.223 for bear, deer, elk and moose.

[Mangata]

No sir, I do not possess that data.
I will happily retract my comment if you possess more than anecdotal regarding success using a .223 on coastal brown bears.
I appreciate you enthusiasm for this combo, and I feel that encouraging hunting dangerous game with said combo is reckless unless you have statistically proven data to support its use.
Is there data that the PH in Africa supporting the use of this round for dangerous game?
Again, will defer to your knowledge on the use of the .223 on these critters…

 

[Axlrod]

I'm not likely to ever hunt Brown bear, but if I do it will be with something that starts with 375 or 416, don't care what data there is!
That said Fred Bear shot one with a recurve at about 8 feet away. He would have been over gunned with a 223!

 

[PNWGATOR]

Now I know why guides are required for out of state Brown Bear hunts in AK 🤣

I am 100% certain the wound channel and depth of penetration would be lethal for any animal on the North American continent.

 

[fwafwow]

I am 100% certain the wound channel and depth of penetration would be lethal for any animal on the North American continent.

Tsk tsk. You need a double blind, statistically proven study on Brown Bears with this combo.

 

[Formidilosus]

No sir, I do not possess that data.
I will happily retract my comment if you possess more than anecdotal regarding success using a .223 on coastal brown bears.
I appreciate you enthusiasm for this combo, and I feel that encouraging hunting dangerous game with said combo is reckless unless you have statistically proven data to support its use.
Is there data that the PH in Africa supporting the use of this round for dangerous game?
Again, will defer to your knowledge on the use of the .223 on these critters…

I have no enthusiasm for the 223. I am aware of several big bears killed with 223’s, and will way less bullet than a TMK. The answer to my question is- there is aspect of the wound created by the 77gr TMK combo that is lacking on a bear. As with every other “caliber”, anywhere in the front half is dead bear.


People try to make this into magic. A 375? Ok, most bullets that people use in the big calibers create a much smaller wound than the TMK. So what aspect is giving you “more” with a 375 H&H and say a Barnes?

 

[Mangata]

I have no enthusiasm for the 223. I am aware of several big bears killed with 223’s, and will way less bullet than a TMK. The answer to my question is- there is aspect of the wound created by the 77gr TMK combo that is lacking on a bear. As with every other “caliber”, anywhere in the front half is dead bear.


People try to make this into magic. A 375? Ok, most bullets that people use in the big calibers create a much smaller wound than the TMK. So what aspect is giving you “more” with a 375 H&H and say a Barnes?

Not looking for a magic bullet… A wound channel from a TMK does not in and of itself make a hunter of dangerous game.

My concern is when this thread starts endorsing the use of .223 for coastal brown bear.
Could a well placed shot from a skilled hunter kill such bear, certainly.
Should 99% of the hunting population attempt this, definitely not…
There are no outfitters or guides using .223 for coastal brown bear that I am aware of. More than happy to cede my point if there is proof otherwise

 

[HandgunHTR]

Not looking for a magic bullet… A wound channel from a TMK does not in and of itself make a hunter of dangerous game.

My concern is when this thread starts endorsing the use of .223 for coastal brown bear.
Could a well placed shot from a skilled hunter kill such bear, certainly.
Should 99% of the hunting population attempt this, definitely not…
There are no outfitters or guides using .223 for coastal brown bear that I am aware of. More than happy to cede my point if there is proof otherwise

You are completely missing the point. The wound channel created by the TMK at .223 velocities creates a wound channel that is capable of taking any mammal on the North American continent , including Coastal Brown Bears. There is plenty of evidence in this thread of said wound channels, however I have a feeling you have not gone back and looked through it.
Contrary to popular belief bears of any nature are not that hard to kill. I would say that the reason why most outfitters or guides don't use a .223 is because they are just as ignorant as the majority of the shooting public who are still quoting wives tales that they got from their grandpappy. Add to that the fact that they are there as backup when stuff goes sideways and they need their bullet to penetrate from any angle into any body part. That requires a bit more than the combo talked about in this thread.
Technology in gun and bullet manufacturing has come a significant ways even in the last 10 years.
Rather than continue to believe out of date information (or information that was never true to begin with) I suggest doing the research before making glib comments.

And finally, in regards to the Africa comment, it wasn't until recently that you were even allowed to use a bow in most countries in Africa. It took Ashby to do a ton of research before they would allow it. And he proved that you could kill a Cape Buffalo with a 50 lb recurve if you used the right broadhead and hit them in the right place. So, there is that.

 

[BjornF16]

Wait…wut?!

People kill stuff with a stick?

 

[35WhelenAI]

The coastal brown bear will succumb with a superb wound channel from a .223 whilst running straight at you, heaven forbid, or is the guide going to use his .223 to create a .446 between the two guns?

HandgunHTR said "Add to that the fact that they are there as backup when stuff goes sideways and they need their bullet to penetrate from any angle into any body part. That requires a bit more than the combo talked about in this thread."

That's a de facto statement a .223 is marginal if the only kind of shot it can take is a dead on broad side. I'm sure guides are clamoring for guys to bring a .223 so they can get some shooting in as backup.

 

[Kimber7man]

OK, lightning round. You draw a coastal brown bear tag. You take a:
a) 223 with 77 grain TMK
b) something else

 

[Mangata]

You are completely missing the point. The wound channel created by the TMK at .223 velocities creates a wound channel that is capable of taking any mammal on the North American continent , including Coastal Brown Bears. There is plenty of evidence in this thread of said wound channels, however I have a feeling you have not gone back and looked through it.
Contrary to popular belief bears of any nature are not that hard to kill. I would say that the reason why most outfitters or guides don't use a .223 is because they are just as ignorant as the majority of the shooting public who are still quoting wives tales that they got from their grandpappy. Add to that the fact that they are there as backup when stuff goes sideways and they need their bullet to penetrate from any angle into any body part. That requires a bit more than the combo talked about in this thread.
Technology in gun and bullet manufacturing has come a significant ways even in the last 10 years.
Rather than continue to believe out of date information (or information that was never true to begin with) I suggest doing the research before making glib comments.

And finally, in regards to the Africa comment, it wasn't until recently that you were even allowed to use a bow in most countries in Africa. It took Ashby to do a ton of research before they would allow it. And he proved that you could kill a Cape Buffalo with a 50 lb recurve if you used the right broadhead and hit them in the right place. So, there is that.

Still waiting for anything more than anecdotal evidence…
Please present any data to support your said research so that I can stop with the glib comments
Oh, please include the bears die easy articles as well 😉

 

[grappling_hook]

I wonder how different this thread would have turned out if it had been titled "77gr TMK for Bear, Deer, Elk, and Moose" with the exact same OP. Clearly the ".223" is the eye-catcher and controversy-maker. I'll admit that when I first saw this thread when it was posted, I scrolled past thinking it was a joke (in spite of having taken several deer with a .223 rem). I finally read it when it hit page 5, and realized what it was really about (most centrally a bullet's performance, not a specific caliber/cartridge's performance).

 

[fwafwow]

Still waiting for anything more than anecdotal evidence…
Please present any data to support your said research so that I can stop with the glib comments
Oh, please include the bears die easy articles as well 😉

Is there more than anecdotal evidence for any particular cartridge and caliber combo, including those you think are universally accepted as sufficient?

 

[PNWGATOR]

Not looking for a magic bullet… A wound channel from a TMK does not in and of itself make a hunter of dangerous game.

My concern is when this thread starts endorsing the use of .223 for coastal brown bear.
Could a well placed shot from a skilled hunter kill such bear, certainly.
Should 99% of the hunting population attempt this, definitely not…
There are no outfitters or guides using .223 for coastal brown bear that I am aware of. More than happy to cede my point if there is proof otherwise

Send me in coach!

Would LOVE to kill a mature coastal boar.

Especially if @robby denning and @Ryan Avery are filming and sponsoring the adventure with me and my hunting partner.

Bullets matter.

See post #1.

I would take a 77TMK for a costal brown bear hunt, grizzly hunt or any ungulate species “once in a lifetime hunt“ without hesitation.

Killing animals inside of 450 yds…lots of other important choices that matter. Bullet delivery system combo wouldn‘t be in the top 10 things I’d give much thought to as the answer is clear.

 

[mt100gr.]

Still waiting for anything more than anecdotal evidence…
Please present any data to support your said research so that I can stop with the glib comments
Oh, please include the bears die easy articles as well 😉

Man, it's flesh and bone inside a leather pouch!! The bullet doesn't know if it's a bunny or a bruin. The wound channel will be what it will be when met with resistance from flesh and bone. The end.

**FWIW, it's difficult for me to imagine grabbing the .223 for a brownie, but I have seen what it does in flesh and bone....

 

[PNWGATOR]

The coastal brown bear will succumb with a superb wound channel from a .223 whilst running straight at you, heaven forbid, or is the guide going to use his .223 to create a .446 between the two guns?

HandgunHTR said "Add to that the fact that they are there as backup when stuff goes sideways and they need their bullet to penetrate from any angle into any body part. That requires a bit more than the combo talked about in this thread."

That's a de facto statement a .223 is marginal if the only kind of shot it can take is a dead on broad side. I'm sure guides are clamoring for guys to bring a .223 so they can get some shooting in as backup.

The wound channel and penetration of the .223 77TMK is horrific through hide, soft tissue and bone regardless of the angle!

 

[MED-D-NRG]

Is there more than anecdotal evidence for any particular cartridge and caliber combo, including those you think are universally accepted as sufficient?

Rathcoombe Studies:

Terminal Ballistics

The Practical Guide to Long Range Hunting Cartridges (Paperback) - The Practical Guide to Long Range Hunting Cartridges - Terminal Ballistics Research

This book draws on the vast experience of Nathan Foster and educates the reader about the key components of effective long range hunting cartridges.

www.ballisticstudies.com

"Nathan has taken over 7500 head of game testing the performance of a wide range of cartridges and projectiles and is a worldwide expert in the field of terminal ballistics. His ongoing research has been carefully recorded, analysed and documented in his online cartridge knowledge base (available on this website) for the benefit of all hunters and shooters."

Pretty long reads here but lots of data that goes against the grain of traditional hunting knowledge. Both talk about how the "match" style bullet isn't a freaking crumpled up tissue paper and can actually kill shit if used right, especially at lower velocity where it is more ideal than traditional hunting style bullets. Also, both specifically talk about the use of 223 on large game animals. They can and do work better than most would think, but why do you need or want to go that low when there are much better options available that also have completely manageable mild recoil. And just because the wound cavities are usually adequate doesn't mean you give up nothing to the same style bullet of a larger diameter and weight. Do the pictures on this thread prove a point? Yes. But are there better options out there for the task? Also yes.

 

[PNWGATOR]

Man, it's flesh and bone inside a leather pouch!! The bullet doesn't know if it's a bunny or a bruin. The wound channel will be what it will be when met with resistance from flesh and bone. The end.

**FWIW, it's difficult for me to imagine grabbing the .223 for a brownie, but I have seen what it does in flesh and bone....

PRECISELY!

Bullets matter...period.

Impact velocity matters.

Delivery system matters.

Crazy how many overcomplicate what actually matters in efficiently killing.

 

[PNWGATOR]

Terminal Ballistics

The Practical Guide to Long Range Hunting Cartridges (Paperback) - The Practical Guide to Long Range Hunting Cartridges - Terminal Ballistics Research

This book draws on the vast experience of Nathan Foster and educates the reader about the key components of effective long range hunting cartridges.

www.ballisticstudies.com

"Nathan has taken over 7500 head of game testing the performance of a wide range of cartridges and projectiles and is a worldwide expert in the field of terminal ballistics. His ongoing research has been carefully recorded, analysed and documented in his online cartridge knowledge base (available on this website) for the benefit of all hunters and shooters."

Pretty long reads here but lots of data that goes against the grain of traditional hunting knowledge. Both talk about how the "match" style bullet isn't a freaking crumpled up tissue paper and can actually kill shit if used right, especially at lower velocity where it is more ideal than traditional hunting style bullets. Also, both specifically talk about the use of 223 on large game animals. They can and do work better than most would think, but why do you need or want to go that low when there are much better options available that also have completely manageable mild recoil. And just because the wound cavities are usually adequate doesn't mean you give up nothing to the same style bullet of a larger diameter and weight. Do the pictures on this thread prove a point? Yes. But are there better options out there for the task? Also yes.

Like what?

Wound channel. Depth of wound channel. Shootability as a rifleman killing, what’s “better” inside of 450 yds?

 

[35WhelenAI]

The wound channel and penetration of the .223 77TMK is horrific through hide, soft tissue and bone regardless of the angle!

I take that to be coming from the voice of experience, so no rebuttal coming from me. But I'll take the 35 Whelen AI in the safe.