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

[Chris_in_Idaho]

I hope we are not trying to claim that a 223 rem with any projectile will match a bigger magnum with a soft rapidly fragmenting bullet on wound channel. The bigger magnum will absolutely create a larger wound channel.



A bigger cartridge with an appropriately matched bullet will cause greater damage, wound channel, faster blood loss etc so it WILL BE more forgiving to an edge of vitals hits than a smaller cartridge in terms of killing speed.

Right. But what's being compared is not the same style bullet. It's a heavy for caliber match bullet in 223, specifically the 77tmk, vs a controlled expansion bullet in a bigger caliber.

Given equally constructed bullets, the bigger round makes the bigger wound, and bigger wound equals more margin for error. All true.

The direct comparison for this thread would be something like a 195TMK in 30 cal.

But, that creates such a huge meat wasting wound (as form has posted pictures of a couple times where the whole ham is blown out) that it's too much. And, most of the older thinking wants a big magnum also weight retaining bullet that penetrates above all else.

So the actual comparison that gets made is an optimum bullet in 223 vs a "tough" bullet in the bigger caliber.

With something like a 300 Win Mag loaded with 180gr TTSX or Accubonds, most guys would think they have bigger margin for error because of all the extra energy and "knock down power". But these combinations will actually produce a smaller diameter wound channel than the 223 77tmk.

So the 300wm guy actually needs to place his bullet much closer to a vital organ to damage it than the 223 guy does. That is in essence less margin for error.

Back to your point though, comparing the same heavy soft match bullets in big vs small, there's an optimum point. Too small of a wound channel and you miss the vitals or just don't let blood out quick enough and get a long tracking job. Too big a wound channel and you waste meat. There's a point where you're doing plenty of destruction to the vitals so the animal won't outrun whatever oxygen is already in its brain, but you still have meat to recover. It seems the 223 77tmk sits right in this optimum spot.

 

[Shraggs]

See post I responded to.

see post I responded to on page 278.


I’ve read through this entire thread. This has been brought up more than once. It should be corrected in my opinion.

“Terminal ballistics is a sub-field of ballistics concerned with the behavior and effects of a projectile when it hits and transfers its energy to a target”

Energy absolutely has the potential to affect terminal performance greatly.

while perfect in the vital hits require very little energy to achieve the end result (death). Energy can have a great affect on the speed of death.

Thanks for the welcome!

If you feel the need based on your superior knowledge to correct documented evidence in this thread you claim have read then start a new thread and enlighten everyone for the record.

 

[swavescatter]

Energy isn't irrelevant, it's just that kinetic energy alone is meaningless. What is actually important is dE/dX, or linear energy TRANSFER.

It's not how much energy a bullet has going IN, rather how much energy that bullet LOSES inside the vitals.

1 billion ft-lbs means nothing if it zips through without disrupting a single cell.

 

[10E]

While “energy” figure determined from velocity and weight, it is a useless metric for terminal ballistics. It tells you absolutely nothing about what size or shape a wound will be.

The only way to know what wound will be created is to shoot “x” bullet at “x” speed and measure the wound. That is why you are reading “ft-lbs of angry is useless”.

“Energy is useless as a metric for terminal ballistics” is too generic a statement. That is a surefire “fudd trap” and a way to get some of the older guys fired up It is not useless. I would argue that The cartridge with more energy will have a wider desired terminal performance range across the spectrum of bullets available for a given caliber.

This is especially important when you begin to reduce velocity and bullet mass (energy). The spectrum of bullets suitable begins to shrink with the reduction in energy. For example thinking of your 223 rem as a 300 win mag can get you into trouble when selecting a bullet. The bullet has to be optimized to use every bit of the reduced energy (velocity/mass) to produce the quick clean death we are wanting . Venturing out away from the somewhat narrow bullet selection can lead to less than stellar terminal performance on game (ie smaller wound channels, slow death, slow bleeding, long runs, unrecovered game in the cases of poor shot placement etc.)

For example In the 300 win mag you could honestly use just about any factory loaded hunting bullet out there inside of 400 yards and get the desired results . (Assuming similar shot placement) Very Broad wound channels with quick bleeding and fast death. With a 223 it’s a very specific few.

In an apples to apples comparison the higher energy cartridge with a bullet optimized for the increased impact energy WILL ALWAYS create more wounding/larger wound, trauma, bleeding ,and in other words greater terminal performance. They are too connected to totally exclude one from the other.

I think the more accurate statement is energy is nearly useless metric for killing a big game animal. Which this thread has clearly shown by a ton of dead critters shot with a 223 rem. Many of which died pretty darn quick.

Energy (bullet mass and velocity) can however have a significant effect on the speed at which an animal dies. That I think is the biggest fine print statement with using small cartridges. They are absolutely lethal but the speed at which they kill can vary greatly if the shot is not perfect or the bullet selection is not optimized.

 

[BjornF16]

“Energy is useless as a metric for terminal ballistics” is too generic a statement. That is a surefire “fudd trap” and a way to get some of the older guys fired up It is not useless. I would argue that The cartridge with more energy will have a wider desired terminal performance range across the spectrum of bullets available for a given caliber.

This is especially important when you begin to reduce velocity and bullet mass (energy). The spectrum of bullets suitable begins to shrink with the reduction in energy. For example thinking of your 223 rem as a 300 win mag can get you into trouble when selecting a bullet. The bullet has to be optimized to use every bit of the reduced energy (velocity/mass) to produce the quick clean death we are wanting . Venturing out away from the somewhat narrow bullet selection can lead to less than stellar terminal performance on game (ie smaller wound channels, slow death, slow bleeding, long runs, unrecovered game in the cases of poor shot placement etc.)

For example In the 300 win mag you could honestly use just about any factory loaded hunting bullet out there inside of 400 yards and get the desired results . (Assuming similar shot placement) Very Broad wound channels with quick bleeding and fast death. With a 223 it’s a very specific few.

In an apples to apples comparison the higher energy cartridge with a bullet optimized for the increased impact energy WILL ALWAYS create more wounding/larger wound, trauma, bleeding ,and in other words greater terminal performance. They are too connected to totally exclude one from the other.

I think the more accurate statement is energy is nearly useless metric for killing a big game animal. Which this thread has clearly shown by a ton of dead critters shot with a 223 rem. Many of which died pretty darn quick.

Energy (bullet mass and velocity) can however have a significant effect on the speed at which an animal dies. That I think is the biggest fine print statement with using small cartridges. They are absolutely lethal but the speed at which they kill can vary greatly if the shot is not perfect or the bullet selection is not optimized.

Go back and re-read this thread for comprehension…take your time.

Then start a new thread detailing precisely how energy kills.

 

[10E]

If you feel the need based on your superior knowledge to correct documented evidence in this thread you claim have read then start a new thread and enlighten everyone for the record.

I do not refute any of the evidence (who could?) nor have I ever claimed to have superior knowledge. I honestly would like to learn something if I am wrong.

 

[clperry]

“Energy is useless as a metric for terminal ballistics” is too generic a statement. That is a surefire “fudd trap” and a way to get some of the older guys fired up It is not useless. I would argue that The cartridge with more energy will have a wider desired terminal performance range across the spectrum of bullets available for a given caliber.

This is especially important when you begin to reduce velocity and bullet mass (energy). The spectrum of bullets suitable begins to shrink with the reduction in energy. For example thinking of your 223 rem as a 300 win mag can get you into trouble when selecting a bullet. The bullet has to be optimized to use every bit of the reduced energy (velocity/mass) to produce the quick clean death we are wanting . Venturing out away from the somewhat narrow bullet selection can lead to less than stellar terminal performance on game (ie smaller wound channels, slow death, slow bleeding, long runs, unrecovered game in the cases of poor shot placement etc.)

For example In the 300 win mag you could honestly use just about any factory loaded hunting bullet out there inside of 400 yards and get the desired results . (Assuming similar shot placement) Very Broad wound channels with quick bleeding and fast death. With a 223 it’s a very specific few.

In an apples to apples comparison the higher energy cartridge with a bullet optimized for the increased impact energy WILL ALWAYS create more wounding/larger wound, trauma, bleeding ,and in other words greater terminal performance. They are too connected to totally exclude one from the other.

I think the more accurate statement is energy is nearly useless metric for killing a big game animal. Which this thread has clearly shown by a ton of dead critters shot with a 223 rem. Many of which died pretty darn quick.

Energy (bullet mass and velocity) can however have a significant effect on the speed at which an animal dies. That I think is the biggest fine print statement with using small cartridges. They are absolutely lethal but the speed at which they kill can vary greatly if the shot is not perfect or the bullet selection is not optimized.

We’ve covered this. You’re speaking basic physics of which most are privy too. You may have read the entire thread, but you’ve missed the point. The goal is to maximize hit rates. That entails several things, of which more recoil is never conducive. Go back and re read. Some of what you’re preaching isn’t entirely false, but it’s also just not the point.

 

[Formidilosus]

I do not refute any of the evidence (who could?) nor have I ever claimed to have superior knowledge. I honestly would like to learn something if I am wrong.

You are wrong. It is discussed at length in this thread. If you have read every post you would know why the below is factually incorrect.

Energy (bullet mass and velocity) can however have a significant effect on the speed at which an animal dies. That I think is the biggest fine print statement with using small cartridges. They are absolutely lethal but the speed at which they kill can vary greatly if the shot is not perfect or the bullet selection is not optimized.

 

[Shraggs]

I do not refute any of the evidence (who could?) nor have I ever claimed to have superior knowledge. I honestly would like to learn something if I am wrong.

If you don’t refute it yet insist on correcting the record do it on your own thread.

Seems like you joined just to come pontificate or you’ve had enough of this thread opening people minds.

I’ll challenge you based on your start date that you couldn’t have read this entire thread…

 

[Shortschaf]

I’ve read a fair amount of this thread… has anyone posted an example where the 77 TMK resulted in a less-than-ideal kill with clean shot or failure to locate? I’ve not seen one but thinking it has to exist…

+1
Also curious about any drawbacks people may have noticed when using this bullet

 

[ARK_Ginger]

+1
Also curious about any drawbacks people may have noticed when using this bullet

Drawbacks?

Sierra doesn’t make enough of them and not enough ammo companies make a load with it.

If you’re a shoulder shooter you’re going to loose more meat than a tough bullet, but it kills.

 

[Anschutz]

I do not refute any of the evidence (who could?) nor have I ever claimed to have superior knowledge. I honestly would like to learn something if I am wrong.

Just a few pointers with this crowd.

1) As you've seen, if you disagree with them, you will get jumped

2) This crowd is going for minimum recoil to shoot the lungs of an animal within 400 yards. To do this requires practice and .223 ammo is cheap to buy or reload compared to larger cartridges. Spotting shots is a plus, as is getting back on target.

3) They will shoot animals to the ground if needed.

4) This is a compilation of evidence for you to make your own decision. If you choose not to, that's fine.

5) This is a good way to put animals in the freezer. There is no single best way. No one is saying your way is wrong and can't kill game, there's too much evidence that it does across the internet. But it does recoil more, and ammo is more expensive.

6) If you're arguing to up your post count so you can go to the classifieds, you best be buying an SFWA 6x, Tikka .223, or a .224 tipped match bullet. If you don't, Form will kill a puppy, I think.

I've never shot a game animal with a .223. I may one day but doubt it will ever become my primary. However, it obviously works. If you don't have a .223, pick one up for a trainer. It'll show you where your flaws are without costing $3-7 per shot.

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

 

[10E]

You are wrong. It is discussed at length in this thread. If you have read every post you would know why the below is

If you don’t refute it yet insist on correcting the record do it on your own thread.

Seems like you joined just to come pontificate or you’ve had enough of this thread opening people minds.

I’ll challenge you based on your start date that you couldn’t have read this entire thread

You are wrong. It is discussed at length in this thread. If you have read every post you would know why the below is factually incorrect.

So you are saying if you bleed out faster you do not die faster? This is literally what I’m arguing.

It is important to discuss when shooting a 223 Remington on elk or moose. It will absolutely kill then but choose the standard hunting world knowledge of heavy for caliber bonded bullet and it make take a little longer than people have the stomach for to kill it.

We’ve covered this. You’re speaking basic physics of which most are privy too. You may have read the entire thread, but you’ve missed the point. The goal is to maximize hit rates. That entails several things, of which more recoil is never conducive. Go back and re read. Some of what you’re preaching isn’t entirely false, but it’s also just not the point.

what of my “preaching” is false?

 

[Anschutz]

If you don’t refute it yet insist on correcting the record do it on your own thread.

Seems like you joined just to come pontificate or you’ve had enough of this thread opening people minds.

I’ll challenge you based on your start date that you couldn’t have read this entire thread…

I was going to say that, but you can read the thread without joining.

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

 

[10E]

Just a few pointers with this crowd.

1) As you've seen, if you disagree with them, you will get jumped

2) This crowd is going for minimum recoil to shoot the lungs of an animal within 400 yards. To do this requires practice and .223 ammo is cheap to buy or reload compared to larger cartridges. Spotting shots is a plus, as is getting back on target.

3) They will shoot animals to the ground if needed.

4) This is a compilation of evidence for you to make your own decision. If you choose not to, that's fine.

5) This is a good way to put animals in the freezer. There is no single best way. No one is saying your way is wrong and can't kill game, there's too much evidence that it does across the internet. But it does recoil more, and ammo is more expensive.

6) If you're arguing to up your post count so you can go to the classifieds, you best be buying an SFWA 6x, Tikka .223, or a .224 tipped match bullet. If you don't, Form will kill a puppy, I think.

I've never shot a game animal with a .223. I may one day but doubt it will ever become my primary. However, it obviously works. If you don't have a .223, pick one up for a trainer. It'll show you where your flaws are without costing $3-7 per shot.

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

Yes I see I have challenged some of the cool kids ideas.

Not interested in the classifieds.

Thanks!

 

[Anschutz]

Yes I see I have challenged some of the cool kids ideas.

Not interested in the classifieds.

Thanks!

Don't give yourself too much credit. If you read the entire thread, you'd know your argument has been made over and over again.

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

 

[Chris_in_Idaho]

So you are saying if you bleed out faster you do not die faster? This is literally what I’m arguing.

No. The point being argued is that energy does not equal bleeding out faster.

What has more energy: Being punched by Mike Tyson? Or having a sharp rapier slipped through your chest by a 90lb girl?

Does the higher energy option produce a faster bleed out?

 

[10E]

No. The point being argued is that energy does not equal bleeding out faster.

What has more energy: Being punched by Mike Tyson? Or having a sharp rapier slipped through your chest by a 90lb girl?

Does the higher energy option produce a faster bleed

Don't give yourself too much credit. If you read the entire thread, you'd know your argument has been made over and over again.

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

But never accepte TV

No. The point being argued is that energy does not equal bleeding out faster.

What has more energy: Being punched by Mike Tyson? Or having a sharp rapier slipped through your chest by a 90lb girl?

Does the higher energy option produce a faster bleed out?

again an apples to oranges comparison

 

[willfrye027]

So you are saying if you bleed out faster you do not die faster? This is literally what I’m arguing.

It is important to discuss when shooting a 223 Remington on elk or moose. It will absolutely kill then but choose the standard hunting world knowledge of heavy for caliber bonded bullet and it make take a little longer than people have the stomach for to kill it.

what of my “preaching” is false?

Have you considered the 3D shape of the wound cavity? Two bullets with identical “energy” may create different shaped wound channels, even if both “dump” that energy. Why should energy matter there? What matters is tissue destruction.

The whole point of the thread is that the 77tmk creates an ideal wound cavity in a very shootable package.

 

[mtnwrunner]

10E.......so, why exactly did you join Rokslde?

Randy