Elk or black bear with 223 softpoint?

the 223 is too expensive with tsx bullets. i vote for 22 rimfire. 50 rnds for $2 and a 25 rnd mag in my 10 22. at the price i can afford to empty the mag.
 
Eagleye said:
The 223 WILL kill Elk or bear. The problem as I see it is: The margin for error with those smaller chamberings is so slight, that you can be in trouble in a millisecond. The wound channel is quite small, regardless of the bullet used. I do not subscribe to the theory that one needs a magnum to kill big game either. If you like to use one, fine, just don't give me a steely gaze and tell me that I must have one to shoot moose, Elk, bears or whatever. My idea of a practical size rifle for all North American Big game is in the 6.5x55-30-06 area. Proper bullets in most chamberings for these bullet diameters are effective and leave a bit of margin for a slight miscue. I have shot a lot of Elk, and I do not like 6mms for these big cervids. Some 25's work OK in the hands of a skilled hunter, but it's at around 6.5mm where the comfort zone starts, for ME at least. I have shot elk with the 264 Win Mag, and moose with the 6.5x55, using the 140 Partition, and they worked fine, but I didn't take any "hope" shots either. I really like the 7x57, loaded with 160 Partitions for the bigger members of the deer family, but limit shots to 300 yards or less with this one. Having taken about a dozen moose/elk with the 7x57, I have a lot of confidence in it.
If someone elects to use the 223 to shoot big game of any type, he must load with a "Game" bullet, (Partition or TSX) and be very careful to put that diminuitive
bullet exactly where it will do the deed. Personally, I will opt for a bigger gun. JMHO, Eagleye.
Click to expand...
Good one E/E... no argument here.:cool:
 
Seems like a lot of people are more concerned with being careful and politically correct to be objective with this topic.
.22LR can take moose if one does it within the parameters of that rounds effectiveness. The hunter must adapt to the round and not the other way around. One would not use a 10/22 to shoot a deer from a tree stand.
A moose can be hunted with a 5.56 round. Elephants can be taken with 303's.

I watched the Excaliber crossbow video on their website. The bolt hit a black bear and the animal galloped away no doubt to die later as is normal. Why is a 5.56 inhumane and a slow moving bolt not? If the 5.56 bullet is designed properly then where lies the problem?
 
Teapot said:
Seems like a lot of people are more concerned with being careful and politically correct to be objective with this topic.
.22LR can take moose if one does it within the parameters of that rounds effectiveness. The hunter must adapt to the round and not the other way around. One would not use a 10/22 to shoot a deer from a tree stand.
A moose can be hunted with a 5.56 round. Elephants can be taken with 303's.

I watched the Excaliber crossbow video on their website. The bolt hit a black bear and the animal galloped away no doubt to die later as is normal. Why is a 5.56 inhumane and a slow moving bolt not? If the 5.56 bullet is designed properly then where lies the problem?
Click to expand...


A broad head slices massive amounts of meat and veins as it passes through. Better yet, it will stay inside to do more cutting as an animal runs along, killing itself.

A .223 bullet lacks the energy to transfer traumatic shock in the way a larger bullet may. It also doesn't have the weight to plow through thick muscle and bone. It will more than likely fragment and not penetrate deep enough to hit anything vital. Many cheaper larger caliber bullets will do the same. While it will kill a big critter with a good bullet and good shot, a 30-06 will do it better. Plain and simple. As will a sharp broadhead.
 
Once again IMHO it is all about the size of the wound channel...the larger the diameter of the bullet the more lethal it is.
Or at least a major factor in the issue.
 
this is a bullsh^t thread , what kind of meathead takes a 223 after bear and elk? half the posters here ragg out rolling rock for using an sks on bear and deer, and compairing firearms to archery..obviously a hunter you are NOT, has nothing to do with ethics has everything to do with BRAINS!
 
This young guy I used to work with was very inexperienced as a hunter and a know it all besides. He was harping and harping about what a great and perfect round the 22-250 was for deer because it was so fast. I told him it was meant mainly as a varmint round and he'd be better off with a .243 or bigger. His response was..."What the #### do you know #######?
 
Methinks some folks are born to become Bear poop...Oh look Mr. Bear wants to have a word about the Bee sting .223 round in His ass.
madgrizzlybeara.jpg

{chuckle} :D
 
Last edited:
I think the question is mis-phrased personally, if we're talking about hunting.

The question shouldn't be "can it be used successfully" - it should be " can it be used successfully CONSISTANTLY".

As has been mentioned - the 223 leaves no room for errors. That is not in keeping with the idea of consistantly killing the animal with one shot. Therefore, the general principles of hunting that virtually all people agree to would suggest it is not a round someone would deliberately choose for that task.

Nothing you can do will prevent something from going wrong and leaving an animal wounded if you spend enough years hunting. However - hunters make every reasonable effort (reasonable being the operative word) to remove the risk of that and kill as many of the animals they shoot as possible cleanly.

.223 can kill bear and elk. A knife tied to the end of a stick can if you do it right. But if you shoot 100 animals, the chances are you'll lose more to the 223 than a cartridge better suited to those animals.

In my books, that makes it a no-no. Yes - ethics are different for everyone. But there are some underlying principles we should all ascribe to. And not wounding animals unnecessarily is top of the list. Some things are universal.

(note - there may well be some real experts who can do it and do it as consistantly as if they had a better cartridge. If they can, great. but that is very rare and personally if their motivation was just to 'show they could', i wouldnt' have a lot of respect for that. Real hunters don't need to show off. )
 
Scott_N said:
While there is no doubt that a 223 is capable of killing larger animals, in my opinion it's not ethical. Here in Alberta it would be illegal. I don't think a 223 is an elk rifle in anyone's book.
Click to expand...

I don't think it would be wise to hunt any big game with a Little pee shooter like a 223, get real ;)and buy a hunting rifle not a varmitt rifle.:popCorn:
 
Last edited:
Any gun or caliber is only as good as the shooter. Anyone can pull a trigger but it takes practice and skill to be a hunter. I took many deer and bear with my 22-250 and one shot one kill motto. Our resourses here said that the caliber was too small...??????
 
:stirthepot2:

I am wondering why a .224 dia bullet is only good for varmints and Taliban, yet completely inadequate for game sized animals in between?

No, I wouldn't pursue Moose of Elk with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom