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

[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

 

[clperry]

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?

The idea that energy has a direct correlation to wounding. What you gave as an example before in the 195 TMK example is true. The larger bullet will cause more wounding. Any projectile that is maximized for that effect will increase with size and mass inside the maximized velocity window. But all things have to be equal. Where you’ve missed the point, is why it all matters. Recoil and its management in successful shot making is exponentially inverse. While you will increase wounding in a 168 eldm from a 308 vs the 77 TMK from a 223, first round hit rates as well as sight picture and follow ups all suffer. This has all been shown scientifically with data in this thread. Your argument along with all the others who have tried to make it haven’t been accepted because it does not accomplish the goal. Form has stated and shown evidence of maximized projectiles from large delivery systems. You’re not sharing new information, you just refuse to understand the why and purpose.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[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 out?

In an apples to apples comparison for bullet construction matched to energy…. absolutely energy creates a larger wound and faster bleeding/ death.

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.

I have considered that and just like the 77 gr TMK and 20”-ish 223 rem velocities. If the bullet is properly matched to the available energy. More energy will create a larger wound and faster bleeding.

Energy = potential for wounding
It cannot be removed from the terminal performance metric.

 

[willfrye027]

In an apples to apples comparison for bullet construction matched to energy…. absolutely energy creates a larger wound and faster bleeding/ death.

I have considered that and just like the 77 gr TMK and 20”-ish 223 rem velocities. If the bullet is properly matched to the available energy. More energy will create a larger wound and faster bleeding.

Energy = potential for wounding
It cannot be removed from the terminal performance metric.

I don’t think energy accounts for how/where a bullet upsets and creates a wound.

1500ft/lbs dumped into the first 5inches of bullet path?

1500ft/lbs in a FMJ that pencils through?

KE doesn’t tell me what the wound channel looks like which is what kills the animal.

I’m not a physicist but maybe “work” is a better word than KE if we need to put a label on something.

 

[fwafwow]

Welcome to RS. If you get a meme on your first day, you are already a winner.

 

[ARK_Ginger]

I have considered that and just like the 77 gr TMK and 20”-ish 223 rem velocities. If the bullet is properly matched to the available energy. More energy will create a larger wound and faster bleeding.

Energy = potential for wounding
It cannot be removed from the terminal performance metric.

Imagine that a 77gr TMK IS properly matched for the available energy and that more energy doesn’t lead to measurably faster incapacitation(because the vials are already taken out with the the 77gr TMK). More energy with similarly constructed bullets just leads to more wasted meat.

Everything you’re bringing up has been hashed out more than once, which is precisely why you’re being ‘jumped’ on.

 

[10E]

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

Randy

I’m still new at this as this is the first forum I’ve ever joined…my goal is not to try and take away from the thread and as my public introduction does not deal with the thread I apologize to the original poster. I ’ve Worked in the firearms industry for about 10 years. Always been passionate about long range shooting/firearms , and hunting. I’ve built quite a few of my own rifles chambering bedding, tuning hand loads etc., and have hunted for enough years to gather a working knowledge of it. I really want to become a better mule deer hunter and hope I can learn from some of the best on here.

Now dealing with this thread about 223 effectiveness on big game. We should be allowed to argue/debate why it could not be effective or some potential draw backs to using a small cartridge on game. Or warn against straying from the narrow bullet (I’m speaking specifically of the bullets with lots of animals killed not just anything you can find at the local hardware store )selection tested in this thread. Since the beginning of this thread there have been quite a few pics of animals killed with bullets other than the TMK not all are ideal for elk. Some If it is not allowed then I will try to figure out how to delete my posts. I think more than a few people could leave this thread thinking that the 223 rem and 77 gr TMK s are the next best thing to the elk killing world since the 300 rum (just random cartridge not attached to it) .Im not arguing that the 223 will not kill a big game animal. But like I said there is some definite fine print details about doing it successfully.

Firearms are like musical instruments the masters can make anything sound good.

 

[Anschutz]

In an apples to apples comparison for bullet construction matched to energy…. absolutely energy creates a larger wound and faster bleeding/ death.

I have considered that and just like the 77 gr TMK and 20”-ish 223 rem velocities. If the bullet is properly matched to the available energy. More energy will create a larger wound and faster bleeding.

Energy = potential for wounding
It cannot be removed from the terminal performance metric.

In this case, energy doesn't matter. A TMK or ELDM hitting at 1800ish fps will rapidly upset and fragment, sending bits of materiel throughout the body cavity. The only thing that will matter for more energy in this case is bullet weight, meaning the amount of fragments going into the vitals. For a controlled expansion bullet from the same delivery system (rifle, cartridge, bullet), energy only provides penetration and is driven by velocity. For example, a 165gr Accubond hitting at 2500fps will penetrate further than the same impacting at 2000fps.

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

 

[BjornF16]

Now dealing with this thread about 223 effectiveness on big game. We should be allowed to argue/debate why it could not be effective or some potential draw backs to using a small cartridge on game. Or warn against straying from the narrow bullet (I’m speaking specifically of the bullets with lots of animals killed not just anything you can find at the local hardware store )selection tested in this thread. Since the beginning of this thread there have been quite a few pics of animals killed with bullets other than the TMK not all are ideal for elk. Some If it is not allowed then I will try to figure out how to delete my posts. I think more than a few people could leave this thread thinking that the 223 rem and 77 gr TMK s are the next best thing to the elk killing world since the 300 rum (just random cartridge not attached to it) .Im not arguing that the 223 will not kill a big game animal. But like I said there is some definite fine print details about doing it successfully.

You really should start your own thread as a counterpoint rather than pollute this thread with old/debunked assertions