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

[Billy Goat]

@packgoatguy

“Bullets matter more than headstamps.”

The 77gr TMK delivered by a .223 is where I ended up

This is from the opening post, the first quote, and the opening line being the most important. It's bullets that kill, a cartridge is just what gets them there. The 77TMK is mentioned 4 times in the opener, no other 22 cal bullets. This thread is about the TMK, others get brought up as possible substitutes, but the thread is about the TMK, the most used delivery happens to be a .223, but it's not limited to it. Bringing up all the other bullets in a .223 isn't what this thread is about. Perhaps it causes pause and makes people think a little more on bullet construction for their favored calibers, like maybe it's the bullets and placement that kill, not calibers. Hmm, full circle?


The title is click bait, which I guess you still haven't realized.

 

[fwafwow]

If you are honestly seeking an answer, it will take but a few minutes to read all of the posts I've contributed to this thread since early this morning.

I very much appreciate your sense of humor

 

[packgoatguy]

Never felt the need to use the ignore feature…until now

Yep. I have certainly been schooled today. Shame on me for assuming this was a forum for well reasoned and rational discussion. I apologize for trying to contribute something other than one-liners, zingers, or cute emojis. I will do my best to bring it more to everyone's level next time...

look, i even found the emoji button... can I play with the big kids now?

 

[Castle Rock]

The goat packer is on fire

 

[packgoatguy]

@packgoatguy










This is from the opening post, the first quote, and the opening line being the most important. It's bullets that kill, a cartridge is just what gets them there. The 77TMK is mentioned 4 times in the opener, no other 22 cal bullets. This thread is about the TMK, others get brought up as possible substitutes, but the thread is about the TMK, the most used delivery happens to be a .223, but it's not limited to it. Bringing up all the other bullets in a .223 isn't what this thread is about. Perhaps it causes pause and makes people think a little more on bullet construction for their favored calibers, like maybe it's the bullets and placement that kill, not calibers. Hmm, full circle?


The title is click bait, which I guess you still haven't realized.

Umm... my point exactly... this all started this morning when I pointed out that the idea of the 223/tmk may certainly be valid... but is purely academic when the bullets or ammo doesn't exist it the real world (at least for many of us)... and it was suggested that there are many alternatives to the 77tmk... and I pointed out that they are all inferior in some way, and that maximum range intentions should be modified based on said alternatives... read my first couple posts... its all there. And no offense, but I wasn't the one who brought up the other bullet options.

 

[packgoatguy]

The goat packer is on fire

did I get it right?

 

[mtnwrunner]

I would like to remind everyone to play nice.

Randy

 

[packgoatguy]

Sorry, but this is incorrect. Bullet selection is everything. Even before shooting the TMK at animals I had discovered this years ago with medium bore cartridges. I shot two deer back to back with the TMK last year at 200 yards. Damage was beyond what I have seen for years with bonded bullets(several different types). I shot two deer this year with a 6.5 creed at 25 and 30 yards using accubonds. Larger caliber, shorter range=more damage right? Not even close. I pulled lungs out with a half dollar size hole though them, the TMK turned everything in the front half to jello. Not saying there was anything wrong with the accubonds at all but to say that bullet selection doesn't matter is just plain wrong.

See... this is what I'm sayin... what was "incorrect" about his post? Are you arguing that he hasn't killed the number of animals he says says he has? Or do you just disagree with HIS opinion (based on what sounds like a not insignificant amount of experience) about the reasonable limitations he perceives in the 223? You also imply that he didn't use the tmk... maybe he did?? Do you know this guy and know otherwise? Maybe he used 62gr gold dots, or 73 eldm, or 75 eldm, or any other bullets regarded in this thread as being "almost" as good as the tmk... you don't know what he used...

That said... your anecdotal evidence you provided from your personal experience was enlightening and valuable to the discussion. Thank you for your valid and relevant contribution.

 

[mt100gr.]

did I get it right?

Do you really think that anyone on a forum is responsible for another's (stranger) decisions? Do we all need to qualify everything we say just in case Joe Dumbass might make a poor decision, or not read the entire thread?

If someone doesn't do their homework (and leg work) and substitutes "any 'ol bullet cuz the innernet said so" it's on them. Education can be expensive.

The .224 73gr OTMs work pretty well, too! There's some info 100+ pages back, with qualifying information!

 

[280Ackley]

Umm... my point exactly... this all started this morning when I pointed out that the idea of the 223/tmk may certainly be valid... but is purely academic when the bullets or ammo doesn't exist it the real world (at least for many of us)... and it was suggested that there are many alternatives to the 77tmk... and I pointed out that they are all inferior in some way, and that maximum range intentions should be modified based on said alternatives... read my first couple posts... its all there. And no offense, but I wasn't the one who brought up the other bullet options.

You have repeatedly said that that the 77TMK are unavailable but I just started down the 223 road in the last 1-1/2 months. I have bought 500 77 TMK and 40 loaded cartridges at normal prices. I also could have purchased others but passed because I was just getting started.

I have had all of my questions answered and have been corrected a few times when I was wrong about the way I looked at things. I would suggest taking a day off and mellow down a bit!

 

[BjornF16]

Umm... my point exactly... this all started this morning when I pointed out that the idea of the 223/tmk may certainly be valid... but is purely academic when the bullets or ammo doesn't exist it the real world (at least for many of us)... and it was suggested that there are many alternatives to the 77tmk... and I pointed out that they are all inferior in some way, and that maximum range intentions should be modified based on said alternatives... read my first couple posts... its all there. And no offense, but I wasn't the one who brought up the other bullet options.

It sounds like you haven’t read through the entire thread…maybe just scanned or searched one guy’s comments. Everything you’re questioning has been pretty well laid out in the thread.

I’m shooting 88 ELDMs, 77 TMKs, and 69 TMKs. Folks have been posting when 77 TMKs hit the streets (either bullets or ammo). You just haven’t been paying attention.

There is pretty easy access to 88, 80, 75, 73 ELDMs and 69 TMKs if you’re having trouble finding 77 TMKs.

It really sounds more like you’re disputing the utility of .224 bullets on game versus larger bore, especially when it comes to “new hunters”. Don’t need a novel or diatribe to lay out your opinion or ask pointed questions if you’re really interested in understanding the premise of bullets over headstamps.

 

[ARK_Ginger]

Yep. I have certainly been schooled today. Shame on me for assuming this was a forum for well reasoned and rational discussion.

Your tone has come across as more of the gate-keeping/ethical police more than reasoned and rational. This is why you’ve been piled on.

We all know how hard 77gr TMKs are to get, but we’ve also outlined several options that are comparible performers. We are also well aware of the performance limits of the bullets as we’re more concerned with bullets than headstamps.

 

[huck]

Im sure its just me, but seems like some people just like to start a pis##ng match with a topic just to see where it goes. Not just this topic but in other spots as well .Hope Im not out of line but I shoot a 223 pretty much every day and in my very limited opinion it is not a large animal caliber based on the simple fact that a small case can only push a bullet so far and so fast.

 

[mt100gr.]

Im sure its just me, but seems like some people just like to start a pis##ng match with a topic just to see where it goes. Not just this topic but in other spots as well .Hope Im not out of line but I shoot a 223 pretty much every day and in my very limited opinion it is not a large animal caliber based on the simple fact that a small case can only push a bullet so far and so fast.

Have you read the entire thread?

 

[BjornF16]

Have you read the entire thread?

First post in this thread…so likely not

 

[mtnwrunner]

As far as components go......it ain't like it was. I'm really not sure it ever will be again
That being said, within the last month or so, I've been able to find loaded 77 tmk, powder and bullets and primers. You just have to work at it a wee bit.
Now, a left handed 223 superlite is another story.

Randy

 

[Drenalin]

Maybe change.223 in the thread title to 77 TMK? Then we can get back to the gory pics?

 

[Shraggs]

First post in this thread…so likely not

Seems more than not reading, pot stirring

 

[huck]

No didnt read all 159 pages . sorry. but kind of makes my point.

 

[BjornF16]

As far as components go......it ain't like it was. I'm really not sure it ever will be again
That being said, within the last month or so, I've been able to find loaded 77 tmk, powder and bullets and primers. You just have to work at it a wee bit.
Now, a left handed 223 superlite is another story.

Randy

I missed this round of 77 TMKs, but I bought a case of BH 5.56 77 TMK a while back.

I mostly practice now with 77 SMK and save the 77’s for hunting. I was burning through the 77s pretty quick practicing.