Yup, wrong shot with any rifle is no good!
Cat
.223 for everything, the gunnutz version
- Thread starter CamV
- Start date
Cat
Hand Skills
CGN Regular
- Location
- In the 'heartland', southern SK
Because ELD-X
todbartell shot an elk in the in the shoulder one year and the bullet failed to make it to the vitals. That was a .338. 225gr ELDX IIRC.
Does that mean the 338WM is too small for elk? No, it means if you shoot enough animals, you're goona see some weird stuff.
The sheer number of different people showing strange and inconsistent results with ELD-X speaks to the BULLET not the HEADSTAMP.
It's not though. Most .243's come with a 1:10 twist to maximize velocity of light for cal bullets.
Light for cal bullets at warp speed work great when they are all copper, but the leaded ones can grenade, coming apart into fragments resulting in a wide but shallow wound should the target present any resistance at all
A 6Creedmoor with a 1:8 twist - heavy for cal 105-115gr is a whole different animal.
This isn't new - guys be shooting heavy for cal in fast twist 7x57's (1:8.6") for over 100yrs. It works better than it 'should'. The slow muzzle velocities aren't very attractive, but appropriately stabilized heavy for caliber sure is
That's why low recoil cartridges lije 30-30, 7.62x39, 6.5x54 M-S remain so popular.
Most people shoot low recoil rifles better than a hard recoiling rifle. I find .300 Win in a light sporter weight rifle makes me flinchy.
Didn't he lose a Grizzly with an 8mm Rem Mag? Maybe there is something to be said for using lighter recoiling rifles.Because ELD-X
todbartell shot an elk in the in the shoulder one year and the bullet failed to make it to the vitals. That was a .338. 225gr ELDX IIRC.
Does that mean the 338WM is too small for elk? No, it means if you shoot enough animals, you're goona see some weird stuff.
The sheer number of different people showing strange and inconsistent results with ELD-X speaks to the BULLET not the HEADSTAMP.
It's not though. Most .243's come with a 1:10 twist to maximize velocity of light for cal bullets.
Light for cal bullets at warp speed work great when they are all copper, but the leaded ones can grenade, coming apart into fragments resulting in a wide but shallow wound should the target present any resistance at all
A 6Creedmoor with a 1:8 twist - heavy for cal 105-115gr is a whole different animal.
This isn't new - guys be shooting heavy for cal in fast twist 7x57's (1:8.6") for over 100yrs. It works better than it 'should'. The slow muzzle velocities aren't very attractive, but appropriately stabilized heavy for caliber sure is
saskgunowner101
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- near Prince Albert
You know, I've appreciated reading a lot of your posts over the years, but you really do get bent out of shape over the 223 for hunting posts here. I highly doubt that anyone and everyone who has used a 223 for deer is recoil shy.
I'll admit it
And happily too.
I don't like recoil at all. Infact a sold a rifle recently because I found 10 rounds out of a .280ai to be downright unpleasant.
And why would I shoot something using a bullet designed for limited destruction when I can use something with very little recoil and a bullet designed for maximum tissue destruction?
First cow elk killed with the 280 Ruger single shot ( I originally sold and now own again) was around 200 yards with a 162 ELDXBecause ELD-X
todbartell shot an elk in the in the shoulder one year and the bullet failed to make it to the vitals. That was a .338. 225gr ELDX IIRC.
Does that mean the 338WM is too small for elk? No, it means if you shoot enough animals, you're goona see some weird stuff.
The sheer number of different people showing strange and inconsistent results with ELD-X speaks to the BULLET not the HEADSTAMP.
The first cow elk killed with my 280 Ruger #1 was just under 200 yards with a 162 ELDX
The second awas a cow elk atc642 yards with a 162 ELDX
It's not though. Most .243's come with a 1:10 twist to maximize velocity of light for cal bullets.
Light for cal bullets at warp speed work great when they are all copper, but the leaded ones can grenade, coming apart into fragments resulting in a wide but shallow wound should the target present any resistance at all
A 6Creedmoor with a 1:8 twist - heavy for cal 105-115gr is a whole different animal.
This isn't new - guys be shooting heavy for cal in fast twist 7x57's (1:8.6") for over 100yrs. It works better than it 'should'. The slow muzzle velocities aren't very attractive, but appropriately stabilized heavy for caliber sure is
The second one was at 742 yards with a 162 ELDX.
Both were " one and done"
Cat
I’ve read through the rokslide thread. I would suggest others do the same. I’m more apt to believe something will work if there is documented evidence. Having a multitude of sources with similar results is even more compelling/believable.
By evidence I mean necropsy photos, bullet impact velocity, distance, shot angles etc.
The general argument from those that say it won’t work is, not enough ft lbs .223 is a varmint round . 30-06 kills em faster etc.
I’ve seen way more evidence showing that it works v.s it doesn’t work. Albeit with the right bullet and impact velocity.
The next step to knowing if something will work is doing your own tests. I now have 200, 77gr TMKs and a 1lb of IMR 8208.
If someone has 1:8 Tikka .223 they are no longer using for coyotes I will gladly take it off your hands.
By evidence I mean necropsy photos, bullet impact velocity, distance, shot angles etc.
The general argument from those that say it won’t work is, not enough ft lbs .223 is a varmint round . 30-06 kills em faster etc.
I’ve seen way more evidence showing that it works v.s it doesn’t work. Albeit with the right bullet and impact velocity.
The next step to knowing if something will work is doing your own tests. I now have 200, 77gr TMKs and a 1lb of IMR 8208.
If someone has 1:8 Tikka .223 they are no longer using for coyotes I will gladly take it off your hands.
Is it possible in the next few years we all have a 6.5 for big game and a 223 for all else (or for all )
You guys are gonna drive the gun business NUTS
When does a 7mm , 30-06, 300 wm or even the 338 wm life end ?
Is it now ?
Recoil sensitive , no need to apply
You guys are gonna drive the gun business NUTS
When does a 7mm , 30-06, 300 wm or even the 338 wm life end ?
Is it now ?
Recoil sensitive , no need to apply
I will. Certainly hunt the 30-06 and .270 well enough and this season will be a fairly light 308 Win. But I have more fun shooting smaller rifles. Definitely like it better. There are practical benefits too, but no issue saying its my preference as well.
It seems equally hard for some to admit they shoot .223 better than their larger rifles haha
Or that haha.
The Rokslide forum thread people are referencing here has a lot of people saying they shoot .223 better as well, and enjoy it more than their bigger rifles.
Its not like its some kind of horrible secret everyone is closeted with
Surely most experienced shooters can shoot a string of shots from a high powered rifle well regardless of its recoil.
It's equally likely that many experienced shooters enjoy shooting a higher volume of rounds from their 223s etc and have better results for accuracy over long range sessions. This is born out by the cartridge selection of high volume long range bench and target shooters.
Seemingly this has no bearing on choice of hunting rifles though. Once a gun is sighted in, practiced with a bit and zero confirmed it doesn't make a lick of difference if you can shoot 100 rounds through it on a Sunday or enjoy shooting your 223 more.
I have a hunting rifle in 223 and had one in 7.62x39 for this exact reason, practice with similar ergonomics
I don't doubt the efficacy of the 223 for hunting, but it seems to be slightly overstated by very experienced hunters of various game animals (and joel) and relies on strict bullet parameters.
I do have a point I'd like to belabor though. Scientific data is based on controlled variables being strictly repeatable, strengthened by a large sample size collected under these controlled repeatable conditions. While the evidence online is convincing, it is far from controlled, there are simply far, far too many variables that change based on everything from reloading, to rifle, to environmental and physical conditions of animals. Let's not trip over our spreadsheets to pretend one side of this debate is backed by anything other than (convincing) circumstantial evidence.
Ultimately this is why we end up with:
"bullet x worked for person y on species z, you liar!"
"bullet x has never failed me, you took a bad shot, Manufacturing defects and design flaws don't exist!"
" I am incapable of human error, I will never use bullet y again, go back to Ontario liberal"
Etc, etc, etc ad infinitum
I would happily hunt deer with a 223 and heavy for calibre bullets, or even standard ones. In spite of this threads like this make me wonder if we can all just stop swinging our dicks and queuing up our spreadsheets for a second and go back to bashing savages.
Tldr:
* chambering x
It's equally likely that many experienced shooters enjoy shooting a higher volume of rounds from their 223s etc and have better results for accuracy over long range sessions. This is born out by the cartridge selection of high volume long range bench and target shooters.
Seemingly this has no bearing on choice of hunting rifles though. Once a gun is sighted in, practiced with a bit and zero confirmed it doesn't make a lick of difference if you can shoot 100 rounds through it on a Sunday or enjoy shooting your 223 more.
I have a hunting rifle in 223 and had one in 7.62x39 for this exact reason, practice with similar ergonomics
I don't doubt the efficacy of the 223 for hunting, but it seems to be slightly overstated by very experienced hunters of various game animals (and joel) and relies on strict bullet parameters.
I do have a point I'd like to belabor though. Scientific data is based on controlled variables being strictly repeatable, strengthened by a large sample size collected under these controlled repeatable conditions. While the evidence online is convincing, it is far from controlled, there are simply far, far too many variables that change based on everything from reloading, to rifle, to environmental and physical conditions of animals. Let's not trip over our spreadsheets to pretend one side of this debate is backed by anything other than (convincing) circumstantial evidence.
Ultimately this is why we end up with:
"bullet x worked for person y on species z, you liar!"
"bullet x has never failed me, you took a bad shot, Manufacturing defects and design flaws don't exist!"
" I am incapable of human error, I will never use bullet y again, go back to Ontario liberal"
Etc, etc, etc ad infinitum
I would happily hunt deer with a 223 and heavy for calibre bullets, or even standard ones. In spite of this threads like this make me wonder if we can all just stop swinging our dicks and queuing up our spreadsheets for a second and go back to bashing savages.
Tldr:
* chambering x
Last edited:
The point here is I like doing my best...and enjoying it while I'm at it.
If Tool A does the job as well (if not in some ways better) than Tool B, and its more enjoyable, why not use it?
Makes sense to me, but then you don't get to judge other people haha
Are you saying that anyone tgat prefers a less tecoili h cartridge is a "baby"?
How so......
Cat
