The .223 paradox

[SomeDude]

Another poster brought up the question on using .223 on deer. I didn't want to hijack the thread so here goes.....
I find it strange that I always see the .223 bemoaned as a deer hunting cartridge. Some say it lacks the power to knock down an animal that weighs anywhere from 150-200 pounds. Its small diameter doesn't create a wound channel big enough to drop the animal on the spot (outside of a head shot). I don't disagree with that.
So then why is it that the same people who say the .223 is ineffective against deer would so readily carry the same round into a combat situation against a 150-200 pound man bent on their destruction? I figure if you're not going to use that round on a plant-eating woodland creature then you probably shouldn't use it against something that's probably going to be shooting back.
IMHO, if you aren't going trust it to put meat on the table you probably shouldn't trust it to keep you out of a metal box.

 

[Matrix187]

I used a .223 on a fairly big montana white tail and a lung shot did the job. The bullet was a 69 gr sierra HPBT from a 16 inch Bushmaster m4a3. The exit wound was about the size of a quarter. Some people don't know what they're talking about and are bent on having to use a huge blaster to take down deer.

-Edited to add a bit of info.

 

[BADUNAME37]

I used a .223 on a fairly big montana white tail and a lung shot did the job. I think some people don't know what they're talking about at all.

You got that one right.

I shoot woodchucks. Many times I have shot a woodchuck and there would be visible signs that I absolutely hit it, however it happened to be close enough to his/her hole that they made it down into the hole to die.

A broadside deer lung shot with the right .223 ammo will most likely bring it down, however I know that an animal can run full speed on adrenaline with what little bit of blood is still in its brain -- making it think and giving the muscles power to move. Yes, eventually, it will collapse. What I am concerned about is being in extremely thick cover (a lot of that around here), shooting the deer, have it run 80 yards into such thick woods, I may never find it. A little hole in, and possibly a hole out, with ball ammo, most likely a small hole out. There may not be a huge blood trail leading up to the deer, in fact some hunters may just eventually give up looking for the carcass simply because they thought they missed the deer altogether!

So, with that being said, I can see where some hunters want to be SURE the deer pretty much DROPS right where it is shot.

Lately, I have been hunting with .223, using Barnes 62g Triple Shock Bullets. The open X Pedals are almost razor sharp and the diamter of the .224" bullet at least doubles! I don't mind hunting with those bullets, but I would absolutely stay away from any Ball Military ammo, even though I realize exactly what the hard nose 55g bullets do every time (do a flip and squirt some lead out of the bottom as they curl into a u-shaped bullet that is now pretty much flattened). I realize that does a lot of damage. Hopefully NOT AS MUCH DAMAGE, though, as the 62g Barnes Solid Copper X bullets!

 

[redneck2]

FWIW...a deer that weighs 200# probably has the strength of 3-5 men combined. In combat, you may be carrying 150-200 rounds of ammo

 

[SomeDude]

I think that shot placement is everything, as you proved. I'm trying to point out some of the hypocrisy that exists with the .223 being so great as a defensive round vs its bad rap as a hunting cartridge.
You may also be carrying 150 rounds of ammo but you may only get that one shot to count. Though I do see your point.

 

[Gryffydd]

Add to that the fact that in combat it's carried with FMJs. With the right bullet the stopping power of the .223 increases dramatically. The .223 not good for deer thing seems subconsciously tied to the prevalence of FMJ in that caliber in almost the same way that the idea of the 7.62x39 as an inherently inaccurate round really has nothing to do with the round itself.

 

[theotherwaldo]

Dang few soldiers are going into combat now-a-days while packing semi-auto rifles. I suspect that most .223/5.56 battle rifles are either burst-capable or full-auto. That should do the job, even with hard ball.

Otherwise, it's like saying 00 buck isn't effective because a single lead .32 ball isn't likely to be deadly.

 

[BADUNAME37]

I think that shot placement is everything, as you proved. I'm trying to point out some of the hypocrisy that exists with the .223 being so great as a defensive round vs its bad rap as a hunting cartridge.
You may also be carrying 150 rounds of ammo but you may only get that one shot to count. Though I do see your point.

Remember also that in war, the object is to injure a person badly enough so it will take two other people to take that person off the battlefield. So, the 55g FMJBT is what most would want in the battlefield, as it ties up more of the enemies.

However I do see your point, that if someone is shooting at you, wouldn't you want to kill them quickly, even more quickly than, say, a deer that is just watching you?

Absolutely!

That's when they dial in air support and BLAST the enemy with incoming missles!

 

[CoRoMo]

Some people don't know what they're talking about

The raw truth.

Anyone disagree?

 

[cyclopsshooter]

mans psychology with a wound is different than that of an aminal

 

[Kevin77]

I think it's ridiculous to think that you need a 300WSM to shoot a 200 pound whitetail from a tree stand where your longest shot is probably 200 yards. I use a 30-30 to hunt elk. I hunt in pretty thick trees and the longest shot is 150 yards. .223 with the right bullet should kill a deer quite well.

 

[W L Johnson]

Remember also that in war, the object is to injure a person badly enough so it will take two other people to take that person off the battlefield.

I wish this myth would go away. :banghead:

 

[happygeek]

Another poster brought up the question on using .223 on deer. I didn't want to hijack the thread so here goes.....
I find it strange that I always see the .223 bemoaned as a deer hunting cartridge. Some say it lacks the power to knock down an animal that weighs anywhere from 150-200 pounds. Its small diameter doesn't create a wound channel big enough to drop the animal on the spot (outside of a head shot). I don't disagree with that.
So then why is it that the same people who say the .223 is ineffective against deer would so readily carry the same round into a combat situation against a 150-200 pound man bent on their destruction? I figure if you're not going to use that round on a plant-eating woodland creature then you probably shouldn't use it against something that's probably going to be shooting back.
IMHO, if you aren't going trust it to put meat on the table you probably shouldn't trust it to keep you out of a metal box.

Hunting is not the same as combat! I don't know much about hunting, but I'm assuming you're aiming for one shot, one kill. In combat, you're likely firing far more than 1 round per target, not to mention your buddies are also shooting at the same group of targets, not to mention hopefully there's a crew serve weapon with you that's laying down a good volume of fire on said target area (and one of your buddies is on the radio calling for fire support).

In a self defense situation, well, I don't know how everyone trains, but I'm firing two to the chest (at the least, due to the training I'd default to) and maybe as many as 3 to the chest followed by 1 to the head (haven't trained on that drill nearly as much so I'd probably default to 2 to the chest).

The 5.56x45 NATO round wasn't so much adapted for it's one shot stopping ability, it seems it was adopted because rifles that fire it weigh less, the ammo weighs less, and it's far more controllable on auto due to the lessened recoil. Most people probably don't consider the weight too much, but try putting body armor, a small ruck, loading 200 (if it's 7.62x51) or 300 (if 5.56x45) rounds up on your person, grabbing your rifle, and then moving on foot for x number of miles to where the enemy will be engaged at. Oh, and don't forget stuff like food and water you'd be carrying around. There have been studies done recently on how much weight soldiers are having to hump around on patrols, some might be surprised how much it is. Saving 10 pounds or more on carrying a lighter rifle and lighter ammo matters.

 

[Kindrox]

If you spend any time on this board shotgun forum, a lot of seeminly knowledgeable people claim the .223 (with the right ammo) has as much 1-shot (human) stopping power as a shotgun.

If that is true, it would seem to lend some support to the OP's question.

 

[lot21]

Interesting topic. Please watch this story about David Bellavia author of the book "House to House" about the battle of Fallujah. Many of the insurgents used stimulants and had to be shot many many times before they would stop. Great book.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LG_Ut4MA5dg

 

[RainDodger]

In some places, you need a projectile that is .243" in diameter or larger, to hunt deer.... by law, that is.

 

[Officers'Wife]

It would depend on the person behind the rifle. Both my grandfather and father have harvested whitetail with great grandfather's 32-20 92 Winchester carbine. Since the 32-20 has even less energy than the .223...

If pressed I could also harvest deer with that old rifle. However, I have an SMLE in .303 that is much more suited for the chore as well as the black powder double barrel rifle in 75 caliber. The latter is preferable has the wind from the ball knocks the animal down so you can hit it in the head with a hammer and not damage the hide.

 

[OurSafeHome.net]

battle of Fallujah. Many of the insurgents used stimulants and had to be shot many many times before they would stop.

So is this a success of "better living through chemistry" or a failure of the "poodle-shooter" or a combination of both?

 

[HKUSP45C]

However, I have an SMLE in .303 that is much more suited for the chore as well as the black powder double barrel rifle in 75 caliber. The latter is preferable has the wind from the ball knocks the animal down so you can hit it in the head with a hammer and not damage the hide

Priceless, simply well played, ma'am.

Remember also that in war, the object is to injure a person badly enough so it will take two other people to take that person off the battlefield.

I wish this myth would go away.

Me too, man, me too.

 

[C-grunt]

A .223 will kill a deer no problem with proper ammo selection and shot placement. But deer dont have the psychological effects of being shot like people do.

But, people hopped up on adrenaline or something else, can travel decent distances with very serious mortal wounds. I have witnessed this several times in combat with both 5.56 and 7.62 rounds, not to mention explosive rounds. Some people are just tougher than others and have more will to live.

I also have a theory tat the soldiers and Marines that have to shoot bad guys many times are either A) missing much of the time B) not getting good hits or C) shooting the bad guy many times in a short period of time.

Rifles are powerful but they arent cannons. A good COM shot at close range isnt always going to floor the guy immediately, no matter what you are using.

Ive used the 5.56 from ranges of about 100 to 400 meters and it never failed me or any soldiers I know. My brother in law was a Marine grunt in Fallujah and never had problems with it either.

 

[SammyIamToday]

While I see some merit to the argument of deer don't know that bullets are supposed to kill them, I personally find .223/5.56 acceptable on deer. I also found .223/5.56 acceptable as a military round on deployments to Afghanistan and Iraq while in the Marines. Only issue I ever saw with .223/5.56 was barrier penetration, which is really kind of irrelevant in a hunting/military comparison.

 

[ChronoCube]

Since a deer isn't going to shoot back at you, you can take your time to put down a precise shot, such as to the heart or lung. In the heat of combat, that is not so easy.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

So then why is it that the same people who say the .223 is ineffective against deer would so readily carry the same round into a combat situation against a 150-200 pound man bent on their destruction?

Because we don't have a freepin' choice! Robert MacNamara didn't ask us grunts when he foisted the M16 on us.

 

[SomeDude]

Point taken Mr.Humphrey.

 

[Mandolin]

Originally Posted by W L Johnson

Originally Posted by Inspector
Remember also that in war, the object is to injure a person badly enough so it will take two other people to take that person off the battlefield.

I wish this myth would go away.

Me too, man, me too.

+1 to that I hate teh moronic idea that .223 is designed to wound rather than kill, thus taking up more enemy resorces. Enemy wounded are still capable of shooting back, and no soldier is going to enter combat with ammo that can't kill. Why don't we just issue Tasers and capture all the enemy soldiers?