6 ARC ammunition

Boy-howdy have there been some doozy threads here in the last week blocked up with indigestible crap like a stag party who went for all-you-can eat McDonalds ...

Is it not hunting season in the US, or something? This usually happens once a year, usually when y'all aren't out hunting, and are at home with nothing better to do than channel the spirit of Ron Spomer ...
 
I have read them, along with the other threads about how much 223 wounds an animal, can't be recovered, or has to be shot more than that 308 I mentioned.
do you have a link to this thread? All I see is success stories with guys shooting 223s with proper bullets.
 
These are my favorite threads, I read through most of the .223 TMK thread and after a while I just skimmed and waited for these type of comments to come through. I have no dog in the fight, no experience with killing with the small calibers, besides a 257 weatherby, and that experience is skewed a little bit.
 
109grain ELDM. This is what I'll be loading for next years 2nd rifle hunt from my 16.5" barrel. With that said, 99% of shots where we hunt are under 150 yards and I tend to pick my shots. I personally do not purposely shooting elk in the humerus. They arn't that hard to kill, they just can be "tough" even if they are a dead bull standing. The crazy thing is, myself and my family have used 7mm mags, .270s, 30-06, .308s, etc. The bullets used, we have also used on whitetails and the weirdest thing out these high sectional density cup and cores in the 6mm, they have out penetrated on game (whitetails because I haven't shot an elk yet with the 6mm ARC) vs using say a standard 140 grain cup and core from the .270 or a 150 grain cup and core from the 30-06. I consistently get pass throughs on deer with the 108 ELDMS, where the once I mentioned above, I did not. And the trauma inflicted in the chest cavity is a lot like the cartridges I mentioned above.
 
I got confused about wallop after reading this so I’ve added a 45/70 (not pictured) with 405gr flat points. Should be covered.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_3323.jpeg
    IMG_3323.jpeg
    346.5 KB · Views: 26
The wound channel on that 308 is 3 times the size of the 223. That's what increased caliber & energy does on impact. Sounds like you donn't know much about that though. Probably why you think it's a good idea to shoot a pencil size hole in a 700+ lb animal...which is what a 77 TMK does below 1800 fps.

You sound like a real jackass... So you probably didn't even know that .223 is illegal for elk in quite a few states. So please, keep shooting it, so you can get arrested and have that PoS rifle of yours confiscated.
Sounds like you got your feelings hurt with facts that don't align with your opinions. A 77tmk will leave a far more devastating wound channel than a 168ttsx. That's been proven time and time again. Shoot whatever you want, but don't get pissed that other people shoot different cartridges better than you and your friends. Also, do you trust anything coming out of CPW these days?

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk
 
Because I own a 6 arc, and I know the ballistics. And at the velocity that bullet drops to at 600y it's not going to expand enough.

I think the majority of this discussion is from people who don't know and who haven't actually shot an elk...but I'm here to tell you it won't work, not with the kind of predictability and reliability you need on an elk hunt. Otherwise, you will more than likely end up just wounding the animal, or make him suffer, and the bull probably won't be recovered. And like someone mentioned early on, have more respect for the game than that...as in be more ethical than that.

There is so much more to this 600y shot than anyone promoting a 223 or 6 arc at that distance understands here on this thread.
What's your favorite color of crayons? Don't forget your safety vest and helmet either.

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk
 
Alright, let’s cut through the crap here. Some of you are acting like it’s totally reasonable to lob a 6 ARC or 223 at an elk at 600 yards and call it “ethical.” That’s ridiculous. That’s not “confidence,” that’s ego and ignorance.

1. Let’s talk impact energy.
At 600 yards you’re running on fumes. You’re way under what’s widely considered the minimum for elk-sized game. And don’t start with the “energy doesn’t kill” garbage — if your bullet doesn’t have the horsepower to actually penetrate and wreck vitals, it’s a wounding shot waiting to happen. Period.

2. “Perfect shot placement” at 600 yards? Give me a break.
You’re not shooting a calm, broadside silhouette target on a bench. You’ve got wind, angle, light, heartbeat, breathing, animal movement, and a cartridge that’s already struggling. That margin of error is microscopic. But hey, I guess as long as you’ve got your internet warrior confidence, it’ll all work out, right?

3. This is about ethics — not your pride.
If you’re okay with the very real possibility of punching a hole in an elk that doesn’t kill it clean and you can’t recover it, then just say that. At least be honest about what you’re willing to risk to make your “look what I did with my lightweight rifle” shot.
A wounded elk wandering off to die slow or get eaten alive by coyotes isn’t a “success.” It’s failure. Full stop.

4. Don’t act like this is new information.
There are piles of threads, stories, and real hunts showing exactly what happens when guys push these little cartridges past their limits: wounded elk, lost elk, and long tracking jobs. People can pretend that doesn’t exist, but the evidence is there all over the place.

5. If you’re serious about being ethical — pick a tool that gives you margin, not a prayer.
There are plenty of light recoiling rifles that carry real killing power at distance. If you want to shoot elk past 400, run something with actual authority. If you insist on stretching a 6 ARC or 223 to 600 on elk, just call it what it is: selfish, sloppy, and irresponsible.

Bottom line:
If you can’t show consistent, real-world elk kills at 500–600 yards with this cartridge — not theory, not charts — then stop pretending this is a reasonable, ethical move. It’s not.
I don't know what's worse. Your word salads, or the fact that there are people who actually agree with your nonsense?

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk
 
Back
Top