223 on deer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doinit

At what point in time was that Micky Duck? .222,308 and .270 were the main flavours and on the odd occasion certain guys were supplied .243. that list was a definite on the Thar blocks. Although the majority of hunters on the Thar including myself carried .222's. I'm talking mid 60's-late 70's.

---

not 100% sure of dates...I have read about it a couple of times in books and or magazine articles....one magazine article was in two bits...first bit was written as culler and 2nd was some 30ish years later back walking same paths. thats where the Tbolt bit came from..pretty sure writer said they only given HV ammo so it was still noisy... not as noisy as the trebly but couldve been much better with subsonic.
was deemed a failure so wasnt continued...pretty sure it wouldve been central north island and goat rich blocks...was definately bush and river flats..... Phil H used .22 magnum on goats at one stage.....

Must have been a North Island thing as I knew a few NZFS guys way back and only ever heard of 303, 222 and 270 being used by them.
Oh and the odd 308.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Finnwolf

Must have been a North Island thing as I knew a few NZFS guys way back and only ever heard of 303, 222 and 270 being used by them.
Oh and the odd 308.

---

There is a spot I hunt occasionally in the Kaimaniwas, there is a well established camp with a large native nearby, the V's in the tree are full of .222 and .270 empties.

Have shot plenty reds with a 223. Mostly just chest shoot. Some drop on spot but quite a few dash n die up to 70m away. I use Hornady factory 55 gn SP. They work fine. 3000fps out of a 16 inch suppressed barrel. Federal 55gn blue packet is 200 fps slower but kills just as well if not a touch better. Dont use varmint bullets. I love using a 223. So does my dog's ears. I use a 308 more though. Cheers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

not 100% sure of dates...I have read about it a couple of times in books and or magazine articles....one magazine article was in two bits...first bit was written as culler and 2nd was some 30ish years later back walking same paths. thats where the Tbolt bit came from..pretty sure writer said they only given HV ammo so it was still noisy... not as noisy as the trebly but couldve been much better with subsonic.
was deemed a failure so wasnt continued...pretty sure it wouldve been central north island and goat rich blocks...was definately bush and river flats..... Phil H used .22 magnum on goats at one stage.....

---

Cheers there MD, gotta be from the North Bush hobbits eh..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 7mmwsm

Completely different method of killing though.
With a bullet you are transferring energy. A broad head is all about chopping a hole.

---

Sorta.

On the right compound bow/crossbow setup, you are transferring a huge amount of energy at shorter ranges, the right arrow with go straight through ballistic glass.

Trajectory (and hence range) is the weak point of arrows, not killing power.

That being said I'll take a .223/.222 anyday!

.223 tonight. 130 yds. 69grn Targex. Bullet recovered from off side, just under back steak. Bang-flop.

Attachment 149366

Attachment 149367

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 7mmwsm

Based on your argument, a full metal jacket would be a better killer than an expanding projectile because it penetrates well but doesn't leave its energy in the animal.
There is basically no shocking power with a broadhead, but a large wound channel.

---

Please explain 'shocking power'.

Read about this in lots of adverts for bullets but the only time I've seen (or felt) true 'shocking power' was off a fence wired up to the mains (they have a habit of doing that up here!).

If you mean soft tissue damage, plenty of that on a bow kill with the right equipment and shot placement, not just a narrow wound channel the size of the broadhead...

Expanding broadhead design has come a really long way, and arrows don't fly or travel perfectly straight (any arrow will flex, both in flight and when force is applied to either end).

So, with the arrow (usually) going straight through the animal (say a deer) at under 100m, you have a pretty serious wound channel from a 'behind the shoulder and through the chest cavity' quartering shot, a decent exit wound and a fair amount of bleeding. Add to this the lack of (or very small) report of the arrow being released and an animal which isn't spooked, it will be going down in a pretty rapid fashion.

Sure, you'll never get the massive nerve damage required for a bang-flop, but in terms of death by blood loss and soft (lung) tissue damage a modern, high performance bow and arrow will do just fine.

There's been Likely millions off deer, shot in New Zealand with a .222, was likely the second most common choice for cullers, The old man was NZFS OC, in Taupo, and 2IC down the coast, I remember a stack white, cloth sugar bags, of 2000-3000 brass (.222) , in the corner of the shed, And talk of rifles from old NZFS visitors, and all had a fondness for the humble .222 vixen, we had two on the farm, I've got the newer one,
I bet there are sum old cullers on here, with Tens of thousands of deer/goats shot with the .222, ( trusty .222 and Taraura hunter, Thar)
I've shot a few hundred deer with mine, never lost an deer, get in close, pick your shot, shoot twice if need, and be prepared to pass up game, from time to time, a quality soft point, (stay away form American made varmint bullets,) I like Norma soft points,
the .223 is just a touch more powerful, and with more options, esp with a fast twist

65gr Sierra game king are very effective so are the cheap Hornady 55gr SP.

Don’t know what all the hoopla is about small calibres. I reckon the 222 with 50gr sp kill deer far better than the 223.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caberslash

Please explain 'shocking power'.

Read about this in lots of adverts for bullets but the only time I've seen (or felt) true 'shocking power' was off a fence wired up to the mains (they have a habit of doing that up here!).

If you mean soft tissue damage, plenty of that on a bow kill with the right equipment and shot placement, not just a narrow wound channel the size of the broadhead...

Expanding broadhead design has come a really long way, and arrows don't fly or travel perfectly straight (any arrow will flex, both in flight and when force is applied to either end).

So, with the arrow (usually) going straight through the animal (say a deer) at under 100m, you have a pretty serious wound channel from a 'behind the shoulder and through the chest cavity' quartering shot, a decent exit wound and a fair amount of bleeding. Add to this the lack of (or very small) report of the arrow being released and an animal which isn't spooked, it will be going down in a pretty rapid fashion.

Sure, you'll never get the massive nerve damage required for a bang-flop, but in terms of death by blood loss and soft (lung) tissue damage a modern, high performance bow and arrow will do just fine.

---

Same thing can be said for hunting with a black powder rifle chucking a large lump of lead quite slowly, the big leaky hole theory pretty much works every time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caberslash

Please explain 'shocking power'.

---

Well you've got winter coming and those short dark wet cold days, so good chance to read up on the different killing mechanisms.

Huge amount written on the various terms thrown around on forums - hydrostatic shock, cavitation, etc etc. It's well worth doing as its very informative and helps weed out forum bullshit and marketing hype.

There are some cool videos on how different bullets kill - fragmenting, controlled expansion, etc. Broad head arrows are different again. I think there's a lot of ignorance out there about broadhead arrows.

The biggest problem with the topic is that for every statement of "fact", someone will come along and try and disprove it with a tale and a couple of photos. Neither of the wound experts I'm thinking of will readily accept the use of 6mm on red deer sized game, so years of NZFS cullers were obviously all doing something wrong with their puny and unethical 5.56mm!

At the end of the day, there is no substitute for a knowledge of anatomy, and shot placement. Especially the role of the autonomic part of the central nervous system - what it does, where it is, and what happens when you put a bullet through the main autonomic nerves in the thoracic cavity. Put a .223 bullet of the correct construction and velocity in amongst the autonomic CNS, the animal is dead in short order. End of story.

Where this falls down in the use of the lighter varmint bullets, which is why this thread has been good to review the importance of (a) twist, (b) weight, (c) construction, (d) terminal velocity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doinit

At what point in time was that Micky Duck? .222,308 and .270 were the main flavours and on the odd occasion certain guys were supplied .243. that list was a definite on the Thar blocks. Although the majority of hunters on the Thar including myself carried .222's. I'm talking mid 60's-late 70's.

---

Greetings All,
At one point NZFS adopted .270 Win as their standard animal control cartridge, mid 1970's I think. CAC made head stamped ammo for them. This was all written up in the hunting mags at the time. I found two discarded NZFS head stamped cases on the range, both expanded by egregious over loads. Whether these were factory or hand loads I don't know. Either is possible knowing CAC's later problems.
Regards Grandpamac.

Hmmm.. @grandpamac.’’CAC problems’?
When did they occur and what were they?

I used to religiously use CAC 180 hollow-points in my Finnwolf with no issues ever.

Greetings Finnwolf,
I was referring to the High Flyer shotgun cartridges that were blamed for the destruction of a number of shotguns. I believe that CAC paid out to replace a number of these. Like you I used CAC cartridges, and later cases, without complaint. Still do for cases. I think their quality tapered of a bit towards the end.
Regards Grandpamac.