223 ?
 

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 ?

Because human beings are much easier to kill than a bear or a deer. The 223 has no business in a big game hunt.

They told us in the military that the object was to create as many causalities as possible. Basically if you kill one guy you have one guy out of the fight, if you wound one it takes more people to evacuate them, taking more people out of the fight. And they added commanders, that don't take care of their wounded quickly lose the confidence of their soldiers.
That is the talking point anyway. Whether it is fact or fiction I have no idea, above my pay grade.
I always did wonder about it also causing manpower drains on the us, caring for enemy casualties. Those talking points always did strike me as salesmanship.
One talking point did make sense, .223 rounds are lighter and you can carry more ammo. Soldiers in combat are notoriously bad shots, quantity versus quality.

I always carried the "Pig" M-60 machine gun, I was loath to be under gunned. Sure I sweated more, but I had a lot more confidence.:) The M-2 was even better.:)

the ammo used by the military is designed to wound , not necessarily kill rapidly,
http://www.weaponslaw.org/instrument...ue-Declaration
http://www.weaponslaw.org/assets/dow...ng_bullets.pdf
its not designed to expand and maximize internal damage to the full potential available,
as it would be with bullets designed for hunting deer.
I just posted info in a similar 223 related thread
https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/whi...ml#post4344268

There are viable options for hunting deer with 223/5.56. There are very few worse choices, and very, very many better choices.

. Military use is far different than hunting.

As a hunting round fired from a sporting rifle I believe it would work for smaller deer at reasonable ranges but it is certainly has minimal power.

im going with Mudderchuck the purpose in the military if you are in a firefight or assaulting a objective then if you kill the a member of the Opfor then its just one man down and one less gun so say you got 10 guns firing down on you then there is still 9 more but if you wound a guy then it takes him out of the fight and then 2 to 4 other guys there eliminating more guns since they got to help their buddy get back to safety and try to fix him up so out of 10 guns you could be down to 6or 7 there fore if overpowing them makes the Opfor to fall back and reorganize allowing you to puh forward even more now on the hunting side your looking to put em down quick and efficiently

hope it helps paint a better picture for you

The original ball ammo provided to the military was actually very efficient against a human. Ball ammo has a tendency to yaw upon impact. While this limits penetration, it does cause massive wounding. Not good for hunting but definitely good in a firefight. Hunting ammunition in .223/5.56 has really progressed and is designed to penetrate and have controlled expansion. While it is far from a first choice for whitetail sized game, in qualified hands it is an effective cartridge with todays advanced bullet designs. If it can kill a 150-300 pound wild hog, and I know for a fact it can because I have dropped quite a few with mine, then it can take a much easier to penetrate whitetail deer. But you are limited in both range and shot placement which is why I stated it should be used only by qualified individuals with excellent marksmanship skills as well as patience to wait for proper shot presentation.

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 am not a fan of it for me. It has become popular with some, for its long range ballasitcs. There arguement is if you wait for a perfect shot , it will die. I agree. But I don't see a lot of deer in the snowbelt, and running a 100 yards can be like a 1000 tracking. But hunting in wide open areas is different.

Also ammo has come a long way. I wouldn't used a 243, at this point in my life either, but many do.

People hunt with bows and .357s.

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...

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.

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.

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. :s3:

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.

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.

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. :D

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, 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.

Almost anything can be done. At least once. Doesn't mean it's the best or even a wise choice. Personally, I wouldn't use 223 for moose. Too many other critters in moose country that I would prefer not to meet while only armed with a 223.