Thread: A question for the doubters

Originally Posted by 7mmwsm

And you cannot compare deer. The size and nature are totally different.
A yearling fallow or sika is a way different beast to a pumped up rutting stag of any breed.
The stated example of 594 ft/lbs is fine when all goes well. But an animal can recover (enough to get away) from 600 lbs a lot easier than the old fashioned recommendation of 1000ft/lbs.

Yeah nah.

Following that logic, bowhunting would not work.

A 100kg+ red will tip over from a .22lr going through the lugs. Might take a wee while for the leak to take effect but it will happen so long as the ribs are not in the way.

Originally Posted by caberslash

Yeah nah.

Following that logic, bowhunting would not work.

A 100kg+ red will tip over from a .22lr going through the lugs. Might take a wee while for the leak to take effect but it will happen so long as the ribs are not in the way.

Often arrows do not work.
An arrow low in the lungs takes a lot longer to kill an animal than an arrow high in the lungs. Sometimes days longer.
Low in the lungs allows the lung to drain. High and the lungs fill with blood and the animal effectively drowns.

Originally Posted by 7mmwsm

Often arrows do not work.
An arrow low in the lungs takes a lot longer to kill an animal than an arrow high in the lungs. Sometimes days longer.
Low in the lungs allows the lung to drain. High and the lungs fill with blood and the animal effectively drowns.

With a modern expanding broadhead, decent arrow and suitable impact speed (200-180 fps) at a distance of 100m or less, you are talking about a permanent wound cavity which is comparable to many rifles (especially if they are being shot with copper bullets...)

Originally Posted by caberslash

With a modern expanding broadhead, decent arrow and suitable impact speed (200-180 fps) at a distance of 100m or less, you are talking about a permanent wound cavity which is comparable to many rifles (especially if they are being shot with copper bullets...)

No. You can not compare a projectile from a rifle and one from an arrow. They work via totally different means. I wish people would stop that.

Look, whether its a 223, and arrow, or a 375 H&H. They all kill well when used correctly. Its does not mean in any way that any of them are equal or equivalent.

Originally Posted by caberslash

With a modern expanding broadhead, decent arrow and suitable impact speed (200-180 fps) at a distance of 100m or less, you are talking about a permanent wound cavity which is comparable to many rifles (especially if they are being shot with copper bullets...)

Tell us about your experience with expanding broadheads(although it is getting way off the subject).i have never used them, but have encounter numerous very experienced bowhunters, who have hunted North American and African game, who refuse to use mechanical broad heads due to failures.
And to answer the original question, I would only consider a 223 a "legitmate" deer caliber, if it was the only rifle I had available. I have far more suitable options.
I've shot dozens of deer with 22 caliber rifles but mostly way back when I thought it was cool.
What worries me about threads like these, is new inexperienced shooters/hunters reads this stuff with "rose tinted glasses and tunnel vision" and come to the conclusion that the 223 is suitable for slaying mammoths. It's not.