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

[ElPollo]

This is often the case. It often amazes me how people can reject photographic evidence, actual math, and proven physics because one time someone they know told them something different.

People reject evidence that doesn’t agree with their preconceived beliefs all the time.

 

[ElPollo]

Just spent a week reading through this thread in my spare time. What an education!

It occurs to me that this is like the scientific method. You have a question, you research existing data, you form a hypothesis, you design an experiment to test your hypothesis, the experimental results prove or disprove your hypothesis, you continue on your way better at life because of what you learned.

Now let's go through this as the typical Magnum-Fudd:

Question: What cartridge will allow me to recover the highest percentage of game animals?

Research:
*Bullets kill animals with magic energy. *The more magic energy, the quicker the kill.
*Bigger & faster bullets contain more magic energy than smaller or slower bullets, +20% bonus for "Mag" "RM" "WM" or "Wby" on the head stamp.
*If you make a poor shot, extra magic energy from a magnum will spill out from the bullet and flow toward the vitals.
*Shoulders can stop bullets, consuming at least half of the magic energy of any bullet that makes it through, so you need to choose a round with double the energy and use a controlled expansion bullet if there's any possibility of hitting a shoulder.

Experiment: (note, the Magnum-Fudd has no reason actually to test his hypothesis, because everyone in the cabelas ammo aisle already confirmed.)
*Read hundreds of first hand accounts and necropsy photos from the lowly 223.
*Learn that it is the disruption of heart & lung tissue within the wound channel that kills the animal by depriving the brain of oxygen.
*Learn that a heavy match style bullet in a baby cartridge like 223 creates as large or larger wound channel than a tough controlled expansion bullet from a big magnum.
*Learn that you can likely make more accurate hits with a 223 than a 338 and you can absolutely afford to practice more with 223 than 338.
*Observe that 223 TMK death runs are equal or shorter than magnum death runs.

Conclusion:
*223 allows you to place shots more accurately both because it is easier to shoot and it is cheaper and funner to practice with.
*With bullets such as the 77 TMK, 223 actually gives a GREATER margin of error because the wound channel is larger than a controlled expansion bullet from a magnum.
*Conclude that a small round like 223 may actually result in more animals successfully recovered than a more powerfull cartridge.
*Reject all of the irrefutable photographic evidence and instead continue to cling to your original fuddlore hypothesis.
*Tell stories about how the Viet Cong could use 556 ammo in their AKs because their bore size was larger than ours and 50bmg can kill without contact because of its shockwave instead of practicing shooting from field positions with your $4/round 338wm.
*Continue hunting with big guns you have not practiced with, topped with a scope that doesn't hold zero, wounding and losing more animals than the 223 guys.


I like big cartridges as much as the next guy. Of the last three deer I shot, two were with 375h&h and the other was 300wsm. I'm all for people using whatever cartridge makes them happy.

BUT what people seem to be doing is rejecting actual evidence that's clearly laid out in front of them and continuing to say a big cartridge gives them more "margin for error" or "shorter tracking job" or is "more ethical." These things are demonstrably false.

Back to the scientific method, it's like the experimental results have disproven the hypothesis, but the fudds decide to reject the results and cling to the hypothesis instead.

Magnum people are collecting data on the performance of their guns, but are largely avoiding the question of how well they shoot them. All the stuff they’ve read tells them energy, excess penetration, and bullet weight retention are important variables. But none of those variable ultimately effect how a bullet kills normal big game. So they continue to shoot bigger, harder kicking guns with bullets that reduce their killing power. All the industry misinformation excludes the option of using a gun that is easier to shoot while simultaneously maximizing the damage that gun causes through bullet selection. This is circular logic that no application of the scientific method can help or resolve.

 

[Savagenut]

This may have been posted but there are a number of gel tests on YouTube.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wirehead]

I think the argument is that a well designed 0.224 bullet at proper velocity is very sufficient at killing large game - with the 77 gr TMK and equivalents, we now have that. An equally well designed 0.308 bullet, for example, at the same velocity would cause greater - and thus more than necessary - damage on an NA big game animal. This is basic laws of physics.

I absolutely agree that those who own mags shoot far less than those who own lower recoil energy rifles - this is a basic function of pain tolerance and economics. 30 ft-lbs vs 5 and $3/shot vs $0.70. We would all tend to shoot a 300 WM just enough to check zero each year while want to fire off a few more 223s because it just brings a smile to our faces. And thus… shot placement and rifle proficiency. And this, I believe, is the most significant point of this whole topic. Those who shoot lower recoiling, more economic cartridges shoot more and are thus more proficient.

I’m a believer in 223 for deer - seen it first hand and believe the abundance of info here. Will I be trading my 300 wsm + 205 gr EH in for a 223 for western big game? Not just yet…

 

[Devin]

First time poster in this thread. Got the bug on this a couple years ago and bought this Ruger American Predator when Tikkas were non-existent. Shoots great and I am enjoying loading the TMK. That said, I did shoot some AAC 77gr TMKs yesterday, and as others have experienced, I had a case split. A little unnerving. Best grouping with them was around 1". I am under 1" with TAC and my own loads. Just thought I'd share my experience on them.

 

[grfox92]

First time poster in this thread. Got the bug on this a couple years ago and bought this Ruger American Predator when Tikkas were non-existent. Shoots great and I am enjoying loading the TMK. That said, I did shoot some AAC 77gr TMKs yesterday, and as others have experienced, I had a case split. A little unnerving. Best grouping with them was around 1". I am under 1" with TAC and my own loads. Just thought I'd share my experience on them.

Is that the MDT field stock? How do you like it?

Sent from my SM-G990U2 using Tapatalk

 

[woods89]

Entry


Exit


Chest cavity


I'm not doing very well at detailed necropsies this year, but.....

Whitetail doe, 69 gr TMK, impact velocity 2750ish. She saw me, ran about 30 yds, and stopped to look. Shot was high shoulderish, although just a bit back from ideal placement. Bullet impacted bottom of the spine, and still caused a lot of trauma to the lungs. The deer dropped, tried to get up once, kicked a bit, and was done.

Very little meat loss with this one. Shot looks further back than it is because legs are fully forward from hanging head down.

 

[wyosam]

Magnum people are collecting data on the performance of their guns, but are largely avoiding the question of how well they shoot them. All the stuff they’ve read tells them energy, excess penetration, and bullet weight retention are important variables. But none of those variable ultimately effect how a bullet kills normal big game. So they continue to shoot bigger, harder kicking guns with bullets that reduce their killing power. All the industry misinformation excludes the option of using a gun that is easier to shoot while simultaneously maximizing the damage that gun causes through bullet selection. This is circular logic that no application of the scientific method can help or resolve.

There are certainly people following that, but that’s a pretty broad brush. You make it sound as though the folks in the “small bore” (used for lack of a better collective term) threads are the only people using bullets like the tmk, Eldm, various bergers etc for hunting. This has been proliferating for quite some time now, following the growing popularity of long range shooting, even among those who don’t shoot long range. Many of the converts to smaller cartridges were likely already shooting those bullets. The industry has also been trumpeting the CM cartridges for a long time now as hunting rifles because of their shoot-ability compared to larger cartridges.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ElPollo]

There are certainly people following that, but that’s a pretty broad brush. You make it sound as though the folks in the “small bore” (used for lack of a better collective term) threads are the only people using bullets like the tmk, Eldm, various bergers etc for hunting. This has been proliferating for quite some time now, following the growing popularity of long range shooting, even among those who don’t shoot long range. Many of the converts to smaller cartridges were likely already shooting those bullets. The industry has also been trumpeting the CM cartridges for a long time now as hunting rifles because of their shoot-ability compared to larger cartridges.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My intent wasn’t to represent everyone shooting small bores. But if you’re a 300 RUM aficionado considering switching over, you aren’t going to be happy with a 223 or 6 mm with monos or other controlled expansion bullets. You can get comparable wound channels with small bores, but only with fragmenting bullets like those you mentioned. That said, even to controlled expansion bullets and monos can kill in the small bores. You just have less margin for error on accuracy because the wound channels are smaller, less range due to higher minimum upset velocities, and the animals you shoot are likely to travel further before they die.

 

[Anschutz]

You can get comparable wound channels with small bores, but only with fragmenting bullets like those you mentioned. That said, even to controlled expansion bullets and monos can kill in the small bores. You just have less margin for error on accuracy because the wound channels are smaller, less range due to higher minimum upset velocities, and the animals you shoot are likely to travel further before they die.

I'm going to add "likely with a less reliable blood trail." The TMK, ELD-M, etc. cause massive damage because they're sending little, sharp pieces of copper and lead through a lot of tissue. I've seen similar from the ELD-X at higher impact velocities (in larger cartridges) as well. I wish my current area allowed something other than SG/MZ without going onto state land because I shoot a few thousand 75gr ELD-M a year and wouldn't mind giving this a try myself.

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

 

[justinspicher]

Why gas gun over a bolt gun and what makes your gas gun different than the standard (I assume AR) AR? Trigger? Stock? Barrel?

I like the ergonomics and versatility of my AR better. I’ll also say that I’ve been carrying an AR for just over 25 years for work and it feels better for me. My gas gun is a proprietary build, which can have its own issues, but so far I’ve not experienced any.

 

[Luke S]

After going through this thread there is no doubt a 223 would be great for the kids I take hunting in Alaska.
I really want to build a lightweight AR15 for Alaska hunts. It looks really practical. Hunt your caribou or whatever. Add a tactical light if you're carrying meat out in bear country. Take it apart and stick it in the pack for gnarly bushwacking. Rapid fire if you do have a face off with a grizzly. Adjust the stock for different shooters.
My big hang up is the lack of blood trails that i see in reports. On our black bear hunts we've never had a bear travel more then about 50 yards after a solid hit with a 308, 358 or 30/06. So blood trails aren't really necessary but they are there and they would be nice if a bear ever goes a bit farther.
Now when I look at the pictures I'm sure a 223 could have killed all our bears. But if they ran 50 to 100 yards without a blood trail that could get really frustrating. I don't like tracking jobs with multiple unwounded bears in the area (bear baits).
Thoughts? Is less blood just the trade off for all the other advantages of a 223? The suppressed 308 still works fine on baits. For mountain spot and stalk the AR 15 has a lot of appeal but a 100 yard run into thick alders would be miserable to find without blood. Please don't say "pick shots" where we hunt its hard to see a bear that is not close to an alder filled gully.

 

[ResearchinStuff]

Blood trails are variable. Here's what mine like like on a deer with a 77 tmk, it was the best trail I had all year, and the best rifle trail in several years. It was also only 5 yards long.

 

[Squincher]

Just spent a week reading through this thread in my spare time. What an education!

It occurs to me that this is like the scientific method. You have a question, you research existing data, you form a hypothesis, you design an experiment to test your hypothesis, the experimental results prove or disprove your hypothesis, you continue on your way better at life because of what you learned.

Now let's go through this as the typical Magnum-Fudd:

Question: What cartridge will allow me to recover the highest percentage of game animals?

Research:
*Bullets kill animals with magic energy. *The more magic energy, the quicker the kill.
*Bigger & faster bullets contain more magic energy than smaller or slower bullets, +20% bonus for "Mag" "RM" "WM" or "Wby" on the head stamp.
*If you make a poor shot, extra magic energy from a magnum will spill out from the bullet and flow toward the vitals.
*Shoulders can stop bullets, consuming at least half of the magic energy of any bullet that makes it through, so you need to choose a round with double the energy and use a controlled expansion bullet if there's any possibility of hitting a shoulder.

Experiment: (note, the Magnum-Fudd has no reason actually to test his hypothesis, because everyone in the cabelas ammo aisle already confirmed.)
*Read hundreds of first hand accounts and necropsy photos from the lowly 223.
*Learn that it is the disruption of heart & lung tissue within the wound channel that kills the animal by depriving the brain of oxygen.
*Learn that a heavy match style bullet in a baby cartridge like 223 creates as large or larger wound channel than a tough controlled expansion bullet from a big magnum.
*Learn that you can likely make more accurate hits with a 223 than a 338 and you can absolutely afford to practice more with 223 than 338.
*Observe that 223 TMK death runs are equal or shorter than magnum death runs.

Conclusion:
*223 allows you to place shots more accurately both because it is easier to shoot and it is cheaper and funner to practice with.
*With bullets such as the 77 TMK, 223 actually gives a GREATER margin of error because the wound channel is larger than a controlled expansion bullet from a magnum.
*Conclude that a small round like 223 may actually result in more animals successfully recovered than a more powerfull cartridge.
*Reject all of the irrefutable photographic evidence and instead continue to cling to your original fuddlore hypothesis.
*Tell stories about how the Viet Cong could use 556 ammo in their AKs because their bore size was larger than ours and 50bmg can kill without contact because of its shockwave instead of practicing shooting from field positions with your $4/round 338wm.
*Continue hunting with big guns you have not practiced with, topped with a scope that doesn't hold zero, wounding and losing more animals than the 223 guys.


I like big cartridges as much as the next guy. Of the last three deer I shot, two were with 375h&h and the other was 300wsm. I'm all for people using whatever cartridge makes them happy.

BUT what people seem to be doing is rejecting actual evidence that's clearly laid out in front of them and continuing to say a big cartridge gives them more "margin for error" or "shorter tracking job" or is "more ethical." These things are demonstrably false.

Back to the scientific method, it's like the experimental results have disproven the hypothesis, but the fudds decide to reject the results and cling to the hypothesis instead.

It isn't the scientific method when there is no way to track and prove failure of the hypothesis. If a wounded animal escapes there is no way to definitively prove whether it was due to bullet failure or a bad shot, only conjecture. But I suppose drawing conclusions with only evidence the researcher wants passes for science these days. Not to say anecdotal evidence can't be persuasive, but it isn't scientific method.

 

[robtattoo]

A great friend of mine got another data point last night (he's not a member here)
89yd broadside shot, Henry Long Ranger 1:9 with a 62gr Federal Fusion. Hit a little farther back than ideal, but caught a rib on the way in with a maybe ½" entrance. Passed between 2 ribs on the way out but left a 2" tear through the flank & hide. Both lungs were completely obliterated (I'd guess around a 3" permanent cavity, if I jigsawed them back together)
30yd death run, but very little bloodtrail.

He said that he was shocked at how quickly it dropped with a not ideal shot.

I think he's a convert......

 

[KHNC]

Remember, the topic and context of the thread is on the .223 (and .223-adjacent) rounds. SMK in .308/168gr is not really the same as SMK in .223/77gr; the people who have advised against SMKs for hunting in this thread have pretty specifically mentioned the .223 varieties.

Yes, i wasnt referring to just this thread regarding SMK's. I have read many posts regarding not using SMK's for a variety of calibers. I was relating to my only experience with SMK's in relation to this thread.

 

[mt terry d]

"if it goes 50 yards or more without a blood trail...."

If stuff is that thick shots can't be very long. Why not just brain shoot it?

I've tracked bow shot elk several hundred yards on soft needle covered forest floors with little more than a droplet of blood here and there and I'm not the world's best tracker by far. Sure, bears are harder but it's not uncommon for their fat to plug the hole(s).

I'm not implying that you guys don't know there's an art to tracking, I just think you may be forgetting it for the sake of conversation.

 

[Devin]

Is that the MDT field stock? How do you like it?

Sent from my SM-G990U2 using Tapatalk

It is the MDT field stock. The ergos are great and a huge improvement over stock. Only downside is that it is a little on the heavy side for what I like to pack around.

 

[wyosam]

"if it goes 50 yards or more without a blood trail...."

If stuff is that thick shots can't be very long. Why not just brain shoot it?

.

Bears are frequently seen on the edge of, or in small openings in very thick cover here. Shot may be longer, because you can see them in that small opening. Brain shot bear skulls look lousy on the mantle.

I thought I spent time in some pretty thick, miserable brush to travel, track or pack meat through before moving to AK. I had not as it turns out. I’ve always been a minimalist in what’s in my pack. I carried long handled, geared pruners in my pack (and frequently in my hands) on a moose hunt this fall for getting through alder walls, and it seemed like an entirely reasonable thing to carry. Hearing how fast bears travel through that crap makes the idea of tracking one in there seem like a miserable experience.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Thegman]

Bears are frequently seen on the edge of, or in small openings in very thick cover here. Shot may be longer, because you can see them in that small opening. Brain shot bear skulls look lousy on the mantle.

I thought I spent time in some pretty thick, miserable brush to travel, track or pack meat through before moving to AK. I had not as it turns out. I’ve always been a minimalist in what’s in my pack. I carried long handled, geared pruners in my pack (and frequently in my hands) on a moose hunt this fall for getting through alder walls, and it seemed like an entirely reasonable thing to carry. Hearing how fast bears travel through that crap makes the idea of tracking one in there seem like a miserable experience.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And the part that's worse is having to pack them back out through that shit...