Thread: A question for the doubters

I think you'll have trouble with an objective test because of lack of data. E.g. does anyone ever put up photos of deer they missed or had to track and finish? Not impugning the skill or honesty of regular posters there, just putting out a known unknown.
Once we had the miss/not-enough-gun-due to-bad-shot-placement data we'd then need the same data for another calibre that is a 'recognised' minimum, e.g. .243.
We can't get it, so my ignorant position is "in the hands of a proficient shooter with good shot placement, the .223 is fine, but not for occassional shooters."

well I believe we could all at least agree 223 will do the job but is not really ideal not compared to 308 270 7mm08 etc

Originally Posted by Barry the hunter

well I believe we could all at least agree 223 will do the job but is not really ideal not compared to 308 270 7mm08 etc

Me listening to the boomers talking about cartridges...

I guess Remington and Winchester were successful in brainwashing you lot after more than a century of marketing. Remember that the rifle is usually sold new once and then resold many times after if it is a quality item, factory ammunition is where the margins are. A well maintained $1k rifle will probably shoot $5-10k+ worth of factory ammo before it needs to be rebarreled or scrapped.

Answer for them is to keep hyping up and releasing new cartridges whilst the bullets remain the same crappy design. Hornady tipped the game on it's head by actually improving the bullets first and then doing better cartridges to accommodate said bullets. Ironic how quick these other companies (Nosler, Remington, Winchester, Norma) will jump to make brass and loaded ammo according to Hornady's new releases, but their own cartridges go down like a wet fart in an enclosed space.

Hornady's bullets (even moreso the brass) might not be 'the best' but the important thing is they are:

1. Actually available to buy
2. Not stupid expensive at retail
3. Work very well (bullets moreso than the brass)

Hope you are aware that the only thing to touch the target is the bullet, and the animal is unaware whether the cartridge was a 222,223,224/ 270,6.8/ .284,7mm etc etc.

If it were possible to shoot the same animal twice, in the exact same place, same conditions, with the exact same bullet hitting at the exact same impact velocity, only difference being one is fired with a rifle and the other being fired via a huge amount of compressed air, I'm sure a few oldies and those influenced by them would still say the rifle performed much better...

Originally Posted by caberslash

Me listening to the boomers talking about cartridges... Attachment 258187

I guess Remington and Winchester were successful in brainwashing you lot after more than a century of marketing. Remember that the rifle is usually sold new once and then resold many times after if it is a quality item, factory ammunition is where the margins are. A well maintained $1k rifle will probably shoot $5-10k+ worth of factory ammo before it needs to be rebarreled or scrapped.

Answer for them is to keep hyping up and releasing new cartridges whilst the bullets remain the same crappy design. Hornady tipped the game on it's head by actually improving the bullets first and then doing better cartridges to accommodate said bullets. Ironic how quick these other companies (Nosler, Remington, Winchester, Norma) will jump to make brass and loaded ammo according to Hornady's new releases, but their own cartridges go down like a wet fart in an enclosed space.

Hornady's bullets (even moreso the brass) might not be 'the best' but the important thing is they are:

1. Actually available to buy
2. Not stupid expensive at retail
3. Work very well (bullets moreso than the brass)

Hope you are aware that the only thing to touch the target is the bullet, and the animal is unaware whether the cartridge was a 222,223,224/ 270,6.8/ .284,7mm etc etc.

If it were possible to shoot the same animal twice, in the exact same place, same conditions, with the exact same bullet hitting at the exact same impact velocity, only difference being one is fired with a rifle and the other being fired via a huge amount of compressed air, I'm sure a few oldies and those influenced by them would still say the rifle performed much better...

ohhh you are so wrong on so many counts most of us in NZ that have hunted for say 40 years or more we used factory ammo - what was available at the local sports store and ammo was relatively cheap - caliber choice was limited and 222 308 243 270 303 3006 ruled the roost 223 did not come into contention until really eighties for us hunting professionally - I was still supplying my hunters .222 right up until I left in 2014 - I was lucky enough to not have to pay for ammo it was supplied - I have not paid for ammo for many many years . .as to the effectiveness of different calibers many of us were lucky to have had hunting careers where we shot hundreds of deer - made mistakes - seen mistakes - formed opinions on various calibers - unlike some one who may only shoot 3-4 a year and relies on what they see written down by so called experts -the situation now is different many many hunters reload and have a huge choice -but I will stick to what I have said .223 will drop deer when used by an experienced hunter who knows the round -but ideal no -

Originally Posted by Barry the hunter

well I believe we could all at least agree 223 will do the job but is not really ideal not compared to 308 270 7mm08 etc

No. I much prefer my 223 over my 708 or my 308

Originally Posted by Eat Meater

I think you'll have trouble with an objective test because of lack of data. E.g. does anyone ever put up photos of deer they missed or had to track and finish? Not impugning the skill or honesty of regular posters there, just putting out a known unknown.
Once we had the miss/not-enough-gun-due to-bad-shot-placement data we'd then need the same data for another calibre that is a 'recognised' minimum, e.g. .243.
We can't get it, so my ignorant position is "in the hands of a proficient shooter with good shot placement, the .223 is fine, but not for occassional shooters."

The same can be said of any catridge. People shooting big cartridges losing animals always seem to go straight to it was a bad shot but small cartridges they go straight to its the catridge. In all honesty most failures are either bad shots or incorrect projectile and impact velocity matches. Everyone likes to say it will do the job but is not ideal comapred to day the bigger typical hunting rounds but it's undeniable fact most people in field conditions are better with a smaller rifle in field conditions given it increases forgiveness to the poor form 90% of us use. I'd argue a 10% increase in optimum hit rate is better than a 10% increase in killing ability once you get the the sorts of wounds even a 223 calibre fragmenting match projectile will achieve. I'd say if anything the average hunter that shoots less than 50 rounds a year benefits more from a lighter recoiling rifle.

That's a great point @Stocky. I'm not a fan of heavy recoil and prefer lighter calibres. Went for a 223 in the bush for that exact reason, where shot placement is critical. It's an enjoyable round to shoot, and seems to kill deer just as dead as when using the 7mm08 (my mtn rifle).