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

[Shō[t]gun]

Can you explain what a video is going to show you? And, what do you think the difference is between a bull elk and cow elk, or a bull moose? There have been bull elk killed with the combo and they died just like every other has.

Again- if you would read the thread, your questions have already been answered multiple times.

A video shows the whole story with no spin, exaggeration, or bias. It's surprising that with how many people record their hunts these days there's not a single one floating around. A forum thread can quickly become the highlight reel of an echo chamber where not all experiences are advertised if they don't support the trend.
The difference? A few hundred pounds body weight, which isn't nearly as relevant as the cross-section of the chest which is an additional couple inches in radius between a cow elk to a bull, then again to a bull moose, and keep adding for angled shots. The notion that even a slightly larger round of the same parameters is entirely unnecessary and has zero advantage over the 77gr is just plain wrong from a physics standpoint. Not everyone else is timid of recoil and no elk is going to be blown apart by a 6.5 Creedmoor or 7-08. There's a difference between a seasoned proficient shooter with lots of time in the field to pass bad shots, and a one week a year hunter who may only get one or two opportunities. I pity those who are forced to pass because of the bullet choice and those who watch one limp over the hill because they didn't pass. But I doubt they're running back here to talk about it. Rant over.

 

[35WhelenAI]

A video shows the whole story with no spin, exaggeration, or bias. It's surprising that with how many people record their hunts these days there's not a single one floating around. A forum thread can quickly become the highlight reel of an echo chamber where not all experiences are advertised if they don't support the trend.
The difference? A few hundred pounds body weight, which isn't nearly as relevant as the cross-section of the chest which is an additional couple inches in radius between a cow elk to a bull, then again to a bull moose, and keep adding for angled shots. The notion that even a slightly larger round of the same parameters is entirely unnecessary and has zero advantage over the 77gr is just plain wrong from a physics standpoint. Not everyone else is timid of recoil and no elk is going to be blown apart by a 6.5 Creedmoor or 7-08. There's a difference between a seasoned proficient shooter with lots of time in the field to pass bad shots, and a one week a year hunter who may only get one or two opportunities. I pity those who are forced to pass because of the bullet choice and those who watch one limp over the hill because they didn't pass. But I doubt they're running back here to talk about it. Rant over.

Well written, good points all.

 

[Formidilosus]

A video shows the whole story with no spin, exaggeration, or bias.

So what stops someone from just posting a video where it went well, and not ones where it didn’t?

 

[Formidilosus]

Well written, good points all.

Really? Can you point out the “good points” that are rooted in fact and not an abbreviated attempt at discrediting something using fallacy and no first hand experience?

 

[Drenalin]

This is where we’re at - only people who video their hunts are to be taken seriously?

 

[Antares]

4k Ultra HD or it didn't happen.

 

[Billy Goat]

This is where we’re at - only people who video their hunts are to be taken seriously?

Or to assume that animals react evenly across the board from the same impacts. Only thing that guarantees a bang flop is a hit to CNS, and that's not always an extremely lethal shot, it puts them down, but high shoulder can leave them alive for a while since it doesn't always cause a lot of blood loss. But it looks good.

 

[fwafwow]

Fwiw I don’t care if you disagree with a point or opinion, but if you do so without having read the entire thread, it’s obvious.

 

[woods89]

This is where we’re at - only people who video their hunts are to be taken seriously?

This makes me a total poser!

 

[Reburn]

There's a difference between a seasoned proficient shooter with lots of time in the field to pass bad shots, and a one week a year hunter who may only get one or two opportunities.

Huh?
This sounds like,

"bigger bullets kill better"
"Bigger bullets will still kill better with sub par shots"
"Bigger bullets allow you to punch the shoulder in bad shot situations a 223 is too light it will just bounce off."

These are literally the things this entire thread has proven wrong. If you dont want to dont. Nobody here cares what you do. but dont be making totally wrong statements because you havent read the material.

I bet you were the kid that watched the movie to write the book report.

 

[Rob5589]

4k Ultra HD or it didn't happen.

2015 called and wants it 4k back. It's 5k now homie

 

[Shraggs]

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

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 guess my point was, and not all being rude, genuinely your quoting experts to refute something you don’t know yourself to be true or not, but they advocate something very traditional hence 223/77 tmk is wrong. They don’t know either.

As I said many of us started that way to this thread initially. Many see it differently now after doing it.

I’m not Form, so I’m not going to explain your question. Form is not the only contributing credible hunter in this thread that I consider far more experts than crap thats written or podcasted. That’s me. Not even sure how many dozens of mixed big game animals he shoots annually with 233, 6cm 6.5, 308, 300 wm and I think others, including many different bullet types, from point blank to at least 975 yards.

Honestly, when I had those questions early as my knowledge base was blown up - they were answered in detail in this thread on how certain designs react differently in animals. Ie tissue damage. There are couple other threads that address wounding differences of bullets also.

It seems if you read you wouldn’t be asking. You may not change but the answers are here.

I’ve killed a buck few years ago just shy 300 yards. Broadside with 308 165 accubond. High heart both lungs. Went 55 yards staggering after initial lunge. Top of heart shredded approx 3” swath of lungs damaged.

This year, doe at similar distance, a few less than above, same shot but with 233/77 same outcome, she hunched and slowly trotted and dropped. Prolly 30 yards. Biggest visual, the entire lungs were deflated and mush. I don’t carry a tape measure, I let Form do that

Apples to apples where I’m standing.

 

[Tobe_B]

2015 called and wants it 4k back. It's 5k now homie

You’re both old. This is the Snapchat generation. “Snap it or it didn’t happen”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[taba]

Pearls before swine.

LOL

 

[ridgeline]

Nothing better than the "experience" of not using something...

 

[DJL2]

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.

If the first one didn’t do the job it wasn’t a good shot. The same goes for the subsequent shots. No magic in this. You hit the vitals, the job is done, and the only question is time to expiration. Bullet choice matters a great deal there.

I saw that video. What are your thoughts on the 3 shots from the .338 RUM? I wonder if the shots were too far forward and simply missed the heart/lungs completely.

See above. Hunting is a tense, adrenaline pumping business. Aim small, miss small still applies though. A wide wound channel might be 2-3” and a narrow wound perhaps 1-1.5” - a big difference, certainly, but not enough to save a bad shot.

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!

Feel free to check out www.ballisticstudies.com. It’s already referenced in this thread. Mr. Foster has plenty of time shooting fully fragmentary bullets (aka: the TMK, old A-Max, now ELD-M) from a variety of calibers and cartridges. If I can be so bold as to recommend a different source than this thread.

 

[clperry]

Since I can't replenish the 77 tmks at the moment, I'm going to see if I these 175s will impress out of 308, 06, and WM.

The 195’s out of a 300wm make what one might call…. A mess.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[35WhelenAI]

Really? Can you point out the “good points” that are rooted in fact and not an abbreviated attempt at discrediting something using fallacy and no first hand experience?

1) Those hunters were unthinking and looking for a video in their pursuit, what happened with that cartridge has little to do with a cartridge and everything to do with them choosing to let off a shot on that bear. They owned it, a credit to them on that. Yet, stars in their eyes clouded their judgment even with the "experience" they represent. The fact it didn't cross their mind while in the field says a lot about what many folks do but will not own up to with any rifle.

2) The .223 debate does discount larger calibers as not necessary and paints the shade of being less effective on-game. Dead is dead, Wound pictures are just that, pictures of a dead animal. Lord, I wish I had taken pictures of the vitals for the last 30 years with my larger caliber rifles, and the other harvests I've been part of.

3) There are many hunters that fit the description of not being seasoned in the field they are hunting. I meet them each year. They have hunted deer as their main big game and now they are hunting elk in the mountain west for one week every other year or less frequently.

4) When following the advice of a smaller caliber frangible bullet, when faced with a shot at a less than ideal angle, will they pass on a shot? Will the .223 with the 77 TMK unequivocally reach the vitals from the same angles as a 6.5/.270/7mm/.308 caliber/.358 caliber on the same apples to apples shot presentation?

Those are good points he made. Whether you agree or disagree, they show a side of the discussion and he backed them.

 

[35WhelenAI]

Feel free to check out www.ballisticstudies.com. It’s already referenced in this thread. Mr. Foster has plenty of time shooting fully fragmentary bullets (aka: the TMK, old A-Max, now ELD-M) from a variety of calibers and cartridges. If I can be so bold as to recommend a different source than this thread.

Good points and observations he presents.

 

[ARK_Ginger]

4) When following the advice of a smaller caliber frangible bullet, when faced with a shot at a less than ideal angle, will they pass on a shot? Will the .223 with the 77 TMK unequivocally reach the vitals from the same angles as a 6.5/.270/7mm/.308 caliber/.358 caliber on the same apples to apples shot presentation?

Those are good points he made. Whether you agree or disagree, they show a side of the discussion and he backed them.

This point has been answered ad nauseam in this thread alone (and makes your other points moot in my view). People who have not read the thread wish to keep bringing it up to cast doubt on the 77gr TMK combo without informing themselves on the subject.

To clarify, there is no less than ideal angle that the 77gr TMK will not reach the vitals where a larger caliber will.