Does the 223/6mm for everything change when hunt cost $$$

[Marbles]

You're not staying in the scope with a suppressed 308? I can't stay on target with my -06 like with my 6.5cm, but I figured you could with a 308, suppressed.

Not at 100 yards with a fixed 6x. Push the distance out and I can. That is with 175 and 178 gr bullets.

 

[TaperPin]

Childish.

It’s a self fulfilling prediction - if you consciously and subconsciously believe recoil will reduce your ability to hold the rifle steady, then it will. Everyone has a different tolerance, but to simply say we’re victoms of recoil and there is nothing that can be done, is far from the truth. Poor shooting due to recoil is completely anticipation - a rifle will only recoil 1/4” or so before the bullet leaves the barrel.

 

[yeti12]

It’s a self fulfilling prediction - if you consciously and subconsciously believe recoil will reduce your ability to hold the rifle steady, then it will. Everyone has a different tolerance, but to simply say we’re victoms of recoil and there is nothing that can be done, is far from the truth. Poor shooting due to recoil is completely anticipation - a rifle will only recoil 1/4” or so before the bullet leaves the barrel.

It's less than 1/4. If it was a 1/4 no one would hit anything.

If your gun is moving 1/4" before bullet exit you have significantly messed up a number of things.

 

[fwafwow]

It’s a self fulfilling prediction - if you consciously and subconsciously believe recoil will reduce your ability to hold the rifle steady, then it will. Everyone has a different tolerance, but to simply say we’re victoms of recoil and there is nothing that can be done, is far from the truth. Poor shooting due to recoil is completely anticipation - a rifle will only recoil 1/4” or so before the bullet leaves the barrel.

 

[Ozarkansas]

I’m not a “.223/6mm for everything” guy, and I’m broke, so I guess this isn’t a question for me. But is shooting a 6mm for sheep and a cow elk-sized antelope even a hot take? I’d use my 6.5x55 because it has more high BC options than my .243 (or I’d use the trip to buy a sweet new gun in some caliber I’ve always wanted, like 7x57) but if I didn’t have the swede I would have zero concern using my .243.

Plus, this debate encompasses everything from a .22 hornet all the way up to 6 Ultramag, whose ballistics are probably pretty close to perfect for a sheep gun. Even just looking at .22s, a .22 creedmoor with 88 grain bullets is a different beast than a .222 with 55 grains up front.

 

[TaperPin]

It's less than 1/4. If it was a 1/4 no one would hit anything.

If your gun is moving 1/4" before bullet exit you have significantly messed up a number of things.

That’s dependent on basic physics - some guns are much less and some are more than 1/4”.

 

[Shō[t]gun]

That’s dependent on basic physics - some guns are much less and some are more than 1/4”.

Dangit we all jumped off the fractions and decimals train because of you, how much is that in pancakes?

 

[Formidilosus]

It’s a self fulfilling prediction - if you consciously and subconsciously believe recoil will reduce your ability to hold the rifle steady, then it will. Everyone has a different tolerance, but to simply say we’re victoms of recoil and there is nothing that can be done, is far from the truth. Poor shooting due to recoil is completely anticipation - a rifle will only recoil 1/4” or so before the bullet leaves the barrel.

Oh no doubt you are much better at shooting magnums than I- I only shoot a few thousands rounds of them a year, and only see a couple dozen shooters shoot a few thousand as well.

 

[yeti12]

That’s dependent on basic physics - some guns are much less and some are more than 1/4”.

A lightweight 308 is less than 1/16". You would need a extremely high recoiling slow velocity round. Something that probably doesn't exist in shoulder fired hunting rifles to achieve 1/4" of movement with the bullet in the bore.

Or absolutely terrible fundamentals. Like free recoiling a light weight 300wm might do it.

You may have 1/4 of movement, but I sure don't and most others don't either. I also dont shoot large caliber magnums and lie to myself and say I can shoot them just as good as smaller rounds. Shooting a road sign at 100 yards and hitting it with both calibers doesn't count.

 

[Bluumoon]

Using a 223 on a once in a lifetime hunt makes total sense to me and is what I would bring.

But I do have questions for those who would do it:

Would you tell the outfitter that’s the cartridge you’re choosing? What happens if they say you’re not allowed to use it on their hunt?

Would you inform them 223 is your choice cartridge before booking with them?

Or would you try not to bring up the subject at all and hope they don’t ask to see your rifle and cartridges?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly this happened on a spring bear hunt this year. The outfitter knew I was carrying a .223, the guide did not. He had an existential crisis when he figured it out.

 

[JohnJohnson]

Exactly this happened on a spring bear hunt this year. The outfitter knew I was carrying a .223, the guide did not. He had an existential crisis when he figured it out.

Out of curiosity, how'd that work out in the end?

 

[Mcfish]

As a newb, I've not been here during the offseason. Is bickering over calibers/optics/stocks something we do until we can start shooting at animals again?

 

[Leaf Litter]

I would NEVER use a 223 for any medium or large game hunting, regardless of price or location.

To the Kool-Aid chuggers:
Yes I've heard the success stories, yes a 223 can kill effectively with the right projectile under perfect conditions, no that hasn't convinced me it's adequate for all shots that might reasonably taken by ethical hunters.

 

[JohnJohnson]

As a newb, I've not been here during the offseason. Is bickering over calibers/optics/stocks something we do until we can start shooting at animals again?

Honestly, it's year-round and it's mostly cartridges/scopes. For scope it's 95% about zero retention and 5% about reticles. For cartridges it follows about the same sequence each time.

Person 1: "Can I use X cartridge on Y animal?"
Person 2: "Yes, I have done that and so have other people. Here's a thread of them."
Person 3 (has no experience on the subject): "Just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD. A bigger cartridge like Z will allow you more room for error and ability to take shots in [vague non-ideal circumstance]."
Person 2: "Can you describe the shot it isn't good for?"
Person 3: Either doesn't describe it or (on rare occasion) describes a horribly unethical shot you shouldn't take with any cartridge.

I would NEVER use a 223 for any medium or large game hunting, regardless of price or location.

To the Kool-Aid chuggers:
Yes I've heard the success stories, yes a 223 can kill effectively with the right projectile under perfect conditions, no that hasn't convinced me it's adequate for all shots that might reasonably taken by ethical hunters.

Holy shit. As I was typing that out we got this post.

 

[Shō[t]gun]

As a newb, I've not been here during the offseason. Is bickering over calibers/optics/stocks something we do until we can start shooting at animals again?

It constant, but just slows down when people don’t have signal in the field.

 

[eric1115]

As a newb, I've not been here during the offseason. Is bickering over calibers/optics/stocks something we do until we can start shooting at animals again?

It is in no way limited to calibers, optics, and stocks. We bicker about trucks, tags, fish&game, nonresident hunters, wolves, backpacks, how many rounds makes a valid group, and lots lots more.

 

[Leaf Litter]

Honestly, it's year-round and it's mostly cartridges/scopes. For scope it's 95% about zero retention and 5% about reticles. For cartridges it follows about the same sequence each time.

Person 1: "Can I use X cartridge on Y animal?"
Person 2: "Yes, I have done that and so have other people. Here's a thread of them."
Person 3 (has no experience on the subject): "Just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD. A bigger cartridge like Z will allow you more room for error and ability to take shots in [vague non-ideal circumstance]."
Person 2: "Can you describe the shot it isn't good for?"
Person 3: Either doesn't describe it or (on rare occasion) describes a horribly unethical shot you shouldn't take with any cartridge.


Holy shit. As I was typing that out we got this post.

You sure did

 

[Machingeaneer]

that hasn't convinced me it's adequate for all shots that might reasonably taken by ethical hunters.

Ok could you provide an example?

 

[Leaf Litter]

350 yard elk, quartering towards. Easy shot with an adequate rife and CE bullets. Terrible shot with a 223 shooting 77s

 

[JohnJohnson]

350 yard elk, quartering towards. Easy shot with an adequate rife and CE bullets. Terrible shot with a 223 shooting 77s

To clarify, is this because you think a 77 TMK won't go through an elk shoulder at 350 yards?