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

[eric1115]

Calling my statement “shitting up the thread with large caliber nonsense” was a good way to get punched in the nose, if I do say so myself.

No disagreement here, he should have been more respectful, but his point was not wrong. If you follow the comment reply chain that you responded to all the way back, it started with

-"six pages in and no good examples of a single bullet failure"
-"yeah but to be fair 5 of the 6 are people not trying to provide those examples but debating whether it's a good idea or not."

We're at 50+ pages now; it's a failed thread that started with a great premise. If you think a 6mm is inadequate, provide evidence. Saying that a 300 grain bullet does more damage is not relevant at all to the purpose of the thread. If I hit a fly with a hammer, it's there's more damage than from a flyswatter. Does that demonstrate that a flyswatter is not effective for killing flies?

 

[PLhunter]

Everyone just needs to acknowledge some basic truths and move on.

All things equal a shooter will shoot better with lower recoil. All things equal.

All things equal a larger diameter bullet will have a larger wound cavity with more penetration. All things equal.

There are pros and cons to each and we’ve seen the extremes of both those play out and be experimented with. I appreciate the dudes who used 338 ultra mags on Coues deer so I didn’t have to. I appreciate the dudes shooting grizzly bears with .223 so I don’t have to,

All things equal a bigger caliber will buy more forgiveness on shot placement/angle. All things equal a smaller caliber increases the chance of not needing forgiveness. Provided the shooting situation is steady and controlled. The weighting on the pros and cons depends on how you hunt and how you shoot.

lol, awhile back I posted some failure examples if someone wants to use that to get back on track.

 

[Article 4]

Lol wrong because you’re wrong, not because “they” (whoever that is intended to be) say you are.



I literally answered in my last post (see again below for quick reference). No disrespect, but do you actually read before responding? I’m assuming you’re just trolling now.

I think you and they are wrong.

You and a lot of other make a lot of assumptions and pass them as truth or judgement...your respect or lack of has no bearing

 

[atmat]

I think you and they are wrong.

You’re welcome to “think” or “feel” how you please. Cheers mate.

 

[The Ri Guy]

Well gang, after reading all 55 pages this morning I have learned that I am a complete failure as a hunter/shooter as almost none of the animals I've killed in the last 10 years had exit holes, and limited blood trails.

Time to buy a .50 cal I can't shoot well, at least I'll be blowing legs off so a blood trail won't matter.

 

[2001precision]

Oh boy, your ego is that hurt? Grow up Count Chocula.

You don’t have any clue about terminal performance. You relate broadhead and arrow performance, to bullets. Arrows and broadheads kill with less than 100ft pounds of energy as you said yourself. Get archery off this thread … it’s nonsense. And it’s trashing this thread up.
I’ve killed with arrows, small cal rifles, and large cal rifles. I’ve never had a bullet failure in my life. I’ve used plenty of different constructions. Back to what I originally said, a .223 or 6mm won’t EVEN COME CLOSE to the damage a 300 grain bullet out of a .338 Lapua Improved will provide. I know that triggered you originally, but it’s really not super complicated… and it provides you with a larger margin for error, “killing better”. LOL

 

[2001precision]

No disagreement here, he should have been more respectful, but his point was not wrong. If you follow the comment reply chain that you responded to all the way back, it started with

-"six pages in and no good examples of a single bullet failure"
-"yeah but to be fair 5 of the 6 are people not trying to provide those examples but debating whether it's a good idea or not."

We're at 50+ pages now; it's a failed thread that started with a great premise. If you think a 6mm is inadequate, provide evidence. Saying that a 300 grain bullet does more damage is not relevant at all to the purpose of the thread. If I hit a fly with a hammer, it's there's more damage than from a flyswatter. Does that demonstrate that a flyswatter is not effective for killing flies?

I never even came close to saying a 6mm was inadequate. You might be that category of person that defends little calibers like they are their own children, if you thought that’s what I was getting at. I shoot a 6.5 creed and love it. But a 338 Lapua is gonna hit harder and do more damage, sorry if that hurts

 

[eric1115]

I never even came close to saying a 6mm was inadequate. You might be that category of person that defends little calibers like they are their own children, if you thought that’s what I was getting at. I shoot a 6.5 creed and love it. But a 338 Lapua is gonna hit harder and do more damage, sorry if that hurts

It doesn't hurt at all.

The whole premise of this thread is, that lots of folks have expressed the view that .223 and 6mm bullets are not a good solution for killing large game. Lots of "I would never" or "sure it'll work when everything goes right" or "I heard that my cousin's friend shot a deer in the chest and the bullet just blew up" type responses.

Nobody claims that a 6mm will do equal or greater damage than a 300 grain .338 of equal construction. I will leave the defensiveness of favorite cartridges (large or small) out of this.. the question is, is the damage created by heavy for caliber bullets like the 77TMK, 108ELDM, or 115 DTAC enough? If not, this thread was supposed to be a place to show (not just assert) that with details/photos.

If it enough, then the "why is more needed?" question should be discussed in another thread. The handful of threads that have stayed moderately on the rails of being a place to compile evidence through photos and detailed descriptions are an incredibly useful resource, and that's why I'm so frustrated with the ones that start out with good potential and then get derailed so badly. You're certainly not the only one who's contributed to that; I'm sure it feels like I'm singling you out but I'm really not. There's a dozen guys or more that contributed to the failure of this thread, including me.

 

[HandgunHTR]

I do not care. Go look at a “cartridge selection for Alaska” thread, and tell me what the guides say. Don’t take it from me, just go look.

How many responses in that thread were people who actually live and hunt in Alaska? Many guides get hunters who aren't that good at shooting and they operate under the same fallacy that big bullets somehow have a larger "margin for error" than small ones. What they should be doing is make their clients take some shots using various field hunting positions at different distances and if they can't hit a vitals-sized target, send them home with instructions to practice until they can. But that would hurt their revenue, so they don't do that.

We have quite a few people on this forum that live and hunt in Alaska and a lot of them use pretty "small" cartridges. Maybe you should start a thread here asking them what they use, rather than using some thread from who knows where as your evidence.

 

[fngTony]

This is great topic, let’s bring the discussion back within it’s parameters from the OP and be respectful to each other.

Small cal naysayers, this is your chance!

It seems like discussions happen in bits and pieces in lots of threads. The small caliber proponents have this unfairly massive amount of data all compiled in a few great threads.

So I think it would be helpful if the guys that think that is stupid have one consolidated place to share evidence of failures of the .223, 6, or 6.5 calibers using heavy for caliber match ammo.

You got a video of one of those splashy 147 ELDMs “blowing up” on the rib bone of an axis deer? You seen a .223 77 TMK bounce off an Elk?
This is the place to share!

Good point, while there is some relevant science the thread wasn’t asking about bullets vs cars vs arrows or fly swatters

Bullets and broadheads kill differently. Should we start comparing bullets and cars?

Excellent point and great example of how introducing new reasoning or evidence can change the results

How many responses in that thread were people who actually live and hunt in Alaska? Many guides get hunters who aren't that good at shooting and they operate under the same fallacy that big bullets somehow have a larger "margin for error" than small ones. What they should be doing is make their clients take some shots using various field hunting positions at different distances and if they can't hit a vitals-sized target, send them home with instructions to practice until they can. But that would hurt their revenue, so they don't do that.

We have quite a few people on this forum that live and hunt in Alaska and a lot of them use pretty "small" cartridges. Maybe you should start a thread here asking them what they use, rather than using some thread from who knows where as your evidence.

 

[TaperPin]

…) is that all of us small cartridge guys started out with bigger cartridges. …

How many hunting rifles do you think the average gun nut owns? Without exception everyone I know started out with small rifles (243) and moved up from there. We still own 243’s and many other rifles - those rifles see action with other members of the family, friends, or even ourselves. The idea that anyone who shoots a larger cartridge somehow fell off the turnip wagon and skipped ever shooting or owning smaller calibers simply isn’t correct.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

Aren’t Alaska State Troopers now carrying AR15’s instead of 12 gauges when they go clean up problems?

Legitimate question, I think I read that somewhere, and I’m Canadian so have zero exposure to Troopers.

If you talk to folks up there, state troopers included, folks who have been killing moose and brown bears in significant volumes for years and years, they nearly all recommend a properly set up AR15 style rifle, yes.

Using a “guide mandated caliber” as an argument for anything is seriously sad.

Interesting to see this thread hasn’t gone anywhere since I last visited it… shocker.

 

[The Guide]

How many hunting rifles do you think the average gun nut owns? Without exception everyone I know started out with small rifles (243) and moved up from there. We still own 243’s and many other rifles - those rifles see action with other members of the family, friends, or even ourselves. The idea that anyone who shoots a larger cartridge somehow fell off the turnip wagon and skipped ever shooting or owning smaller calibers simply isn’t correct.

Gun nuts and average hunters are way different. I know over 50 hunters that were bought a 270 or 30-06 or 7RM or 300WM as their first rifles and it is the only rifle they have for hunting big game. You don't see many late onset hunters starting with a 243 because 270 or 30-06 is what the guy at the gun counter recommended. There are a lot of people who don't own small calibers and haven't ever gotten to shoot them at the range or at game.

Jay

 

[KHntr]

How many hunting rifles do you think the average gun nut owns? Without exception everyone I know started out with small rifles (243) and moved up from there. We still own 243’s and many other rifles - those rifles see action with other members of the family, friends, or even ourselves. The idea that anyone who shoots a larger cartridge somehow fell off the turnip wagon and skipped ever shooting or owning smaller calibers simply isn’t correct.

Good lord... Aren't you the guy who was arguing that the 243 is what your kids start on but only until they can handle a 270 or 30/06?

My apologies, maybe "started out with" weren't the 3 correct words to convey the sentiment of guys who start out, move up, and then move back down in cartridge capacity after analyzing results.

 

[mt100gr.]

How many hunting rifles do you think the average gun nut owns? Without exception everyone I know started out with small rifles (243) and moved up from there. We still own 243’s and many other rifles - those rifles see action with other members of the family, friends, or even ourselves. The idea that anyone who shoots a larger cartridge somehow fell off the turnip wagon and skipped ever shooting or owning smaller calibers simply isn’t correct.

When I was 12, almost every other kid I knew that was hunting for the first time (my entire class almost) was carrying an ill-fitting, larger-than-.243, loaner or hand-me-down. It's pretty funny, in hindsight, we all made fun of the kid who's dad set him up with an old .223.

It sucked!! But we all tried to be tough. Personally, I had the pleasure of carrying my Grandpa's Pre-64 Model 70 in 30-06 stuffed with 180 soft points. Steel butt plate, open sights. Luckily we hunted river bottom jungles and shots were close because I yanked that trigger like a pull cord!



We were raised by Fudds!!

 

[HandgunHTR]

How many hunting rifles do you think the average gun nut owns? Without exception everyone I know started out with small rifles (243) and moved up from there. We still own 243’s and many other rifles - those rifles see action with other members of the family, friends, or even ourselves. The idea that anyone who shoots a larger cartridge somehow fell off the turnip wagon and skipped ever shooting or owning smaller calibers simply isn’t correct.

I would say the average hunter probably owns 2-5 guns (one or two hunting rifles, a .22LR or two, and a shotgun or two). The average "gun nut" probably has 10-20 guns (multiple overlapping hunting rifles, a few rimfires, a few shotguns, and a few handguns).

Growing up in Southern MN, we had three groups. The first group were the "poors" which I was in. We didn't gun hunt because gun season in MN was two 3-day weekends and you could only use a shotgun with slugs in the lower half of the state. We had multiple tags to fill in order to have meat in the freezer and we didn't have the money for 1) multiple firearms, and 2) to drive up north and stay up there to hunt. So, we bowhunted. The second group was the Southern MN firearms hunters. They all started on 20 or 12 gauges with slugs. No flinches there. . The third group was the "rich kids". They could 1) afford rifles for kids and dad, and either had a camp up north, or could afford to travel to ND or SD to hunt. Most of those kids started with 30-30 lever guns (for the up North kids) or .243 or 25-06 for the Dakotas hunters.

I didn't start rifle hunting until I was 25 and rotated to shore duty in SC. My first "deer rifle" was a 300WM (for SC deer, mind you) because I bought into all the gun rag BS and I wanted to hunt elk some day. My second rifle was a 7RM. My third was a 30-06. So, I am firmly in the camp of "regressing". I still have a 7RM. I built a .338 Sherman Mega. I like them both. But I do most of my hunting with a 7-08AI, or a 6.5 Creedmoor, or a 7TCU, or a 6.5 Grendel. I am also getting most of my hunting buddies to ditch the big boomers and go smaller. It is always fun to have them shoot the 4" gong at 500 with their rifle and then put my 6.5 Grendel or 6.5 Creed in their hands and have them try.

 

[FredH]

Gun nuts and average hunters are way different. I know over 50 hunters that were bought a 270 or 30-06 or 7RM or 300WM as their first rifles and it is the only rifle they have for hunting big game. You don't see many late onset hunters starting with a 243 because 270 or 30-06 is what the guy at the gun counter recommended. There are a lot of people who don't own small calibers and haven't ever gotten to shoot them at the range or at game.

Jay

You have to admit that a 270 or a 30-06 are good recommendations. And with some practice and good form they are not at all hard to shoot.

 

[FredH]

When I was 12, almost every other kid I knew that was hunting for the first time (my entire class almost) was carrying an ill-fitting, larger-than-.243, loaner or hand-me-down. It's pretty funny, in hindsight, we all made fun of the kid who's dad set him up with an old .223.

It sucked!! But we all tried to be tough. Personally, I had the pleasure of carrying my Grandpa's Pre-64 Model 70 in 30-06 stuffed with 180 soft points. Steel butt plate, open sights. Luckily we hunted river bottom jungles and shots were close because I yanked that trigger like a pull cord!



We were raised by Fudds!!

I didn't have to "try" to be tough. My first rifle that I hunted with was my fathers "sporterized" 30-06 though I shot 150 gr. Corelokts. Used a thick glove between my shoulder and the buttpad for bench work, nothing special for offhand practice. I feel recoil is over rated as an issue.

 

[mt100gr.]

I didn't have to "try" to be tough. My first rifle that I hunted with was my fathers "sporterized" 30-06 though I shot 150 gr. Corelokts. Used a thick glove between my shoulder and the buttpad for bench work, nothing special for offhand practice. I feel recoil is over rated as an issue.

Neat story.

 

[omicron1792]

How many hunting rifles do you think the average gun nut owns? Without exception everyone I know started out with small rifles (243) and moved up from there. We still own 243’s and many other rifles - those rifles see action with other members of the family, friends, or even ourselves. The idea that anyone who shoots a larger cartridge somehow fell off the turnip wagon and skipped ever shooting or owning smaller calibers simply isn’t correct.

Almost everyone I know did the opposite. Their dad started them on 30-06. They then bought a 300 something as their first rifle. Then they moved down as they learned more about shooting.