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

[treydfoster]

Have you read the thread completely from post one?

Nope, gonna have to be here awhile.

 

[fwafwow]

If you think below average joe isn't going to take a crack at over 200 yards (or whatever is beyond his shooting capability) you're wrong. We can say "personally" "I would never" etc all day long. More people are going to get to take a crack at an animal that would never even have the opportunity to let an arrow go.

Welcome to Rokslide!

I am not exactly clear on what you are saying. I think the thread is about 223 - with the right projectile - being adequate for more game than was thought historically. My belief was that this hypothesis was largely in comparison to other (larger) rifle calibers, and other bullets. From my perspective, Average Joe might not take a shot past 100-150 yards with a 30-30, but if he got a 300 Win Mag (as an example), he would then think he could shoot much farther - and easily (at least in his mind) over 200 yards. One point of the thread is that said Average Joe is more likely to hit, and kill, an animal with the 223 and heavy for caliber bullets at those ranges.

So, serious question and not trying to stir the pot - what does the 223 hypothesis have to do with archery hunting, since I think most rifle hunters (regardless of caliber) believe they can shoot a rifle much farther than they would shoot an arrow?

 

[ElPollo]

If you think below average joe isn't going to take a crack at over 200 yards (or whatever is beyond his shooting capability) you're wrong. We can say "personally" "I would never" etc all day long. More people are going to get to take a crack at an animal that would never even have the opportunity to let an arrow go.

Read first. Trust me. You will find this 223/TMK combo does a lot more damage than you think it should. It’s actually a solid option for big game way further than 200 yards. Reading this thread will challenge a lot of your preconceived notions about energy, bullet diameter and mass. It presents a lot of actual results from the field. That is something you rarely find related to ballistics. Most of what we think we know about ballistics is just stuff people have said for decades with no actual data. The final message of this thread isn’t that a 223 is magic. It’s that bullet diameter and mass have less impact on bullet performance than bullet design, and big heavy recoiling cartridges are not needed 99.99% of the time.

 

[treydfoster]

Welcome to Rokslide!

I am not exactly clear on what you are saying. I think the thread is about 223 - with the right projectile - being adequate for more game than was thought historically. My belief was that this hypothesis was largely in comparison to other (larger) rifle calibers, and other bullets. From my perspective, Average Joe might not take a shot past 100-150 yards with a 30-30, but if he got a 300 Win Mag (as an example), he would then think he could shoot much farther - and easily (at least in his mind) over 200 yards. One point of the thread is that said Average Joe is more likely to hit, and kill, an animal with the 223 and heavy for caliber bullets at those ranges.

So, serious question and not trying to stir the pot - what does the 223 hypothesis have to do with archery hunting, since I think most rifle hunters (regardless of caliber) believe they can shoot a rifle much farther than they would shoot an arrow?

Thanks, glad to be here.

I was responding to the comment about how we would all lose our minds if people were allowed to carry .223 as an alternative to archery methods during archery season, and how if that happened kill rates would go up and wounding rates would go down. I understand that archery wound rates are high, but my hypothesis is that they would probably go up if we allowed .223 to be carried, based on frequency of available shot opportunities and what people are willing to sling.

With a bow most people aren't going to launch an arrow at an elk 100 yards away, but with a .223 I think a larger percentage of hunters would be willing to attempt shots at sub optimal distances and angles. Additionally, I don't think you would have as many clean misses as you do with archery equipment. To be clear, I do appreciate that archery wound rates are high.

 

[treydfoster]

Read first. Trust me. You will find this 223/TMK combo does a lot more damage than you think it should. It’s actually a solid option for big game way further than 200 yards. Reading this thread will challenge a lot of your preconceived notions about energy, bullet diameter and mass. It presents a lot of actual results from the field. That is something you rarely find related to ballistics. Most of what we think we know about ballistics is just stuff people have said for decades with no actual data. The final message of this thread isn’t that a 223 is magic. It’s that bullet diameter and mass have less impact on bullet performance than bullet design, and big heavy recoiling cartridges are not needed 99.99% of the time.

Yeah but that's not what my comment was in response to. My comment is on what would happen to wound rates if we let people carry .223 as an alternative to archery tackle during archery season. I think wound rates would increase based on peoples willingness to take far/severe angled shots and lack of clean misses. I haven't knocked the .223 or TMK combo.

 

[ElPollo]

Yeah but that's not what my comment was in response to. My comment is on what would happen to wound rates if we let people carry .223 as an alternative to archery tackle during archery season. I think wound rates would increase based on peoples willingness to take far/severe angled shots and lack of clean misses. I haven't knocked the .223 or TMK combo.

Worrying about what other people might do is a futile undertaking. But there is nothing in this thread that remotely puts the 223/TMK combo on par with bows. And if you read you will find that the combo is a reliable choice on big game to 1800 fps and beyond. That puts it at >400 yards even with a short barrel. Comparing the 223 to a bow is frankly nonsense and the argument of replacing one with the other just seems to be an effort to troll people. If I’m wrong in your intent, I apologize. Either way, there’s a lot of good info in this thread if you choose to read it. And if you don’t, posting hypothetical regulatory scenarios would be best served by their own thread.

 

[fwafwow]

Thanks, glad to be here.

I was responding to the comment about how we would all lose our minds if people were allowed to carry .223 as an alternative to archery methods during archery season, and how if that happened kill rates would go up and wounding rates would go down. I understand that archery wound rates are high, but my hypothesis is that they would probably go up if we allowed .223 to be carried, based on frequency of available shot opportunities and what people are willing to sling.

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.

With a bow most people aren't going to launch an arrow at an elk 100 yards away, but with a .223 I think a larger percentage of hunters would be willing to attempt shots at sub optimal distances and angles. Additionally, I don't think you would have as many clean misses as you do with archery equipment. To be clear, I do appreciate that archery wound rates are high.

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.

 

[Wapiti151]

Yeah but that's not what my comment was in response to. My comment is on what would happen to wound rates if we let people carry .223 as an alternative to archery tackle during archery season. I think wound rates would increase based on peoples willingness to take far/severe angled shots and lack of clean misses. I haven't knocked the .223 or TMK combo.

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.

 

[treydfoster]

Worrying about what other people might do is a futile undertaking. But there is nothing in this thread that remotely puts the 223/TMK combo on par with bows. And if you read you will find that the combo is a reliable choice on big game to 1800 fps and beyond. That puts it at >400 yards even with a short barrel. Comparing the 223 to a bow is frankly nonsense and the argument of replacing one with the other just seems to be an effort to troll people. If I’m wrong in your intent, I apologize. Either way, there’s a lot of good info in this thread if you choose to read it. And if you don’t, posting hypothetical regulatory scenarios would be best served by their own thread.

I was responding to someone else's scenario that they posted on this thread, so yeah, you're wrong, apology accepted though.

 

[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

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.

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

 

[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.