That depends, is her husband cool with it?

Dan, I know better to do this but here is a question for you Dan. Do you believe you have to have at least 1000ftlbs energy to kill deer cleanly with a firearm like so many gun scribes have claimed for years? Just simple yes or no answer will do.

No. I would suggest a something that produces a minimum of 1200 ft-lbs at 100 yards to create a shot with an ethically acceptable margin for error. Personally, I prefer something like the .243 that's capable of producing a minimum of 1500-1600 ft-lbs in order to further increase that margin for error.

The 1200 ft-lb minimum has been around a long time and IMHO, the more recent 1000 ft-lb number was an attempt to lower ethical standards for those wanting something more light on the shoulder. In fact, there was a time when acceptable loads for deer were sometimes measured by recoil rather than down range energy. Yes, the higher minimum puts a greater burden on kids. However, I've never been one to be impressed when some parent wants to brag about their six-year-old who killed his/her first deer with a rifle they had to lay on the ledge of a box stand window for them to do it. But then, we do now find ourselves in the era of "everyone gets a trophy" don't we.

Can you share a link to a credible source that quotes a .223 load as producing at least 1200 ft-lbs of energy at 100 yards, or even 50 yards?

Here Dan. This is my 70 grain Accubond .223 handload. Data used to load it is Hodgdon. Powder is Varget. Calculator I used is Hornady’s. Muzzle velocity is 3,025 per my chronograph. Energy at the Muzzle is 1,422.


At 100 yards velocity is 2,773. Energy is 1,195


That misses your mystical 1,200 foot pound of energy at 100 yards by 5.
What Bobo is showing is a heavier bullet with more energy.
The people like you and many others are talking about what they have read. I am telling you what I have done and showing you the coinciding numbers that are damn near dead on your parameters. According to you they give a substantial margin of higher energy than needed. You probably need to stick to talking about laying with another man’s wife because you don’t know beans about this.

In these threads I don't think anyone is debating whether it can be done or not...obviously a person can kill almost any animal with a .223. The question to consider is, "Is it the best tool for the job?"...and the answer to that is obvious, at least to me.

Just the same is if I am driving a nail into a 2x4....I can use a brick, the sole of my boot, a Yeti cup, or even a rock. All of those will work. Some folks just prefer to use a hammer since it is a better tool for the job and it seems silly to use an inferior tool if you don't have to.

In these threads I don't think anyone is debating whether it can be done or not...obviously a person can kill almost any animal with a .223. The question to consider is, "Is it the best tool for the job?"...and the answer to that is obvious, at least to me.

Just the same is if I am driving a nail into a 2x4....I can use a brick, the sole of my boot, a Yeti cup, or even a rock. All of those will work. Some folks just prefer to use a hammer since it is a better tool for the job and it seems silly to use an inferior tool if you don't have to.

If you want to take a load to the deer woods that has already run out of juice at 100 yards, it's definitely no skin off my tail or anyone else for that matter. But as I noted earlier, if something a little softer on the shoulder is desired, my choice will continue to be the often underrated .243 for its ability to carry more than enough punch at twice that distance.

I'll leave you with comments made by , a businessman, sportsman, and author from Dallas that he made in his book, Hunting the Whitetail Deer first published back in 1960. It points not only to what is an acceptable load for taking Whitetails, but how some hunters today think much differently than those in decades past. I should add the author later begins his list with the 243 Winchester.

All modern center-fire sporting-rifle calibers of larger bore than .22 inches, when loaded with proper bullets, are generally conceded to be powerful enough for the shooting of deer-size animals. We will go into the question of much power is "enough" power a little later on. No serious hunter is interested in borderline tools, and we will waste no time in discussing the relative merits and demerits of marginal calibers.

In these threads I don't think anyone is debating whether it can be done or not...obviously a person can kill almost any animal with a .223. The question to consider is, "Is it the best tool for the job?"...and the answer to that is obvious, at least to me.

Just the same is if I am driving a nail into a 2x4....I can use a brick, the sole of my boot, a Yeti cup, or even a rock. All of those will work. Some folks just prefer to use a hammer since it is a better tool for the job and it seems silly to use an inferior tool if you don't have to.

No. I would suggest a something that produces a minimum of 1200 ft-lbs at 100 yards to create a shot with an ethically acceptable margin for error. Personally, I prefer something like the .243 that's capable of producing a minimum of 1500-1600 ft-lbs in order to further increase that margin for error.

The 1200 ft-lb minimum has been around a long time and IMHO, the more recent 1000 ft-lb number was an attempt to lower ethical standards for those wanting something more light on the shoulder. In fact, there was a time when acceptable loads for deer were sometimes measured by recoil rather than down range energy. Yes, the higher minimum puts a greater burden on kids. However, I've never been one to be impressed when some parent wants to brag about their six-year-old who killed his/her first deer with a rifle they had to lay on the ledge of a box stand window for them to do it. But then, we do now find ourselves in the era of "everyone gets a trophy" don't we.

Took a little break on this, food for thought bullets and technology have changed radically in the last 63 years since your book was written. I followed the X ft-lbs energy requirement for a short time then got to thinking about it. One gun scribe wrote about it in a gun mag one month how the minimum for deer was 1000, foe elk 1500 and Moose 2000 then the next month wrote about his successful moose hunt in Alaska using a 44 Magnum revolver that had about 850ft-lb. Seems a little contradictive to the previous published article.

I have used "under powered" cartridges such as 22 Hornet, 218 Bee, 223, 25-20, 256 Win Magnum, 30 carbine, 357 Mag, , from rifles and 357 Sig, 357 Mag, 357 Max, 44 spcl, 44 Mag and 45 ACP
handguns on deer with success and no deer shot with any of those were lost with the longest trail about 100 yards. Why, in part because I could and was confident in my ability with them at the ranges the shot was presented, using such one has to know their equipment limitations and be willing to pass on shots if not right. But that should be the case with anything Including rounds that are great for Moose but will kill any deer walking.

Bottom line Dan do what works for you but trying to convince people that what they have done successfully for years does not work because of something you have read or watched on a youtube video makes no sense to me.

Kevin, I guess we can't hunt with our 357 rifles anymore.

The moose shoulder pictures I saw with 77 TMK were pretty impressive. Has me wanting to build a 4.5lb rifle. lol

Those pics are impressive and there is a lot to say for high sectional density bullets for hunting. The 6.5s got a good reputation for moose with the 156 to 160 gr old school bullets Bell killed a few hundred elephants with the 6.5x54 with ball ammo. On paper it is not much different power wise than the 30-30 just uses a long "heavy" for caliber bullet.

My favorite bullet for the 22-243 is the 75gr Swift Sirocco started a bit over 3300fps. The old 75gr a-max works pretty good for a 223 if you have the twist to handle it

This thread might wind up costing me $. Might start with a 21 inch 1:7 twist barrel for the contender carbine for a real light handy rifle. Throat it long so not to seat too deep in the case. Single shot not worried about mag length.

I keep reading the 223/hunting discussions, over the years, in the hope that someone will have a new and interesting comment. Not happening today, it seems.

If all we had were 223’s, most of us (but not all) wouldn’t starve.

Ya know, we could list the hunting techniques in order of effectiveness. So…

Thrown rock > slingshotted rock > spear > spear&Atlatl > recurve bow > compound bow > muzzleloader > 223 > 243 and larger > RPG

Let me know if I left something out…