Just learned that .223 is legal

[Buckmaster7600]

I used the gmx superformance when I hunted with my AR. I was stationed in NC at the time and it was my only rifle I had down there. Never shot one over 150yds and was never really happy with the terminal performance but I never lost a deer with them. I was using an AR with a 14 inch barrel so I certainly left some speed on the table, an extra 6-8 inches of barrel make a big difference in performance with a round that is depending on velocity for performance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Borngeechee]

Just to let you know The .223 was designed to wound, not kill. 

On the battlefield the idea was you  hurt one guy 2 others got to stop fighting you to help him out   same concept with  laND mines .

Also smaller bullets means a Soldier can carry more ammo . 

 

That's also the fmj ammo that the military uses. Hunting ammo is a completely different animal and function completely different.

Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk

[Culvercreek hunt club]

If it is all you have then understand it's limitations. I am a big fan of using the most reliable caliber that you can proficiently shoot. I would rather see a hunter over gunned than undergunned and I believe a .223 is under gunning yourself IMO

[Uncle Nicky]

You can kill a deer with a .22 rimfire also, but why wouldn't you want to use the right tool for the job? Personally, a .243 with a 100 grain bullet is about as light as I'd want to go, but as long as you're within the law, it's up to you to decide what gun to use.

[fasteddie]

Well , for the great shooters that choose to shoot deer with a 223 , all the more power to you . I don't take head or neck shots and will stick with a gun that will knock the snot out of deer . I use my 223 for woodchucks .

This topic comes up every year and gets boring after a while . So , have at it .

[Borngeechee]

If it is all you have then understand it's limitations. I am a big fan of using the most reliable caliber that you can proficiently shoot. I would rather see a hunter over gunned than undergunned and I believe a .223 is under gunning yourself IMO

It just peaked my curiosity. I'll probably be taking the 308 out this year but it would be cool if they have bullets in a 223 that can reliably do the job.

Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk

[Culvercreek hunt club]

10 minutes ago, Borngeechee said:

It just peaked my curiosity. I'll probably be taking the 308 out this year but it would be cool if they have bullets in a 223 that can reliably do the job.

Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk
 

they make rounds for it that are designed to do as you asked. Where the conversation and argument comes in is generated by the one word in you comment that I bolded. 

[Core]

13 hours ago, Borngeechee said:

From everything that I've read, the 60 grain nosler partitions are the way to go.

Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk
 

Where to buy them, though? I literally have never seen them in any local store and I have looked!

[Borngeechee]

Where to buy them, though? I literally have never seen them in any local store and I have looked!

I've seen federal premium loaded with the 60 grain partitions online for order, that's about it.

Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk

[Core]

10 hours ago, LJC said:

If im not mistaken farmers can  get special permits to  kill deer with 22 lr at close range at least that's what   I heard . So obviously. 223 will kill a deer .

But why not us something more powerfull and make sure you get a fast kill  that is  what you have to think about .

 

I swear in another thread recently where I pointed out the increased power of crossbow over vertical bow you said that a bow is nonetheless perfectly fine to kill deer (it is). But you're saying the opposite here; more is better 

A .223 will kill a deer. A 3030 will kill it deader and a 50 BMG will kill it deader still.

Quote

Just to let you know The .223 was designed to wound, not kill. 

On the battlefield the idea was you  hurt one guy 2 others got to stop fighting you to help him out   same concept with  laND mines .

This is not true. It is a commonly related myth, but absolutely not true. The reason the military uses a fairly light .223 (or more specifically 5.56) instead of a much heavier round is because it is still lethal up to 300 yards or 500 or whatever the spec was when 5.56 was created, yet light enough they can carry more. It never had anything to do with intentionally wounding--not killing--so that more guys would be involved in caring for the person.

This intuitively makes little sense particularly since police and SWAT still use 5.56 during activities in which their goal is clearly to kill, not wound. Bin laden was killed by 5.56. This isn't because the military is too cheap to give its top operators cheap rounds or the seal teams are so used to shooting 5.56 from their early days that they cannot properly get used to a "real" round. 

Which brings us to this point: If a 5.56/.223 is deemed by the military as a man-capable killing round at 300+ yards, surely it can take a deer sniffing a leaf at 100 yards. And, as those who've tried the round have found out, yes, it indeed can.

Put one of these into a deer's lungs and it is done.

Edited September 19, 2016 by Core

[chas0218]

If I had an AR I would be shooting the .300 AAC blackout round lots more to choose from when it comes to weight.

Edited September 19, 2016 by chas0218

[Culvercreek hunt club]

16 minutes ago, Core said:

I swear in another thread recently where I pointed out the increased power of crossbow over vertical bow you said that a bow is nonetheless perfectly fine to kill deer (it is). But you're saying the opposite here; more is better 

A .223 will kill a deer. A 3030 will kill it deader and a 50 BMG will kill it deader still.

This is not true. It is a commonly related myth, but absolutely not true. The reason the military uses a fairly light .223 (or more specifically 5.56) instead of a much heavier round is because it is still lethal up to 300 yards or 500 or whatever the spec was when 5.56 was created, yet light enough they can carry more. It never had anything to do with intentionally wounding--not killing--so that more guys would be involved in caring for the person.

This intuitively makes little sense particularly since police and SWAT still use 5.56 during activities in which their goal is clearly to kill, not wound. Bin laden was killed by 5.56. This isn't because the military is too cheap to give its top operators cheap rounds or the seal teams are so used to shooting 5.56 from their early days that they cannot properly get used to a "real" round. 

Which brings us to this point: If a 5.56/.223 is deemed by the military as a man-capable killing round at 300+ yards, surely it can take a deer sniffing a leaf at 100 yards. And, as those who've tried the round have found out, yes, it indeed can.

Put one of these into a deer's lungs and it is done.

I can understand the rational of using the round in military and an assault situation. But to get more in line with what "we" do, how many snipers use the 5.56 as compared to other rounds? 

[Culvercreek hunt club]

18 minutes ago, Core said:

A .223 will kill a deer. A 3030 will kill it deader and a 50 BMG will kill it deader still.

but which will kill one in a wider variety of circumstances? I know I would not hesitate to take a frontal or hard quartering to shot inside 200 with my '06 or 308. I wouldn't do it with my 223

[Core]

but which will kill one in a wider variety of circumstances? I know I would not hesitate to take a frontal or hard quartering to shot inside 200 with my '06 or 308. I wouldn't do it with my 223

There's no doubt it's not as good as a harder-hitting round.

[LJC]

20 minutes ago, Culvercreek hunt club said:

I can understand the rational of using the round in military and an assault situation. But to get more in line with what "we" do, how many snipers use the 5.56 as compared 

A  retierd 1  General told me that btw years ago and that is with fmj   miltary ammo  I think he most know his stuff

He was teaching at my school at the time when I was kid .

 

Edited September 19, 2016 by LJC

[Culvercreek hunt club]

11 minutes ago, LJC said:

27 minutes ago, Culvercreek hunt club said:

I can understand the rational of using the round in military and an assault situation. But to get more in line with what "we" do, how many snipers use the 5.56 as compared 

A  retierd 1 star General told me that btw yeaes ago and that is with fmj   miltary ammo  I think he most know his stuff .

 

huh?

[Core]

5 minutes ago, Culvercreek hunt club said:

huh?

It's the quoting system on the forum. Sometimes it's just plain weird.

As for the wound myth it is still perpetuated by many, including some in the military. But, a lot of military actually know very little about guns. I read recently a study of army troops showed a significant number actually believed a bullet continues to accelerate after leaving the barrel, for example.

If in doubt still about the wound vs kill, again I'd refer back to the fact that people infiltrating buildings such as in the bin laden assault continue to rely on 5.56. This isn't to say it is the best round for mlitary use (plenty of other militaries use larger rounds), but it is not intended to wound in combat.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

9 minutes ago, Core said:

It's the quoting system on the forum. Sometimes it's just plain weird.

As for the wound myth it is still perpetuated by many, including some in the military. But, a lot of military actually know very little about guns. I read recently a study of army troops showed a significant number actually believed a bullet continues to accelerate after leaving the barrel, for example.

If in doubt still about the wound vs kill, again I'd refer back to the fact that people infiltrating buildings such as in the bin laden assault continue to rely on 5.56. This isn't to say it is the best round for mlitary use (plenty of other militaries use larger rounds), but it is not intended to wound in combat.

I haven't commented once on the whole wounding VS killing posts in this thread. 

[Core]

17 minutes ago, Culvercreek hunt club said:

I haven't commented once on the whole wounding VS killing posts in this thread. 

Yeah, that was at LJC.

Anyway, a last bit of data: A rifled shotgun slug from a 12 gauge has at 75 yards about the same energy as a 223 at the same distance because the slug bleeds energy at an insane rate due to its huge frontal area. At 100 yards the 223 can actually carry with it more energy than that same slug.

[jjb4900]

no doubt it'll do the job in the hands of a responsible hunter.........but with so many better choices out there, why? if you're the guy who wants to shoot a bear should the opportunity arises, not the best caliber to have in your hands.

[Jeremy K]

I hit a doe In the chest (facing me) at 190 yards last year with my 30-06 168g and it made an absolute mess of the chest cavity . I just won a savage arms rifle Saturday at a gun rifle and I can't decide between the .243 or .270 . I know the 30-06 is over kill.

[Rattler]

47 minutes ago, Jeremy K said:

I hit a doe In the chest (facing me) at 190 yards last year with my 30-06 168g and it made an absolute mess of the chest cavity . I just won a savage arms rifle Saturday at a gun rifle and I can't decide between the .243 or .270 . I know the 30-06 is over kill.

The 30-06 is not over kill.  The bullet used, and where it hits the deer, determine how much damage it does.  A .243 in a deer's chest can mess up the chest just as bad.  A .270 will do everything a .30-06 will do when it hits a deer too.  Bullet composition and bullet placement, are the factors that are important when looking to avoid what you call "over kill".

[pawle76]

15 hours ago, Dinsdale said:

I have taken more than a few deer with a 223 using heavier bullets and they all performed with excellent results. All done with about a perfect set up as they get; great rest, relaxed animals. 

Would I push it past most Whitetails encountered here?, No, but it works.

 Bows kill by bleeding out an animal and  energy is required to pierce the skin and vitals by cutting action. Bullets kill by hydrostatic shock, that shock may disrupt blood vessels, deflate lungs, disrupt CNS, etc; and you get mechanically striking the same.

Federal makes a 60 gr Partition load, may have to look around for it.

I'd also try a TSX or TTSX but not sure who loads them factory. 

I totally disagree with the hydrostatic shock theory you've used. Deer or any living thing shot with a bullet does not die from hydrostatic shock. They are killed by the actual damage done by the bullet which in turn drops the animals BP from rapid blood loss which disrupts the blood supply to the brain. In turn brain ceases to function. Hydrostatic shock or hydrolic shock causes a temporary wound channel which almost immediately goes back to its actual shape. There is very little proximal damage to blood vessels and surrounding tissues do to this shock. Mainly because living tissue does not behave like water or fluid. It's very elastic and can be stretched greatly then returns to original shape. Then there's the fact that only the fastest bullets will cause shock. After that those fastest bullets lose speed at greater distance so I would say most deer shot hydrolic shock is negligible. My point is, only in certain cases where the right type of bullet is used at the right distance where the bullet is still fast enough will hydrolic shock be present and even then it does little to kill the animal. Terminal ballistics is what I care about. Give me a big enough bullet to do the most physical actual damage not theoretical damage. 

[LJC]

2 hours ago, Culvercreek hunt club said:

 The .223  was designed to wound, not kill.    That's what I was talking about .

That's the military fmj ammo 

Originally

It all depends on what ammo you use in it obviously  soft point hollow point Nosler partition .xct 

 

[Culvercreek hunt club]

What post number are you quoting me in?