I agree. I am a former .270 hater converted to a .270 lover. I got fed too many stories by family members and internet people that it wasn't even a good deer cartridge. My dad convinced me that it probably was perfect for me considering my age, and I haven't looked back since.
Originally Posted by Diamondhitch
Now, back to the .223. I used to know a person who shot multiple deer with the .222 Remingon and he said it was basically perfect. He switched from the .30-06 to the .222 he liked it that much. I personally wouldn't make a habit out of hunting big bucks with the .223, but if I just needed to fill a doe tag I wouldn't hesitate.
So Trigger Creep you would not put it on the line for a big buck with a .223 but,you would risk wounding or losing a doe pretty much summs it it up for me.
NO, Doe are SMALLER than Buck! A doe is, in my area, at least 50 lb's (often 75 lb's) lighter than a buck. Bucks have more fat, thicker muscles, and MUCH, MUCH thicker neck fat. Doe aren't as hard too kill, thereby making it more ethical to hunt them with smaller calibers.
Originally Posted by BARTFRNCS
Don't be mistaken, my two deer guns right now are a .270 with 150 grain Nosler B-tips, and a .30-06 with 170 grain flatnoses (loaded to about 2,550, its a mild deer/bear load and it's incredibly accurate). I ain't undergunned when I go deer hunting.