Thread: A question for the doubters

Originally Posted by Hunter_Nick

Alright lads, let’s get after this. I’m going to try and sun it all up, in what will be my last post in this thread.

From what I’ve seen (as a generalisation) hunters in this country are average riflemen. The general hunter fires fuck all ammo a year, and if it’s anymore than just the deer they shoot, then it’s at a flat range usually from a bench. To be truly effective in the feild we need to be shooting a LOT more, and that’s where the .223 comes in. I’m aiming to fire 500-1000 rounds annually, all in order to be the most effective and efficient shot I can be. This is in the feild in simulated hunting conditions. That is a far cheaper not to mention less fatiguing and potentially recoil inducing prospect with a 224 centrefire than with a 270/308/magnum.

Someone mentioned ‘owing it to the animals we hunt’. Shit yeah we do, and that’s why I practice, practice, practice. Me being a better marksman with the gun I’ve put thousands of rounds through, is going to end up with less rodeos than if I went by the convention wisdom and shot a 7mm RM like everyone else. I hunt solo and do spotting my own hits (or misses) is only possible at a recoil level that tops out at probably a 6 creed. The higher the recoil of the gun you shoot, the MORE practice that is required to get get good.

Barrel life on a .223 is incredible, and I can make the ammo for a lot less than the 6.5 creed in the safe. Plus, it has sufficient ability to kill the game I’m after out to serious distances. That- is the reason why I choose to hunt with a .224 centrefire. (I have a 22 creed also)

Right, so let’s look at optimised killing. Putting a heavy TMK or ELD-M in a .224 optimises it for making animals die. The first deer my mate saw shot with my .223 couldn’t believe the damage it caused. He commented that the mess was worse than his .308 made. That’s because most of the ammo that some of you guys are using is not optimised. Put a heavy frangible bullet in there, and I bet you’ll be complaining about the damage and wastage of meat. You’re shooting a big gun, but it has been restricted in its capability. You’re rolling around in a V8 with 1/2 the plug leads off, and I’m in a 4 cylinder at peak tune.

There’s a bunch of dudes in the states that get it. They’ve been undertaking some seemingly impossible feats with their .223s. multiple bull moose, Rocky Mountain goat, numerous bull elk (out to 600 off yards) deer, grizzly bear, black bear, and even a walrus. You can’t tell me that they’re all fluking it….

There’s a heap more that could be said, but I’m out. I’m good with my choices, and I’m going to continue to be out there efficiently doing the job. I’m not saying that a 224 is better than everything else, I’m just saying that it is a good choice for a few reasons. I don’t hesitate to recommend the right .223 with the right ammo to a young dude, and go out of my way to help them practice and become a proficient marksman with it.

Out

Go and watch the backfire and Erik Cortina challenges. Theres an element of forgetting the shots where it doesn't work. Very few out there are shooting as well as they claim. Whatever rifle calibre they choose. When it comes to proving it, most fail. Hunting youtube vids are better for finding hunting areas than working out whats commonly realistically achievable for the average person.

Originally Posted by Hunter_Nick

...To be truly effective in the field we need to be shooting a LOT more, and that’s where the .223 comes in. I’m aiming to fire 500-1000 rounds annually, all in order to be the most effective and efficient shot I can be. This is in the field in simulated hunting conditions.
...I don’t hesitate to recommend the right .223 with the right ammo to a young dude, and go out of my way to help them practice and become a proficient marksman with it.

The most important point for all hunters/shooters regarding any gear/equipment/calibre/cartridge.

GET OUT THERE AND PRACTICE WITH IT IN SIMULATED OR REAL SITUATIONS. Especially in adverse conditions to show you the true potential be it good or bad.

the man with one tool is likely more proficient than the man with many tools for the same job or something like that

Daniel Boone beware the man with but one rifle likely knows how to use it

Originally Posted by blip

the man with one tool is likely more proficient than the man with many tools for the same job or something like that

The ‘beware of the man that only has the one gun’ sort of thing?

Edit: I see it’s already been mentioned!

Originally Posted by Finnwolf

The ‘beware of the man that only has the one gun’ sort of thing?

Edit: I see it’s already been mentioned!

That's a saying that gets thrown around a lot within the gun community but I've always found it somewhat amusing because there are no serious shooters that have only one gun. Guns are tools, you need other spare tools if you rely on tools.

Many serious shooters promote a three-gun approach:
1 - Small game .22 Rimfire
2 - Medium game .223 - wallabies, goats, fallow etc
3 - Larger game - a centrefire with a bullet weight between 120gr up to about 180gr max, with a diameter of between .25 and .30, with a velocity of between 2700fps and 3200fps.

Look this thread has been an enjoyable read and Gimp & Hunter Nick have made some valid and interesting points, but after reading all 17 pages...
if I had only one rifle it wouldn't be a .223 even with heavy-for-caliber bullets.

I don't think Daniel Boone said that though....Daniel Boone had lots of rifles, but the indians kept taking them off him...

I love the .223 and all kinds of rifles. I was out shooting a flintlock today, which I would happily shoot a deer with out to 100 yards with a round ball peice of pure lead. But if I had to pick one rifle for everything bigger than rabbits, and it was a serious decision, it would be a .308.

Originally Posted by John Duxbury

I don't think Daniel Boone said that though....Daniel Boone had lots of rifles, but the indians kept taking them off him...

I love the .223 and all kinds of rifles. I was out shooting a flintlock today, which I would happily shoot a deer with out to 100 yards with a round ball peice of pure lead. But if I had to pick one rifle for everything bigger than rabbits, and it was a serious decision, it would be a .308.

Daniel Boone was pretty slick on a tomahawk too.
I remember seeing him split a standing tree in half from about twenty yards.
And I don't subscribe to the one gun theory. Often the guy with one gun drags it out from behind the wash house door, and it's a cruddy old 22,covered in rust, bullets in the mag etc. Nothing about that makes me think he's proficient with it.

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

It's also light for calibre by comparison. Not apples n apples

A 147gr in 6.5mm is light for calibre?

Originally Posted by 7mmwsm

This conversation seems to have moved to more about the projectile than the cartridge.
Why don't you guys run these big projectiles in something like a 220 Swift or 22 250. And really light them up?

Because there is no advantage.

Originally Posted by whanahuia

Had a think about this one last night. The larger projectile is shedding/ Imparting energy faster due to bigger surface area. That seems pretty intuitive?

I'm not quite sure I understand what you're thinking here. Why would shedding energy sooner lead to the wound cavity being negligibly different in size?

Have to remember that ballistic gel is incontrovertibly a suitable representation of wounds in actual tissue. And these results show that with the only major difference being a .5mm larger bullet and 31gr more mass, and ~30% more energy, the wound isn't physically as different as the numbers would predict if energy was a major factor in wound size.

Originally Posted by Hunter_Nick

Alright lads, let’s get after this. I’m going to try and sun it all up, in what will be my last post in this thread.

From what I’ve seen (as a generalisation) hunters in this country are average riflemen. The general hunter fires fuck all ammo a year, and if it’s anymore than just the deer they shoot, then it’s at a flat range usually from a bench. To be truly effective in the feild we need to be shooting a LOT more, and that’s where the .223 comes in. I’m aiming to fire 500-1000 rounds annually, all in order to be the most effective and efficient shot I can be. This is in the feild in simulated hunting conditions. That is a far cheaper not to mention less fatiguing and potentially recoil inducing prospect with a 224 centrefire than with a 270/308/magnum.

Someone mentioned ‘owing it to the animals we hunt’. Shit yeah we do, and that’s why I practice, practice, practice. Me being a better marksman with the gun I’ve put thousands of rounds through, is going to end up with less rodeos than if I went by the convention wisdom and shot a 7mm RM like everyone else. I hunt solo and do spotting my own hits (or misses) is only possible at a recoil level that tops out at probably a 6 creed. The higher the recoil of the gun you shoot, the MORE practice that is required to get get good.

Barrel life on a .223 is incredible, and I can make the ammo for a lot less than the 6.5 creed in the safe. Plus, it has sufficient ability to kill the game I’m after out to serious distances. That- is the reason why I choose to hunt with a .224 centrefire. (I have a 22 creed also)

Right, so let’s look at optimised killing. Putting a heavy TMK or ELD-M in a .224 optimises it for making animals die. The first deer my mate saw shot with my .223 couldn’t believe the damage it caused. He commented that the mess was worse than his .308 made. That’s because most of the ammo that some of you guys are using is not optimised. Put a heavy frangible bullet in there, and I bet you’ll be complaining about the damage and wastage of meat. You’re shooting a big gun, but it has been restricted in its capability. You’re rolling around in a V8 with 1/2 the plug leads off, and I’m in a 4 cylinder at peak tune.

There’s a bunch of dudes in the states that get it. They’ve been undertaking some seemingly impossible feats with their .223s. multiple bull moose, Rocky Mountain goat, numerous bull elk (out to 600 off yards) deer, grizzly bear, black bear, and even a walrus. You can’t tell me that they’re all fluking it….

There’s a heap more that could be said, but I’m out. I’m good with my choices, and I’m going to continue to be out there efficiently doing the job. I’m not saying that a 224 is better than everything else, I’m just saying that it is a good choice for a few reasons. I don’t hesitate to recommend the right .223 with the right ammo to a young dude, and go out of my way to help them practice and become a proficient marksman with it.

Out

Don't leave

Originally Posted by Tentman

Heres how I roll with it. Next weekend we are "hunting" on the challenge course at Sparrowhawk. I know shots will tend to be longish, 400M or so. I know getting closer, which is AWAYS the best option is not doable there (and in some hunting terrain too but not usually). There is a very high chance there will be wind, prossibly quite a bit. Will I take a 223, no. Will I take a 6mmCM, maybe. Will I take the 6.5-284 - you betcha! If all I had was a 223, would I take it, you brycha!

Those who shoot large cartridges very well from field positions without practice can show up and smoke those of us who need to practice and use affordable cartridges that are pleasant to shoot!

Originally Posted by ojc2

I'm certain there's shooters here that could hunt reds effectively and ethically with a 55gr .223 fmj... I do not at all have the confidence in my ability to do so and wouldn't even attempt. That's why I use a 6.5prc for long (factory load Hornady 147gr eld-x) or .308win for short (new build, yet to work out). The last time I was out I got two reds with the 6.5prc within 10s of each other, I thought I missed the first one as it just disappeared from view, I saw the second go down. Turns out the first one was pole axed so hard it dropped where it was standing before my eye even register it moved, it was there and then it wasn't.

This is a major advantage of light recoiling cartridges. You can see the impact and know when & where you have hit your deer.

Doe's this mean the end of the 6.5 as king of the hill I used to here it was the only one ever needed by many a scribe here?