22 Creedmore legal use issues!

[The Harbor Master]

A question about 22CM legality in different states led to 8 pages of name calling, debate over the Judeo-Christian morality inherent in the US Constitution, and Slipknot lyrics.

I freaking love Rokslide.

 

[PBBananaHammock]

I should. You didn't even ask if I had.
Ill ask you, have you read all 176 pages?

I have read plenty of information on small bullets and calibers outside of this thread in hopes of averting confirmation bias. As a result, I am very comfortable with my stance.

I’ve read all 505*** pages. The length is intimidating, but it’s not a difficult read. However, I read a lot, and may be overly dismissive of its length. Just approach it with perspective: reading Beowulf in its original old English is difficult, the “223 kill thread” is just a forum. I could see the back and forths getting tedious, but for actual usable information, it’s an easily palatable amount of reading if you break it up, and worth anyone’s time who enjoys the subject matter

However, if you have already read it, that’s my mistake. Your wording above led me to understand that you hadn’t and that your mind was made up regardless. Just keep in mind 99% of the people advocating for the smaller cartridges on that thread are converts from big bores and magnums.

I do like to check back in on it from time to time to keep up to date. If certain optimal bullets for the 223 were ever discontinued, the conversation would certainly change a bit.

 

[HandgunHTR]

Who said it wasn't adequate? A 6CM is a move up from a 17, which is the caliber and not his age. He can hunt here when he is 10 and it is appropriate for deer so, it is adequate

My thing is I would not use it on anything larger than deer nor would I teach him to do so.

Thank you for the clarification. I read that as you built him a 6CM when he was 17 and plan on having him move up to something bigger. My misunderstanding.

I will ask a different question then. If a 6CM is adequate for deer, what makes it inadequate for elk?

 

[Article 4]

Thank you for the clarification. I read that as you built him a 6CM when he was 17 and plan on having him move up to something bigger. My misunderstanding.

I will ask a different question then. If a 6CM is adequate for deer, what makes it inadequate for elk?

Appreciate that

A 6CM can kill an elk. Put a hole in something and it usually dies. I’ve never shot one with a 243 and probably never will.

My thing is based on my personal experience- witnessing elk shot with 243. some die. saw a few that didn’t. A few even required a ton of tracking and thankfully there was just enough blood to find them but that took 3 other people away from their hunt to do it.

IME every elk that i have shot or personally seen shot with a 175 or larger has died. Quickly and without issue. Non-science based observation. Small Sample size. 20 or so elk probably.

Science based reading supports my experience. Mil testing. Independent ballistics testing. Medical based observation on tissue damage and incapacitation. FBI reports on small versus large calibers.

Conclusion, more bullet, more energy, a larger hole, and more ability to incapacitate and kill the animal is a good thing

 

[ElPollo]

Appreciate that

A 6CM can kill an elk. Put a hole in something and it usually dies. I’ve never shot one with a 243 and probably never will.

My thing is based on my personal experience- witnessing elk shot with 243. some die. saw a few that didn’t. A few even required a ton of tracking and thankfully there was just enough blood to find them but that took 3 other people away from their hunt to do it.

IME every elk that i have shot or personally seen shot with a 175 or larger has died. Quickly and without issue. Non-science based observation. Small Sample size. 20 or so elk probably.

Science based reading supports my experience. Mil testing. Independent ballistics testing. Medical based observation on tissue damage and incapacitation. FBI reports on small versus large calibers.

Conclusion, more bullet, more energy, a larger hole, and more ability to incapacitate and kill the animal is a good thing

I understand you have a lot of experience hunting with and killing animals with your chosen equipment, so it’s not my intent to insult you or ask stupid questions. You mention failures killing with the 243 cartridge and successful with bullet that weigh >175 grains. Can you tell me how a cartridge’s characteristics or bullet weights >175 gr impact the potential to do damage to an animal? I’m honestly asking this. The 223 thread and the match bullets for hunting thread both include significant discussion about what factors affect wound channels and how they affect them. I’m trying to square your statements with my own experience and what I’ve read in those sources and others. Thanks.

 

[Article 4]

I understand you have a lot of experience hunting with and killing animals with your chosen equipment, so it’s not my intent to insult you or ask stupid questions. You mention failures killing with the 243 cartridge and successful with bullet that weigh >175 grains. Can you tell me how a cartridge’s characteristics or bullet weights >175 gr impact the potential to do damage to an animal? I’m honestly asking this. The 223 thread and the match bullets for hunting thread both include significant discussion about what factors affect wound channels and how they affect them. I’m trying to square your statements with my own experience and what I’ve read in those sources and others. Thanks.

Appreciate the genuine response:

If everything is the same - bullet construction and velocity, I accept and many people and organizations accept that:

• Larger bullets make larger holes and in many cases longer holes
• Larger bullets carry more energy at any distance
• Larger bullets are more effective at driving through bone
• At longer ranges, the ability to overcome small variances in shot placement can be overcome with larger bullets due to points 1-3

I think there is some great info in the 223 thread...I just cannot bring myself to read every single thing...its just too long and myopic - some confirmation bias there for sure. There are good outside sourced studies confirming both sides - you have to choose what you believe to be your best plan.

I also feel like what many on the site are proposing is that due to bullet construction, killing walrus and G Bears with a 223 and an 80 grain bullet means that no one ever need hunt with a larger caliber ever again, its just not needed. There is also a penchant to smash anyone with any varying opinion that doesn't fit the narrative

Love that you are doing research on both sides. It takes more time but I learned a lot more on the way when I arrived at my protocols.

 

[ElPollo]

Appreciate the genuine response:

If everything is the same - bullet construction and velocity, I accept and many people and organizations accept that:

• Larger bullets make larger holes and in many cases longer holes
• Larger bullets carry more energy at any distance
• Larger bullets are more effective at driving through bone
• At longer ranges, the ability to overcome small variances in shot placement can be overcome with larger bullets due to points 1-3

I think there is some great info in the 223 thread...I just cannot bring myself to read every single thing...its just too long and myopic - some confirmation bias there for sure. There are good outside sourced studies confirming both sides - you have to choose what you believe to be your best plan.

I also feel like what many on the site are proposing is that due to bullet construction, killing walrus and G Bears with a 223 and an 80 grain bullet means that no one ever need hunt with a larger caliber ever again, its just not needed. There is also a penchant to smash anyone with any varying opinion that doesn't fit the narrative

Love that you are doing research on both sides. It takes more time but I learned a lot more on the way when I arrived at my protocols.

I get it about reading that whole thread. It’s dauntingly huge and there are some really awesome nuggets of information hidden in there amongst a lot of chaff.

I totally agree with you that bullet construction and velocity are the driving factors. I also don’t think it’s particularly helpful to new shooters to make assumptions about cartridges or bullet weights that do not necessarily translate into killing potential. I understand that is difficult for new shooters because there are decades of gun media talking about “What is the best caliber for BLANK?” instead of critically evaluating what types of bullet create optimal wound channels.

But that one thing really made me question a lot of what I thought I knew about ballistics. In larger caliber magnums, we all tend to select bullet types that do not maximize wounding potential. We use controlled expansion bullets because doing otherwise causes too much meat destruction. Those controlled expansion bullets also often provide way more penetration than we need or even want and result in relatively narrow wound channels.

That made a lot of lights come on for me. I can actually use smaller bore sizes with bullets that are constructed to achieve the level of penetration I need and the volume and shape of the wound channel is like to create. I also can do it with a bullet and case combination that is cheaper to shoot and easier to shoot accurately and is frankly more fun to shoot a lot. I don’t really see a downside to that.

I don’t hate big bores, I just use them a lot less than I used to because I like the results I am getting with the smaller ones.

 

[Article 4]

I get it about reading that whole thread. It’s dauntingly huge and there are some really awesome nuggets of information hidden in there amongst a lot of chaff.

I totally agree with you that bullet construction and velocity are the driving factors. I also don’t think it’s particularly helpful to new shooters to make assumptions about cartridges or bullet weights that do not necessarily translate into killing potential. I understand that is difficult for new shooters because there are decades of gun media talking about “What is the best caliber for BLANK?” instead of critically evaluating what types of bullet create optimal wound channels.

But that one thing really made me question a lot of what I thought I knew about ballistics. In larger caliber magnums, we all tend to select bullet types that do not maximize wounding potential. We use controlled expansion bullets because doing otherwise causes too much meat destruction. Those controlled expansion bullets also often provide way more penetration than we need or even want and result in relatively narrow wound channels.

That made a lot of lights come on for me. I can actually use smaller bore sizes with bullets that are constructed to achieve the level of penetration I need and the volume and shape of the wound channel is like to create. I also can do it with a bullet and case combination that is cheaper to shoot and easier to shoot accurately and is frankly more fun to shoot a lot. I don’t really see a downside to that.

I don’t hate big bores, I just use them a lot less than I used to because I like the results I am getting with the smaller ones.

I hear you - I love my big bores - 470's - 458's my 30s and they all kill. The effectiveness of both bonded and non-bonded bullets that exhibit massive penetration and massive energy transfer allows me to choose what kind of affect I want. In some cases to get the same affect i can use a 175 instead of a 210...While I am not ready to move to a 77 grain for elk still LOL

 

[mt terry d]

Appreciate yours - for me they are two separate things.

I think there is always going to be a visceral response to someone thinking "they are taking away my rights" In some cases I am at the front of the line!

As a reference in hunting, should a guy shoot an elk with a 100 grain arrow and a field point just because he can? States have minimum requirements for broad head size, arrow weight, bullet size for Mzl Ldrs and projectiles. When that happened did those hunters quite hunting because of it? Don't know..but my guess would be no.

I am with you, I would not ask a new shooter to learn with a 30 Nosler.

I guess I think about the difference between learning to shoot correctly and using a larger game caliber for the purpose. I built my godson a 17 to learn to shoot and will let him use my 6CM with a 115 Berger to hunt his first deer. At some point, they are ready to move up to something bigger, likely with pretty good habits. That process has worked will with others I have helped.

I try to look at things from the ground up. Principles upon which
lesser important issues can be built upon-or not.
To me personal choices that do not infringe upon another's rights
are a foundation from which to build.
No victim = no crime.
Violate arbitrary regulations and the only "victim" is the State (which is
an illegitimate criminal enterprise anyway as we return to the "consent" factor.)
I have (almost) zero issue with someone shooting an elk with a 100 grain field tip.
Not legal issues anyway.
He's not harming anyone and it's probably going to bounce off anyway.
If he's not just a moron flinging arrows at anything that moves (yes, there
are those even with all the laws we have
https://www.yahoo.com/news/neighbor...GYxyBUlTgBqy9fLZa2oDHFJrpVhWR42mzht9GYgUpZioN ) then he'll likely change his equipment accordingly.
But say it wounds the elk, it gets away and dies unrecovered (which happens
even when using a 300 Win Mag.)
That's not a good thing for sure but when you make allowances to dictate
the choice(s) of others, pretty soon you end up with required 1.6 gallon flush toilets, incandescent lightbulbs outlawed, seatbelt laws, and tens of thousands of other
"LAWS" that infringe people's rights every day.
Welcome to 2025.

 

[mt terry d]

I don’t hate big bores, I just use them a lot less than I used to because I like the results I am getting with the smaller ones.

My experience also.

 

[Article 4]

I try to look at things from the ground up. Principles upon which
lesser important issues can be built upon-or not.
To me personal choices that do not infringe upon another's rights
are a foundation from which to build.
No victim = no crime.
Violate arbitrary regulations and the only "victim" is the State (which is
an illegitimate criminal enterprise anyway as we return to the "consent" factor.)
I have (almost) zero issue with someone shooting an elk with a 100 grain field tip.
Not legal issues anyway.
He's not harming anyone and it's probably going to bounce off anyway.
If he's not just a moron flinging arrows at anything that moves (yes, there
are those even with all the laws we have
https://www.yahoo.com/news/neighbor...GYxyBUlTgBqy9fLZa2oDHFJrpVhWR42mzht9GYgUpZioN ) then he'll likely change his equipment accordingly.
But say it wounds the elk, it gets away and dies unrecovered (which happens
even when using a 300 Win Mag.)
That's not a good thing for sure but when you make allowances to dictate
the choice(s) of others, pretty soon you end up with required 1.6 gallon flush toilets, incandescent lightbulbs outlawed, seatbelt laws, and tens of thousands of other
"LAWS" that infringe people's rights every day.
Welcome to 2025.

Appreciate the health discourse.
Some good points, although we disagree on many of them which is fine and part of the value I find in these discussions.


Cheers

 

[dsotm]

Fudds gonna fuss, ‘muh knockdown power’

 

[dieselchessy]

@Article 4

One of the comments you made earlier, not sure what thread, was something to the effect that youd use such and such a round up to 350# animal and then such and such a round for 700# animals.
(Pretty sure thats how I read it)

Can you elaborate on what animals and of what genders you consider to be within those weight classes and then how you arrived at those weight cut off points?

Just a curiosity to me.