After going through this thread there is no doubt a 223 would be great for the kids I take hunting in Alaska.
I really want to build a lightweight AR15 for Alaska hunts. It looks really practical. Hunt your caribou or whatever. Add a tactical light if you're carrying meat out in bear country. Take it apart and stick it in the pack for gnarly bushwacking. Rapid fire if you do have a face off with a grizzly. Adjust the stock for different shooters.
My big hang up is the lack of blood trails that i see in reports. On our black bear hunts we've never had a bear travel more then about 50 yards after a solid hit with a 308, 358 or 30/06. So blood trails aren't really necessary but they are there and they would be nice if a bear ever goes a bit farther.
Now when I look at the pictures I'm sure a 223 could have killed all our bears. But if they ran 50 to 100 yards without a blood trail that could get really frustrating. I don't like tracking jobs with multiple unwounded bears in the area (bear baits).
Thoughts? Is less blood just the trade off for all the other advantages of a 223? The suppressed 308 still works fine on baits. For mountain spot and stalk the AR 15 has a lot of appeal but a 100 yard run into thick alders would be miserable to find without blood. Please don't say "pick shots" where we hunt its hard to see a bear that is not close to an alder filled gully.
I really want to build a lightweight AR15 for Alaska hunts. It looks really practical. Hunt your caribou or whatever. Add a tactical light if you're carrying meat out in bear country. Take it apart and stick it in the pack for gnarly bushwacking. Rapid fire if you do have a face off with a grizzly. Adjust the stock for different shooters.
My big hang up is the lack of blood trails that i see in reports. On our black bear hunts we've never had a bear travel more then about 50 yards after a solid hit with a 308, 358 or 30/06. So blood trails aren't really necessary but they are there and they would be nice if a bear ever goes a bit farther.
Now when I look at the pictures I'm sure a 223 could have killed all our bears. But if they ran 50 to 100 yards without a blood trail that could get really frustrating. I don't like tracking jobs with multiple unwounded bears in the area (bear baits).
Thoughts? Is less blood just the trade off for all the other advantages of a 223? The suppressed 308 still works fine on baits. For mountain spot and stalk the AR 15 has a lot of appeal but a 100 yard run into thick alders would be miserable to find without blood. Please don't say "pick shots" where we hunt its hard to see a bear that is not close to an alder filled gully.






