Thread: A question for the doubters

Yep. So there is nothing mystical about a .224 caliber bullet it’s the same as any other. The laws of physics are going to apply.

This is a good illustration of the limited predictive value of energy in wound size. Same construction similar speed different diameter and energy.


106gr ELDM 6mm at 2625fps. 1622 FTLB





147gr ELDM 6.5mm at 2693fps. 2353 FTLB.






30% more energy with the 6.5mm bullet but the permanent cavity (the important characteristic) isn't any bigger.

Calibrated ballistic gel is used for such tests precisely because it closely represents results in actual tissue.

Maybe the squads for Sparrowhawk should be divided up into the 224 boys and the rest - with a wager on the result!

I'm a bad shot remember

E: who else is bringing a .223?

Originally Posted by Mararoa

Just had a brief look through the article that Gimp mentioned on page one. What I took out of that was, all things being equal, a bullet carrying more energy has the potential to create a larger wound wherever it hits a deer than a bullet carrying less energy. I believe that is indisputable. All you fellas that swear by your little bullets keep on using them by all means. This thread seems to be aimed at making us fellas who use bigger bullets feel inadequate because somehow we seem to be wasting energy in some way. Please accept my apology from the rest of us if somebody laughed at your little gun in the past.

On the contrary - all power to you if you can shoot your big gun well! I can’t, so I use a small gun and feel more confident of a hit with it.

Apologies the start of the thread gave you the impression that I was hoping to belittle anyone. I was interested to know what physical evidence it would take to get others to believe what I and some others do. I think it’s probably about as difficult as convincing someone there are moose in NZ, even if you killed one.

Originally Posted by Mararoa

Yep. So there is nothing mystical about a .224 caliber bullet it’s the same as any other. The laws of physics are going to apply.

True I think the point is that the reverse is true and that when using specific projectiles a 7mm 308 338 etc don't make as big a difference as most like to believe. They are all able create absolutely traumatic wounds and when comparing similarly constructed bullets impacting at similar speeds they have similar wounding capacity. The reason 224 projectiles is talked about so much is probably because it can achieve higher velocities for less recoil and with modern bullets can have BCs able to hold the required velocity to or beyond the effective range of most modern shooters abilities in field conditions.

Originally Posted by Mararoa

somebody laughed at your little gun in the past.

I bet theres a correlation between phallus size and gun size

Originally Posted by Brad S

I bet theres a correlation between phallus size and gun size

Inversely proportional?

Originally Posted by Brad S

I bet theres a correlation between phallus size and gun size

....odd thing to bet on

Originally Posted by Brad S

I bet theres a correlation between phallus size and gun size

Its not the size its how you use it that counts

223 222 22-250 etc. is great on deer for an experienced hunter who can put the bullet exactly where it needs to go and doesn't get too excited and take less-than-ideal shots I know a guy whose main hunting rifle is a 204 Ruger 40gn bullets
he's shot all but one species of deer in NZ with it as with everything you just got to put it in the right spot

can't find any peer reviewed scientific studies about this on google unfortunately

Originally Posted by rambo-6mmrem

223 222 22-250 etc. is great on deer for an experienced hunter who can put the bullet exactly where it needs to go and doesn't get too excited and take less-than-ideal shots I know a guy whose main hunting rifle is a 204 Ruger 40gn bullets
he's shot all but one species of deer in NZ with it as with everything you just got to put it in the right spot

On private land? I’m assuming 204 calibre is illegal on DOC administered land?

Man this is turning into a science lesson , enjoying the read .

Now I’m no scientist but a .223 is 5.56mm dia and a .260 is 6.5mm dia. …that makes the 260 17% larger in diameter , so for a 260 to be equal to the 80gn ELDX performance you need to make the projectile 17% heavier which is 93.6gn , pretty light .

So if jacket dimensions etc. are all 17% bigger do you need to be going 17% faster also with a .260 to end up with same performance as the .223 ?

If you used 80gn ELDX at 2800 the 93.6gn bullet out of a .260 would have to be going 3276 to be its equal , that’s hauling ass .

Fair to say the .223 is an impressive for size caliber .