.223 for everything, the gunnutz version

C

CamV

Member
Rating - 100%
30   0   0
Location
Smithers, BC
Over on R0kslide there's an evidence based thread on using the .223 with a 77gr tmk or or a few others for everything in north America out to 400 yards.

The main points of the thread are:
Bullet placement kills.

Bullet construction matters a LOT.

Headstamps don't matter.

You've been lied to by bullet manufacturers and magazine writers.

Let's hear from you guys :)

Edit: I know a few of you are on there too, back me up please :)
 
CamV said:
Over on R0kslide there's an evidence based thread on using the .223 with a 77gr tmk or or a few others for everything in north America out to 400 yards.

The main points of the thread are:
Bullet placement kills.

Bullet construction matters a LOT.

Headstamps don't matter.

You've been lied to by bullet manufacturers and magazine writers.

Let's hear from you guys :)

Edit: I know a few of you are on there too, back me up please :)
Click to expand...
depends on the hunt for me. Wouldn't be against using a 223 for most hunting. But if you pay 10000+ dollar for a hunt, I am pretty sure most people would prefer to bring a gun that can even take the shot with suboptimal bullet placement. (I didn't say bad bullet placement).

If it is something I can shoot 5x a year, I would use a 223 since I can wait for the perfect shot, if it's a costly once in a lifetime hunt, no way I would bring a 223.
 
I've been following that thread for about a year and a half. It's very compelling.

It wasn't hard to sell me on a T3x (as I already have a few), but I didn't go full RSS on my rifle. It'll get the barrel chopped to 20" this year, but that's more because that's my preferred barrel length. I'd go shorter, but we can't use cans here, so what's the point.

No RokStock for mine either. It sits in a spare B&C stock I had kicking around.

I carried it as my main hunting rifle for about 90% of the time last year. I was loaded with 62gr Federal Fusion ammo. I didn't end up connecting with anything. Saw a helluva lot of deer, but nothing I could take legally.

I'll be using it again this year. The Fusion ammo grouped well, coming in at approximately 1" average for 3 shot groups. But I got my hands on some 73gr Hornady Match to try. If it shoots well then that'll likely be what I go with this year.
 
This is from ai. Apparently not good on thin-skinned game.

The 5.56 NATO round was not considered effective on Somali militiamen during the Battle of Mogadishu in 1993 because it often passed through their bodies with minimal damage, unless it hit a vital area. This was attributed to the bullet's small caliber and light weight, leading to a tendency to penetrate rather than stop the enemy. While the 5.56 NATO round is standard for NATO militaries, its performance against Somalian militiamen raised questions about its effectiveness in certain combat scenarios. The Battle of Mogadishu, which involved the use of 5.56 NATO rounds, resulted in high casualties for both sides, including many Somalian militiamen who were not stopped by the standard NATO round
 
Wouldn’t be my first choice for everything, plus I like variety and choice. If I had to choose one thing to use on everything it would be .308, the ability to down load and use light projectiles for smaller game plus full power loads would be hard to beat.

Thankfully I don’t have to make that decision lol.
 
I consider that every cartridge has it's upper limits, and for that reason prefer a cartridge that isn't close to marginal. But hey, that's just me. Go for it if you wish.
 
Well up here it wouldn’t be legal for any big game so that is that. But if it was I don’t think it would be my first or even my second choice, i want something that will kill quickly and even when shot placement ain’t perfect(didn’t say bad), I hunt for meat, so I don’t pass up on a game animal often, but it happens when there is not really a shot!
Moose, bison, big bears, 223 wouldn’t be my choice, could it do the job, I’m sure it could, but not for me!
 
Bustercluck said:
This is from ai. Apparently not good on thin-skinned game.

The 5.56 NATO round was not considered effective on Somali militiamen during the Battle of Mogadishu in 1993 because it often passed through their bodies with minimal damage, unless it hit a vital area. This was attributed to the bullet's small caliber and light weight, leading to a tendency to penetrate rather than stop the enemy. While the 5.56 NATO round is standard for NATO militaries, its performance against Somalian militiamen raised questions about its effectiveness in certain combat scenarios. The Battle of Mogadishu, which involved the use of 5.56 NATO rounds, resulted in high casualties for both sides, including many Somalian militiamen who were not stopped by the standard NATO round
Click to expand...
That was the M855 62gr Green Tip. A solid, light-armor penetrator designed to go through Soviet helmets did poorly on unarmoured, physically small targets (Somalis), particularly with the velocity loss from carbines and the "over-stabilization" from 1-in-7 barrels. "Icepicking" was a thing - goes right through without doing much.
The original M16 had a 1-in-14 barrel twist, BARELY stabilizing its 55gr FMJ projectile, which caused yawing upon impact and horrendous terminal effects, particularly on unarmoured, physcially small targets (Vietnamese).
A proper hunting bullet (62gr Federal Fusion is great, 77gr TMK works better than you'd expect) paired with an effective twist and proper shot placement will have sufficient terminal effects for most game animals in NA - that being said, when in doubt (unless you're 110% sure that you can hit the brain or the heart, 100% of the time, in any likely situation), or on a once-in-a-lifetime hunt as mentioned above, I would agree that it's better to be overgunned than undergunned. It just provides an extra margin of error that can make the difference.
Or, in the words of Hellboy: "I'm not much of a shot - but this here gun fires REAL big bullets".
Also, putting an animal down and stopping it in its tracks (i.e. long tracking, potential loss in an unrecoverable location) are 2 different things.
Just my $0.02.
 
Bustercluck said:
This is from ai. Apparently not good on thin-skinned game.

The 5.56 NATO round was not considered effective on Somali militiamen during the Battle of Mogadishu in 1993 because it often passed through their bodies with minimal damage, unless it hit a vital area. This was attributed to the bullet's small caliber and light weight, leading to a tendency to penetrate rather than stop the enemy. While the 5.56 NATO round is standard for NATO militaries, its performance against Somalian militiamen raised questions about its effectiveness in certain combat scenarios. The Battle of Mogadishu, which involved the use of 5.56 NATO rounds, resulted in high casualties for both sides, including many Somalian militiamen who were not stopped by the standard NATO round
Click to expand...
Please dont quote AI...

5.56 NATO is an FMJ round. Not sutitiable for hunting unless you are shooting vermin. Bullet design has also come a long way since 93'
 
223 is perfectly fine as long as you know what you’re doing and understand the limitations.
77TMK is the best for fragmentation even at low speed but there’s very few factory ammo offerings here. 73eldm comes in factory ammo and it’s decent but not as good as 77TMK.
I think if you want to stay in the 22cal, the 22ARC with 88 eldm is much better but ideally you’d want to go 22 creed/GT which puts you into hand loading territory.

Honestly for most shooters, they’re better off with a 6 creed. It’s the easy button, recoil is tame, factory ammo is an available and you’re not worried about blowing up bullets like the 22Creed.

Now at the end of the day, I’d still rather use my 7SAW with the 160TMK/162 ELDM over a 22cal for a longer shot but for my wife, I’ve build her a defiance anTI/HNT26 with a 223 rem match chamber to shoot the 77TMK at 2.495in and for her application: deers within 175yards it’ll work just fine and will be easier to shoot than a creed. Shooting elks at 500 with a 223/77TMK ? Yeah it can be done, but there’s better ways.
 
5.56 fmj worked by wounding and crippling, the design at the time.

There is no single factor or characteristic that says a particular bullet/cartridge is suitable to kill something
imo something small like the 223 relies on the single factor of entering an animal with enough penetration to damage A lung enough that the animal drowns in its own blood
Penetration is weak, comparably no hydrostatic shock, little nervous system trauma, placement and bullet construction are critical
tracking skills will be mandatory
 
Last edited:
Whats the over under on this thread before it’s locked? I figure about 6 pages.

Can’t wait till the “designed to wound in war” posts start. (Which, no, was not the case. It was implemented so soldiers could carry more ammunition.)

Personally, and this is just me from my observations over the last 44 years of killing stuff and being incredibly interested in bullet terminal performance, choosing a good bullet matters a lot more than it’s diameter. And by “good bullet”, I mean a bullet that is fairly frangible, is long for caliber, with a long nose and long shank. That drives penetration while creating damage.

Twist rate plays a part in penetration and bullet upset as well. Not quite like most people envision I don’t think, but it plays a part. Thats based on observations from having shot the same bullet into animals, at the same impact velocities and presentation angles, but at different barrel twist rates. ie, A 1:7 twist will grant more penetration and a larger wound cavity from something like a 75 gr Amax than a 1:9 twist will in my observations. Could be coincidental observations, but I don’t think thats the case.

Circling all the way back to the OP, I carried a Montana 223 Ackley Improved 1:7 stuffed with 88 ELD m’s last year for spring/fall bears, stone sheep, Sitka blacktails, whitetail, muleys, elk, and moose.

Personally, I subscribe less and less to the “placement trumps everything” argument the more stuff I kill with a 22 centerfire (and I’ve been using one off and on for stuff for 16 years now - this after being rabidly anti-small caliber on big game for most of my life.
I tend to think of the “match bullet” versus “harder traditional big game bullet” on animals more like the idea of stabbing a piece of rebar through an animal and trying to hit something vital along the way, versus tucking a quarter stick of dynamite inside the body cavity. Which one is going to knock the wiggle out of something faster? Which one is going to make something sicker and move slower in the event of poor placement?

It definitely takes a willingness to be open to the idea that conventional wisdom isn’t really as applicable anymore when it comes to bullet performance. Muzzle velocity and bullet diameter matters less than bullet construction, bullet shape, and impact velocity.

However, given how difficult it is for a lot of people to wrap their minds around something as simple as soft bullets kill faster than hard bullets, I don’t think it will be long before the flaming starts lol.
 
DGY said:
Well up here it wouldn’t be legal for any big game so that is that. But if it was I don’t think it would be my first or even my second choice, i want something that will kill quickly and even when shot placement ain’t perfect(didn’t say bad), I hunt for meat, so I don’t pass up on a game animal often, but it happens when there is not really a shot!
Moose, bison, big bears, 223 wouldn’t be my choice, could it do the job, I’m sure it could, but not for me!
Click to expand...
In BC it is legal for everything except Bison (and in Shotgun with Shot Zones of course).

I wouldn't hesitate on Deer and Deer sized Game but really the things that would get me to use it on everything would be; Poverty, Legality, or Survival.
 
boxhitch said:
5.56 fmj worked by wounding and crippling, the design at the time.

There is no single factor or characteristic that says a particular bullet/cartridge is suitable to kill something
imo something small like the 223 relies on the single factor of entering an animal with enough penetration to damage A lung enough that the animal drowns in its own blood
Penetration is weak, comparably no hydrostatic shock, little nervous system trauma, placement and bullet construction are critical
tracking skills will be mandatory
Click to expand...
Should’ve read that before I hit post on the comment I was typing.

Yeah, thats incorrect.
The 77 TMK, and 88 ELD m (and 80 ELD m from all reports, although I haven’t used that one personally yet so can’t speak to it) when shot from a fast twist 22 centerfire, are absolute monsters. The 77 TMK more so than the 88 from what I’ve seen - bordering on “too effective”. If it lands on a shoulder then that quarter is sacrificed. Internal damage to organs is extensive.
The 88 ELD m has shown 25-30-ish inches of penetration when impact velocity is over 1800fps, with wound cavities being softball sized, regardless of what it impacts along the way. I’ve been a dedicated shoulder shooter since I started using mono’s in the mid 90’s, and thats been a tough habit to break so far. I’ve never been one to wait for the stereotypical broadside shot, if I can visualize a bullet path to heart and lungs and take out a shoulder coming or going, I take the shot.

Not all bullets are created equal. Not all bullets in a given line but of different diameters or at different rotational velocities will create similar wound characteristics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom