Heckler & Koch SL8 for big game hunting?

CristianM

CristianM

BANNED
BANNED
BANNED
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Location
GTA, Ontario
I have a very nice Heckler & Koch SL8 (cal .223). I love it, it's a superb assault rifle, very accurate, smooth auto-loader, feels very good in hand, you name it!:ar15:

What about using it for hunting? I believe for varmint it's pretty much intuitive, yes.

But for deer, bear, even moose?:pirate:

First, I am not aware of any regulations not allowing it there. Does anybody know any legal restrictions?

Second, would it be OK from efficiency and ethical points of view?

Thanks!:cheers:
 
Probably better to look at a reliable bolt action and chambering as dictated by provincial regulation.

As stated above , I am not sure what an assault rifle is defined as.There are hunting/sporting arms, target/precision , plinking/hobby and the like.
 
HedonismBot said:
What's an assault rifle?
Click to expand...

this
a-salt-rifle.png
 
Yes for varmints, no for the rest. Regulations aside, the 223 is pretty puny for a big bear or buck unless you want to hone your tracking skills. If you like semi-auto military-style rifles, buy yourself an M14 then you're good to go up to moose.

That said, someone will chime in shortly on how their Uncle's neighbour consistently kills moose with a 223 at 500 yards by shooting them in the eye.
 
Ha this is going to turn into a long thread... people were debating using the .243... I can only imagine what they have to say about a .223 "assault rifle" being used on bears!

Personally I wouldn't do it but if you think you can keep the shooting distance short and you are absolutely positive you can hit it in the vitals and it is legal in your province, go for it.
 
Lots of folks with small caliber semi autos think they can make up for lack of bullet velocity/weight/diameter, with volume of fire.

Hopefully you are not one of those folks.

The attempt to get multiple hits on game with rapid fire from a semi, can result in multiple misses, and or wounded game. I feel this is the result of concentration on the speed of the trigger finger, rather than the point of aim.

Practice is extremely important, however, shots on big game are quite different than shots on paper, or small game. The adrenaline level is much higher.

Better to make the first shot count, and be ready with a second if the game does not drop on the spot, than spray the area with bullets in hope of downing the quarry.

The 223 is quite capable of taking all of the game mentioned (if legal in your area), but must be done with precision, not blind luck, and preferably at close range.
 
Sorry, I forgot to mention: I live in Ontario.

So, strictly from the legal point of view: As far as I know the "Ontario Hunting Regulations Summary 2011-2012" require (page 22) for hunting deer, bear, moose "centre-fire rifle" (no rim-fire allowed).

I don't see there any caliber restriction. Am I missing any other legal restriction?

Thank you again!
 
As well:

Now, speaking about efficiency, it's interesting what John Y Cannuck says (thanks John): "Lots of folks with small caliber semi autos think they can make up for lack of bullet velocity/weight/diameter, with volume of fire."

I was not thinking at increasing the volume of fire. However, the .223 round, while lacking weight and diameter compared to, let's say, a .308 one, is superior in terms of speed. While .308 speeds usually range between 2600-2800 ft/s. .223 speeds can go up to 3750 ft/s (although more common are around 3200 ft/s).

Then, as the .223 is the round of choice for NATO assault rifles, I assume they have done plenty of successful studies (proven, unfortunately, by decades of armed conflicts) in terms of capability of taking down enemy combatants. If this caliber is good for these missions, wouldn't it be good to take down as well big game with size comparable to a fully equiped soldier?
 
The requirements for big game hunting with expanding bullets is much different than military requirements and non-expanding projectiles.

It is the requirements they need for small arms rapid fire for combat related purposes, has not a thing to do with hunting game animal.

When you may have only ONE projectile speeding towards your game you have to make the shot count and the bullet has to do it's job.

One suggestion could be to do some reading of the various bullet manufacturers big game/hunting designed bullets.This websites will show what the bullet is designed to do and within what velocities.

A fast .233 round with the wrong bullet can go right through a game animal with almost NO damage and may not mortally wound, while an expanding bullet designed to do it's job at a specific velocity will do the intended amount of high damage resulting in a quickly dispatched animal in humane fashion.

Speed doesn't kill, bullet design and construction does.

Also, assault rifle, is not the best term to use in this case.;)






CristianM said:
As well:

Now, speaking about efficiency, it's interesting what John Y Cannuck says (thanks John): "Lots of folks with small caliber semi autos think they can make up for lack of bullet velocity/weight/diameter, with volume of fire."

I was not thinking at increasing the volume of fire. However, the .223 round, while lacking weight and diameter compared to, let's say, a .308 one, is superior in terms of speed. While .308 speeds usually range between 2600-2800 ft/s. .223 speeds can go up to 3750 ft/s (although more common are around 3200 ft/s).

Then, as the .223 is the round of choice for NATO assault rifles, I assume they have done plenty of successful studies (proven, unfortunately, by decades of armed conflicts) in terms of capability of taking down enemy combatants. If this caliber is good for these missions, wouldn't it be good to take down as well big game with size comparable to a fully equiped soldier?
Click to expand...
 
CristianM said:
Then, as the .223 is the round of choice for NATO assault rifles, I assume they have done plenty of successful studies (proven, unfortunately, by decades of armed conflicts) in terms of capability of taking down enemy combatants. If this caliber is good for these missions, wouldn't it be good to take down as well big game with size comparable to a fully equiped soldier?
Click to expand...

In military situations, the aim is to incapacitate the enemy. In fact, it's best to wound, as wounded soldiers require more care and manpower than dead ones. Obviously, this is not at all what you want in a hunting situation.
The 223 is known worldwide as a great "wounder". :)
 
CristianM said:
As well:

Now, speaking about efficiency, it's interesting what John Y Cannuck says (thanks John): "Lots of folks with small caliber semi autos think they can make up for lack of bullet velocity/weight/diameter, with volume of fire."

I was not thinking at increasing the volume of fire. However, the .223 round, while lacking weight and diameter compared to, let's say, a .308 one, is superior in terms of speed. While .308 speeds usually range between 2600-2800 ft/s. .223 speeds can go up to 3750 ft/s (although more common are around 3200 ft/s).

Then, as the .223 is the round of choice for NATO assault rifles, I assume they have done plenty of successful studies (proven, unfortunately, by decades of armed conflicts) in terms of capability of taking down enemy combatants. If this caliber is good for these missions, wouldn't it be good to take down as well big game with size comparable to a fully equiped soldier?
Click to expand...

If this is what you consider big game then yes.

winter-wilderness-coyote_10612.jpg


Don't compare military use of 5.56 with hunting. No comparison. The cartridge was basically adopted so troops could carry more ammo and fire with less recoil so they'd have more firepower. Militaries also use FMJ which is not hunting ammunition. The idea being to cause more wounds over deaths, as well as the types of wounds would be more humane.
 
Vimy Ridge said:
If this is what you consider big game then yes.

winter-wilderness-coyote_10612.jpg


Don't compare military use of 5.56 with hunting. No comparison. The cartridge was basically adopted so troops could carry more ammo and fire with less recoil so they'd have more firepower. Militaries also use FMJ which is not hunting ammunition. The idea being to cause more wounds over deaths, as well as the types of wounds would be more humane.
Click to expand...

Who painted the picture of the coyote?
 
CristianM said:
As well:

Now, speaking about efficiency, it's interesting what John Y Cannuck says (thanks John): "Lots of folks with small caliber semi autos think they can make up for lack of bullet velocity/weight/diameter, with volume of fire."

I was not thinking at increasing the volume of fire. However, the .223 round, while lacking weight and diameter compared to, let's say, a .308 one, is superior in terms of speed. While .308 speeds usually range between 2600-2800 ft/s. .223 speeds can go up to 3750 ft/s (although more common are around 3200 ft/s).

Then, as the .223 is the round of choice for NATO assault rifles, I assume they have done plenty of successful studies (proven, unfortunately, by decades of armed conflicts) in terms of capability of taking down enemy combatants. If this caliber is good for these missions, wouldn't it be good to take down as well big game with size comparable to a fully equiped soldier?
Click to expand...

Hunting isn't fighting, and a gun for fighting in teams against enemies who shoot back is quite different from a hunting gun - for good reasons.

The .223 ammo used for fighting armed enemies is also quite different from hunting ammo. The .223 cartridge is far from ideal for the kind of bullets that should be preferred for big game (i.e. deer and larger) and the market does not offer you a lot of choices of big game bullets either for loading your own or in commercial manufactured .223 ammo.

I can understand why you like your SL-8 and would wish to use it for "real", but take it coyote hunting and do some research on the things we have said above. The good news is you will discover there are other kinds of guns for big game that you will also enjoy without having to give up the satisfaction you get from your SL-8.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom