Rate the .223 cartridge

[Jason_W]

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.

Didn't you cleanly take a deer recently with a load of #3 buck from a 20 gauge?

Post #76 http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=774575&page=4

There are a good many people out there who would consider that to be an inadequate load for deer. I'm personally not knocking it as the dead deer is evidence of the effectiveness of that particular load's effectiveness against a whitetail.

That said, if your post, quoted above, was an argument against the .223 as a deer round, I would be curious to know why your "marginal" deer load is o.k. but someone else's "marginal" deer load is not.

 

[Jason_W]

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.

No.

That line of thinking is similar to that of anti-gun people who assert since one doesn't think nuclear weapons are covered by the second amendment, firearms shouldn't be either (an argument I've heard by anti-gunners on numerous occasions, btw).

people are just determined to cling to dogma, aren't they?

 

[1911 guy]

Read the poll carefully, page one, above the opening post. It states "300 yards".

I killed a deer with a .22 Hornet once. I got to withing sixty yards and took the shot. You seem to be debating if a .223 will kill deer or not. That's not the question. The question is one of killing deer at 300 yards.

Cut that distance in half, maybe 200 yards even, use a well constructed heavy for caliber bullet at high velocity, you can get the job done. But you can't beat physics.

Bow hunters regularly kill deer. Why don't they ever shoot them at 100 yards? After all, arrows can kill deer. The answer is the same as a .223 at 300. You can poke a hole but you cannot reliable make a clean kill.

 

[Jason_W]

Read the poll carefully, page one, above the opening post. It states "300 yards".

I killed a deer with a .22 Hornet once. I got to withing sixty yards and took the shot. You seem to be debating if a .223 will kill deer or not. That's not the question. The question is one of killing deer at 300 yards.

Cut that distance in half, maybe 200 yards even, use a well constructed heavy for caliber bullet at high velocity, you can get the job done. But you can't beat physics.

Bow hunters regularly kill deer. Why don't they ever shoot them at 100 yards? After all, arrows can kill deer. The answer is the same as a .223 at 300. You can poke a hole but you cannot reliable make a clean kill.

No argument from me on the range limitations. I was under the impression that the concept of the round for deer at 300 yards had been effectively put to bed early in the thread and the discussion had moved on the the viability of the round for deer period.

 

[MCgunner]

Didn't you cleanly take a deer recently with a load of #3 buck from a 20 gauge?

Post #76 http://www.thehighroad.org/showthrea...=774575&page=4

There are a good many people out there who would consider that to be an inadequate load for deer. I'm personally not knocking it as the dead deer is evidence of the effectiveness of that particular load's effectiveness against a whitetail.

That said, if your post, quoted above, was an argument against the .223 as a deer round, I would be curious to know why your "marginal" deer load is o.k. but someone else's "marginal" deer load is not.

Indeed I did....at 35 yards, not 300. I don't like the .223 ANYway, but at 300 yards on a deer? That deer I shot with 3 buck took 3 to the head, five to the neck. The head shots, no doubt, is what took him down so fast. And, I wasn't exactly hunting deer with the gun. I carry a SxS, either my 12 of my super handy 20, when I'm checking the hog trap, camera, and feeder out back. That time of year there are often ducks on the tank, so I was slipping up on the tank when i looked to my right and there was a deer, nice buck. I had the modified barrel loaded with 3 bucks and the I/C loaded with 4 steel 3" for the ducks. It makes a good walkabout gun this way in deer season. It also shoots well with slugs, but I wouldn't wanna brain fart and pull the slug barrel on a duck.

I looked up the .223 in my "Extended Ballistics for the Advanced Rifleman" by Art Blatt Copyrighted 1986. The heaviest bullet they list is 55 grains, was a bit before the 70 grain hunting loads came out. Still, it shows a Federal 55 grain factory load putting out 1950 fps for 465 ft lbs of energy at 300 yards. That might be enough to satisfy you, but I'll take my .257 Roberts or my .308 Winchester, or my 7mm Remington Magnum on deer, thanks. The .257 is a flat shooter that I'd pick first were I going on an antelope hunt. And, it'll kill yotes just as dead as a .223. 465 ft lbs in a 55 grain bullet, even 70 grain bullet of .22 caliber is just not up to snuff for larger game, sorry.

 

[Jason_W]

Indeed I did....at 35 yards, not 300. I don't like the .223 ANYway, but at 300 yards on a deer? That deer I shot with 3 buck took 3 to the head, five to the neck. The head shots, no doubt, is what took him down so fast. And, I wasn't exactly hunting deer with the gun. I carry a SxS, either my 12 of my super handy 20, when I'm checking the hog trap, camera, and feeder out back. That time of year there are often ducks on the tank, so I was slipping up on the tank when i looked to my right and there was a deer, nice buck. I had the modified barrel loaded with 3 bucks and the I/C loaded with 4 steel 3" for the ducks. It makes a good walkabout gun this way in deer season. It also shoots well with slugs, but I wouldn't wanna brain fart and pull the slug barrel on a duck.

I looked up the .223 in my "Extended Ballistics for the Advanced Rifleman" by Art Blatt Copyrighted 1986. The heaviest bullet they list is 55 grains, was a bit before the 70 grain hunting loads came out. Still, it shows a Federal 55 grain factory load putting out 1950 fps for 465 ft lbs of energy at 300 yards. That might be enough to satisfy you, but I'll take my .257 Roberts or my .308 Winchester, or my 7mm Remington Magnum on deer, thanks. The .257 is a flat shooter that I'd pick first were I going on an antelope hunt. And, it'll kill yotes just as dead as a .223. 465 ft lbs in a 55 grain bullet, even 70 grain bullet of .22 caliber is just not up to snuff for larger game, sorry.

I think that's where some of my confusion was at play. As I said before, I had thought that the .223 as a 300 yard deer round had been discounted by the first page and that the discussion had evolved to debating the potential of the round for whitetail as a whole.

Personally, my pleasant to shoot, "marginal" deer round will likely be a .357 mag out of a carbine of some sort. Buffalo bore makes some 158 grain stuff that will yield 1600 ft-lbs at the muzzle and beats the .223 in terms of energy past 100 yards. I used to have one and had to sell it to fund life. That Ruger 77/357 looks really fun.

 

[MCgunner]

I think that's where some of my confusion was at play. As I said before, I had thought that the .223 as a 300 yard deer round had been discounted by the first page and that the discussion had evolved to debating the potential of the round for whitetail as a whole.

Personally, my pleasant to shoot, "marginal" deer round will likely be a .357 mag out of a carbine of some sort. Buffalo bore makes some 158 grain stuff that will yield 1600 ft-lbs at the muzzle and beats the .223 in terms of energy past 100 yards. I used to have one and had to sell it to fund life. That Ruger 77/357 looks really fun.

.357 with HOT heavy bullet loads is still putting up over 700 ft lbs at 100 yards from my Rossi 92's 20" barrel. I've taken one doe with it at 80 yards. i'd limit it to 100 yards max. Lil gun works great, pushes a 165 SWC to near 1900 fps with a less than max 16.8 grains.

Heck, for soft recoil, my .257 is pretty light on the shoulder. I shot my first deer with it at age 11. It was my grandpa's gun, he gave it to me before I was out of high school. I've shot a lot of deer with that rifle, longest shot at a paced 250 yards, but it's got the goods for more. I like the .357 Magnum from a rifle and under 100 yards it'll do the job, but there are better calibers I have to admit. Heck, the .30-30 ain't broke. I've shot a couple with 7.62x39, too. Were I in to hunting with an AR, I'd be looking at the similar .300 Blackout. I can make my own brass and ammo for it, don't need no stinkin' .223, just the brass. Anyway, there's LOTS of choices better than .223 for deer or hogs or pronghorn or whatever.

 

[mnhntr]

I'm sorry but i cannot help but say this: i can take all of these animals with a 22Mag with the right bullet in the correct spot. or an elephant with a .223 with the right bullet in the right spot.

Not at 300yds you wont, but you got my point.

 

[Kachok]

300 yards, nope the .223 caliber bullets suffer very poor retained energy, they are marginal on deer up close I would not stretch one out past 150 for anything larger then a dog. At 300 yd get yourself a 270/30-06 bolt gun or a 308 if you want a semi auto.

 

[MCgunner]

300 yards, nope the .223 caliber bullets suffer very poor retained energy, they are marginal on deer up close I would not stretch one out past 150 for anything larger then a dog. At 300 yd get yourself a 270/30-06 bolt gun or a 308 if you want a semi auto.

There is no need to limit yourself to 270/30-06. There's a huge number of rounds that are capable of killing deer sized game cleanly at 300 yards, and my .308 is a bolt gun. It's really silly to get a .223 or .22-250 for a deer gun IMHO, especially considering the number ouf rounds on the market that are superior for the intended purpose.

 

[stiab]

It's really silly to get a .223 or .22-250 for a deer gun IMHO

MCgunner's right of course. We all know a .223 will kill a deer in some circumstances, but you don't want to be holding one when that 10-point, 175 lb., "buck of a lifetime" steps out at 150 yards, quartering away from you, with his head down eating something on the ground.

 

[HOWARD J]

Many years ago I hunted deer with a .222---I took a number of deer & kept it under 75 yards
the game wardens always gave me a hard time
One year a warden was sitting on the tongue of my travel trailer- I told him to come in(5 am) so he could hear better.
He admitted that the MI wardens( rangers-whatever) used .222 for winter kill--BUT- he said" the reason we don't like you guys using them is because
we are such better shots than you hunters---ENUF SAID

 

[TimSr]

He admitted that the MI wardens( rangers-whatever) used .222 for winter kill--BUT- he said" the reason we don't like you guys using them is because
we are such better shots than you hunters

Most of the arguments about marginal hunting weapons involve somebody without enough experience to know, asking of his marginal weapon is suitable for an animal he has never hunted before. Most of the arguments in favor of him using the marginal weapon are based on the fact that if some highly experienced expert did it with that weapon, then its fine for any beginner who has too much ego to admit he is not a highly trained professional with equal skills. Your warden's argument probably has some merit in regards to the general public.

 

[Art Eatman]

Looks like this umpteenth iteration of the suitability of the .223 is about done for now.