Guns Like firearms themselves, there’s a wide variety of opinions on what’s the best gun.

223 ?

Reply

Old 11-30-2018, 04:40 PM
  #11  
Giant Nontypical
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 5,424
Default

The bullets used have a lot to do with the effectiveness of a cartridge...Back in the late '60s I used a 22-250 to kill dozens of deer that were eating our peanuts and soybeans...These were 55gr fast expanding bullets made for things like groundhogs...In 1980, I bought a .243 and used it for over 30 years on deer, I realized I got much better results and blood trails...

Now, fast forward to the present...The military uses non expanding bullets...You can get 60gr bullets in .22 caliber like Nosler Partitions for the .223 and 22-250...About 10 years ago, my youngest brother picked up a 22-250 in a trade, he called me to set the rifle up for his daughter to deer hunt with...I bought a couple of boxes of the 60gr Nosler Partions and she has proceeded to kill dozens of deer with that gun...A .223 with the same bullet, put in the right place would do the same...Selecting the proper bullet for the game is very important in these two calibers...
nchawkeye is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2018, 08:34 PM
  #12  
Typical Buck
 
Berserker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: WI&UP
Posts: 751
Default

But I don't know why an able bodied adult would use them. If a kid, or shoulder problems, and limit yourself to lung/heart shots in open country, probably ok. Or neck.
Berserker is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2018, 07:37 AM
  #13  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: WY
Posts: 2,043
Default

The military's selection of the 5.56x45mm has less to do with its lethality or wounding potential than it does weight and higher rates of fire that can only be sustained logistically with lighter cartridges. My basic load when I was a 1985-1991 was 390 rounds loaded in magazines and one bandolier in my ruck. It'd have been half that if I'd been issued an M-14, even less if it'd been a Garand.
homers brother is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2018, 04:35 PM
  #14  
Spike
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 9
Default

Let me start by saying there are far many better choices for deer hunting. With that also being said I know first hand the devastation the 223 can do to a deer. Would I recommend it to anyone? No way. I myself have probably taken 20+ deer with a 223 and also the 222 and have never had any bad things happen. Ive also shot premium bonded bullets or the Barnes all copper type bullets in the 60-70grain range 55ish for the 222). I also kept my shots to 75 yards and closer and took high probability shots (neck, chest) at unalarmed deer. If they didnt fall they never made it past 30-40 yards. If the shot wasnt perfect I never took it. In the right hands of a patient hunter theyre adequate but again, I wouldnt recommend it to anyone.
Whino83 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2018, 05:33 PM
  #15  
Super Moderator
 
CalHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 16,564
Default

Originally Posted by mounting man View Post
If the 223 is not supposedly big enough to take down a 100 to 175 pound deer why does the Government arm our service people with this to defend them self in battle ?
Many states don't allow 22 caliber centerfire for deer hunting. I haven't asked but believe most if not all of them would say the 22 centerfire calibers are either too marginal for cleanly killing deer or simply not enough for the job. The goal of game laws and sportsmen and women is to make clean and ethical kills of the animals we hunt. It doesn't mean you could never kill a deer with a 223. People have of course. There's also at least 1 story floating around of some guy killing a bear with a .22 rimfire. Again, not the best choice for the animal and risks just making the bear madder.

The military is restricted to the ammo it can use for combat by the Hague Convention which bars expanding bullets. I realize that sounds silly since just about every bomb, grenade, mortar or artillery shell explodes (expands) but that's what we follow. Other members have already stated quite why the military uses the 5.56mm round.

It's not a bad question and has been asked a lot over the years.
CalHunter is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2019, 08:04 AM
  #16  
Nontypical Buck
 
Nomercy448's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Kansas
Posts: 3,373
Default

Originally Posted by GOOD OLE BOY View Post
The savage enemies we have faced since Viet Nam don,t care one bit about gettin their wounded out.Thr VC admitted that if they lost 100 to our 1 they counted that has a success.They used that wounded scenario against,t us,not the other way around.
I hate to propagate a silly thread on a topic like this, but this doesnt hold water.

I havent been in, but Im a fan of the men who make my home safe to sleep at night. There have been many reported accounts of multiple targets being presented in recent wars and conflicts as enemy combatants entered the field to recover dead or wounded. Also accounts where American targets were hit by what appeared to be NON-combatants who appeared to be attempting recovery.

While the statement was never made, the sentiment was true at the time - weve all heard the legend the VC had reported well lose 100 just to take 1, just as weve all heard that Admiral Yamamoto advised Japan could never invade the US mainland because there would be a rifle waiting behind every blade of grass. He never said that, nor was it true, as not every American, even in that era, was willing or prepared to pick up a rifle to defend our country. Theyre inspiring mantras of war propoganda, but little more.
Nomercy448 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2019, 02:21 PM
  #17  
Typical Buck
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location:
Posts: 724
Default

Originally Posted by GOOD OLE BOY View Post
The savage enemies we have faced since Viet Nam don,t care one bit about gettin their wounded out.Thr VC admitted that if they lost 100 to our 1 they counted that has a success.They used that wounded scenario against,t us,not the other way around.
This is pretty much a straw man argument. The selection of 5.56mm didn't have anything to do with the VC's lack of concern about their troops. It arguably should have but Vietnam wasn't playing by the rules while we were. The U.S. chose the 5.56mm for reasons others have stated although much of the reasoning used in making the choice was based on us fighting another war in Europe, etc.
elkman30 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2019, 08:51 AM
  #18  
Super Moderator
 
CalHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 16,564
Default

I've carried a lot of different duty pistols and calibers over the years but they wouln't be my first choice for deer hunting either. I agree with many of the above posts in which you've been advised why 223 shouldn't be your first choice for deer hunting either. In my state, bear season opens at the same time as deer season so I carry something appropriate for both.
CalHunter is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2019, 04:10 PM
  #19  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Eastern wv
Posts: 2,551
Default

Look up the 70 gr .224 cal no\sler accubond, it'll kill any deer, elk, moose that walks in the proper hands.
RR
Ridge Runner is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2019, 02:14 PM
  #20  
Typical Buck
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 743
Default

Ridge Runner, you want to shoot a full grown bull moose with a .223 you better have at least one of 2 things. Unholy marksmanship skills or a really good will left with a good attorney. I've seen a mad moose, and you can bet your bottom dollar I would want something bigger than a .223 leaving a hole. Even hunting with a 1 3/4 inch 3 blade broadhead will make your butt pucker.
hunters_life is offline  
Reply With Quote

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service