Will it work... yes, but unless you are in a survival situation or its the only rifle you own, I don't see why you would use it. There are so many more calibers that are just plain better for the task. Bullet selection would be critical and even with the "perfect" bullet(a debate in itself), the wound channel is going to be small.

Let me first state that shot placement is critical
Obviously it works, but like Chester said, why use it? It's about the least powerful deer round you could possibly use, and I don't see the manliness, skill, humanity or whatever in doing so. I'd rather see a .22-250, .220 Swift, or .223 WSSM if you insist on .22 centerfires. If you're trying to give a kid a light kicking rifle, go with a heavy barrel .243, because they more than likely won't be able to place the shot as well as an experienced marksman (not that you'll do any better with a .243 with a bad shot, but it's better with a marginal shot)

Guy I used to hunt with would occasionally bring his Mini 14 (.223) for grins. He was/is an impressive shot, but short of a head shot (and some of those bounced off when at a deflection) I never saw him bring down a deer (South GA size) or hog with one shot (or 3, for that matter). It usually sounded like the battle of the bulge while he went through a magazine, punching nice neat little holes in whatever he was hitting. In my experience, that round is fine for killing people (they tend to go "oh God, Ive been shot!) and we're, frankly, a bit less resilient, pound for pound, than most game our size. You gonna shoot people, dogs, cyotes, then its enough, but anything over 100# with 4 legs, all your doing is condemning it to a slow death, unless you can track well enough to find it.

Why don't we make it more interesting and say - why not a 22?

Seriously, many old timers will tell you that all they used was a 22 for deer - by placing the shot well - of course.

The best argument to NOT use a small caliber is because so much better and more powerful is available. Sure, good shot placement will take a deer down with even the smallest caliber, but why risk it? Even with the best intentions, not every shot is well placed. In my opinion its better to use a more powerful round, to insure that the deer is taken down quickly and humanely.

I don't know if I'd use a .223 for deer. Maybe I would if it was legally large enough caliber in my state and I had no other choices. I would use my .22-250 for pronghorn here in my state if it were legal too. Have used it with excellent results on speed goats before elsewere before. Only problem is that it can be challenging compensating for wind with such a light bullet when you have a stiff wind. With larger whitetail and Mule bucks I'd rather go with something in the 6mm to .30 cal range myself.

In Germany all .222 and .223 cals. are only allowed for roeddeer. For hunting at bigger game you need a 6.5 min. with a e100 of 1468ftlps.

Regards

Kirrmeister

How big do roedeer get?

roe deer are very small deer, as I remember maybe 50 or 60 lbs would be a big one.

Also if I remember right, the 5.6x57 was developed to meet the criteria of energy at 100 meters to be legal for hunting roe deer.

Using any 22 cal for deer here, only in a survival situation and then I'd go for a 22 mag. People that are truely in a situation like that are going to make sure each shot counts. That means a whole new meaning is given to hunting or you starve! Suddenly the animal you couldn't get within 300yds of yesterday, you find a way to get within bow distence today. Hunting for survival and hunting for sport are two entirely different things. Hunting for sport many people choose weapons they would not choose if their life depended on it. And they don't take any shot thats not a sure thing.

There are so many better choices for deer hunting than 22 cal it is ridiculas yet there are always those that want to push the envelope. You seldom hear of their failures.

It would probably work, but I wouldn't try it.