Kudos to ya'll that want to go shoot at big game animals with .223s. I wish you the best of luck where its legal. I just hope that you and all the folks that you advocate shooting this round to are as proficient with it as
@Formidilosus. My understanding is that he is one of those exceedingly rare people that has the opportunity to shoot pallets of ammo every year. However, the fact remains that very, very, few hunters shoot more than 100 rounds out of their hunting rifles every year. And the fact also remains that there are many if not dozens of traditional and new hunting cartridges that kill as effectively (I'm not going rehash the semantics on this term) or more so than a .223.
IMO, this kind of thinking and advocacy is dangerous, because pretty soon you'll have folks taking 500 yard shots at big game out of their ARs; spraying and praying that they will get hits because some guy on a thread said it was okay. More than likely they won't be using the super special 77gr TMK either. Instead, they will find what they think is equivalent or "good enough" .223 ammo. To
@Indian Summer's point, we are talking about taking animal lives here, and doing so in the most responsible and resepectful way should be important to all of us.
If recoil and flinching are the bases of this argument, there are plenty of soft recoiling rifles that are more adequate for an average hunter than a .223 for elk. On the light side you have the .24 and .25 calibers, on the mid side .26, .27, 6mm, 6.5, and .28, followed by traditional .30s.
Recoil and flinching are not a problem for my daughters or myself with my .308 or .35 whelen, and we will gladly continue to shoot these big, fat, under-penetrating, inadequate, and unproven big game cartridges. WE OUT!