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

223 ?

Reply

Old 10-12-2018, 01:14 AM
  #1  
Typical Buck
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: North East PA. but not home.
Posts: 730
Default 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 ?
mounting man is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2018, 02:45 AM
  #2  
Boone & Crockett
 
Oldtimr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: south eastern PA
Posts: 10,501
Default

Because human beings are much easier to kill than a bear or a deer. The 223 has no business in a big game hunt.
Oldtimr is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2018, 04:22 AM
  #3  
Nontypical Buck
 
MudderChuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Germany/Calif.
Posts: 1,910
Default

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.
MudderChuck is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2018, 05:46 AM
  #4  
Fork Horn
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: fla
Posts: 240
Default

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
Top shelf ammo for hunting deer with a bolt action .223

Last edited by hardcastonly; 10-12-2018 at 05:50 AM.
hardcastonly is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2018, 07:43 AM
  #5  
Nontypical Buck
 
Nomercy448's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Kansas
Posts: 3,142
Default

There are viable options for hunting deer with 223/5.56. There are very few worse choices, and very, very many better choices.
Attached Thumbnails 223 ?-f85c92a4-a610-428a-8a9a-f0d7f0bfcc50.jpeg  
Nomercy448 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2018, 08:54 AM
  #6  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,433
Default

Originally Posted by MudderChuck View Post
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.
Far in my past I used a Pig whenever my team needed one for the job at hand. That thing seemed to weigh at least a hundred pounds after a couple of days in the heat and it ate it's weight in ammo, but it was effective. Sometimes we even carried AK rifles if we were concerned about the other guys locating us by sound. However, given the choice the standard M-16 was what we used. The light projectile fired from the M-16 was very effective against soft targets at relatively close range and for one of our three-to-five day "camping trips" a fellow could carry enough magazines. 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.
Big Uncle is offline  
Reply With Quote

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service