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

[Newtosavage]

To jump in on said dumpster fire, my take is this:

Hunting big game with a .223 is the equivalent of all the IGFA 4, 6 and 8 pound test line class records. Can you spool a TLD 25 up with 8 pound test and catch a marlin? Yes. It is certainly possible. Is it less ethical? Probably. The fish caught that way are fought for many times as long as those caught with reasonable tackle, which correlates directly to a lower post-release survival rate.

Can you kill an elk with 77 gr. SMKs? Probably. In the above analogy, it's more like the 14 pound test, probably. But, .308 is 30 pound. You'll lose twice as many fish (elk) with 14 (.223) as you do by using the right gear. The difference between hunting and fishing is significant, too- if you're making the conscious decision to take an animal's life, I say you owe it to that animal to be as respectful and humane as you can be in that process.

My $0.02, worth what ya paid for it.

Amen brother

 

[204guy]

The TMK does more damage on average than the .308 168gr Ballistic Tips, while giving 18-22” of penetration.

I'll quote this if only for obvious reasons. Unless that's not enough efficacy.

Is a guy that chooses to use archery or a muzzeloader or an iron sighted 30-30 during an any weapon season an unethical hunter? Reading above it would appear so. All far less effective than a scoped modern .223 with a 77tmk.

I'm pretty confident that should he choose to do so this fall PNWGATOR can post a picture of himself sitting next to a dead elk... killed with a 223. Other guys will continue on with 1 year of experience 35 years over, some still trying to notch that first elk tag.


Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

[MattB]

If it's legal....

Well, it's not illegal.

The law is the lowest common denominator in our society, and shouldn't be the go-to justification for any action we take.

 

[PNWGATOR]

Fellas this isn’t stunt shooting. It’s about putting the right bullet in the sweet spot, ethical and humane kills, notching tags, filling freezers and making memories. I don’t take hunting, or any of my pursuits whimsicallly. I’m simply sharing a journey. The bear I killed with the 77 tmk wouldn’t have been killed quicker or more efficiently or humanely had I been using a 215 Berger out of a 300 wm. The placement and performance of the 77 tmk was efficient. The practicality of being able to purposefully shoot and learn is priceless.

 

[Jardo]

I’ve killed lots of Hawaiian goats and pigs with an AR15 stoked with hand loaded 60 grain partitions. All were 1 shot kills and all passed through. Goats weigh about 60-70 lbs. all the pigs were less than 100... most around 60 lbs.

I’m more careful with shot placement and have never felt undergunned with the nosler partitions.

Goats and Polynesian pigs are a far cry from deer and elk. For me, mature elk are best matched with 30 caliber or larger.

I’ve killed a ton of spikes with 270 win, but mature bulls are entirely different and I choose 30 cal magnums for the big uns.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[howl]

How about a .223 handgun for grizzly? Which one would fit best in a chest rig? I hear Glock is coming out with a single stack. I wish they would make a carbine!

 

[dla]

Gotta know your equipment and its limitations..........
How do you "know" PNWGATOR's 223 setup isn't enough for elk at 400yds? What kind of wound channels should he expect?

And this is the problem - lots of never-recovered rotting Elk carcasses as guys "learn" what others have taught. There are reasons why there are recommended minimums for each class of game animal.

For me, I would be afraid that at 400yds the 77gr TMK will either expand and penetrate 5-8" or it will pencil in. Neither case will do enough damage to vitals to put an Elk down fast.

Deer go maybe 200lbs. Elk go easily 3x that.

 

[pdp]

It was enough to take Osama, which was one of the nastiest most elusive two-legged critters.

True!

 

[Newtosavage]

The practicality of being able to purposefully shoot and learn is priceless.

So are you suggesting that the .223 is the largest caliber you can use to purposefully shoot and learn?

There must be some reason you have to choose it over even say, a 6.5 Grendel or .243

 

[BuckSnort]

So are you suggesting that the .223 is the largest caliber you can use to purposefully shoot and learn?

There must be some reason you have to choose it over even say, a 6.5 Grendel or .243

By that logic why would anyone hunt with a recurve when a compound is available?

 

[Newtosavage]

By that logic why would anyone hunt with a recurve when a compound is available?

Nope. Completely different logic.

What I hear the OP saying here is that he chooses the .223 because of it's practicality to shoot and learn. What I'm asking is if that's the largest caliber they feel they can shoot and learn with.

Still trying to understand the logic behind the choice here.

 

[Formidilosus]

Hmmm, I read some of his exploits - he was sub-200yds. The guy is a hunter, not a sniper-wannabe.

Pat Sinclair? You mean the guy who helped design the Bushnell LRHS, GAP 6.5 4S, and uses an S&B PMII 10x40mm scope?

To jump in on said dumpster fire, my take is this:

Hunting big game with a .223 is the equivalent of all the IGFA 4, 6 and 8 pound test line class records. Can you spool a TLD 25 up with 8 pound test and catch a marlin? Yes. It is certainly possible. Is it less ethical? Probably. The fish caught that way are fought for many times as long as those caught with reasonable tackle, which correlates directly to a lower post-release survival rate.

Can you kill an elk with 77 gr. SMKs? Probably. In the above analogy, it's more like the 14 pound test, probably. But, .308 is 30 pound. You'll lose twice as many fish (elk) with 14 (.223) as you do by using the right gear. The difference between hunting and fishing is significant, too- if you're making the conscious decision to take an animal's life, I say you owe it to that animal to be as respectful and humane as you can be in that process.

My $0.02, worth what ya paid for it.

So you’ve shot and lost elk with a 223?


No, it’s nothing like your analogy at all, and no one has said anything about using an SMK on elk.

So tell me what the ACTUAL difference in tissue damage is between whatever “30cal” you use and the 77gr TMK?

And this is the problem - lots of never-recovered rotting Elk carcasses as guys "learn" what others have taught. There are reasons why there are recommended minimums for each class of game animal.

For me, I would be afraid that at 400yds the 77gr TMK will either expand and penetrate 5-8" or it will pencil in. Neither case will do enough damage to vitals to put an Elk down fast.

Deer go maybe 200lbs. Elk go easily 3x that.

People had no idea, and this thread shows that most people still have no idea what ACTUAL tissue damage is caused by bullets.

“Recommended minimums” are generally not based on reality, but folk lore, gun shop myths, and ol’ Elmer Keith. The fact that you would “be afraid that at 400yds the 77gr TMK will either expand and penetrate 5-8" or it will pencil in” shows that you have no knowledge of that bullet in the least. It didn’t exist 10 years ago. There is no recommended minimum for it, because no one knows.

Straight question- is a 180gr Barnes TSX from a 308 win at 400 yards enough for elk?

So are you suggesting that the .223 is the largest caliber you can use to purposefully shoot and learn?

There must be some reason you have to choose it over even say, a 6.5 Grendel or .243

The real question is- is there a 22 cal centerfire bullet that can penetrate deep enough and create enough tissue damage to reliably kill elk? If yes, then why wouldn’t someone use it?


Why use smaller calibers/cartridges? Easy- hit rates. Every single person alive shoots a 223 better than a 243 in the same gun. Every person shoots a 243 better than a 308, and 308 better than a 338 mag. Full stop.


I use a 223 as the main deer rifle because it’s already causing more damage than I want inside of 400 yards. What would I gain by going to a bigger round? I have killed hundreds of big game animals with magnums. We all choose bullets that tone down those bigger rounds to an accrepable level. If you maximize 308 and bigger rounds for actual damage it’s quite frankly disgusting. Like throw out half the animal.

You want to see what a 30cal maximized does, ok-



That’s a full sized deer. That exit wound is 9.5 inches wide, 18 inches long. Yes. That’s what I want.


How about this-

220lb weighed buck-




It can get worse than that as well. So we take bigger rounds and use bullets that are designed to minimize tissue damage because we don’t want the above. That’s is equivalent to buying a V8 and then because it’s too fast, start yanking spark plugs out to tone it down. NO ONE does that. Why not drop down in calibers until when maximized the damage/effects are what we want? Then we can also gain less recoil, weight, cost, muzzle blast, length, while having more fun and the ability to spot your own impacts. That’s leads to higher hit rates, and more success.

Nope. Completely different logic.

What I hear the OP saying here is that he chooses the .223 because of it's practicality to shoot and learn. What I'm asking is if that's the largest caliber they feel they can shoot and learn with.

Still trying to understand the logic behind the choice here.

See above. You are taking your bigger calibers/cartridges and yanking spark plugs without even knowing it. What the OP is doing is moving down and MAXIMIZING the smaller cartridge to get to the same spot. He’s just doing it with less recoil, muzzle blast, cost, and gaining more rounds, fun, and the ability to spot his own impacts.

 

[Newtosavage]

It can get worse than that as well. So we take bigger rounds and use bullets that are designed to minimize tissue damage because we don’t want the above. That’s is equivalent to buying a V8 and then because it’s too fast, start yanking spark plugs out to tone it down. NO ONE does that. Why not drop down in calibers until when maximized the damage/effects are what we want? Then we can also gain less recoil, weight, cost, muzzle blast, length, while having more fun and the ability to spot your own impacts. That’s leads to higher hit rates, and more success.


See above. You are taking your bigger calibers/cartridges and yanking spark plugs without even knowing it. What the OP is doing is moving down and MAXIMIZING the smaller cartridge to get to the same spot. He’s just doing it with less recoil, muzzle blast, cost, and gaining more rounds, fun, and the ability to spot his own impacts.

I understand where you're going with this but you're swimming against decades of experience that produced the "conventional wisdom" used by tens of thousands of big game hunters. That's not to say you're wrong and it's also not something I'm sure you haven't heard 100 times already.

Okay, so you're telling me that my choice of a 7mm-08 with bullets that maximize the caliber, is excessive for elk?

That's honestly the first time I've ever heard that.

 

[Formidilosus]

I understand where you're going with this but you're swimming against decades of experience that produced the "conventional wisdom" used by tens of thousands of big game hunters. That's not to say you're wrong and it's also not something I'm sure you haven't heard 100 times already.

Okay, so you're telling me that my choice of a 7mm-08 with bullets that maximize the caliber, is excessive for elk?

That's honestly the first time I've ever heard that.

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.

 

[dla]

Straight question- is a 180gr Barnes TSX from a 308 win at 400 yards enough for elk?

It's borderline. It is designed to expand down to 1800fps impact velocity, but only a 24" barrel 308 is gonna get it going fast enough - and shorter barrel rifles seem all the rage nowadays. It has the SD to punch a hole clean through, but it might only be a .308 diameter hole.

I pulled one of those from an Elk once - fully mushroomed but the penetration was meager. My guess is that the fellow took a very long shot, his shot hit low in the brisket and lodged in the off-side leg. The Elk was very much alive when harvested the next day and I didn't realize the Elk had been wounded until skinning. The way the bullet mushroomed is a bit strange because only the upper 1/3 of the bullet mushrooms, unlike lead core bullets that flatten out. Anyways, that is my only experience with the TSX bullet - I don't use them myself.

 

[Newtosavage]

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.

I'm not sure the world would explode because it's more effective, but rather because of the distance at which it can be used. But that's a whole separate argument.

As for more effective than any arrow, I'm a lifelong bowhunter and with a completely honest and straight face I can tell you that my average tracking job with deer shot with a traditional bow and traditional 2-blade, hand sharpened broadhead, is right at the same distance as all my rifle kills. That is no joke. Many of the quickest kills I've ever seen first hand have been at the hands of my traditonal bows and 2 blade heads. I mean nose in the dirt at 30-40 steps. If I hadn't seen it myself I'm not sure I would have believed it - much like what you say about the .223. Sometimes until a person sees it themselves it's impossible for them to believe. I've had many deer shot with .270's and 30-06's run further than a lot of my bow kills. A lot further. But again that's a different topic for a different day.

 

[Ndbowhunter]

Track job can’t compare to Broadhead

 

[Wrench]

Will a 100 gr tsx kill elk at 400 yards if launched from a bee?

 

[Monty3006]

Form, what 30cal projectile did the damage in your pictures, and at what distance/velocity?

I’ve shot a few fallow deer and pigs with Hornady 60g TAP and have found its killed as quickly as larger cals, the biggest of these has probably only been 60kgs though.

 

[OXN939]

Every single person alive shoots a 223 better than a 243 in the same gun. Every person shoots a 243 better than a 308, and 308 better than a 338 mag. Full stop.

You guys hear that? Every single person alive. Fix yourselves accordingly. If anyone from SOCOM is listening, too, make sure you guys get on this as well- you have been doing it wrong this whole time, it turns out