Elk or black bear with 223 softpoint?

Someone posted these a few years ago, I can't recall now whether the hunter used a 22 high power or 250 savage, I believe it was a 250 savage but I could be wrong. I think he accounted for 90 or 100 grizzlies with it.
000_2132.jpg

000_2130.jpg

000_2127.jpg
 
In the early days of high velocity cartridges, they shot darn near everything. There is no excuse for it today, with the selection of proper cartridges and bullets. If recoil is a problem, reduced loads either from handloading or Factory reduced recoil loads are more appropriate for large game. A .22 Premium bullet is marginal at best for deer sized game, but it will do the job very well if kept within it's limitations. By intentionally going after elk sized game with a .22 is about as foolish as one could get. Respect for the game pursued should be the number one prioroty. Any chance of needless suffering should not be allowed. And by choosing to use a bullet that doesn't have proper weight, construction or diameter is down right irresponsible. A 60 grain Partition is designed for deer. It is not designed to plow through an elk. Use the proper gun for the task at hand, or stay home, plain and simple.
 
Robbs said:
Anyone have experience hunting elk or black bear with soft point 223? I would be inclined to say not the right round but I am not the most experienced in this subject. Can a varmint round be successful with a larger animal is the question I guess. Thanks for any experience advice.
Click to expand...
Can it be done, yes, certainly. Would I do it? Not very likely.
 
For Pete sake! Why are we even discussing this? Some cartridge are for varmint and predator and some are for big game. A .223 is not a big game cartridge, never was, never will be:bangHead: . Just because you can kill an animal with a certain cartridge doesn't mean it's adequate. Stick with the intended purpose of a cartridge, thats why they come in different size and caliber!
 
gitrdun said:
D'yu notice something about those ol' timers? They had balls of steel, no pussies or "metro ###uals" back then. ;)
Click to expand...


Exactly, and they never sat on the computer for hours at a time discusing what would or would not work, getting fatter by the minute.

They just grabed what they had and MADE it work. A skill not many attempt or even want to posess today.
 
Republic of Alberta said:
Exactly, and they never sat on the computer for hours at a time discusing what would or would not work, getting fatter by the minute.

They just grabed what they had and MADE it work. A skill not many attempt or even want to posess today.
Click to expand...

WOW, now that's an affirmation :onCrack:
 
Simple anwser is yes but why would you want to... I doesn't make you any better of a man saying that I shot a Elk with 223 and got it but I'm not going to tell you about the other 5 that got away.... or something along those lines
 
death-junky said:
I'm not going to tell you about the other 5 that got away.... or something along those lines
Click to expand...

Those would be declared as misses. The animal not hit perfectly may travel well out of eye shot without any signs of being mortally wounded. Even Barnes X or Nosler partition renditions of "big game bullets" working to their full potential are not going to create are large wound cavity.

BTW. These so called misses are just restricted to 22 centre fires.
 
Republic of Alberta said:
Exactly, and they never sat on the computer for hours at a time discusing what would or would not work, getting fatter by the minute
Click to expand...

the time it took you to type that post, you got balder by approx 15 hairs
 
Haha...tell you what, here we go------------------a small bear shot by .223 in Lower Mainland BC in 2006. Heart shot. Dropped right on spot.

DSCF0017.jpg
 
i think bear is possibly the worse to hunt with just a .223..

not the if you dont hurt it it will eat you factor... but the fact that the bear's fat will close the small freaking wound from a 223 pretty quick and they'll be no blood trail.
 
bisonhd said:
Those would be declared as misses. The animal not hit perfectly may travel well out of eye shot without any signs of being mortally wounded. Even Barnes X or Nosler partition renditions of "big game bullets" working to their full potential are not going to create are large wound cavity.

BTW. These so called misses are just restricted to 22 centre fires.
Click to expand...

I've seen a bull Elk hit in the lungs @100 yds with 180 gr out of an 06 go a mile and a half. And thats a mile and a half in the foothills, we figured it added a full day to pack that bastard out. Same senerio with a 223 and I think you're just feeding the wolves.
 
Unless you are one of those guys who is skilled and patient enough to wait for the perfect shot I think 223 for bear is unconscionable.

Now don't get me wrong. I know that there are guys out there that can ethically drop hippos with handguns, so I understand that there is the rare Daniel Boone type out there who can pull this off.

If you are one of those Daniel Boone guys, go ahead and hunt with a 223, a musket, a recurve bow....if you can get clean humane kills with it it's fine by me.

But for most hunters, and I include myself and my hunting group in this, it would be an irresponsible and unconscionable choice. A guy choosing that calibre would be unwelcome at my camp.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom