Thread: A question for the doubters

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).