6mm and .223/5.56 ILLEGAL for big game in Alaska!

[Heath Hansen]

I don’t feel like it’s much of an argument. Assuming that you’re using the best options for both bullet and arrow, a 223, 22-250, 243, and 22 Creed are all far more devastating on tissue using standard expanding ammunition than a bow is using a broadhead.

A broadhead is going to be similar to a well expanding pistol round. Both affecting tissue with direct cutting and contact. They are about equal when placed appropriately.

The biggest thing that even makes this vaguely an argument are people taking poor, long shots, with a rifle caliber that might be a little marginal to begin with. Placement is off, and you see a bad outcome. If a rifle hunter with a smaller caliber never shot beyond standard bow distances, you wouldn’t hear stories of animals wounded. The other factor that complicates this is that bow hunters are usually the more experienced and patient of hunters. It’s already a biased group due to that with regard to talent and experience, which often leads to better placed shots due to more patience and better stalking.

But if you told someone in a life or death situation that they had one chance to make a kill on an animal at 50 yards and offered them a 223 with 62gr Barnes TTSX going 2900 fps or a compound bow with an Iron Will broadhead (or whatever your flavor is), what are you picking?

To answer your question, I’d take a bow at 50 all day over a .223. I don’t care what bullet you want to run through a .223; they have no place being used for moose or grizzlies for sure.

 

[IAm_Not_Lost]

To answer your question, I’d take a bow at 50 all day over a .223. I don’t care what bullet you want to run through a .223; they have no place being used for moose or grizzlies for sure.

That’s the double standard talking. We’re so used to certain things being viewed as taboo. I’m not saying you should use a 223, or 243, but it’s not less effective. Again, a bow hunter is waiting for an immaculate shot. Immaculate preparation to make sure their shot is perfect. That’s the difference. You’ve been told it’s “ok” to use a bow, so that makes it ethical and “ok”, but you know the range is limited and the shot has to be perfect. Even then, it’s still a dicey proposition on moose and grizzly sized game, and often a long wait tracking as it slowly bleeds out.

If a guy with a 223, or 243, or 22 Creed did that and waited for a perfect 40 or 50 yard shot, with the proper ammo (just like you’d need the proper arrowhead), you don’t think they’d be more successful?

 

[FAAFO]

Great proposals, the 2nd will pass IMHO.

 

[Heath Hansen]

That’s the double standard talking. We’re so used to certain things being viewed as taboo. I’m not saying you should use a 223, but it’s not less effective. Again, a bow hunter is waiting for an immaculate shot. Immaculate preparation to make sure their shot is perfect. That’s the difference. You’ve been told it’s “ok” to use a bow, but you know the range is limited and the shot has to be perfect.

If a guy with a 223, or 243, or 22 Creed did that and waited for a perfect 40 or 50 yard shot, with the proper ammo (just like you’d need the proper arrowhead), you don’t think they’d be more successful?

I understand what you’re saying and I agree with the idea of it. The reason these proposals come up is because hunters don’t self regulate. Find me a guy shooting a rifle that is waiting to get a broadside 40 yard shot. I’m sure there are some that do and know the limits of their rifle. There are also a bunch of guys that throw a nightforce on their 22creed and think that as long as they can dial it up then they can kill it.

 

[SDHNTR]

I don’t feel like it’s much of an argument. Assuming that you’re using the best options for both bullet and arrow, a 223, 22-250, 243, and 22 Creed are all far more devastating on tissue using standard expanding ammunition than a bow is using a broadhead.

A broadhead is going to be similar to a well expanding pistol round. Both affecting tissue with direct cutting and contact. They are about equal when placed appropriately.

The biggest thing that even makes this vaguely an argument are people taking poor, long shots, with a rifle caliber that might be a little marginal to begin with. Placement is off, and you see a bad outcome. If a rifle hunter with a smaller caliber never shot beyond standard bow distances, you wouldn’t hear stories of animals wounded. The other factor that complicates this is that bow hunters are usually the more experienced and patient of hunters. It’s already a biased group due to that with regard to talent and experience, which often leads to better placed shots due to more patience and better stalking.

But if you told someone in a life or death situation that they had one chance to make a kill on an animal at 50 yards and offered them a 223 with 62gr Barnes TTSX going 2900 fps or a compound bow with an Iron Will broadhead (or whatever your flavor is), what are you picking?

If it’s unaware, I’m taking the bow and arrow all day long.

Your post demonstrates significant misunderstanding of how a broadhead kills. It is not designed to “damage” tissue and cause massive trauma. It’s simply designed to cut through vital tissue. And a razor sharp broadhead behind a proper arrow does a better job of doing that after impacting heavy hide and muscle than any small caliber bullet. The cutting of vital tissue then causes rapid exsanguination and a resulting drop in blood pressure = dead animal in seconds. Often without the shock and adrenaline a bullet impact causes.

And this is coming from someone who’s preferred .223 load is a 62gr ttsx, and it’s been less than a week since it’s killed a big game animal. Still, on a big critter, gimme the well placed arrow.

 

[FAAFO]

Rokslide Randy might as well stay home and play sniper in his backyard.

 

[atmat]

It is not designed to “damage” tissue... It’s simply designed to cut through… tissue.

TIL cutting through something doesn’t damage it. Who knew.

 

[IAm_Not_Lost]

If it’s unaware, I’m taking the bow and arrow all day long.

Your post demonstrates significant misunderstanding of how a broadhead kills. It is not designed to “damage” tissue and cause massive trauma. It’s simply designed to cut through vital tissue. And a razor sharp broadhead behind a proper arrow does a better job of doing that after impacting heavy hide and muscle than any small caliber bullet. The cutting of vital tissue then causes rapid exsanguination and a resulting drop in blood pressure = dead animal in seconds. Often without the shock and adrenaline a bullet impact causes.

And this is coming from someone who’s preferred .223 load is a 62gr ttsx, and it’s been less than a week since it’s killed a big game animal. Still, on a big critter, gimme the well placed arrow.

I never said “damage”. I said a broadhead works by “direct cutting and contact”. Literally the same word you used.

Yes, an arrow can absolutely be incredibly effective. I’m arguing though that simply because an agency has said that they are legal to use, doesn’t make them intrinsically more effective than 5.56/6mm sized rifle rounds.

Again, all other things being equal, I’m just noting that there is no doubt of a rifles lethality if used in the same situation as a bow hunter uses their arrow. Often a 15 yard shot at a moose as it walks by and you’re sitting in the tree or position of cover. At that distance with a rifle and a 6mm caliber rifle round or something near that, and that will be a moose that’s just as dead.

As Heath Hanson notes, a lot of this argument comes from the fact that rifle hunters take poor, badly thought out shots, leading to bad outcomes. If a hunter with any centerfire round that we’ve been talking about took the same time and dedication as a bow hunter, there would be no issue or argument.

 

[Formidilosus]

If it’s unaware, I’m taking the bow and arrow all day long.

Your post demonstrates significant misunderstanding of how a broadhead kills. It is not designed to “damage” tissue and cause massive trauma. It’s simply designed to cut through vital tissue.

You must be trolling.

And a razor sharp broadhead behind a proper arrow does a better job of doing that after impacting heavy hide and muscle than any small caliber bullet.

Yes, trolling.

And this is coming from someone who’s preferred .223 load is a 62gr ttsx, and it’s been less than a week since it’s killed a big game animal. Still, on a big critter, gimme the well placed arrow.

Or maybe not, and it makes sense.

 

[grappling_hook]

Terrible proposal. It would mean I could no longer shoot a basic 120 pound Blacktail buck with a .223 when many, many people do so successfully around here (and on much larger animals). Shouldn't have to be said so often on Rokslide, but the bullet construction and velocity at impact matter so much more in getting quick kills than the diameter of the bullet. Better a smaller bullet with proper construction than a larger bullet with improper construction at the same velocity. In fact, it's much preferable due to reduced recoil, cost, etc.

For the uninitiated: rokslide.com/forums/threads/223-for-bear-mountain-goat-deer-elk-and-moose.130488/

 

[The Guide]

So now all the subsistence hunters will need to get new guns or start bow hunting? That sounds swell. Trade in their AR-15 for an AK-47. Wait until all the moose look like porcupines with arrows in their ass. If someone isn't going to practice with a rifle, they damn sure won't have the time or desire to practice with an archery setup so they could shoot out to 50 yards in the bush!

Jay

 

[Marbles]

If it’s unaware, I’m taking the bow and arrow all day long.

Your post demonstrates significant misunderstanding of how a broadhead kills. It is not designed to “damage” tissue and cause massive trauma. It’s simply designed to cut through vital tissue.

Sorry, by definition you are wrong. Trauma is by definition damaged tissue from energy transfer or failure of energy transfer (drowning). Broadheads are designed to maximize trauma for the given projectile.

Cutting is trauma. Crushing is trauma. Both cause death through shock, not all shock is hemorrhagic. But, medically speaking arrows and bullets both cause penetrating trauma and the expected pathologies are the same.

And a razor sharp broadhead behind a proper arrow does a better job of doing that after impacting heavy hide and muscle than any small caliber bullet. The cutting of vital tissue then causes rapid exsanguination and a resulting drop in blood pressure = dead animal in seconds. Often without the shock and adrenaline a bullet impact causes.

Shock by definition is a drop in blood pressure. Lay people often confuse it with other things, but given you choice of technical wording, I feel like pointing out how you are using the term shock is as scientific as a diagnosis of consumption.

The idea that all death from penetrating trauma is caused by exsanguination is faulty. Hemorrhagic shock is the tank runs dry but the system still works
Obstructive shock (tension pneumothorax/hemothorax, cardiac tamponade)-nothing can get into the pump
Asphyxiation (transection of the trachea)-pump runs out of fuel
Destruction of essential cardiac structures-direct pump failure
Transection of the aorta-outflow of the pump breaks

All these result in shock and death that is not primarily driven by exsanguination. None of those follow the expected pattern of hemorrhagic shock, none of them will be fixed only by replacing volume and stopping further volume loss.

Now, this is all technical, I don't really expect people to get it correct, so unless you have worked in trauma, none of this should be taken as a negative on you.

To put this slightly differently, only talking about hemorrhagic shock is like saying all engines fail because fuel stops combusting. Most people can believe that forever and so long as they use a mechanic will not have an issue, but a mechanic had better know more than that.

 

[atmat]

Sorry, by definition you are wrong. Trauma is by definition damaged tissue from energy transfer or failure of energy transfer (drowning). Broadheads are designed to maximize trauma for the given projectile.

Cutting is trauma. Crushing is trauma. Both cause death through shock, not all shock is hemorrhagic. But, medically speaking arrows and bullets both cause penetrating trauma and the expected pathologies are the same.


Shock by definition is a drop in blood pressure. Lay people often confuse it with other things, but given you choice of technical wording, I feel like pointing out how you are using the term shock is as scientific as a diagnosis of consumption.

The idea that all death from penetrating trauma is caused by exsanguination is faulty. Hemorrhagic shock is the tank runs dry but the system still works
Obstructive shock (tension pneumothorax/hemothorax, cardiac tamponade)-nothing can get into the pump
Asphyxiation (transection of the trachea)-pump runs out of fuel
Destruction of essential cardiac structures-direct pump failure
Transection of the aorta-outflow of the pump breaks

All these result in shock and death that is not primarily driven by exsanguination. None of those follow the expected pattern of hemorrhagic shock, none of them will be fixed only by replacing volume and stopping further volume loss.

Now, this is all technical, I don't really expect people to get it correct, so unless you have worked in trauma, none of this should be taken as a negative on you.

To put this slightly differently, only talking about hemorrhagic shock is like saying all engines fail because fuel stops combusting. Most people can believe that forever and so long as they use a mechanic will not have an issue, but a mechanic had better know more than that.

@SDHNTR be like:

 

[Thegman]

To answer your question, I’d take a bow at 50 all day over a .223. I don’t care what bullet you want to run through a .223; they have no place being used for moose or grizzlies for sure.

Damn, why didn't you tell me that earlier?! I wouldn't have had to waste those two 77TMKs...

 

[Thegman]

So now all the subsistence hunters will need to get new guns or start bow hunting? That sounds swell. Trade in their AR-15 for an AK-47. Wait until all the moose look like porcupines with arrows in their ass. If someone isn't going to practice with a rifle, they damn sure won't have the time or desire to practice with an archery setup so they could shoot out to 50 yards in the bush!

Jay

20 to 30 years ago I commonly heard of AKs being used for moose hunting. I think the cheap ammo dried up and ARs have become more popular. Or they started reading on Rokslide...

The biggest problem with the 223 in Alaska, if there is one, is that really good 223 hunting ammo is rarely ever available in any stores and ordering ammo from out of state is cost prohibitive. If you want the best hunting ammo for a 223, it has to be reloaded or brought in on out-of-state trips.

-If- there's a problem, I think it's a hunter problem, not a cartridge problem. Some people probably buying the cheapest and whatever ammo is available (which isn't much) and not being particular about shots they take. That would be nothing new and I remember stories like that in the days of cheap surplus AKs and cases of Soviet surplus ammo.

 

[The Guide]

20 to 30 years ago I commonly heard of AKs being used for moose hunting. I think the cheap ammo dried up and ARs have become more popular. Or they started reading on Rokslide...

The biggest problem with the 223 in Alaska, if there is one, is that really good 223 hunting ammo is rarely ever available in any stores and ordering ammo from out of state is cost prohibitive. Good ammo has to be reloaded or brought in on out-of-state trips.

-If- there's a problem, I think it's a hunter problem, not a cartridge problem. Some people probably buying the cheapest and whatever ammo is available (which isn't much) and not being particular about shots they take. That would be nothing new and I remember stories like that in the days of cheap surplus AKs and cases of Soviet surplus ammo.

I'm sure one of the issues is that cheap "range" ammo is used because it is "affordable" so they buy in bulk getting a case of FMJ or varmint bullets. Then they don't have good bullets to do the work. I'm sure lots of stuff is shot with rimfire ammo too because you can get 50 or 100 shots for the price of 20.

Jay

 

[Thegman]

I'm sure one of the issues is that cheap "range" ammo is used because it is "affordable" so they buy in bulk getting a case of FMJ or varmint bullets. Then they don't have good bullets to do the work. I'm sure lots of stuff is shot with rimfire ammo too because you can get 50 or 100 shots for the price of 20.

Jay

Yes, exactly. I was in town today and while getting stuff, I looked at 223 ammo in three different stores just to see what someone could buy if they wanted to hunt with a 223. About the best I saw was Hornady Superformance 75 BTHP for I think $31.99.

Much more likely, a hunter of the mindset described by the writer of the proposal is buying the Federal USA Mil-Surp type 55 FMJ for $14.99 a box. That's the type of ammo by far most available for the 223 here. I wouldn't be surprised if in the villages that's about all that would be available at times.

It would be interesting to get the straight scoop from someone that lives in one of the bush villages.

 

[AkMtnRunner]

The people that this proposal author is referring to is the problem, not their case heads. If they 'think they must have missed with an entire magazine', how's a heavier recoiling rifle going to be helpful? This is control seeking 101. Target the tools and not the behavior. This should fail easily, but I'd actually look forward to a thorough discussion at this level. It may enlighten many people. It's not usually the tool, it's how it's used.

 

[jhm2023]

I've worked in over 15 different rural communities in AK and lived in several as well. I've never once seen lost animals due to the cartridge used. I have seen lost animals due to people with shit ethics using beat to shit guns with a terrible zero and very poor marksmanship capabilities shooting like dog crap. Bullet construction and shot placement matter more than headstamps and the government f's up everything it gets in the middle of.

 

[Thegman]

The people that this proposal author is referring to is the problem, not their case heads..

And not to mention, all the author presents are vague descriptions lacking any evidence, hearsay and anecdotes about said people.