Thread: 223 on deer

Originally Posted by berg243

dont you think " messy " might be a slight understatement .

Thats after I trimmed most the blood out so it didn't go off in the chiller!
Its not as bad as the 60grvmax tho I was surprised at the damage considering the range.
I think the fact it collected solid leg bone on impact contributed a lot vs a clean crease shot. Shot was to put it down on the spot and it did that.

Something like a 243win would be perfect for fallow and handle reds at sensible ranges too. One of the best in between cals for those animals I reckon. But realistically what ever you hit it with (hilar shot) at least one shoulder is usually fucked for meat anyway.

Originally Posted by Allizdog

Something like a 243win would be perfect for fallow and handle reds at sensible ranges too. One of the best in between cals for those animals I reckon. But realistically what ever you hit it with (hilar shot) at least one shoulder is usually fucked for meat anyway.

While I agree in part I think the country you hunt rather than the game you hunt decides both the ideal caliber and the marginal calibers.

Originally Posted by Allizdog

Something like a 243win would be perfect for fallow and handle reds at sensible ranges too. One of the best in between cals for those animals I reckon. But realistically what ever you hit it with (hilar shot) at least one shoulder is usually fucked for meat anyway.

+1. The 223 is pretty effective when used sensibly, especially on fallow. But as soon as you run into a big red hind or spiker that’s spent most of its life gorging itself on good farm tucker, and it’s 250yd away and looking decidedly nervous, you’ll be feeling justifiably under gunned. Not so with a 243

Originally Posted by doinit

At what point in time was that Micky Duck? .222,308 and .270 were the main flavours and on the odd occasion certain guys were supplied .243. that list was a definite on the Thar blocks. Although the majority of hunters on the Thar including myself carried .222's. I'm talking mid 60's-late 70's.

The cullers in the NW Ruas or some of them preferred the 243 and had to trade ammo because the powers that be did not like the venerable 243 yet was a fantastic calibre for slip shooting in the river catchments. Yes some idiots [aged 18] hauled around the BSA CF2 270. A railway track would have been lighter but with a 130gr pill it certainly hammered deer. Some used them as a replacement for the 303 spinner. Gary Sutton shot 7 deer above the Ironbark hut on the tops next to Mokai Station in spring 1976 using a 222 which was quite a feat considering he normally used a 270 which was bigger than himself.This hill was adjacent to the clip on the Redstag timber dude and Alipate? were shooting in the saddle during Covid period.

Originally Posted by 7.62

+1. The 223 is pretty effective when used sensibly, especially on fallow. But as soon as you run into a big red hind or spiker that’s spent most of its life gorging itself on good farm tucker, and it’s 250yd away and looking decidedly nervous, you’ll be feeling justifiably under gunned. Not so with a 243

I'd try and get a tad closer if possible,failing that,walk away.....guess it depends on the individual eh. Still...a large number of biggish animals have gone down over 200yds range...no worries. As mentioned,,,the 243 was favoured by a few cullers. Pretty sure ti say that the wee 22 calibers had a huge following.

Originally Posted by Allizdog

Something like a 243win would be perfect for fallow and handle reds at sensible ranges too. One of the best in between cals for those animals I reckon. But realistically what ever you hit it with (hilar shot) at least one shoulder is usually fucked for meat anyway.

I hunted a lot of fallow with a 243, then I got a 300BLK. What I noticed is that the 243 did considerably more meat damage across a larger area. The 300BLK has dropped them on the spot more, and does a tighter more violent area of damage (to the point my butcher/wife was much happier with the amount of meat recovered). I sold the 243.

I suspect it is to do with a bigger calibre and lower velocity imparting more damage.

Originally Posted by doinit

I'd try and get a tad closer if possible,failing that,walk away.....guess it depends on the individual eh. Still...a large number of biggish animals have gone down over 200yds range...no worries. As mentioned,,,the 243 was favoured by a few cullers. Pretty sure ti say that the wee 22 calibers had a huge following.

Yeah when I had a 223 I shot the odd deer at over 200. A mate also used my rifle to tip over a couple of small red yearlings at about 250; they both ran but expired pretty quickly with lung shots. But I suspect that bigger tougher animals would’ve run quite some distance before expiring, and possibly been lost. After losing a good sized fallow spiker, and then having a few “runners” despite being hit hard, I got fed up with the 223 and replaced it with a 243. Sometimes you don’t have time or adequate cover to stalk in closer and that’s when the 223’s limitations were exposed to me.
@vulcannz a slow 30 cal will definitely damage less meat than a fast 6mm. 300blk is a great bush cartridge but I need something that’s capable out to 300yd so that discounts it for me

Originally Posted by vulcannz

I hunted a lot of fallow with a 243, then I got a 300BLK. What I noticed is that the 243 did considerably more meat damage across a larger area. The 300BLK has dropped them on the spot more, and does a tighter more violent area of damage (to the point my butcher/wife was much happier with the amount of meat recovered). I sold the 243.

I suspect it is to do with a bigger calibre and lower velocity imparting more damage.

I assume you're talking about 300BLK supersonic? I've got my little 300BLK outfit sorted now, but only used it with subsonic rounds.

Nah using supers (125grain American Gunner). I have it setup for subs, just never used it in anger.

Originally Posted by 7.62

@vulcannz a slow 30 cal will definitely damage less meat than a fast 6mm. 300blk is a great bush cartridge but I need something that’s capable out to 300yd so that discounts it for me

I'd be happy out to 300m or a bit more with it. Sure it has a bit more of a rainbow that the 243, but it's very predictable.

Originally Posted by vulcannz

Nah using supers (125grain American Gunner). I have it setup for subs, just never used it in anger.

Those rounds are listed as a varmint round. Sounds like you get on with them OK. Are they OK for hilar shots up to 100 metres?

Most of my shots are around 200m in the engine compartment. IMHO they drop better than the 243 (I was using 80gr fed powershoks on that).

Originally Posted by gimp

That's cool.