@1894 is on the money. The 6mm (and 5.56mm) cartridges are precision shooting options that are extremely effective when used as such. What I interpret from a lot of what gets written here, is that some of the anti- brigade have at some point tried to use the smaller calibres as a point-in-general-direction option, put the bullet in the wrong place, and unsurprisingly come up short. Hence their personal failure becomes a lifelong crusade against the cartridge, blaming the tool for their own inadequacy. And so the internet myth rolls on, and before you know it you need a .30-06 to cleanly kill roe deer.
Another thing I notice with the incessant calibre / cartridge debate is how rarely the target deer species are defined by the OP, though in this case @wildfowler.250 did specify "all deer species". It's rather an important part of the equation, don't you think? Should be mandatory. Also interesting to note how often the question is asked by newbies, only for them to never be heard from again. (Hardly surprising.)
You fellas have deer species ranging from spaniel size to full sized medium game at the heavier end of that definition. I would however wager that the majority of deer shot by forum members in a given 12 months would be the small roe deer, by a fairly wide margin. (That would be a really interesting stat to know.) If you are a one rifle for all species kind of guy, then by all means, choose a sensible all rounder, so you have no concerns if you are a primarily a roe stalker who sometimes stumps up to shoot lowland reds. Seems sensible enough.
If however, you aren't a one rifle kind of guy, then why on earth should you be told by keyboard warriors that your choice of rifle to shoot small deer is inadequate and that by extension you are some kind of irresponsible, unethical hooligan? The laws state very clearly what the minimums are. If there was a problem with the minimum, it wouldn't be the minimum, would it? Er.... well actually... There's all sorts of contradictions with minimum calibre laws the world over, with little in the way of consistent logic from one jurisdiction to the next. Why are roe deer regarded as a 50gr species in Scotland, but a greater than .240 / 1700ft-lbs at the muzzle species in England, and a 1000J @ 100m species in Germany? Completely daft. A fallow deer needs a .243 80gr bullet in Australia but a .222 of any weight in New Zealand. Don't even ask about the various state and country rules in the US. This inconsistency is one of the primary contradictions that plague our sport, and in turn, underpins so much of this incessant calibre argument.
An interesting fact is that in getting on for 40 years now, almost all the professional deer shooters I have encountered use smaller / lighter / faster cartridges. Yes there are some exceptions, the odd .308 for example, but as a general rule, the pros want absolute precision, a wide field of view and the ability to maintain the sight picture through low recoil. If you are not a professional, and you're a fairly average shot (which appears to be the case a lot of the time), then is simply bumping up the calibre and weight for small deer really the right way to solve the problem? From some of the comments we read here, I don't think it necessarily is. They may be "more forgiving" but this is tackling the problem of poor shooting from the wrong end of the bullet's trajectory.
At what point you choose to draw the calibre line is a matter of personal preference. Within the laws of the land, there's simply no right or wrong. As long as you're legal, and competent, you're in the clear. You can be silly and use a .300 Norma Mag for 100yd roe stalking, or you can be sensible and use a 2700fps, 120gr bullet and expect it to do 90% of what you need without even having a second thought. Up to you.
For me, what determines the choice of cartridge on the day is not the diameter or weight of the bullet, but the conditions I expect to encounter. Range, wind direction, wind strength, environment (open vs broken vs wooded), and the specifics of what I'm targeting and in particular where I plan to shoot them (and why). I'll select one of either a .223, .243, 6.5 or .308. All will work, all deliver clean kills, all are legal, and don't try and tell me I'm wrong because I'll regard you as a twerp (and tell you so). When I pick up the .243, I know I am going after an animal I want to recover, one that I need to anchor fast, with a high probability CNS shot and a very short runner or bang-flop. When I am snap shooting from the ATV or bush stalking animals that know I'm there, I pick up the .308. When I'm in ambush mode and need a fast kill with a guaranteed bang-flop, I'll pick up the .223. Greater than 400m? The 6.5mm. Simple really.
Bottom line is that if you are primarily a roe stalker, and you come on here and tell the world you think a 100gr 6mm bullet is insufficient for that species, you really do need to question what you don't understand.
Another thing I notice with the incessant calibre / cartridge debate is how rarely the target deer species are defined by the OP, though in this case @wildfowler.250 did specify "all deer species". It's rather an important part of the equation, don't you think? Should be mandatory. Also interesting to note how often the question is asked by newbies, only for them to never be heard from again. (Hardly surprising.)
You fellas have deer species ranging from spaniel size to full sized medium game at the heavier end of that definition. I would however wager that the majority of deer shot by forum members in a given 12 months would be the small roe deer, by a fairly wide margin. (That would be a really interesting stat to know.) If you are a one rifle for all species kind of guy, then by all means, choose a sensible all rounder, so you have no concerns if you are a primarily a roe stalker who sometimes stumps up to shoot lowland reds. Seems sensible enough.
If however, you aren't a one rifle kind of guy, then why on earth should you be told by keyboard warriors that your choice of rifle to shoot small deer is inadequate and that by extension you are some kind of irresponsible, unethical hooligan? The laws state very clearly what the minimums are. If there was a problem with the minimum, it wouldn't be the minimum, would it? Er.... well actually... There's all sorts of contradictions with minimum calibre laws the world over, with little in the way of consistent logic from one jurisdiction to the next. Why are roe deer regarded as a 50gr species in Scotland, but a greater than .240 / 1700ft-lbs at the muzzle species in England, and a 1000J @ 100m species in Germany? Completely daft. A fallow deer needs a .243 80gr bullet in Australia but a .222 of any weight in New Zealand. Don't even ask about the various state and country rules in the US. This inconsistency is one of the primary contradictions that plague our sport, and in turn, underpins so much of this incessant calibre argument.
An interesting fact is that in getting on for 40 years now, almost all the professional deer shooters I have encountered use smaller / lighter / faster cartridges. Yes there are some exceptions, the odd .308 for example, but as a general rule, the pros want absolute precision, a wide field of view and the ability to maintain the sight picture through low recoil. If you are not a professional, and you're a fairly average shot (which appears to be the case a lot of the time), then is simply bumping up the calibre and weight for small deer really the right way to solve the problem? From some of the comments we read here, I don't think it necessarily is. They may be "more forgiving" but this is tackling the problem of poor shooting from the wrong end of the bullet's trajectory.
At what point you choose to draw the calibre line is a matter of personal preference. Within the laws of the land, there's simply no right or wrong. As long as you're legal, and competent, you're in the clear. You can be silly and use a .300 Norma Mag for 100yd roe stalking, or you can be sensible and use a 2700fps, 120gr bullet and expect it to do 90% of what you need without even having a second thought. Up to you.
For me, what determines the choice of cartridge on the day is not the diameter or weight of the bullet, but the conditions I expect to encounter. Range, wind direction, wind strength, environment (open vs broken vs wooded), and the specifics of what I'm targeting and in particular where I plan to shoot them (and why). I'll select one of either a .223, .243, 6.5 or .308. All will work, all deliver clean kills, all are legal, and don't try and tell me I'm wrong because I'll regard you as a twerp (and tell you so). When I pick up the .243, I know I am going after an animal I want to recover, one that I need to anchor fast, with a high probability CNS shot and a very short runner or bang-flop. When I am snap shooting from the ATV or bush stalking animals that know I'm there, I pick up the .308. When I'm in ambush mode and need a fast kill with a guaranteed bang-flop, I'll pick up the .223. Greater than 400m? The 6.5mm. Simple really.
Bottom line is that if you are primarily a roe stalker, and you come on here and tell the world you think a 100gr 6mm bullet is insufficient for that species, you really do need to question what you don't understand.