Deer hunting with a .223

[marineimaging]

In Texas we could hunt deer and hogs with the .223. As with every aspect of hunting it is up to the hunter to bring a strong sense of ethics with him/her and in once sense that could mean NOT taking a shot you think will cause needless suffering of the animal. In Colorado where I now live it is illegal to hunt deer and larger with a .223. Small game is fine. Having discussions with other hunters we all have reason to believe there was no factual data behind Colorado's decision to declare that the .223 was not powerful enough for white tail or mule deer. What I have never heard is that a .223 failed to bring down a deer. Does anyone know for a fact that deer are not killed by the .223 in 200 yards or less?

[buffalobo]

Why the need to hunt deer with .223?

[Irving]

It all has to do with shot placement. Any caliber can fail to bring a deer down, at any range, with poor enough shot placement. I suspect you know all that. Wyoming recently made it legal to take big game with .223 and they might be a better example to refer to than Texas if you plan to approach a government entity about making a change.

[buffalobo]

I wouldn't use .223 for elk or bear and don't want to own hunting rifles in lots of calibers so .223 is not a viable big game round for me regardless of the reg.

[Irving]

I wouldn't use .223 for elk or bear and don't want to own hunting rifles in lots of calibers so .223 is not a viable big game round for me regardless of the reg.

Me either, but I'm not sure if I'd be against it. Would it bother you if the rule was changed?

There are more hunting calibers than any of us care to own, so that's kind of a moot point I think. We have members that have taken elk with 7.62x39 and .300 blk just to say they've done it. Not much different I think.

[Gman]

Deer in TX aren't that big. It's also possible to take deer with 22LR. The problem is "the public" and what's best for the management of the game population.

If it were me and I was trying to stick to a NATO caliber, 7.62x51/.308 is my pick.

[Irving]

Texas is a bit of an anomaly because they have any animal you want to hunt, and I'm not sure that the state regulation addresses which calibers can be used on exotic species. Ungulates definitely get smaller as you go more south though.

[SideShow Bob]

But... But... But... The crowd killing, ultimate assault gun AR-15 shoots such powerful round that it give PTSD to media types after firing just one self guided round. It is powerful enough to get a one shot kill on a blue whale even if it just nicks a dorsal fin . Maybe that is why some states outlaws the .223 round.

[Irving]

That is actually why Wyoming made it a legal round if I recall. The media was saying how ARs weren't sporting rifles, so Wyoming said, "Hold my 5-round mag" and made it a legal caliber for ungulates.

[ray1970]

If they allowed the 223 then next thing you know people would want to use the 5.56x45. That would just be too much for anyone to keep up with.

[buffalobo]

Me either, but I'm not sure if I'd be against it. Would it bother you if the rule was changed?

There are more hunting calibers than any of us care to own, so that's kind of a moot point I think. We have members that have taken elk with 7.62x39 and .300 blk just to say they've done it. Not much different I think.I don't see the need to change the rule but would not initially complain of it. Would be a wait and see.

I don't think the "sporting" round carries water here in Colorado anymore, needed to be made pre 2013.

[buffalobo]

If they allowed the 223 then next thing you know people would want to use the 5.56x45. That would just be too much for anyone to keep up with.Don't need no military round for hunting.[emoji41]

[buffalobo]

Muleys in Brown's Park are vastly different than most deer in southeast Texas.

I have been tempted to shoot them little azz deer in southern Arkansas with my carry pistol.

[def90]

All of the deer I have ever seen in Texas outside of a High Fence Game Farm have been half the size of any deer I have seen in Colorado.

[ray1970]

I don?t know. I?ve taken a couple in Texas that were almost too big to fit in a normal sized cooler.

[marineimaging]

That's more likely the issue. How can the kill the AR-15 if they don't kill the ability to hunt with it.

[spqrzilla]

Wyoming recently made it legal to take big game with .223 and they might be a better example to refer to than Texas if you plan to approach a government entity about making a change.

Just antelope, I believe.

[marineimaging]

If that is the case then according to Boulderitesses, why the need for a .223 at all? I have .357, .44, .243, 30-30, 30-06 and can hunt with any of them and my own handloads fitted for what I am after. What I wanted to know is if anybody has actually shot a deer (not a moose or elk) with a .223 and it jumped up and ran off to never be found? What I wanted to know is if the prohibition is based on actual data or is it just because hating the AR-15 in 5.56/.223 is so common in Colorado that the powers that be just arbitrarily decided no huntee with the .223 and that's that? Because we said so and you don't get a voice nor do we care about real facts.

[spqrzilla]

Its not about AR15s. Good lord. The regulation really dates back to when there there were no decent bullets in .224 diameter. The regulation excludes .222 Remington, .220 Swift, .22-250 and many more. Even at .24 caliber, there are bullet weight minimums.

[marineimaging]

I think that in Texas the legal firearm means is any centerfire rifle or shotgun with the appropriate ammunition. (You have to be very careful to know the rules where you are hunting with a shotgun. Some permit slugs only. Some places are buckshot only. And never the twain shall meet.)

[Irving]

Like spqrzilla said, the regulation does not target any specific caliber, only creates a minimum threshold of .24 caliber and up.

[marineimaging]

Gman, you are correct. The deer aren't that big but there are also hogs that go to 300lbs. I don't mind being restricted if there is proof to back it up but I haven't heard any proof that a .223/5.56 is incapable of being a valid hunting round. If you are hunting with a pistol or bow you have to get up close and personal with the game animal. By the same token if I were hunting with a .223 I would be obliged to get closer than I would with a .30-06 or a 7mm mag or a .338 Lapua.

[Gman]

.223 has historically been a varmint round. Can it kill something bigger? Absolutely. Does it have more energy than an arrow from a bow? Yes.

Might as well be having an argument about why bow hunting is allowed.

[CS1983]

Bows kill by the arrow cutting. The only energy they need is to get into the vitals. Hence the minimum poundage and cutting diameter restrictions.

[def90]

Its not about AR15s. Good lord. The regulation really dates back to when there there were no decent bullets in .224 diameter. The regulation excludes .222 Remington, .220 Swift, .22-250 and many more. Even at .24 caliber, there are bullet weight minimums.

This^^

OP, The regulation was likely written well before ARs even existed as well as there is nothing stopping anyone from using an AR in a caliber that is larger than .23. If you think it should be changed why don't you just call CPW and ask them what the procedure would be to get it changed? The regularly review all hunting issues and make adjustments when needed.

As for boars, they are categorized as a varmint or non game animal, the state apparently doesn't care so much about how they are taken as long as they are taken.

[whitewalrus]

I?m sure the regs came about as not everyone is an ethical Hunter. Plenty of people would not and do not pass on shots they shouldn?t take.

The regulations seemed to have change recently. I always thought it was rated at the muzzle in the past, now it seems that a 300blk from a rifle barely qualifies, and most loads don?t.

[def90]

I?m sure the regs came about as not everyone is an ethical Hunter. Plenty of people would not and do not pass on shots they shouldn?t take.

The regulations seemed to have change recently. I always thought it was rated at the muzzle in the past, now it seems that a 300blk from a rifle barely qualifies, and most loads don?t.

From the big game guide in regards to centerfire rifles:

“ Must use expanding bullets that weigh a minimum of 70 grains for deer,
pronghorn and bear, 85 grains for elk and moose, and have an impact
energy (at 100 yards) of 1,000 ft.-pounds as rated by manufacturer.”

[spqrzilla]

The regulations seemed to have change recently. I always thought it was rated at the muzzle in the past, now it seems that a 300blk from a rifle barely qualifies, and most loads don?t.

From the regulations: (located https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/RulesRegs/Regulations/Ch02.pdf )


1. Rifles using center-fire cartridges of .24 caliber or larger, having expanding bullets of at least seventy (70) grains in weight, except for elk and moose where the minimum bullet weight is eighty-five (85) grains, and with a rated impact energy one hundred (100) yards from the muzzle of at least one thousand (1000) foot pounds as determined by the manufacturer's rating, and except for mountain lion where any center-fire rifle using bullets of at least 45 grains and producing at least 400 foot pounds of energy at the muzzle may be used. Provided further that any semiautomatic rifle used shall not hold more than six (6) rounds in the magazine and chamber combined. A fully automatic rifle is prohibited.


6. Handguns, provided they have a minimum barrel length of four (4) inches and comply with the following criteria:
5
a. Except for mountain lion, use a .24 caliber or larger diameter expanding bullet with a rated impact energy of at least 550 ft. pounds at 50 yards as determined by the manufacturer.
b. For mountain lion only, use a centerfire handgun using bullets of at least 45 grains and producing at least 400 foot pounds of energy at the muzzle, as determined by the manufacturer.

Those regulations are pretty old. At least a couple of decades.

[buffalobo]

Some of those regs have been around 40+ yrs.

[Gman]

I don't know. If you had to come up with general rules that didn't turn into some kind of multi-page eye chart, they're not too difficult to meet. They don't seem unrealistic and there's likely data behind the velocity, caliber, and bullet weight guidelines.

[buffalobo]

I don't think those regs have kept anyone from harvesting tasty animals. At least I have not felt hindered in my 40 yrs of big game hunting here.

[SideShow Bob]

Post deleted, Wrong thread.....

[whitewalrus]

From the big game guide in regards to centerfire rifles:

? Must use expanding bullets that weigh a minimum of 70 grains for deer,
pronghorn and bear, 85 grains for elk and moose, and have an impact
energy (at 100 yards) of 1,000 ft.-pounds as rated by manufacturer.?

Yeah I thought that in the past it was rated at the muzzle, I could be wrong though.

[marineimaging]

I guess the .223 caliber 72 grain SP doesn't have the same velocity and ability to harvest game ethically in Colorado as it does in other states where the .223 is permitted. (Maybe it is the altitude that slows it down because there are other states that permit it and don't seem to have a problem.) But seriously, I wasn't picking on Colorado. I was just wondering if there was factual data to justify the prohibition of anything less than .243 because I wanted to see what facts were used to make the decision.

[SideShow Bob]

(Maybe it is the altitude that slows it down because there are other states that permit it and don't seem to have a problem.) .

At altitude the air is less dense, so the projectile will have a faster velocity at a given distance than at sea level where the air will be denser.
It would be a minor difference, but still measurable.

[20X11]

[beatdeadhorse] It's time for this horse to be dead.

[TFOGGER]

Suffice it to say, many, many deer are poached every year by guys with .22 rifles, as in .22LR. Not that I feel that it is an adequate round for deer under ANY circumstances (short of SHTF survival), but true nonetheless. The .223 with 69 grain bullets comes up with just short of 1400 ft-lb energy, the 6mm Rem is in at 2100 with a 95 grain bullet, so about 2/3 the energy. No reason the .223 would not be effective for deer with proper shot placement.

[marineimaging]

[beatdeadhorse] It's time for this horse to be dead.

Oy I agree.

[Duman]

I was thinking, with the right shot placement, I could use my break-action .177-pellet gun to harvest an elk..... or maybe even a grizzly...[Sarcasm2]

[Gman]

"Just shoot its eye out, kid."

[marineimaging]

Suffice it to say, many, many deer are poached every year by guys with .22 rifles, as in .22LR. Not that I feel that it is an adequate round for deer under ANY circumstances (short of SHTF survival), but true nonetheless. The .223 with 69 grain bullets comes up with just short of 1400 ft-lb energy, the 6mm Rem is in at 2100 with a 95 grain bullet, so about 2/3 the energy. No reason the .223 would not be effective for deer with proper shot placement.

My great grandfather-in-law was a sustenance hunter. In almost 90 years of hunting he only every owned a .22 rifle and he would go into the woods and come out an hour or so later with a deer slung over his shoulders. The game wardens in the area knew him and knew, as we did, that he never missed or made a shot he was unsure of. There was never a case of finding a carcass in his woods or the area around there with a poorly placed .22 bullet. The problem isn't that a .223 isn't capable of being used as a legitimate hunting round. It is those who would abuse the privilege of using it if it were allowed in all 50 states.

[00tec]

Last deer I brought home was an Axis doe that met her end via a .223 tula hollow point. Worked just fine for me (in TX). 16" barrel.

[marineimaging]

I was thinking, with the right shot placement, I could use my break-action .177-pellet gun to harvest an elk..... or maybe even a grizzly...[Sarcasm2] I wouldn't do that if I were you. Last time harvested my one allowable moose with a .177 Ruger Airhawk the pellet went through the moose, took out two bull elk and a black bear, then embedded in the wall of the ranger station 3 miles away. Had a heck of a time explaining why I didn't know the rangers station was in line with my shot. Got to take the moose home but had to donate the two elk and the black bear and fix the hole in the rangers station (Sarcasm backatya, LOL)

[TRnCO]

seems easy enough to me. There needs to be a minimum set point, and apparently there are differing opinions of what the minimum should be. Has it kept anyone from hunting? Probably not...so what's the beef. Just because it's allowed in some states doesn't make it right for this state.

[hatidua]

seems easy enough to me. There needs to be a minimum set point, and apparently there are differing opinions of what the minimum should be. Has it kept anyone from hunting? Probably not...so what's the beef. Just because it's allowed in some states doesn't make it right for this state.

Dear Sir,

Please do not attempt to inject logic into this. It will be sorely lost on some.

[Duman]

"Just shoot its eye out, kid."

LMAO!!

[Duman]

I wouldn't do that if I were you. Last time harvested my one allowable moose with a .177 Ruger Airhawk the pellet went through the moose, took out two bull elk and a black bear, then embedded in the wall of the ranger station 3 miles away. Had a heck of a time explaining why I didn't know the rangers station was in line with my shot. Got to take the moose home but had to donate the two elk and the black bear and fix the hole in the rangers station (Sarcasm backatya, LOL)

Well played....

[Irving]

In the future, I plan to hunt all my deer with wolves. I wanted to get into falconry, but what a hassle.

[marineimaging]

Well, I have come to the conclusion that defending the .223 for deer hunting is pretty much a lost cause. So far nobody has answered my original question. Where are the facts? Who hunted deer with a .223, took an ethical shot, and watched the deer jump up and run off with a .223 bullet in it. Deer is deer in Texas or Colorado or Maine or New York and they will fall to a .223 just as sure as a .243. I say that as with any firearm the distance, placement, the proper bullet, ethics, and accepting responsibility are all key factors in making a humane shot - but for some reason the majority will acquiesce to the makers of the laws no matter how unreasonable or how old, or how lacking in facts the law is. And, they will give away rights and freedoms rather than argue because there is the assumption that studies and data are foolproof, if, and that is a BIG IF, they were even considered. And therein is the problem. People will just go with the flow until we no longer have any freedoms left. To my knowledge nobody with reason and ethics can leave the camp and engage a deer and NOT know that they are incapable of making the shot. The same shame would apply to a .243, 308., 30-06, or 338. Don't take the shot if you can't be sure of making it. Because there are people who have no ethics, because there are outlaws, because there are just plain stupid people in the woods is not a reason to outlaw a gun or a caliber which science says is more than adequate. The End.

[spqrzilla]

Well, I have come to the conclusion that defending the .223 for deer hunting is pretty much a lost cause. So far nobody has answered my original question. Where are the facts? Who hunted deer with a .223, took an ethical shot, and watched the deer jump up and run off with a .223 bullet in it.
Your question was answered. I'm baffled why you pretend otherwise. But because its the kind of guy I am, I will repeat again slowly.

It was. not about .223 Remington. specifically no matter how much you pretend it was.


Deer is deer in Texas or Colorado.
False actually. Clue: there are about a half dozen species of deer in the United States.

[Gman]

Fight the man.

[Irving]

I'm not sure what kind of responses you're expecting here. First, I'm not surprised that people aren't forming a line to talk about bad shots on animals.

Second, if it weren't for the strict hunting regulations we have now, we wouldn't even have animals to hunt. Let's not forget that unregulated hunting is what drove most of our megafauna to the brink of extinction in the first place.

[spqrzilla]

Fight the man.

Represent

79741

[buffalobo]

Well, I have come to the conclusion that defending the .223 for deer hunting is pretty much a lost cause. So far nobody has answered my original question. Where are the facts? Who hunted deer with a .223, took an ethical shot, and watched the deer jump up and run off with a .223 bullet in it. Deer is deer in Texas or Colorado or Maine or New York and they will fall to a .223 just as sure as a .243. I say that as with any firearm the distance, placement, the proper bullet, ethics, and accepting responsibility are all key factors in making a humane shot - but for some reason the majority will acquiesce to the makers of the laws no matter how unreasonable or how old, or how lacking in facts the law is. And, they will give away rights and freedoms rather than argue because there is the assumption that studies and data are foolproof, if, and that is a BIG IF, they were even considered. And therein is the problem. People will just go with the flow until we no longer have any freedoms left. To my knowledge nobody with reason and ethics can leave the camp and engage a deer and NOT know that they are incapable of making the shot. The same shame would apply to a .243, 308., 30-06, or 338. Don't take the shot if you can't be sure of making it. Because there are people who have no ethics, because there are outlaws, because there are just plain stupid people in the woods is not a reason to outlaw a gun or a caliber which science says is more than adequate. The End.An easy phone call to folks who get paid to talk to you is all it takes to get the info you're asking for. Yet you have spent couple days jousting with us and now want to lecture us, take us to task for being cowards?

[sniper7]

Well, I have come to the conclusion that defending the .223 for deer hunting is pretty much a lost cause. So far nobody has answered my original question. Where are the facts? Who hunted deer with a .223, took an ethical shot, and watched the deer jump up and run off with a .223 bullet in it. Deer is deer in Texas or Colorado or Maine or New York and they will fall to a .223 just as sure as a .243. I say that as with any firearm the distance, placement, the proper bullet, ethics, and accepting responsibility are all key factors in making a humane shot - but for some reason the majority will acquiesce to the makers of the laws no matter how unreasonable or how old, or how lacking in facts the law is. And, they will give away rights and freedoms rather than argue because there is the assumption that studies and data are foolproof, if, and that is a BIG IF, they were even considered. And therein is the problem. People will just go with the flow until we no longer have any freedoms left. To my knowledge nobody with reason and ethics can leave the camp and engage a deer and NOT know that they are incapable of making the shot. The same shame would apply to a .243, 308., 30-06, or 338. Don't take the shot if you can't be sure of making it. Because there are people who have no ethics, because there are outlaws, because there are just plain stupid people in the woods is not a reason to outlaw a gun or a caliber which science says is more than adequate. The End.

First it is the regulations that dictate caliber size. That is colorado law. If you don’t own anything bigger than a .223 then this gives you justification to go buy a new rifle.

Yes deer can easily be killed by a .223. But Colorado likes to generalize what is big game vs small game. Even turkey is considered big game for most purposes other that you can hunt them with a .22 rifle in the fall if desired.

They recently even upped the required size for muzzleloaders in big game. But still no scopes on a muzzleloader.

But these are the regulations you moved into. Factual data won’t come into play for the .223 and whining about it on a gun forum won’t change the minds of those running the DOW especially now they have been infiltrated by the parks system.
BTW deer are quite a bit larger here in Colorado (not everything is bigger in Texas....just go ask Alaska!), we also have much more public use lands vs the high fence and leased lands of Texas. Due to that they wanted a larger caliber to possibly ensure greater probability of a lethal shot. Now we all know a 87 grain .243 vs a 75 grain .223 isn’t much difference but that is the line they drew and Personally I’m fine with that.
So go get ya a new rifle and enjoy all the public lands with some of the best and biggest big game the lower 48 has to offer.

[eddiememphis]

... turkey is considered big game for most purposes other that you can hunt them with a .22 rifle in the fall if desired.

That too, has restrictions. Minimum of 17 grain bullet carrying 110 ft/lbs of energy at 100 yards. This rules out most .22 LR rounds. Number one reason I am looking for a .22 WMR lever action.

[Irving]

That too, has restrictions. Minimum of 17 grain bullet carrying 110 ft/lbs of energy at 100 yards. This rules out most .22 LR rounds. Number one reason I am looking for a .22 WMR lever action.

Where are you seeing that? I've looked and asked CPW and they just said I could hunt fall Turkey with whatever I had with me, which I thought was a weird answer.

[marineimaging]

I don't think I am whining or lecturing, and I probably should have not said Texas because I don't hold to that garbage that everything is bigger in Texas. I also have mule deer, elk, and moose in my back yard so I know the difference in size and bulk. Yes, they are bigger. I also lived in Alaska and other states and upon moving here (again, I lived in the mountains and front range for 10 years in the 80's) I was surprised to find the prohibition against .223 for at least white tail. The fact is I joined an AR-15/Colorado forum which typically means .223/5.56 caliber uses in Colorado and thought, hey, I'll ask here under the "HUNTING" forum to see if anybody knows why Colorado has chosen to reject the .223 caliber for hunting deer. I have tried to offer at least half a dozen reasons we should force the issue of permitting at least white tail deer harvesting with .223 but like I said, it is pretty much a lost cause.

[Irving]

If we're going to challenge a hunting regulation, it seems like there are much better things to go after than minimum caliber for deer. We could fight to defend against predator hunting being banned. We've got a nasty point creep issue that is hurting both residents and non-residents alike. Not to mention that it's difficult enough for new hunters to try and figure out the ropes as it is. Further complicating the regulations won't help Hunter retention or new Hunter numbers.

[TFOGGER]

I think the original reason that the minimum was set where it is, is that when the regulation was written, the only commercially available .22 bullets were either 55 grain and lighter FMJs or "varmint" hollowpoints, neither of which are ideal for deer sized game. Granted, heavier bullets are now available, but there has been no real reason for CPW to revisit the regs.

[sniper7]

I don't think I am whining or lecturing, and I probably should have not said Texas because I don't hold to that garbage that everything is bigger in Texas. I also have mule deer, elk, and moose in my back yard so I know the difference in size and bulk. Yes, they are bigger. I also lived in Alaska and other states and upon moving here (again, I lived in the mountains and front range for 10 years in the 80's) I was surprised to find the prohibition against .223 for at least white tail. The fact is I joined an AR-15/Colorado forum which typically means .223/5.56 caliber uses in Colorado and thought, hey, I'll ask here under the "HUNTING" forum to see if anybody knows why Colorado has chosen to reject the .223 caliber for hunting deer. I have tried to offer at least half a dozen reasons we should force the issue of permitting at least white tail deer harvesting with .223 but like I said, it is pretty much a lost cause.

Probably because you will find most people really don’t care. I hunt whitetail in a minimum of 2 states a year and have never used a .223 and I don’t care. I just shot my late season colorado Buck with a .300 win mag at 352 yards. A .223 might be questionable at that range. So yes, it is a lost cause because if I don’t care, I guarantee a massive majority don’t care.

[eddiememphis]

Where are you seeing that? I've looked and asked CPW and they just said I could hunt fall Turkey with whatever I had with me, which I thought was a weird answer.

In the Turkey book. Page 3- legal methods of take. 4-B.

https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/RulesRegs/Brochure/turkey.pdf

[Irving]

Thanks.

[spqrzilla]

I also lived in Alaska and other states and upon moving here (again, I lived in the mountains and front range for 10 years in the 80's) I was surprised to find the prohibition against .223 for at least white tail.

Again, its not about .223. .223 Remington is NOT specifically prohibited. All rifle calibers less than .243/6mm are. As well as any ammunition with less than the required muzzle energy or bullet weight. And as TFOGGER mentioned, the regulation reflected a belief at the time about bullet construction.

Colorado regulations do not distinguish between mule deer and whitetail deer except for a handful of tags on the plains.

Wyoming only allowed .223 Remington for antelope a couple of years ago and I believe just this year allowed it for deer, lion and grey wolf for the first time. They still require larger caliber for elk, bear etc.

[marineimaging]

I guess we have beat this deer to smithereens. Thanks for all of your answers. .243 or larger. Got it.

[TRnCO]

as was mentioned, it isn't about limiting the use of AR's. You can carry any AR that meets the minimum requirement. As an example, an antelope buck that I shot back in 2011 with a .243 wssm. I might also mention that this caliber, using a modified 10 rd. mag. only holds 4 single stacked rounds, meeting the 5 rd. max allowable rounds in the rifle.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49294241387_2e393c797d_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2i6XSzz)004 (https://flic.kr/p/2i6XSzz) by Tim Richard (https://www.flickr.com/photos/156405073@N02/), on Flickr