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

[huntnful]

Probably to the .30 cal fans it is annoying that the small caliber fans are saying that their small calibers can do everything that big calibers can. And im not sure pictures and other people saying they seen something is fact.

They’re not just saying it, they’re doing it and showing it. And providing pics of the wound channels and details of the kill ect..

Now not everything gets shared, and I know for a fact there’s been some animals shot with smaller calibers that have been unrecovered and not talked about. But that happens with big calibers too. So I don’t put much weight into it.

I love a bigger magnum caliber more than most on here, but the little guns flat kill with the right bullet in the vitals.

 

[deerhunter628]

They’re not just saying it, they’re doing it and showing it. And providing pics of the wound channels and details of the kill ect..

Now not everything gets shared, and I know for a fact there’s been some animals shot with smaller calibers that have been unrecovered and not talked about. But that happens with big calibers too. So I don’t put much weight into it.

I love a bigger magnum caliber more than most on here, but the little guns flat kill with the right bullet in the vitals.

Yes the small calibers kill and yes there are some pictures. Large calibers kill and im sure there are a lot of pictures. Nobody can prove that small calibers kill as good unless you kill the same animal in the same conditions with a small caliber and a large caliber. All we have is opinion. Including Forms opinion.

 

[The Fish Box]

A lot of times when an animal is shot with a “magnum” that doesn’t die immediately or shows little reaction it’s chocked up to either a miss or wow these animals are tough.

But when a “small” cartridge has the same lack of reaction it’s an immediate that’s why you don’t shoot small guns, when you get a drop in its tracks or obviously hit hard with a small gun it’s followed with imagine what your “magnum” would have done!!!

To keep it in the spirit of the thread I had poor performance from a 260 terminator a couple times with cutting edge MTH bullets, from 100 yards to 600’ish yards along with some good kills I have chocked it up to copper bullets more than anything seeing as I have experienced the same results from 30 cal copper bullets.

 

[5811]

Yes the small calibers kill and yes there are some pictures. Large calibers kill and im sure there are a lot of pictures. Nobody can prove that small calibers kill as good unless you kill the same animal in the same conditions with a small caliber and a large caliber. All we have is opinion. Including Forms opinion.

I think you are conflating observations and opinions. The 223 thread was intended to be a collection of observations and accompanying information from which a hypothesis might be formed: small calibers are effective on large game.

When people post contrary to that hypothesis, they are challenged, sometimes aggressively, but the the intent is to clarify - is this an opinion or was it an observation? The way these statements are challenged is to ask for more details, which sometimes makes people defensive. If details cannot be provided to a reasonable level, then it is written off as opinion.

The intent of this thread was to collect observations- what happened. Sometimes more details are requested than can be provided, it is up to the reader to determine how substantive a post is and whether or not that makes it a valid observation in their mind.

 

[deerhunter628]

I think you are conflating observations and opinions. The 223 thread was intended to be a collection of observations and accompanying information from which a hypothesis might be formed: small calibers are effective on large game.

When people post contrary to that hypothesis, they are challenged, sometimes aggressively, but the the intent is to clarify - is this an opinion or was it an observation? The way these statements are challenged is to ask for more details, which sometimes makes people defensive. If details cannot be provided to a reasonable level, then it is written off as opinion.

Observations are only valid when they are objective. Im sure that the pictures are legit but if you have 100 pictures of 100 different animals but 10,000 animals were shot then the pictures (observations) are not valid. Im not saying that is the case but nobody can say that it is not. So again pictures do not make something a fact.

 

[HuntHarder]

They’re not just saying it, they’re doing it and showing it. And providing pics of the wound channels and details of the kill ect..

Now not everything gets shared, and I know for a fact there’s been some animals shot with smaller calibers that have been unrecovered and not talked about. But that happens with big calibers too. So I don’t put much weight into it.

I love a bigger magnum caliber more than most on here, but the little guns flat kill with the right bullet in the vitals.

Spot on. It's almost comical at this point the amount of arguing over dead animals. Shoot what you want to shoot, kill some shit and move on.

 

[KHntr]

Yes the small calibers kill and yes there are some pictures. Large calibers kill and im sure there are a lot of pictures. Nobody can prove that small calibers kill as good unless you kill the same animal in the same conditions with a small caliber and a large caliber. All we have is opinion. Including Forms opinion.

Funny thing, and admittedly I’ve only seen double digits worth of elk and moose killed with large calibers, AND double digits with small calibers, in the same conditions.

My own personal observations have been that stuff killed with soft bullets dies faster than stuff shot with hard bullets. And stuff shot with small calibers (223, 223AI, 243, 243AI) has killed stuff just as dead, FASTER, than stuff shot with larger calibers and hard bullets.

Stuff shot with mono’s and controlled expansion takes longer. Period. Stuff shot with long for caliber bullets, regardless of bullet diameter, busts bones and penetrates deep enough to reach vitals.

One simple, irrefutable fact is that you can maximize the efficiency of a small cartridge and get similar performance to a larger cartridge that has had its efficiency minimized. Doesn’t matter if you believe it or not, it’s a thing.

 

[Axlrod]

Observations are only valid when they are objective. Im sure that the pictures are legit but if you have 100 pictures of 100 different animals but 10,000 animals were shot then the pictures (observations) are not valid. Im not saying that is the case but nobody can say that it is not. So again pictures do not make something a fact.

Pictures don't make something a fact?

 

[deerhunter628]

Pictures don't make something a fact?

Correct. If you have a picture of a deer killed with a 223, i would say that it is a fact that deer was killed with a 223 assuming the person was honest. That does picture does not make it a fact that a 223 kills as good as a 300 win mag. That is an opinion. Do you understand?

 

[deerhunter628]

Funny thing, and admittedly I’ve only seen double digits worth of elk and moose killed with large calibers, AND double digits with small calibers, in the same conditions.

My own personal observations have been that stuff killed with soft bullets dies faster than stuff shot with hard bullets. And stuff shot with small calibers (223, 223AI, 243, 243AI) has killed stuff just as dead, FASTER, than stuff shot with larger calibers and hard bullets.

Stuff shot with mono’s and controlled expansion takes longer. Period. Stuff shot with long for caliber bullets, regardless of bullet diameter, busts bones and penetrates deep enough to reach vitals.

One simple, irrefutable fact is that you can maximize the efficiency of a small cartridge and get similar performance to a larger cartridge that has had its efficiency minimized. Doesn’t matter if you believe it or not, it’s a thing.

I understand what you are saying but again with your last point. What makes that a “fact” and not an opinion. If i was to say it is the opposite you would say thats my opinion.

 

[Axlrod]

Correct. If you have a picture of a deer killed with a 223, i would say that it is a fact that deer was killed with a 223 assuming the person was honest. That does picture does not make it a fact that a 223 kills as good as a 300 win mag. That is an opinion. Do you understand?

My question was rhetorical. Do you understand?

 

[deerhunter628]

My question was rhetorical. Do you understand?

I guess not, but thats ok.

 

[HandgunHTR]

Correct. If you have a picture of a deer killed with a 223, i would say that it is a fact that deer was killed with a 223 assuming the person was honest. That does picture does not make it a fact that a 223 kills as good as a 300 win mag. That is an opinion. Do you understand?

And now you get to the crux of the issue. If you go back and read what is being said in those posts, specifically from Form and others, you will see that what they clearly say is that in that particular instance, the damage that was done and the way the animal reacted in that situation, was very similar to what they have seen when an animal, in a similar situation, was shot with a bigger bullet.
That is how you prove theories. You have a hypothesis, in this case that small diameter, heavy-for-caliber, frangible bullets, with impact velocities of 1800 fps or higher, will kill just as effectively as large diameter bullets of similar construction and similar impact velocities. You try to prove that hypothesis through testing and you observe the results. Sometimes, while doing that, you also find out things you weren't trying to prove. In this case it is that small diameter, heavy-for-caliber, frangible bullets, with an impact velocity of 1800 fps or higher actually kill more effectively than large diameter mono-metal or bonded bullets, regardless of impact velocity.

In the particular case of proving this hypothesis true, I believe that the evidence is sufficient to have proved that. Therefore, we can predict that if a small diameter, heavy-for-caliber, frangible bullet, impacts a game animal at 1800 fps or greater velocity, it will cause a sufficient wound channel to incapacitate said animal just as quickly as if it were hit with a larger diameter bullet under the same circumstances, thus proving the theory.

When theories are proven through sufficient evidence that we can effectively predict outcomes with a high degree of certainty, then they are considered proven science, i.e. fact. As to whether you believe it or not, is up to you. Hell, it took a couple hundred years for people to believe that the Earth circles the sun and that said Earth is round, despite the evidence to the contrary.

 

[deerhunter628]

And now you get to the crux of the issue. If you go back and read what is being said in those posts, specifically from Form and others, you will see that what they clearly say is that in that particular instance, the damage that was done and the way the animal reacted in that situation, was very similar to what they have seen when an animal, in a similar situation, was shot with a bigger bullet.
That is how you prove theories. You have a hypothesis, in this case that small diameter, heavy-for-caliber, frangible bullets, with impact velocities of 1800 fps or higher, will kill just as effectively as large diameter bullets of similar construction and similar impact velocities. You try to prove that hypothesis through testing and you observe the results. Sometimes, while doing that, you also find out things you weren't trying to prove. In this case it is that small diameter, heavy-for-caliber, frangible bullets, with an impact velocity of 1800 fps or higher actually kill more effectively than large diameter mono-metal or bonded bullets, regardless of impact velocity.

In the particular case of proving this hypothesis true, I believe that the evidence is sufficient to have proved that. Therefore, we can predict that if a small diameter, heavy-for-caliber, frangible bullet, impacts a game animal at 1800 fps or greater velocity, it will cause a sufficient wound channel to incapacitate said animal just as quickly as if it were hit with a larger diameter bullet under the same circumstances, thus proving the theory.

When theories are proven through sufficient evidence that we can effectively predict outcomes with a high degree of certainty, then they are considered proven science, i.e. fact. As to whether you believe it or not, is up to you. Hell, it took a couple hundred years for people to believe that the Earth circles the sun and that said Earth is round, despite the evidence to the contrary.

So did they kill the same animal with a small caliber and a large caliber? Same animal, same conditions, and same circumstances? Did they time how long it took the animal to die, not how far it ran, but how long it took to die? Are they 100% sure that the shot placement from both cartridges was exactly the same? Of course they did not do all of that which would make the experiment flawed in several different ways. Each animal reacts different, each set of conditions is different and each shot placement is at least slightly different. I think the only person on the small caliber side who has not said it is a fact is Form.

 

[77TMK]

So did they kill the same animal with a small caliber and a large caliber? Same animal, same conditions, and same circumstances? Did they time how long it took the animal to die, not how far it ran, but how long it took to die? Are they 100% sure that the shot placement from both cartridges was exactly the same? Of course they did not do all of that which would make the experiment flawed in several different ways. Each animal reacts different, each set of conditions is different and each shot placement is at least slightly different. I think the only person on the small caliber side who has not said it is a fact is Form.

This is purposefully pedantic and I don't think fruitful conversation is possible with that attitude.

 

[Yoder]

This is like 46 pages of Bugs bunny and Daffy Duck. Rabbit season! Duck Season! You guys could have solved world peace by now.

 

[HandgunHTR]

So did they kill the same animal with a small caliber and a large caliber? Same animal, same conditions, and same circumstances? Did they time how long it took the animal to die, not how far it ran, but how long it took to die? Are they 100% sure that the shot placement from both cartridges was exactly the same? Of course they did not do all of that which would make the experiment flawed in several different ways. Each animal reacts different, each set of conditions is different and each shot placement is at least slightly different. I think the only person on the small caliber side who has not said it is a fact is Form.

But that isn't possible, so you have to look for similarities and be able to accurately predict the outcomes of your tests. That is the point. Once you get to the point where you can accurately predict the outcome of your test to a certain confidence interval the theory is considered proven. Does that mean it will happen 100% of the time? No, as with anything, there are outlying variables that significantly impact the outcome (the tails of the curve). The same is true in "small" vs. "big" caliber killing. Sometimes stuff happens. However, based on the pretty large sample size of evidence presented on this Forum, even given the slight difference in variables, you can still safely conclude that a small diameter, heavy-for-caliber, frangible bullet, impacting at 1800 fps or higher is more than adequate to kill all NA big game and most/all African/Asian plains game. To say anything else is to ignore the evidence.

 

[deerhunter628]

This is purposefully pedantic and I don't think fruitful conversation is possible with that attitude.

Yeah. Paying attention to details is not for everyone, but necessary to declare something a fact.

 

[Shraggs]

Observations are only valid when they are objective. Im sure that the pictures are legit but if you have 100 pictures of 100 different animals but 10,000 animals were shot then the pictures (observations) are not valid. Im not saying that is the case but nobody can say that it is not. So again pictures do not make something a fact.

I think you have missed the entire point and are talking pretty myopic about someone’s intent.

Honestly it has been years of many non related posts before the 223/77 thread even started.

If you were to re read all of this, I’d boil it down to - better hunters need to not suck at shooting. A way to do this is with a 223 set up similar to your hunting rig and fling thousands of rounds more affordably using a few drills and better fundamentals in multiple field positions. Including his best practices for scopes and mounting methods to rule out equipment error.

As time progressed, what 223 bullets can be used at longer range practice, now the 77 tmk was introduced and his comments regarding success and wounds. Also noted was a 243 with nos bt and or a 223 with the 77 tmk we’re all a hunter needed to kill big game if you lived within a 400 yard ish max range.

That progressed into wounds and how different bullets wound. The point had nothing to do with better than big calibers. Form has made it clear multiple times. The point was if you shoot better with low recoil and use bullets the are highly frangible the small calibers create massive wounds for their small bore.

Then the 223 thread was created.

The things you’re stating here are conclusions that are not factual or chronologically correct. Especially that form or anyone who now shots smaller calibers is stating they are better than big calibers regarding actual killing. In fact form and others have posted many pics of big bores, demonstrating how bullet choice scales up the damage.

Reading the new thread on kills with bigger than 6.5, I’m just kinda seeing a trend. They all kill, but rodeos still happen with poor shot and bullets that create smaller wounds.

You and others are looking at this wrong. Honestly I’m not sure you’ve read all of this and your coming in at half time with a defensive take away. I think if you have read, forms seems to have quite a collection of calibers up to mid bores with lots of pics. Which gets to last core point - bullet matters more than head stamp. You want to shoot low recoil, shoot a heavy fir caliber frangible type to compensate for bore with higher trama. You want to shoot 300 wm, consider a controlled expansion if you want any meat.

Edit. I live on west side of state. Let’s shoot, I have the ranges and small calibers thru mid bores!

 

[deerhunter628]

But that isn't possible, so you have to look for similarities and be able to accurately predict the outcomes of your tests. That is the point. Once you get to the point where you can accurately predict the outcome of your test to a certain confidence interval the theory is considered proven. Does that mean it will happen 100% of the time? No, as with anything, there are outlying variables that significantly impact the outcome (the tails of the curve). The same is true in "small" vs. "big" caliber killing. Sometimes stuff happens. However, based on the pretty large sample size of evidence presented on this Forum, even given the slight difference in variables, you can still safely conclude that a small diameter, heavy-for-caliber, frangible bullet, impacting at 1800 fps or higher is more than adequate to kill all NA big game and most/all African/Asian plains game. To say anything else is to ignore the evidence.

So this forum is enough evidence to prove a hypothisis. That is a new one. I dont think anybody would say “hey it must be true because some people on a forum said so and they have some pictures.” Im sure that does not make sense to you. Most of the people saying that on this forum were saying the opposite not too long ago on this forum.