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

[ElPollo]

But it's just a doe. And a whitetail. A bull elk would have eaten that lead.

I’m sure it would have bounced right off.

 

[Big_wals]

But it's just a doe. And a whitetail. A bull elk would have eaten that lead.

I’m sure it would have bounced right off.

Hopefully I get to find out! Getting anxious for elk season to start

 

[Marbles]

That said, I don’t personally know anyone who makes decisions about hunting rifles based on the chance of a point blank grizzly charge, and I don’t think it’s really material to this discussion.

I did not say grizzly. I said costal brown. That aside, I and many people in Alaska, make decisions on hunting rifles based on bears.

If the discussion is only about confirming what you want, then sure. If the discussion is about providing information that might result in changing what some of use choose to use, it certainly is germane to the topic.

If you don't feel bear encounters should be considered in your case, you can safely ignore any conclusions.

 

[ElPollo]

I did not say grizzly. I said costal brown. That aside, I and many people in Alaska, make decisions on hunting rifles based on bears.

If the discussion is only about confirming what you want, then sure. If the discussion is about providing information that might result in changing what some of use choose to use, it certainly is germane to the topic.

If you don't feel bear encounters should be considered in your case, you can safely ignore any conclusions.

Thanks Marbles. I did not mean to belittle your concerns and I understand your point. It's just that these use enough gun discussions always seem to spiral into “what I would carry for bear attacks” from those who have little experience in big bear country. While you may have that experience, I’d still hate to see this thread devolve into that discussion.

I've worked in the field in lower 48 grizzly country, and I carried a 357 and kept a 12 ga in camp. I know multiple people who carry 9 mm handguns in grizz country. If I had to defend myself against one, I’d take an AR with the right bullets any day over any of that. If I needed to let the air out of a grizzly’s lungs from a distance, I’d be confident that I would be successful with a 223 with the right bullets. But coastal browns just aren’t in my experience wheelhouse.

The point I was trying to make is that bear skulls, even coastal browns, aren’t made of armor plate. Something that shatters the top of a moose humerus and makes it through to the vitals isn’t likely to bounce off a brown bear.

 

[fwafwow]

Thanks Marbles. I did not mean to belittle your concerns and I understand your point. It's just that these use enough gun discussions always seem to spiral into “what I would carry for bear attacks” from those who have little experience in big bear country. While you may have that experience, I’d still hate to see this thread devolve into that discussion.

I've worked in the field in lower 48 grizzly country, and I carried a 357 and kept a 12 ga in camp. I know multiple people who carry 9 mm handguns in grizz country. If I had to defend myself against one, I’d take an AR with the right bullets any day over any of that. If I needed to let the air out of a grizzly’s lungs from a distance, I’d be confident that I would be successful with a 223 with the right bullets. But coastal browns just aren’t in my experience wheelhouse.

The point I was trying to make is that bear skulls, even coastal browns, aren’t made of armor plate. Something that shatters the top of a moose humerus and makes it through to the vitals isn’t likely to bounce off a brown bear.

My apologies to all - as the tangent was even more remote in that I raised the issue that the bear skull topic was the only non-Fudd pushback to the 223 debate that I have seen (or can remember). Maybe we need a new thread - non-FUQs or something.

 

[mtnwrunner]

I think THIS thread is about ready to take off.
Be lots of 223/TMK'S wandering around the woods in about a week........mine included.

Randy

 

[PNWGATOR]

My apologies to all - as the tangent was even more remote in that I raised the issue that the bear skull topic was the only non-Fudd pushback to the 223 debate that I have seen (or can remember). Maybe we need a new thread - non-FUQs or something.

If it has to do with using the .223 to kill game animals then leave it on here.

 

[Mike Islander]

I think THIS thread is about ready to take off.
Be lots of 223/TMK'S wandering around the woods in about a week........mine included.

Randy

Mine was in the stand on Monday night. For the first time in years, I didn't see a single deer! But we had three turkeys walk right under us. I think I heard one give us a raspberry as they sauntered by.

P.S. I just learned at 61 years of age that rasberry is actually spelled raspberry, with a "P". Who knew?!!!

 

[Brontosaurus]

Mine was in the stand on Monday night. For the first time in years, I didn't see a single deer!

They knew you were carrying a weapon of mass destruction

 

[xsn10s]

They knew you were carrying a weapon of mass destruction

Poor defenseless deer.

 

[Marbles]

Thanks Marbles. I did not mean to belittle your concerns and I understand your point. It's just that these use enough gun discussions always seem to spiral into “what I would carry for bear attacks” from those who have little experience in big bear country. While you may have that experience, I’d still hate to see this thread devolve into that discussion.

I've worked in the field in lower 48 grizzly country, and I carried a 357 and kept a 12 ga in camp. I know multiple people who carry 9 mm handguns in grizz country. If I had to defend myself against one, I’d take an AR with the right bullets any day over any of that. If I needed to let the air out of a grizzly’s lungs from a distance, I’d be confident that I would be successful with a 223 with the right bullets. But coastal browns just aren’t in my experience wheelhouse.

The point I was trying to make is that bear skulls, even coastal browns, aren’t made of armor plate. Something that shatters the top of a moose humerus and makes it through to the vitals isn’t likely to bounce off a brown bear.

I agree they are not armor plate, they are rather angled though and can deflect a shot around the brain. I also get your point, I know people who think a 30-06 is too small for pigs because "they bounce off," so I get your concern.

In a hunting situation, based on this thread, I would consider a 223 a workable option for big bears. In a situation where I don't choose the shot and I may only get one shot as I'm not carrying an AR, I'm not fully convinced. That said, plenty of people recreate in bear country without a gun and have no issues (though they usually do not intentionally move quietly in prime bear areas with the wind specifically not moving their scent in front of them).

In the end I will admit it may just be a comfort blankie, but that comfort blankie lets me spend time sneaking around and sleeping solo in places where I see big tracks from multiple different bears, so I'm not inclined to ditch it, but am willing to consider replacing it.

As for a 9mm, the only successful brown bear defense I'm aware of with one the entire magazine was emptied into it and the bear basically allowed the shooter multiple shots. It certainly can work, I'm not convinced it is a good option, but that is another topic entirely.

The cases I'm aware of with modern sporting rifles also involved multiple shots. It did get the job done, but I don't hunt with an MSR and no one can work a bolt as fast as an autoloader.

The problem with bear defense is that it is rare enough no one has extensive experience with it and even if data was collected the sample would likely be too small to provide statistically significant conclusions.

 

[ResearchinStuff]

Have a source for the best defense stats? The one I read was a few years old and showed that anything larger than 32 acp was 100% effective in preventing human deaths.

 

[Formidilosus]

The ricochet with the 7 mag is hard to buy. I’ve heard lots of stories about bullet failure that are likely just bad shooting.

The excuses to hide bad shooting are of course real. However, skulls of almost all animals are shaped and designed in a way that aids and causes deflections. Bullets being deflected without penetrating the skull is a relatively common occurrence and can be demonstrated in controlled conditions.

The poignant point here is that pistol bullets are more susceptible to it than upsetting rifle projectiles, and a good semi auto 5.56mm rifle and bullet is about the best system for head shooting animals.

 

[Marbles]

My apologies to all - as the tangent was even more remote in that I raised the issue that the bear skull topic was the only non-Fudd pushback to the 223 debate that I have seen (or can remember). Maybe we need a new thread - non-FUQs or something.

If it has to do with using the .223 to kill game animals then leave it on here.

Sorry, I will shut up. I've always been good at making trouble.

 

[PNWGATOR]

Sorry, I will shut up. I've always been good at making trouble.

You’re not making trouble! Always appreciate your perspective!

 

[grappling_hook]

These are great discussions.

I do occasionally recreate in coastal brown bear country, and have worked in some of the same areas. My bear defense gun used to be a .338 Winchester Magnum, but now I carry a 223 AR in those areas. Never had to use either, but did have the safety off and on standby on the 338 a handful of times when a brownie was a little close.

 

[ElPollo]

My apologies to all - as the tangent was even more remote in that I raised the issue that the bear skull topic was the only non-Fudd pushback to the 223 debate that I have seen (or can remember). Maybe we need a new thread - non-FUQs or something.

Wasn’t my intention to make you or Marbles feel like either of you needed to apologize.

I agree they are not armor plate, they are rather angled though and can deflect a shot around the brain. I also get your point, I know people who think a 30-06 is too small for pigs because "they bounce off," so I get your concern.

In a hunting situation, based on this thread, I would consider a 223 a workable option for big bears. In a situation where I don't choose the shot and I may only get one shot as I'm not carrying an AR, I'm not fully convinced. That said, plenty of people recreate in bear country without a gun and have no issues (though they usually do not intentionally move quietly in prime bear areas with the wind specifically not moving their scent in front of them).

In the end I will admit it may just be a comfort blankie, but that comfort blankie lets me spend time sneaking around and sleeping solo in places where I see big tracks from multiple different bears, so I'm not inclined to ditch it, but am willing to consider replacing it.

As for a 9mm, the only successful brown bear defense I'm aware of with one the entire magazine was emptied into it and the bear basically allowed the shooter multiple shots. It certainly can work, I'm not convinced it is a good option, but that is another topic entirely.

The cases I'm aware of with modern sporting rifles also involved multiple shots. It did get the job done, but I don't hunt with an MSR and no one can work a bolt as fast as an autoloader.

The problem with bear defense is that it is rare enough no one has extensive experience with it and even if data was collected the sample would likely be too small to provide statistically significant conclusions.

I agree with what you and Form said about glancing shots. But if one centerfire rifle cartridge is going to glance off a skull from an angled shot, I’m not convinced a bigger cartridge wouldn’t do the same under similar circumstances. This is maybe more of a shot placement issue than a cartridge selection issue. But ultimately we are just discussing what-if scenarios with no data. I don't particularly feel comfortable swimming in the dogma pool.

I don’t mind these discussions, but I would respectfully suggest that this thread has always been about actual data on what bullets do to game animals in real life, and I think that has been the strong point of it. I’d love to get back to that. Now I’d appreciate it if one of you guys up north would go shoot a brown bear with a TMK and report back.

 

[PNWGATOR]

Wasn’t my intention to make you or Marbles feel like either of you needed to apologize.

I agree with what you and Form said about glancing shots. But if one centerfire rifle cartridge is going to glance off a skull from an angled shot, I’m not convinced a bigger cartridge wouldn’t do the same under similar circumstances. This is maybe more of a shot placement issue than a cartridge selection issue. But ultimately we are just discussing what-if scenarios with no data. I don't particularly feel comfortable swimming in the dogma pool.

I don’t mind these discussions, but I would respectfully suggest that this thread has always been about actual data on what bullets do to game animals in real life, and I think that has been the strong point of it. I’d love to get back to that. Now I’d appreciate it if one of you guys up north would go shoot a brown bear with a TMK and report back.

@Ryan Avery knows a Rokslide sponsored coastal brown bear .223 TMK hunt has been requested.

 

[Billy Goat]

@Ryan Avery knows a Rokslide sponsored coastal brown bear .223 TMK hunt has been requested.

These discussions are going to require a head on, close range kill tho.



No poking them in the lungs at 80-150 yards and letting them die from no lungs.
It must be proven that the tmk is a skull smasher.

 

[rcook10]

I've had good results on deer with the 62 TTSX and TSX in .223/.223AI. I much prefer the TTSX to the TSX. Those are the only non-lead I've used. After a fair bit of experience with them, I wouldn't leave lead for them unless legally required.

Have these loaded for my 9twist montana 223 and am hopefully going to be killing whitetails this weekend with them and will get pictures