Thread: A question for the doubters

Gel tests conducted in calibrated 10% ordnance gelatin are informative to understand the relative size of permanent cavity that can be expected from a particular type of bullet at a particular velocity.


Unfortunately no hunting ammunition manufacturers make these available, however as I've posted before Hornady does publish these on their LE website (people who really need ammunition that functions tend to be greatly interested in empirical data reliably demonstrating that function).



223 75gr "TAP". this is a 75gr poly tipped bullet - basically a 75gr ELDM with a round tip to allow it to fit in AR15 magazines. Fired from a 10.5 inch barreled AR15 at 2200fps. Note the tremendously slow MV and the relative performance.






6mm ARC 106gr "TAP". This is a 106gr version of the ELDM. No, I don't know why. Although it is a slightly different bullet, it is more reasonable to expect that it performs very similarly to a 108gr ELDM, than it is to expect it to perform differently. Fired from an 18 inch barreled AR15 at 2625FPS.



.308 155gr ELDM. Fired from a 26 inch barrel at 2789fps.




Note the relative sizes of wounds produced. Also note that this is a particularly good bullet for fragmentation used in the .308 - a generic cheap soft point would not produce as large of a wound. This is the importance of the construction of the specific bullet. Also note the low velocity of the .223 round.


It is counter-intuitive but it is measurable and demonstrable.

you are right 7mmwsm a worked up big red is way harder to tip over than a small fallow especially full of adrenaline and testosterone 80lb versus 280 lb skins thicker more meat to go thru bones heavier

Originally Posted by Barry the hunter

you are right 7mmwsm a worked up big red is way harder to tip over than a small fallow especially full of adrenaline and testosterone 80lb versus 280 lb skins thicker more meat to go thru bones heavier

How many deer have you shot with an 80gr ELDM or Targex or 77gr TMK and found that the projectile did not penetrate sufficiently?

Its a pretty interesting conversation where anyone can come up with some anecdotal evidence to support their argument one way or the other. I think no one would argue with the fact that bullet design and bullet placement trump calibre every time. I have just recently started using a .223 on deer sized game, using the 73gn ELDX and I would have to say that compared to my 6.5 creedmoor using 129 SST projectiles that the internal tissue and organ damage is actually greater with the .223. To me the big minus with the .223 is that there is often no exit and therefor no blood trail, we'd all like to think that our shot deer will drop on the spot but that's not always the case and a deer doesn't have to go very far in rough terrain to die and then disappear. For me at least the .223 is great in more open country where I can pick my shot but in the bush I would go for a heavier calibre every time.

Don't get me wrong. A larger, heavier bullet of good construction makes a larger wound. In some instances this may result in a slightly faster death. However the .223 with good bullets appears to be sufficient in most real circumstances. I don't plan to shoot things in the guts. When I do, I tend to get a 2nd shot in regardless of cartridge. I don't have to be any more selective with shot placement - the wounds are sufficiently large that "anywhere in the front shoulder" is as effective as with anything else I've used.

Edit: Bruce you didn't need to delete that!

I want to see a wolverine anything that can open cans with their teeth impresses me

Originally Posted by gimp

How many deer have you shot with an 80gr ELDM or Targex or 77gr TMK and found that the projectile did not penetrate sufficiently?

Most .223s can not run those projectiles, you have to remember that. 1:8" etc are a fairly modern thing so with that in mind take those projectiles out of the equation for most .223 users and find a sub 62gr substitute that performs the same.

Originally Posted by TLB

Most .223s can not run those projectiles, you have to remember that. 1:8" etc are a fairly modern thing so with that in mind take those projectiles out of the equation for most .223 users and find a sub 62gr substitute that performs the same.

That's the point though. Use a good bullet and forget the 3 numbers on the headstamp

I’ve probably lost an animal or two with every caliber I’ve ever used, some never figured out why. Seen animals lost by other people using various calibers. When it comes to going out purely targeting bush deer I generally take 308 but I’m happy to take deer with 223 out to 380 metres if conditions are right. Most used rifle these days is 223, use it pretty much every week. Since 2015 have lost three deer out of 500+ shot. More than happy with results. I don’t worry about bullet energy or get too obsessed with checking wound channels, if it’s dead it’s fecking dead. All that matters.

Originally Posted by Barry the hunter

Maxx I absolutely agree my old FS Boss Russell Hulme called 222 and 223 squaw guns he carried an 8mm - I hate blood trailing 222 wounded deer

I went for a stroll with Russel, his shooting was no better than mine.
After the bomb up Russ turned back to Sutherland's hut whilst I continued to the saddle to the heads of the Washpool, fair bit of snow that year and as the snow was getting dislodged by a breeze and melt the deer started to come out into the open, wouldn't be much fun getting dumped on, in the end there were 13 that did that.

Originally Posted by Hunter_Nick

We all know of a thread here that has currently 136 pages of data showing .22 centrefire cartridges (typically .223) taking medium game. I’m on the side of the believers, owning and using a 1-8” twist .223, as well as a 22 creed. I also have a 6.5 creed that doesn’t leave the safe anymore.

I haven’t counted up the number of deer and tahr killed with a .223 on that thread, but there’s many. On my most recent hunt I watched a mate kill a fully mature red hind with a 73gr ELD-M at 385 yards. The impact velocity was 1910 fps and bullet energy was 590 ft/lbs. I saw the damage to the internal organs myself, and the results were not ‘marginal’ as the vast majority would have you believe. P.S I don’t subscribe to the 1000ftlb energy argument myself….

So, to the doubters- What would it take for you to be convinced that a .223 with heavy for caliber (73-88gr) bullets is a LEGITIMATE deer hunting cartridge? How many deer would I (or others) have to kill for the non-sensical arguments to abate? (Bullets blowing up on shoulders, lack of penetration, margin for error with larger calibres etc etc)

Hey, I’m fully aware that caliber debate is one of those never ending things, but I’m just interested to see what objective measure is proposed. I reckon that because none of the people out there doing it with .223s have a name ending with Duley, Spomer, Henry, Boddington, Keith, Taylor or O’Connor, that it’ll never be accepted.

Lay down the challenge lads, let’s have at it!

I did count. for a reply in another thread. What it came down too was the 223 is mostly used for shooting fallow, yearlings and hinds. There were something like 14 red stags shot and by only 3 or 4 experienced hunters.
That tells you alot.
Bullet selection being equal, a 308 or 270 will always give you something extra.

Originally Posted by gimp

Don't get me wrong. A larger, heavier bullet of good construction makes a larger wound. In some instances this may result in a slightly faster death. However the .223 with good bullets appears to be sufficient in most real circumstances. I don't plan to shoot things in the guts. When I do, I tend to get a 2nd shot in regardless of cartridge. I don't have to be any more selective with shot placement - the wounds are sufficiently large that "anywhere in the front shoulder" is as effective as with anything else I've used.

Edit: Bruce you didn't need to delete that!

Nosey Parker You have said it pretty much.

Originally Posted by whanahuia

I did count. for a reply in another thread. What it came down too was the 223 is mostly used for shooting fallow, yearlings and hinds. There were something like 14 red stags shot and by only 3 or 4 experienced hunters.
That tells you alot.
Bullet selection being equal, a 308 or 270 will always give you something extra.

Ok, so I take it that 14 dead red stags isn’t enough then….. how many will it take?
And what ‘extra’ does a 308 or .270 give you? Death doesn’t come in varying levels of severity. If you said less wind drift and fps at range, then sure we could talk about that.

To be clear, I’m not in this to put anyone’s nose out of joint. I’d be more than happy for someone to convince me with DATA (not yarns) why I should swap the scope from my .223 to the 6.5. I just haven’t seen any difference in getting deer on the deck between any of the cartridges I’ve shot deer with. One thing is certain though, my accuracy has improved with the smaller ones.

Originally Posted by Hunter_Nick

Ok, so I take it that 14 dead red stags isn’t enough then….. how many will it take?
And what ‘extra’ does a 308 or .270 give you? Death doesn’t come in varying levels of severity. If you said less wind drift and fps at range, then sure we could talk about that.

More sunlight entering the body

Originally Posted by gimp

Actual specific bullet function matters much, much more than the 3 digits stamped on the brass.

You cannot compare a 50-55gr basic SP (old .222 fodder) to a more modern heavy-for-calibre bullet that is tipped (or not) - the 73, 75, 80, 88gr ELDM, the 74 and 80 gr Targex, the various heavy Bergers, the 77gr TMK.

The wounds they create are totally different. The size and nature of wounds is what kills a deer.

Agree,the heavy loads you lads using now are more akin to the old loads of .243 than the old loads of .222 and mono projectiles do similar things at lesser ranges.