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

Originally Posted by Carlsen Highway

I have shot deer with cartridges from a .30-06 down to a pure lead bullet in a black powder .44-40 and they all died where they were standing or within a few yards depending on where I hit them.
Deer are pretty easy to kill with some form of rifle I have decided.

its all about placement, you could shoot a deer in the bum with a 338LM and never find it yet a 223 into the heart is instant death

Originally Posted by gonetropo

its all about placement, you could shoot a deer in the bum with a 338LM and never find it yet a 223 into the heart is instant death

Yes. But not really, and that's what the survey confirmed and something that we already knew. A heart shot results in a runner and often a lost deer.

Shoot a bit higher into the centre of the shoulder and recovery percent will be higher.

I agree with Sneeze, in that the Roberts and Savage may very well make up the bulk of chamberings used to take the 36 deer reported in the .25-cal category.

The average-distance-travelled figures by calibre presented in the report deserve more discussion, as the figure for .25-cal is close on being only half of the next calibre - in other word this bore size performed best, and by some margin.

I hold the opinion that the .25-cal is the sweet-spot for medium-sized deer (this probably should be extended to the metric equiv 6.5mm as this was not a separate category in the report). Other factors being equal, larger diameter, heavier, faster bullets of a comparable construction will be more effective at killing, but on the effectiveness-vs-recoil curve, something like the 257 Roberts with 117-120gr is optimum for the distances reported. I think in the data we are seeing that it is the lower recoil that allows for consistently better shot placement by hunters who don't do a lot of shooting, and I suspect given the ticket system in the US that plenty of the hunters who turn up at the Cedar Knoll Club are fairly infrequent 1-packet-of-ammo-prior-to-the-season-to-check-the-old-girl shooters.

It is also clear from what I read that hunters who shoot quite regularly - like many here on the forum - can underestimate the ability in hunters who shoot less frequently (the majority) to handle moderate recoil and achieve the preferred shot placements mentioned above. We have these discussions from time to time about the best cartridge for newbies. This report should influence our recommendations.

I didn’t read all the report but when I shoot a deer with my 308 they drop - placement
I’m sure if I spent more time in the bush then the law of averages will take over and I will eventually lose one
My shooting is all bush and little experience at longer ranges

when you look at the average range of the sample......you couldve shot the lot with your mod 94 .30/30 with buckhorn sights...if you had kept your aim forwards of the line of leg the deer wouldve all dropped on the spot .Ive been hunting for morethan 30 years...Ive helped unsucessfully to track wounded deer twice that others had hit but cant recall ever doing so myself....either they are hit and go down pretty darn quick or been clean missed.Ive had some right balls ups and piss poor shooting has resulted in lots of noise but no results. age and experience has taught me to AIM THE PLURRY RIFLE and place projectile where it will do the most good,now days Im happy to take deer at sub hundred yards with any of my centrefires,the 7.62x39mm has killed a few now as has the .223 just because I felt like taking it for a walk. I have complete faith in the .270 as we have taken lots of animals over the years and Ive finnally sorted my shit out to where I can happily shoot deer to 300ish yards and KNOW they are going down... the .308 is now kid on the block still in honeymoon stage and getting to know her properly,good reloads help me to have complete faith she will do the bizo too.

Ive played with subsonics ,still do...one of these days I will shoot something other than goats or sheep with them...for the same reason my dog licks its bits....because I can.

Originally Posted by Tahr

A heart shot results in a runner and often a lost deer. Shoot a bit higher into the centre of the shoulder and recovery percent will be higher.

Like mentioned above by Mickey d the front line of the forleg shot, the high shoulder shot, the lower neck shot, all are much better options than the “in the crease” heart shot. I’ve not really ever understood why the heart shot is still so popular cos as Tahr says it will result in long runners a lot of the time, most of the time. Especially here in NZ were 50-60 yds and no dog can be good bye deer. In the UK they’ll tell you its because the game dealers won’t accept shoulder shot carcasses because of meat damage.

Yet still most outfitters and lots of different books and websites and so on still want the heart shot. Doesn’t make much sense to me.

Yes, they all could have been shot successfully with a .30-30. They could equally have all been shot successfully with DRT kills with Sako75's .308, or the previously mentioned 338LM, .223 etc, but in this study they weren't. No calibre was completely effective in the hands of these hunters, far from it, and from the data of distance travelled recorded against calibre size it appears that the .257 was the most effective calibre, with performance falling off significantly for bore sizes both above and below. Why ?

Originally Posted by Puffin

Yes, they all could have been shot successfully with a .30-30. They could equally have all been shot successfully with DRT kills with Sako75's .308, or the previously mentioned 338LM, .223 etc, but in this study they weren't. No calibre was completely effective in the hands of these hunters, far from it, and from the data of distance travelled recorded against calibre size it appears that the .257 was the most effective calibre, with performance falling off significantly for bore sizes both above and below. Why ?

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

Sent from my SM-A320Y using Tapatalk

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.

Originally Posted by gonetropo

its all about placement, you could shoot a deer in the bum with a 338LM and never find it yet a 223 into the heart is instant death

Yes a heart shot is death, but even with Pai Mei's five point exploding heart technique Bill didn't drop instantly. In fact he still made five steps which for a Human is close to five metres. Five steps for a spooked deer well that is at least fifteen metres. That could take even Uma Thurman parting scrub with a Samurai sword a while to find me thinks.

Originally Posted by Puffin

No calibre was completely effective in the hands of these hunters, far from it, and from the data of distance travelled recorded against calibre size it appears that the .257 was the most effective calibre, with performance falling off significantly for bore sizes both above and below. Why ?

The difference might just not be statistically significant compared with standard deviation etc with those quite small sample sizes. The writers of the article didn't seem to regard it as significant anyway.