.223 good for human but not deer?

[imabballer]

First, I'm not trying to be a smart-aleck here, I have just never really reconciled the arguments for and against using 5.56/.223 on whitetail deer sized game. I read a few hunting forums and read that the 5.56 is underpowered for deer and that you really shouldn't use anything less than a .243 or so. Then I read some AR forums and they sing the praises of the 5.56 on human targets and how the bullets are designed to tumble to cause more damage, etc., etc. I guess the thing I really don't understand, is how they supposedly work great on 200lb men but are far too little for the 150lb deer. I live in an area (Oklahoma) where hunting with .223 is legal, but I have always heeded the hunting forum advice and taken my .308. I guess I'd just like to hear the reconciliation of these two seemingly completely opposite opinions from you all.

Thanks in advance!

 

[RockinU]

I won't take either side in this argument, but I will say that not all in the military sing praises about the 5.56/.223. I personally know a couple of guys who don't like it at all, and supposedly the whole creation of the 6.8 SPC and the 6.5 Grendel and all the other recent options for the AR platform are a direct result of certain elements within the military and their dislike of the 5.56/.223

 

[dakotasin]

i think many of the folks who sing the praises of 223 on deer are hunting predominately southern states where the deer tend to be a little smaller, and have a little less fat than northern deer.

as to the question of deer vs human targets for the 223, in a combat situation where you are shooting an enemy combatant, finding the body after you connect isn't a priority. in deer hunting, you are obligated to recover the body, and it is a sick feeling when you cannot find your deer.

 

[Fremmer]

Deer are tougher than humans.

 

[scythefwd]

imaballer - the tumbling bullet is generally designed to tumble and is most likely FMJ. FMJ is illegal to hunt with in most areas.

The goal in combat is to remove the enemy from the fight.. whether you kill him or wound him is of no matter, just whether he can still fight.
People survive the 5.56 nato round, but they aren't fighting for a little while. I want a good clean quick kill on a deer... I could care less on an enemy.

Deer run when they are shot (discounting CNS shots). Humans go "oh crap, I'm shot" and then try to patch themselves up. The deer dies a mile away (assuming a full out flee after being shot and sub optimal shot placement that lets the deer run for 2-3 minutes). The human stops what he is doing and takes steps to keep himself from dieing.

 

[saturno_v]

Perfect answer scythefwd


Humans pay dearly the fact of having the most sophisticated nervous system (and a sophisticated brain)....an animal doesn't "understand" what means being shot...they run away till they have no blood left or if they are physically impaired to do so (spine shot/broke nbones, etc...)

A 9 mm Hollow Point bullet is considered adequate against humans, for deer it's a piss poor choice....

RockinU he's right....I know several military personnel that are not so fond of the 223/5,56...and I heard that the Russians are going back to their glorious 7,62X39 round after being bitten by the 22 centerfire bug....a 55 gr. 223 bullet has lower energy and poorer SD compared to the 7,62 Soviet

 

[Fremmer]

Humans pay dearly the fact of having the most sophisticated nervous system (and a sophisticated brain)....an animal doesn't "understand" what means being shot...

They understand just fine. They are just tougher than humans. They run for miles, sleep outside in the freezing snow, and eat whatever they can whenever they can. If you gut shoot a deer, it understands perfectly well that it's intestines are hanging out and that it really hurts. It just has a lot more stamina and strength than a human, so it runs. Sometimes for miles.

 

[R.W.Dale]

i think many of the folks who sing the praises of 223 on deer are hunting predominately southern states where the deer tend to be a little smaller, and have a little less fat than northern deer.

Fair enough. But let me turn this around

Folks from up north who think 243 is a fine minimum for their 200lb+ deer are in no position to condemn the use of .223 on our little sub 100 to 150 LB critters.

Of course with proper bullet selection

 

[scythefwd]

Krochus, mind recommending some commonly available commercial loads for deer? We have a dealer up here who states that .223 is only good for varmits. He even refused to accept a Nosler Partition or Barnes TSX as acceptable for a deer. This whole conversation is purely conjecture though, as ammo must be >.24 cal and have > 350 fpe to be legal here.

Fremmer - it knows it is injured... I doubt it knows that it IS going to die. That level of reasoning may be beyond a deer. What it does know is that it is in serious pain and that it must get away from the source of that pain. It may be able to extrapolate that "I'm dead", but it may not realize it till it is actually starting to fade. It probably cannot even acertain how it was hurt, but "the cause must be around here somewhere so I shouldn't be" is probably the last thing through the deers mind.

 

[Leaky Waders]

The main problem with using a .223 for big game hunting imho is:

1) Nearly everyone who asks 'Can a 223 be used for ______' has never even hunted the game in question. Yet they still choose a marginal round, from a usually marginal hunting platform because they saw Chuck Norris kill 1,000 screaming Communists with a 30 round magazine.

2) The .223 advocates generally only have the one rifle to shoot big game with....yet go out of their way to point out how well the round works and there is no reason to get any other rifle except something in tactical black. If they had another rifle in a conventional caliber, then they would most likely choose it over the .223.

3) Because the military uses the cartridge, people think that equates to an ideal round. However, the military doesn't use .223 in sniper rifles (one shot one kill rifles)...these rifles are ignored by people who clamor for the .223 round (basically .308 winchester and .50 cal).

The bottom line is, if you shoot an animal one time with a high caliber rifle it will be dead eventually (barring an ifak) or maimed for life. There are calibers much better for deer hunting than the .223. Ignoring them is just stubborness on the hunters part. The flipside is if can only afford one rifle, and already own a .223, then you hunt with what you got.

L.W.

 

[jmorris]

The goal in combat is to remove the enemy from the fight.. whether you kill him or wound him is of no matter, just whether he can still fight.

Not to mention if you wound him badly enough you will have taken two or three out of the fight as someone has to cart him to help.

 

[shaggy430]

Kicking dead horse....again...

 

[saturno_v]

Fair enough. But let me turn this around

Folks from up north who think 243 is a fine minimum for their 200lb+ deer are in no position to condemn the use of .223 on our little sub 100 to 150 LB critters.

Of course with proper bullet selection

I would argue that the 243 is a vastly superior hunting round than the 223....the SD of the typical 90-100 gr. 243 bullet is dramatically higher than a common 55 gr. 223 pill and the energy is in the 2000 ft/lb range vs. ~1200

It seems to me that the 243 could be a bit more adequate for big Bambi up north than the 223 in the south.....but it would be interesting to hear from people with specific hunting experience with the 2 rounds.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

The .223 bullet is not really *good* for humans - pretty bad in fact. Good for self-defense against violent attackers, yes. The rest has been covered.

 

[Art Eatman]

Two different standards between people and Bambi: We don't worry about "clean, ethical kill" for people. We just want them to stop doing Bad Things.

As far as Bambi is concerned, there are limits to the utility of the cartridges of the .22-centerfire type. They're fine for precision shot placement in head, neck or heart/lungs. They suck if the only shot available is an angling shot through the body.

The utility has to do with the skill of the shooter and his judgement about any one particular shot.

 

[R.W.Dale]

How's this


Would the folks with ANY firsthand experiance shooting deer with a .223 please raise your hand?

(hand raised)

 

[H&Hhunter]

There should be a simple stock answer to any "is the _________ fill in the blank caliber, adequate for a________ fill in the species" question. Here is the stock answer. If you have to ask the answer is no.

If have to add qualifiers such as well yes it can be used but only under perfect condition then the answer is NO.

If it is adequate on perfect head shot or perfect broadside shots only then the answer is NO.

NO means that it shouldn't be used under general hunting conditions unless you have the discipline to let an animal walk that isn't in a perfect position and you don't have a rock solid rest. That means that novice hunters should not be using such a caliber in any circumstances. For me it means that for 99.9% of the hunting I do it wouldn't work and I refuse to limit myself by using such a caliber on big game.

(My hand is raised too by the way.)

 

[R.W.Dale]

H&Hunter

by your if your logic were applied to everyone then nobody would engauge in bow or handgun hunting.

But I get what you're saying far far too many hunters get all shaky and trigger finger itchy and just absolutely HAVE to shoot any legal deer they see. Even if all they can see is the hind legs and tail.............In which case these guys shouldn't use anything smaller than a 260rem and preferably something .338 and larger. Personally I'm much more offended by the "Have 30-06 will shoot deer up the axehole" attitude than I ever will the guys making precision shots with a small cartridge


LEAKYWADERS

As to your sweeping generalizations all I have to say is you don't know me or other people very well

 

[RedLion]

A better question to ask might be... Would it be legal or ethical to hunt with a real M-16 or an M249? Or how about any of the other weapons the military uses like Mk-40, M-2, Laser guided bombs, ect. Obviously the military uses different weapon systems, tactics, and doesn't really care about catching what they kill and eating it (Gross), so they might use things hunters would find a little strange because not many deer return fire.

 

[MichaelK]

When we started meeting our homestead neighbors I got aquainted with one who's wife never saw a gun before she married her husband. Once man and wife she decided if he was going out to hunt, she would accompany him. The neighbor got his wife a .222 (not a .223 back then) bolt action and she used that to hunt her deer. Didn't hear of any stories from her about all the wounded deer that got away.

In reality, the .223 can be adequate, IF YOU DO YOUR PART. That means using the correct hunting bullets, limiting range, and doing perfect shot placement. Of course, we don't limit ourselves, don't always pick the perfect spot, and are in general sloppy in some way or another. That's where the extra power of a real deer rifle steps in. I'm sure there are guys out there that lost their deer shot with a .375 H&H, just because they were such sloppy hunters.

Am I going to go out deer hunting with my .223? No I'm not, because I know I need that extra edge that a more powerful gun gives me.

 

[BushyGuy]

i think the .223 rem is effective enough out to 200 yards with a heavier bullet like 75 or 77 gr HP bullets. but for me i wouldnt go out past 150 yards to make an effective kill.

most important shot placement and bullet type you can sure bring down a deer in any size. soft pointed bullets in .223 rem are also very effective.

for longer ranges then 200 yards i wouldnt use .223 rem.

 

[Cosmoline]

People use .223 for deer all the time. Natives in this state use it for caribou and even bear. It's not a bad round if loaded with SP bullets. The military 5.56 are FMJ, which severely limits its lethality. These FMJ bullets sometimes fail and "explode," but this is erratic, unreliable and no substitute for a proper expanding round.

 

[627PCFan]

People need to stop looking at government made descisions/elections on firearm rounds/weapons as the basis for their own justification. The govt chose to use the 5.56 round for their purposes. The lethality level/preformance and other factors of the round were inline with their requirements. It doesnt make it the most deadly, or the most effective, or most efficient, or the most accurate. It matched their requirements. Think about your requirements and find the appropriate round to your uses/requirements.

 

[ArmedBear]

There are some people who are the size of an Idaho mule deer. However, you don't see them running around in the woods.

 

[Fremmer]

LOL, I already tried to tell 'em that, ArmedBear.