223 Fallacy

[R.W.Dale]

Why hunt with a 223?

You have to have been staying under a proverbial gun culture ROCK to not see why.

Thanks to the wild ar15 popularity the trend is to LIGHT little carbines that actually handle in the hands well.

I like my go to 30/06 gun as much as anyone but the fact is it and any similar rifle is a heavy hard kicking unwieldy club compared to carrying a fairly basic ar15 carbine.


Hunters out west assuredly won't get this as they tend to need more range and punch.

But back east I see hunters everywhere forgoing traditional "deer rifles" and their power and range they don't need for the lightness and ease of carry they do need in platforms that fall outside the age old short and long action families.

 

[R.W.Dale]

Oh, yes. An arrow kills differently from a bullet, but a good hit with a broadhead will bleed any animal out quickly.



Other bowhunters are free to jump in here.

Pure hyperbole

You don't get a DRT hit in the heart lung area with a bow very often.

A good hit in the heart lungs with a very high velocity small bore rifle doesn't require "bleeding out" it just kills the animal right there.

There isn't a shot you can make on a deer with a bow that I can't execute more effectively with faster results with a 223 PERIOD. The ONLY advantage to archery is the season is longer. THATS IT

 

[mtrmn]

Rant on. By my own WAG, there have probably been 20,000 or so threads in no telling how many forums since Al Gore invented the internet about this very subject. As far as I can tell the only person who may have changed his mind was the guy who just discovered brush busters was a myth. And he probably still didn't change his mind about 223 used on deer. Neither side is "winning" here. If we put as much effort into debating things that really matter in todays world we might actually accomplish something. Rant off.

 

[Kayaker 1960]

Out here in California my deer kills probably average about 100 yards with my longest kill about 350 yards. Last I checked the minimum legal caliber here was .243 I hunt with both a 30-06 and an ultralight rifle in .308 I personally would not use a .223 for deer.

 

[6.5swede]

Pure hyperbole

You don't get a DRT hit in the heart lung area with a bow very often.

A good hit in the heart lungs with a very high velocity small bore rifle doesn't require "bleeding out" it just kills the animal right there.

There isn't a shot you can make on a deer with a bow that I can't execute more effectively with faster results with a 223 PERIOD. The ONLY advantage to archery is the season is longer. THATS IT

Exactly RW. I guess some hydrostatic shock creating collateral damage to surrounding vitals from a high velocity cartridge doesn't match the killing prowess of an arrow!

I agree mtrmn, these debates get comical!

 

[R.W.Dale]

Exactly RW. I guess some hydrostatic shock creating collateral damage to surrounding vitals from a high velocity cartridge doesn't match the killing prowess of an arrow!



I agree mtrmn, these debates get comical!

Right. And this is assuming I play the same ol "heart lung shot" dog and pony show and don't just go ahead and switch the deer off by shooting it in the head or high neck

 

[6.5swede]

Right. And this is assuming I play the same ol "heart lung shot" dog and pony show and don't just go ahead and switch the deer off by shooting it in the head or high neck

Not to mention, I'm much more likely to hit where I'm aiming with my 233 than a bow and at a little further distance to boot!

I do like the extended season that a bow affords.

Point is: I don't get how anybody who bow hunts or thinks it's acceptable to hunt deer with a bow can debate that the 223 is ineffective on deer in someone's hands who knows how to use it and understands it's limitations.

 

[Agsalaska]

I don't know. It just seems limiting to me. At least in some areas I hunt. If they were all 100 yard broadside than sure. But I have a relative that took a big buck from 370 yards a few seasons back. I shot an 8 last year that was quartering away to the point that I almost didn't take it with a 30-06. Neither of those deer would be dead with a .223.

If I am going out to cull a doe, sure. If I am going to have a target range of 300+ yards, no.

 

[22-rimfire]

No one has convinced me yet. I still believe for the average deer hunter, they should pack a rifle in 243 win or larger. Never doubted that you can take a whitetail deer at reasonable distances with a 223 and especially with good bullets.

I don't know about most of you, but when you see a nice buck and you have a shot, you take it. If it is less than ideal, you still take it as long as it's safe. Hence, a larger caliber is more likely to put the deer down quickly. I really don't care if you choose a 30-06 or a 270 win, 30-30, or a 375 H&H, it is all about personal preference and what you have. If I owned a rifle chambered for 375 H&H, I'd use it for deer hunting since the rifle would never get used otherwise. No safaris or Alaskan bown bear hunts in my future.

This discussion is similar to the 357 mag discussion with handguns. I have to say that the 223 from a rifle will out perform a 357 mag from a handgun on deer. My choice is 41 mag or larger/more powerful for deer hunting with a handgun.

 

[BSA1]

Is this debate about using the .223 OR the AR platform?

The .223 may well be enough cartridge for small deer under 100 lbs.

If we are discussing using the AR rifle/carbine then there are several larger, more effective cartridges that can be used in it.

 

[dvdcrr]

Ive used it on several deer mostly close range. Bang flop, awesome internal damage. If you hit a deer in the neck with a 60 gr. Partition its gonna drop out to at least 235 yds.
I predict that because of the prevalence of the ar that 223 will someday achieve second place in popularity for deer and possibly first over all for hunting anything its legal for.

 

[R.W.Dale]

I don't know about most of you, but when you see a nice buck and you have a shot, you take it. If it is less than ideal, you still take it as long as it's safe.

NO YOU DONT. IME this slobbenly "I gotta shoot" cause it's a trophy attitude is why I've spent more time trying to recover deer shot with a 30-06 and 300mag from "hunters" than all other calibers combined.


A bad shot doesn't EVER become a good one because you have a bigger gun. IME I think folks hunting with a 223 are the actual ethical guys as they by in large know the can't shoot a deer in the butthole and expect it to be DRT

Even then it's a rare thing that there's not a satisfactory shot presented.

For example with the last nice buck that only presented me with a Texas hart shot I chose not to play that game and simply shot him in the back of the neck with my 30-06. He would have been just as dead with my 223 or. 22-250 both firing 55g Sierra gamekings.

I only hunt with bigger rifles when I'm in terrain where I may need more range. Many places that I hunt here the range is limited mere rock throwing distance or less the 223 kills em just as dead as my 30-06. There's nothing marginal about a blown up heart or bullet through the spinal column

 

[R.W.Dale]

If we are discussing using the AR rifle/carbine then there are several larger, more effective cartridges that can be used in it.

There are

But for deer they're also completely unneeded and folks are figuring this out.

 

[22-rimfire]

Ive used it on several deer mostly close range. Bang flop, awesome internal damage. If you hit a deer in the neck with a 60 gr. Partition its gonna drop out to at least 235 yds.
I predict that because of the prevalence of the ar that 223 will someday achieve second place in popularity for deer and possibly first over all for hunting anything its legal for.

The 223 kills differently from say a 270 or 30-06 on deer. You're right, they inflict serious internal damage on a deer IF hit properly. A bad hit with a 30-06 is little better than a bad hit with a 223.

You may be right about the 223 and the AR platform in the US. I always chuckle about my Dad's view of ARs or military type rifles in general in the civilian hunting world. I grew up in PA and semi-auto rifles (and handguns) are not legal in PA for hunting anything. My Dad would say something like why the heck do you need to carry a 20 or 30 round magazine deer hunting....? I laugh. I suppose people would use a 30 rounder if they could. His choice for a deer rifle was the fastest repeat firing rifle of the day, a Remington 760 in 30-06 and he was quite good with it from a bring the meat home perspective. But he chose a fast shooting rifle for deer hunting; not a lever action 30-30 or bolt action.

The popularity of the AR is just a sign of the times and I really think a slightly larger caliber in a quick pointing AR platform would be an excellent deer rifle. The older Colt AR-15's were quite heavy and from my perspective, a bit unwieldy for hunting. But that is just my view. The newer ones are much lighter and quick pointing.

RW Dale said...NO YOU DONT. IME this slobbenly "I gotta shoot" cause it's a trophy attitude is why I've spent more time trying to recover deer shot with a 30-06 and 300mag from "hunters" than all other calibers combined.


A bad shot doesn't EVER become a good one because you have a bigger gun. IME I think folks hunting with a 223 are the actual ethical guys as they by in large know the can't shoot a deer in the butthole and expect it to be DRT.

Even then it's a rare thing that there's not a satisfactory shot presented

Like everything else, there are degrees of ideal shots. I was speaking about "most hunters" and that means more than 50% of the people in the field. I feel sure it excludes you as that 12 point whitetail walks back into the brush... Never shot a deer in the butt in my life. But I am not everyone. I don't really have a trophy attitude. I hunt with a handgun now and seldom use a rifle at all. Yes, you do have to pass up shots. I don't really care IF I get a deer or not, it is about being out there and enjoying the hunt.

 

[j1]

When considering cartridges try to remember that every animal walking in north america has been killed by the lowly 22 long rifle. The Hornet is one step up in power and the 223 is WAY up the power scale. Am I saying that it is my deer gun? Not really. Will it do the job in the hands of a good, calm hunter? Yes it will.

 

[illinoisburt]

Underpowered was in incorrect argument. Wrong bullet type was always the issue.

I few years ago I was involved in the attempts to bring deer hunting to the suburban forest preserves of Chicago. When we were voted down, we kept close watch of the subsequent cull operations that took place instead.

When the cull programs started in 2010, gun and ammo requirements were more or less after thoughts. There was an existing supply of 223 Federal 55gr frangible rounds used by the police in their carbines to avoid over penetration risks around homes and buinesses. Experts submitted testimony that the 223 was perfectly capable of killing deer, so it became the default rifle/ammunition.

Did it work - yes, the program killed around 350 deer (mostly does) over the course of 5 weeks. However the program reports showed wounding rates were high and often multiple chest and neck hits were required to bring down deer. Soon after the reports came out, the round was dropped in favor of a 308 frangible instead.

This is not disparaging the 223. It was simply a failure to use the correct type of bullet. Use of what was basically a varmit bullet for deer was a mistake.

In the past the selection of big game style hunting bullets in 224 was really limited, and often simply not available in loaded ammo. The cartidge was generally offered as a varmit round and treated as such by much of the shooting public. Attempts by people to use it for big game were dismall with results similar to what the forest preserve encountered. The cartridge was rightly written off as underpowered for such use.

Today there are lots of solid hunting bullets available in loaded ammo for the 223 which work reliably on hogs and deer. So long as the bullet construction is matched to the use, the 223 like any other small caliber centerfire works just fine.

 

[Sunray]

"...I am like really, they kill people with them every day and people..." You think the .30Carbine is enough for deer. Comparing people to deer is a completely invalid argument and has been long since been proven to be such. People and deer aren't the same and do not react the same way when shot.
Problem isn't the cartridge. It's the factory ammo and the bozo who buys it loaded with a varmint bullet. Then shoots a deer only to see it run away to die.
Our daft hunting regs say "any centre fire" for deer. Includes .223 and .22 Hornet et al. Comes from having civil servants who know nothing making the laws.

 

[dvdcrr]

Underpowered was in incorrect argument. Wrong bullet type was always the issue.

I few years ago I was involved in the attempts to bring deer hunting to the suburban forest preserves of Chicago. When we were voted down, we kept close watch of the subsequent cull operations that took place instead.

When the cull programs started in 2010, gun and ammo requirements were more or less after thoughts. There was an existing supply of 223 Federal 55gr frangible rounds used by the police in their carbines to avoid over penetration risks around homes and buinesses. Experts submitted testimony that the 223 was perfectly capable of killing deer, so it became the default rifle/ammunition.

Did it work - yes, the program killed around 350 deer (mostly does) over the course of 5 weeks. However the program reports showed wounding rates were high and often multiple chest and neck hits were required to bring down deer. Soon after the reports came out, the round was dropped in favor of a 308 frangible instead.

This is not disparaging the 223. It was simply a failure to use the correct type of bullet. Use of what was basically a varmit bullet for deer was a mistake.

In the past the selection of big game style hunting bullets in 224 was really limited, and often simply not available in loaded ammo. The cartidge was generally offered as a varmit round and treated as such by much of the shooting public. Attempts by people to use it for big game were dismall with results similar to what the forest preserve encountered. The cartridge was rightly written off as underpowered for such use.

Today there are lots of solid hunting bullets available in loaded ammo for the 223 which work reliably on hogs and deer. So long as the bullet construction is matched to the use, the 223 like any other small caliber centerfire works just fine. ..

Let me get this straight, they unleashed the Chicago police with their carbines on the deer population and when multiple wounded deer were reported they blamed the ammo?

 

[BSA1]

R.W.Dale,

Not me.

The .223 is too small for me to use on any deer and other big game.

For the distance the .223 is best for my thurty-thurty is sufficent. If there is any chance of encounting a big buck or a long range over 150 yds. that is what my .270 is for.

As a hunter I believe that I should do everything to as quickly and painlessly as possible to kill whatever I am hunting.

And I believe the 45-70 outperforms the .223.

 

[illinoisburt]

Chicago cops shooting up the woods? Uh no. The forest preserve allowed only qualified volunteers to shoot deer. You had to provide your own rifle with scope in 223. They gave you the ammo that had to be use. Qualification was had to shoot 5 for 5 cold, no sighters, with their ammo on their range from a field position (no bench or prone) at a 2 inch target from 50 yards. Shooting was done at night with spotlights on deer baited to bucket feeders from elevated stands. The guys doing the shooting were very good at hitting the deer. In the beginning they were told to shoot center to low chest. Problem was generally only got 5 or six inches of penetration, usually a big softball sized hole. They switched over after about a week to neck shots which worked better, but still was no stellar performance. The 308 frangibles get around 14 inch wound channel and work pretty good at dropping the deer with chest hits. Once the cops figured out this was a missed overtime opportunity, they lobbied through the county to switch over to mostly police shooters by 2012. Shockingly most people lost interest in helping the county when 1. you cannot keep any meat, hides, antlers, and 2. communities figured out their interest was in wiping out certain populations in anticipation of "prairie restorations" where the next step is cut down all the trees, burn area, and replant with native prairie grass (also called ragweed). Makes the parks a lot less appealing for many users, but is funded by the federal government.

 

[Art Eatman]

This is generally getting circular and anecdotal. Enough for this iteration.