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

[AZ_Hunter]

My original plan was a suppressed rifle for my daughter to get into hunting. After reading this thread I have decided to go with a 223. For the hassle and cost of a suppressor, I am now questioning if the juice would be worth the squeeze for such a light recoiling round.

Yes. Get one. Kids will enjoy shooting and get better when using a can. The blast reduction makes a big difference in building good habits.

 

[bcmntgoathunter.]

Picked up a nightforce 2.5x10x42 for my tikka 223 can't wait to get it mounted and shoot it also got my mountain tactical .223 mag in the mail so I can load out longer.and a kg of n540 and 1000 fed small rifle primers

 

[Billy Goat]

Ok say we have two different 77 grain bullets pushed to the same velocity. One that penetrates deeply and one that makes a shallower but wider disruption of material. If we had a media such as modeling clay that doesn't collapse upon itself and filled the voids caused by the two bullets with a liquid and then measured that liquid's weight it should be the same.

I know this is a few days old, but I can't let it go.


A baseball has a volume of 12 3/4 cubic inches. I think that would signify a pretty small wound.

A golf ball is 1.68 cubic inches.


A .224 bullet, that doesn't open or tumble, would need to travel over 3 1/2 feet to equal the volume of a golf ball, assuming a .224" hole.

Let's say a .224 fmj caliber bullet rips a hole that's 1/2" in diameter, it would need to travel 5 1/2 feet to equal the volume of a baseball.


I don't make it a practice to measure wound channel volume, but I don't think you can just say (X) weight is going to create a void this volume irrespective of bullet construction.


There's always different efficiencies in form factor. It's not as easy as saying everything is equal.


It was oversimplifying a situation got us here, with a random KE # that is supposed to be adequate. When bullet technology wasn't that different, it was likely more accurate. With the wide range of bullets we currently have, it's just more than some amount of energy gets you there.

 

[FredH]

I know this is a few days old, but I can't let it go.


A baseball has a volume of 12 3/4 cubic inches. I think that would signify a pretty small wound.

A golf ball is 1.68 cubic inches.


A .224 bullet, that doesn't open or tumble, would need to travel over 3 1/2 feet to equal the volume of a golf ball, assuming a .224" hole.

Let's say a .224 fmj caliber bullet rips a hole that's 1/2" in diameter, it would need to travel 5 1/2 feet to equal the volume of a baseball.


I don't make it a practice to measure wound channel volume, but I don't think you can just say (X) weight is going to create a void this volume irrespective of bullet construction.


There's always different efficiencies in form factor. It's not as easy as saying everything is equal.


It was oversimplifying a situation got us here, with a random KE # that is supposed to be adequate. When bullet technology wasn't that different, it was likely more accurate. With the wide range of bullets we currently have, it's just more than some amount of energy gets you there.

Your math is off by a lot. A 22 bullet that neither tumbled or open would open a wider channel than .224 until it came to a stop. However in the interest of widening your understanding.

Kinetic energy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Billy Goat]

Your math is off by a lot. However in the interest of widening your understanding.

Kinetic energy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

My math isn't off. Spheres and pipe are pretty easy to determine volume of.


Think what you want bud.

 

[fwafwow]

My math isn't off. Spheres and pipe are pretty easy to determine volume of.


Think what you want bud.

I don’t think he understands

 

[Billy Goat]

I don’t think he understands

Using a formula that developed potential energy, versus the dynamics of different materials and the way they interact with media at velocity.

What's heavier, dump truck with 20 ton of rock or 20 ton of feathers?
That should be his question.


But no, equal energy=same hole.

 

[FredH]

My math isn't off. Spheres and pipe are pretty easy to determine volume of.


Think what you want bud.

However a bullet under speed will create a wider channel than it's diameter until it stops or nearly stops. 5 1/2 feet won't be needed. Yes a baseball has the volume of 12.77. Significance?

 

[FredH]

Using a formula that developed potential energy, versus the dynamics of different materials and the way they interact with media at velocity.

What's heavier, dump truck with 20 ton of rock or 20 ton of feathers?
That should be his question.


But no, equal energy=same hole.

20 tons of truck and 20 tons of feathers weigh the same. Any Idea how you would get 20 tons of feathers to 60 miles an hour? On a train?

 

[Billy Goat]

However a bullet under speed will create a wider channel than it's diameter until it stops or nearly stops. 5 1/2 feet won't be needed. Yes a baseball has the volume of 12.77. Significance?

That's why I gave a .224 bullet a .50 diameter.

I'm saying the premise is way off. A 77tmk creates a wound bigger than a baseball, more like a football.


But with what you said, all 100 gr bullets impacting at 2500 fps will create the same wound volume. That's just not true.

Bullet reaction is what controls the wound volume.

 

[h2so4]

 

[swavescatter]

 

[MEdude]

Ancient Maine proverb states…

Arguing with those who only wish to argue is futile.

Definition of ancient:
Relative to the half-life of hydrogen-7.
Or around 23 yoctoseconds.
Or 23 septillionth’s of a second.

A.K.A. - “Don’t take the bait…”

FYI a 7H isotope has very little mass, but if you fire it out of an isotope gun at warp 9.8 the kinetic energy would make a very fine wound channel. Principally due to the squaring of the velocity, not so much the mass.

 

[WIDrake]

I don't think there's a person yet that has been able to identify which dead animal was shot with a 223 and which was shot with a 308, or 270 or... pick anything.

Sadly you'd 100% have been able to differentiate my deer this year from a 77tmk....but that's cuz I grabbed the wrong bullet and a 178eldm impacting around 2750 (06@ 40 yards) does so much damage that a blind man could see the difference. Softball sized exit hole, didn't hit bone going in but took out ribs and blew up the off side shoulder heading out. Sadly no wound pics cuz I was alone and it was late Thanksgiving with a 2.5mile pack out with the whole deer. Wisco you can't leave hide and ribs so it all had to go except guts and lower legs. But my unicorn was a Thanksgiving freezer filler miracle!

06 was cuz my 223 doesn't stabilize the 75eldm below 20°F and the high for the day was 17. Maybe next year for the 223 though as I hunted with it for 5 days before I had to switch and got a shot.

 

[Tahr]

.223 and penetration. 62 grn Maker bullet.
Hands up, I muffed this shot. 100 yards standing and the deer was walking. Hit it in the 3rd rib (from the back). Ouch. It staggered and disappeared. My dog tracked it about 150/200 yards. It was alive, but immobile and I quickly dispatched it. Not my most glorious moment.
The interesting thing is that while no vitals were hit in the ordinary sense it was still close to death and incapacitated when I found it (maybe 15 minutes after I shot it).
The bullet had penetrated right through the deer and had expanded well. The internal damage (very yucky) was considerable.

From my experience I doubt a larger caliber would have done any better. Sort of brings into question that bigger calibers allow a greater margin of error.

Here's my dog with the deer just before I called her off to finish it.


And here it is to illustrate the cross section of the penetration. I imagine these Fallow deer are the size of a whitetail doe.


And here is the exit. Good expansion and exit trauma.


I shot 2 other deer the same evening and they were good one shot kills at 300 and 288 yards. One was a reasonably sized Red deer stag. Full penetration in the shoulder and out the front of the paunch. He's in the chiller and I will have a look at the entry and exit when I butcher him.

 

[Thegman]

.223 and penetration. 62 grn Maker bullet.
Hands up, I muffed this shot. 100 yards standing and the deer was walking. Hit it in the 3rd rib (from the back). Ouch. It staggered and disappeared. My dog tracked it about 150/200 yards. It was alive, but immobile and I quickly dispatched it. Not my most glorious moment.
The interesting thing is that while no vitals were hit in the ordinary sense it was still close to death and incapacitated when I found it (maybe 15 minutes after I shot it).
The bullet had penetrated right through the deer and had expanded well. The internal damage (very yucky) was considerable.

From my experience I doubt a larger caliber would have done any better. Sort of brings into question that bigger calibers allow a greater margin of error.

Here's my dog with the deer just before I called her off to finish it.
View attachment 808334

And here it is to illustrate the cross section of the penetration. I imagine these Fallow deer are the size of a whitetail doe.
View attachment 808335

And here is the exit. Good expansion and exit trauma.
View attachment 808336

I shot 2 other deer the same evening and they were good one shot kills at 300 and 288 yards. One was a reasonably sized Red deer stag. Full penetration in the shoulder and out the front of the paunch. He's in the chiller and I will have a look at the entry and exit when I butcher him.

View attachment 808337

Were the other two with the 62 TRex as well?

Thanks for the info on the Makers. Very interesting, to me anyway. Now that the 77TMKs ability has been established beyond any reasonable doubt, I think it's interesting/useful to compare/contrast other bullets to the "77TMK Standard".

 

[Thegman]

Your math is off by a lot. A 22 bullet that neither tumbled or open would open a wider channel than .224 until it came to a stop. However in the interest of widening your understanding.

Kinetic energy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So...you've yet to show how you would apply that knowledge. You just keep stating KE over and over.

E.g., what termial performance results do your calculations predict for -a bullet- impacting game with 558 ft-lbs of KE as stated above?

Strangely, you seem to be avoiding the application of your treatise to this question.

 

[Billogna]

Basically... there's NO way to KNOW what KE does until AFTER its done its job. We all readily admit it plays a part in what happens. But it's impossible to determine how that energy will be expressed physically inside an animal, with SO many variables, that are virtually impossible to account for. So therefore.... Energy is NOT a useful metric when determining wounding capability of bullets. I personally wish they would remove it from ballistics calculators and charts completely.

 

[Tahr]

Were the other two with the 62 TRex as well?

Thanks for the info on the Makers. Very interesting, to me anyway. Now that the 77TMKs ability has been established beyond any reasonable doubt, I think it's interesting/useful to compare/contrast other bullets to the "77TMK Standard".

Yes they were. Im using solid copper/lead free on the deer I shoot for a charity. And as you say its interesting to gather comparative data.

About energy, lung/shoulder shot deer with the 55 grn Hornady and Sierra at mid ranges (250 odd yards) demonstrate that the co-relation between tissue damage and energy is tenuous. The damage caused is out of proportion to their piddly energy figures and they plain kill stuff through the physical trauma they cause. Its the sort of evidence you experience and see when the helicopter actually lands.

 

[HNTR918]

1/2x28 with no adapter is my preferred method on lightweight barrels.