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

[juan trueno]

Think of it this way- people kill thousands of elk a year with archery tackle, and even a 90 grain .243 produces a wound channel several times the size of the largest broadhead out there. Caliber should really not even be considered within the same ballpark of importance as shot placement, and almost everyone shoots 6.5 or 7mm-08 much better than they do big belted magnums.

 

[dla]

First of all, as a bow hunter (Elk only) and a rifle hunter (elk and deer) I can tell you that the broadhead kills I've done make a larger, longer wound channel than any rifle bullet I've used (including 45-70). The most extreme I have seen was an arrow, by a 14 yr old kid, penetrate over 3 feet of Elk diagonally (long tracking job).

Second, when the cartridge is paired with the appropriate weight rifle, and the shooter has lots of ammo, they shoot up to a 30-06 plenty well. What I have noticed is that the trend towards absurdly light rifles has created some hard-kicking setups. And guys who believe Elk are armor-plated buy rifles chambered for expensive cartridges - and they don't get in the shooting time.

I don't think "wound channel" is the right term to describe the effect of a high velocity explosive bullet. More like "area of destruction". Stuff gets torn up and if the heart doesn't stop immediately you get a very bloody mess (which can confuse the post-mortem examination). On an Elk, IMO, you need your "area of destruction" to be at least 12" long minimum on a broadside shot. On a deer maybe half that. If you can't get the explosive effect far enough into the cavity, then you need a bullet with a large enough diameter to penetrate all the way through important stuff. Most 30 cal fodder will expand 1.5 diameters, (my 45-70 expands to .9" and penetrates 30" of Elk).

I've never killed a game animal with my 223. The only truly explosive cartridge I used on deer is the 270 Winchester, 130gr handloads chrono'd at exactly 3000 fps. The "area of destruction" with cup & core bullets was longer than a small mule deer is wide (fist-size exit wound broadside, legs blown completely off, etc.) Effective killer, but I really had to be careful not to shoot near anything I wanted to eat. Most all my shots were under 150yds.

Lots of track record with the 223 taking deer, so I wouldn't have any qualms about using my 223 in the future. But I haven't seen anything on Elk - and the thought is unsettling.

More opinion, but either a large diameter bullet that crushes a hole all the way through, or a high-velocity bullet that creates a zone of destruction in the vitals.

This is just my opinion. Only trying to help - not trying to step on anyone's toes.

 

[RedRidge]

Enjoyed this thread. Good luck OP and keep posting up your journey.

 

[PNWGATOR]

Gotta interrupt my attempt at punching a second bear tag (planning on more/better photos too) due to a family trip, but the journey continues.

 

[OXN939]

Two big differences between what I said in the quote of mine you posted and this thread.

1. I'm not advocating shooting big game animals with .22s. Both of the calibers I suggest are moderate calibers that are not precluded from use by the minimum kinetic energy requirements of many states.

2. I say "almost everyone," as opposed to the absolute statement Formidilosus made. Most people do shoot lighter calibers better. If you think you can speak for every shooter on earth, though, your ego is probably due to get tuned up.

Cheers!

 

[Ndbowhunter]

To argue that a larger cartridge is easier to shoot then a smaller one is stupid.

This thread delivers in a lot of ways. I hope it never dies.

.224 bullets bounce off fuzzy wuzzies

 

[204guy]

Ohh boy. The ethics police are saddling their steeds. Full charge.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

[Newtosavage]

It's not a matter of ethics. Common sense will tell anyone that a larger caliber will be more effective than a smaller one. Otherwise we'd all be hunting with .22 LR's or better yet, .177 air rifles.

Again, I ask, what's the point? So far, nobody has answered that.

Welp, I'm off to hunt rhinos with a blowgun, just to see if it can be done. Wish me luck!

 

[JWP58]

The point has been made a few times.

Ease of shooting. Low recoil, no brake required, spotting your hits/misses easily.

Effectiveness. .223 when paired with the 77gr tmk, per the people USING that combo, provides effective tissue damage (some have relayed on par with .284 and .308 projectiles).

Range time. With the low recoil, low cost per rd (vs any magnum). More practice = more familiarity with the system = more accurate with system (in theory)

Do you need any more reasons? All have been cited within the thread, probably in the 1st post.

 

[mtnwrunner]

Not that I need to validate Chris but he has done his due diligence with his setup. He is extremely ethical and passionate about hunting and shooting. It is truly amazing to me that whenever someone is "different" or outside the "normal" box so to speak, they get crucified.
He knows what he is doing and I'll be first in line to help him pack out his elk.

Randy

P.s. I've also been shooting that 77 tipped smk and it really is a nasty bullet.

 

[Newtosavage]

The point has been made a few times.

Ease of shooting. Low recoil, no brake required, spotting your hits/misses easily.

Effectiveness. .223 when paired with the 77gr tmk, per the people USING that combo, provides effective tissue damage (some have relayed on par with .284 and .308 projectiles).

Range time. With the low recoil, low cost per rd (vs any magnum). More practice = more familiarity with the system = more accurate with system (in theory)

Do you need any more reasons? All have been cited within the thread, probably in the 1st post.

And you have to go all the way down to the .223 to get this? This is my question that hasn't been answered.

I'm not out to crucify anyone. Just want to know what the logic is behind the choice. Why settle on the .223 and not, for example, the 22-250 or 243?

 

[Ndbowhunter]

And you have to go all the way down to the .223 to get this? This is my question that hasn't been answered.

I'm not out to crucify anyone. Just want to know what the logic is behind the choice. Why settle on the .223 and not, for example, the 22-250 or 243?

What’s the price of training 22-250 or 243

Barrel life and price per round

Furthermore how much larger are wound channels from 22-250 55gr sp to a 2750fps tmk? Pics would be fine.

 

[Newtosavage]

What’s the price of training 22-250 or 243

Barrel life and price per round

Furthermore how much larger are wound channels from 22-250 55gr sp to a 2750fps tmk? Pics would be fine.

So you're saying you can't train with the .223 and then use something larger when hunting?

Pretty sure people do this all the time.

I have a 7.62x39 with steel case ammo I'll loan ya for a trainer.

 

[Ndbowhunter]

got 17 wood crates full of 7.62x39

At some point I can explain it to you but can’t understand it for ya.

If you shoot a mule deer or lope or bear with a 77gr tmk or some 180 gr 300 win mag the results will be better with a 77gr tmk. The only tracking is watching it fall to the ground through the scope.

Practice makes perfect. At this point I might just have to tip over a grizz with a 77gr tmk this summer just to get the fudd’s panties twisted up.

Bet you the results will be better the 50% of the grizz that seen shot.. You know hands and knees in alder brush looking for blood. Fun stuff.

The myth a larger caliber is more forgiving of shot placement needs to go away. It’s bullschit.

 

[Ndbowhunter]

For one instance my off hand shooting was pretty rubbish and still is.

Couple 150 round boxes from Wally worlds spread over a few months and the results have been dramatic. Would have no problem shooting vitals at 200 yards on an antelope off hand.

Switch over to the bolt gun and be lucky to get 50% hits on an 8” target at 200 off hand.

The only other real fallacy being reported here that doesn’t seem to be correct is that a 77gr up close is okay but further distances it wouldn’t be

To be honest I wouldn’t trust a 77gr tmk to do a really effective job through shoulder inside of 100 on grizz or elk.. it’s splashy up close

Out past 100 it’s wound profile mirrors most other go to centerfire cartridge profiles.

First animal I dug apart I was chuckling to myself.. it looked exactly the same as 180gr 300 win mag or a 130gr sp from a 270.

Then another and another. 15 animals later I will probably use a bigger cartridge for elk.. more for the up close stuff and not the 150-375 concerns

but not for black bear, mule deer or antelope.

 

[dla]

Who are you talking to?

 

[Ndbowhunter]

Myself apparently

 

[PNWGATOR]

Lol. I’m listening.

 

[Sodbuster]

Yeah, I have to tag in to this one as well.

 

[Sodbuster]

Form, the results shown in your pictures should speak for themselves.

My TMK order went in last week.