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

[The Guide]

The Ranch rifles I have are actually chambered for 5.56.

My RAR 1st gen is chambered in 5.56 NATO.

Jay

 

[Mark.c]

All due respect, doesn’t your experience actually state “30 years of military experience would indicate that FMJ’s aren’t a good choice for hunting”?

The military is moving away from the 5.56 to larger calibers due the sub standard lethality. They went with the 5.56 due to weight carried by soldiers. Part of that is the FMJ, particularly M855 with the steel penetrator. A 77 grain hunting bullet is a better choice than FMJ (and required by law in most states). A even better choice for big game is a 150 grain hunting bullet, IMO, particularly larger quarry. BTW, thanks for the “all due respect”.

 

[Formidilosus]

The military is moving away from the 5.56 to larger calibers due the sub standard lethality.

No they aren’t. One branch with a poorly thought out idea trying to implement a horrible system for a relatively small subset of forces isn’t the military moving away from anything- and it certainly isn’t due to sub standard lethality.

 

[wesfromky]

My RAR 1st gen is chambered in 5.56 NATO.

Jay

As is my Gen 2.

 

[Dave0317]

No they aren’t. One branch with a poorly thought out idea trying to implement a horrible system for a relatively small subset of forces isn’t the military moving away from anything- and it certainly isn’t due to sub standard lethality.

You referring to the AR-10 size receiver, heavier base weight, more recoiling Sig rifle that the Army infantry is getting?

The round sounds good on paper, but when you apply the above rifle to this latest gen of kids, I don’t think it will go well.

We can’t seem to stop recruiting kids that just want to eat Cheetos and energy drinks and play video games. They don’t need a heavier longer rifle and more recoil. I’d rather them upgrade the issued ammo to a match 77 grain bullet, and upgrade the M4 to the current configurations you see used in high performing tac teams.

 

[Bugger]

You referring to the AR-10 size receiver, heavier base weight, more recoiling Sig rifle that the Army infantry is getting?

The round sounds good on paper, but when you apply the above rifle to this latest gen of kids, I don’t think it will go well.

We can’t seem to stop recruiting kids that just want to eat Cheetos and energy drinks and play video games. They don’t need a heavier longer rifle and more recoil. I’d rather them upgrade the issued ammo to a match 77 grain bullet, and upgrade the M4 to the current configurations you see used in high performing tac teams.

You’re almost there. Keep thinking

 

[Mark.c]

No they aren’t. One branch with a poorly thought out idea trying to implement a horrible system for a relatively small subset of forces isn’t the military moving away from anything- and it certainly isn’t due to sub standard lethality.

“Army's fiscal 2025 budget request, the service has a long-term plan of buying 111,428 XM7 rifles, 13,334 XM250 automatic rifles, and 124,749 XM157 Fire Control devices..”

The Army Has Finally Fielded Its Next Generation Squad Weapons

The Army has officially fielded its Next Generation Squad Weapon systems to its first unit, replacing its M4 and M249 weapons in a change decades in the making.

www.military.com

I will agree that non-combat arms units will be using 5.56 for a long while, however historically when the US Army fields a major weapons system, other services and allies tend to follow. The main driver was lethality issues at longer ranges.

Back to hunting, the 77g 5.56 certainly has its place, specifically smaller static animals at shorter ranges. I would not classify 5.56 as an “all around” big game cartridge as indicated by the thread title since there are so many other great options.

 

[Grundy53]

The military is moving away from the 5.56 to larger calibers due the sub standard lethality. They went with the 5.56 due to weight carried by soldiers. Part of that is the FMJ, particularly M855 with the steel penetrator. A 77 grain hunting bullet is a better choice than FMJ (and required by law in most states). A even better choice for big game is a 150 grain hunting bullet, IMO, particularly larger quarry. BTW, thanks for the “all due respect”.

The reasoning isn't lethality. It's body armor. Also, since when do we trust the government to make good decisions?

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

 

[omicron1792]

“Army's fiscal 2025 budget request, the service has a long-term plan of buying 111,428 XM7 rifles, 13,334 XM250 automatic rifles, and 124,749 XM157 Fire Control devices..”

The Army Has Finally Fielded Its Next Generation Squad Weapons

The Army has officially fielded its Next Generation Squad Weapon systems to its first unit, replacing its M4 and M249 weapons in a change decades in the making.

www.military.com

I will agree that non-combat arms units will be using 5.56 for a long while, however historically when the US Army fields a major weapons system, other services and allies tend to follow. The main driver was lethality issues at longer ranges.

Back to hunting, the 77g 5.56 certainly has its place, specifically smaller static animals at shorter ranges. I would not classify 5.56 as an “all around” big game cartridge as indicated by the thread title since there are so many other great options.

Thanks for your personal opinion. It really stacks up well with all the data in the thread

 

[Big_wals]

I would not classify 5.56 as an “all around” big game cartridge as indicated by the thread title since there are so many other great options.

How about classification based on the actual contents of the thread, not just the title? Have you read past the first page?

 

[atmat]

How about classification based on the actual contents of the thread, not just the title? Have you read past the first page?

You know they never do.

 

[The Guide]

Back to hunting, the 77g 5.56 certainly has its place, specifically smaller static animals at shorter ranges. I would not classify 5.56 as an “all around” big game cartridge as indicated by the thread title since there are so many other great options.

Based on what metric? There has been a pretty substantial amount of in field study done by participants in this thread that show otherwise.

Jay

 

[Dave0317]

Back to hunting, the 77g 5.56 certainly has its place, specifically smaller static animals at shorter ranges. I would not classify 5.56 as an “all around” big game cartridge as indicated by the thread title since there are so many other great options.

I don’t think the title or contents “classify” the 223 in any particular category.
It’s a “discussion” about various animals being shot with 223 bullets. The discussion has resulted in many people sharing pictures and accounts of excellent lethality on various animals. In fact, I’m not sure anyone has shown a 223 to be regularly ineffective on any particular animal. Take the evidence as you will and hunt with what you like and what you are comfortable with.

But just be informed of what you may or may not gain and what you are giving up by going to other cartridges with regard to hit rate, lethality, etc.

 

[Mark.c]

Actually I did follow the thread. I am surprised as to some of the oddly defensive reactions from the 77grain 5.56 crowd when offered other points of view. I have seen lighter caliber shots big game animals go poorly resulting in loss or a drawn out track. Certainly use the legal caliber of your choice. It’s your hunt not mine.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

This is a thread with real world results. Actual dead animals with excellent photos, revealing how the animal died.

Coming in with strong opinions against using the cartridge, with zero/minimal experience or zero kills/proof of kills; when there is clear as day evidence littered throughout this thread, is just wild to me haha.

 

[omicron1792]

Actually I did follow the thread. I am surprised as to some of the oddly defensive reactions from the 77grain 5.56 crowd when offered other points of view. I have seen lighter caliber shots big game animals go poorly resulting in loss or a drawn out track. Certainly use the legal caliber of your choice. It’s your hunt not mine.

You offered straight opinion contrary to the data. Please provide data points to back up your opinion. If not, it’s just another contrary opinion trying to troll

 

[atmat]

You offered straight opinion contrary to the data. Please provide data points to back up your opinion. If not, it’s just another contrary opinion trying to troll

It’s always the same: “I heard someone who saw someone say that the animal didn’t even flinch when shot with a 223.”

 

[mt terry d]

Well it only took me a month to read, is the reason I joined the site, and is still boggling my mind.

I know it works and can see it but will continue to question until I go do it(but thats just a character flaw I have in regards to anything, I need to see results first hand to truly accept and stop questioning). .......

That's not a character flaw. Trust but verify.

Thanks god I have all my stuff already because if I didn't, this thread would have been expensive!

I didn't have all my stuff already. But it was worth it!

Edit* BTW, tell your friends this winter I'll have a very nice Browning A Bolt, stainless/synthetic, 300 win mag, 26" with
Leupold scope for sale; it's the perfect elk rifle!

 

[eric1115]

Back to hunting, the 77g 5.56 certainly has its place, specifically smaller static animals at shorter ranges. I would not classify 5.56 as an “all around” big game cartridge as indicated by the thread title since there are so many other great options.

Do you consider your position to be based on reason or on emotion?

If reason, what is the evidence that has led you to this position?

What evidence would it take to change your mind and cause you to view the .223 as an "all around big game cartridge"?

 

[RockAndSage]

Back to hunting, the 77g 5.56 certainly has its place, specifically smaller static animals at shorter ranges. I would not classify 5.56 as an “all around” big game cartridge as indicated by the thread title since there are so many other great options.

I think what most people miss in this discussion are factors relating to shootability - you can't just take the cartridge and math it out in isolation of that. Context and human factors matter immensely.

Yes, there are plenty of amazing cartridges out there - but how many can someone shoot 200 focused, careful rounds out of in an afternoon, without developing a flinch or breaking the bank? Now jack that up to 5000 rounds a year. How many heavy recoiling cartridges will allow someone to shoot from a dozen different improvised field positions without smoking their own forehead with their scope?

What you get out of 5.56 is excellent shot placement, due to practice, familiarity, and exceptional knowledge-based experience of your rifle.

Sure, you can move up to things that have similarly low recoil, like .22-250, 22Creedmoor, .243, 6CM, etc, but how much of that can you shoot on your personal budget, compared to .223? There's no replacement for experience - double the cost of ammo for most people, and you halve the amount of shooting most can do.

Psychology matters here, too - over the years, I've become pretty convinced that a huge part of "buck fever" or target panic comes from not knowing your weapon intimately. Not knowing you can smoke that animal from any number of positions at all sorts of distances, because you haven't done it in practice. That angle, that brush, that distance, that wind, those shadows, that dust, that snow. The only way to get that is with practice to the point where you've done it or something very close in practice hundreds of times. And you're just not going to get that with a heavy recoiling cartridge. And - the honest threshold for flinch or recoil-anticipation is a lot lower than most people will admit.