Problem is that many guys have no idea of what (using a 223 for deer) those limitations are.
.223 for everything, the gunnutz version
- Thread starter CamV
- Start date
I couldn't agree more. I've killed more game with a 30-06 than I have with all other cartridges combined. It's boringly predictable, whether it's a deer at 40 yards or a moose at 400. I've used the same Rem 700 in '06 to kill everything from 30 lb coyotes and small antelope species to 2,000 lb eland, as well as a few critters that belong in the dangerous game club. And I'm hard pressed to remember ever having to chase a wounded animal shot with that rifle.
Call me an old Fudd who's set in his ways, but I'm pretty sure a .223 wouldn't compete. The idea of using one intentionally on a grizzly or brown bear is assinine. And had I tried that kind of nonsense on the in-bound African lion I shot with my '06, I most certainly would not be here to write this.
Just because something can be done some of the time doesn't mean it's a good idea all of the time. Or really that it's a good idea at all. Sometimes, it only has to go wrong just once to turn a guy into a statistic.
Last edited:
Another problem to factor is the rifle and 88 grain ammo CamV and KodiakHntr are talking about is not your run of the mill .223...Infact it is a very highly specialized custom tailored rifle ammo combination.
With it's high rate twist long throated barrel yes you can stabilize a long heavy high BC bullet that can and will preform on large game out at ranges aproaching 400 yards...Try shooting those hand made heavy rounds threw a regular .223 sporter...First of all they won't chamber and second if they did chamber they would spray unstabilized bullets far and wide because of a slow twist barrel.
If you run the ballistics...Most common .223 ammo has less than 1000 ftl bs of energy at 100 yards...The custom high BC heavy weight ammo they are talking about still has 1000 ft lbs of energy at 300 yards.
The .223 they are talking about hunting big game with is a totally different rifle and round than most here are talking about and own...Basically comparing apples and oranges.
Energy is a number that can be calculated from impact velocity and bullet mass.
There isn’t currently a calculation that I’m aware of that factors in bullet construction or design.
Last edited:
77 TMK is factory loaded, and fits in all factory magazines. Stabilizes with readily available 1:8 factory twisted rifles.
Absolutely more destructive than an 88 ELD m.
The calculation is quite simple...If the bullet has poor terminal performance and simply passes through the game animal the impact energy total is not expended on the game animal...As in if the bullet does not pass through the animal the animal received the total impact energy.
Yeaaaaahhhhhh…..
Ok. Well. So, again, energy isn’t really an indicator of how effective a bullet or chambering will be on game.
I took my 375 Ruger, loaded with 350 grain round nose woodleighs. Loaded to 2575fps.This is just my 2 cents and by no means am I claiming to know it all...... I'd rather have to much then not enough. If I'm picking one caliber/ one rifle to hunt everything then I will pick the cartridge best suited for the biggest, toughest kill rather then the other way around. I'd rather have to much gun then not enough any day.
You don't bring a BB gun to a buffalo hunt.
Worked like a dream.
Yup, exactly!
"energy" on its own absent taking the wounding mechanism/ability of that bullet into account is meaningless. And the wounding mechanism is exactly what you said, construction and design.
An arrow, a 44 hard cast slug, a .224" 77gr TMK are all absolutely lethal. In their own way. And "1000 ft/lbs" means nothing to any of them haha
Really hoping this fall, this thread becomes one that everyone can post their successes in.
I'm not using the 88 eldm
I'm using the 75 eldm.
I don't have a "high twist rate long throated barrel"
I have a regular old t3x with a factory barrel, 8 twist.
Nothing special at all, the optic is a different story.
K Hunter and Joel get it, maybe others - the energy is a meaningless number.
A 30 cal 178gr eldm and 30 cal 178 gr eld-x would kill identically if wasn't, but they don't.
What counts is how the projectile acts upon impact.
I think I've said it before but a pop can diameter sized hole 18 inches deep should kill anything in north America quicker than a broomstick sized hole 30 inches deep.
I used to put maybe 40 rounds through a barrel at a time and my shoulder was hurting for it.
Shooting at an animal recoil was on my mind.
Now I think nothing of putting 200 rounds downrange, without the sore shoulder.
My shooting has drastically improved, recoil is a non-issue, and ammo is cheap cheap. And shooting at an animal my mind is on where the Bullet is going.
Open your minds guys- it's really worth it.
Hmmm let me open my mind further..... yeah, no, hard pass. You are free to use what ever you want, but it is not for me.
I remember lining up on that grizzly in Hagensborg in 1999, with my 300 win mag and wishing I had brought my 223 instead...NOT.
That 300 mag felt awfully small at that moment. If I only had a 223 I would have shat my pants.
Small caliber guys always write that shot placement is most important and then go on to mention the other guys with the big guns shooting 5 inch groups. Well, believe it or not, some of us big gun guys can shoot our guns better than that.
Also as far as the broom handle sized hole vs the pop can analogy, well we can also choose fast expanding bullets for our big guns and have the same result as you do. Funny I shot a fist sized hole thru a black bear a few years ago using a 338 win mag with 225 grain fusion bullets too.
Use what ever you want, but telling guys to use what you think is the best is like telling a chevy guy he should try a kia because you like them.
Enjoy your hunt and I wish you the best of luck. I will stick with what I feel comfortable with.
I remember lining up on that grizzly in Hagensborg in 1999, with my 300 win mag and wishing I had brought my 223 instead...NOT.
That 300 mag felt awfully small at that moment. If I only had a 223 I would have shat my pants.
Small caliber guys always write that shot placement is most important and then go on to mention the other guys with the big guns shooting 5 inch groups. Well, believe it or not, some of us big gun guys can shoot our guns better than that.
Also as far as the broom handle sized hole vs the pop can analogy, well we can also choose fast expanding bullets for our big guns and have the same result as you do. Funny I shot a fist sized hole thru a black bear a few years ago using a 338 win mag with 225 grain fusion bullets too.
Use what ever you want, but telling guys to use what you think is the best is like telling a chevy guy he should try a kia because you like them.
Enjoy your hunt and I wish you the best of luck. I will stick with what I feel comfortable with.
Fair positive that nobody has said you should change up what you are using if it makes you happy. And nobody has said you can’t maximize the destruction level of your bullet in any given cartridge, most people choose not to however after they hammer a big fast expanding bullet from a large cartridge through an animal and then see the level of meat damage that can occur from that combination.
I do recognize that a lot of people are bearanoid, so carry whatever makes you feel safest.
Surprising thing though, LOTS of guys shoot big boomers really well. I’m one of them.
However, I’m not bearanoid, and I’ve never been scared of any bear when I’ve been carrying ANY rifle in my hands. A firearm gives you the advantage of distance, and if you are scared your rifle isn’t big enough before you squeeze the trigger, then you’re already doubting your own abilities before the battle even starts and that isn’t a good way to start the gunfight.
I DO see benefit in a light, fast handling rifle that has nothing for recoil, that points and swings like it has eyes, where I can watch bullet impact in the scope even as I’m slamming another round into battery and knowing if a second shot is needed.
When you watch the hair puff out from the bullet strike, there are no surprises when you walk up to an animal on the ground. There aren’t any “huh. Musta hit a branch or something” moments.
What guys HAVE said though, is that a fast twist 22 centerfire using a heavy for caliber, softer constructed bullet is incredibly effective, more so than a person can really understand until you look at what is getting to be a rather overwhelming mountain of positive, documented experiences that hunters are having with “match bullets”.
Again though, use whatever makes you happy.
I do recognize that a lot of people are bearanoid, so carry whatever makes you feel safest.
Surprising thing though, LOTS of guys shoot big boomers really well. I’m one of them.
However, I’m not bearanoid, and I’ve never been scared of any bear when I’ve been carrying ANY rifle in my hands. A firearm gives you the advantage of distance, and if you are scared your rifle isn’t big enough before you squeeze the trigger, then you’re already doubting your own abilities before the battle even starts and that isn’t a good way to start the gunfight.
I DO see benefit in a light, fast handling rifle that has nothing for recoil, that points and swings like it has eyes, where I can watch bullet impact in the scope even as I’m slamming another round into battery and knowing if a second shot is needed.
When you watch the hair puff out from the bullet strike, there are no surprises when you walk up to an animal on the ground. There aren’t any “huh. Musta hit a branch or something” moments.
What guys HAVE said though, is that a fast twist 22 centerfire using a heavy for caliber, softer constructed bullet is incredibly effective, more so than a person can really understand until you look at what is getting to be a rather overwhelming mountain of positive, documented experiences that hunters are having with “match bullets”.
Again though, use whatever makes you happy.
- Location
- West Central Alberta
In my neck of the woods it takes on average about five years to draw a bull Moose tag so if you get a shot you want to put the moose down for good.
Guess which cartridge I will use.
.
Guess which cartridge I will use.
.
I think what's being missed here is what a guy wants to be able to do when he goes hunting. Do you want to have to fuss over animal's presentation and wait for things to be "just right", or do you want to be able to work with whatever it is that gets thrown your way as an opportunity? I'm not advocating taking low percentage shots. But a .223 shooting a match bullet is going to limit what you can do -- and it's going to limit it a lot. Sure, if a deer is standing 200 yards away in a farm field and you can take your time and wait it out, a .223 is probably going to work just fine with good shot placement. Of course it will.
But it's those other opportunities that put a bullet to the test. Let's say that deer is an honest 170" whitetail that just jumped out of its bed in thick timber 50 yards from you and it's headed away from you into even thicker stuff as fast as it can go. Your crosshairs settle on it just as it's got all 4 legs off the ground and is clearing a fallen log. And you have a better view of the tail than you do of the head. Did I mention it's 170"? With a .223, that's an absolute no-shoot scenario -- at least it is for me. But with the rifle I hunt most of my deer with, it's very do-able. Because I know that a monolithic .30 cal bullet is more than capable of shooting the entire length of the animal and doing significant damage the entire way.
What's being missed in much of this discussion are things like surface area, jacket construction, and bullet momentum (mass x velocity, without squaring the velocity number). A .22 match bullet with a J4 or similar jacket wants to start deforming and coming apart when it hits so much as a blade of grass. It's simply not made to delay expansion until a bit after it hits an object. For sure, some guys have success using TMK's on larger game. But go ask Sierra, the manufacturer of the bullet, if they think it's a good idea. They've been very, very clear on this over the years.
This really isn't a new idea. Berger started it long ago with their view that a rapidly expanding match bullet is just the thing for long range big game hunting. And for sure, guys have had a ton of success with that approach. But when shooting game at long range standing more or less broadside in an open area. It's a specialist's game. But that's not how most guys hunt. When I step out of my truck in the morning, I don't know if I'm going to get my chance at 50 yards or at 500. I don't know if it will be way down a cutline, across a pond, or just on the other side of that tree I can almost touch. And until the second it happens, I have no idea if the animal will be standing, moving, or even running -- and God only knows the direction it will be moving in. It's a lot to process and often without much time to do so.
For some of those situations, a .223 will probably work fine. But for a lot of them it won't. It's ridiculous to assume that most guys will pass a shot at a B&C trophy animal that is almost close enough to touch but which is running directly away from them. They're going to try to put it down, right now. But they absolutely need a bullet that's going to do what it needs to do in order to make that happen. It simply cannot come apart on them, and it has to travel a good long way after the point of impact, holding together as it does so, even if it hits heavy bone early in its journey.
This is equally true when the animal is facing them. I was on a hunt with a friend a few years back when he was presented with a bull moose about 70 yards away in cover so thick that he had to look at it in the scope for over a minute just to confirm it was a bull. It was. But all he could see to shoot at was one eye, one ear, and perhaps 3 square inches of the forehead. He made the shot quite handily with his 7mm Rem Mag and only then discovered that he had just shot a 51" moose. Could that have been done with a .223? I suppose many would say yes. But I'm skeptical. A moose skull is not a lightly constructed bone, and the forehead is sloped. There's a very real chance that a thin jacketed, fast twist 77 grain TMK would have blown apart on the bone or simply deflected along the surface of it. I just don't get why it's worth taking that kind of chance of a bad outcome.
This notion of surface area and momentum is the very thing John Taylor wrote about so long ago when he tried to rank the effectiveness of various cartridges on elephant -- and he was one of the very few people who ever shot so many of them as to have a statistically valid sample size to draw his conclusions from. Assuming adequate bullet construction, he concluded that penetrating 3 feet of bone consistently required momentum, not energy, of a sufficient value, and that the momentum required diminished somewhat as bullet surface area increased. Much of what he wrote still remains as gospel in Africa to this day, although in a simplified form. For elephant, it's widely accepted that a muzzle velocity of 2150 fps is what is needed, with a bullet diameter of .40 cal or larger. As Winchester found out when they first launched the .458 Win Mag, 2050 fps is decidedly not enough -- and the cartridge got a bad reputation among African PH's very quickly until velocity was bumped up to the accepted standard. The evidence was in the number of botched frontal brain shots that should have worked. And the .40 cal minimum is also a thing. That's why the .375 H&H fires a 300 grain bullet at over 2,600 fps, because Holland & Holland knew that 2150 fps was not going to cut it on elephant with a bullet that narrow. They actually tested it on elephant skulls until they had satisfied themselves as to what was required, and part of that was ensuring that the bullet was heavily constructed.
I know we're not talking about shooting elephants with a .223 -- but the point I'm trying to make is that penetrating heavy bone on any animal requires a few key things. Sufficient momentum. Sufficient surface area. And sufficiently stout bullet construction. You probably can kill an Alaskan brown bear with a side brain shot with a .223. But I have yet to be on a bear hunt in which I could be that picky about the shot opportunity I was going to accept. Or really, on any hunt. My job is to find the animal I want to harvest. That animal's job is to keep me from harvesting it. The bullet's job is to give me the widest possible range of options as I decide what I'm going to do with the opportunity I have.
But then again, I'm a Fudd
But it's those other opportunities that put a bullet to the test. Let's say that deer is an honest 170" whitetail that just jumped out of its bed in thick timber 50 yards from you and it's headed away from you into even thicker stuff as fast as it can go. Your crosshairs settle on it just as it's got all 4 legs off the ground and is clearing a fallen log. And you have a better view of the tail than you do of the head. Did I mention it's 170"? With a .223, that's an absolute no-shoot scenario -- at least it is for me. But with the rifle I hunt most of my deer with, it's very do-able. Because I know that a monolithic .30 cal bullet is more than capable of shooting the entire length of the animal and doing significant damage the entire way.
What's being missed in much of this discussion are things like surface area, jacket construction, and bullet momentum (mass x velocity, without squaring the velocity number). A .22 match bullet with a J4 or similar jacket wants to start deforming and coming apart when it hits so much as a blade of grass. It's simply not made to delay expansion until a bit after it hits an object. For sure, some guys have success using TMK's on larger game. But go ask Sierra, the manufacturer of the bullet, if they think it's a good idea. They've been very, very clear on this over the years.
This really isn't a new idea. Berger started it long ago with their view that a rapidly expanding match bullet is just the thing for long range big game hunting. And for sure, guys have had a ton of success with that approach. But when shooting game at long range standing more or less broadside in an open area. It's a specialist's game. But that's not how most guys hunt. When I step out of my truck in the morning, I don't know if I'm going to get my chance at 50 yards or at 500. I don't know if it will be way down a cutline, across a pond, or just on the other side of that tree I can almost touch. And until the second it happens, I have no idea if the animal will be standing, moving, or even running -- and God only knows the direction it will be moving in. It's a lot to process and often without much time to do so.
For some of those situations, a .223 will probably work fine. But for a lot of them it won't. It's ridiculous to assume that most guys will pass a shot at a B&C trophy animal that is almost close enough to touch but which is running directly away from them. They're going to try to put it down, right now. But they absolutely need a bullet that's going to do what it needs to do in order to make that happen. It simply cannot come apart on them, and it has to travel a good long way after the point of impact, holding together as it does so, even if it hits heavy bone early in its journey.
This is equally true when the animal is facing them. I was on a hunt with a friend a few years back when he was presented with a bull moose about 70 yards away in cover so thick that he had to look at it in the scope for over a minute just to confirm it was a bull. It was. But all he could see to shoot at was one eye, one ear, and perhaps 3 square inches of the forehead. He made the shot quite handily with his 7mm Rem Mag and only then discovered that he had just shot a 51" moose. Could that have been done with a .223? I suppose many would say yes. But I'm skeptical. A moose skull is not a lightly constructed bone, and the forehead is sloped. There's a very real chance that a thin jacketed, fast twist 77 grain TMK would have blown apart on the bone or simply deflected along the surface of it. I just don't get why it's worth taking that kind of chance of a bad outcome.
This notion of surface area and momentum is the very thing John Taylor wrote about so long ago when he tried to rank the effectiveness of various cartridges on elephant -- and he was one of the very few people who ever shot so many of them as to have a statistically valid sample size to draw his conclusions from. Assuming adequate bullet construction, he concluded that penetrating 3 feet of bone consistently required momentum, not energy, of a sufficient value, and that the momentum required diminished somewhat as bullet surface area increased. Much of what he wrote still remains as gospel in Africa to this day, although in a simplified form. For elephant, it's widely accepted that a muzzle velocity of 2150 fps is what is needed, with a bullet diameter of .40 cal or larger. As Winchester found out when they first launched the .458 Win Mag, 2050 fps is decidedly not enough -- and the cartridge got a bad reputation among African PH's very quickly until velocity was bumped up to the accepted standard. The evidence was in the number of botched frontal brain shots that should have worked. And the .40 cal minimum is also a thing. That's why the .375 H&H fires a 300 grain bullet at over 2,600 fps, because Holland & Holland knew that 2150 fps was not going to cut it on elephant with a bullet that narrow. They actually tested it on elephant skulls until they had satisfied themselves as to what was required, and part of that was ensuring that the bullet was heavily constructed.
I know we're not talking about shooting elephants with a .223 -- but the point I'm trying to make is that penetrating heavy bone on any animal requires a few key things. Sufficient momentum. Sufficient surface area. And sufficiently stout bullet construction. You probably can kill an Alaskan brown bear with a side brain shot with a .223. But I have yet to be on a bear hunt in which I could be that picky about the shot opportunity I was going to accept. Or really, on any hunt. My job is to find the animal I want to harvest. That animal's job is to keep me from harvesting it. The bullet's job is to give me the widest possible range of options as I decide what I'm going to do with the opportunity I have.
But then again, I'm a Fudd
I like light, fast handling rifles too but for big game would only downsize to something like a 6.5x54 M-S.
160 gr softpoints with very high sectional density for great penetrating power and killing utility in a soft shooting, lightweight, easy to carry, elegant 122 year old carbine.
Hey Geologist, I got yer 6.5MS right here! LOL
Great little carbines, and this one has killed a bunch of critters by the tally marks on the stock
Cat
Attachments
They certainly won't report their failures shooting large game with .223's. Five pages on what is just plain stupid. I've been hunting for 50 years and new tricks in bullet construction, powders, rifling twists etc do not make a big game rifle out of a varmint rifle. Game animals deserve a little more from hunters than what is basically a stunt imo.
Bad shooting is bad shooting, no one ever posts their failures with any cartridge. Yet they doublessly arrive.
Why would a bullet that is heavy enough to reach vitals and disrupt them to a large degree be a stunt? I mean, to make that claim you can prove that a 77, 80, 88 grain .224" bullet cannot reliably reach the vitals of big game animals, right? Whether you've been hunting for 1 year or 500 years.
Curious as to how.
Had to shorten this up a bit, as I’m on a phone not a pc. I appreciate the time you took typing this out.
So here’s the thing though… I wouldn’t take a THS heart shot on anything counting on driving a bullet up into vitals, regardless of the cartridge or bullet used. If I had something that needed a round to prevent its escape and that was the presentation angle, then I’m committed to finishing the job, and I’m going to pull that a little higher and smash pelvis and spine.
That said, there aren’t any shot angles that I would normally take with a big 7 or 30, that I pass up when I carry a 22 centerfire using a heavy for caliber, long nose/shank softer constructed bullet from a fast twist barrel.
To date, I’ve killed three bull moose and a bull elk in the last three falls with 88 gr ELD m’s. Broadside and stationary at 151 yards, quartering and walking to me at 176 yards, trotting towards me quartering to me at 109 yards, and stationary facing me at 352 yards. The broadside bull at 151 yards I could have shot through the ribs, but I’ve long been a dedicated shoulder shooter, so I punched his shoulders. Skeletal structure on both front shoulders was broken, big hole through his lungs, immediately fell to the shot, kicked once, and that was it.
The other two bulls quartering in were shot on the points of their shoulders. This resulted in the shoulders being broken, with the bullet carrying on through lungs, one the elk it exited between the last two ribs and on the moose it lodged in the last rib. (109 and 176y, respectively). One the moose, he made three half hearted hops at the shot and because the shooting is the fun part, I triggered a second round square through his lungs (his shoulder were obscured by a snag otherwise that would have been the shot) but he was already falling sideways at impact. That bullet went in low ribs right side and exited high ribs left side. With the elk, he made a tight half circle so he got a second one that went in halfway back on the ribs, and that one exited through the shoulder.
I can think of a couple of posters that are probably gnashing their teeth and trying to not jump on this thread right now (and I appreciate the restraint) - and I am well aware that every time one of these threads comes up I have a tough time not posting.
The reason that I get on these threads is that I think this stuff SHOULD be talked about and experiences shared, because of late there is a lot of online chatter about 22 centerfires and big game. Alberta looks like it is moving towards allowing it now (or has passed it?) and I have no doubt that guys are contemplating the idea for various reasons. So I would be remiss in not talking about my observations and experiences using fast twist barrels and softer heavy for caliber bullets in the hopes that someone might read about it and decide that maybe grabbing a box of 55 or 62 fmj’s and heading out isn’t a great idea.
Things I don’t use when using a 22 centerfire - no contemporary mono’s anymore, especially not in higher weights (which is typically the route guys take “to hedge their bets”). I won’t use Barnes or Hornady coppers anymore, and I haven’t tried any of the fragmenting copper solids like the Hammer Hunters so can’t speak to that. They do not kill as fast. Animals can cover more ground, and you may or may not get an exit. If you don’t aim for breaking shoulders you will cause yourself problems at some point.
Stuff I will use though, barrels twisted 1:7 or 1:8 (both factory options available if you look hard enough) with a 77 TMK (although that one is REALLY hard on meat) or a 73/75/80/88 ELD m. Those specific bullets. There’s a couple others, but those work. Period.
Do I wait for a classic broadside presentation before triggering the shot when using those? Nope. Do I hope and pray that the critter wanders within 200 yards? Nope.
I DO keep my impact velocity higher than 1800 fps though. Once the critter is under that, it doesn’t matter how big he is, he is out of range. Get closer, or make a memory of the experience.
So don’t use a 22 centerfire.
However, being open minded on changes to technology are why there are full size pickups powered by tiny little turbo’d motors.
Last edited:
