Thread: A question for the doubters

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 Tentman

Quite a bit faster in the 22 CM . . .

But not in a 223?

I do get what a lot are saying about .223 new rounds and reloading the right barrel twist and its performance is improved but new hunters are limited to what is available in the shops

I dont need to be convinced .223 is more than enough for shooting deer in NZ, Provided its either A - handloaded with the likes of 80gr ELDM etc or if running factory ammo B - in the hands of a very experienced shooter thats aware of the realistic capabilities of the ammunition / system. Not to say i havent shot my fair share of deer with 55gr SP & all sorts of other factory .223 ammo, because i have probably shot more deer with .223 than any other calibre with varying results (Due to ammuntion choice & shooter ability NOT CALIBRE). Its fair to say once you go down the path of handloading the .223 with heavy for cal bullets like the ELDM it completely transforms it into something that punches well above its weight.

Personally these days i chose to shoot deer with something larger than .223 for a couple of reasons, mainly because im shooting almost exclusively hammer copper projectiles now, but also because it makes me feel better having the extra horsepower. It may be completely unnecessary & wether that actually translates to improved performance upon the projectile hitting the animal is up for debate & theres probably alot of scenarios at closer ranges where it has the opposite effect & the .223 with a 80gr ELDM would do a better job.

Me disregarding anyone who starts a sentence with Boomers....




It is after all, just a passive way of saying you cant beat experience.

Like this.

Early morning on a braided river bed. In-between braids is gorse and scrub. thick as hell. come round a corner and 3 stags feeding on the edge. Little gun gets first shot because, well, its the little gun. Big gun takes second stag immediately after. Both good hits. Both run a similar enough distance that it dosen't matter. Little gun deer takes ages to find and means alot of back and forth and bashing about. Big gun deer has a bright red broken line that allows you to pretty much walk right up too it.

Originally Posted by Tentman

Another way of thinking about this - years ago a 243 with an 87 gn boolit was accepted as perfectly OK, the 224s are now throwing vastly better projectile designs (than were available 30+ years ago) theres no appreciable difference between a 80gn 0.556mm ELDM and a 6.0mm 87gn of say the 1970s

Finally someone else says it

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...)

Originally Posted by caberslash

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...)

No. You can not compare a projectile from a rifle and one from an arrow. They work via totally different means. I wish people would stop that.

Look, whether its a 223, and arrow, or a 375 H&H. They all kill well when used correctly. Its does not mean in any way that any of them are equal or equivalent.

Not that I need convinced (I'm already a 223 fan)

But there's a 3 hour podcast, 2 parts at 1.5hours each. Then another hour Q&A that covers pretty much all of the merits of using a smaller caliber. It covers @gimp points pretty well (maybe he has listened to it? If not maybe you should do one!)

Covers bullet design and it doesn't matter what head stamp is on the brass that holds the powder, how low recoil assists the shooter, wind drift etc. The interesting thing is that most people firstly miss because they suck themselves not anything to do with the rifle headstamp, so then once you hit the bullet design comes into it.

Anyway have a listen, I download podcasts and then listen when driving or walking the hound

Hunt Back country
Ep 469, 470 and I think 476 is the Q&A

Originally Posted by caberslash

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...)

Tell us about your experience with expanding broadheads(although it is getting way off the subject).i have never used them, but have encounter numerous very experienced bowhunters, who have hunted North American and African game, who refuse to use mechanical broad heads due to failures.
And to answer the original question, I would only consider a 223 a "legitmate" deer caliber, if it was the only rifle I had available. I have far more suitable options.
I've shot dozens of deer with 22 caliber rifles but mostly way back when I thought it was cool.
What worries me about threads like these, is new inexperienced shooters/hunters reads this stuff with "rose tinted glasses and tunnel vision" and come to the conclusion that the 223 is suitable for slaying mammoths. It's not.

The only logical way forward for this conversation, is for @Hermitage to shoot himself in the other leg with a 308. That way we have a balanced data set for Gimp

Get to it chap!

Originally Posted by Southerner223

It covers @gimp points pretty well (maybe he has listened to it? If not maybe you should do one!)

There are only limited conclusions that can be reached if you take an evidence-based approach to forming them. It is not surprising that the people that take that approach end up in the same place.

Of course conclusions should be updated as new information becomes available, and we should always be testing them.

I shot my first deer in 2003, using a .223. 55gr Remington SPs, 2 red stags. The deer died. I did not know that .223 was insufficient for deer. Over time as I became exposed to the hearsay of the hunting community I adopted the conclusions of the masses - that .223 was marginal, etc. I did shoot many animals with a .223 in the intervening years and did not experience any problems but I always believed the conventional wisdom that it was marginal. I had a 1:8" twist .223AI in 2009-11 or so, shooting 75gr Amax but sold it in a fit of stupidity.

The first 2 deer I shot with the 80gr ELDM from my current .223 were 2 red hinds at about 250m. I was uncertain about whether .223 would perform given the "conventional wisdom". It was a longer shot than I'd taken on deer with the .223 in the past. I shot the first in the shoulder and she dropped like a bucket of water. I shot the second one in the shoulder and she dropped like a bucket of water.

Over the next several years I have shot dozens of deer, hundreds of goats, some tahr and chamois with the heavy bullets. None have failed. No performance issues of any kind. No limitations felt, performance as satisfactory as the .243, 6.5mms, etc that I mainly used prior. Less wounded animals and cockups than mates using .308s. I have had to update my prior belief. Unfortunately my experience doesn't match the "conventional wisdom". Now it appears that the conventional wisdom is mainly repeated by people without data or evidence, or who are misunderstanding. It was difficult to understand why my experience (and that of most others using good bullets in .223) doesn't match the intuitive conclusions you'd make to arrive at the conventional wisdom. Generally the best place to check the validity of conclusions is to look for robust analysis of evidence - the scientific literature. When you look at this, things become clearer.

The same general journey of learning applies around measuring precision and load development. Question the conventional wisdom and you'll find that all evidence supporting it is speculation and theory.


It's not surprising that the conventional wisdom is wrong, and people continue to repeat the nonsense from long-dead gun writers. Fackler's main body of research was developed through the 1980s-90s. Standardised testing of wound ballistics wasn't available until the early 90s. Speculative approaches were all that was available until then, and it takes a long time to unravel those beliefs.

Originally Posted by Hermitage

I was shot in the leg by a .223 from close range in a hunting accident.
The round entered the lateral side of my left leg about 5cm below the knee. It lodged in my tibia. It caused a compression injury to my lateral meniscus. It caused a pulling tear to the medial meniscus. It also stretched and tore my medial collateral ligament, partially tore my patellar tendon and tore both the ACL and my PCL.
Didn’t really hurt at first, but it dropped me like a rock. I've always suspected that had it been a .308, it probably would have ripped my leg off at the knee. Better a chronically sore leg and a limp than no leg.

I'm sorry that you had that experience. It must have been rather unpleasant.

Was it a 73,75,80,88gr ELDM, 74 or 80gr Targex, 77gr TMK, 77,80,85gr Berger?

Originally Posted by Southerner223

Not that I need convinced (I'm already a 223 fan)

But there's a 3 hour podcast, 2 parts at 1.5hours each. Then another hour Q&A that covers pretty much all of the merits of using a smaller caliber. It covers @gimp points pretty well (maybe he has listened to it? If not maybe you should do one!)

Covers bullet design and it doesn't matter what head stamp is on the brass that holds the powder, how low recoil assists the shooter, wind drift etc. The interesting thing is that most people firstly miss because they suck themselves not anything to do with the rifle headstamp, so then once you hit the bullet design comes into it.

Anyway have a listen, I download podcasts and then listen when driving or walking the hound

Hunt Back country
Ep 469, 470 and I think 476 is the Q&A

Attachment 258188

Yeah man, you’re onto it. The main subject of these podcasts is who opened my eyes to the realities of the subject. The presenter does a good job at the beginning outlining that this requires an open mind and the ability to think critically about the facts and data presented.

There was mention earlier about ‘boomers’ and there being no substitute for experience. Well that’s only true if the experience is relevant.
Someone who was a professional hunter through the 60s, 70s 80s is no doubt going to be a shit hot hunter, and I have utmost respect for those skills and knowledge. But their experience of 224 centrefires from that era has no relevance now. The equipment has changed- a lot. Experience is always a good thing as long as you’re willing to still think critically, and acknowledge that things can change for the better.

So for me, if there was a firearm that sent a 162gr match bullet at 2800fps with the RECOIL of an 80gr at that same speed, then I’m all in. Big bullets will ruin more meat and potentially kill faster, as well as spill more blood. But it is a proven fact (through various military studies) that as recoil increases, hit probability decreases. Markedly.

To kill, first I have to hit. And if that’s from a compromised position in the field, I know I’m more likely to hit with a cartridge that produces less recoil. Everything in life is a compromise, and that’s way I choose to make it work for me.

Originally Posted by gimp

I'm sorry that you had that experience. It must have been rather unpleasant.

Was it a 73,75,80,88gr ELDM, 74 or 80gr Targex, 77gr SMK, 77,80,85gr Berger?

Yeah no 'heavy for calibre' bullets involved as this was back in 1991 when I was a student at Teachers College.
My mate & I did a Sth Island trip and this happened when we were shooting rabbits in Tekapo. Back then we didn't have rangefinders so were reloading using small-for-calibre bullets at high velocity for MPBR (we did have a 'Shooters Chrony' chronograph).
I was using a Ruger .25/06 shooting 85gr Nosler Ballistic Tips @ 3600fps and he was using a Brno Fox shooting 40 gr Sierra Blitzkings @3700, so it was a very fragile explosive bullet.

Therefore I'll admit the bullet that I was hit with was nothing compared to the heavy-for-calibre bullets this thread is based on.