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

[treydfoster]

Would they take farther or more extreme shots than they already do with 6mm, 6.5, 308, etc...my bet is they'd probably not take as far or as extreme shots than these other calibers, being more attentive to the round's limitations...and they'd take those shots and shoot them with more accuracy. This thread proves that terminal performance is equal or greater than a lot of those other calibers with the right bullet choice and at the right velocity. The hit rate is going to go up dramatically from those other calibers, and if you read this entire thread, your mind will be changed. Comparing a 77TMK to a bow/arrow is once again, asinine. Not to mention the countless things that can go wrong with a bow after that arrow is released...and you think people practice with a bow enough to be effective, or that they don't take shots they shouldn't? It is the responsibility of the hunter to take effective and ethical shots at game, and even more importantly to know their own limitations. Let's keep the argument focused on these reasonable and ethical hunters...because the second you start talking about unethical shots beyond one's limitations with a rifle, the same exact thing can be said about sticks and strings.

and for transparency sake, I have not shot a big game animal with a 223...YET. But I also am not seeing the entire chest cavity of a critter turn to jelly after being hit with a broadhead.

The scenario presented was wound rates between the two if archery was replaced with .223. I haven't knocked the efficacy of .223, have in fact made no claims about it one way or the other, but project whatever you want. It's like some of you boys are in a .223 cult or something.

Of course things go wrong with a bow. Of course people take shots they shouldn't with a bow. But I can see an elk at 350 and decide to pop one off at him with a .223, I can't do that with a bow. My argument is focused on wound rates, period. Guess what, unreasonable and unethical hunters contribute to the math just like everybody else.

I didn't compare terminal performance of .223 to a broadhead.

Btw, I have taken big game with a .223.

 

[treydfoster]

No, I’m not saying that at all. I am saying that our belief of what minimum is, is due for an update. I am also not saying that I believe that the 223 is awesome for elk- it is incredibly effective on deer and bear sized animals, to the point where I have chosen to use LESS destructive bullets on anything I’m going to eat, but I haven’t seen enough results from elk to say it’s “great”. But I will.

The 223 with the best bullets is more effective than muzzle loaders or any arrow.

Put that into perspective. If Colorado came up and said during archery or muzzle loader seasons hunters may use 22 cal centerfires as well- the whole world explode. Not because it ‘s a 223, but because it’s a rifle and when viewed in that vain we intuitively know it’s more effective. The most cursory thought comes to the conclusion that many more elk would be killed, and the wounding rate wouldn’t go up any, and in fact would most likely go down.

Right here. This is what I'm replying to. Formidilosus has stacked some bodies with his .223. I am not knocking it. And he's right, the success rate is going to go through the roof with a .223 over archery equipment. Where I differ is I think wound rates would also go up because of ease of shot opportunity, in this world where you can use .223 but not any other caliber during archery season.

 

[5811]

Right here. This is what I'm replying to. Formidilosus has stacked some bodies with his .223. I am not knocking it. And he's right, the success rate is going to go through the roof with a .223 over archery equipment. Where I differ is I think wound rates would also go up because of ease of shot opportunity, in this world where you can use .223 but not any other caliber during archery season.

Do you have any data that supports your opinion that wound rates are higher with a rifle than a bow? Wound rate meaning, animals wounded and not recovered per opportunity?

The entire point of this thread is to share data in an attempt to prove that a 223 is as effective as any other rifle caliber within its range. So yes, my lumping all rifles in vs bow is intentional.

 

[treydfoster]

I may have missed this concern, but I personally think it's a red herring. No one is suggesting anything with respect to archery and 223.

I guess I'm still not following. Comparing archery distances, hit rates and wound rates to any rifle, at least in this thread, is at best a tangent - imho.

Page 5, Formid

Do you have any data that supports your opinion that wound rates are higher with a rifle than a bow? Wound rate meaning, animals wounded and not recovered per opportunity?

The entire point of this thread is to share data in an attempt to prove that a 223 is as effective as any other rifle caliber within its range. So yes, my lumping all rifles in vs bow is intentional.

Wound rates are definitely higher with a bow than with rifles in general. The scenario presented is a hypothetical. I am 25 pages in and so far no data has been shown that shows the .223 with 77 gr tmk is as effective as other rifles on elk.

Additionally, all of this "data" is the opposite of survivorship bias, but that's been stated many times already.

 

[idahodave]

You're upsetting the hive.

 

[5811]

Additionally, all of this "data" is the opposite of survivorship bias, but that's been stated many times already

You could say that about any collection of necropsy and kill experiences. If we replaced every "223" and "77 tmk" with "7mm mag" and "162 eldx" in this thread, but the photos and recounts were the same, would you be as dismissive?

You can be skeptical while being open-minded. It's much tougher to be closed-minded and still open-minded.

 

[treydfoster]

You could say that about any collection of necropsy and kill experiences. If we replaced every "223" and "77 tmk" with "7mm mag" and "162 eldx" in this thread, but the photos and recounts were the same, would you be as dismissive?

You can be skeptical while being open-minded. It's much tougher to be closed-minded and still open-minded.

Where have I been dismissive?

 

[ElPollo]

Page 5, Formid

Wound rates are definitely higher with a bow than with rifles in general. The scenario presented is a hypothetical. I am 25 pages in and so far no data has been shown that shows the .223 with 77 gr tmk is as effective as other rifles on elk.

Additionally, all of this "data" is the opposite of survivorship bias, but that's been stated many times already.

Glad you are taking time to read this stuff. Thanks for the clarification.

The approach this thread uses is comparison of wound channels. Efficacy is based on damage. There is at least one post that includes wound channels from a 223/TMK vs. 300 WM. The big turning point for me in this argument is the fact that damage on the target is not significantly different, but recoil levels result in a significant decrease in shootability with bigger calibers. You are basically paying the recoil tax and getting little benefit. You can make a 300 WM do more damage if you optimize the bullet selection for a fragmenting type bullet but most people don’t want to do that.

’ve primarily shot elk with with what used to be considered small bores like the 270 win. The 223/TMK combo results in larger wound channels than anything I ever used in a 270. Am I a 223 only person? But I will likely use it for mulies this fall. If I am lucky enough to draw an elk tag, I would have no concerns using one for shots under 400, but may still use my 6.5 with TMKs or ELDMs for that if I’m hunting in more open, windy country. I had a 300 WSM for several years, but found myself sticking to smaller calibers with less recoil and recently sold it.

 

[treydfoster]

If you don't like this thread move along, nobody here needs to answer to you . Negative people suck !

"I only want to hear people who say what I want to think"

 

[fwafwow]

I may have missed this concern, but I personally think it's a red herring. No one is suggesting anything with respect to archery and 223.

Look bro, I didn't come up with the scenario, just replied.

Page 5, Formid

Put that into perspective. If Colorado came up and said during archery or muzzle loader seasons hunters may use 22 cal centerfires as well- the whole world explode. Not because it ‘s a 223, but because it’s a rifle and when viewed in that vain we intuitively know it’s more effective. The most cursory thought comes to the conclusion that many more elk would be killed, and the wounding rate wouldn’t go up any, and in fact would most likely go down.

You got me, bro. I did miss it.

 

[treydfoster]

You got me, bro. I did miss it.

There are 330 pages, easy to do. I gotta learn how to navigate the forum.

 

[fwafwow]

There are 330 pages, easy to do. I gotta learn how to navigate the forum.

That’s the easy part, in hindsight. I still have more substantial and fundamental problems, both from a personality and capabilities (or lack thereof) standpoint.

 

[mt terry d]

But I can see an elk at 350 and decide to pop one off at him with a .223, I can't do that with a bow.

Yeah, I'm pretty sketchy at 350 with my bow.

350 yards
223/77 TMK

BTW. If there was a 223/77TMK cult I'd join.

 

[Nomosendero]

Some dwell on "hypothetical" and oo forming a Hypothesis, I read this to see actual results, not too worried about someone's theories!

 

[PNWGATOR]

"I only want to hear people who say what I want to think"

Precisely why I started this thread.

To encourage objective and critical thinking and applying the same.

Its not about “I like...I think…I feel…” an echo chamber or “whatever works for you”.

 

[jadkins223]

Pic for attention. My question - AR platform or bolt gun 223 for whitetail hunting ? What’s your preference ? I have both and finally got a good scope and want to make one my “primary” hunting rig. In the AR I shoot the 77 tmk and have taken 7-8 deer with the tmk now and my 223 bolt I shoot the 73 Eldm to keep them separate. No harvest with 73 Yet. what is your preferred platform? i love the AR but it trashes brash. I took 2 doe in a matter of 5 seconds this year. But theres something special about a bolt gun. mine is the ruger predator 223. thanks for the input.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jadkins223]

AR platform it is!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[willfrye027]

AR platform it is!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pontoon boat and an AR? Now that’s

 

[Tahr]

Here are 3 different deer shot with the 77TMK last night with different points of impact and reactions.

1) This was 130 yards. Ran about 100 yards but had busted shoulder and was dead on its feet. This was a large Red deer hind. There was a large hole through the ribs under the shoulder - pics to follow.

2) This one was 137 yards and ran less than 15 yards. A Fallow doe I guess of about whitetail size.

3) This one is self explanatory. 100 yards. The rifle is sighted in for 200 yards hence the slightly low hold.

There is a couple of things worth noting; how still the gun stays after the shot and is able to track the animal, and that the 77TMK does not have magical qualities. Excellent in their class but they are not pixie dust. There are seldom blood trails and exits (save for the head shot). And you get a lot of runners when you don't use the high shoulder, neck or head shot. They almost never go far though. In spite of this thread's focus I think you could still toss a coin over the TMK and the 80 ELDM - the difference is more academic than real.

 

[Tahr]

#1 vid above refers.
Point of impact (visible little red dot) and pic of hole through ribs under shoulder (with the shoulder peeled back).