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

[deerhunter628]

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!

Read post #907.

“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.”

I guess some are saying it kills better. You small caliber guys are just piling on arguing different points.

 

[mtlivin]

I’m honestly confused what the small caliber hype is all about now. Sure, a well placed bullet can kill anything, but how many people on here can honestly say they've never made a bad wind call and hit the diaphragm or even further back? I hit the diaphragm at 500 yards on a mule buck with my 7mag 180 hybrids and it collapsed due to the massive hydrostatic shock, when I've made a similar hit with my 6.5 cals and 147 - 140 "target" bullets they simply don't produce the same hydrostatic shock to drop them (unless the nervous system is hit). These less than perfect shots on deer and antelope cause the animal to become noticeably sick and typically bed down soon, which makes a follow up shot easier to complete. But on an elk, it seems to make their will to live even stronger, and good luck if you bump that animal bedded before getting that follow up shot off. This is based off the big game kills I've been on over 25 years, somewhere north of 100 animals, and not every shot was perfect by either myself or my hunting partners.

The larger cals with modern "target" bullets have significantly less wind drift, period. This is the average hunters largest source of error for longer shots. With all of the suppressors and muzzle breaks available almost any large caliber can be tamed for accurate shooting. So yeah, I have a lot of guns, played with a lot of calibers, and I prefer 7mm and up for elk/moose and sometimes black bear. Its not fun looking for a big black bear in brush, by yourself, in the dark, even after making a really good shot with a 6.5 CM. I was cursing myself for not brining a bigger gun and dropping it dead in its tracks on that one, and pretty much anything I've ever had to track that was shot with a 147 grain or less bullet.

 

[deerhunter628]

My whole point today is that: the small caliber guys are saying that any info they dont like is an opinion and the info they do like is a fact. In reality all the info i have read is opinion. You can argue it however you want but there has not been any facts presented. Maybe its impossible to prove either way because there are too many variables.

 

[Shraggs]

Dude you attacked form as the culprit on something he never said. Then and quoted someone else to make your case… pathetic

Whatever.

 

[deerhunter628]

Dude you attacked form as the culprit on something he never said. Then and quoted someone else to make your case… pathetic

Whatever.

Who are you talking to?

 

[Shraggs]

You

 

[PLhunter]

The complete dismissal of anyone's experience due to lack of pictures is a crock. According to Rokslide anyone who doesn't have a picture to back up everything they say is full of shit.

Rokslide version of history began with the ability to post pictures on the internet, everything before that is stories and heresay.

Unless of course it confirms their beliefs. In that case asking for photos is simply moving the goalposts.

 

[Wacko]

I love how fanatical this forum is. For "failures" with these bullets / calibers one just needs to read the threads offered as "proof" they are awesome. There are numerous examples in each one where there were less than satisfactory results from the users perspective. "Hit a bit further back than I like". "took multiple rounds", "tracking job was much longer than expected", "almost didn't find it"....etc..etc....

Here is the simple thing gents...and it's been covered before. We can't shoot. Your hit percentage does NOT go up just due to a smaller caliber. If a guy shoots a box a year with a 300 wiz bang ultra super magnum...never taking a shot over 200 yards...and you hand him a 223 - he will NOT be a stone cold killer at 500 yards. He would have to do what we all should do. Practice for say 1000 rounds before the hunt - timer, different positions, different conditions, different locations, unknown ranges....before his hit percentage will increase substantially in the field. All of which is logistically difficult.

Small calibers can and do work...period. The bum behind the gun still has to put it where it belongs and the bullet has to perform as expected.

As for larger calibers being better or the much maligned "larger margin for error"....they are "better", they do "offer a greater margin for error". If you are going to compare you have to compare like bullets to like bullets at like velocities. Just say eld-m's. A 108 6mm eld-m will not make as big a hole as a 30 cal 178 grain eld-m at like velocities. It may only be a small percentage bigger based on velocity - but it is bigger. There are also 70 more grains of bullet that can / will fragment. Those "extra" or possibly heavier / wider fragments can do "extra" damage by creating more or wider longer wound channels. It will also penetrate deeper, maybe not a lot, but it will be deeper. Therefore it offers an "advantage". I don't care how many pictures you take...

THLR in a recent video chose a 6.5 PRC for a hunt over his 6.5x55 I think. He gave a brief explanation why - shooting the same bullet in both, the higher velocity of the 6.5 PRC offers and "error" advantage. It drifts less, drops less, and has more velocity on impact...so hit percentage goes up over a wider range of error in both ranging and wind calls, all while offering a"better" terminal performance window. Hmmm...seems like the 6UM is basically doing the exact same thing...same bullet as the 6 creed only faster - with more powder and more recoil.....

The bum behind the gun still has to put the bigger round where it belongs.

The bottom line with all this is bullets matter more than headstamps....but again the bum behind the gun holds the key to making any of them work - at any range.

Use what you enjoy, have confidence in, is legal and within it's performance window. There will be issues occasionally no matter the headstamp.

I'll not argue the monos kill slower. However, there is a big push to get rid of lead for hunting. My home state of Colorado has been pushing it for years...sooner or later I won't have a choice but to switch. Hopefully bullet tech - and pricing for those bullets - gets better. I'd shoot hammers now possibly...but I can't afford $145 a box of 100...x10....plus powder, primers, cases...

Just my 2 cents....

 

[deerhunter628]

You

Especially that form or anyone who now shots smaller calibers is stating they are better than big calibers regarding actual killing.

That copied from your post so i showed you that some are saying that the smaller cartridges kill better. Im not sure where i quoted Form incorrectly.

 

[Shraggs]

I’m telling you you’re incorrect about your conclusive statements and your not actually reading.

 

[deerhunter628]

I’m telling you you’re incorrect about your conclusive statements and your not actually reading.

Ok. When i read this i see a 6 year old boy sitting with his arms crossed saying “i dont like what you are saying.” Still can not tell me what i am wrong about.

 

[Grizzle]

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.

Sounds like your just here to argue for the sake of arguing, or maybe you just like reading your own non sense over and over. Either way it's not a useful contribution to this thread in anyway.

The loudest of the big caliber proponents seem to not read well and keep getting hung up on a misguided idea smaller calibers or cartridges kill more powerfully or quicker than larger caliber or cartridge.
This is probably due to the comparison of small caliber with good bullets vs large caliber with mono's and that a small caliber with heavy for caliber fragmenting bullets terminal performance will outperform a larger caliber or cartridge that has been neuterd by a poor performing bullet.
It has been said however, over and over, that using the same bullets ( tmk or eldm for example) will make a larger caliber or magnum cartridge cause a larger wound, often far more damage than a person would want or accept.

The point that small caliber proponents keep making seems to not be absorbed by the few that constantly feel the need to argue this point, which is..

That small calibers/ cartridges provide sufficient or better wounding to incapcitate big game while reducing recoil and increasing field shootability, spotting of impact and possibility of follow up shots which makes the person using it have a higher hit rate and that, coupled with sufficient wounding make you a more effective killer than you would be using a magnum cartridge and or larger caliber. Of course the argument is "I shoot my magnum just as good" which you likely don't if tested, and in most cases is coupled by a "stem to stearn" mono or bonded bullet that severely limits any perceived benefit from said magnum while still providing all the downside of recoil.

Also if you want to shoot a magnum none of us are saying not to, just that it's not necessary and that you'll likely be giving yourself a handicap rather than advantage in real world hunting conditions.

 

[Harvey_NW]

Especially that form or anyone who now shots smaller calibers is stating they are better than big calibers regarding actual killing.

I don't recall anybody arguing that small calibers are "better than big calibers regarding actual killing", just the FACTS that with a good bullet they are plenty efficient at killing North American (and even South African) big game animals, and are easier to shoot accurately due to reduction in recoil.

Better is obviously subjective, and typically an opinion based on anecdotal evidence. Dead is dead.

 

[deerhunter628]

Sounds like your just here to argue for the sake of arguing, or maybe you just like reading your own non sense over and over. Either way it's not a useful contribution to this thread in anyway.

The loudest of the big caliber proponents seem to not read well and keep getting hung up on a misguided idea smaller calibers or cartridges kill more powerfully or quicker than larger caliber or cartridge.
This is probably due to the comparison of small caliber with good bullets vs large caliber with mono's and that a small caliber with heavy for caliber fragmenting bullets terminal performance will outperform a larger caliber or cartridge that has been neuterd by a poor performing bullet.
It has been said however, over and over, that using the same bullets ( tmk or eldm for example) will make a larger caliber or magnum cartridge cause a larger wound, often far more damage than a person would want or accept.

The point that small caliber proponents keep making seems to not be absorbed by the few that constantly feel the need to argue this point, which is..

That small calibers/ cartridges provide sufficient or better wounding to incapcitate big game while reducing recoil and increasing field shootability, spotting of impact and possibility of follow up shots which makes the person using it have a higher hit rate and that, coupled with sufficient wounding make you a more effective killer than you would be using a magnum cartridge and or larger caliber. Of course the argument is "I shoot my magnum just as good" which you likely don't if tested, and in most cases is coupled by a "stem to stearn" mono or bonded bullet that severely limits any perceived benefit from said magnum while still providing all the downside of recoil.

Also if you want to shoot a magnum none of us are saying not to, just that it's not necessary and that you'll likely be giving yourself a handicap rather than advantage in real world hunting conditions.

You are obviously not reading what i have wrote. Im not advocating for big or small. I understand the recoil advantage of small calibers. Im only stating that the small caliber crowd think that all the info they regurgitate is fact and all the info the big caliber people regurgitate is opinion. When it is all just opinion as far as if one is more lethal than the other. I dont even hunt with a magnum.

 

[deerhunter628]

I don't recall anybody arguing that small calibers are "better than big calibers regarding actual killing", just the FACTS that with a good bullet they are plenty efficient at killing North American (and even South African) big game animals, and are easier to shoot accurately due to reduction in recoil.

Better is obviously subjective, and typically an opinion based on anecdotal evidence. Dead is dead.

The part of the post of mine you quoted was actually from Shruggs post and i did point out where somebody was arguing just that. Then he pouted.

 

[The Guide]

So does anyone have anything related to the actual point of this thread or at you all just going to bicker and plug up the tread with nonsense? Right now there a lot of fail posts but nothing to do with the mentioned cartridges or big game animals.

Jay

 

[Grizzle]

You are obviously not reading what i have wrote. Im not advocating for big or small. I understand the recoil advantage of small calibers. Im only stating that the small caliber crowd think that all the info they regurgitate is fact and all the info the big caliber people regurgitate is opinion. When it is all just opinion as far as if one is more lethal than the other. I dont even hunt with a magnum.

Well your right on one thing you're not adding anything of use to this thread just arguing some arbitrary semantics and annoying the hell out of anyone here for data.

 

[deerhunter628]

Well your right on one thing you're not adding anything of use to this thread just arguing some arbitrary semantics and annoying the hell out of anyone here for data.

Well your post certainly seems to add a lot. Another that just does not like to hear the objective side.

 

[Grizzle]

Well your post certainly seems to add a lot. Another that just does not like to hear the objective side.

Did you not just 5 minutes ago say you didn't have a side? Your beyond tiresome and obviously just here for an argument

 

[deerhunter628]

Did you not just 5 minutes ago say you didn't have a side? Your beyond tiresome and obviously just here for an argument

OMG are you serious. The “objective side” is not a side. That is the nature of objective. I guess between the non objective side and the objective side i do.