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

[st1650]

Would the 77TMK at speeds above 3000FPS grenade and not cause a deep wound ? Also if the Barnes mono have similar wounds channel regardless of caliber diameter, would a 3200FPS 77lrx do better than a 2800FPS 145 ?

 

[FredH]

Ooh ooh ooh!! Here's your chance to actually contribute to this thread!!

Go find a picture that you have seen on this site of a "generally somewhat narrow wound channel through lungs" and post it here as an example of bullet failure! Like this thread is meant for! And then you can argue that a 270 would have made a bigger one!

Provide. Evidence. Of. A. Failure.

So you are too lazy to do it yourself? I see.

 

[eric1115]

So you are too lazy to do it yourself? I see.

That's not a good faith answer, that's a troll answer (which I guess makes me the idiot for taking the bait).

His position is you will not find evidence to support your claim. It is not his job to demonstrate the absence of something that would, if it existed, support your position.

If I claimed that there was a pink unicorn in my backyard, the onus is on me to show that there is, not on you to prove that there isn't.

 

[FredH]

That's not a good faith answer, that's a troll answer (which I guess makes me the idiot for taking the bait).

His position is you will not find evidence to support your claim. It is not his job to demonstrate the absence of something that would, if it existed, support your position.

If I claimed that there was a pink unicorn in my backyard, the onus is on me to show that there is, not on you to prove that there isn't.

So somebody denies the obvious and asks me to chore for him and you call my answer a troll answer. How about this you do it. Look around on this site for lungs hit with soft 270 bullets like the SST and find some lung hits done using the 223 and the 77 TMK? Not a pink unicorn.

 

[bmart2622]

How is it his job to substantiate your claim?

 

[35WhelenAI]

The problem comes in when people try to "convince" the group that their mono-metal, or bonded bullet perform the same, or better, than the frangible bullets. Or, they come in to tell their "one time, at hunting camp, I was using a .223 and XXX happened, so I will never use them again." Also, with no supporting evidence.
I believe you are conflating the posts that are challenging the anecdotes of supposed failures of small diameter bullets with no supporting evidence and those challenging the performance of larger caliber bullets (which honestly doesn't happen often).

With respect, posts show up often about "monos that penciled through" yet the animal was very dead, and "I'll never use one again". I haven't seen pictures posted with those counts, but may have missed one at some point. There are two sides to a consistent discussion point that should be applied.

I will add, if "better" is destroyed meat as part of working "better" with associated lead fragmentation, which is understood/defacto, frangibles are the clear choice. If a dead animal is the result of a successful bullet, nothing works better than another when animal is on the ground getting ready for the freezer, however wasted meat doesn't go in the freezer.

I'm going to open up a whole can of worms here, when the lead Nazis come and folks can shoot nothing but copper, how's that going to work for the smaller caliber success?

 

[PLhunter]

Okay, so I get that this is about match or explosive bullets. But attempting to get the thread on track here I’ll give my tales of “failures”. I don’t have pictures as these took place 15 or more years ago and I don’t tend to take carnage photos anyway.

I have had some failures that would have likely not happened with a larger caliber. However, the faults were not solely with caliber size at all. These all involved a combination of excessive range and poor bullet selection. There are plenty of shot options and bullet options to overcome the smaller caliber issues in the instances given.

We used to shoot cheap sierra’s in just about everything. Also, we loaded everything with H4350 and mixed brass, no chrono, and almost every shot was pre rangefinder so ranges are estimates. Please don’t judge. I was a kid doing what I was told.

Doe Pronghorn: Caliber 22-250 Range ~380ish yds
Doe was broadside. Bullet 55 grain soft point, lol. I was aiming for the head (as told) but with bullet drop and wind drift I put the rounds right behind the shoulder. Doe didn’t react at all to 4 shots. I had zero movement with the heavy light recoiling gun so I figured I had missed clean but was rock steady through the trigger pull. Doe collapsed and died without taking a step as I reloaded. Autopsy revealed all four round impacted in the kill zone. Some went straight through. A couple deflected at odd angles. One out the flank and one out the belly. Exits were smaller than dimes. Very little damage. Likely too low of impact velocity and awful bullet choice.

Mule deer a couple instances with the 25-06. A couple caveats our choice of powders left a lot of velocity on the table. We were pushing 117 grain sierra’s at ~2950 fps. Shots that went poorly were all at least 450 yards. Unknown precise distances so could have been further.

One large buck absorbed multiple rounds to the shoulder this one was probably more than 500 yards. Not recovered. Another buck was recovered but penetration was very poor and the jacket separated early. Lead and jacket were under entrance side shoulder didn’t penetrate to ribs. Spine shot ended it but even with that the jacket was recovered only a short distance into the animal.

With the same bullet type selection and distances a 300 win mag would and did (My dad switched) result in better terminal performance with those same shots. However, with the bullets and tools today with close attention to impact velocities and shot placement the same could be said with smaller cartridges.

Fast forward some years and I use a 25-06 or 6.5 creedmoor for almost everything. I don’t rifle elk hunt anymore. I’ve taken deer at 450ish a couple of times without issue. That’s with mono bullets and not explosive in the same sense that match bullets are. I pay very close attention to impact velocity and keep it well above 2000 fps.

 

[PLhunter]

That's not a good faith answer, that's a troll answer (which I guess makes me the idiot for taking the bait).

His position is you will not find evidence to support your claim. It is not his job to demonstrate the absence of something that would, if it existed, support your position.

If I claimed that there was a pink unicorn in my backyard, the onus is on me to show that there is, not on you to prove that there isn't.

I’d argue the comment in reaction to the original post was also not really in good faith either. This whole thing is being handled awfully. The providing of evidence is important but the goalposts for evidence can become its own logical fallacy and is prone to awful bias.

“Shot this buck with a 77 tmk. Devastating. Killed it on the spot,”

Dudes: “Awesome that’s been my experience as well! More evidence that these work! Thanks for sharing.”

“Shot a buck with a 77 tmk. Not much blood had to track. Wound channel was okay but not great to be honest.”

Dudes: “where is the pics? Where was it hit? No pictures? I call bs. PROVIDE EVIDENCE!!” Okay can’t tell anything from those photos, how do I know that’s even a tmk!?”

The demands for evidence and the quality of evidence depends on if it’s confirmation of beliefs or not, The lack of hard evidence should be taken into consideration but it’s always unevenly applied.

 

[35WhelenAI]

I’d argue the comment in reaction to the original post was also not really in good faith either. This whole thing is being handled awfully. The providing of evidence is important but the goalposts for evidence can become its own logical fallacy and is prone to awful bias.

Dudes: “where is the pics? Where was it hit? No pictures? I call bs. PROVIDE EVIDENCE!!” Okay can’t tell anything from those photos, how do I know that’s even a tmk!?”

The demands for evidence and the quality of evidence depends on if it’s confirmation of beliefs or not, The lack of hard evidence should be taken into consideration but it’s always unevenly applied.

Fair point. With that said, maybe we all should take each other at their word a bit more.

 

[5811]

Fair point. With that said, maybe we all should take each other at their word a bit more.

I think it's natural to ask more questions or want more details when an outcome is different than you expect. It's not that you don't believe the outcome, it's just natural to want to figure out the "why."

The Packers beat the Bears, well, everyone expects that. Maybe ask what the score was.

The Bears beat the Packers and people ask a lot of questions. Was Love hurt? Were there a lot of bogus penalties? What was the turnover ratio? Did the Bears score on special teams? It just defies logic!

 

[35WhelenAI]

Yes, Bears beating the Packers defies logic.

With that said, if anyone has a modicum of knowledge of football with respect to this season they would know that something went well for the Bears or something was off with the Packers. The score tells the story, but the backstory can be easily inferred in most cases, and in the rare exception there's no need to debate, stuff happens. Just like it does with small calibers and big,
there's enough on both sides to show they can work within their given windows of performance.

Bears win...

 

[PLhunter]

Fair point. With that said, maybe we all should take each other at their word a bit more.

Also, this happens a lot online. People over value certain types of evidence without realizing that lies and half truths aren’t limited to how they can present themselves. If someone wants to lie about something they can lie with a photo very easily as well. Someone might have killed a buck with a tmk and been pleased with it but the photos weren’t as impressive as they hoped. So why not pull one out of the archives from a different caliber to show how it really looked in person. Or someone has had a bad experience or thinks it’s just awful. So they nab a photo from the archives that shows a bad wound channel and say it’s a tmk. What’s the harm it probably would have looked like that anyway,

Point is the pics or it didn’t happen crowd can forget that sometimes for some things it can be pics AND it didn’t happen. At some point in forum land we are taking some things for granted. More evidence is good but consider its source and potential for abuse.

 

[35WhelenAI]

When it comes to someone fabricating a post to fit their narrative, that person is a loser and it's on them. I don't think that mentality is the bulk of us around here.

However those folks get "vetted" real quick and don't last long. In a sense it's a solution in search of a problem if that small group, probably very small, is what we're worrying about.

 

[PLhunter]

When it comes to someone fabricating a post to fit their narrative, that person is a loser and it's on them. I don't think that mentality is the bulk of us around here.

However those folks get "vetted" real quick and don't last long. In a sense it's a solution in search of a problem if that small group, probably very small, is what we're worrying about.

I agree on this and that’s why I tend to take most folks for their word on certain topics. I’ve also seen enough kills to realize that sometimes the same exact cartridge, distance, bullet and shot plays out differently for whatever reason. So someone’s truth and another’s can be different but both real. Case and point. I was pronghorn hunting and harvested a buck with my 25-06 and Barnes factory ammo. It was a heart shot at 200 yards. Wound channel was narrow but okay and animal expired quickly. Very tidy. Friend’s dad borrowed the gun on the same hunt and shot a buck in the heart from 300 yards. It was bloodshot and the wound channel was massive. Don’t really have a good explanation for the massive difference. But if that was each persons one off they could be talking about the same exact setup and be hardset on two different outcomes. While telling the absolute truth.

 

[35WhelenAI]

The best Pronghorn of my life, 15" horns. Hit high on the sternum (base of neck/chest hold with a 150 grain old school ballistic tip, 175 yds) from a 7mm STW. Dropped him like being hit with a bolt from the Gods. Left a volleyball sized hole in the hide but didn't penetrate the sternum. Examination showed no damage to lungs or heart. That animal was CNS'd to death. Taxidermist had to acquire a cape from another animal in order to mount it because the damage was so bad externally.

Thought I'd try something different besides a mono... Lost one of the better trophies with respect to the mount that's hanging on my wall because of a frangible bullet. I was used to monos expanding, spinning expanded sharp petals like an angry boat prop at 200,000+ RPM upon penetration and sending copious bits and pieces of bone fragments into the vital area and exiting. Bone slivers and pieces do tremendous damage and no lead contamination. My bad on bullet choice.

 

[PLhunter]

The best Pronghorn of my life, 15" horns. Hit high on the sternum (base of neck/chest hold with a 150 grain old school ballistic tip, 175 yds) from a 7mm STW. Dropped him like being hit with a bolt from the Gods. Left a volleyball sized hole in the hide but didn't penetrate the sternum. Examination showed no damage to lungs or heart. That animal was CNS'd to death. Taxidermist had to acquire a cape from another animal in order to mount it because the damage was so bad externally.

Thought I'd try something different besides a mono... Lost one of the better trophies with respect to the mount that's hanging on my wall because of a frangible bullet. I was used to monos expanding, spinning expanded sharp petals like an angry boat prop at 200,000+ RPM upon penetration and sending copious bits and pieces of bone fragments into the vital area and exiting. Bone slivers and pieces do tremendous damage and no lead contamination. My bad on bullet choice.

There is a decent point to be found there regarding small caliber bullets. They certainly can punch well above their historic weight class. That’s been shown. But the mode of action required for them to do so can certainly be undesirable to many people. Exploding powderized lead fragments into my kids food isn’t exactly on my list of desired outcomes. However, I also want rapid expansion and the forgiveness of a broad permanent wound channel.

Going with a larger caliber in order to effectively use a different mode of action isn’t necessary being a Fudd it’s just a different set of priorities. I think it all works and what they’ve done on the .223 thread has been interesting and I’m trying to figure out how to replicate it at ranges I want to hunt with non lead options,

 

[35WhelenAI]

I mentioned it earlier, when lead gets banned, not if but when, it's going to put a hurt on the fragmenting lead bullet and guns built around that bullet design.

 

[HandgunHTR]

I mentioned it earlier, when lead gets banned, not if but when, it's going to put a hurt on the fragmenting lead bullet and guns built around that bullet design.

Some of us have a lifetime supply and will practice a good amount of civil disobedience if that ever happens.

 

[35WhelenAI]

Again, the small bullet crowd is (very) dependent on lead fragmenting bullets.

Understood, about social disobedience, that's what makes America great when choosing a cause. If guns are banned that's going to be a war. Fighting bullet composition is (IMO) a battle and I'd rather win the war. The only thing a constitution does is slow the spiral down to socialism. Can't stop it, however it can be slowed as much as possible.

Be ready for a paradigm shift at some point down the line whether it's 10 years or 20 years, it's going to happen. Ready or not whichever side of the coin you fall on.

 

[Formidilosus]

Again, the small bullet crowd is (very) dependent on lead fragmenting bullets.

No it’s not.

As polite as I can be- is there no hope for you to read the threads and information that has been provided to you, so that you stop constantly stating untrue things?

There is no version of the future where .224 and up calibers don’t work fantastically. I do not know why you keep needing to come up with these magical scenarios that makes a 6cm suddenly not effective-but one would think at some point you would want to be correct.
Solid cooper monos that reliably and predictably yaw inside tissue with a short neck length make great wounds. Powdered/sintered tungsten cored bullets are more devastating than lead equivalents. There are lots of avenues for lead free that create great wound channels.


It is enough to say “almost all calibers kill very well, I just happen to like big calibers”. That’s it. That’s all there is to it. I have buddies that are fully aware and extremely knowledgeable on factual terminal ballistics, that have killed large numbers of animals with all calibers, who enjoy 270 wins and 338 win mags. They simply like them- they don’t try to conjure up silly scenarios where they hold some magical advantage. When asked if you “had” to kill an animal right now- no excuses, what would you use? Their answer is a .224 or 6mm- usually a gas gun.