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

[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.

 

[BjornF16]

Anecdotal, I know, but a lot of .22 rimfire, .223 and .243 used by Inuit for everything including polar bear.

I don’t know of any “scientific” studies of what cartridges kill great bears the best, much less any other critter

 

[Mangata]

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

Certainly, numerous pics of coastal brown bears that have been collected with said combination would be a start.
Having an endorsement of the combination by someone who guides that area for said animals.
Thus far we have @Formidilosus knowing of some big bears that were killed with smaller bullets.
So please forgive me, there doesn’t seem to be a significant amount of data for this combination hunting coastal brown bear…

 

[Shō[t]gun]

Like what?

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

Both those links go into that far better than I can.
Are you arguing that the 223/77tmk gives any shooter on any animal at any angle the most room for error? And that there is zero benefit in using any larger cartridge?

 

[Wolf_trapper]

I'd be willing to bet anybody who's actually killed griz or coastal browns wouldnt recommend a .223.
Elk, black bear, moose sure. Griz no. Would it kill one? Yes. Would you be tracking it through the brush, most likely. They are substantially thicker skinned/muscled than species listed above.

I really like/agree with this thread but disagree with this idea. Based on personal first hand experience. I can shoot a suppressed .30 cal comfortably which would turn it to a bang flop ordeal instead of, let's see what happens.

 

[PNWGATOR]

I'd be willing to bet anybody who's actually killed griz or coastal browns wouldnt recommend a .223.
Elk, black bear, moose sure. Griz no. Would it kill one? Yes. Would you be tracking it through the brush, most likely. They are substantially thicker skinned/muscled than species listed above.

I really like/agree with this thread but disagree with this idea. Based on personal first hand experience. I can shoot a suppressed .30 cal comfortably which would turn it to a bang flop ordeal instead of, let's see what happens.

Simply due to ignorance reference your first sentence.

I didn’t make my statement without experience.

I assure you, there would be no “let’s see what happens” as I know the answer.

 

[fwafwow]

"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.

Sounds like 7500 anecdotes. My post was not saying anecdotes aren’t worth considering, but that there are no studies (in the true sense of the word) because it’s probably impossible. That book is a longer version of this thread of anecdotes, but without reading it I don’t know if it comes to a different conclusion.

 

[LoggerDan]

Sure , it may kill one, but how badly will you hurt waiting for the bear to realize it’s dead. The latest stuck in the rut has some pretty exciting footage. Three good shots from a 338 rum, Then five more from a 454.

 

[mtnwrunner]

Jeez, some people still believe the world is flat. How does one really know??
All one can really do is educate themselves by either their own experiences or reading and seeing what others are doing or have done. Then they can decide. If you want to use a .375, go ahead.
Fwiw......I've personally been down the 300 win mag, 338 edge, 340 weatherby and 300 rum road......all I have now is 6, 6.5's and 223. (and a 308 just because.) I would and do use ANY of those for big game. And out of all those, the most dead bang flops are from the 6.5's and a 140 berger.

P.s....the most fun ones to shoot are the 6 creed and the 223. What a hoot.

Randy

 

[Wolf_trapper]

Simply due to ignorance reference your first sentence.

I didn’t make my statement without experience.

I assure you, there would be no “let’s see what happens” as I know the answer.

So how many have you killed and with what caliber and bullet?

 

[PNWGATOR]

Brown bear? Zero.

If you’re paying, I’m hunting.

 

[mtnwrunner]

Brown bear? Zero.

If you’re paying, I’m hunting.

He absolutely loves spending other people's money.

Randy

 

[ljalberta]

Sure , it may kill one, but how badly will you hurt waiting for the bear to realize it’s dead. The latest stuck in the rut has some pretty exciting footage. Three good shots from a 338 rum, Then five more from a 454.

Three good shots from a 338 rum, and it still took 5 more from a 454?!? Sounds like maybe the shots weren’t so good, or maybe it’s really enforcing the idea of this thread, that bullets, not head stamps matter?

I suppose I’ll have to watch.

 

[Shō[t]gun]

It seems a lot of the arguing is over the concept of "adequate" vs "ideal" for killing the larger of the N.A. big game species. Ideal would be an asteroid, and apparently the low end of adequate would be the 223 based on this thread. Limited by the obvious constraints of wanting to keep the animal in one piece, saving the meat, and carrying the means to deliver the payload, the ideal projectile will be the one that you personally can deliver the most damage with accurately. It's been well-established that a high SD bullet of medium toughness at a moderate velocity, and a high enough BC to maintain that velocity for a long window is a fantastic choice (many TMK bullets follow this outline). So now the only constraint for bullet weight is recoil tolerance which is different for everyone, but I have a hard time understanding why the recoil of anything larger than a 223 is being so exaggerated here.

It has definitely moved the goal post further down the bullet weight spectrum for what is openly considered viable, but ideal is a stretch. Pick whatever data you want (personal experience, friends experiences, videos, books, magazines, whatever), there is enough evidence out there that large animals have taken great hits from great bullets that caused plenty of damage and worked as intended, only for that animal to take a long sprint anyway. It's hard to imagine how a step down in wound potential would inspire more confidence.

 

[Shō[t]gun]

Sounds like 7500 anecdotes. My post was not saying anecdotes aren’t worth considering, but that there are no studies (in the true sense of the word) because it’s probably impossible. That book is a longer version of this thread of anecdotes, but without reading it I don’t know if it comes to a different conclusion.

True, too many variables in the field to recreate accurately. But 7500+ kills in one brain is a pretty good start. He is a big fan of tipped match bullets and describes the benefits/limitations of each one at each weight. He's definitely no Fudd.

 

[LoggerDan]

@ljalberta -

watch the flick. Shows it nicely. Yes, they were good hits. Regardless of the debate, it was good watching.

bullets were 225 accubonds. A decent bullet, but not one of my faves.

 

[Shraggs]

Is it me, or every few months we have new members jump to the end of this and comment about the inferior choice of a 223/77TMK with what appears not fully reading every single page, the photo evidence and other early non believers who purchased and have since killed with it and commented.

But to come across as an authority (maybe you are, maybe not), recent comments are void of any first hand eye witness of what this bullet does first hand, just references.
Sorry but you can’t legitimately dismiss something you don’t know.

My 77 tmk in my 223 will flat do more tissue damage at 300 yards than my 308 using 165 accubonds at similar ranges. Significantly. Next year photos.

 

[chamois]

As much as this post opened my eyes and as much as my experience on 20ish deer killed with the 77TMK goes, if I were to shoot an animal that can bite back, I would choose a similar bullet, with similar wounding capabilities, but with a heavier weight and a larger diameter.

I am sure it can be done gently with my 5,6x50R and the 77TMK, it is just that I would choose something larger.

 

[Shō[t]gun]

But to come across as an authority (maybe you are, maybe not), recent comments are void of any first hand eye witness of what this bullet does first hand, just references.
Sorry but you can’t legitimately dismiss something you don’t know.

That isn't anywhere near what was said. Referring to actual authority figures on the subject is different than projecting as one.

My 77 tmk in my 223 will flat do more tissue damage at 300 yards than my 308 using 165 accubonds at similar ranges. Significantly. Next year photos.

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?