What’s the thoughts on the .223 on all plains game with a match bullet trend?

[Rafiki]

Have some res[ect for the animal.

 

[CBH Australia]

Thats a question that still hasnt been definitively answered...

The military is now moving to a 6.8x51 round... still trying to find a balance between 556 and 762 NATO I believe..

Yeah, because the 7mm-08 doesn’t exist. If only there was some like that.

I have read up on the 6.8x51 and the plan to use high pressure loads etc but yeah, I would like to see more support for the 7-08. Think of the support and options in the civilian market if the 7-08 was more common.

I'm personally not a fan of mono bullets, they do not kill as quickly from my experience. I'm not going to say they don't work. I'm just saying until I do not have a choice, I have no plans for using them on game.

I’m sometimes second guessing Mono bullets.
Good hits don’t always have great kills. Yes the damage is done and the animal dies but not sure it’s happening quick enough when I’ve seen bang flop from the same rifle and different projectiles.
In theory they possibly make smaller bores better on big game but I have not got enough sample data of my own.

 

[hoytcanon]

I’m not high on them. I just find there to be a compelling amount of evidence that suggests 223 isn’t entirely rubbish for anything bigger than a rabbit.

Additionally, I would be interested in seeing failed terminal ballistics (if the animal had to have a follow up from another weapons, etc.) for comparison. I don’t sell the things so I have no skin in the game, but I like seeing the data and examples from both sides. Unfortunately, as has been stated in multiple settings, most people don’t post pictures of their failures.

How do you post pictures of an unrecovered animal??? Also, who is out there bragging up all.of the animals that they wounded and lost? I have tracked several bears and deer shot with .223's and .22/250's and/or match bullets where the trail was long and the animal either not recovered or recovered after a long lingering death. We now have required minimums and equipment/marksmanship checking for all clients. I have had clients ask for input and then ignore that input to their own ultimate (and the animals) detriment. Another example of this are bowhunters who ask about mechanical broadheads for moose hunting, and here again, I strongly advise against it... and similarly have experienced much higher rates of failures and negative outcomes as with small bore and match bullets. Folks, just stop testing your latest pet theories on animals in the field and stick with the tried and true equipment... there is enough that can go wrong even when your equipment allows for the largest margins for success, why would you intentionally reduce those margins??? Ego.

 

[Josh P]

How do you post pictures of an unrecovered animal??? Also, who is out there bragging up all.of the animals that they wounded and lost? I have tracked several bears and deer shot with .223's and .22/250's and/or match bullets where the trail was long and the animal either not recovered or recovered after a long lingering death. We now have required minimums and equipment/marksmanship checking for all clients. I have had clients ask for input and then ignore that input to their own ultimate (and the animals) detriment. Another example of this are bowhunters who ask about mechanical broadheads for moose hunting, and here again, I strongly advise against it... and similarly have experienced much higher rates of failures and negative outcomes as with small bore and match bullets. Folks, just stop testing your latest pet theories on animals in the field and stick with the tried and true equipment... there is enough that can go wrong even when your equipment allows for the largest margins for success, why would you intentionally reduce those margins??? Ego.

I never mentioned unrecovered animals. I said I would be interested in seeing the failed terminal ballistics of an animal that may have needed a follow up shot from another weapon. This is not meant as an insult, but this is (partially, not the full brunt of what a stated earlier) what I meant by people getting emotional and not reading what someone actually says on the subject.

Also, the comparison with broadheads is spot on. Mechanical heads, when they actually work, do incredible things to an animal. When they don’t work, they’re not much better than field tips. Once I saw what a 300gr single bevel 2 blade did to bone out of my 64lb longbow, I refused to hunt with anything that could have a rolled tip on bone, even for whitetail.

 

[Josh P]

Have some res[ect for the animal.

Does this look disrespectful? I don’t mean to sound antagonistic, but…it looks like ethical results.

Yet again, I’m not advocating for “experimental” shooting on giant PG or DG. Just suggesting that there’s evidence to suggest that newer advances in construction and technique may have different results than 50 years ago.

 

[gbflyer]

That is an informative topic over there and I’ve learned a few things. I like my small rifles for shopping the beaches here in SE AK. Some are a little religious about it though, lol. The advocates lose me when it is suggested that a M4 with 20 rounds of 77TMK would be the ideal stopping rifle for brown bear. A hunted bear is not a wounded bear.

 

[Ontario Hunter]

Does this look disrespectful? I don’t mean to sound antagonistic, but…it looks like ethical results.

View attachment 628287
View attachment 628288

Yet again, I’m not advocating for “experimental” shooting on giant PG or DG. Just suggesting that there’s evidence to suggest that newer advances in construction and technique may have different results than 50 years ago.

Wait ... that guy was bragging about the mess he made of that elk? Really? That's a disgusting waste. Just as well shot it with an RPG. He should have been charged with wasting game.

 

[TERMINATOR]

How do you post pictures of an unrecovered animal??? Also, who is out there bragging up all.of the animals that they wounded and lost? I have tracked several bears and deer shot with .223's and .22/250's and/or match bullets where the trail was long and the animal either not recovered or recovered after a long lingering death. We now have required minimums and equipment/marksmanship checking for all clients. I have had clients ask for input and then ignore that input to their own ultimate (and the animals) detriment. Another example of this are bowhunters who ask about mechanical broadheads for moose hunting, and here again, I strongly advise against it... and similarly have experienced much higher rates of failures and negative outcomes as with small bore and match bullets. Folks, just stop testing your latest pet theories on animals in the field and stick with the tried and true equipment... there is enough that can go wrong even when your equipment allows for the largest margins for success, why would you intentionally reduce those margins??? Ego.

Nailed It

 

[Josh P]

So, if we hear “223” then it’s incapable of ethically killing game, they’ll wander around with the firearms equivalent of a field tipped arrow in their rear, but if we look at the pictures then we think they’ve been hit with an RPG.

Do I have it correct now?

 

[hoytcanon]

So, if we hear “223” then it’s incapable of ethically killing game, they’ll wander around with the firearms equivalent of a field tipped arrow in their rear, but if we look at the pictures then we think they’ve been hit with an RPG.

Do have it correct now?

Of course you don't have it correct, because you are not trying to be correct... all of the .223 talk is designed to be inflammatory... to push buttons for the sake of emotionally charged arguments.

Whenever the subject comes up, most reasonable people point out the obvious... just because it "can" work, doesn't mean that it is a good idea on a regular basis. That is because of what I stated earlier... "MARGINS." Reduce the margins and you increase the negative outcomes... why as ethical hunters would we want to increase the negative outcomes?

 

[Ridge Runner]

What's a couple of 77 TMK mean? 2, 3, 4, ...10, +?

we're those "couple of" 77 TMK follow ups at closer distance after the first "couple of" 77 TMK shots at 287?

Some grass from the stomach?

What a waste of some prefectly good meat.

 

[Wyatt Smith]

That certainly looks like a clean kill. But is it repeatable?

 

[Josh P]

Of course you don't have it correct, because you are not trying to be correct... all of the .223 talk is designed to be inflammatory... to push buttons for the sake of emotionally charged arguments.

Whenever the subject comes up, most reasonable people point out the obvious... just because it "can" work, doesn't mean that it is a good idea on a regular basis. That is because of what I stated earlier... "MARGINS." Reduce the margins and you increase the negative outcomes... why as ethical hunters would we want to increase the negative outcomes?

I disagree, but that’s ok. Statements like, “All of the XYZ is designed to be inflammatory.” are themselves inflammatory. Why is it so hard to have an objective, data-based conversation about smaller calibers, just like we do all day with the larger calibers?

Margins. Yes. Control and accuracy are another end of the margins spectrum. There are plenty of real world reports about people shooting various Weatherby calibers that illustrate this. The ones that can control and be accurate with such calibers are sitting pretty!

 

[Ridge Runner]

Of course you don't have it correct, because you are not trying to be correct... all of the .223 talk is designed to be inflammatory... to push buttons for the sake of emotionally charged arguments.

Whenever the subject comes up, most reasonable people point out the obvious... just because it "can" work, doesn't mean that it is a good idea on a regular basis. That is because of what I stated earlier... "MARGINS." Reduce the margins and you increase the negative outcomes... why as ethical hunters would we want to increase the negative outcomes?

Because as hunters we are suppose to educate ourselves and others through our own and others mistakes and good, bad, ugly experiences.

Does bullet velocity kill? Yes.
Does bullet kenetic energy kill? Yes.
Do they kill in the same manner? No.

A light fast bullet either zips on through an animal or spends most of its energy when it hits be it tough high or bone. When that light fast bullet hits bone it can be deflected or lack the energy to penetrait into the vitals for an ethical kill.

A slow big caliber heavy bullet with a below optimum velocity is also bad. That heavy bullet may also not penetrait into the vitals once it hits bone or heavy muscle. But the hunter will definitely see an animal react to the heavy punch.

Bigger caliber bullets traveling at optimum velocity are less likely to be deflected by bone and dense muscle, delivering enough kinetic energy to reach the vitals after penetraiting bone or heavy muscle humanely and ethically killing the animal.

 

[IvW]

I’m truly baffled with these guys post on rockslide that , a .223 , 22cm , 22-250 ,ect
Shooting a 77gr match bullet , is more than adequate for hunting kudos, eland , gembuck , waterbuck, ect ( large PG ) , shooting a unbonded 22cal explosive bullet through the ribs , seems like a disaster to me , yet there are multiple people saying explosive small caliber is more effective then say a 7x57 with a bonded bullet.
What’s your opinion? I’m sure you can see I disagree

One response
“”
Put a 2-3 or 4" hole in the lungs of the toughest oryx, blue wildebeest, zebra or whatever with one of the little guys, and all the theories about the African animals being magically tougher that the rest of the world´s will fall to pieces.
Someone mentioned he had killed 10 oryx, and being that a great experience, let me say I have shot 20, this year, just to put things in perspective.
And no, you should not take a PH judgement on these things as the word of God, at least not any PH´s, since many of them are simply not interested and pay no attention to these things at least at the level some of us do.
Just my 2 cents.””

Truely baffled.....100%
Idiotic idea....never mind the legality....
Now I will be lambasted again.....

 

[hoytcanon]

I disagree, but that’s ok. Statements like, “All of the XYZ is designed to be inflammatory.” are themselves inflammatory. Why is it so hard to have an objective, data-based conversation about smaller calibers, just like we do all day with the larger calibers?

Margins. Yes. Control and accuracy are another end of the margins spectrum. There are plenty of real world reports about people shooting various Weatherby calibers that illustrate this. The ones that can control and be accurate with such calibers are sitting pretty!

Accuracy is a given, we are talking about terminal effectiveness and the margins for success at that point. Do you think these proponents of the .223 can't handle some sort of 6.5mm? Do they not have access to equipment that might increase the margins for success? Again, a .223 can work, but it should be only for those willing to accept it's limitations, with proper bullets on game that presents a proper target, ie. broadside lungs at a reasonable distance... forgive me if I am skeptical regarding the restraint of those who choose the .223 as their big game weapon of choice. Bowhunters run into this all the time, from people who don't understand the terminal application differences between bullets and arrows. An arrow is just as lethal as a .300 Magnum "WITHIN" it's unique limitations, outside of those limitations and you are going to see increased negative outcomes, just as you do with .223's utilizing frangible bullets, where the potential for it to fail on something as flimsy as a rib bone, is significantly increased over more conventional options. Again... why??? There is simply no need for it. "Why not?" Is not always a reasonable answer. Nor is providing a picture of a carcass with a gaping wound and saying, "see it works!"

 

[Josh P]

Truely baffled.....100%
Idiotic idea....never mind the legality....
Now I will be lambasted again.....

Accuracy is a given, we are talking about terminal effectiveness and the margins for success at that point. Do you think these proponents of the .223 can't handle some sort of 6.5mm? Do they not have access to equipment that might increase the margins for success? Again, a .223 can work, but it should be only for those willing to accept it's limitations, with proper bullets on game that presents a proper target, ie. broadside lungs at a reasonable distance... forgive me if I am skeptical regarding the restraint of those who choose the .223 as their big game weapon of choice. Bowhunters run into this all the time, from people who don't understand the terminal application differences between bullets and arrows. An arrow is just as lethal as a .300 Magnum "WITHIN" it's unique limitations, outside of those limitations and you are going to see increased negative outcomes, just as you do with .223's utilizing frangible bullets, where the potential for it to fail on something as flimsy as a rib bone, is significantly increased over more conventional options. Again... why??? There is simply no need for it. "Why not?" Is not always a reasonable answer. Nor is providing a picture of a carcass with a gaping wound and saying, "see it works!"

Precisely because the data should be weighed. Being an advocate of actually looking at the data and reports and pictures does not equate to saying it’s the best, or even a good choice. The only thing I have been advocating for is to actually digest the available information and make an informed, unemotional, unbiased assessment of that data. Looking at that data objectively is just as important to those who are adamant about its adequacy and those just as adamant about its inadequacy, because data itself is just that, data. It doesn’t hurt or maim game to look at data, nor does its discussion. I’m happy to leave it “agree to disagree” when it can be done with a civil attitude. I come to this site because there is a particular set of well informed opinions, with which I both agree and disagree, that I value as a data set. When some of the sources of that information (for whom I have respect!) throw up their hands as an emotional response to topic which should be entirely capable of being digested in a polite manner, it makes me question how influenced their opinion on other matters might be.

For the sake of it, let’s assume that 223 is in fact the worst choice of hunting caliber. If there is a substantial (subjective) amount of data that says otherwise, but the rebuttal of that data is an emotional (again, perceived/subjective), “That’s idiotic, that choice makes you a moron!”, exactly how has that initial data been refuted? The arguments of military experience in Vietnam, the terminal performance of 55gr projectiles, “everyone already knows”, etc. don’t hold water in an objective data-based analysis of performance. There is always a better caliber, projectile, and weapon platform over what most of us choose to hunt with. The argument can be taken to the extreme in both directions.

It’s just information. Looking at it doesn’t mean you have to take it to heart or endorse it, and it doesn’t bite.

 

[Josh P]

I’ve seen the arguments for its use in NA. I’ve seen some claims of its use on African game, but the responses of some posters aren’t likely to be welcoming for anyone to supply corroborating data for or against, because now it’s a caustic discussion that should have been civil. I engaged because I was hoping to see unemotional responses about the actual or hypothesized performance of, specifically, the 77gr OTM 223 projectile on African game. I didn’t claim to be an authority or try to shoehorn my (open minded) opinion into someone else’s head. I just wanted to learn from others who I hoped were more knowledgeable than I am.

 

[hoytcanon]

I’ve seen the arguments for its use in NA. I’ve seen some claims of its use on African game, but the responses of some posters aren’t likely to be welcoming for anyone to supply corroborating data for or against, because now it’s a caustic discussion that should have been civil. I engaged because I was hoping to see unemotional responses about the actual or hypothesized performance of, specifically, the 77gr OTM 223 projectile on African game. I didn’t claim to be an authority or try to shoehorn my (open minded) opinion into someone else’s head. I just wanted to learn from others who I hoped were more knowledgeable than I am.

Yup, you are open-minded and not caustic at all....and certainly seeking truth.

 

[Doug Hamilton]

Of course you don't have it correct, because you are not trying to be correct... all of the .223 talk is designed to be inflammatory... to push buttons for the sake of emotionally charged arguments.

Whenever the subject comes up, most reasonable people point out the obvious... just because it "can" work, doesn't mean that it is a good idea on a regular basis. That is because of what I stated earlier... "MARGINS." Reduce the margins and you increase the negative outcomes... why as ethical hunters would we want to increase the negative outcomes?

Well said, hoytcanon!

As I have said many times, just because something can be done or has been done, dies not mean it should be done.

Doug