The HuntingPA.com Outdoor Community banner

No .22 caliber for deer.

16K views 231 replies 52 participants last post by  simoncool 
#1 ·
:nerd:I was just reading in the Pa Game news tha the game commission is considering banning .22 calibers for deer and bear hunting with anything less than a 6mm. I can understand not letting hunting for bears with a .22 caliber but not for deer. I saw a farmer culling deer with a 22-250 and it hammered them. I'm concerned because of the fact that mentored and jr hunters are affected by recoil and I dont want them afraid of the gun. Thots?
 
#2 ·
I agree with the nothing less than .243 rule. I realize that deer are killed every year with .22 caliber rounds but you shouldn't prepare for the best case situation. You owe it to your quarry to a quick humane end. There are too many variables, to hope everything to works out when you pull the trigger. I know that most people know someone that's killed deer with a .22 but those are people that sit and wait for the perfect shot, not the nervous kid trying to get his deer.
 
#6 ·
My son used a .223 the first several years for deer. A shaky kid can wing a deer with a 243 same as a 223.
Agreed with above. Just a backhand way to keep AR's in 5.56 from being used if they finally join almost every other state in allowing semi auto.
It's a shame that they just keep adding more rules and continue to complicate game laws. No wonder they have issues with hunting recruitment. So many rules, seasons, special reg's. A new hunter would be overwhelmed.
 
#12 ·
its a numb nut decision thats what it is. no fact finding just running by political standards. no real thought or spine for that decision. not a man among them.


i'll kill a deer just as dead with one shot from my .223 / 5.56 just like i can with my 30-06, if they want me to prove it, i will and can. they use that caliber to take deer and hogs in lots of states, but then again this is Pennsylvania and we are so different, cant be trusted with semi auto or small calibers...lol


cant use thermal vision or night vision because if we cant tell a man from a turkey or deer in the daytime, how are we suppose to know if its a fox, coyote or a 5' 10" tall man walking upright in the dark...:)
 
#13 ·
Purely a political/feelings/agenda-based proposal with absolutely no basis in fact or real-world usage input.

I've eaten plenty of deer and hogs that met a quick end from a 223 round over the years.

That said, I'd never even consider one as a primary weapon for hunting bear... I kinda want at least 150grs, preferably 165gr+, headed toward them.
 
#18 ·
I wonder if was easier to say no 22 cal. than it was to place restrictions on and enforce bullet construction? The 22 cal. would work fine with the right bullet but there is a lot of 22 cal. ammo out there for target and varmints that shouldn't be used on deer and guys that don't know the difference. I can shoot 58 gr Varmin-a-tor out of my 243 but would not think of using it for deer.
 
#19 ·
It's all just "bottom of the barrel" thinking....

The "thought process" is as follows:

Authorize SA for deer and thousands upon thousands of hunters and "new" hunters will grab an AR-15 out of their safe, modify a magazine to only hold 5 rounds, mount a scope if it didn't already have one, drop a handful of 55gr FMJ in it and head into the woods, poke icepick holes in a few deer and never find them.

Flaws in this "thought process":

It assumes that these hunters will suddenly ignore the long-established prohibition on FMJ/requirement for "bullets designed to expand on impact".
It assumes that those choosing to hunt with an AR (or any semi-auto) would choose 223/5.56 as their caliber of choice (yes, it's most common, but many other caliber options exist and are gaining popularity annually.)
It belies the truth that .223 with responsible ammo selection is perfectly adequate for the task at hand, and many, many suitable ammo options are available.
It contradicts previous arguments that it (allowing SA) won't do anything to increase hunter numbers, and that only a very small percentage of existing hunters would opt to use one anyway.
It assumes those who do decide to opt for a SA (in 223/5.56) won't "do their homework" first.
It assumes those who do opt for a 223/5.56 (regardless of platform/action type) won't choose responsible/ethical shots.

Unintended consequences:
Those currently hunting effectively and responsibly with <6mm chamberings will be forced to use another rifle, possibly/probably at the cost of investing in a new rifle.
Exemptions likely will need to be drafted into the regs for the "hired guns" (sharpshooters) in contracted cullings.


I did briefly think that perhaps a minimum gr weight requirement might be more feasible, but quickly dismissed this, as a lot of slower twist rifles are out there in current use, and they don't shoot the heavier offerings well at all... (I've used 64gr-75gr with great success in my 1/7 twist rifles, but my buddy's old Ruger with a 1:12 won't shoot over 55gr... he takes plenty with it though, hornady soft points)
I think simply underscoring/emphasizing the existing ammo design requirements in the Digest, and repeating it on whatever announcements would follow authorizing SA, would suffice.
There'd also be some serious advertising opportunity (and revenue to be had) in placing ads for various caliber option uppers or rifles in the digest....
 
#21 ·
IF they are going to push a minimum anything, beyond the current no rimfire, it should not be caliber or bullet construction. In my opinion, a minimum downrange energy would be the only appropriate metric to use. For example, a bullet must have a minimum of xyz foot pounds retained energy at 100 yards. What that minimum energy should be, I don't know.
Restricting the caliber makes less sense than restricting bullet potential.

That is one of the German regulations, but their minimum energy requirement is too high IMO. There, a 30-30 with most commonly used loads is obviously capable of killing whitetail sized game, and larger, but there it is not legal.
 
#22 ·
Makes sense, but would be an absolute enforcement nightmare...
Wardens would need to tote a book of published load data with images including headstamps...
No way to account for reloaders....
Not to mention some bullets perform beautifully at some rather low ke levels, and others can be sent at silly high levels and either fragment to dust or still fail to expand..

The whole proposal (banning <6mm) is a solution in search of a problem.
There's so many suitable 223/5.56 commercial loads out there specifically marketed for deer hunting (in addition to the myriad of duty/defensive loadings) any first time user of the caliber will have plenty of solid options to select from.
 
#23 ·
I've read all of the posts and respect your opinions. My personal opinion is that this has nothing to do with "22 cal" and everything to do with black rifles.

The 22 cal with the right bullet is an efficient killer of deer size game. There is no question about it. It has been proven thousands of times in the past 60 or 70 years right here in PA. Why all of a sudden is there an issue? The issue is political correctness and wimps on the BOC.

BTW I would not have an issue with restrictions regarding bear hunting which is a "different animal".:wink2:
 
#27 ·
I have killed an untold number of deer with my .223 and 22-250 as did my kids. Don't recall ever having to use a second shot. Have a good friend who killed an elk with his .223, not that I condone that as an elk caliber, however, it got the job done with one shot to the head at about fifty yards.
 
#28 · (Edited)
the majority of calibers above the .223/5.56 crowd that are suitable for deer come in the AR-10 version. i often thought about a springfield socom in .308, if they make SA rifles legal for deer might have to give it a serious look, if i cant take a proven deer killer in .223 / 5.56 just might have to buy a new gun.


HEY....bear is in the first week of rifle season anyway right....:)
 
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top