.223 for everything, the gunnutz version

hoytcanon said:
Nobody said it won't work... all you have "documented" are the cases where it did work... not the less forthcoming cases where it didn't work. Is anybody disputing that a .223 is a lesser cartridge than a .243 or .257 Roberts or a 6.5 Creedmoor or a .308? "Lesser" equals more opportunity for error and failure... again, if people are going to push the margins, they need to approach it with due caution and considerable care. Without the need for any statistics at all, I can safely say that there is more wounding loss with a .223 than with a .308... do with that what you will...
Click to expand...
Have you ever shot big game with a .22 cal rifle and heavy for caliber bullet?
 
I shot 2 whitetails @ approx 120 yards with a 338 Lapua and 285 gr hornady factory match ammo.... They died, but there was only about 4" penetration- what a mess

My thinking at the time was I would use it for moose, sure its a match bullet, but its also 285 grs of lead so it should be fine... I'm sure glad I never tried it on a moose first! I do not think they would have been fatal, not that day anyway....

No more match bullets for hunting for this guy. Varmints, sure, but thats different.
 
P_H fan said:
Have you ever shot big game with a .22 cal rifle and heavy for caliber bullet?
Click to expand...

Have you ever jumped off a bridge? What do you think might happen?

No, I have not, and I will not. I have plenty of more appropriate guns from which to choose. I tend to go the other way and add margin... I don't have to guess or hope it works out that way.

So, in your opinion half a century as a gun nut, building guns, loading rounds and shooting tens of thousands of rounds and putting literally hundreds of animals on the ground with dozens of cartridges doesn't allow me to extrapolate from that experience and comment of this particular practice... going back over this thread, what specifically did I say that you apparently object to?
 
Its a very reasonable extrapolation. Its just that the extrapolation is "the 77gr TMK and heavy ELDs cannot make it through substantial bone to reach vitals", its incorrect. Lots of people are actually doing it, and showing the results.

To say that its resulting in an unusual/unacceptable result of losses is conjecture, based on no evidence other than the above extrapolation.

I get it...it really is a tough thing to do, shifting that paradigm.
 
hoytcanon said:
going back over this thread, what specifically did I say that you apparently object to?
Click to expand...
I could be wrong, but I think it’s the fact that in any of these threads you can’t help but make catty comments about peoples shooting abilities or recoil tolerance, and the comments like “don’t hear about it when it goes wrong” with the insinuation that everyone that isn’t fielding a 30.06 is losing animals left right and center every fall.

I could be wrong though, might be unrelated to those aspects.
 
hoytcanon said:
Have you ever jumped off a bridge? What do you think might happen?

No, I have not, and I will not. I have plenty of more appropriate guns from which to choose. I tend to go the other way and add margin... I don't have to guess or hope it works out that way.

So, in your opinion half a century as a gun nut, building guns, loading rounds and shooting tens of thousands of rounds and putting literally hundreds of animals on the ground with dozens of cartridges doesn't allow me to extrapolate from that experience and comment of this particular practice... going back over this thread, what specifically did I say that you apparently object to?
Click to expand...
It was a legitimate question. You stated there is more wounding loss with a .223 than a .308. To make a definitive statement, I was hoping you could expand upon that with information/evidence that could substantiate your claim. I've wounded animals with a .300 wsm, would the outcome have been different with a .223. I don't know, a bad shot is still a bad shot.

We all know .308s and every other "traditional" calibre can kill animals. However, comparing terminal ballistics to jumping off a bridge and then touting your credentials doesn't add anything to the conversation. All it does is tell me you're grasping at straws because you're using exaggerated analogies to try and prove your point.

I am trying to gain information about the effectiveness of a .223 for big game and learn from other people's experiences and or mistakes, as I have none of my own. And as stated by you, neither do you. Now, if you were to tell me that you have shot tens of thousands of .223 rounds and killed hundreds of animals with a .223, then I would pay attention to something you had to say.

I appreciate the information shared by KodiakHntr as it aligns with a lot of the information provided on the Rokslide thread. Some on that forum have also shot "tens of thousands of rounds" and "put hundreds of animals on the ground". Yet they are willing to provide information and facts documenting the results.

Maybe you should go over there and have a read, you might even learn something new that you can add to your impressive resume.

Anyways, sorry to derail this thread. I'm still looking for that 1:8 tikka to try and gain my own experience, so I can add something relevant to the conversation.
 
P_H fan said:
It was a legitimate question. You stated there is more wounding loss with a .223 than a .308. To make a definitive statement, I was hoping you could expand upon that with information/evidence that could substantiate your claim. I've wounded animals with a .300 wsm, would the outcome have been different with a .223. I don't know, a bad shot is still a bad shot.

We all know .308s and every other "traditional" calibre can kill animals. However, comparing terminal ballistics to jumping off a bridge and then touting your credentials doesn't add anything to the conversation. All it does is tell me you're grasping at straws because you're using exaggerated analogies to try and prove your point.

I am trying to gain information about the effectiveness of a .223 for big game and learn from other people's experiences and or mistakes, as I have none of my own. And as stated by you, neither do you. Now, if you were to tell me that you have shot tens of thousands of .223 rounds and killed hundreds of animals with a .223, then I would pay attention to something you had to say.

I appreciate the information shared by KodiakHntr as it aligns with a lot of the information provided on the Rokslide thread. Some on that forum have also shot "tens of thousands of rounds" and "put hundreds of animals on the ground". Yet they are willing to provide information and facts documenting the results.

Maybe you should go over there and have a read, you might even learn something new that you can add to your impressive resume.

Anyways, sorry to derail this thread. I'm still looking for that 1:8 tikka to try and gain my own experience, so I can add something relevant to the conversation.
Click to expand...

You guys are funny. You can't seem to accept that you are championing a comparatively diminutive cartridge. Sure bullets have come a long way, but they have done that for the bigger cartridges too. Case capacity is still case capacity. And remember, this thread is not about .223 on coastal blacktails... it is about .223 on EVERYTHING... I don't require a study to quite rightly come to the conclusion that, over time, there is more wounding loss with a .223 over a more commonly accepted big game cartridge. Most of your data is from guys saying "Dave got a deer with his .223, and Gerry lost one with his .308," ergo the .223 is better than a .308. It is quite right to draw legitimate conclusions utilizing common sense. So I say again, if you are going to push the margins of feasible cartridges, proceed carefully and cautiously, but again, taking human nature into account, that will happen about as much with .223 shooters as it does with .308 shooters... with less juice in the pipe.
 
KodiakHntr said:
I could be wrong, but I think it’s the fact that in any of these threads you can’t help but make catty comments about peoples shooting abilities or recoil tolerance, and the comments like “don’t hear about it when it goes wrong” with the insinuation that everyone that isn’t fielding a 30.06 is losing animals left right and center every fall.

I could be wrong though, might be unrelated to those aspects.
Click to expand...

Speculating on the ramifications of human nature, is hardly disparaging someone's shooting ability, nor is it an incorrect assumption about the data compilation that small bore proponents like to quote. I think it is a safe assumption that people will expound a whole lot more on their successes than they will their misses and failures... this leads to a skewded perspective. Also, I did not say that small bore proponents are losing animals "left, right and center," I said they will lose "more" than those shooting more appropriately powered cartridges, this would prove out over time, statistically speaking it has to... cuz physics. So this fact, necessitates more care in your set-up, practice and application... not everyone is going to be that diligent, but I'm sure you are.
 
P_H fan said:
It was a legitimate question. You stated there is more wounding loss with a .223 than a .308. To make a definitive statement, I was hoping you could expand upon that with information/evidence that could substantiate your claim. I've wounded animals with a .300 wsm, would the outcome have been different with a .223. I don't know, a bad shot is still a bad shot.

We all know .308s and every other "traditional" calibre can kill animals. However, comparing terminal ballistics to jumping off a bridge and then touting your credentials doesn't add anything to the conversation. All it does is tell me you're grasping at straws because you're using exaggerated analogies to try and prove your point.

I am trying to gain information about the effectiveness of a .223 for big game and learn from other people's experiences and or mistakes, as I have none of my own. And as stated by you, neither do you. Now, if you were to tell me that you have shot tens of thousands of .223 rounds and killed hundreds of animals with a .223, then I would pay attention to something you had to say.

I appreciate the information shared by KodiakHntr as it aligns with a lot of the information provided on the Rokslide thread. Some on that forum have also shot "tens of thousands of rounds" and "put hundreds of animals on the ground". Yet they are willing to provide information and facts documenting the results.

Maybe you should go over there and have a read, you might even learn something new that you can add to your impressive resume.

Anyways, sorry to derail this thread. I'm still looking for that 1:8 tikka to try and gain my own experience, so I can add something relevant to the conversation.
Click to expand...

"Tens of thousands of rounds" is a slow month for at least one of the guys in that thread and "put hundreds of animals on the ground" is their year.

But someone who has never used the tool they used is correct because "nuh uh!"
 
hoytcanon said:
You guys are funny. You can't seem to accept that you are championing a comparatively diminutive cartridge. Sure bullets have come a long way, but they have done that for the bigger cartridges too. Case capacity is still case capacity. And remember, this thread is not about .223 on coastal blacktails... it is about .223 on EVERYTHING... I don't require a study to quite rightly come to the conclusion that, over time, there is more wounding loss with a .223 over a more commonly accepted big game cartridge. Most of your data is from guys saying "Dave got a deer with his .223, and Gerry lost one with his .308," ergo the .223 is better than a .308. It is quite right to draw legitimate conclusions utilizing common sense. So I say again, if you are going to push the margins of feasible cartridges, proceed carefully and cautiously, but again, taking human nature into account, that will happen about as much with .223 shooters as it does with .308 shooters... with less juice in the pipe.
Click to expand...
Lot to unpack here.
Now I think you have stated previously that you aren’t interested in viewing the rokslide thread, but you are really doing yourself a disservice by not at least skimming the pictures because making claims like “most of your data is from guys saying…” . Well, no. It comes from the literal thousands of pictures of animals and documented wound channels on animals ranging from tiny southern deer up through walrus and a LOT of stuff in between.

And again, I bring this up because if someone is thinking that they will have better shot placement with something that has less recoil, then they should have the most information about appropriate bullet choice that they can find.
On that particular thread that is currently over 560+ pages and pushing 11 000 posts, there are accounts of about pretty much every bullet of relatively recent manufacturing and how it reacts on meat. Not to mention how those bullets compare in larger calibers as well.

And yes, the same bullet development has occurred with the larger calibers as well, but when I get a larger, faster killing wound cavity from an 88 ELD m than I do from a 180 TSX, why on earth would I maximize that, just for the sake of a larger case?!?!? Choose the bullet that gives you the results you want, not a chambering hoping that you get the results you want.

And that part is the root of the issue I think, in that people have a tough time changing their long held beliefs around bullets and calibers and what is required for killing based on lifetimes worth of programming by gun writers and the echo chamber from peers.

Personally, I know that the 88 ELD m is going to break shoulder structure bones and penetrate through to the lungs and leave a hole the size of a softball on its way through them. I know that setting off a cherry bomb inside the chest cavity of something is going to make it VERY sick, very fast, and that it isn’t going far.
I also know that there isn’t going to be much of an exit hole, if any, and if the bullet is recovered under the hide on the other side is only going to be the very end of the boat tail jacket and maybe 20 grains of lead and it isn’t going to be worthy of a picture for a magazine ad.

And as far as championing a cartridge… nope. I just think guys need to put more thought into bullet choice and their individual shooting abilities. The main benefit to going to a larger cartridge in a traditionally acceptable caliber is that it is harder to find a bullet that won’t work to some degree even if all you do is look at the picture on the box of shells.
 
Hey, listen... it
KodiakHntr said:
Lot to unpack here.
Now I think you have stated previously that you aren’t interested in viewing the rokslide thread, but you are really doing yourself a disservice by not at least skimming the pictures because making claims like “most of your data is from guys saying…” . Well, no. It comes from the literal thousands of pictures of animals and documented wound channels on animals ranging from tiny southern deer up through walrus and a LOT of stuff in between.

And again, I bring this up because if someone is thinking that they will have better shot placement with something that has less recoil, then they should have the most information about appropriate bullet choice that they can find.
On that particular thread that is currently over 560+ pages and pushing 11 000 posts, there are accounts of about pretty much every bullet of relatively recent manufacturing and how it reacts on meat. Not to mention how those bullets compare in larger calibers as well.

And yes, the same bullet development has occurred with the larger calibers as well, but when I get a larger, faster killing wound cavity from an 88 ELD m than I do from a 180 TSX, why on earth would I maximize that, just for the sake of a larger case?!?!? Choose the bullet that gives you the results you want, not a chambering hoping that you get the results you want.

And that part is the root of the issue I think, in that people have a tough time changing their long held beliefs around bullets and calibers and what is required for killing based on lifetimes worth of programming by gun writers and the echo chamber from peers.

Personally, I know that the 88 ELD m is going to break shoulder structure bones and penetrate through to the lungs and leave a hole the size of a softball on its way through them. I know that setting off a cherry bomb inside the chest cavity of something is going to make it VERY sick, very fast, and that it isn’t going far.
I also know that there isn’t going to be much of an exit hole, if any, and if the bullet is recovered under the hide on the other side is only going to be the very end of the boat tail jacket and maybe 20 grains of lead and it isn’t going to be worthy of a picture for a magazine ad.

And as far as championing a cartridge… nope. I just think guys need to put more thought into bullet choice and their individual shooting abilities. The main benefit to going to a larger cartridge in a traditionally acceptable caliber is that it is harder to find a bullet that won’t work to some degree even if all you do is look at the picture on the box of shells.
Click to expand...

Hey, listen... it's all good, I didn't read your whole post, but I've said my piece... I'm going turkey hunting! Have a great day.
 
Information sharing can be a great thing, but I sure do prefer to do it in person, that is why I am headed to the range right now to meet up with some BPCR buddies to shoot the old time guns- and probably my fast twist .223 match rifle!:D
Good luck with your turkey hunt, Hoyt!
Cat
 
Last edited:
KodiakHntr said:
Absolutely.

Also, here’s a bull moose and a 223AI.
Click to expand...
your always going to have one that gets killed for the 9 that run off, I say that for the reason I shot a 3 point blacktail years ago that had 2 .22cal center fire bullets in the upper thigh that did not penetrate enough to break bone so I personally know under hunting conditions a .223 is way under powered for me except if you have a perfect situation which is not that often IMO. ENJOY
 
john-brennan said:
your always going to have one that gets killed for the 9 that run off, I say that for the reason I shot a 3 point blacktail years ago that had 2 .22cal center fire bullets in the upper thigh that did not penetrate enough to break bone so I personally know under hunting conditions a .223 is way under powered for me except if you have a perfect situation which is not that often IMO. ENJOY
Click to expand...

At what velocity were those two .22 centerfires applied?
Could they not have been fire out of a 22 hornet?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom