Time to heat things up a couple weeks before the general season opener. Besides, maybe the discussion will result in fewer unfriendly confrontations on Opening Day.

Starting at the far left, a 130 grain .270, 100 grain .243, 150 grain 30-30, and 62 grain .223.

Why would someone believe the cartridge on the far right would an acceptable alternative to the one on the far left for harvesting white tailed deer?

Because if either are put in the right spot the end result is still a dead deer

"If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, wouldn't it be a Merry Christmas?"

Dandy Don Meredith

Why would someone think the cartridge on the far left is an acceptable alternative to the one on the far right for harvesting elephants? Bonus points if you know the answer or get the drift.

Dan, I agree with you that there are much better alternatives to .223 for deer. I have used .223 on deer, and would do it again if I did not have a better alternative. However, the fact remains that a .223 with a modern expanding bullet will kill deer. It is going to be tough to dispute that. Believe it or not, the .223 does actually have some positives! Low recoil, affordable, often comes chambered in a rifle with an adjustable stock. Personally, I don't even like the .243 for deer, but that does not mean that someone who chooses to hunt with one is wrong.

Because again, if you put a 7mm bullet traveling at 2500 fps into the CNS of any animal on the planet, it will die. Although, I am pretty sure Mr. Bell was using a heavier solid, vs the spitzer type shown.

Now, in response to the OP.

My question would be, why on earth do you think that the cartridge on the far left is "better" at killing whitetails (I harvest corn, I kill animals)? Because it has more powder capacity? Because it shoots a heavier bullet?

I would wager that over 95% of Texas whitetails are killed within 200 yards and I would also bet that most are killed within 100 yards. Conventional wisdom states you only need around 1000 ft-lbs of energy to fully penetrate a whitetails chest cavity with a good expanding bullet. Therefore, with anything more than a 30-30 is pretty much overkill. Why would you spend more money on ammo and deal with increased recoil and blast if you don't have to?

Because it's Remington CorLokt ammo! It's the baddest and most-est killing ammo in dem der woods!

I'm in Dan's camp. Not a lot of elephants in Texas, But...

Because thousands upon thosuands of hunters go with too much gun, they cannot shoot worth a damn, because they're scared of it.

3000 foot pounds of energy does no good if it misses an animal.

But, if a person can place a .223 in the brainstem, they can kill almost anything. I am not a proponent of vitals shooting whitetail with a .223, but I did give you the answer to your question.

To answer the original question...because it is a deer, not a Bradley Fighting Vehicle.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

If you take the picture again with just the bullets and not the whole cartridge it makes them seem a lot less different.

For me the bullet means more than the cartridge or headstamp etc. Ive shot and seen countless deer shot in the neck/head/vitals with a 223 and none of them had a fighting chance.

I will also never be convinced that a 55 grain cup and core soft point is in any way comparable to a partitions, fusion, tsx, GMX, E-tip etc. when using 223 or similar smaller calibers on deer/hog sized critters.

In discussions like this, I like to see what the math tells us.

The following numbers reflect the velocity (fps) and energy (ft-lbs) created by each load at the muzzle and at 100 yards...

.223 Rem. (60 SP) 3150/1322 2782/1031

.243 Win. (100 PSP) 2960/1945 2697/1615

.270 Win. (130 PP+) 3150/2865 2881/2396

.30-30 Win. (150 FP) 2390/1902 2018/1356

So then, if we equate energy with knock down power (which can easily be another debate by itself), the .223 has roughly 1/4 (24%) less knock down power than its closest competitor, the 30-30, and 57% less than what some might argue is the most versatile load, the .270, all at a mere 100 yards.

As expected, the .223 leaves the muzzle at a high velocity (same as the .270) but more quickly loses its kinetic energy.

Since we have gone Robert Roark and “ Karamojo”Bell we might as well throw in some Jack O’Conner who if my memory is correct once said when talking about shooting Texas Whitetails with small caliber rifles said heck you could throw a soggy donut slam thru the deer in Texas.

A debate over how a lighter bullet made from a specific metal can create comparable tissue damage to one that weighs roughly twice as much is beyond my pay grade.

Also, I feel some of you are making some rather large assumptions in the shooting capabilities of those who seldom shoot their rifle more than a dozen times a year, if that many. But that's a good thing since it leads to other points that should come out of this discussion.

What has been covered so far:

.223 will kill deer if put in the right spot
.223 has lower recoil than any of the other cartridges being discussed
.223 does indeed have at least 1000 ft lbs at 100 yards (1031 according to you Texas Dan)
.223 is an affordable round
deer are not Bradley fighting vehicles
Jack O'conner said "heck you could throw a soggy donut slam thru the deer in Texas."

Can you argue that any of this is untrue?

All good points.

Perhaps a good, follow-up question might be how much time do you like to spend in the woods looking for a deer that was reportedly hit with a .223.

I've actually spent more time looking for a deer that was reportedly hit with a .243...

Some people can kill a whitetail with a 223, some people throw american flags in the trash.
I can kill deer with a 223...

The point being, the lighter the load, the more likely to draw ire from those helping you look for it.

While you might see a given load as being enough to effectively and ethically harvest a deer, that doesn't mean everyone in camp agrees with you.

If you can’t kill a deer with a 223 at a 100 yards sitting in a blind with a rest you shouldn’t be deer hunting.

I've had to look for deer shot with .30-30, .308, .243, .270, .300 Wby. It happens.

I would say the same for anyone who hasn't fired at least 50 practice rounds since last season but that's a debate for another day.

I'm sure others are out there thinking I should have added another 50 or so rounds to that number.

That is because as FiremanJG pointed out, most people are afraid of their guns. If they were to put up the big boomers that are not necessary and started shooting smaller rounds that don't punish their shoulders or their wallets, they might spend more time learning how to actually shoot.

As for the comment about tracking deer shot with a .223, I have actually spent more time tracking deer wounded with 30-06s or 7mm Rem Mags than with any of the smaller chamberings.