# Honest report on .224 bullets on deer?



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

Not trying to stir up some arguements here, but I would really like to hear an *honest review *of someone who has killed a mule deer with a .224 diameter bullet. I would love to see some pictures and a full report without fudging the information.

I bring this up because everytime a topic like this comes up, I cringe at the thought of using such a small bullet on large game and someone will say "my uncle's neighbor has a peg-legged niece that kills deer with a .22 Hornet because any more recoil would knock her off her peg-leg, and she does just fine," and use that as justification but never generates real proof that it is a legitimate method of hunting deer. I dont ask this because I think it wont kill the animal, but because I just cant imagine it killing the animal quickly and humanely. Inevetibly someone is going to say "its all about shot placement," but I just cant imagine everyone having perfect shot placement. If you have that kind of confidence to hit a muley in the magic spot, by all means use a small diameter bullet, but realistically speaking; how many of us would really put that much confidence in a tiny bullet as opposed to something with a bit more energy behind it?

Again, I dont want to start some huge arguement that will end up getting the thread locked, but I would like to hear some *honest* reports on how humanely your shot took the animal down and if you would in all seriousness use a .22 on large game again.

PS: I also recognize that there are some great bullets out there like the TSX, so I dont think we need to go down that road...


----------



## duckhunter1096 (Sep 25, 2007)

I wish I could give an answer to the .224, but I can't. I'm a firm believer in my .270 with a 130 grain bullet. HOWEVER, I did do a doe deer hunt about 7 years ago, and used my 22-250. Took her down immediately, with no movement on the ground. Sweet spot, not hardly. Good placement, yes. But that was the first and last time I will chase a deer with a gun that small.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

Hey Bax... I cannot tell you very much about the .224 on deer. However take this using some common sense.

I have used a .243 with a lot of success on elk. Not much of a bullet difference but certainly a huge animal difference. On the .243 I have used the Federal Premium ammo with the Barnes triple shock X bullet. in 85Gr. I have taken 2 spikes and a cow elk all at under 200yds. Based on the ballistic data from federal on this cartridge i am getting about *[email protected]* with about *1300lf/lbs* of energy. On a quality bullet like the X it is enough punch to bring down an elk quickly.Looking at my ballistics table the .224 50gr has *[email protected]* and packs *950ft/lbs*. I say it's enough at no more than 150 yds. but I know many will argue against it.

Here is some food for thought..... Ever noticed that many shots under 300 yds with big calibers resulted in animals running, stumbling around and taking a few to go out completely. I also noticed that a lot of the longer range shots of 500 to 1000 yds ended up in quick drops. Dead before they hit the ground scenarios.

I spoke to a couple of guys I know that do long range shooting and they explained that the high bullet speed at close range end up in the bullet going through the animal before it can reach maximum expansion and before causing maximum damage. This also causes shock and adrenaline. A lower bullet speed will get you a quicker expansion of the bullet and therefore cause more tissue damage even if the bullet does not go completely through. As always the key is going to be a quality round and a well placed shot. Having a big gun will never compensate completely for a poorly placed shot.


----------



## chet (Sep 7, 2007)

I have witnessed three kills with 224 bullets

#1 standing yearling mule deer buck at about 250 yards. 60 year old hunter. 22-250 55 grain remington soft point. Lung shot. 20 yard death run. dead deer.

#2 running yearling mule deer buck at about 100 yards. 14 year old hunter. same gun/load as above. 2 in the guts, 1 in the a$$, 1 blew up on the shoulder. A few miles later- fifth shot in the neck finished the animal.

#3 bedded doe antelope at about 300 yards. 30 year old hunter. 220 swift 50 grain ballistic tip. ear canal . DRT

evaluation:
buck fever and/or inexperience + little gun = bad results


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

Chet.... you just helped make my point. 2 of those shots were over 150yds and the one under was an inexperienced shooter with bad shot placement. The first scenario with the experienced hunter could have been a quick kill if it had been a closer shot. Knowing your gun and your abilities with it is key.


----------



## mack1950 (Sep 11, 2007)

i agree with chet things can go south real fast with a small round even a skilled shot can pull a shot here and there, here are a couple of bits of advice 1 practice practice practice the
shooter should be totally confident with the weapon and how it shots, 2 no long range stuff
and stay away from the shoulders a shot right behind the shoulder will deflat the lungs and 
while it wont pile up on the spot it wont run for. my wife and daughter in law have shot some
very nice bucks with our 243 and alica has taken 2 with my sons 223 varment spcial. i have 
always been of the thought that it doesnt matter so much as what you hunt with its your 
ablility to shot it well.


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

I appreciate all of your input on this. I also agree that the 243 is a great caliber and wouldn't worry as much with shooting that caliber. 

I have been in a debate with a guy at work that uses his .223 Rem "all the time" and swears it works just fine. But I just have a hard time believing that it is a clean / humane kill.

I suppose those Texans that use the .223 aren't having as many issues because they are shooting smaller white-tail, but a mule deer in my mind is just too big for that.


----------



## redleg (Dec 5, 2007)

Over a hundred years ago there was a fanatical hunter in Africa who killed elephants with a British .303. No one knows how many elephants he wounded. He only talked about how many he succeeded in killing.


----------



## chet (Sep 7, 2007)

here's a pic of the blown up shoulder, not a very good pic. shot was obviously too far forward.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

Chet.... were you the 14 year old that tortured that deer to death with 5 shots? just wondering cuz you covered the face in the pic. C'mon you can tell us. Or were you trying to hide the mullet? :mrgreen:


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

I shot my first(and largest) deer in 1992 with a .222 Remington......7 times!!!!!!!!!!!! All connected in the vitals but it took a lot of lead to put him down. I ended up finishing the job with a .270. I would opt for a larger caliber.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Don't take this as me advocating the use of smaller calibers, but here is my personal experience with small bullets. Sorry, no photos of entrance or exit wounds.

My Dad hunted with a 22-250 for over 30 years. I hunted with a 222 for 2 years and my wife hunted with a 223 for her first deer. I also a have had a few family members hunt with 22-250s. I personally watched 14 bucks shot with the above calibers. Only 2 required an additional shot. Only 2 moved farther than 20 yards after the shot, but both were recovered within 100 yards. Shots ranged between 50 and 400 or so yards. I was on hunts when another 10-15 were killed with smaller calibers. I only recall one buck which was shot with a smaller caliber that wasn't recovered, but the guy tried a head shot on a straight away buck and hit it in the butt. We found it dead a few days later. I remember always using 55 gr soft points. 

I shot 2 bucks with the 222. Both died in their tracks, one shot kills; at distances of around 150 yards and 200 yards.

My wife shot her first buck with a 223 at about 250 yards. The shot was a little far forward, but broke both shoulders. The buck didn't move from where it fell, but did require an additional shot to finish the job.

The 22-250 is a deer killing machine. The bullet transfers all its energy to the animal. But proper placement is needed. Shooting them just behind the shoulder is key. 

A gut shot deer with a 22-250, 223, 270, or a 300 Mag is just a gut shot deer. Hit them where they need to be hit and the rest will take care if itself. 

That said, I now hunt with a 280, as does my wife. My kids use 257 Roberts.


----------



## 10yearquest (Oct 15, 2009)

Bax. please read through my post on COW elk. viewtopic.php?f=8&t=22715 be sure to read the replies. I have also killed one doe mule deer with a 22-250 15o yard rested shot on an unspooked animal. Hit her in the top of the shoulder in the spine. She went straight down.


----------



## Doc (Sep 11, 2007)

I shot a doe several years ago using a 22-250 just over 100 yards. She went down where she stood and was DRT. Shot just behind the shoulder with a 55 grain bonded bear claw. My son hit a deer with his .270 but it wasn't a well placed shot. It took off and a guy down the tree line shot it with a 22-250 about 70 yards, the deer broke an antler when it hit the ground dead. (Running full speed, shot in the neck). I watched a doe get shot with a 22-250 at 130 yards. Hit the shoulder, and it took several hours to recover the deer and it covered over 3 miles. (They wouldn't wait after they saw it had been hit and saw a good puddle of blood. It was a good learning experience for a youngster). I can't say what grain the bullets were except the bonded-bear claw 55 grain I used.

I no longer allow people that hunt with me to use a 22-250. They are usually younger and not as good on shot placement as they should be. Practice is all good and fine but if they don't get excited when they see a deer, something's wrong. If they don't want to use a .243 or larger I don't give them their permit (I buy them for 'em so I can do that). I encourage them to use a .308 or reduced recoil .270 or 30-06 if they are concerned about recoil, by offering to provide the gun and bullets.

As has been stated it's all about shot placement but you get a little better margin of error with a caliber larger than .22.


----------



## WasatchOutdoors (Sep 26, 2007)

Here's my take on the subject. And it's a 2 parter so please be patient.

It's not JUST about shot placement. It's about having the restraint to pass in marginal shots. When you choose to go out with a smaller caliber rifle, you need to have the patience and restraint to pass all but the optimal shot.And I don't put a lot of stock in the stories about how a guy shot it right through the heart and it was never recovered. I only say that because I've been the guy who's gone back out on the hill at deer camp, and tracked the 'heartshot' deer down miles later, and brought it back to camp. What I've noticed is a big trend of shots where it hit too far back, almost always to the shooters right, or high, often because they flinched or yanked the shot. So my point here is that if you are going to hunt with a smaller gun, don't shoot at an animal too far, quartering towards you or standing straight away or towards you. Just like archery, you've got to wait for a perfect broadside or quartering away shot. Yes, you might still kill them on the marginal shots, but then again, you might not. If you're shooting at elk, you have to wait for a perfect broadside shot, quartering away is no good, because the contents of their stomach are often the equivalent of a wet bale of hay. 

Part 2. As I mentioned. I've seen a lot of 'heart shots' that are high or right. To that I would add, I've seen just as many in 30 caliber as I have in the smaller guns. I think too many guys don't practice with their rifle in any conditions other than ideal, sitting at the shooting bench, with sand bags. You need to get outside, and shoot in actual hunting positions, with the actual clothes, jacket etc that you intend to hunt with. Opening morning is NOT the time to find out that you can't properly mount your rifle with your bundled up cold weather gear on.

You also need to go with a friend and have him load your rifle for you between each shot. Sometimes with a live round, sometimes with a snap cap. You might just find out that you can't shoot a 300 Win Mag worth a crap because you can't stop flinching. And to the macho man who just thought to himself, 'nut up' seriously, shut up. Flinching is an involuntary reaction to most people, but can be overcome with lots of practice, usually with smaller caliber guns like a .22 lr. 

The only reason that I say shut up, is that the vast majority of the guys I have met who advocate the need for an oversized gun on antelope and deer sized game usually do so because they flinch badly, and need a bigger bullet to cause enough damage to still take an animal down with a poorly placed shot. A lot of these guys would probably be better served by downsizing the gun and shooting more often than 4 days before the opener. Just saying.

And I'm not saying this because I shoot a small gun. I shoot a vary wide variety of calibers, that I match to the game, many of which are in the larger 30 caliber range. I just know that there are a lot of poor shooters that somehow try to make up for their shortcomings by advocating the 50 BMG as a deer rifle.


----------



## pocone (Sep 29, 2009)

Back in the day, my grandpa used the 22-250 to take many deer. I don't have all the stories on size and how far they went before falling, if they did go anywhere. I just remember hearing that he killed a bunch of deer with that caliber. 
Would I use it? Probably not, but I also agree with wasatch that some people think they need a rifle just short of a cannon to kill deer. 
I think you could pose this question for many different "deer" calibers (i.e. .243, .257, 25-06, 30-30, 7MM-08) and get some similar responses. Some would say that their deer went down right away. Others would say it traveled X amount of feet or yards. Others would probably say (if they were honest) that they had to track it for miles and maybe even lost the deer.
If I were to use a .22 cal centerfire, I would limit my shots to under 150 yards and the deer would have to be standing still. But that's just me. For now, I will stick with my .257 and 30.06.


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

Last year I took a doe antelope and a doe deer with my Rugar M77 .223 using a Federal Premium Vital-Shok 60 gr. Nosler Partition. Both animals were about 50 yds. (I'm primarily a bowhunter.), broadside, standing, and alert. They knew I was there, but didn't quite know what I was. In any case, on each one, I took one shot, got a passthrough, and each went about 20 yds. If I get antlerless tags again this year, I'll use it again, hopefully with my skinny 14 year old granddaughter. Would I use it for elk? No, the hide is too thick, but for deer and/or antelope at 150 yds or less, it's quite adequate thank you.


----------



## Kevin D (Sep 15, 2007)

I've tried to make it a point to harvest a deer with every legal rifle in my arsenal, and one of them is a 222 Rem. I've taken 2 deer with it. The first was one and done with a shot through the heart/lung area, the second took six rounds before I was gutting it. Given you have a choice, you're better off hunting with a little more gun IMHO.

Fwiw, I was packing my triple deuce one year in Idaho when I encountered one of the biggest bucks I've seen while hunting. An uncle jumped it and hit it with his .308, but I was 700-800 yards away across the canyon and there was little I could do but watch. My uncle played cat and mouse with the wounded buck for nearly an hour before it gave him the slip. I'll admit that I did fire a few shots at the buck with my .222 hoping to slow it down, but at that range I doubt I really came close to hitting it. In hindsight I often wonder that if I'd have been packing my 7 Mag that day instead of my deuce if things would have turned out differently. I dunno, perhaps.


----------



## mikevanwilder (Nov 11, 2008)

I have shot a cow elk with a 55 gr hollow point in a 22-250 took her down with one shot. Now I wasn't expecting for this to happen. I was doing some work for a farmer and he gave me a few deperdation tags for elk and deer. I went to do some work on a fence and saw a herd of deer running into some trees about 400 yards away. So I went and grabbed my dads 22-250 because it was the only centerfire rifle we had bullets for at the time. I went back and walked the trees but the deer had already left. On my way out I came across this cow elk and she stood out there a 200 yards. I got a dead rest and put one right in the pump station. She dropped. I went over to her and she took about 1 1/2 breaths and was done. 
This doesn't mean I would use it all the time. Will it work? Sure but is there alot more room for error? absolutly. If you do use a 22 cal. more power to you but I would rather be comfortable knowing I have a gun the will still but the animal down if I don't get the best shot off.


----------



## Nalgi (Apr 16, 2010)

*You really know how to start a debate, don't you!*

I think it boils down to personal confidence and shooting skill. Not to brag, but I shoot alot. Maybe average 200 rds per week shooting ground squirrels with a .223 and a .17. I am very confident in my shooting ability. If I were shooting big game with a varmint caliber I would limit my shots to head/neck only and I'm confident making that shot. (after shooting soda can sized squirrels all summer a neck is like shooting at at '57 chevy!) BUT, knowing that most deer hunters don't have that luxury to practice as much as I get to, I think you have to go to a little larger caliber. My personal favorite is the .243. It's light, no recoil, flat shooting, and with the right bullet weight and construction, a very deadly weapon. I prefer the 90 gr. Partition or the 85 gr. Barnes. They will drop a deer pretty darn fast. IMO


----------



## lehi (Sep 13, 2007)

Dang I didn't realize how many people have actually shot deer and ELK with a .223 cal.... And to think that some people give me sh** for hunting elk with a .270 :lol:


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

I've killed alot of deer with a .22-250, my wife killed her 2nd deer ever with my .22-250. They pretty much all dropped on the spot.

The farthest tracking job I've ever had on a deer was about 1 mile, shot via a .30-06.

I primarily shoot .50 cal smokepoles, but I personally wouldnt hestiate if I had to use my .22-250 again. Shot placement > caliber IMO.


-DallanC


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

I know of Texas boys who use the 22-250 for deer. They all recommend using either the Nosler Partion, Winchester 64 gr PP, or find some trophy bonded bear claw loads for it. They do not recommend using the ballistic tip in it, they had issues with crippling using them.

I don't usually use the 22's for deer but, I used one of those PP's in my .223 to kill a whitetail doe dead in her tracks, cored her right thru the heart. My nephew used that same gun and load to kill 6 deer, all traveled less than 100 yards after the shot.

personally I'ld go with the Partions if your reloading.

check out this thread for more info viewtopic.php?f=15&t=24060

You already know it, Bullet placement is critical with the same bores.

Good Luck


----------



## Raptorman (Aug 18, 2009)

I have killed one doe with a .223. Dropped her dead in her tracks, didn't move an inch. The being said she was about 30 yards away, broadside and I just shot her in the head. Worked well but personally feel it would be small for any shot over 150 yards or so, but I am with everyone else its more about shot placement then caliber.


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

Great insight here guys.

It seems the consensus is shot placement for small calibers at short to medium-short ranges for the most part.

I wonder though, should it be considered ethical? Not trying to badger anyone who has had success (especially with the .22-250, seems like it works pretty well), but do you think most guys carrying a small-bore have decent shot placement? 

Again, not trying to call BS on anyone. Just trying to understand the motive behind the idea... -Ov-


----------



## WasatchOutdoors (Sep 26, 2007)

I think that the guys who hunt a lot, practice with their equipment a lot, and have the restraint to hold off on marginal shots have excellent success with their equipment. I mean think about it, these smaller calibers are notoriously accurate, minimal recoil, and screaming flat trajectories. There is a TON of stored energy at close range due to the high velocity, and combined with a fast expanding bullet, these guns are DEADLY at ranges under 200 yards. 

I think that once you leave the small group of hunters that are made up of the reloaders, accuracy freaks, and dedicated hunters and shooters, and start looking at Joe Average, who pulls his uncleaned gun out of the closet 4 days before the season opener, who may or may not take it to the range before going hunting, all bets are off. That being said, with that particular group, caliber doesn't really matter, because a 300 win mag bullet to the paunch is just as innefective as a 223. Either way it's a long tracking job and a huge mess. I guess, maybe with a 300 win mag you might have a better blood trail due to the gaping exit wound on the other side? But you're still looking for miles, and with the group that can't be bothered to do something as minimal as going to the range, how many of them will give up after 400 yards?


----------



## tuffluckdriller (May 27, 2009)

My uncle has hunted deer with a 22-250 for years, as have my brother, his father-in-law, his uncle-in-law, my other brother. I have a .243, and it works wonderfully on deer, too. My friend has used a .220 swift with great success on deer. I see absolutely no problem with the .224 bullets on deer.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

Bax... I think that now that you bring the question *Is it ethical to use small calibers?* I can only answer as I see the issue. It is only ethical if you have the skill and ability to use the weapon of choice properly. If you can't handle the gun don't take the shot no matter what caliber.

Some folks don't see it that way and that's OK. LEHI gets crap for using a .270 on elk, I shoot elk with a .243 and have taken heat for it as well. Some folks will say you need a 300 ultra mag for elk ( I call this MAGNUMITIS or COMPENSATING for deeper issues :wink: ).

I can assure you I have dropped my elk without needing a 2nd shot or having to track them more than 20 yards. But I shoot over 2000 rounds a year and can hit a quarter at 200 yds about 80% of the time. Ethical is different for everyone. What is more unethical than small caliber hunters are the yahoos that shoot 5 times to sight in their gun and then go hunting and that's all they ever shoot all year.


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

MadHunter said:


> Bax... I think that now that you bring the question *Is it ethical to use small calibers?* I can only answer as I see the issue. It is only ethical if you have the skill and ability to use the weapon of choice properly. If you can't handle the gun don't take the shot no matter what caliber.
> 
> Some folks don't see it that way and that's OK. LEHI gets crap for using a .270 on elk, I shoot elk with a .243 and have taken heat for it as well. Some folks will say you need a 300 ultra mag for elk ( I call this MAGNUMITIS or COMPENSATING for deeper issues :wink: ).
> 
> I can assure you I have dropped my elk without needing a 2nd shot or having to track them more than 20 yards. But I shoot over 2000 rounds a year and can hit a quarter at 200 yds about 80% of the time. Ethical is different for everyone. What is more unethical than small caliber hunters are the yahoos that shoot 5 times to sight in their gun and then go hunting and that's all they ever shoot all year.


Great points made here! Thanks for the input


----------



## cfarnwide (Sep 10, 2007)

I posted some test results a while back that at least I thought were pretty interesting. Here is the link to the thread. viewtopic.php?f=15&t=19436

And here is a link to the article. http://www.shootingillustrated.com/Ammo ... sbone.html

*EDIT... I had copied the link to the test from the old topic which was invalid. The above link is correct now.


----------



## Kevin D (Sep 15, 2007)

MadHunter said:


> Bax... I think that now that you bring the question *Is it ethical to use small calibers?*


Excellent observation....it's not a question of physics, it is a question of ethics. Given that it is legal, it is up to each individual to decide for themselves......there is no one size fits all.


----------



## 10yearquest (Oct 15, 2009)

*Ethical?* that depends on your definition of ethical. To those of us who have had success with these calibers. YES! *Humane?* Your a hunter, you kill things is any killing really all that humane? What about a bow? What about muzzleloaders? I have witnessed more woundings and unneeded suffering from muzzleloaders than any other weapon. I do not blame the weapon. Let me tell you about the damage my little bullet did to that cow elk this year. The bullet entered near the back of the rib cage. She was quartering away more than I realized. The bullet struck and broke through a rib. The stomach had a 2 inch hole blown in it. The liver had a large split in it near the wound channel. The lung where the bullet ended up was burgered. The damage in the stomach and liver were from the shockwave. She bled to death. The neck shot did nothing more than put her on the ground. An arrow in the same spot does less damage. Is a bow humane? I hunt with my little gun for the challenge of it. Just like when I hunt with my bow or muzzleloader. That is the motivation. Plus its alot lighter than my '06.


----------

