.223 for bear, deer, elk and moose.

[100 others]

wrong bullet. 77 TMK is the star for tissue damage.

Meant to say TMK like the rest of my posts. I'll change it

 

[ztc92]

Using what metric to measure damage? And apples to oranges anyway using a different bullet. My question is what makes 77 such a magic number that is more effective than other heavy-for-caliber TMK's in heavier weights at the same velocity?

I am fairly new to using the 223/77TMK combination myself but have hunted with people who have been using it for years with great success. I have no dog in this fight so am hoping I can offer an outsider’s perspective to answer your question…

My understanding from reading this thread in its entirety and visiting with people who are very familiar with using the 223/77TMK on large game is that it is thought to be a near perfect wound channel out to ~450 yards. What I mean by that (and the answer to your question) is that going to a larger caliber bullet of this style leads to excessive damage and meat loss that many would deem unacceptable if hunting for meat is the goal. I have seen photos of deer nearly split in half despite perfect shot placement due to using a similar style bullet out of a .30 caliber. If I recall correctly the only meat that could be salvaged from that deer was the hindquarters, the rear 1/3 of the backstraps and some neck meat.

From what I’ve gathered, many of those labeled “fudds” on this forum are recommending a larger caliber in order to push larger bullets that actually wound less well than smaller bullets designed for optimal wounding (like the 77 TMK). Early in the thread someone made a comparison to engines and I think it was along the lines of, “223/TMK is like a V6 engine running perfectly while 300WM with traditional hunting bullets is like having a V8 but then removing half the spark plugs so it only performs like a 4-cylinder engine”. Using that analogy, I would add that supercharging your V8 (using TMK style bullets in a 300WM) adds more power to it then the majority of people would desire or find beneficial.

Now if you are asking specifically about dangerous game like bears, then perhaps the excessive tissue destruction that would be produced by a heavier TMK or other similar bullet could be desired by some. Personally, I doubt the bear would be any more dead from a larger caliber TMK but prefer not to bring home a bear rug that looks more like a poncho.

 

[Billy Goat]

Using what metric to measure damage? And apples to oranges anyway using a different bullet. My question is what makes 77 such a magic number that is more effective than other heavy-for-caliber TMK's in heavier weights at the same velocity?

Wound channels are what have been discussed at length here.

It seems it's not soo much the 77 gr is magic, just the construction of the TMK in general, and that it becomes a tremendous amount of overkill in larger calibers like 7 and 30. ELD-M in a lot of gr/cal is not far behind.

If ultimately your goal is penetration, then you might as well use a solid copper. I think the goal should be to balance penetration and wound channel, unless you want to or need to shoot an animal long ways for some reason, the 77 tmk at 2000+ impact for the most part covers what you need for penetration and wound channel.

 

[id_jon]

Are there magazine limits for hunting in alaska? Because I'd sure feel more comfortable facing down a bear with my AR and 30 rounds of tmks than I would with a stiff recoiling bolt gun.

 

[100 others]

I have seen photos of deer nearly split in half despite perfect shot placement due to using a similar style bullet out of a .30 caliber. If I recall correctly the only meat that could be salvaged from that deer was the hindquarters, the rear 1/3 of the backstraps and some neck meat.

Any more details on this scenario?
Contrary to popular belief, most skeptics would also agree that a 30cal magnum is excessive for deer.

 

[grappling_hook]

Are there magazine limits for hunting in alaska? Because I'd sure feel more comfortable facing down a bear with my AR and 30 rounds of tmks than I would with a stiff recoiling bolt gun.

Nope, you can use a 30 round magazine hunting in Alaska.

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

IMO, worrying about meat loss is like worry about scoring a touchdown before you even catch the ball. When I shoot at an animal, I want it dead as quickly as possible, whether I'm trying to fill the freezer or kill a trophy. If that means using a bullet that creates larger wound channels at the expense of meat loss, that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make.

I shot the bull in my profile at 80 yards with a 175 grain Federal TA in .308. The shot was broadside at steep down angle, penetrating high side of near lung down through the full height of the far lung. He dropped to his front knees, stood back up, turned around, and walked about 50 yards before falling for good. I shot a second time just before he dropped, but we didn't find any more holes in him.

The impact velocity was roughly 2500FPS, and the controlled expansion bonded bullet exited and wasn't recovered. Obviously it did the job, but if a 168 grain TMK dropped him dead in his tracks, that would've been my preference. If I knew then what I know now...

 

[100 others]

Wound channels are what have been discussed at length here.

It seems it's not soo much the 77 gr is magic, just the construction of the TMK in general, and that it becomes a tremendous amount of overkill in larger calibers like 7 and 30. ELD-M in a lot of gr/cal is not far behind.

If ultimately your goal is penetration, then you might as well use a solid copper. I think the goal should be to balance penetration and wound channel, unless you want to or need to shoot an animal long ways for some reason, the 77 tmk at 2000+ impact for the most part covers what you need for penetration and wound channel.

I've looked through the thread, glassed through much of the silliness, and still have yet to see many pictures that accurately show internal damage that can be inspected. Most are just a bloody hole or skin-off bloodshot meat which isn't much to go off of. Excuse me if I happened to miss it, but has anyone uploaded a video of the 77 on bull elk? That would help change some skeptical minds.
I'm a medium-caliber guy and really don't feel the need to experiment with the small stuff or the monsters, but if there are videos of these working great on bull elk and up I'd love to take the time to watch it.

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

I've looked through the thread, glassed through much of the silliness, and still have yet to see many pictures that accurately show internal damage that can be inspected. Most are just a bloody hole or skin-off bloodshot meat which isn't much to go off of. Excuse me if I happened to miss it, but has anyone uploaded a video of the 77 on bull elk? That would help change some skeptical minds.
I'm a medium-caliber guy and really don't feel the need to experiment with the small stuff or the monsters, but if there are videos of these working great on bull elk and up I'd love to take the time to watch it.

Depending on your definition of "small stuff", check out the .243/6mm success thread. If I recall, there are some videos on there of kill shots, and there are definitely a ton of pictures.

https://rokslide.com/forums/threads/6mm-243-hunting-success-on-big-game.284525/

 

[TW907]

The natives here in Alaska shoot and kill just about everything in this state with the cheapest 223 bullet they can find. That being said they kill just as many as they wound

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

The natives here in Alaska shoot and kill just about everything in this state with the cheapest 223 bullet they can find. That being said they kill just as many as they wound

Charlie Wright from "Yukon Men" always carried what looked like a surplus M-16A1 for moose near Tanana.

 

[100 others]

Depending on your definition of "small stuff", check out the .243/6mm success thread. If I recall, there are some videos on there of kill shots, and there are definitely a ton of pictures.

https://rokslide.com/forums/threads/6mm-243-hunting-success-on-big-game.284525/

Lots of pictures, mostly deer and smaller, no videos. About what you'd expect from 6mm's except for the fella from South Africa.
Like I was saying earlier, none of that looks excessive and 6mm's definitely didn't cause any bruised shoulders or twitches regardless of rifle weight.
Please update when you get a 168TMK in an elk, that's right up my alley!

 

[bojangles808]

any factory come close to the damage the 77 grain tmk does? I see black hills makes some but looks hard to come by. I also don't reload.

 

[TW907]

Charlie Wright from "Yukon Men" always carried what looked like a surplus M-16A1 for moose near Tanana.

Heck yea! I skinned a moose this fall that had 3 223 rounds in it.

 

[Jake Leibke]

Soooooo...

3 large, poorly placed, rifle rounds didn't kill/slow down the bear; but a single, well placed pistol shot appears to have killed the bear?

Is that a good summary?

In short I would say that is a good summary. They also stated in the video that is was about 45 min from first shot to last shot. I haven’t come across any critters that have lasted that long after even 1 well placed shot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[100 others]

Heck yea! I skinned a moose this fall that had 3 223 rounds in it.

Did they mushroom or break up at all? Or was it some jack wagon poking holes with FMJ's?

 

[TW907]

Did they mushroom or break up at all? Or was it some jack wagon poking holes with FMJ's?

They was mushroomed

 

[Formidilosus]

Did they mushroom or break up at all? Or was it some jack wagon poking holes with FMJ's?

Why don’t you actually read the entire thread- every post. There is no place on the internet that has as much actual discussion of how bullets kill- with pictures, in animals, than this thread. Every “got ya” you are stating has been discussed at length. You are not only incorrect with your assertions, you are ignorant of the subject.

 

[BigNate]

The latest stuck in the rut has some pretty exciting footage. Three good shots from a 338 rum, Then five more from a 454.

Do you know what bullets were used in the 338 RUM?

This sounds to me like poor bullet performance. My first guess would be a heavier mono of some flavor, most likely a Barnes.

 

[Billogna]

Do you know what bullets were used in the 338 RUM?

This sounds to me like poor bullet performance. My first guess would be a heavier mono of some flavor, most likely a Barnes.

225 gr. Accubonds were used in the rifle.