Thread: A question for the doubters

We all know of a thread here that has currently 136 pages of data showing .22 centrefire cartridges (typically .223) taking medium game. I’m on the side of the believers, owning and using a 1-8” twist .223, as well as a 22 creed. I also have a 6.5 creed that doesn’t leave the safe anymore.

I haven’t counted up the number of deer and tahr killed with a .223 on that thread, but there’s many. On my most recent hunt I watched a mate kill a fully mature red hind with a 73gr ELD-M at 385 yards. The impact velocity was 1910 fps and bullet energy was 590 ft/lbs. I saw the damage to the internal organs myself, and the results were not ‘marginal’ as the vast majority would have you believe. P.S I don’t subscribe to the 1000ftlb energy argument myself….

So, to the doubters- What would it take for you to be convinced that a .223 with heavy for caliber (73-88gr) bullets is a LEGITIMATE deer hunting cartridge? How many deer would I (or others) have to kill for the non-sensical arguments to abate? (Bullets blowing up on shoulders, lack of penetration, margin for error with larger calibres etc etc)

Hey, I’m fully aware that caliber debate is one of those never ending things, but I’m just interested to see what objective measure is proposed. I reckon that because none of the people out there doing it with .223s have a name ending with Duley, Spomer, Henry, Boddington, Keith, Taylor or O’Connor, that it’ll never be accepted.

Lay down the challenge lads, let’s have at it!

culling I shot a lot of deer with a .222 which is very close to a .223 really but I would not recommend it - lost a few and thats never good -223 will do the job but really its a damn small cartridge for big reds - ideal head shooting fallow for meat - and perfect medicine for goats - ( goats 22.250 much better ) in the right hands both 222 and 223 will do but

Originally Posted by Barry the hunter

culling I shot a lot of deer with a .222 which is very close to a .223 really but I would not recommend it - lost a few and thats never good -223 will do the job but really its a damn small cartridge for big reds - ideal head shooting fallow for meat - and perfect medicine for goats - ( goats 22.250 much better ) in the right hands both 222 and 223 will do but

I'm with Barry on this one.
I have the t shirt.

Sent from my SM-A556E using Tapatalk

Actual specific bullet function matters much, much more than the 3 digits stamped on the brass.

You cannot compare a 50-55gr basic SP (old .222 fodder) to a more modern heavy-for-calibre bullet that is tipped (or not) - the 73, 75, 80, 88gr ELDM, the 74 and 80 gr Targex, the various heavy Bergers, the 77gr TMK.

The wounds they create are totally different. The size and nature of wounds is what kills a deer.

Originally Posted by gimp

Actual specific bullet function matters much, much more than the 3 digits stamped on the brass.

You cannot compare a 50-55gr basic SP (old .222 fodder) to a more modern heavy-for-calibre bullet that is tipped (or not) - the 73, 75, 80, 88gr ELDM, the 74 and 80 gr Targex, the various heavy Bergers, the 77gr TMK.

The wounds they create are totally different. The size and nature of wounds is what kills a deer.

And you cannot compare deer. The size and nature are totally different.
A yearling fallow or sika is a way different beast to a pumped up rutting stag of any breed.
The stated example of 594 ft/lbs is fine when all goes well. But an animal can recover (enough to get away) from 600 lbs a lot easier than the old fashioned recommendation of 1000ft/lbs.

Originally Posted by 7mmwsm

And you cannot compare deer. The size and nature are totally different.
A yearling fallow or sika is a way different beast to a pumped up rutting stag of any breed.
The stated example of 594 ft/lbs is fine when all goes well. But an animal can recover (enough to get away) from 600 lbs a lot easier than the old fashioned recommendation of 1000ft/lbs.

Based on? Is a rutting stag a relative of the marvel character Wolverine, that grows adamantium shoulder blades? Last time I cut a stags shoulder blade out, it was flexible and thin enough to see light through.

What does an energy figure actually tell you? A cricket ball thrown by hand has the same energy as a .303 projectile at the same range. Doesn’t kill things though…..

Since I started shooting deer exclusively with a .223 I have lost (1) deer, which I shot in the shin at 270 metres, through a defective bullet or operator error - it was wildly inexplicable. A .338 Lapua would not have been any different in results.

I have not wounded and lost any other animals.

I did miss a couple through poor shooting (I am a bad shot)

Originally Posted by Hunter_Nick

Based on? Is a rutting stag a relative of the marvel character Wolverine, that grows adamantium shoulder blades? Last time I cut a stags shoulder blade out, it was flexible and thin enough to see light through.

What does an energy figure actually tell you? A cricket ball thrown by hand has the same energy as a .303 projectile at the same range. Doesn’t kill things though…..

Based on seeing reasonable number of animals hitting the deck(no wolverines) from various calibers and a wide range of shooting abilities.
Whether you think so or not, adrenaline and testosterone makes stags harder to kill. Some breeds have an absolute desire to live (try Rusa).
If you don't believe adrenaline makes a difference poke a shot though a non vital part of a Cape Buffalo and then try to kill him.
I haven't experienced it, but know people who have and they swear it's not something they wlsh to repeat.

you are right 7mmwsm a worked up big red is way harder to tip over than a small fallow especially full of adrenaline and testosterone 80lb versus 280 lb skins thicker more meat to go thru bones heavier

Gel tests conducted in calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin are informative to understand the relative size of permanent cavity that can be expected from a particular type of bullet at a particular velocity.


Unfortunately no hunting ammunition manufacturers make these available, however as I've posted before Hornady does publish these on their LE website (people who really need ammunition that functions tend to be greatly interested in empirical data reliably demonstrating that function).



223 75gr "TAP". this is a 75gr poly tipped bullet - basically a 75gr ELDM with a round tip to allow it to fit in AR15 magazines. Fired from a 10.5 inch barreled AR15 at 2200fps. Note the tremendously slow MV and the relative performance.






6mm ARC 106gr "TAP". This is a 106gr version of the ELDM. No, I don't know why. Although it is a slightly different bullet, it is more reasonable to expect that it performs very similarly to a 108gr ELDM, than it is to expect it to perform differently. Fired from an 18 inch barreled AR15 at 2625FPS.



.308 155gr ELDM. Fired from a 26 inch barrel at 2789fps.




Note the relative sizes of wounds produced. Also note that this is a particularly good bullet for fragmentation used in the .308 - a generic cheap soft point would not produce as large of a wound. This is the importance of the construction of the specific bullet. Also note the low velocity of the .223 round.


It is counter-intuitive but it is measurable and demonstrable.

Originally Posted by gimp

223 75gr "TAP". this is a 75gr poly tipped bullet - basically a 75gr ELDM with a round tip to allow it to fit in AR15 magazines. Fired from a 10.5 inch barreled AR15 at 2200fps. Note the tremendously slow MV and the relative performance.








.308 155gr ELDM. Fired from a 26 inch barrel at 2789fps.

Ah yes the lack of penetration from .223

Originally Posted by 7mmwsm

And you cannot compare deer. The size and nature are totally different.
A yearling fallow or sika is a way different beast to a pumped up rutting stag of any breed.
The stated example of 594 ft/lbs is fine when all goes well. But an animal can recover (enough to get away) from 600 lbs a lot easier than the old fashioned recommendation of 1000ft/lbs.

I have shot every stag I've shot in the roar for the past 5 years with a .224" 80gr ELDM at 2700-2800fps mv, and I haven't found any cause for complaint. Ranges to 380 metres.

There is a large body of scientific literature studying "wound ballistics". The information available is much more coherent and informative than the hearsay, speculation and voodoo found in hunting circles. The most prominent person in the field in recent decades was Martin Fackler.

Foot pounds of energy don't kill deer.

Wounds in parts of deer, that the deer needs to not have a hole in it in order to continue living, are what kill deer. Major blood vessels, important organs, central nervous system.

Commonly used "high velocity" rifle bullets create wounds with 2 characteristics:

1. a permanent wound cavity - this is caused by physical destruction of tissue - crushing, tearing and cutting - by direct contact with the projectile or fragments. The permanent wound cavity is the primary cause of tissue destruction that causes loss of CNS function or loss of blood pressure causing death. The larger a bullet is, and the nature of expansion and particularly fragmentation dictates the size - width and depth (penetration) of the permanent wound cavity. A larger bullet by no means can be predicted to cause a larger wound cavity. Specific construction and how that behaves at the impact velocity is the primary determinant of permanent wound cavities. A large bullet that does not fragment at that specific impact velocity creates a smaller wound than a small bullet that does fragment.

2. a temporary wound cavity. this is caused by the "deposit/transfer of energy" and is the dramatically visible temporary deformation or movement of a ballistic gel block for example. There can be some minor to major additional permanent damage as a result of the temporary cavity depending on the elasticity of the relevant tissue. In most tissue we are trying to shoot bullets into (muscle, lungs), the temporary cavity largely rebounds with the expense of energy but minimal wounding effects. Liver, bone or brain tissue is not elastic. However you don't need to rely on a large temporary cavity to destroy sufficient brain tissue or bone when you hit it with a bullet. In elastic tissue, the "energy transfer" is largely wasted.


The size of permanent wound cavity from the use of the bullets that are commonly assessed as effective from cartridges like the .223 (e.g. the heavy ELDM or TMK), at the ranges where those bullets fragment effectively (e.g. above 1800fps impact velocity or so) are sufficiently large to penetrate to the important bits of a deer and destroy sufficient of those bits for it to die quickly and impressively.


This is not my opinion, this is empirically demonstrable. The literature describing how bullets actually kill is not my opinion. Read sections 9.2.1, 9.2.2, and 9.2.3 of this paper for a good summary (which includes citations at the end if you wish to go peer review the source literature).

https://www.scribd.com/document/2307...listics-Karger

Originally Posted by 7mmwsm

And you cannot compare deer. The size and nature are totally different.
A yearling fallow or sika is a way different beast to a pumped up rutting stag of any breed.
The stated example of 594 ft/lbs is fine when all goes well. But an animal can recover (enough to get away) from 600 lbs a lot easier than the old fashioned recommendation of 1000ft/lbs.

Yeah nah.

Following that logic, bowhunting would not work.

A 100kg+ red will tip over from a .22lr going through the lugs. Might take a wee while for the leak to take effect but it will happen so long as the ribs are not in the way.

Originally Posted by caberslash

Yeah nah.

Following that logic, bowhunting would not work.

A 100kg+ red will tip over from a .22lr going through the lugs. Might take a wee while for the leak to take effect but it will happen so long as the ribs are not in the way.

Often arrows do not work.
An arrow low in the lungs takes a lot longer to kill an animal than an arrow high in the lungs. Sometimes days longer.
Low in the lungs allows the lung to drain. High and the lungs fill with blood and the animal effectively drowns.

Originally Posted by 7mmwsm

Often arrows do not work.
An arrow low in the lungs takes a lot longer to kill an animal than an arrow high in the lungs. Sometimes days longer.
Low in the lungs allows the lung to drain. High and the lungs fill with blood and the animal effectively drowns.

With a modern expanding broadhead, decent arrow and suitable impact speed (200-180 fps) at a distance of 100m or less, you are talking about a permanent wound cavity which is comparable to many rifles (especially if they are being shot with copper bullets...)