I would not feel comfortable with a 223 for large bears or bison. For bear defense as opposed to hunting, having a full magazine of 30 would help me feel more comfortable
.223 for everything, the gunnutz version
- Thread starter CamV
- Start date
Sorry to hear that, but if belted magnums didn't help why would you be against a 223, at the very least it would be as effective as the belted magnums were
- Location
- Western Canada
Fully agree with this ^^^. I also live in grizzly country, and wouldn't recommend carrying a .223 for hunting given the regions risks and the cartridges limitations to address those inherent risks effectively.
Its fairly ridiculous IMO
Hunting ISNT war......it is/should be the ethical moral respectful taking of game .....and every animal hunted should be taken as swiftly/definitely with 1 shot where possibnle.
Of COURSE bullet pl;acement is crucial..FFS ....regradless of cartridge.....that doesn't belong in the discussion of what cartridge to use....
Same can be said for bullet construction.....regardless of cartridge...appropriate bullet type for the job.
Anything bigger than small deer have plenty of bone and muscle surrounding their vitals....need sufficient energy/sectional density and mass to get through sometimes.
Lets talk wind...and range 223 doesn't do too well in the wind...especially at distance...combine that with the average hunters abilities particularly when shooting from field positions.....no margin for error whatsoever and anything shy of perfection leaves poor terminal performance.
Taking game ethically requires the right tool for the job.... 223 is capable within its limitations...to suggest it is the right tool for the job for the average hunter on anything in N/A is ridiculous...and immoral.
223 is barely capable as a battle round for humans....not to mention that the goal in battle is to incapacitate rather than nec kill the enemy...wound one and it takes a whack of resources to care for him in addition to taking him outa the fight...kill him and its just one down
Comparing this to hunting isn't appropriate.
Hunting ISNT war......it is/should be the ethical moral respectful taking of game .....and every animal hunted should be taken as swiftly/definitely with 1 shot where possibnle.
Of COURSE bullet pl;acement is crucial..FFS ....regradless of cartridge.....that doesn't belong in the discussion of what cartridge to use....
Same can be said for bullet construction.....regardless of cartridge...appropriate bullet type for the job.
Anything bigger than small deer have plenty of bone and muscle surrounding their vitals....need sufficient energy/sectional density and mass to get through sometimes.
Lets talk wind...and range 223 doesn't do too well in the wind...especially at distance...combine that with the average hunters abilities particularly when shooting from field positions.....no margin for error whatsoever and anything shy of perfection leaves poor terminal performance.
Taking game ethically requires the right tool for the job.... 223 is capable within its limitations...to suggest it is the right tool for the job for the average hunter on anything in N/A is ridiculous...and immoral.
223 is barely capable as a battle round for humans....not to mention that the goal in battle is to incapacitate rather than nec kill the enemy...wound one and it takes a whack of resources to care for him in addition to taking him outa the fight...kill him and its just one down
Comparing this to hunting isn't appropriate.
- Location
- Western Canada
Yeah, I agree with that too. But we get 5 rounds of 5.56 here, if you even have a mag fed gun anymore...
When I’m mowing my lawn, I’m in grizzly country. A pair of subadult bears ripped the door off my tack shed beside my barn to lick up the spilled oats.
Every day that I hunted last year I was in grizzly country.
As a forester, a lot of days at work are spent wandering around in grizzly country. For quite awhile I carried a S&W 629 with a 5” barrel and 240 gr hardcast. Occasionally now I carry a Rossi Ranch Hand (it’s always windy here, and I have no urge to take collateral damage from bear spray) and after killing a few things with hardcast bullets I have much more faith in a 77 TMK or 88 ELD m than I do a big pistol when it comes to terminal damage, and (personally) I’m a BUNCH better with a rifle than I am a pistol.
Here is my 2 cents. Using a 223 on anything bigger than deer and your asking for trouble. I shot a bull moose and bull elk last fall with my 300wm using 180 gr Swift A frames at 3150 fps. There was no question on how the bullet would perform and both animals were on the ground quicker than you can blink. Would the same thing have happened if I had been using a 223! Possibly but I doubt it. I have no problem with guys using a 223 for deer as long as they understand it’s limitations.
- Location
- West Central Alberta
I just don't understand why someone would use a .223 when there are so many other calibers more suitable for big game.
Is it for bragging rights or something?
Is it for bragging rights or something?
- Location
- Western Canada
5.56/.223 certainly can be effective on deer, coyotes, foxes, etc. for sure. My hunting buddy shot a nice sized blacktail last year easily with a .223 Tikka bolt action. Dropped it basically on the spot.
However, it is definitely not the ideal choice to use for anything much bigger, in my opinion. The only way I see it being a practical option is if we had use of modern AR15 rifles with the ability to use standard capacity (30) magazines for use when hunting, primarily for the additional animal defence capabilities and even with that idea in mind, with all the other modern cartridge options available, 5.56 still just isn't the best suited round for every role out there, hunting and animal defence included.
I don't see 5.56 as a jack of all trades round, it is so common today simply due to NATO use and therefore mass availability in all NATO countries for military and LEO use, with run off sales to the civilian target shooter market for shooting paper or steel at a range. That is really it's ideal use case and where it shines. It is good at what it was designed for, ideally from a 18"-20" barrel but can still be effective in an 11.5" carbine, albeit at closer ranges usually, due to a loss in ballistic performance when you start shortening a 5.56 barrel. In today's market there are definitely better hunting cartridges available for us and better defensive cartridges as well, with some overlap between the two.
Mk12's are badass rifles, but an Sr25 is a more effective rifle. 5.56 wasn't designed as a long range round either, but it can sort of do it in a pinch, although .308 does it better.
In fact, just stepping up to a .308 would solve all the drawbacks of 5.56 for the posted application.
However, it is definitely not the ideal choice to use for anything much bigger, in my opinion. The only way I see it being a practical option is if we had use of modern AR15 rifles with the ability to use standard capacity (30) magazines for use when hunting, primarily for the additional animal defence capabilities and even with that idea in mind, with all the other modern cartridge options available, 5.56 still just isn't the best suited round for every role out there, hunting and animal defence included.
I don't see 5.56 as a jack of all trades round, it is so common today simply due to NATO use and therefore mass availability in all NATO countries for military and LEO use, with run off sales to the civilian target shooter market for shooting paper or steel at a range. That is really it's ideal use case and where it shines. It is good at what it was designed for, ideally from a 18"-20" barrel but can still be effective in an 11.5" carbine, albeit at closer ranges usually, due to a loss in ballistic performance when you start shortening a 5.56 barrel. In today's market there are definitely better hunting cartridges available for us and better defensive cartridges as well, with some overlap between the two.
Mk12's are badass rifles, but an Sr25 is a more effective rifle. 5.56 wasn't designed as a long range round either, but it can sort of do it in a pinch, although .308 does it better.
In fact, just stepping up to a .308 would solve all the drawbacks of 5.56 for the posted application.
unstableryan
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Beautiful Okanagan Valley
In my experience, if I am stand hunting and I have a great rest, the shots are limited in distance and I know the rifle well, I would use my .223. If something doesn't see it coming, no problem. If the animal knows you are there, use something more appropriate.
Here’s the thing about that concept… I killed quite a few animals with a 300 Ultra and mono’s (not to mention a few other cartridges). Typically a moose and an elk every year. Plus some deer, and bears, and other stuff scattered in. I get more bullet damage in vitals with an 88, than I did with ANY mono, at any distance. I get 24”+ inches of penetration, and stuff dies faster, from a lighter, easier to shoot well package.
Once you shift your mindset away from minimizing the damage done by a big cartridge (via bonded bullets or mono’s) and maximizing the damage from a smaller case, why wouldn’t you use something that does more damage at lower cost?
I shot a bull moose and a bull elk last fall with 88 ELD m’s. I watched the moose drop his mouth open in the scope as he collapsed at the shot. My buddy pounded three 168gr TTSX into the bull that was fighting with mine through the shoulders and chest before it finally tipped over. The bull elk I killed was running in to the cow chirps and I smashed his onside shoulder and the bullet exited at the last rib. He made a half turn and as he was falling over I smacked him again through the ribs and out the opposite shoulder, because the shooting is the fun part. Both bulls were immediately dead. What more does a person need? Before the shots there was no question about the outcome.
- Location
- West Central Alberta
^^^ So your first choice for hunting elk would be a 223?
Doesn’t have to be a 223. Could be 22ARC, 22Creed, 22-250, 22GT, 224Valk, etc.
Licensed to kill
CGN Regular
- Location
- Peace Country Alberta
Just because one CAN, does not mean that one SHOULD. The premise, as I understand it is sound ON PAPER. Of course anything in NA CAN be killed cleanly with the RIGHT bullet placed in the RIGHT spot. That is (or at least should be) obvious even to the uninitiated. However, hunting in the field is NOT the same as plotting a script on paper. I doubt there is a single hunter alive that has made a PERFECT shot every time ESPECIALLY for guys that think they are on a shooting range shooting long distances. IMO, if you can not anchor an animal with a shot through the shoulder bone, you need more gun. Now for the record, a buddy shot a moose years ago that was hot on a cow. Hit the bull in the shoulder with his 375HH (shooting 250gr grande slams IIRC) and the moose just shuttered and stood there glaring at him and looking like it was going to charge. For whatever reason, that shot did not break the bone. That moose soaked up 2 shots for the 375 and another 3 from a .300WM before falling over. Range was <200 yards. On the flip side, for a LONG time, the world record Grizzly was killed with a .22LR. Like I said, just because you CAN does not mean you should.
I've used a .223 on a couple of bear and deer and it works fine.
But so do other cartridges and the .223 doesn't kill any better than them either. I wouldn't have just a 30-06 and I wouldn't hunt with just a .223 either. I have about 2 dozen .223 rifles though so I obviously like the cartridge.
But so do other cartridges and the .223 doesn't kill any better than them either. I wouldn't have just a 30-06 and I wouldn't hunt with just a .223 either. I have about 2 dozen .223 rifles though so I obviously like the cartridge.
How's it barely capable for humans when not used with FMJ crap? Not sure how you back that one up. LOTS of cop shootings out there with AR-15s. Looks capable. Talk to someone who has used SOST or the like...or 77gr TMK.
Either way, not really a good comparison cause 30 cal FMJ sucks arse as a hunting load and yet its supposed to be lots more effective on people? lol.
Guys like you who actually do it (enough to show its not a one-off) changed my mind on this one. Seeing is believing. If someone told me the wounds those bullets make came from a 308 I would have believed it. Except I would have thought the 77gr TMK was a 155 AMAX or something very frangible.
Most of the "why would you do that?" comments come from people who haven't used em or seen the result. Theres what you know and what you think you know.
My only criticism is if you get a runner I like more blood on the ground, and I do stick to monos. Would have no hesitation hunting those particular 223 bullets though. Wasnt a big fan of the various 77gr BTHP.
Last edited:
That thread revolves around the Sierra 77gr Tipped Matchking.
Those who have taken game with that bullet or a similar one like the heavier grain ELD-M or X's loaded long in a modern bolt action with a fast twist know that it makes the .223 a completely different cartridge than the when introduced 50+ years ago.
Admittedly, the .223 isn't the only legacy cartridge to benefit from advancement in bullet technology but no other enjoys as much empirical evidence as the .223/ 77gr TMK combo...literally hundreds of guys using it to great effect on medium/large game.
I myself have taken two large bodied mule bucks and scores of coyotes with a handloaded 77. Texas heartshot one coyote that penetrated 20"... in through the pooper, broke through the hip and into the lungs/heart.
Wound channels in the two deer were indistinguishable from my sons 30-06.
Those who have taken game with that bullet or a similar one like the heavier grain ELD-M or X's loaded long in a modern bolt action with a fast twist know that it makes the .223 a completely different cartridge than the when introduced 50+ years ago.
Admittedly, the .223 isn't the only legacy cartridge to benefit from advancement in bullet technology but no other enjoys as much empirical evidence as the .223/ 77gr TMK combo...literally hundreds of guys using it to great effect on medium/large game.
I myself have taken two large bodied mule bucks and scores of coyotes with a handloaded 77. Texas heartshot one coyote that penetrated 20"... in through the pooper, broke through the hip and into the lungs/heart.
Wound channels in the two deer were indistinguishable from my sons 30-06.
Last edited:
Hand Skills
CGN Regular
- Location
- In the 'heartland', southern SK
Critical to safety is matching the cartridge to the chamber. That's what headstamp is for.
When it comes to terminal performance, headstamp is irrelevant!
Only 2 things matter;
1. Shot Placement
2. Bullet Performance
Seems folks get triggered by headstamp, and fail to realize the discussion is actually about bullet performace
When it comes to terminal performance, headstamp is irrelevant!
Only 2 things matter;
1. Shot Placement
2. Bullet Performance
Seems folks get triggered by headstamp, and fail to realize the discussion is actually about bullet performace
Indeed. Although a lot of hunters shoot a gun that doesn't shoot near MOA + a cheap scope that doesn't track properly and suddenly vitals become a lot harder to hit.Critical to safety is matching the cartridge to the chamber. That's what headstamp is for.
When it comes to terminal performance, headstamp is irrelevant!
Only 2 things matter;
1. Shot Placement
2. Bullet Performance
Seems folks get triggered by headstamp, and fail to realize the discussion is actually about bullet performace
