.223, 6mm, and 6.5 failures on big game

[bmart2622]

Ummmmmmm because the rifle recoils into the shooter just like at the range and a 308 has more recoil than a 223....was that a serious question?!?!?

 

[Pharmseller]

If you develop a flinch on the bench during practice, you’ll flinch in the field during hunting.

Ask me how I know.




P

 

[eoperator]

How does recoil effect your shooting while hunting?

Do some honest actual positional shooting as if you were hunting at different ranges with both 223 and 308. You will most likely be surprised as i was.
Oh and watching your bullet impact is kind of a big deal.

 

[deerhunter628]

Geez don't make this personal. You'll note that I appended that to a couple of questions about relative performance.

If he expected a dead deer from that shot with that bullet, and he didn't miss, he should be forgiven for seeing it as a failure. That's what this thread is for, isn't it? For examples of where a 223 shot into an animal didn't kill it?

You posted a pic of a dead deer shot in the neck with a 300 WM. That's a success. I've killed/seen dozens of deer killed with neck shots. Success. Which begs the question why his shot "failed." A reasonable answer is "hit a nonvital area", but clearly that isn't /always/ the case, so "terminal ballistics" are a little more complicated than you make it out to be.

This is really a pointless debate. One side can say a bigger cartridge will “likely” not kill the deer any better. The other side can say the larger cartridge would “likely” kill it. In reality nobody will ever know. The same deer would need to be shot with both cartridges in the same spot to know that. One side says yhey have seen dozens shot in the same spot and the deer died and the other side says they have seen dozens shot in the same spot and they all died. Both sides think the other side is lying or at least exaggerating. Neither side has any proof. Im not sure if there is any way to prove either side. The simple point is that everyone should hunt with what they want to hunt with and not care what anyone else hunts with.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

What are the actual disadvantages? Say of using a 308 instead of a 223.

It’s much easier to educate with actual shooting. Everyone on the internet is the best shooter in the world.

With hundreds of folks as examples, of all skill ranges, in real life, in real western hunting shooting scenarios, there isn’t a single person yet who shoots a .308 better than they shoot a .223.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

In saying the above, .308 is a fine hunting cartridge.

 

[bmart2622]

I knew a guy who would shoot for the femoral, one time he did fully expecting and anticipating a kill but it didn't happen. Clealry the bullet failed to create a large enough wound channel to hit the femoral despite the shot selection or actual bullet placement. The only explanation is an obvious bullet failure.

 

[Pharmseller]

Copied from the .223 success thread. Anyone remember me from ifish?

Years ago I took a bunch of heat from the big-case believers when I extolled the virtues of the 7mm-08 as an elk hunting cartridge. Their mistake, as they gasped and clutched their pearls, was their belief that I said the 7mm-08 was a better choice than their 300 Whizbag Ultra Mags and why I never, how dare you? The problem was, that’s not what I said.

I see a lot of that with the .223 failure thread, as well as this one.

If I may be so bold as to speak for others (and please, correct me if I’m wrong), I’m not saying the .223 is a better choice. What I am saying is, the .223 with proper bullets is just as good.

Not better. But just as effective.

Now, if we inject shooting skills into the equation, then yes, for some the .223 will be better, because some shooters cannot handle recoil. As a result, accuracy suffers. A poor shot is a poor shot, regardless of cartridge, but the odds of a poor shot might, just might, be reduced by a cartridge with less recoil.

And to the hairy-chested he-men who opine that if you can’t handle a 30-06 level of recoil you shouldn’t be hunting, well, if the .223 is just as effective (not better), why not? It’s supposed to be fun, right?

No one is looking to take your 300 Whizbang away. I don’t give half a hoot what you shoot, it’s your money and your shoulder, after all. I’ll keep shooting elk with my 7mm-08 (.223 isn’t legal in Oregon) and deer with my .223. We’ll share a beer and stories around the campfire.

And who knows, you might just try a .223 on a prairie dog or two, then maybe, just maybe, a deer.

It could happen.



P

 

[FCCDerek]

I'm not going to continue trying to explain this to you. A deer that doesn't bleed A LOT is a high risk for no recovery where I hunt, even if it only runs 50 yards.

An exit is mandatory for me, and you are not going to drive any expanding bullet all the way through animal vitals from any centerfire rifle without causing serious mortal damage.

So yes, when we find something doesn't exit reliably (.270 130gr core locts or .243 90 gr core locts for example) we quit using them regardless of how much internal damage there is, because somebody ends up losing a deer to the buzzards that way.

But that doesn't mean that the bullet failed. It just means you didn't like how it performed. Two vastly different things.

 

[deerhunter628]

But that doesn't mean that the bullet failed. It just means you didn't like how it performed. Two vastly different things.

This thread has still not defined a bullet failure. How do you define a bullet failure?

 

[FredH]

Do some honest actual positional shooting as if you were hunting at different ranges with both 223 and 308. You will most likely be surprised as i was.
Oh and watching your bullet impact is kind of a big deal.

I competed in 3 position shooting in both hi power and rimfire for years. When I pull the trigger, whether I see the bullet impact or not is immaterial because I know where it went. I have been shooting the 223 and 308 since 1974 among many other cartridges.

 

[Thegman]

This thread has still not defined a bullet failure. How do you define a bullet failure?

That's a great question and I'm not sure it has any clear answer in a lot of cases.

I'd say a bullet performing markedly different from what it's specifically and explicitly designed to do under conditions in which it is designed to perform. For instance, a bullet designed and stated to expand, not expanding, with no interfering issues, like clipping a branch and impacting other than straight on. A mono bullet not expanding, e.g. Probably very difficult to document conclusively most of the time, I imagine.

By this definition, match bullets never fail on game because they weren't explicitly designed for hunting in the first place. Maybe a lot more constructive to say "bullet x performs how I want/need a bullet to perform, bullet y doesn't".

 

[FredH]

It’s much easier to educate with actual shooting. Everyone on the internet is the best shooter in the world.

With hundreds of folks as examples, of all skill ranges, in real life, in real western hunting shooting scenarios, there isn’t a single person yet who shoots a .308 better than they shoot a .223.

In hunting situations I can easily shoot a 7-08, 7x57 or 308 as well as I can shoot a 223. I have shot thousands of rounds through rifles chambered for those four cartridges. Recoil to me is cumulative. I can put the first three shots from much heavier recoiling rifles than those listed exactly where I want them. The actual benefit derived from using 22 caliber rifles is reduced component cost. I have killed deer with the 223 and the 22-250 using various bullets. Nothing I killed with either was deader than those shot with other cartridges though one could say they were just as dead. I am putting together a 22 ARC so I can see just how deadly the heavier ELDM's and X's are from a 1-7 twist barrel.

 

[Choupique]

How do you define a bullet failure?

The actual definition is easy. Did it perform as designed within the envelope it was designed to work in?

For me it's more caveman. Did the bullet expand and give straight line penetration with a pass-thu?

 

[FredH]

Ummmmmmm because the rifle recoils into the shooter just like at the range and a 308 has more recoil than a 223....was that a serious question?!?!?

Neither has excessive recoil. Yes I can fire more consecutive rounds accurately through a 223 than a 308 but that number with a 308 is much larger than virtually any hunting situation would require with the exception of prairie dogs or other colony rodents. I used to shoot my left over 30-06 elk ammo at prairied dogs every spring after the snow melted. Usually 19 or less rounds and usually made every round count out to 250 yards. I did take my time and take the easier shots.

 

[Jake Larsen]

Maybe a lot more constructive to say "bullet x performs how I want/need a bullet to perform, bullet y doesn't".

This right here. Something I’ve noticed reading these threads for the last few years. There’s a large amount of variance in what people like/want to see in terminal performance. Some people consider anything but DRT a “failure”. Some people are willing to accept an animal running a hundred yards or more. Some folks like to see a classic bonded bullet type wound channel, even if they understand that a match bullet type wound channel is more lethal.

I personally am fine with an animal running a bit. The elk I killed a few weeks ago ran over 100 yards in 7-8 seconds before expiring. Death in sub 10 seconds is plenty lethal enough for me. Sometimes an animal takes off running when hit lethally, sometimes they just stand there. I’m not willing to high shoulder an animal I plan on eating just to anchor them on the spot. I’m confident enough in my tracking/blood trailing ability to shoot behind the shoulder. Likewise, I’ve personally shied away from the Berger type wound channels because they make a mess of a front shoulder if the animal is quartered away even the slightest bit.

To each their own…it’s more constructive to talk in terms of How x bullet performs at x impact velocity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bmart2622]

Neither has excessive recoil. Yes I can fire more consecutive rounds accurately through a 223 than a 308 but that number with a 308 is much larger than virtually any hunting situation would require with the exception of prairie dogs or other colony rodents. I used to shoot my left over 30-06 elk ammo at prairied dogs every spring after the snow melted. Usually 19 or less rounds and usually made every round count out to 250 yards. I did take my time and take the easier shots.

I didnt say excessive, but the 308 undeniably has more fecoil than the 223

 

[deerhunter628]

By this definition, match bullets never fail on game because they weren't explicitly designed for hunting in the first place. Maybe a lot more constructive to say "bullet x performs how I want/need a bullet to perform, bullet y doesn't".

This is the exact point i was going to make. This makes “bullet failure” subjective. So one side says it failed and the other side says it did not. When i posted my first post with my experience i was careful to say the bullet failed to produce the result i wanted but i dont feel the bullet failed, and the small caliber disciples still wanted to debate, but they still will not set parameters for a bullet failure.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

In hunting situations I can easily shoot a 7-08, 7x57 or 308 as well as I can shoot a 223.

Which hunting situations can you make this guarantee? When put into practice, with timed shots, shooting from "not a bench", this statement becomes clearly an internet only type of claim.

I have shot thousands of rounds through rifles chambered for those four cartridges.

That's good. So have many on this site, myself included.

Recoil to me is cumulative. I can put the first three shots from much heavier recoiling rifles than those listed exactly where I want them.

In what position and at what yardage are you making this "guarantee".

The actual benefit derived from using 22 caliber rifles is reduced component cost.

I'm on my first big game season this year using a 22 caliber rifle. Are they killing animals anymore dead than the previous decades where I've used 6mm, 6.5mm, 7mm, and .30 cals? I only have 12 kills so far since September so it's hard to make any judgements, so far so good. I can tell you that the benefits of shooting 6mm and 6.5mm nearly exclusively on big game since 2014, totaling hundreds of dead big game animals, the benefits of being a more efficient killer for sure outweigh the negatives of using my .30 cals.

I have killed deer with the 223 and the 22-250 using various bullets. Nothing I killed with either was deader than those shot with other cartridges though one could say they were just as dead. I am putting together a 22 ARC so I can see just how deadly the heavier ELDM's and X's are from a 1-7 twist barrel.

I now have 12 confirmed big game kills with the 80 ELDX out of my 22 Creedmoor. Moose, Bear, and deer so far, elk coming up this weekend. I think you'll likely be a fan of its performance.

 

[Jake Larsen]

Which hunting situations can you make this guarantee? When put into practice, with timed shots, shooting from "not a bench", this statement becomes clearly an internet only type of claim.

That's good. So have many on this site, myself included.

In what position and at what yardage are you making this "guarantee".

I'm on my first big game season this year using a 22 caliber rifle. Are they killing animals anymore dead than the previous decades where I've used 6mm, 6.5mm, 7mm, and .30 cals? I only have 12 kills so far since September so it's hard to make any judgements, so far so good. I can tell you that the benefits of shooting 6mm and 6.5mm nearly exclusively on big game since 2014, totaling hundreds of dead big game animals, the benefits of being a more efficient killer for sure outweigh the negatives of using my .30 cals.

I now have 12 confirmed big game kills with the 80 ELDX out of my 22 Creedmoor. Moose, Bear, and deer so far, elk coming up this weekend. I think you'll likely be a fan of its performance.

Dang man you really went for it! I’m still stuck at 6CM…just can’t make myself go down to the 22 yet, which I totally recognize is in my head, not based on evidence (in terms of terminal performance) Out of a suppressed rifle, how much difference is there really going to be? I feel like the 6s are maybe a sweet spot between recoil, ballistics, and terminal performance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk