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

[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

 

[jofes]

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.

So what you're saying is... people should read through the pages of this thread before coming up with a conclusion...

 

[fwafwow]

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.

The welcome is serious.

No one is saying you can’t question or debate, but the method of delivery is making it sound like you haven’t read the whole thread. Reading it in its entirety doesn’t mean that you will agree with the premise(s). But if you want to resurrect an argument or point that has been made and addressed in the past, it would (IMHO) be a bit better to respond to a post in which such a point had been raised. Then you can try to refine the argument in a better or different way.

 

[Shraggs]

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.

Thanks for being honest a 2nd time, you came to correct the illegitimacy of this thread.

Based on just 10 year’s experience in the gun industry…

Not decades of killing hundreds of animals using dozens of different calibers and multiple dozens of different type bullets in all of those calibers at ranges from point blank to 1000+ yards. You also didn’t mention any credentials such forensic or statistical or other advanced expertise that warrants your stated mission of discrediting the author and many contributors who do meet a significant bar of credibility in these areas.

You can still start another thread and make your case.

 

[clperry]

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.

Dude… what’s been recommended and tested,why, how, its limitations, etc., have all been covered ad nauseam in this thread, of which it is very hard to believe you have read in its entirety judging by your comments. It very much seems like you’ve taken upon yourself to police the idea that only qualified folks should be using certain things and that we should all be very careful in what we do and say regarding small cartridges. Go back, re read. It’s been covered by folks who have been, currently are, and will continue to test in the real world in statistically significant quantities. Or better yet, try it. Get a gun and some ammo and see for yourself. That’s what I did before I started pontificating on what I thought or felt. I went out and got hard data on actual animals. Turns out what I thought I knew wasn’t reality.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[10E]

The welcome is serious.

No one is saying you can’t question or debate, but the method of delivery is making it sound like you haven’t read the whole thread. Reading it in its entirety doesn’t mean that you will agree with the premise(s). But if you want to resurrect an argument or point that has been made and addressed in the past, it would (IMHO) be a bit better to respond to a post in which such a point had been raised. Then you can try to refine the argument in a better or different way.

I honestly have read the entire thread! It took me a few days to do it before I joined. The issue is “hashed out” has been the cool kids jumping the people who have a different perspective/experience and making blanket statements that are not entirely true. There has also been a fair bit of name calling etc. to people who might have some valid points for the mass of the hunting public not just the guys who gets to shoot a lot and often. I understand that it’s not what everyone wants to hear. The goal is to add my perspective/observation/opinion to the thread and hopefully everyone can decide which side of the fence they want to fall on.

 

[PNWGATOR]

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.

I would encourage you to read more and type less.

 

[eoperator]

For example, a 165gr Accubond hitting at 2500fps will penetrate further than the same impacting at 2000fps.

I thought I would further polute this thread with off topic crap.

In my experience an Accubond at 2k fps barely expands nearly "penciling". I would bet an Accubond at 2k fps penetrates as much if not more than one at 2.5k fps

 

[10E]

I would encourage you to read more and type less.

 

[fwafwow]

I honestly have read the entire thread! It took me a few days to do it before I joined.

Excellent to know this

The issue is “hashed out” has been the cool kids jumping the people who have a different perspective/experience and making blanket statements that are not entirely true.

Can you be more specific? Which blanket statements, to what extent are they untrue, and based on what contrary information?

There has also been a fair bit of name calling etc. to people who might have some valid points for the mass of the hunting public not just the guys who gets to shoot a lot and often.

Same question - which valid points, and based on what data?

I understand that it’s not what everyone wants to hear.

Everyone wants more data and info, but not to hear something again without any new information

The goal is to add my perspective/observation/opinion to the thread and hopefully everyone can decide which side of the fence they want to fall on.

The goal is laudable. So far, and IMHO, the delivery is falling short in tone and lack of specificity.

 

[BjornF16]

 

[IBen]

I joined the 223 club. Shot steel at 500 yards with the tmk

 

[sneaky]

“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.

You're so far over your head trying to correct someone who shoots more rounds in a week than you'll shoot in your lifetime it's actually pretty comical. Reading comprehension isn't your forte and you're just repeating the same old trite information that's wrongly been passed down for decades. Stuck in Fuddville and just digging your hole deeper.

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk