204Ruger

My question is, why are you using a .204 for deer? There are so many other cartridges better designed for that. Is it because of a personal challenge? Or is that the only gun you own? I've actually thought about it myself, but there's no way I could do it. Just wondering.

I dont post on here much but I can say without a doubt the 204 kills deer dead with a head shot. As far as ethical hunting just about any gun is more ethical than a bow, why dont people preach to bow hunters? A well placed head/neck shot with a 204 is ethical, blasting at deer with 300mags knocking off legs and suchs because people cant accurately shoot them to me is whats un ethical. To each his own. But as hunters if we want to be eithical nobody should be bow hunting. Something to think about.

Gentlemen, I did not post the picture of the doe I took with my .204 to start controversy.
I did not get my .204 as a deer hunting rifle. I primarily use a 25.06 for that purpose.
It is nice to see most everyone here agrees that being an ethical hunter is a VERY important factor in our sport.
While I disagree that the .204 is too small for a head shot on a doe, I respect each of your opinions. I do not feel that my taking the doe was unethical or risky in any way. I was 100% sure of my shot and the capabilities of the round I was using. After having hunted the past 40 years, I do not take shots that I am not confident of.
There was discussion of the excitement of the moment causing someone to lose their ability to place the shot accordingly. I must say after having hunted as long as I have, the excitement of shooting a doe does not alter my ability to place a lethal shot.
The day I shot the doe I was actually sitting in my blind planning on taking a crow with the .204, the fact that the doe showed up in lieu of crows was good fortune for me. I had no doubt that the shot I made was going to be a quick and lethal shot.
While I would not use the .204 normally on a deer, I feel that my shot placement provided an effective and humane means of harvesting the doe.
I did not join this forum to provide controversy, I was simply sharing my experience with the .204 after I was told "We like pictures too".
My apologies to anyone who was offended by my picture, it will be removed.

WVrugerfan wrote:. As far as ethical hunting just about any gun is more ethical than a bow, why dont people preach to bow hunters? .

To say that "bowhunting" is unethical is a total farce. Obviously WVrugerfan has never bowhunted. I have been bowhunting for for over 21 years and a broadhead through the lungs broadside will take down an animal qicker and more humanely than most rifles. I have taken over thirty animals with a bow which range from coyotes, and bears to deer, elk, and moose. If you don't have knowledge about the sport, you should'nt be making those type of derogatory comments about it.

With respect to you both regarding the ethical nature of bow versus rifle, I think the key here is proficiency with whatever weapon you choose, and the fact that arrows kill by virtue of hemorage, and rifles kill by virtue of kinetic energy and tissue disruption....both are lethal if used properly.

Personally, I quit bowhunting many years ago because I prefer rifles over bows. Here in Oregon we must choose one or the other. I respect those to take the time to practice with either weapon, but have no use for the "Rambo's" among us who rush to Wally World, buy a bow (or rifle), and trot out into the woods or desert and lob arrows at 100 yards on the off chance they may actually hit a game animal. Same goes for that class of rifle "shooter", as neither of them are true hunters.

I will say that when out deer or elk hunting in the high country or desert, I'm disgusted by all the dead deer and elk I see with arrows sticking out of the carcases, evidence of unethical idiots with weapons that give the rest of us a very bad rap. I seem to come across more arrow kills of this nature than animals killed by bullets, many more.

Rick in Oregon wrote: I seem to come across more arrow kills of this nature than animals killed by bullets, many more.

Out here in Alberta, it is definitely the other way around, in the areas that I hunt in anyways. It all boils down to the few taking that unethical shot. There are bad apples in every crowd willing to take those high risk shots (bow and rifle) even though that person may only wound it, causing a slow painful death, and an animal that is not retrieved. But to say that "bowhunting" is unethical really gets my blood boiling because I know what a bow can and can't do. I think a successfull bowhunter is a better hunter than his rifle counterparts in that he needs to get to his quarry within 40 or 50 yds. I do all my bowhunting from the ground and call my quarry in. Average shots have ranged from 3 feet to 50 yards. Most rifle hunters would probably fill their pants if they had a screaming 6 pt Elk or a 2000 lb 60" Bull Moose within 10 yds worked up into a rutted fit of rage!!!!!

divertexas wrote:Gentlemen, I did not post the picture of the doe I took with my .204 to start controversy.
I did not get my .204 as a deer hunting rifle. I primarily use a 25.06 for that purpose.
It is nice to see most everyone here agrees that being an ethical hunter is a VERY important factor in our sport.
While I disagree that the .204 is too small for a head shot on a doe, I respect each of your opinions. I do not feel that my taking the doe was unethical or risky in any way. I was 100% sure of my shot and the capabilities of the round I was using. After having hunted the past 40 years, I do not take shots that I am not confident of.
There was discussion of the excitement of the moment causing someone to lose their ability to place the shot accordingly. I must say after having hunted as long as I have, the excitement of shooting a doe does not alter my ability to place a lethal shot.
The day I shot the doe I was actually sitting in my blind planning on taking a crow with the .204, the fact that the doe showed up in lieu of crows was good fortune for me. I had no doubt that the shot I made was going to be a quick and lethal shot.
While I would not use the .204 normally on a deer, I feel that my shot placement provided an effective and humane means of harvesting the doe.
I did not join this forum to provide controversy, I was simply sharing my experience with the .204 after I was told "We like pictures too".
My apologies to anyone who was offended by my picture, it will be removed.

I can't speak for anyone else, but my comments were not directed at you. The original poster has made several comments about hunting deer with his .204 as a primary weapon of choice. I disagree with this choice and voiced my opinion in what I felt was a respectful manner. I hope that you and the original poster both see it that way and that neither of you took offense with my posts. This forum is a place where we can share stories and opinions in a respectful manner. It wouldn't be much fun if we all agreed about everything. As long as people hunt ethically and responsibly, they'll get no disrespect from me.

Happy hunting,
Mike

WVrugerfan wrote:I dont post on here much but I can say without a doubt the 204 kills deer dead with a head shot. As far as ethical hunting just about any gun is more ethical than a bow, why dont people preach to bow hunters? A well placed head/neck shot with a 204 is ethical, blasting at deer with 300mags knocking off legs and suchs because people cant accurately shoot them to me is whats un ethical. To each his own. But as hunters if we want to be eithical nobody should be bow hunting. Something to think about.

I'm somewhat impressed that you managed to tag me as an unethical hunter not once, but twice in this post. I bow hunt AND I use a .300 Win Mag during rifle season. I could make some short-tempered response about this, but I honestly don't see the point. I am choosing to believe that you didn't mean to categorically call all bowhunters unethical. I'm also sure that you just "forgot" that the .300 Win Mag has cleanly taken more deer than you could possibly imagine. Instead, I'm going to tell you in all honesty that in my years of hunting, I have never lost a game animal due to unethical practices. I only take shots that I am confident in, with tools (bow/rifle) that I am competent in using.

Gube and Mike: I agree with you both, and I think most everyone here does too.

Being from BC myself, I saw more rifle-killed carcasses there too, but it appears no matter where we're all located, we are all burdened by slobs in our collective midst.

Let's just hope our ethics are passed on to the younger set just starting out, or the future of the sport is doomed for sure.

And just for the record, I don't use varmint rifles for deer either, but understand some do, and if they're sure of the shot, and no animal suffers as a result, and the meat goes home with them, then so be it. Merry Christmas to you all! Be safe, shoot straight.....

"We must all hang together, or we shall surely hang separately". Ben Franklin was right, then, and right now, too.

Gube wrote:

WVrugerfan wrote:. As far as ethical hunting just about any gun is more ethical than a bow, why dont people preach to bow hunters? .

To say that "bowhunting" is unethical is a total farce. Obviously WVrugerfan has never bowhunted. I have been bowhunting for for over 21 years and a broadhead through the lungs broadside will take down an animal qicker and more humanely than most rifles. I have taken over thirty animals with a bow which range from coyotes, and bears to deer, elk, and moose. If you don't have knowledge about the sport, you should'nt be making those type of derogatory comments about it.

Amen! a well placed arrow is going to kill just as good as a well placed bullet.

Mike wrote:

WVrugerfan wrote:I dont post on here much but I can say without a doubt the 204 kills deer dead with a head shot. As far as ethical hunting just about any gun is more ethical than a bow, why dont people preach to bow hunters? A well placed head/neck shot with a 204 is ethical, blasting at deer with 300mags knocking off legs and suchs because people cant accurately shoot them to me is whats un ethical. To each his own. But as hunters if we want to be eithical nobody should be bow hunting. Something to think about.

I'm somewhat impressed that you managed to tag me as an unethical hunter not once, but twice in this post. I bow hunt AND I use a .300 Win Mag during rifle season. I could make some short-tempered response about this, but I honestly don't see the point. I am choosing to believe that you didn't mean to categorically call all bowhunters unethical. I'm also sure that you just "forgot" that the .300 Win Mag has cleanly taken more deer than you could possibly imagine. Instead, I'm going to tell you in all honesty that in my years of hunting, I have never lost a game animal due to unethical practices. I only take shots that I am confident in, with tools (bow/rifle) that I am competent in using.

I agree with Mike! I use a 338 win mag for deer. Many say it is too big, but I can shoot that gun VERY well.

The reason I like to use small calibers deer hunting is due to seeing too many run offs with the larger calibers, 270, 30-06, 7mm mag, 300 mag, ect. I'd say roughly 10% of the deer shot with the larger calibers in my experience have been run offs with well placed vital shots! Run offs with the 204 between my brother and I are 0! As with any weapon I agree that a properly placed shot is essential. Only downfall to shooting deer with the 204 I see is if you have to make the body shot there is hardly any blood trail thus making it hard to trail one after shot, however, the deer will not go over 100yds with a properly placed body shot! My deer hunting shot preferences are as follows with the 204: 1=head, 2=neck/white patch, 3=behind shoulder/lung.

Sure, the deer in North Carolina are very unique animals, very different from those in all of the other 49 States.

This is my first deer season using the .204.

so far:

8pt buck shot@125 yards behind shoulder. Buck ran 50 ft and dropped DEAD. No blood trail(all blood contained in body cavity) lungs and heart turned into cranberry sauce after going thru rib.

Doe shot @100 yards behind shoulder. Didn't know what hit her, dropped stumbled a few feet and fell over. Heart and lungs turned to gel. No exit.

Doe shot @25yards in neck. Dropped as if struck by lightning. Lots of blood and a little twitching. Nice exit hole.

In the past I've hunted with 30-06 and 7mmmag. I like the 204 better because I can shoot .5inch groups at 100 yards opposed to 2-3" with the 06 and 7mm. A bad shot with the 7mm mag will have the same result as a bad shot with the 204. I'm more confident of my abilities with the 204, but that's just me. Oh and it's a "meat friendly" caliber.

I have a theory why the 204 works so well on the deer I shot this year. Bullet goes thru hide and maybe a rib, and EXPLODES! With no gaping exit wound the blood fills what's left of the lungs and the deer dies quick. No exit wound for the blood to exit(of course no blood trail unfortunately).

I shoot the remington 40's, Model 12 VLP.