Which rifle kills a deer "more" dead?

Which rifle kills a deer "more" dead?

You asked the question because you are not sure. If you are not comfortable with his ability, how can he be comfortable with his ability? You should be sure he can pull it off before you let him "try".

It causes lost animals. Physics cannot be denied.

I get the black rifle craze and the ever-increasing trend towards recoil sensitivity has created a bunch of folks who have convinced themselves the .223 is a deer hammer deluxe. I get that people kill a lot of animals with them and use their results to say a 55-60 grain projectile is as lethal as a 100-180 grain projectile. But, it is not.

You too? Crap.

And I don't hate black rifles. But all this ".223 is a hammer" craze started with the popularity of ARs. Again, undeniable.

IDK what caused all the recoil sensitivity.....

I'm not hostile. I'm not mad. But I do grow weary of these threads turning into "dead is dead" and the "223 is a great deer rifle" mantras.

First, we are talking about general lethality for hunting-not "I have killed "X" number of animals with a .223". No one knows what will present itself when hunting.

A .223 is less lethal than a .243 and up. Smaller projectile, less powder. Physics.

This results in less power. Less margin for error. Less penetration. Less range. Smaller or no blood trails. Thus, more lost animals. This is all undeniable. The great irony is-all of this is magnified with kids. Yet, folks want it to be a kid rifle so badly. Just like they want a .410 to be a kid's shotgun. Get him a .243 and a 20 gauge. Please.

If a .223 is all you hunt with, there will come a day when you will wish you had another caliber in your hands. You will not place the shot perfectly. A blood trail will be sparse. A giant buck will show itself at 300+ yards and you will shoot anyway (even though you shouldn't) and lose him or do the right thing and not shoot. Either way, no deer. And you will wish that rifle in your hand was a .243 or .270 or a .257 WBY or a .......

Deny, obfuscate, tell about all your dead animals, deflect, change the subject. Whatever. Physics is physics.

And I don't hate black rifles. But all this ".223 is a hammer" craze started with the popularity of ARs. Again, undeniable.

IDK what caused all the recoil sensitivity.....

My 223 isn't an ar but it does have a black synthetic stock. I shot my first deer with a 270 win chucking a 130 grain bullet and second with a 280 shooting 140's at 10 years old with no recoil problems I even shot both on the bench sighting in. Didn't pick up the 223 for quite some time after. It works and I use it sometimes.

My .223 isn't an AR, it's a Remington 700 ADL, and I started hunting with it long before the 'AR Craze'.

Clearly you've never seen the damage a .223 does to the vitals of a deer (or hog for that matter). I don't blame you, on paper and by looking at the cartridge, you would never think it was so capable.

If I am hunting where I have an opportunity for a 300+ yard shot.. I'll be taking my .270 Winchester Model 70, and will likely not be pulling the trigger anyway.

Reminds me of the age-old adage, "Don't knock it 'till you try it!". People who talk down on the .223 have not tried it. You are making assumptions and coming to conclusions based on second-hand research. If you have used a .223 and lost or wounded an animal, I feel pretty confident that it is a case of user error, and no round will compensate for that (without destroying the meat)!

Both of you have a lot of experience, a lot better shot control and have the confidence in your abilities. That is a lot different than some young kid that even his own father doesn't have confidence in.

Both of you have a lot of experience, a lot better shot control and have the confidence in your abilities. That is a lot different than some young kid that even his own father doesn't have confidence in.

I am betting neither one of those had the same level of confidence back then they have today either. You don't gain confidence from the head stamp on the casing.