Just learned that .223 is legal

[Culvercreek hunt club]

 

3 hours ago, Core said:

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.

A main consideration in "infiltrating buildings" is over penetration of the target and walls that could cause unintended injury. 

[Culvercreek hunt club]

2 hours 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.

It's all about bullet selection. If I had a '06 I wouldn't go for the 270. not enough difference in performance. I'd go for the 243 and really increase you ability. varmint to Moose with what you have in 2 rifles. 

[chas0218]

Not to mention at 10' or 15' that 5.56 is going to have a lot more energy than at 100 yards. Majority of shots taken by the military with the 5.56 aren't hail marys. They usually let the M60 in 7.62 lay down the long range cover fire.

[Elmo]

3 hours ago, Core said:

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.

See the history of 458 SOCOM.

[Dinsdale]

1 hour ago, pawle76 said:

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. 

That s the "and" part of mechanical damage in my quote, maybe I didn't emphasize that enough.

 

But I'm also a big fan of fast rounds and have seen the damage done in a fair sample size of more than one or two deer a year. Roy....or better yet Newton (the gun guy not the gravity dude)....are my heroes.

Put me in the "speed kills" camp,  this argument is older than the 223 one. LOL 

 

 

Edited September 19, 2016 by Dinsdale

[Core]

53 minutes ago, Culvercreek hunt club said:

 

A main consideration in "infiltrating buildings" is over penetration of the target and walls that could cause unintended injury. 

If main the consideration in close quarters battle was over-penetration of the target SWAT would use nothing but bird shot. 223/5.56 penetrates very well, no problem going through multiple layers of a typical wall. I've used fresh 6X6 posts as stands for targets and 223 will get through 5.5" of wood every time. Realistically it can go through about twice that.

As always people need to know their own limits and that of the gear. For rifles, it's a "close" range round for deer.

[stoneam2006]

If main the consideration in close quarters battle was over-penetration of the target SWAT would use nothing but bird shot. 223/5.56 penetrates very well, no problem going through multiple layers of a typical wall. I've used fresh 6X6 posts as stands for targets and 223 will get through 5.5" of wood every time. Realistically it can go through about twice that.

As always people need to know their own limits and that of the gear. For rifles, it's a "close" range round for deer.

If I'm not mistaken don't swat use frangibles once they enter chest cavity the turn into fragments and bounce aroround inside? That's why they could get shot in chest and pull fragment out if leg

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[turkeyfeathers]

My .o2  on .223   I have a customer/friend who works for ATF    They shoot/carry Winchester Ranger 55 grain SP's

I've always considered the .223 a bit light for deer but taking the right shot, dead deer all day long.

Edited September 19, 2016 by turkeyfeathers

[Culvercreek hunt club]

12 minutes ago, Core said:

If main the consideration in close quarters battle was over-penetration of the target SWAT would use nothing but bird shot. 223/5.56 penetrates very well, no problem going through multiple layers of a typical wall. I've used fresh 6X6 posts as stands for targets and 223 will get through 5.5" of wood every time. Realistically it can go through about twice that.

As always people need to know their own limits and that of the gear. For rifles, it's a "close" range round for deer.

Wasn't the conversation the .223/5.56 VS other rifles? Penetration IS a main consideration when selecting a breaching weapon. Each weapon best suited for it's niche. the 5.56 poses less of a risk for over penetration that using a 308. And the 5.56 does not have the needed features for longer range precision with a hard hit so that is why many snipers use the 30 cal.s

 

I do agree that the .223 is a close range round. If I had to use one I would want to stay inside of 75 yards. 

[shawnhu]

This is a reply to post #40

He said she said? Let me guess, got it off the 'net so it has to be true?!

[shawnhu]

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.

Depends on what you have already, both rounds are very good in terms of external ballistics.

[shawnhu]

It's all about bullet selection. If I had a '06 I wouldn't go for the 270. not enough difference in performance. I'd go for the 243 and really increase you ability. varmint to Moose with what you have in 2 rifles. 

https://www.facebook.com/groups/146213308771829/permalink/964293166963835/

Someone say Moose?

[shawnhu]

LJC, do us all a favor and stop quoting, you don't know the first thing on how to use the quoting system, and it's a pretty darn fool-proof system.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Buckmaster7600]

I love debating about guns and cartridges more than most but the beloved 223 for deer is horse that's been dead awhile and beaten to a pulp!

223 for deer, yes it will work and works now better than ever with ammunition technology. Is there better? Absolutely, I would say that a 223 is a better choice than a few very popular deer cartridges. It's a cartridge that wouldn't make my top 20 deer cartridges.

If a new hunter asked me what chambering their first deer rifle would be a 223 wouldn't be on my long list.

If it was the only gun a hunter had there is no disputing that it will work as long as the limitations are understood.

Me personally I'll stick to .35 diameter and bigger.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[stoneam2006]

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.

Go 270 best deer rifle IMO. Shot deer from 0 to almost 200 all dead in steps not to say 243 wouldn't I just like the 270s I've had

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[Culvercreek hunt club]

27 minutes ago, shawnhu said:

 

https://www.facebook.com/groups/146213308771829/permalink/964293166963835/

Someone say Moose?

 

And you could probably take one with a .223 as well. Personally, I like to challenge myself and push the limits on my shootign ability, but that is a game for paper in my book. When it comes to game I believe we owe it to the animal to shoot the firearm that we can shoot proficiently, most likely to deliver a wound that will be deadly in a fast time frame and leave the largest room for shooter and unforeseen errors/variables. We should also know enough to select the correct bullet for whatever firearm or animal we are hunting to achieve the same above. To me the 223 for deer and certainly the 243 for moose wouldn't fit that for me. 

[shawnhu]

And you could probably take one with a .223 as well. Personally, I like to challenge myself and push the limits on my shootign ability, but that is a game for paper in my book. When it comes to game I believe we owe it to the animal to shoot the firearm that we can shoot proficiently, most likely to deliver a wound that will be deadly in a fast time frame and leave the largest room for shooter and unforeseen errors/variables. We should also know enough to select the correct bullet for whatever firearm or animal we are hunting to achieve the same above. To me the 223 for deer and certainly the 243 for moose wouldn't fit that for me. 

Yes Bob, I agree. But as with all things when it comes to opinion, everyone has one.

As long as it's legal, and the shooter is proficient with the implement used, I see no issue.

I think it's a wonderful thing when a youngster takes a moose with an implement he is comfortable with and doesn't need to flinch when shooting it. I call that, proficient.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

11 minutes ago, shawnhu said:

 

 

Yes Bob, I agree. But as with all things when it comes to opinion, everyone has one.

As long as it's legal, and the shooter is proficient with the implement used, I see no issue.

I think it's a wonderful thing when a youngster takes a moose with an implement he is comfortable with and doesn't need to flinch when shooting it. I call that, proficient.

 

 

wasn't that the first item on my list?

[shawnhu]

wasn't that the first item on my list?

It was, and I'm agreeing

[LJC]

7 hours ago, Core said:

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.

 

 

A shotgun is way better the .233 at close range there not even in the same ballpark and at farther ranges  have fun trying to find that deer after you hit it with that .223 

Could  a .223 drop a deer like this that fast don't think so .

[Buckmaster7600]

 

 

A shotgun is way better the .233 at close range there not even in the same ballpark and at farther ranges  have fun trying to find that deer after you hit it with that .223 

Could  a .223 drop a deer like this that fast don't think so .

You truly are an extremely ignorant individual! That deer died due to central nervous system being interrupted by what looked like a high shoulder or spinal impact. You could have hit that deer in that same spot with any center fire cartridge with a bullet that will hold together on impact and the outcome would be identical.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Core]

30 minutes ago, LJC said:

 

 

A shotgun is way better the .233 at close range there not even in the same ballpark and at farther ranges  have fun trying to find that deer after you hit it with that .223 

Could  a .223 drop a deer like this that fast don't think so .

That's an impressive shot.

I mentioned the slug because if I made a thread asking if a shotgun slug has enough power at 75 yards to kill a deer the mods would shut it down for wasting bandwidth.

[Buckmaster7600]

You truly are an extremely ignorant individual! That deer died due to central nervous system being interrupted by what looked like a high shoulder or spinal impact. You could have hit that deer in that same spot with any center fire cartridge with a bullet that will hold together on impact and the outcome would be identical.


Having killed a pile of tick toaters with slugs and a few with a 223 if I had to pick between the 2 it would be a 223 all day every day. There isn't a shotgun in the world that shoots accurate as a moderately accurate 223 and putting a bullet where it counts trumps big holes all day.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jjb4900]

3 minutes ago, Buckmaster7600 said:

 

 

You truly are an extremely ignorant individual! That deer died due to central nervous system being interrupted by what looked like a high shoulder or spinal impact. You could have hit that deer in that same spot with any center fire cartridge with a bullet that will hold together on impact and the outcome would be identical.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

yep, deer have been dropped that fast with every caliber or gauge imaginable.

[LJC]

10 minutes ago, Buckmaster7600 said:

 

 

You truly are an extremely ignorant individual! That deer died due to central nervous system being interrupted by what looked like a high shoulder or spinal impact. You could have hit that deer in that same spot with any center fire cartridge with a bullet that will hold together on impact and the outcome would be identical.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

So you did a forensic examination? 

I guess the fact that the wound Channel created by a slug is much larger then your little .223 bullet never crossed your mind did it