Rate the .223 cartridge

[BigBore45]

An 80 gr 243 bullet at 3300 fps is a short stubby bullet that will expand quickly and give poor penetration on larger game.

The 77 gr 223 bullet is a longer, tougher bullet that will expand much slower and penetrate MUCH deeper in large game.

Bullet weight speed, or energy don't kill stuff. Penetration, and shot placement do. The 80 gr 243 bullet is a varmint bullet, the 77 gr 223 is a big game bullet. Start shooting varmint bullets in a 30-06 and you'll see failures.



When loaded with varmint bullets I agree. When loaded with 95-105 gr big game bullets a 243 is darn near perfect for any deer at any range anyone is capable of making hits. It is an acceptable elk load.

Elk, 688 yards, 243, 105 gr bullet
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hY0w1c-gf18

We have all been sold on much bigger guns than any of us really need for decades. Partly because hunters are figuring it out, and partly because of better bullets and loads today that is changing.

You can get all kinds of bullets in 80 grain for .243, including hard jacketed bonded bullet for big game and vis-versa for the 77gr. in .223. I have been watching these gun in action in real hunting scenarios, i would no way say the .223 is better than the .243 in any aspect of ration. I do not " gun up" like you believe i do. I'm taking a .45 colt hog hunting in 3 weeks, i know the limits of my bullet and load for it, however on a whole, as most people do not understand what we do, i see no reason for the .223 to be used at it limits or passed them.

It seems my ethical kill is different from you guys in most aspects, yes every deer i have seen get taken with a .223 or .243 died, was found, and processed. But i know some of these kills were, for lack of a better word, (drawn out) compared to say a 308 win. round in the same scenario and bullet placement. and someone said they do not care about yotes dieing right away or not, i know yotes can be cruel in the worst ways but still to take a life and to have knowledge like humans and understanding of a yotes motives and instincts should put us in the right to dispatch of them quickly.

 

[redneckrepairs]

In my state its not legal for big game , but is for coyote and i have experience with them so that is what i had to vote . I just cant vote for anything larger without any experiance as to how well it might or might not work .

 

[Bezoar]

people hunt hogs with 223 at 150 yards with M4 carbines.

your problem is the shooter. bullet construction and bullet placement. then comes accuracy of the rifle.

55 grain jsp or jhp or fmj to the brain at 50 yards. yes.

55 grain jsp or jhp to the chest at 50 yards no. Those two slugs to the chest at 300? coyote.

 

[22-rimfire]

Great varmint caliber and I include feral hogs as varmints. It works for deer, but I wouldn't choose it myself.

 

[wankerjake]

Definitely coyote and hogs if they are pests. Shorten the range and all of the above fit. To people who know what they are doing, all of the above are true.

 

[1911 guy]

I'm a fan of the .223 Remington. I currently own several rifles chambered for it and have owned everything from single shots to bolt guns to ARs.

I am also a hunter. From varmints to deer, I have hunted everything available in this region of the country at one time or another.

I also know that even a .22 Long Rifle can kill all of these animals under ideal conditions. However, the "ethical" part of the question opens up a lot of ground between "possible" and "practical". To make an ethical shot, you MUST allow for sub-optimal conditions. Failure to do so will at one point or another result in a botched shot and violate the ethics of making a clean kill. Hence, the adage "Use enough gun". Using more than minimal gun closes the ground again between "possible" and "practical".

I voted coyote. All the other choices require more leeway for an ethical kill than the .223 allows at 300 yards.

 

[MCgunner]

At 300 yards, song dogs is about it. I wouldn't use it on anything, myself. I have better choices. Of course, we don't have prairie dogs, but if we did, I'd get a .22-250.

 

[BigBore45]

I'm a fan of the .223 Remington. I currently own several rifles chambered for it and have owned everything from single shots to bolt guns to ARs.

I am also a hunter. From varmints to deer, I have hunted everything available in this region of the country at one time or another.

I also know that even a .22 Long Rifle can kill all of these animals under ideal conditions. However, the "ethical" part of the question opens up a lot of ground between "possible" and "practical". To make an ethical shot, you MUST allow for sub-optimal conditions. Failure to do so will at one point or another result in a botched shot and violate the ethics of making a clean kill. Hence, the adage "Use enough gun". Using more than minimal gun closes the ground again between "possible" and "practical".

I voted coyote. All the other choices require more leeway for an ethical kill than the .223 allows at 300 yards.

That is a very good way to put it. thanks for the post!!!

 

[WestKentucky]

Where are the leg breaking digpigs? 223 is my favorite round for groundhogs. It works for bigger game for sure but if I'm hunting I plan to kill, not to wound-track-hopetofind-lose the critter. I jump from .223 maxing out at song dog size to .270win or 30-30 for the rest. Haven't hunted bigger than whitetail yet though, I strongly suspect when I do a 45-70 will be in the mix.

 

[Davek1977]

It works for bigger game for sure but if I'm hunting I plan to kill, not to wound-track-hopetofind-lose the critter.

I somewhat take offense to that. Having actually gone afield with the .223 in search of deer, let me tell you "wound, track, lose" was the furthest thing from what I intended to do, and the furthest thing from the results I experienced. I took shots I was confident in, and the deer dropped. I would have never taken a shot I thought would result in the scenario you've described. The deer I've killed with the .223 were just as dead as any I've killed with my 7mm Mag, .243, 30-30, 7.62x39, etc. I'm at 100% success with the .223, something, ironically, I can't even say about my 7 mag Any caliber can fail, and depending on "more power" to make up for a lack of accuracy is a fool's game

 

[Silverado6x6]

Near useless cartridge for me. Just traded off a Bushmaster Ar15 and will be getting rid of most of the ammo I collected for it. I do not like the gun, there are better guns, better calibers.
If I had to live in a place where it was all there was to protect me and to bring down edible game it's mediocre at best.
Wolves? Yeah if it's a head shot, bears? Hah, bullets will bounce off their skulls.

6 mm minimum.

 

[Jason_W]

Here's an interesting hypothetical: Who is better equipped for deer, the guy with the .223 who practices regularly, knows and respects the round's limitations, and puts a great amount of research into load selection or the guy with the .30-06 who may fire a few rounds a year before the start of the season to check his zero?

 

[IWAC]

Yes, it works, a lot of people use the .223s, and it has been used more or less successfully for all types of smaller game. It proves the point; "You shoot best with what kicks you least".
At one time, based on experience, the popular .243 was considered marginal for deer, but with advances in bullet technology, that is in the dim past.

My personal opinion is, like Robert Ruark: "USE enough gun!" For humane kills, that starts with the 243/6mm calibers, IMO.

We all know, or should, that the fellow who knows his gun, rather than goes to the range once a year to see if his gun will "cut paper" will generally be the most successful.

But, a large portion of the "Black Rifle" owners are like the fellow with the 30-06..they don't go to the range for serious familiarization with their weapon. They "have it" and are ready to put on their camo underwear, pick up their "death ray, spray and pray" weapon, and charge off to fight the Zombie Hordes, or the Alien invaders, or...??
What's with the popularity of an ugly, sub-caliber weapon that weighs as much or more, AND is generally much more expen$ive than a fully-loaded and scoped quality bolt action rifle?

It's probably all the kiddies know, being indoctrinated with its use in the Military! To each his own, but I believe it is also a result of the gun manufacturers being bullied by anti gun administration(s), feeding on the hysteria of occurrences like at Sandy Hook, and the Colorado theater massacre, to sell more product.

Cynical? Perhaps, but also perhaps somewhat realistic! YOMV...it's O.K. with me.

 

[BigBore45]

IWAC beat me to it.

The .223 was not legal for deer in Kansas until a couple years ago. i talked to my state rep from my county about it, he said the reason they made it legal is to help with the point that the ar-15 is a hunting gun.

 

[Jason_W]

Yes, it works, a lot of people use the .223s, and it has been used more or less successfully for all types of smaller game. It proves the point; "You shoot best with what kicks you least".
At one time, based on experience, the popular .243 was considered marginal for deer, but with advances in bullet technology, that is in the dim past.

My personal opinion is, like Robert Ruark: "USE enough gun!" For humane kills, that starts with the 243/6mm calibers, IMO.

We all know, or should, that the fellow who knows his gun, rather than goes to the range once a year to see if his gun will "cut paper" is generally be the most successful.

But, a large portion of the "Black Rifle" owners are like the fellow with the 30-06..they don't go to the range for serious familiarization with their weapon. They "have it" and are ready to put on their camo underwear, pick up their "death ray, spray and pray" weapon, and charge off to fight the Zombie Hordes, or the Alien invaders, or...??
What's with the popularity of an ugly, sub-caliber weapon that weighs as much or more, AND is generally much more expen$ive than a fully-loaded and scoped quality bolt action rifle?

It's probably all the kiddies know, being indoctrinated with its use in the Military! To each his own, but I believe it is also a result of the gun manufacturers being bullied by anti gun administration(s), feeding on the hysteria of occurrences like at Sandy Hook, and the Colorado theater massacre, to sell more product.

Cynical? Perhaps, but also perhaps somewhat realistic! YOMV...it's O.K. with me.

I'm not speaking so much about the AR platform, but about the .223 and other rounds traditionally viewed as marginal for medium game.

The appeal for many is hunting with a rifle that is actually pleasant to shoot. You may personally find it fun to shoot hundreds of rounds per weekend through an '06 class rifle with a hard plastic buttplate, but I would venture that most people, if they are honest, would rather fire a gun that doesn't hurt them.

Also, .223 ammo is far cheaper than the traditional minimum .243 Win. which will facilitate a greater amount of practice.

Admittedly, the price of hunting with a "marginal" is distance and shot selection. A .223 equipped hunter really should not attempt a 300 yard shot on a deer, but I've encountered many hunters who shouldn't attempt a 300 yard shot on a deer with a .270 (I'm one of them, FWIW).

My point is that some hunters can and will take shots that are out of the league of whatever weapon they're carrying and will overestimate their own skill level. It's impossible to eliminate this above via legislation. I'd also venture that the outcome of a hunter who wounds/loses a deer because he shoulder shot it with a .223 at 300 yards vs. the outcome of a hunter who wounds/loses a deer because he botched a 500 yard with his 7mm mag is equally unacceptable.

What I would like to see is the addition of units to hunter safety courses that address the real world limitations of numerous common rounds and that emphasizes the importance of bullet selection in lighter kicking rounds.

 

[zdc1775]

The 223 is more than adequate of taking all the animals you have listed at 150 yards or less. I have shot coyotes out to 275 with a 223 and wouldn't hesitate to use it further, but then you would probably consider me unethical towards them since my main coyote gun has always been 22 WMR with fmj's and I considered it adequate out to as far as I could hit them with it.

I have also used the 223 on 6 deer and a lot of hogs with the farthest shot at just under 150. Only had one deer run after the shot and she didn't even make it the 50 yards out of the green field. Shot her at about 75 yards in the lungs. They turned into jelly and I had a quarter sized exit wound, pretty much the same result as my 270 and 7mm-08.

My wife will likely be using one this coming year for her first deer rifle and most likely any children that I take on a hunting trip in the future because it is a lightweight, accurate, low recoil rifle that is plenty powerful enough for any shot within their range. You just have to know it's and your limitations.

 

[1911 guy]

zdc1775 mentioned 150 yard range for all the animals listed in the poll. I might go so far as to agree with him

HOWEVER:

The poll explicitly stated a range of 300 yards. The .223 Remington, in ANY bullet weight or design, simply does not have the stones to reliably kill deer sized game at 300 yards. Period. Full stop. Serious varminters look at other calibers for even coyotes past 300, much less deer.

Lots of deer have indeed been killed with the .223. But anyone who says they've done it at 300 is one of three things: really bad at estimating distance, really lucky and shouldn't push their luck, or just plain lying.

The .223 is good at some things, but killing deer at 300 isn't one of them. .243 with a decent bullet is the minimum.

 

[der Teufel]

Here's an interesting hypothetical: Who is better equipped for deer, the guy with the .223 who practices regularly, knows and respects the round's limitations, and puts a great amount of research into load selection or the guy with the .30-06 who may fire a few rounds a year before the start of the season to check his zero?

But this is an apples to oranges comparison.

Who's going to have better results of two guys who each shoot five shots a year sighting in their rifle before deer season, and then heading out to hunt? Assume one of them is packing a .223 and the other a .30-06.

Sure, a .223 will kill a deer. At 300 yards though, it certainly wouldn't be my first choice. It wouldn't be my second choice, either.

Oh, and yeah, I've shot a .223 before. I like 'em. Had one for a year in Vietnam, and (much) later bought a Bushmaster AR-15. However, I shot one hog with it and quickly sold it to my brother so I could buy an AR-10.

 

[Jason_W]

But this is an apples to oranges comparison.

Who's going to have better results of two guys who each shoot five shots a year sighting in their rifle before deer season, and then heading out to hunt? Assume one of them is packing a .223 and the other a .30-06.

I would argue both are under-practiced. I would venture, however, that the guy with the more pleasant shooting rifle with the cheaper ammo will be more motivated to get to the range and practice.

 

[1911 guy]

My Marlin .22 rimfire is the most "pleasant shooting" rifle i own. Does that mean I should sell my .308?

"Pleasant shooting" rifles are for practice and skill maintenance. When you need the bullet performance required to make a clean kill, man up and use the appropriate tool for the job.

Take your logic to conclusion, you'll be advocating pellet guns for moose.

 

[MCgunner]

Here's an interesting hypothetical: Who is better equipped for deer, the guy with the .223 who practices regularly, knows and respects the round's limitations, and puts a great amount of research into load selection or the guy with the .30-06 who may fire a few rounds a year before the start of the season to check his zero?

Answer, the guy with the .30-06 if he practices marksmanship with other rifles all year and knows his rifle's ballistics inside and out. At 300 yards, give me the naught six and I'll take up to elk and moose with the right load. I don't shoot my .308 all year, but i do know it inside and out from shooting it at various ranges on various days and I shoot all the time since all i have to do is step ot on my back porch to shoot the .22s or walk 50 yards to my rifle range shooting table. I also hunt all year. Rabbits and squirrels have no closed seasons in my woods. BUT, I think I put 5 rounds through the .308 before last season checking sight in.

 

[stiab]

Also, .223 ammo is far cheaper than the traditional minimum .243 Win. which will facilitate a greater amount of practice.

Not disputing what you say, just asking a question: How much is .223 medium size game hunting ammo? I can buy typical 100 grain .243 many places for $20 a box, and it was easily available during the ammo "shortage" when .223 of any kind was not on the shelves. Just curious apples to apples, what is the cost comparison for .223 deer hunting factory ammo -vs- the $20 .243 deer ammo I buy?

 

[Jason_W]

Not disputing what you say, just asking a question: How much is .223 medium size game hunting ammo? I can buy typical 100 grain .243 many places for $20 a box, and it was easily available during the ammo "shortage" when .223 of any kind was not on the shelves. Just curious apples to apples, what is the cost comparison for .223 deer hunting factory ammo -vs- the $20 .243 deer ammo I buy?

Premium ammo is expensive. But, with the .223, you can find cheap stuff that offers a similar velocity as the premium stuff.

This Wolf ammo for $5.99/box
http://www.midwayusa.com/product/16...oint-bi-metal-steel-case?cm_vc=ProductFinding

Comes pretty close in terms of velocity to this Barnes tipped stuff for $29.99/box
http://www.midwayusa.com/product/49...oint-lead-free-box-of-20?cm_vc=ProductFinding

One can conceivably practice with the Wolf and be good to hunt with the Winchester.

Also, I'm not arguing that the .223 (a round that I don't even own) is the be all and end all deer round. My point is that advances in bullet technology have resulted in a sort of level up for all rounds. Your .243 is still a fine deer rifle and is good to a longer distance than it was in the past. The .223 was iffy at best for deer at any range 40 years ago, but with modern, premium ammo, it's good out to at least 120 yards.

 

[stiab]

Thanks, so it looks like the deer hunting factory ammo comparison is about $20 .243 and about $30 for .223.

 

[Davek1977]

Thanks, so it looks like the deer hunting factory ammo comparison is about $20 .243 and about $30 for .223.

Actually, no, thats for Barnes ammo, and you;d pay similiar if not more for the same ammo in .243.( http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/...43+Winchester+Tipped+TSX+Boat+Tail+80+GR+20+R )Federal markets a perfectly acceptable .223 deer load in their Fusion line, which I can typically buy for south of $20 any day of the week

http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/...ederal+F223FS1+Fusion+20RD+62gr+223+Remington