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

[Jake Larsen]

So…

You don’t get drt with bow. But we know tissue destruction is what kills.

if big heavy hits bone or does not exit, then all that energy is dumped into the animal. This causes tissue damage and cns disruption.

Also do to size and muscle a fragmenting bullet with 10-12” of penetration might not reach vitals. Severing blood vessels is what kills

I agree with form. For most animals on the planet a 223 with tmk or eldm creates massive trauma which easily and humanely harvest the animal

I’m not sure I disagree with Form either. I’m just looking for clarity in the thinking/theory. One way to do critical thinking is to push the idea to its outer limit, and see at what point/if it falls apart.

I 100% agree that tipped match bullets kill effectively. I personally don’t care for the wound channel they create, but not because it doesn’t work. It’s the massive tissue damage that turns me off. I prefer a controlled expansion bullet for my game animals from a meat care standpoint.

Seems to me the outer limit is with big, heavy skinned dangerous game when your life is on the line.

From what I’ve seen, big heavy, slow/solid bullets don’t do near as much tissue damage. No “holes you can stick your fist through” so why would we choose them to kill In this scenario, if ALL that matters is bleeding/tissue damage? I think there may be some other physics going on. Is it the energy created from the mass/speed creating a shock wave that’s lights out on the CNS? Is it purely penetration, getting that bullet into the brain(tissue damage)? When people talk about “knock down power” I think they’re probably referring to one or a combination of these things.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[omicron1792]

I’m not sure I disagree with Form either. I’m just looking for clarity in the thinking/theory. One way to do critical thinking is to push the idea to its outer limit, and see at what point/if it falls apart.

Seems to me the outer limit is with big, heavy skinned dangerous game when your life is on the line.

From what I’ve seen, big heavy, slow/solid bullets don’t do near as much tissue damage. No “holes you can stick your fist through” so why would we choose them to kill In this scenario, if ALL that matters is bleeding/tissue damage? I think there may be some other physics going on. Is it the energy created from the mass/speed creating a shock wave that’s lights out on the CNS? Is it purely penetration, getting that bullet into the brain(tissue damage)? When people talk about “knock down power” I think they’re probably referring to one or a combination of these things.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

All the African ballistics work is on penetration. SoMetimes you need 3 feet of penetration to get to the vitals.

 

[KenLee]

How many animal have you seen shot with 45/70? I’ve shot and seen shot quite a few with a variety of bullets and there were no more instant drops than anything else. The usual was get hit, run 30-100 yards and fall.

I'm not who you asked, but I'll chime in.
I've shot 5 good (for SC) whitetail bucks with Leverevolution 325 ftx at from 75 to 125 yards. All practically broadside and shot at base of the neck. None took a step, but they all spun away 45 to 90 degrees on the way down. It's wicked to see when the hammer drops.

 

[jaredg]

Yep, I think part of the problem boils down to how poorly we judge our abilities to utilize the full potential capabilities of our tools.

I'd guess that most "pretty good" drivers would turn in better lap times in a Porsche Boxster than in a Carrera GT on a road course. But everyone is going to want to drive the GT.

500SW bear guns, 450CC dirt bikes, 1000CC sport bikes, .300PRC elk rifles, ballistic solvers that want lat and direction of fire so they can solve for Coriolis, 37" mud tires, and 24x top end on rifle scopes all sell because of this error in judgment. 99% of people who buy all those items would be better served by the 2-step lower option.

I'm sure it happens in all arenas, but I don't really know or care what ridiculous overpowered graphics cards people buy for their computers or Teflon coated knitting needles or whatever.

We all fear the hypothetical situation where the gear holds us back at the top end much much more than we fear the real situation where the gear holds us back because we don't have the skill level needed to actually use it to its full potential.

I actually went through this thought process yesterday except with cars. I was wondering what a base 911 Carrera would do against a GT3 on a track. The answers were surprising. For 90% of driving and with an average / above average driver the base 911 was more car than they could handle. Period. The only time the GT3 came into it's own was with a very experienced driver on a closed course. Even then the difference was not what you would expect. The take away was that driving proficiency trumps HP until you get to an elite level.

I expect this is the same with guns, bows, etc. Most people would be better off getting more proficient with a smaller caliber, lower # bow then buying "the most" and hoping theiw equipment made them better.

 

[Jake Larsen]

All the African ballistics work is on penetration. SoMetimes you need 3 feet of penetration to get to the vitals.

So it’s fair to say that there are other bullet types that have merit when penetration is very important?

I think this is the sticking point for a lot of people who disagree with Form. It often seems like the argument goes so far that there’s no merit whatsoever in a controlled expansion bullet, or one that’s built for penetration.

Then the argument comes home when the discussion turns to something like an elk. Obviously not the same toughness as a Cape buffalo or elephant, but also known to soak up some lead at times. A hard quartering to shot goes through some bone in order to get to vitals. Is it enough bone that a bonded bullet or similar is strictly necessary? Probably not, since a lot of them have been killed with the aforementioned match bullets. Does that sometimes go south? I’d argue yes, others ague no.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jake Larsen]

I'm not who you asked, but I'll chime in.
I've shot 5 good (for SC) whitetail bucks with Leverevolution 325 ftx at from 75 to 125 yards. All practically broadside and shot at base of the neck. None took a step, but they all spun away 45 to 90 degrees on the way down. It's wicked to see when the hammer drops.

This. There’s very obviously some serious energy transfer occurring. The redneck description would be “it blows them off their feet”. I’m curious to see if Form would argue that the only factor for killing in these scenarios is still bleeding from tissue damage. These type of bullets don’t create the massive wound channels of match bullets, but they obviously are creating some sort of trauma, because animals die very fast. I’m not saying he’d be wrong if he did, I’m just curious.

 

[HingleMcCringleberry]

I have pondered this subject alot lately for a guided elk hunt next year, while not huge $ it is alot for us.

I would like to use a 6prc but if it is going to make unwanted "waves" a different rifle might be used instead.

I'd take what you shoot the best.

 

[Formidilosus]

I'm not who you asked, but I'll chime in.
I've shot 5 good (for SC) whitetail bucks with Leverevolution 325 ftx at from 75 to 125 yards. All practically broadside and shot at base of the neck. None took a step, but they all spun away 45 to 90 degrees on the way down. It's wicked to see when the hammer drops.

That’s a spine hit (CNS).

This. There’s very obviously some serious energy transfer occurring. The redneck description would be “it blows them off their feet”. I’m curious to see if Form would argue that the only factor for killing in these scenarios is still bleeding from tissue damage. These type of bullets don’t create the massive wound channels of match bullets, but they obviously are creating some sort of trauma, because animals die very fast. I’m not saying he’d be wrong if he did, I’m just curious.

Ft-lbs of energy is not a wounding mechanism. Regardless of caliber or bullet type, if an animals drops at intact, you disrupted the CNS. The wound channel from big bores is not impressive in general, and there are thousands of videos of animals running off for 100 yards after being shot with them.

As for the usefulness of bonded or monos- I have never stated that they aren’t useful. What I have stated is that they trade wound channel size for penetration which overall means the kill slower.

 

[Jake Larsen]

That’s a spine hit (CNS).






Ft-lbs of energy is not a wounding mechanism. Regardless of caliber or bullet type, if an animals drops at intact, you disrupted the CNS. The wound channel from big bores is not impressive in general, and there are thousands of videos of animals running off for 100 yards after being shot with them.

As for the usefulness of bonded or monos- I have never stated that they aren’t useful. What I have stated is that they trade wound channel size for penetration which overall means the kill slower.

Unless the extra penetration is required in order to hit vitals. In which case they would kill more effectively.

I think we agree, I just see the sticking point for some of the members who get hung up on this. It becomes a question of if the extra penetration is really ever needed on the game animals most of us are chasing: deer, elk, bears, ect. And also just a preference of wound channels from a meat care perspective.

As far as the 45-70 experiences, you’re basically saying that the energy transfer is knocking the animal down but not doing any killing damage; the animal is then dying from blood loss/tissue damage from the visible wound channel? I’m talking about a shot through the vitals, no direct CNS hit. I’ve seen animals hit and knocked down on impact, and not get back up from shots through the vitals with 350gr lead solids. Wound channels looked like a 1.5” diameter dowel got shoved through the animal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Machingeaneer]

This makes me want to do a better job getting pictures of the heart, lungs, and bullet placement when we've got them skinned out. I think me sitting here trying to remember how the vitals looked, how the deer reacted, what round I was using, and where I put that bullet is exactly how some of this fudd-lore gets started in the first place.

 

[deerhunter628]

I went down the 77 TMK rabbit hole after keeping up with that thread. I shot a medium sized Michigan Whitetail doe at about 200 yards. A perfect heart shot. The TMK did the job. I did find a dead deer, but there was no blood trail. She ran about 30-50 yards. That was the last time I hunted with the 223. It certainly worked but not how i would like it too. It would certainly not be my choice to use on an expensive hunt.

 

[TheGDog]

You can call wind a "boogie man" if you wish, but for me, it's simply the toughest external influence to account for. The effects are readable and measurable if constant, but it's rarely constant. In most cases, I know when I've waivered a touch in my position/form or broke the trigger slightly off on a beat...those I can generally account to myself. I also generally know that the trigger broke when I felt the gust, that I had no control over. The end result on target generally matches what I already know, saw, and/or felt.

As distance increases, especially on mountain sides where the swirl of wind between myself and the target is very tough for me to read, the toughest external influence for me to account for gets even tougher. This is all said with the understanding that a person shoots enough to know when it's them.

I learned about this from being stubborn. Was out for coyotes w/ .223 Rem Bolt gun, but also sometimes take Grounds Squirrels if no takers on calling. Squeak shows up, maybe only 60yds away on a branch inside a bush, but at the top of that branch so exposed for shot.

BUT... Something like a 20-25mph fairly strong wind was coming almost directly AT me, when pointed in the direction of the target Squeak.

Couldn't believe I was missing a 60yd shot off stix!! Kept frustrating me, as I figured at that short of a distance I thought the amount it'd push it over probably wouldn't have enough flight-time to cause a significant shift off the point of aim.

I wasted more shots than I dare to admit, learning that you shouldn't even try when it's that damn windy. (Oops)

 

[cuerro viejo]

I went down the 77 TMK rabbit hole after keeping up with that thread. I shot a medium sized Michigan Whitetail doe at about 200 yards. A perfect heart shot. The TMK did the job. I did find a dead deer, but there was no blood trail. She ran about 30-50 yards. That was the last time I hunted with the 223. It certainly worked but not how i would like it too. It would certainly not be my choice to use on an expensive hunt.

I was close to breaking double digits on does last year with 77 TMK, I pretty much only take CNS shots(high shoulder or qtr’ing to neck shoulder crease) none moved, but the also got to track others people deer with 7/08, 270 and 6.5CM and none of those bleed with in 40 yards and one went over 70 yards and no blood.

I think any recovery under 50 yards Is excellent bullet performance.

 

[deerhunter628]

I was close to breaking double digits on does last year with 77 TMK, I pretty much only take CNS shots(high shoulder or qtr’ing to neck shoulder crease) none moved, but the also got to track others people deer with 7/08, 270 and 6.5CM and none of those bleed with in 40 yards and one went over 70 yards and no blood.

I think any recovery under 50 yards Is excellent bullet performance.

The bullet certainly did its job. I think I made that clear. I have shot many with my 6.5 cm and have had blood trails with them all. I only shot one with the 77 TMK so i probably did not give it a fair shake, but since my 6.5cm recoil does not bother me i didnt see any need in continuing. To each their own. It is effective just not my preference and certainly would not be my choice for a high dollar hunt.

 

[Formidilosus]

Unless the extra penetration is required in order to hit vitals. In which case they would kill more effectively. I think we agree, I just see the sticking point for some of the members who get hung up on this. It becomes a question of if the extra penetration is really ever needed on the game animals most of us are chasing: deer, elk, bears, ect.

Sure. How deep and long is a deer’s chest cavity? An elk?

And also just a preference of wound channels from a meat care perspective.

Absolutely. It is in fact a 1 for 1 trade- the more tissue damage occurs, the faster animals die. The less tissue damage occurs, the slower they die.

As far as the 45-70 experiences, you’re basically saying that the energy transfer is knocking the animal down but not doing any killing damage;

No. Nothing is being knocked down by a bullet, from the “Energy”. The “energy” doesn’t knock you over when shooting it, it certainly isn’t knocking an animal down.
An animal falling or dropping at the shot happens at times with all calibers and bullets- I’ve killed 3-4 deer with arrows that penetrated only the lungs, where the deer just fell over. It is certain animals reaction to being shot

the animal is then dying from blood loss/tissue damage from the visible wound channel? I’m talking about a shot through the vitals, no direct CNS hit.

That is how all non CNS hits kill- even broad heads.

I’ve seen animals hit and knocked down on impact, and not get back up from shots through the vitals with 350gr lead solids. Wound channels looked like a 1.5” diameter dowel got shoved through the animal.

And there are hundreds to thousands of videos of deer taking that same combo and running for 50-100 yards just like an arrow wound. Either you are seeing what you want to see, or are succumbing to small and insufficient sample sizes.

 

[Formidilosus]

@Jake Larsen

The written word is difficult to understand intent without voice inflection, facial expressions, etc. Please do not take my responses poorly, as I certainly am not intending them that way.

 

[Jake Larsen]

@Jake Larsen

The written word is difficult to understand intent without voice inflection, facial expressions, etc. Please do not take my responses poorly, as I certainly am not intending them that way.

No offense taken! I’m only pressing for clarity to help move the conversation in a productive manner. I agree with you on every point made so far. IMO there’s others that I think would agree with you also, if we can frame the conversation in such a way that the fudd/lore is out of the picture. Just trying to get clarity on your line of thinking/testing for everyone’s benefit.

Also, not going to lie; I enjoy a good friendly argument haha. It’s the best way to steel man my own opinions and test them against other experienced people. If they don’t hold up, time to re-think. It’s good practice to argue positions I don’t even believe, just to play devils advocate and test my own line of thinking and logic. Everyone is susceptible to conformation bias, and I don’t know a better way to keep it in check.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ddowning]

Im genuinely curious what you think about this: I’ve seen a handful of deer sized animals killed with a 45-70 with 250gr solids. Bullet passes right through, and creates a wound channel about 1 1/2” wide, not a lot of tissue damage. A 77 TMK creates WAY more visible damage. But every animal I’ve seen hit with that 250 hits the dirt in its tracks. I hate to even call it “knock down power” just because of all the fudd associated with that phrase. But there’s something happening that’s not killing by massive tissue damage. Any thoughts on the mechanism that’s going on?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The problem is you've only seen a handful. You are at one of the extreme ends of the bell curve or a normal distribution. I live in the midwest where slug guns and deer drives used to be the norm. Party hunting is legal here which means the group can continue to hunt as long as everyone is licensed and at least one guy still has a tag. As you would guess, shooting deer while running is pretty difficult to learn if you only shoot 1 or 2 days a year and only while hunting. All that to say, I figured out how to hit running deer at a young age and filled 80%+ of the groups tags every year. I have seen hundreds of deer shot with 20 gauge and 12 gauge slugs. One in particular, at the other extreme end of the curve, is a button buck I shot in the heart at 6 FEET, standing still, with a 3" magnum 12 gauge foster slug. It didn't even act hit and ran 200 yards before getting weak in the knees and falling over dead. There is not a lot of consistency in how fast deer die when shot with big bullets. The fast and slow deaths are determined by bullet placement and damage. Even different placement within the heart/lung area will cause massively different distancestraveled and time to death.

 

[omicron1792]

The problem is you've only seen a handful. You are at one of the extreme ends of the bell curve or a normal distribution. I live in the midwest where slug guns and deer drives used to be the norm. Party hunting is legal here which means the group can continue to hunt as long as everyone is licensed and at least one guy still has a tag. As you would guess, shooting deer while running is pretty difficult to learn if you only shoot 1 or 2 days a year and only while hunting. All that to say, I figured out how to hit running deer at a young age and filled 80%+ of the groups tags every year. I have seen hundreds of deer shot with 20 gauge and 12 gauge slugs. One in particular, at the other extreme end of the curve, is a button buck I shot in the heart at 6 FEET, standing still, with a 3" magnum 12 gauge foster slug. It didn't even act hit and ran 200 yards before getting weak in the knees and falling over dead. There is not a lot of consistency in how fast deer die when shot with big bullets. The fast and slow deaths are determined by bullet placement and damage. Even different placement within the heart/lung area will cause massively different distancestraveled and time to death.

I agree with this. Massive trauma to heart and lungs can sometimes cause DRT. There are lots of nerves in the area. But not always. And a trauma inducing bullet definitely has more of a chance of doing it.

I harvested three deer with 130gr terminal ascent last year. It is considered a premium expanding non fragmenting bullet. All three were hit in perfect just behind the shoulder shots between 125-200 yards. All ran between 30-50 yards. I shot a fourth in low neck facing me and he dropped right there. Like the lights just went off.

All these bullets kill the deer dead. But my place has thick thick brush that if they run into it it makes my life hard. I want them to drop as soon as possible.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

Adding to the above, I think animals are different in a lot of cases. Just last year I shot a deer at 200ish yards, he took off running and didn’t look hit very well through the scope. He ran 80ish yards at full sprint before completely collapsing.

This was all that was left of his heart and lungs…



I’ve had similar experiences with deer and elk being shot with the same amount of damage to vital organs, and they drop in place.

I think some animals have more will/adrenaline/desire to live than others without a doubt.

I’ve had just as many deer run off with good hits using .30-06 as I have with .243. I’ve also had just as many bang flops using both as well.

Coming in saying that an animal is going to die quicker using a larger caliber bullet is silly in my experience. You don’t know how the animal is going to behave after being shot, regardless of quality of hit.


Our cattle lease had a 20 month old breeder bull break a leg. She offered us first chance at the meat and we gladly obliged.

A 50 yard ear hole shot with a .223 dropped that 1,800 lb bull like a sack of potatoes. I walked up to him and cut the jugular to bleed him out just in case. Didn’t need to. The tiny brain was mush. Meat was really good considering him being well past prime butchering time.