What caused the Rokslide shift to smallest caliber and cartridges?

[cal30_sniper]

The information posted in those threads is, in fact, empirical.

The definition of empirical: based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

Now, if by empirical you mean "peer-reviewed scientific" that is different. If that is the case, then I would point you to 1) the fact that you will be hard pressed to find that for any of the larger cartridges either and 2) there have been multiple studies that prove that "average" people shoot lighter recoiling rifles better than heavier recoiling rifles. Combine that with the undeniable fact that hits in the vitals kill animals, being able to hit the vitals is the most important variable when it comes to hunting. Period.

Maybe he means definition 4, in which case he might actually be correct…

empirical - of of or relating to [quackery,charlatanry]

 

[NMTGrad]

I think we can all unanimously agree that a .223 with the wrong bullet is an abysmal choice for big game hunting.

This point was lost long ago in this thread. How many “average” hunters are hand loading their own ammo, practicing shooting from a variety of positions at known and unknown distances, etc. Based on my time guiding, the answer is damned few. Hence the reason I cannot recommend a .223 as a deer cartridge. Sure, will it work if properly loaded and wielded by an effective shooter? Absolutely. Should we be telling the average dude or the new gal to go out and get one? No. Because they won’t take the needed steps to make it work. I’ve seen f

Jumping in a little late to this latest spat, but wanted to highlight what @Harvey_NW and @JackButler eluded to above.

The information posted in those threads is, in fact, empirical.

The definition of empirical: based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

Now, if by empirical you mean "peer-reviewed scientific" that is different. If that is the case, then I would point you to 1) the fact that you will be hard pressed to find that for any of the larger cartridges either and 2) there have been multiple studies that prove that "average" people shoot lighter recoiling rifles better than heavier recoiling rifles. Combine that with the undeniable fact that hits in the vitals kill animals, being able to hit the vitals is the most important variable when it comes to hunting. Period.

Jumping in a little late to this latest spat, but wanted to highlight what @Harvey_NW and @JackButler eluded to above.

The information posted in those threads is, in fact, empirical.

The definition of empirical: based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

Now, if by empirical you mean "peer-reviewed scientific" that is different. If that is the case, then I would point you to 1) the fact that you will be hard pressed to find that for any of the larger cartridges either and 2) there have been multiple studies that prove that "average" people shoot lighter recoiling rifles better than heavier recoiling rifles. Combine that with the undeniable fact that hits in the vitals kill animals, being able to hit the vitals is the most important variable when it comes to hunting. Period.

Measuring success only and ignoring failures invalidates any statistical argument or attempt to say “but the data shows…”. People love to point at all the times something worked. How many times did it fail, though? That was the point of my original post. That’s luck skill building. A perfectly executed bad plan can still succeed. Eventually, though, the execution will not be perfect, things cascade, and failure results.

And can you ever really get an accurate number of failures seeing as most people are not likely to post pictures and war stories about their failures. That’s not human nature. So the data is skewed to indicate a level of success that may not be accurate. All bullets/calibers will have failures. Some more than others. When failure is not ideal, but remains a possibility, how does a shooter adjust to lessen the margin of error and reduce the chance of the failure being dispositive? A marginal shot on an animal is still a marginal shot, but when the shot is marginal, a larger caliber bullet provides some ability to reduce the odds of total failure.

And sure, everyone says “well, don’t take bad shots”. If you’ve ever worked as a guide, then you’ll know that all hunters will, at least once, take that shot they should not take. Or when hunting bears, their brain short circuits and they aim as if it’s a deer. Do that with a .223, and you have a pissed off, wounded bear. Do that with a .300, and there is a chance of shoulder penetration and a dead bear. It’s still a crappy shot, but there may still be a chance for success.

But hey, knock yourselves out. You do you, and I’ll do me, and we can all go about our lives. Just remember the next time you all want to assail another user, sling insults, resort to name calling, or act as arm chair psychiatrists, some young hunter (or their parents who are monitoring their internet activity) is reading your post, and you may turn that person off to the hunting community. Forever.

 

[omicron1792]

This point was lost long ago in this thread. How many “average” hunters are hand loading their own ammo, practicing shooting from a variety of positions at known and unknown distances, etc. Based on my time guiding, the answer is damned few. Hence the reason I cannot recommend a .223 as a deer cartridge. Sure, will it work if properly loaded and wielded by an effective shooter? Absolutely. Should we be telling the average dude or the new gal to go out and get one? No. Because they won’t take the needed steps to make it work. I’ve seen f



Measuring success only and ignoring failures invalidates any statistical argument or attempt to say “but the data shows…”. People love to point at all the times something worked. How many times did it fail, though? That was the point of my original post. That’s luck skill building. A perfectly executed bad plan can still succeed. Eventually, though, the execution will not be perfect, things cascade, and failure results.

And can you ever really get an accurate number of failures seeing as most people are not likely to post pictures and war stories about their failures. That’s not human nature. So the data is skewed to indicate a level of success that may not be accurate. All bullets/calibers will have failures. Some more than others. When failure is not ideal, but remains a possibility, how does a shooter adjust to lessen the margin of error and reduce the chance of the failure being dispositive? A marginal shot on an animal is still a marginal shot, but when the shot is marginal, a larger caliber bullet provides some ability to reduce the odds of total failure.

And sure, everyone says “well, don’t take bad shots”. If you’ve ever worked as a guide, then you’ll know that all hunters will, at least once, take that shot they should not take. Or when hunting bears, their brain short circuits and they aim as if it’s a deer. Do that with a .223, and you have a pissed off, wounded bear. Do that with a .300, and there is a chance of shoulder penetration and a dead bear. It’s still a crappy shot, but there may still be a chance for success.

But hey, knock yourselves out. You do you, and I’ll do me, and we can all go about our lives. Just remember the next time you all want to assail another user, sling insults, resort to name calling, or act as arm chair psychiatrists, some young hunter (or their parents who are monitoring their internet activity) is reading your post, and you may turn that person off to the hunting community. Forever.

Most here felt like you at the start. A few comments.

1. There are several failures posted here. Most that make the transition have a BIG reason to post the failure if it happens. They would feel duped and lied to.

2. Failures happen with large calibers too. I would argue they make a worse first shot the lager the caliber. Then their chances of a follow up shot are slim to none.

3. My boys and I have taken lots of deer with 223 now. All have been great except my youngest boys first deer. He made a bad shot, and it was posted here. Would a bullet millimeters larger have helped? I doubt it.

4. As a guide you have seen tons and tons of failed deer harvest with larger calibers. What were the reasons? All of us have seen and heard of numerous rodeos with large calibers. The excuses were just different (in their minds).

5. One of the main points is using a 223 allows way more practice. We all know so many people that literally shoot once a year with their 300 PRC. Part of the secret sauce is get a small caliber that’s easy and fun to shoot. Then shoot a lot! Makes all the difference.

6. No one has to hand load 223. Black hills and others make great factory rounds.

A “poor” shot by my older son that resulted in a dead deer in 30 yards. You get these holes with a 300 mag?

 

[atmat]

Just remember the next time you all want to assail another user, sling insults, resort to name calling, or act as arm chair psychiatrists, some young hunter (or their parents who are monitoring their internet activity) is reading your post, and you may turn that person off to the hunting community. Forever.

This is quite dramatic. You came here acting arrogant and got called out. No one is assailing you.

 

[JackButler]

This point was lost long ago in this thread. How many “average” hunters are hand loading their own ammo, practicing shooting from a variety of positions at known and unknown distances, etc. Based on my time guiding, the answer is damned few. Hence the reason I cannot recommend a .223 as a deer cartridge. Sure, will it work if properly loaded and wielded by an effective shooter? Absolutely. Should we be telling the average dude or the new gal to go out and get one? No. Because they won’t take the needed steps to make it work.

While a guy can certainly handload, that is completely false. As I stated previously, I've killed over 200 deer with a 223, with 100% success. I've never handloaded in my life. Heck the last 50 or so I shot with the cheaper AAC brand 77TMK ammo, same results. You do not need some special handloads for the 223 to work, there are many factory loads that work well.

Measuring success only and ignoring failures invalidates any statistical argument or attempt to say “but the data shows…”. People love to point at all the times something worked. How many times did it fail, though? That was the point of my original post. That’s luck skill building. A perfectly executed bad plan can still succeed. Eventually, though, the execution will not be perfect, things cascade, and failure results.

This logic, while flawed, would then apply to the 300winmag as well, right?

...But hey, knock yourselves out. You do you, and I’ll do me, and we can all go about our lives. Just remember the next time you all want to assail another user, sling insults, resort to name calling, or act as arm chair psychiatrists, some young hunter (or their parents who are monitoring their internet activity) is reading your post, and you may turn that person off to the hunting community. Forever.

Seems you have some kind of martyr complex. None of that is happening. You have an opinion that is uninformed and 20 years out of date that you are trying to pass off as fact. Shooting deer with a 223 with modern bullets at reasonable ranges is no longer even a question for anyone that has tried it.

 

[Choupique]

How many “average” hunters are hand loading their own ammo, practicing shooting from a variety of positions at known and unknown distances, etc. Based on my time guiding, the answer is damned few. Hence the reason I cannot recommend a .223 as a deer cartridge

Factory loaded ammo with rokslide-approved bullets is available, particularly hornady with the heavier ELDM bullets and Black Hills with the 77gr TMK. I don't reload much and I don't get to shoot much, and most people here would say that I should hang up the big gun and use a .223 BECAUSE I don't get to shoot much, not in spite of it. If a man can't make good hits with a .223 he certainly isn't going to make good hits with a .300 win mag.

 

[Billogna]

This point was lost long ago in this thread. How many “average” hunters are hand loading their own ammo, practicing shooting from a variety of positions at known and unknown distances, etc. Based on my time guiding, the answer is damned few. Hence the reason I cannot recommend a .223 as a deer cartridge. Sure, will it work if properly loaded and wielded by an effective shooter? Absolutely. Should we be telling the average dude or the new gal to go out and get one? No. Because they won’t take the needed steps to make it work. I’ve seen f



Measuring success only and ignoring failures invalidates any statistical argument or attempt to say “but the data shows…”. People love to point at all the times something worked. How many times did it fail, though? That was the point of my original post. That’s luck skill building. A perfectly executed bad plan can still succeed. Eventually, though, the execution will not be perfect, things cascade, and failure results.

And can you ever really get an accurate number of failures seeing as most people are not likely to post pictures and war stories about their failures. That’s not human nature. So the data is skewed to indicate a level of success that may not be accurate. All bullets/calibers will have failures. Some more than others. When failure is not ideal, but remains a possibility, how does a shooter adjust to lessen the margin of error and reduce the chance of the failure being dispositive? A marginal shot on an animal is still a marginal shot, but when the shot is marginal, a larger caliber bullet provides some ability to reduce the odds of total failure.

And sure, everyone says “well, don’t take bad shots”. If you’ve ever worked as a guide, then you’ll know that all hunters will, at least once, take that shot they should not take. Or when hunting bears, their brain short circuits and they aim as if it’s a deer. Do that with a .223, and you have a pissed off, wounded bear. Do that with a .300, and there is a chance of shoulder penetration and a dead bear. It’s still a crappy shot, but there may still be a chance for success.

But hey, knock yourselves out. You do you, and I’ll do me, and we can all go about our lives. Just remember the next time you all want to assail another user, sling insults, resort to name calling, or act as arm chair psychiatrists, some young hunter (or their parents who are monitoring their internet activity) is reading your post, and you may turn that person off to the hunting community. Forever.

Every.....Single....One..... of your concerns is addressed AD NAUSEUM right here

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


The education is free! I'm asking you to read the thread IN IT'S ENTIRETY. Then make up your mind.


* edit cuz I suk at spellering

 

[BradArnett]

I hung up my 280 back in about 2005 or 6. Had an 1-8"tw 22-250 put together and wore that barrel out with 75amaxs. Then had a 22-250ai barrel screwed on. Then went 223ai, and still shoot both clamberings. I don't know how many deer I've killed with those .224" bores but its a lot. My 8yo has shot 2 bucks so far. One with 223ai77tmk, the other with vanilla 223/77tmk. It sure is strange how guys dig their heels in, and have such strong opinions, on something they know nothing about or haven't done. . Practice with a shootable platform makes it so easy even an 8yo can do it.

 

[KHntr]

Measuring success only and ignoring failures invalidates any statistical argument or attempt to say “but the data shows…”. People love to point at all the times something worked. How many times did it fail, though? That was the point of my original post. That’s luck skill building. A perfectly executed bad plan can still succeed. Eventually, though, the execution will not be perfect, things cascade, and failure results.

And can you ever really get an accurate number of failures seeing as most people are not likely to post pictures and war stories about their failures. That’s not human nature. So the data is skewed to indicate a level of success that may not be accurate. All bullets/calibers will have failures. Some more than others. When failure is not ideal, but remains a possibility, how does a shooter adjust to lessen the margin of error and reduce the chance of the failure being dispositive? A marginal shot on an animal is still a marginal shot, but when the shot is marginal, a larger caliber bullet provides some ability to reduce the odds of total failure.

And sure, everyone says “well, don’t take bad shots”. If you’ve ever worked as a guide, then you’ll know that all hunters will, at least once, take that shot they should not take. Or when hunting bears, their brain short circuits and they aim as if it’s a deer. Do that with a .223, and you have a pissed off, wounded bear. Do that with a .300, and there is a chance of shoulder penetration and a dead bear. It’s still a crappy shot, but there may still be a chance for success.

I think these two points illustrate the issue most clearly. You come across as if you have an underlying belief that it can’t possibly be as effective as it is, because you just know that it can’t be that effective.

And thats the part that isn’t doing you any favors here when it comes to this stuff. A more frangible bullet is going to do more damage than a harder one, regardless of diameter. To the point that a small, frangible bullet will do more damage than a big hard one.

I used to be a dyed in the wool Barnes user, 264wm, 280AI, 7wsm, 300wm, 300 RUM, 338 RUM off the top of my head. I used to shoot for the exit hole, and shoot with the mindset that if I did make a less than perfect shot then that bullet was going to drive straight through and find something else in the way. Which can happen. I bored some awfully long 1/2” diameter holes through elk and moose from odd angles.
And I had a few elk make it farther than I would have preferred, even with great placement, simply due to the smaller wound cavity.

But now, being a big ol handful of elk and moose and deer and black bears into the 88 ELD m, what I see is that a couple that had less than optimal hits have been much more effective and resulted in faster death and immediate recovery, which wouldn’t have been the case with a harder bonded or mono.

For me, if I have a new shooter/hunter behind the rifle, I definitely want a bullet that is going to set off a cherry bomb inside an animal and damage everything within a 12” diameter for 2 feet in the cavity, versus a bullet that is only going to damage stuff in a 2” diameter for 4 feet and hope that it passes close enough to something important in the event of poor placement.

A 77 TMK or 88 ELD m buys you more insurance than a 180 TTSX in the event of a poor shot, not less.

 

[HandgunHTR]

This point was lost long ago in this thread. How many “average” hunters are hand loading their own ammo, practicing shooting from a variety of positions at known and unknown distances, etc. Based on my time guiding, the answer is damned few. Hence the reason I cannot recommend a .223 as a deer cartridge. Sure, will it work if properly loaded and wielded by an effective shooter? Absolutely. Should we be telling the average dude or the new gal to go out and get one? No. Because they won’t take the needed steps to make it work. I’ve seen f

That is going to be true regardless of the cartridge recommended. Some will take the time to practice and others won't. I would postulate that the ones choosing the .223 or other small cartridge will probably practice more than the guy choosing the 300 PRC.

Measuring success only and ignoring failures invalidates any statistical argument or attempt to say “but the data shows…”. People love to point at all the times something worked. How many times did it fail, though? That was the point of my original post. That’s luck skill building. A perfectly executed bad plan can still succeed. Eventually, though, the execution will not be perfect, things cascade, and failure results.

So, you are making the assertion that there must be failures that are going unreported. Why is that? What experience is leading you to that assumption? As for Luck-Skill building, it is predicated on people conflating luck with skill. In that specific instance someone will take one or two examples of "luck" and confuse it with skill. When you have multiple instances of success, it is no longer luck. Your entire premise is based on the fallacy that the .223 is not effective. It is and will continue to be.

And can you ever really get an accurate number of failures seeing as most people are not likely to post pictures and war stories about their failures. That’s not human nature. So the data is skewed to indicate a level of success that may not be accurate. All bullets/calibers will have failures. Some more than others. When failure is not ideal, but remains a possibility, how does a shooter adjust to lessen the margin of error and reduce the chance of the failure being dispositive? A marginal shot on an animal is still a marginal shot, but when the shot is marginal, a larger caliber bullet provides some ability to reduce the odds of total failure.

As already stated, the number of reported failures is probably pretty equal between the "large cartridge" and "small cartridge" folks. One could argue, however, that in the context of this forum, we would probably have seen more instances of folks posting about "small cartridge" failures, if they had existed, if due to nothing else other than to prove that they don't work. However, what we are continually seeing is the, "I tried this, not expecting great results, but I got great results."
As for the last part of that paragraph, you again go to the well of a larger caliber will make up for poor shot placement. That is empirically not true.

And sure, everyone says “well, don’t take bad shots”. If you’ve ever worked as a guide, then you’ll know that all hunters will, at least once, take that shot they should not take. Or when hunting bears, their brain short circuits and they aim as if it’s a deer. Do that with a .223, and you have a pissed off, wounded bear. Do that with a .300, and there is a chance of shoulder penetration and a dead bear. It’s still a crappy shot, but there may still be a chance for success.

Are you implying a .223 will not penetrate the shoulder of a bear? Again, I have to ask, what evidence do you have to base that on?

But hey, knock yourselves out. You do you, and I’ll do me, and we can all go about our lives. Just remember the next time you all want to assail another user, sling insults, resort to name calling, or act as arm chair psychiatrists, some young hunter (or their parents who are monitoring their internet activity) is reading your post, and you may turn that person off to the hunting community. Forever.

When did disagreeing with someone become "assailing" them? As for turning off young hunters, I have seen more young people give up hunting or shooting due to some jackwagon putting a rifle chambered for a "man's cartridge" in their hands in order to make up for their lack of skill and then that person have less than stellar results either at the bench (getting the snot beat out of them) or in the field with a lost animal then I have due to people disagreeing on the internet. But, hey, it seems that you predicate a lot of your assumptions on fallacies, so sure, you do you.

 

[RockAndSage]

@NMTGrad , please pay particular attention to this:

All of us have seen and heard of numerous rodeos with large calibers. The excuses were just different (in their minds).

And this:

This is quite dramatic. You came here acting arrogant and got called out. No one is assailing you.

And this:

If a man can't make good hits with a .223 he certainly isn't going to make good hits with a .300 win mag.

And this especially:

Every.....Single....One..... of your concerns is addressed AD NAUSEUM right here

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


The education is free! I'm asking you to read the thread IN IT'S ENTIRETY. Then make up your mind.

And this:

However, what we are continually seeing is the, "I tried this, not expecting great results, but I got great results."

And, take a look at my first several replies to you. They were very polite, and my best attempt at helping you learn. Because, again, almost none of us came here thinking .223 was a great idea. It's an evolution of experience, knowledge, open-mindedness, and above all a willingness to learn.

Once it looked more like you just wanted to extrapolate about how smart, experienced, and wiser you were, and that you just wanted an argument where people must listen to you but you didn't do the courtesy of listening to them via the threads linked for you - you got treated accordingly.

So without beating further around the bush, take this to heart: until you read all of this thread and all of the .223 for big game thread linked here several times, you just don't know WTF you're talking about.

On this subject.

This is an extremely welcoming community for those actually seeking to learn. Start with more question marks, and fewer periods. Questions open doors.

 

[Billogna]

What's funny to me is that with a sport like hunting we often have the story of the "Three blind men describing what an elephant is to each other by feel alone".

is that the trunk? the tail? Or.....

 

[mt terry d]

This point was lost long ago in this thread. How many “average” hunters are hand loading their own ammo, practicing shooting from a variety of positions at known and unknown distances, etc. Based on my time guiding, the answer is damned few.

Yes. That was me. 7MMwby mag. It was NO fun shooting . I'd MAYBE shoot a couple rounds before the season to see if the scope was still on after collecting dust for a year.

Measuring success only and ignoring failures invalidates any statistical argument or attempt to say “but the data shows…”. People love to point at all the times something worked. How many times did it fail, though?

See post #1993

And can you ever really get an accurate number of failures seeing as most people are not likely to post pictures and war stories about their failures. That’s not human nature. So the data is skewed to indicate a level of success that may not be accurate. All bullets/calibers will have failures. Some more than others. When failure is not ideal, but remains a possibility, how does a shooter adjust to lessen the margin of error and reduce the chance of the failure being dispositive? A marginal shot on an animal is still a marginal shot, but when the shot is marginal, a larger caliber bullet provides some ability to reduce the odds of total failure.

The next to last animal I shot at with my 7mm wby was a cow elk, broadside, undisturbed, 190 yards prone on pack. All the time in the world.
Complete miss.
I adjusted by shooting something fun, relatively cheap and fully capable of humanely killing any ungulate in North America
Again see post #1993
Not one bullet failure yet.

And sure, everyone says “well, don’t take bad shots”. If you’ve ever worked as a guide, then you’ll know that all hunters will, at least once, take that shot they should not take.

As a guide, don't you tell your client whether or not to take a shot?

Or when hunting bears, their brain short circuits and they aim as if it’s a deer. Do that with a .223, and you have a pissed off, wounded bear. Do that with a .300, and there is a chance of shoulder penetration and a dead bear. It’s still a crappy shot, but there may still be a chance for success.

You have experienced this?

But hey, knock yourselves out. You do you, and I’ll do me, and we can all go about our lives. Just remember the next time you all want to assail another user, sling insults, resort to name calling, or act as arm chair psychiatrists, some young hunter (or their parents who are monitoring their internet activity) is reading your post, and you may turn that person off to the hunting community. Forever.

I don't think I've seen anything but positive encouragement for young hunters on this forum.

 

[Sixpack]

Forgive me for changing the direction of the thread but….

I have a question on ammo choices. Other than the 77gr TMK, what other bullets have worked well in 223 for game? 77gr OTM? I have a few new loadings to try including Fed Fusion, Hornady American Whitetail and some heavier loadings plus I’m in the process of ordering some 77 tmk’s to try. My question is what else should I be looking at? My experience with 223 on deer is quite limited to just 55 gr Barnes TSX 15 plus years ago.

Thanks and continue on!

 

[Sixpack]

And I’m sure it has been said multiple times, it’s just a lot to look back through for some suggestions on what works well.

 

[omicron1792]

And I’m sure it has been said multiple times, it’s just a lot to look back through for some suggestions on what works well.

Next most recommend is 73 eldm.

 

[RockAndSage]

Forgive me for changing the direction of the thread but….

I have a question on ammo choices. Other than the 77gr TMK, what other bullets have worked well in 223 for game? 77gr OTM? I have a few new loadings to try including Fed Fusion, Hornady American Whitetail and some heavier loadings plus I’m in the process of ordering some 77 tmk’s to try. My question is what else should I be looking at? My experience with 223 on deer is quite limited to just 55 gr Barnes TSX 15 plus years ago.

Thanks and continue on!

I've seen Gold Dots get some good recommends on here as well.

The basic premise is longer, heavier-for-caliber seems to penetrate deeper, due to sectional density. At further ranges, the better BC of those bullets also helps retain velocity as well, and buck wind better. Match bullets have a thin jacket, and when combined with a polymer tip they tend to be pretty explosive - and need that extra length/sectional density to drive deep. Light tipped bullets will still leave a hell of a hole, but less likely to leave an exit, which is why they tend to be popular with coyote hunters. There's probably some nuance I'm missing, but that's the gist of what seems to be the commonalities in looking for a lead-core bullet.

 

[43.6N]

Forgive me for changing the direction of the thread but….

I have a question on ammo choices. Other than the 77gr TMK, what other bullets have worked well in 223 for game? 77gr OTM? I have a few new loadings to try including Fed Fusion, Hornady American Whitetail and some heavier loadings plus I’m in the process of ordering some 77 tmk’s to try. My question is what else should I be looking at? My experience with 223 on deer is quite limited to just 55 gr Barnes TSX 15 plus years ago.

Thanks and continue on!

Good time for a summary.
If you want factory:
TMK (aac, black hills, bone frog)
73gr ELDM Hornady Match

For short range: federal fusion, or soft points. But ymmv. Make sure you know your expansion envelope.

If you hand load: these seem to be most common. (And most well supported by the 223 thread)
77tmk
75gr eldm
80gr eldm

 

[BLJ]

Next most recommend is 73 eldm.

These had the same effect in whitetails as the 77 TMK in my experience.

 

[longrangelead]

For me it was finding a rifle for my wife. She was brand new to hunting and shooting. It was soon apparent she didn't enjoy recoil so we looked at smaller cartridges.
She struggled to operate a bolt gun and get back on target quickly so we looked at AR's.
Two states we planned to hunt had .243/6mm minimum so we landed on the 6x45. It was 2015 and all I knew was "I better shoot a Barnes to make up for size". So, shooting the 85gr TSX BT, we headed to Wyoming with a fist full of antelope tags.
It was quickly apparent the 6x45 was more than enough for antelope out to 400yds.
Then we killed some mule deer...same. Then I killed a big cow elk...same.

Between my wife n I, we have six seasons of hunting with 6x45's. We killed a pile of deer and antelope! It was eye opening being able to see hits in the scope and be able to immediately send another shot without moving since we were using AR's.

So, years later, the industry starts making fast twist rifles and slippery, heavy bullets for small calibers in relatively cheap rifles that shoot.
It wasn't a stretch at all once I found the 223 big game thread here. I bought a Tikka 223 and killed a bear with it. Bang...dead. no surprise.

My only disappointment is B tags aren't as available as they used to be...

I want to point out what others have also realized and said. Smaller cartridges have less recoil so shot to shot time is reduced allowing more shots into animals in the first few seconds that count.

That in itself is an important point when comparing big and small cartridges.
I hunted with a 10 pound 300 RUM for most of 10 years. 26" barrel, SRS brake, 210's @ 3000, then 230's @ 3100.

I shot it well enough to see 9 of 10 hits in the scope at any range, so I can tell you from experience, I could put 4, if not 5 223's in an animal in the time it would take to make 3 shots with my RUM simply due to recoil recovery time.