never in my book because it be like a arrow with a field point on a deer.

only expanders is what i use

[picksbigwagon]

Right, this has been discussed before here and I believe that Barnes makes a 65 or 63 grain TSX bullet that would be great in 223 on a deer. I would think that 65 grains is about the lightest I would use on a deer. for sure you want a quality bullet, a soft point would probably do better than a hollow point. I would shy away from the 68 grain target match bullets though, the jackets are too thin

[Ufatz]

Okay. Why? You are an excellent you tell us shot so why not use an adequate cartridge/bullet and drop deer cleanly? All your students have " deer with two to five bullet holes in them..." I don't think they've learned very well if that's the best shooting they can do.

Pardon me but I am just puzzled by this insistence on moving toward lightweight, marginally capable cartridges to kill animals. How about the obligation we each have to make clean quick kills.

I'd be embarrassed to tears to admit I fired two to five shots into a deer!!

Sure.....you can DO all kinds of things with various weapons. But remember, we have an obligation to make quick clean kills. It's the least a true sportsman can do.

If you want a toy to play with fine but give the deer a break please and use something more humane.

[HandGunner]

Okay. Why? You are an excellent you tell us shot so why not use an adequate cartridge/bullet and drop deer cleanly? All your students have " deer with two to five bullet holes in them..." I don't think they've learned very well if that's the best shooting they can do.

Pardon me but I am just puzzled by this insistence on moving toward lightweight, marginally capable cartridges to kill animals. How about the obligation we each have to make clean quick kills.

I'd be embarrassed to tears to admit I fired two to five shots into a deer!!

Sure.....you can DO all kinds of things with various weapons. But remember, we have an obligation to make quick clean kills. It's the least a true sportsman can do.

If you want a toy to play with fine but give the deer a break please and use something more humane.

whoa so quick to judge... why do you think im asking then?

i do believe its true to get em down quickly but even still a 308 can still make a deer run for a good minute or 2. next time just give an opinion and sugestion rather than lash out

yes im a big caliber hunter some or most ppl i know blame me for going over kill but is it wrong for me to blame them for going under kill? or does it even matter as long as it will do its job?

Me 50ae desert eagle over kill? ive done it b4

now me .223? underkill?

[Ufatz]

Well Gunner, keep in mind I was asking WHY do we want to play around with a small caliber only marginally capable of killing a deer.Why not use a cartridge that is ballistically designed to do the job? Why don't we ALL agree that it CAN, under ideal circumstances...and then move along to using something more realistic as a deer cartridge.

If I sound judgmental it is my dismay at seeing the increasing evidence of poor marksmanship, and lack of hunting ethics in the field today. I have many friends who have been shooting deer with handguns for the past thirty years. They shoot large bore long barreled handguns at relatively close range-under 100 yards-and they get in lots of PRACTICE. They are proud of one shot kills.

So okay?.....we ALL agree.....the .223 CAN kill a deer. BUT.... can we ALL agree it is not the BEST way to kill a deer?

[DitchPickle13]

Ufatz,

If you have many friends using handguns for deer for then I'm sure some use a .44mag, right??? If so do you have a problem with that?

The reason I ask is because that's obviously considered an acceptable cartridge for deer size game by most reasonable hunters and you're looking at roughly 1,200 ft-lbs (depending on particular load, of course) and roughly 1,300 ft-lbs of energy with a .223.

Seems adequate to me.

[harvey lee]

I agree that there are better suited guns for the harvesting of deer.

[bigg edd]

I shot a big doe with a 53 grain barnes tsx out of a T/C pro hunter. It went 15 yards. Totally destroyed the lungs.

I also have a Kel-Tec .223 pistol. I have found it to be very accurate, even with factory ammo. I have thought about using it for deer hunting but have not yet and not sure if i will. I am going to take it prairie dog shooting this year to see how it really shoots

[Sunnie]

223's have been killing 200lb men for years I would think a deer should be no problem.

[Gordie]

with any gun shotplacement is the key with that said .223 is plenty enough to kill a deer

[Ufatz]

Your last sentence is accurate.....it is ADEQUATE. Not PROPER.....not IDEAL...not recommended....but ADEQUATE. So is the .223.

The big ol' slug out of a .44 mag packs a solid punch compared to the gnat tweak of a little bitty .223 bullet.

[Ufatz]

Sunny and Elwood: please go back and read my note again....the part where I suggest we can ALL agree that a .223 WILL kill a deer with proper shot placement.

In the immortal words of Robert Ruarks old book (for those of you who read).....Use Enough Gun.

Ha Ha.....carry on fella's Keep up the pot belly stove tradition of arguing ballastics. But every once in a while somebody's gotta come along and toss in a teaspoon of common sense.

[TooTallTom]

A rifle in .223 can cleanly take a deer, I've seen it done. I don't have any idea whether a round fired from a pistol will generate enough energy to do it. But regardless of whether or not in CAN be done, why not just use a round that is much more suitable for the job? Reading your other posts, I know you've got pistols in much more suitable calibers for deer.

If you're just looking for an excuse to get something new, there's always paper that needs punching. Plus, you wouldn't want the people on the manufacturing line to be short of work, would you? Economic health and all that.

[HandGunner]

no real excuse... the DE is having accuracy problems right now we need to look into it. the shotty has taken 3 deer so far but the accuracy is also starting to be questioned... finaly the first gun we should be able to tell accuracy which is our TC encore in 308 15 inch barrel

like i said were big handgunners and the kel tec is said to have pretty impressive accuracy for its type. all other ar style handguns only come in 223 except for one i have seen its in a 308 but its a $1500 gun so....

also one post said a good old 44mag... so a 44 mag going in the 1500fps range vs a .223 going in the 2500 range, wouldnt it be close to the same ft/lbs?

[TooTallTom]

Will you be getting 2500 fps with .223 out of a shorter barrel? I honestly don't know what the number is, but I'd be surprised if it's the same as from a rifle or carbine-length barrel.

Also, the .44 will be making a much bigger hole, and there will be no question of a bullet coming completely apart before reaching vitals. As one of the other posters mentioned, we have a responsibility to make a kill as quickly, cleanly, and RELIABLY as we can. To me, .223 seems like a marginal selection at best, and in this case there's really no reason to be working right on the margin.

It just seems to me that there are options that don't present any questions, and leave a little room for unforeseen circumstances, so those would be better options to pursue.

[SmilinBob]

its not about the size of the projectile being launched, its about energy delivered to the target. The 223 is a very accurate round, low recoil, etc. thus making it a good choice because it will deliver nearly all its energy to the correct spot. The factor that stops game is the wound channel and disruption of the nervous system along with damage to vital organs, not just a big hole. The 223 is more than adequate to deliver a lethal blow. That said, a long gun or AR style will do the job, however before going after a deer with a 223 in a handgun I would check the velocities I was getting and make sure it is still packing that punch, the cartridges are designed with powders that burn a little longer and are matched to 16-24 inch barrels typically. I think we cap about put this to rest as everyone has posted that a 223 was used to hunt deer reports dropped in their tracks or went about 10-20 feet. Other states have allowed them for years without problems, and I'm sure there was research done before deciding to allow use in MN.

[DitchPickle13]

Since you are talking about semantics now, I said adequate as in SUFFICIENT, or ACCEPTABLE. Not as in the opposite of proper. As in dead is dead.

As I previously mentioned, that "solid punch" you're talking about from the 44 mag measures almost exactly the same as the "gnat tweak" of the .223 in ft/lbs. Meaning the difference in bullet type will have more impact on the wound channel than caliber, if you're comparing those two calibers.

I believe attention to basic marksmanship, at least, including properly zeroing a weapon, has a much larger affect on a clean kill than caliber selection.

[DitchPickle13]

Quote:

its not about the size of the projectile being launched, its about energy delivered to the target. The 223 is a very accurate round, low recoil, etc. thus making it a good choice because it will deliver nearly all its energy to the correct spot. The factor that stops game is the wound channel and disruption of the nervous system along with damage to vital organs, not just a big hole. The 223 is more than adequate to deliver a lethal blow. That said, a long gun or AR style will do the job, however before going after a deer with a 223 in a handgun I would check the velocities I was getting and make sure it is still packing that punch, the cartridges are designed with powders that burn a little longer and are matched to 16-24 inch barrels typically. I think we cap about put this to rest as everyone has posted that a 223 was used to hunt deer reports dropped in their tracks or went about 10-20 feet. Other states have allowed them for years without problems, and I'm sure there was research done before deciding to allow use in MN.

Yes sir, good points. I'll also add that controlled expansion bullets that'll stay together are a good choice for high velocity/smaller diameter calibers.

The Nosler partition, offered by Federal in their 60grn Vital Shock ammo and the Winchester 64grn Power Point are a couple examples as far as factory ammo goes!

[TooTallTom]

If dead is dead is the goal, a fist-sized rock or a .22lr should do the trick. I don't go hunting because killing stuff is fun. I'm a meat hunter, and one of my goals is to maximize usable meat in the freezer. Read the wikipedia (I know, but it's a start) article on the 5.56 NATO round. If you only read one section, read the one titled "Performance". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56x45mm_NATO

I know that the round will get the job done with proper barrel-length and bullet selection, and good marksmanship. I think anatomy knowledge of your target is also particularly important for this round because the margin for error is so slim. To be honest, how many times, in a hunting situation, have you taken a shot that is less than totally ideal? I think most hunters have, and I don't want to run too close to any one margin if I can avoid it. Selection of a round is one way to avoid the margins, and I don't think .223 is far enough away from the margins.

Tom.

[harvey lee]

I duess if one was close enough to the deer, a BB gun could do the job with a well placed BB.

[creepworm]

In Missouri you can use high powered pellet guns for deer.

[Gordie]

As was stated a .223 is capeable of taking a deer and it is shot placement that is the key to this round as with any to make a clean ethical kill.

This is no differnt that useing a bow and arrow. By this I mean you need to have the perfct shot placement to ethicaly kill a deer.

There are better calibers to take deer but thi will get the job done

[zepman]

The .223 is an irresposible way to take a deer...we owe them a better death than that.