.223 for bear, mountain goat, deer, elk, and moose.

[wind gypsy]

I get 2880 out of my factory length Tikka

With 8208? How's brass life?

 

[RyanT26]

Is anyone running 77TMK in an AR mag? Are you just seating them at 2.260 and still loading to the 23gr’s?

 

[Formidilosus]

I know your getting bombarded with questions but figured I’d ask. What are you seeing for velocities with the above 8208 load? Iv got varget and xbr and need to pick a powder for this years 77s in Lapua brass. I’m at 2700 with mildly compressed varget in a 20” suppressed tikka factory barrel.

As has been stated, 2,840-2,880 for 22.4” barrels. 20” are 2,800-2,850.

With 8208? How's brass life?

Well, at least a couple firings. However seeing as it’s 223, and that is free at near any range I don’t know why it would matter

Is anyone running 77TMK in an AR mag? Are you just seating them at 2.260 and still loading to the 23gr’s?

Everything I shoot is AR mag length.

 

[Formidilosus]

To no one in particular-

You’re pole vaulting over mouse turds. Take a 77gr TMK, put 23.7gr (or 23.5or 23.3gr) of 8208 in a case (any case), with any standard SR primer, seat it to 2.26” COAL, shoot. That’s it. That combo has shot well in every single 223/5.56 we’ve tried it in.

 

[Adam Gibbs]

Those in need.... Midway and Blue Collar reloading have the 77 TMK in stock right now. BCR is cheaper. I got a couple hundred on the way to play with.

 

[Adam Gibbs]

To no one in particular-

You’re pole vaulting over mouse turds. Take a 77gr TMK, put 23.7gr (or 23.5or 23.3gr) of 8208 in a case (any case), with any standard SR primer, seat it to 2.26” COAL, shoot. That’s it. That combo has shot well in every single 223/5.56 we’ve tried it in.

Dumb question but when you refer to 8208 your are referring to IMR 8208 XBR right? I have a pound of that on hand currently, but I didn't know if there was another 8208 variant.

 

[Yellowknife]

Random additional data point to this thread.

My son took a caribou this week with his favored Tikka .233. As everyone knows, .223 loads are hard to find on the shelf these days, so we used some factory loads with Barnes 62 gr TSX that I had left over from deer hunting a couple years ago.

One shot to the shoulder and two follow ups to the ribs at just under 100 yds. All exited. The shoulder shot broke the joint on both sides. All of that was good.

Drawbacks... that little copper bullet essentially punched a 1" hole through the lungs. Bleed out was slow, and a coup de grace to the head was required a few minutes later.

Based on this and previous experience with blacktail, I have no concerns about penetration, but would prefer a softer expanding type bullet for more lung damage. We will continue to use this gun for smaller (by Alaska standards) game. My kids shoot it very well, and I like that.

 

[Fartrell Cluggins]

Random additional data point to this thread.

My son took a caribou this week with his favored Tikka .233. As everyone knows, .223 loads are hard to find on the shelf these days, so we used some factory loads with Barnes 62 gr TSX that I had left over from deer hunting a couple years ago.

One shot to the shoulder and two follow ups to the ribs at just under 100 yds. All exited. The shoulder shot broke the joint on both sides. All of that was good.

Drawbacks... that little copper bullet essentially punched a 1" hole through the lungs. Bleed out was slow, and a coup de grace to the head was required a few minutes later.

Based on this and previous experience with blacktail, I have no concerns about penetration, but would prefer a softer expanding type bullet for more lung damage. We will continue to use this gun for smaller (by Alaska standards) game. My kids shoot it very well, and I like that.

Another way that I am old school is that I still believe real bullets have lead.

 

[River rat23]

One shot to the shoulder and two follow ups to the ribs at just under 100 yds. All exited.

That illustrates some of the hang-ups with using small rifle cartridges , for one, and underperforming barnes bullets, for two. A larger cartridge , with the proper bullet choice, may have dropped that bou where it stood. Instead it got another 10 seconds of fun with a bullet hole in its shoulder. Ideally the bullets are supposed to drop all of their energy inside the target. Transfer all the energy possible. If it took 3 shots, and they all passed thru, that to me would indicate some issues I'd want to avoid. I have personally witnessed 2 black bear and a couple deer hit with barnes , and I will not load them any more. I'd rather hit the target animal with a large, rapidly expanding bullet, to transfer energy and put it down as quickly as possible. Very hard to beat many of the sierra, hornady , berger and nosler choices out there these days. Many of their offerings are much better suited for big game, in my opinion. Barnes may have its place, and they may kill animals, but i just don't believe they are the best tool for the job

 

[Reburn]

That illustrates some of the hang-ups with using small rifle cartridges , for one, and underperforming barnes bullets, for two. A larger cartridge , with the proper bullet choice, may have dropped that bou where it stood. Instead it got another 10 seconds of fun with a bullet hole in its shoulder. Ideally the bullets are supposed to drop all of their energy inside the target. Transfer all the energy possible. If it took 3 shots, and they all passed thru, that to me would indicate some issues I'd want to avoid. I have personally witnessed 2 black bear and a couple deer hit with barnes , and I will not load them any more. I'd rather hit the target animal with a large, rapidly expanding bullet, to transfer energy and put it down as quickly as possible. Very hard to beat many of the sierra, hornady , berger and nosler choices out there these days. Many of their offerings are much better suited for big game, in my opinion. Barnes may have its place, and they may kill animals, but i just don't believe they are the best tool for the job

You still dont understand and illustrate that by talking about energy.
Energy has nothing to do with bullets and how they perform. 0. zilch, nada.
You almost have a complete understanding just need to remove energy from your vocabulary and mind.

 

[PNWGATOR]

Another consideration is the ability to place multiple rounds on target quickly with the .223. Yes, animals get shot multiple times! It’s not due to a lack of terminal performance from the first hit. It’s due to the ability to spot your own impact, prep and reset and deliver a second and third round almost immediately. If the animal is standing after its shot, it gets shot again regardless of where the first round hit. When you’re dealing with recoil of larger calibers in field weight rifles, it’s often impossible to deliver an immediate second hit despite the animal presenting the opportunity for the same amount of time.

 

[Reburn]

Ok then. Please explain how bullets energy translate into bullet expansion and wound cavity.

 

[River rat23]

You still dont understand and illustrate that by talking about energy.
Energy has nothing to do with bullets and how they perform. 0. zilch, nada.
You almost have a complete understanding just need to remove energy from your vocabulary and mind.

I believe that projectile weight, velocity, and bullet composition have something to do with how an animal reacts when I drop the hammer. I believe one has to make their own decisions when comparing kinetic energy, or something like taylor knock-down values. I also believe that if l do my homework and pick a good bullet, I tend to knock things down. My vocab isn't great, I'm just a fabricator who used college to get a drinking degree.

As far as transferred bullet "energy" or whatever you'd like to call it, I know there is a difference between temporary wound channels, and permanent ones. PNWGATOR is 100% right on follow-up shots though. There def is something to be said there. I agree wholeheartedly that you keep shooting til it's down

 

[PNWGATOR]

Ft lbs of energy is not a wounding mechanism and is meaningless to terminal ballistics

 

[Reburn]

Work is the change in Kinetic Energy. Work is also Force times distance. Force over the bullet area is stress. Stress is related to strain (and ultimately yield and fracturing) via the modulus of elasticity. This is the simplified version, but energy is THE mechanism by which bullets expand. Geometry and material (characterized by the modulus of elasticity) play large roles as well.

Feel free to outline the formula(s) showing how velocity (not energy) deforms material.

Bullet manufacturers market bullets based on “impact velocity “ the same way the used to (and some still do) market MV and BC. We just have better tools to measure/calculate MV & BC today. Impact velocity is marketing.

You constantly try to muddy the waters showing how smart you are trying to explain a known value. Yes, energy is what expands the bullet. I thought everyone has had that figured out after 52 pages.

A velocity and weight formula calculates energy. Again, a known value.

Energy is what is needed to expand the bullet however this is simplified into velocity since the weight and construction of the projectile is a known value. So, X minimum velocity is needed to expand X bullet reliably. Impact velocity is not marketing. Impact velocity is showing the known value on which X bullet performs as designed reliably.

Bullet construction plays a greater role in wound channel. AKA greater energy in a dissimilar bullet construction doesn’t = greater wound channel.

please show how a 308 147grain FMJ provides a greater wound channel because of its energy then a 223, 77 TMK when both appllied at their minimum expansion velocity.

 

[Reburn]

LOL. You pejoratively tell a user that they are wrong - energy means nothing, nada, zilch, and only velocity matters. Now you’re butthurt when called out and want to explain that you knew all along that energy mattered and I’m muddying waters . I should be less surprised by internet interactions.

For a single bullet geometry & material as well as a single impact object geometry and material, you could back out velocity as a metric if that’s what you wanted to do. In today’s age, anyone can quickly figure out remaining energy just as quick as remaining velocity, so I’m not sure why you’d pick velocity as a metric in that circumstance. However, mfg’s don’t list “impact velocity” on a bullet-by-bullet basis nor do they characterize impact material geometry and material. They broadly characterize entire lines. This is part of the reason you hear folks say such-and-such bullet hit a ____ animal above states impact velocity and didn’t perform.

Impact velocity is 100% a marketing term. Impact velocity is a way that manufacturers package relatively complex science and SELL it to consumers….our bullet has a lower number so it’s more better. Marketing departments are typically …..”generous” in how they characterize their own products.

Here we go AGAIN. You jump into a converstation and try to make it something its not. I'm not butthurt at all you just have a tendency to jump in and say something is wrong and then explian why jumping to a completely different topic. You do this often and are doing it now. I should be less surprised by your arrogance but it amazes me everytime. You are a knowledgable individual but you cant keep on track for a conversation and like to run down a rabbit hole nobody was talking about to try and use big words and formulas to make yourself appear smart.

As River rat was using energy as a metric he was wrong. It doenst translate into a larger wound channel or better killing power. This has been established.

Nobody has been talking about how much energy it takes to make a buller perform. I didnt choose to use velocity as the metric that a bullet performs the industry and everyone else did. I guess people could say this bullet performed will at this yardarge with this energy but that leave people guessing and having to back track and figure out what velocity it was at that it performed. That seems silly. Its much easier to say a 77 TMK performs reliably at 1800 FPS. The energy is the same at 1800 fps on a 77 grain bullet across all guns. However a 14.5" barrel 1800 fps equals a shorter yardage then a 22" barrel. The user can figure out their own yardage.

This is the only thing I agree with Marketing departments are typically …..”generous” in how they characterize their own products. But that goes across all industries not just bullets. Im sure they package it simply as FPS because they dont want to have similar converstation with 200 guys like you daily.

You typed yourself into a corner when you started saying this is how shooters and hunters talk about what impact velocity a bullet did or did not perform. If you have a issue with manufactors saying X bullets performs down to this veloicty take it up with them. As hunter and shooters I'm sure we will continue to use impact velocity as a metric and not impact energy as like I said. Listing energy just muddies the waters for people that havent grasped that greater energy doesnt translate into better wound channels.

 

[Nomosendero]

That illustrates some of the hang-ups with using small rifle cartridges , for one, and underperforming barnes bullets, for two. A larger cartridge , with the proper bullet choice, may have dropped that bou where it stood. Instead it got another 10 seconds of fun with a bullet hole in its shoulder. Ideally the bullets are supposed to drop all of their energy inside the target. Transfer all the energy possible. If it took 3 shots, and they all passed thru, that to me would indicate some issues I'd want to avoid. I have personally witnessed 2 black bear and a couple deer hit with barnes , and I will not load them any more. I'd rather hit the target animal with a large, rapidly expanding bullet, to transfer energy and put it down as quickly as possible. Very hard to beat many of the sierra, hornady , berger and nosler choices out there these days. Many of their offerings are much better suited for big game, in my opinion. Barnes may have its place, and they may kill animals, but i just don't believe they are the best tool for the job

Not to disagree with you at all, in fact I have see the same thing, esp. with the original Barnes. My question is, was the poor performance from a TSX or TTSX ? I ask because they are quite different in my experience!

 

[Yellowknife]

That illustrates some of the hang-ups with using small rifle cartridges , for one, and underperforming barnes bullets, for two. A larger cartridge , with the proper bullet choice, may have dropped that bou where it stood. Instead it got another 10 seconds of fun with a bullet hole in its shoulder. ...... Barnes may have its place, and they may kill animals, but i just don't believe they are the best tool for the job

As it happens, it did drop the bou where it stood. Traveled zero feet. Not a bad shot for a 12 yr old off his knee.

He actually used a "larger cartridge" on his last caribou with some softer lead bullets. The larger caliber was theoretically an improvement, but we found that the slightly larger/heavier gun that went with it required him to shoot with a solid rest. This was a significant handicap in the very dynamic world of caribou and involved a lot of repositioning and running around to get him lined up. Going back to the light and accurate .223 on this one meant he could make accurate shots from field positions. The caribou was trotting past us. I whistled at it. It paused to look. He put it on the ground. The whole thing was over faster and cleaner. No regrets at all.

The bullet(s) performed entirely as I expected. Barnes weren't my first choice... they were just my only choice this year. As usual, they got the job done.

 

[Formidilosus]

Dumb question but when you refer to 8208 your are referring to IMR 8208 XBR right?

Correct.

 

[Shraggs]

Work is the change in Kinetic Energy. Work is also Force times distance. Force over the bullet area is stress. Stress is related to strain (and ultimately yield and fracturing) via the modulus of elasticity. This is the simplified version, but energy is THE mechanism by which bullets expand. Geometry and material (characterized by the modulus of elasticity) play large roles as well.

Feel free to outline the formula(s) showing how velocity (not energy) deforms material.

Bullet manufacturers market bullets based on “impact velocity “ the same way the used to (and some still do) market MV and BC. We just have better tools to measure/calculate MV & BC today. Impact velocity is marketing.

Kenitc energy is not a real physics calculation, yes work energy momentum are. If go back to my school days.

I’m amazed how much information with photography and yet here this is.

So, an arrow with 60 lbs if BS kenetic energy won’t kill then….

I have never ever seen or read a bullet mfg sell speed either, wth…. Rather some real smart engineers who design Bullets Have specified parameters of how they will perform as described by speed.