Thread: 223 on deer

Originally Posted by 7.62

If a nice fat red spiker wanders out onto a clearing 250yd away, right on dusk and there’s no opportunity to get closer, I want a caliber that will reliably flatten that animal with a shoulder shot. So that means a 6mm minimum. Do yourself a favour and get a 243 instead

I agree, slightly, If I only could have one rifle it would be a 6.5mm Fact is you can run 100gr pills easy as which will do everything a .243 will do but you can run 147s to shoot shit wayyyy out there. Plus how many people do you know that want to run heavy .243 rounds????

IMO the 6.5 (.260) is what the .243 should have been.

Originally Posted by Timmay

I agree, slightly, If I only could have one rifle it would be a 6.5mm Fact is you can run 100gr pills easy as which will do everything a .243 will do but you can run 147s to shoot shit wayyyy out there. Plus how many people do you know that want to run heavy .243 rounds????

IMO the 6.5 (.260) is what the .243 should have been.

Agree 100%. 6.5 is the sweet spot for great ballistics, low recoil, and moderate barrel wear. A 6.5x55, 260, Creedmoor, or 6.5x47 would all be very high on my list if I had to own just one rifle.

In regard to the 223 debate, many of us begin our hunting careers with reasonably hard hitting cartridges like a 7mm08, 308, 270 etc. And we soon come to realise that they are a bit overkill for shooting yearlings or spikers at shorter ranges. We start thinking about another rifle to add to the safe for our meat hunting endeavours; something that’s accurate, fun to shoot, with no recoil and a flat trajectory. So low and behold, a 223 finds it’s way into the safe. But I believe this is a mistake and most of us would be better served by a 243 for that role. Well that’s been my experience anyway