benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
6.8mm Remington SPC or .30 RAR would both be good choices, and work with standard AR-15 lowers.
AR-15 Options for Whitetail
- Thread starter John Wayne
- Start date
- Status
It begs the question - if 1000 pounds is the safe limit for medium game, why is the 5.56 used on humans but not deer? Moot point, MO allows any centerfire cartridge now, the .22-250 or .17 Bee is ok.
Not that I suggest it.
I went through the "what caliber" exercise a while back, and I don't see where the 7.62 x 39 offers much over the 6.8. The AK round is really much closer to being a rimless .30-30, not known for a flat trajectory. 300 yard shots aren't impossible, but if you can shoot the 6.8 with less holdover, equal results, and less recoil, why not?
I also perceive a lot more development left in 6.8 - a factory loaded 3200 fps round is potentially on the horizon. Building an AR is choosing a platform designed to offer heretofore unavailable concepts - light, low recoil, inherently accurate, modular, etc. Choosing a caliber that's a step back in history doesn't add to the concept for me.
Let's look at it from another perspective - if you could choose a Winchester 94 lever action in 7.62 X 39 or 6.8 SPC, which would be an actual improvement?
Not that I suggest it.
I went through the "what caliber" exercise a while back, and I don't see where the 7.62 x 39 offers much over the 6.8. The AK round is really much closer to being a rimless .30-30, not known for a flat trajectory. 300 yard shots aren't impossible, but if you can shoot the 6.8 with less holdover, equal results, and less recoil, why not?
I also perceive a lot more development left in 6.8 - a factory loaded 3200 fps round is potentially on the horizon. Building an AR is choosing a platform designed to offer heretofore unavailable concepts - light, low recoil, inherently accurate, modular, etc. Choosing a caliber that's a step back in history doesn't add to the concept for me.
Let's look at it from another perspective - if you could choose a Winchester 94 lever action in 7.62 X 39 or 6.8 SPC, which would be an actual improvement?
rbernie
Contributing Member
Absolutely. I will caveat that with two thoughts.
First, standard 7.62x39 bolts will not reliably work with Russian steel-cased ammo. In order to get a 7.62x39 AR to work reliably with the cheap ammo, you will need to either mod the bolt (or firing pin) to get more firing pin protrusion, or buy a special pre-modded bolt at approximately double the cost of a standard 7.62x39 bolt.
Secondly, the difference in magazine costs and reliability is not inconsequential. If you are like me and want a significant number of magazines per platform, you may find that the extra cost of workable mags offsets much of the cost savings in ammo.
R.W.Dale
Member
R.W.Dale
Member
With the exclusion of really OLD mini 30's all production 7.62x39's use a .310" bore + or - .001"
John Wayne
Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2007
- Messages
- 1,133
You know, 7.62x39 was starting to sound like a really good cheap alternative. But with the magazine issues and excluding steel-cased ammo, it's probably no less expensive than 6.8.
Am I going to run into any technicalities being that this will be built on a 5.56 lower, and 5.56 is not legal for hunting deer in SC?
Am I going to run into any technicalities being that this will be built on a 5.56 lower, and 5.56 is not legal for hunting deer in SC?
kanook
Member
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2009
- Messages
- 2,004
If you get questioned by the DNR. I'm pretty sure they will inspect the ammo and see that the lower is the only thing in 5.56 or .223
And make sure you clearly mark your mags and your upper for a quick glance inspection. My mags have 6.8 in silver sharpie on the bottom and my upper has the white filler in the 6.8 SPC 1/10 marking.
Don't want to grab and stick a 5.56 mag loaded into the 6.8 upper.
And make sure you clearly mark your mags and your upper for a quick glance inspection. My mags have 6.8 in silver sharpie on the bottom and my upper has the white filler in the 6.8 SPC 1/10 marking.
Don't want to grab and stick a 5.56 mag loaded into the 6.8 upper.
Yeah, I knew of a couple of criminals who poached golf course deer at night with .22 rimfire rifles and they weren't concerned about humane kills, but only in remaining undetected. If you don't count the deer that run away and bleed to death under some bush, then many guns are fine choices!
At relatively short handgun hunting ranges reliable shot placement, adequate penetration and the increased wound diameter compensate and the 1000 lb standard does not apply. Obviously if you try to harvest deer at 250 yds with a .357 revolver the need for increased energy would be obvious. In the right hands .357's are fine at 25 yards but not 250, no matter how skilled the "secret voices" tell some folks they are.
And, unskilled hunters can bungle things at all ranges with the best equipment, and they too often do.
It's difficult to prove to some folks that some gun and ammo choices are simply not up to the task because the honor system and "modern game farm hunter ethics" results in most badly shot game animals unreported and quickly forgotten.
I'll yield to the experts who factor in real world skill levels and a desire for humane harvests rather than those who believe that their AR 15s are elephant guns.
And, if you check the ammo manufacturers data you'll see that many bullets that don't meet the standard are not constructed for deep penetration and reliable expansion on larger game animals.
Using varmint bullets in a .223 for deer is just bad form, and even in the .243/6mm only the heaviest bullets are intended for deer sized game.
But what do the bullet makers know, anyway, right?
At relatively short handgun hunting ranges reliable shot placement, adequate penetration and the increased wound diameter compensate and the 1000 lb standard does not apply. Obviously if you try to harvest deer at 250 yds with a .357 revolver the need for increased energy would be obvious. In the right hands .357's are fine at 25 yards but not 250, no matter how skilled the "secret voices" tell some folks they are.
And, unskilled hunters can bungle things at all ranges with the best equipment, and they too often do.
It's difficult to prove to some folks that some gun and ammo choices are simply not up to the task because the honor system and "modern game farm hunter ethics" results in most badly shot game animals unreported and quickly forgotten.
I'll yield to the experts who factor in real world skill levels and a desire for humane harvests rather than those who believe that their AR 15s are elephant guns.
And, if you check the ammo manufacturers data you'll see that many bullets that don't meet the standard are not constructed for deep penetration and reliable expansion on larger game animals.
Using varmint bullets in a .223 for deer is just bad form, and even in the .243/6mm only the heaviest bullets are intended for deer sized game.
But what do the bullet makers know, anyway, right?
R.W.Dale
Member
You do realize that you can buy .224" diameter bullets designed for animals much larger than "varmints"
get with the program people. Bullet offerings have Broadened a good deal since 1988 or whenever you looked into this last
get with the program people. Bullet offerings have Broadened a good deal since 1988 or whenever you looked into this last
rbernie wrote:
"And frankly, anyone suggesting that the chamberings in question are inadequate need only do a little reading (some in this thread) to realize that their preconceived notions do not stand the test of reality."
This is from an "expert" who shot a hog 4 times to kill it, without a single exit wound?
By that standard it would be just as humane to cage it up and stab it repeatedly with a crochet needle until it dies from shock and pain.
Why do you think that stretching the capabilities of a poodle shooter is appropriate behavior, especially for a moderator?
It may be legal but that doesn't make it right.
IMO, if your rifle-ammo combo won't take a large hog quickly and cleanly with one well placed shot then you should not hunt with it.
Of course these days I see some guys who can't find a thing wrong with shooting deer with their .50 BMG Barretts either, and it's obvious that humane, responsible harvest takes a back seat to the cheap thrill of shooting live targets in 21st century America.
"And frankly, anyone suggesting that the chamberings in question are inadequate need only do a little reading (some in this thread) to realize that their preconceived notions do not stand the test of reality."
This is from an "expert" who shot a hog 4 times to kill it, without a single exit wound?
By that standard it would be just as humane to cage it up and stab it repeatedly with a crochet needle until it dies from shock and pain.
Why do you think that stretching the capabilities of a poodle shooter is appropriate behavior, especially for a moderator?
It may be legal but that doesn't make it right.
IMO, if your rifle-ammo combo won't take a large hog quickly and cleanly with one well placed shot then you should not hunt with it.
Of course these days I see some guys who can't find a thing wrong with shooting deer with their .50 BMG Barretts either, and it's obvious that humane, responsible harvest takes a back seat to the cheap thrill of shooting live targets in 21st century America.
"You do realize that you can buy .224" diameter bullets designed for animals much larger than "varmints"
Which one do you recommend for a 300 lb whitetail or a 400 lb black bear?
I'd like to read the manufacturer's spec on it.
I see pictures of smallish deer (some from obviously weak gene pools) taken with poodle shooters posted here, but that is not the way to set an ethical and humane benchmark.
Which one do you recommend for a 300 lb whitetail or a 400 lb black bear?
I'd like to read the manufacturer's spec on it.
I see pictures of smallish deer (some from obviously weak gene pools) taken with poodle shooters posted here, but that is not the way to set an ethical and humane benchmark.
R.W.Dale
Member
why would a troll dig up a 3 month old topic he's already said his piece on?
guess what killed this deer
show me a picture of your 300lb whitetail and I'll bother gracing this drivel with a reply
guess what killed this deer
show me a picture of your 300lb whitetail and I'll bother gracing this drivel with a reply
It looks like a nasty flesh wound, the kind that light, thin jacketed varmint bullets make when used for the wrong game.
That picture (which looks ghastly and proves nothing) and the fact that you've long since exhausted your intellectual ammo is prima facie evidence of your lack of professionalism.
I rest my case.
That picture (which looks ghastly and proves nothing) and the fact that you've long since exhausted your intellectual ammo is prima facie evidence of your lack of professionalism.
I rest my case.
R.W.Dale
Member
since when are flesh wounds a 2 or 3 inch hole punched into and through the vitals and out the other side?
you haven't ever hunted have you? troll
is a barnes TSX a varmint bullet?
sierra gameking
nosler partition
Speer TBBC
winchester powerpoint
Do yourself a favor and get out of the 1980's before you decide to comment on anything technical.
wlewisiii
Member
.223 is, unfortunately, legal for hunting in Wisconsin. Even with modern bullet tech, it's still no more a good idea than using 7x57 solids on elephant ever was. And I doubt anyone here is as good a hunter as “Karamojo” Bell was.
Anyone wanting to hunt with a .223 would not be allowed to hunt with me.
William
Anyone wanting to hunt with a .223 would not be allowed to hunt with me.
William
I went the 6.5 route simply because I am a shooter first and hunter second. I really wanted the capability to reach out further at the range. As far as hunting goes, I think (and evidence seems to back it up) that the 6.5 grendel and 6.8 spc are about equal as a hunting round. Sure the 6.5 can shoot flatter and farther, but just because it will go farther doesn't mean you should be killing big game out to the extreme. I am taking my grendel out this morning to hunt deer with. I loaded up some 120 grain barnes TTSX with 26 grains of TAC. It should be enough to take one down as long as I hit where I am aiming. Another reason I went with the grendel is because brass can be made from 7.62x39 brass. I figured that if it ever went belly up that I would have a cheap, reliable source of brass even if they stopped making it.
The 6.5 will take better advantage of the 20-24" barrel than the 6.8 simply because the 6.8 doesn't seem to get much from longer barrels. The 6.8 is great in short barrels because it doesn't lose much in velocity with short barrels. The 6.5 really seems to shine in 24" barrels. I believe that either the 6.8 or 6.5 will give you as much accuracy as your little heart can desire so there is no advantage with either one in that department. Here is a link to the Elk that Mark LaRue shot at 400 yards with the grendel.
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.htm...=164444&page=2
here are some pictures of what I have done with the grendel.
left is a 7.62x39 necked down to 6.5. middle and right is the fireformed case into 6.5 grendel.
I'll have to second all that. The 6.8 is basically a .270 bullet, the 6.5, a .260, so not a lot of difference in diameter. Both have been well proven in the gamefields of North Ameriaca and northern Europe. the. .270 good for deer, elk ect. the Swedes use the 6.5 on their moose., both generally out of larger cases at higher velocities, but they both are bigger bullets than the .223.
I went the Grendel route, because I am a shooter. My rifle likes the heavier 130 gr bullets, which are fine for the heavier med and larger deer type animals.
Cartridge cost is not much. I picked up 2000 cases of 7.62x39 IMI brass and have simpely run them through a Grendel die, making sure to size well, setting shoulder back slightly, load a slightly reduced load, then load and shoot. The end result is a nicely fireformed case as pictured. I find the fireforming loads very accurate, velocity is probably a bit lower, but for fun or target shooting where the absolutly best in accuracy is not needed, they are fine. This is not to say they are not accurate because they are.
This has been my first experience in fireforming for a modern cartridge for a semi auto, and it's really quite easy and certainly keeps the ammo cost down. Keep all that in mind if you can or plan to reload. The 7.62 cases are very common.
The 6.5 will take better advantage of the 20-24" barrel than the 6.8 simply because the 6.8 doesn't seem to get much from longer barrels. The 6.8 is great in short barrels because it doesn't lose much in velocity with short barrels. The 6.5 really seems to shine in 24" barrels. I believe that either the 6.8 or 6.5 will give you as much accuracy as your little heart can desire so there is no advantage with either one in that department. Here is a link to the Elk that Mark LaRue shot at 400 yards with the grendel.
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.htm...=164444&page=2
here are some pictures of what I have done with the grendel.
left is a 7.62x39 necked down to 6.5. middle and right is the fireformed case into 6.5 grendel.
I'll have to second all that. The 6.8 is basically a .270 bullet, the 6.5, a .260, so not a lot of difference in diameter. Both have been well proven in the gamefields of North Ameriaca and northern Europe. the. .270 good for deer, elk ect. the Swedes use the 6.5 on their moose., both generally out of larger cases at higher velocities, but they both are bigger bullets than the .223.
I went the Grendel route, because I am a shooter. My rifle likes the heavier 130 gr bullets, which are fine for the heavier med and larger deer type animals.
Cartridge cost is not much. I picked up 2000 cases of 7.62x39 IMI brass and have simpely run them through a Grendel die, making sure to size well, setting shoulder back slightly, load a slightly reduced load, then load and shoot. The end result is a nicely fireformed case as pictured. I find the fireforming loads very accurate, velocity is probably a bit lower, but for fun or target shooting where the absolutly best in accuracy is not needed, they are fine. This is not to say they are not accurate because they are.
This has been my first experience in fireforming for a modern cartridge for a semi auto, and it's really quite easy and certainly keeps the ammo cost down. Keep all that in mind if you can or plan to reload. The 7.62 cases are very common.
- Status
