230gr ELDx (2550 fps MV, impact speed was around 2350). It hit the scapula and bullet was pulled off the rib cage
Shots that hit ribs only penetrated through and through
I now use ELDx for range and hunt with 225gr Nosler Accubonds
.223 for everything, the gunnutz version
- Thread starter CamV
- Start date
230gr ELDx (2550 fps MV, impact speed was around 2350). It hit the scapula and bullet was pulled off the rib cage
Shots that hit ribs only penetrated through and through
I now use ELDx for range and hunt with 225gr Nosler Accubonds
I agree. Hard to go wrong with Nosler for sure.230gr ELDx (2550 fps MV, impact speed was around 2350). It hit the scapula and bullet was pulled off the rib cage
Shots that hit ribs only penetrated through and through
I now use ELDx for range and hunt with 225gr Nosler Accubonds
Well it sounds like it’s can work, certainly not something I’d be interested in though. The boat driver that use to take us up the Muskwa used a 25/06 heavy barrel for all his Elk. I use to rass him that I shot crows with mine. If you know what you are doing and it’s working, great. Probably not the best choice for your average Fud though.
- Location
- Southern Vancouver Island
Taking big game with .22 centerfires has been done in many countries since the early 1900's. Back then the fan favorite was the .22 Savage Hi Power
and it had fine results on all the big critters in N/A along with successes on tiger & lion in Africa & India. Naturally, most all of the folks that took
their game with the Hi Power were well seasoned hunters that knew the limitations of the cartridge and placed their shots appropriately.
The small bores have gone through many fad cycles over the years and they are very popular these days for numerous reasons such as lighter
rifles with less recoil and muzzle blast, less cost for ammo and reloading components plus flatter trajectories and higher velocities.
That said, I've not taken critters with the .223 with any of the 3 rifles I had in that chambering because they all sucked in accuracy and ergo,s
along with quality & function issues. Me favorite 22's were .22 hornet & .22-250 that suited me fine yrs back but not on deer & such.
I did though take a couple of deer inside 100 yds with brain shots using my former Rem 700 in .17 Rem. I kinda miss that rifle.
and it had fine results on all the big critters in N/A along with successes on tiger & lion in Africa & India. Naturally, most all of the folks that took
their game with the Hi Power were well seasoned hunters that knew the limitations of the cartridge and placed their shots appropriately.
The small bores have gone through many fad cycles over the years and they are very popular these days for numerous reasons such as lighter
rifles with less recoil and muzzle blast, less cost for ammo and reloading components plus flatter trajectories and higher velocities.
That said, I've not taken critters with the .223 with any of the 3 rifles I had in that chambering because they all sucked in accuracy and ergo,s
along with quality & function issues. Me favorite 22's were .22 hornet & .22-250 that suited me fine yrs back but not on deer & such.
I did though take a couple of deer inside 100 yds with brain shots using my former Rem 700 in .17 Rem. I kinda miss that rifle.
The thing about it is, there is nothing better for killing them a 378 weatherby.
Past that you may want more or less penetration (416, 460 or 30-378)
But people have come to realize you may not need that much. Maybe less will work just fine in the right circumstances.
So does everyone need a 378? Or does everyone need to stick within the reality of how well they can shoot and how often the bullet hits the correct place, and then also use the correct bullet and also make sure the animal dies within a reasonable amount of time.
A 223 with a 77+ grain bullet will kill at 75m, 100% of the time will be better than a bow or cross bow and there has been millions of big game taken with arrows/bolts.
Also I'm pretty sure any shot taken with a bow would be the same if not better outcome with a 77gr+ in a 223.
Personally if I was hunting big game I wouldn't take a 223, but I also wouldn't take a bow. I would want a 300 winmag / 7mm Remington. Even though a 308 would do anything you need.
I've taken 2 mountain goats (I've only been on 2 goats hunts) with a sporter lee Enfield in 303. People need to take what they can shoot well and will kill the animal in a appropriate amount of time.
Past that you may want more or less penetration (416, 460 or 30-378)
But people have come to realize you may not need that much. Maybe less will work just fine in the right circumstances.
So does everyone need a 378? Or does everyone need to stick within the reality of how well they can shoot and how often the bullet hits the correct place, and then also use the correct bullet and also make sure the animal dies within a reasonable amount of time.
A 223 with a 77+ grain bullet will kill at 75m, 100% of the time will be better than a bow or cross bow and there has been millions of big game taken with arrows/bolts.
Also I'm pretty sure any shot taken with a bow would be the same if not better outcome with a 77gr+ in a 223.
Personally if I was hunting big game I wouldn't take a 223, but I also wouldn't take a bow. I would want a 300 winmag / 7mm Remington. Even though a 308 would do anything you need.
I've taken 2 mountain goats (I've only been on 2 goats hunts) with a sporter lee Enfield in 303. People need to take what they can shoot well and will kill the animal in a appropriate amount of time.
Because they were not designed to stay together, ie. They are frangible, and there times and shot placements where that will lead to failure... when everything goes right, all good... when it doesn't, we won't hear about it.
So all the times they do go through a good amount of bone and reach vitals are just statistical abberations? Miraculous?
They seem to have a very solid track record that I'm not sure anyone is disputing besides "when it doesn't work we don't hear about it" which is true of every other cartridge too.
At this point, we have documented, first hand "it works" vs undocumented, non first hand "trust me, it won't".
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...
Yes, as a general "308 is better than 223" I agree. But thats very general. 55gr Vmax vs a 308 with 180 grain Partitions for big game? Sure sign me up for the 308. But thats not at all what was asked.
The question being asked is "do you have any proof that the 77gr TMK and heavy ELDM is inadequate for the job" and I'll add unacceptably so.
The answer is no, right?
Honestly not seeing it.
Last edited:
The fact that its a match bullet doesn't mean it isn't performing up to the task. Technically Scenars are match bullets too. They do well on game.
It has what it takes to make it through obstacles and reach vitals, or it does not. So far, lots of photos and evidence showing "it does".
