Thread: Interesting stats here....so the 270 can kill deer...

Originally Posted by veitnamcam

257 less available and perhaps more of a reloaders bore resulting in those useing said bore shooting more and being better shots?

^^^ This, or something similar. The quarterbore has always been something of an aficionado’s cartridge, and I mean that in a positive way.

The sample size (very small) could very easily be skewed heavily in favour of one particular calibre simply by having a more experienced shooter with that particular rifle. It comes down to the shot placement variable, if the .257 shooter(s) is putting it reliably into the neck, spine and shoulder, then there’s your answer. Could have been the one single bloke on several trips.
@Puffin I hear what you’re saying and I certainly don’t disagree with the assertion that the .257 / .264 bore is well suited for deer, clearly that’s been the case for decades.

But I shoot a range of calibres like many blokes here, .223, .243, 6.5mm, 7mm and .308 and I back myself every shot to put that deer down on the spot and I’m always a little cross with myself when I don’t. Most of the time that’s what happens, the carry rifle I am most effective with is and always has been the .243 Winchester, shooting prone. High percentage shots where time, wind, line of sight, everything is on my side. Deer shouldn’t really be running anywhere, when everything is in the shooter’s favour, but shit does happen from time to time.

And on the rare occasion when I sit in a blind and wait for the fallow to come to me, my .223 T3 Super Varmint will drop ‘em on the spot everytime, have never failed to kill them outright with a neck shot with that rifle. If that was the only type of shooting I ever did, my stats would look pretty bloody good I reckon. And the Wife’s would be even better, she’s a machine.

But it isn’t the only type of shooting I do and when I don’t manage to put the deer down on the spot, its because I didn’t put the bullet where I intended, which 90% of the time means it hit behind the shoulder in the rear of the lungs / heart area. And 50% of that 90% its a longer range shot with either the Creedmoor or the 7mm-08, and the other 50% of the time its a close range snap shot in the scrub and timber with the .308.

I can 100% say that my heavier bullet shots account for more runners that my lighter bullet shots, simply because the heavier bullets are used in less precise circumstances. But because I use the right heavier bullets for the medium game animal, I know that if I’m a bit off, they won’t go far. And that’s the soft frangible bullets coming into play and why the stats reflect that in the study.

If anything I’m looking at the number of runners in the stats, shot at what I would regard as quite short range from a good rest with good visibility, and I’m wondering how many newbies they had in their study. Cos shooting out of a high seat should be pretty bloody bankable for an experienced shooter. Branches and so on can play a part in the woods in the US, I’ve done a fair bit in the winter season there and it can be helluva frustrating to get a clear shot through the branches. Its also friggin’ cold. Like frozen bones cold.

I don’t think calibre has got much to do with dropping deer on the spot. It’s down to how the shooter sets up the shot, the point of aim and all the circumstantial variables that can affect the trajectory from the moment he pulls the trigger to when the bullet strikes. Buck fever being one of them. And if the shooter is using a soft bullet on soft little deer like he should be, then the odds of a bang flop are even more in his favour.