With a WW soft point or Barnes x bullet I'd trust my AR to take a deer (though it's not legal here in CO, we have minimum calibers). But Elk? Nope. BIG mulie? I'd think twice.
Whiletail or antelope, no problem.
Whiletail or antelope, no problem.
The .223 paradox
- Thread starter SomeDude
- Start date
- Status
I would say it comes down to the fact that deer (and most animals in general) are tougher than humans and able to function much longer/better while terminally injured. Shoot a deer, hog, or hell...even a squirrel and it is likely to run farther faster than a human with an equivalent wound. In short, Humans are wusses.
all that said, I am confident that I can put a shot where it needs to go to do the job and would have no hesitation hunting with a .223.
all that said, I am confident that I can put a shot where it needs to go to do the job and would have no hesitation hunting with a .223.
Ed Ames
Member
Deer hunting is far closer to sniping than infantry fighting. Hunting arms tend to be similar to sniper weapons, not infantry weapons, for that reason.
When you wage war using an infantry, you use groups of coordinated attackers and you try to maneuver your opponent into areas with limited lines of retreat. When you take a shot at a soldier, they are as likely to move towards part of your group as away and if you design your attack correctly they will be vulnerable to follow up shots whichever way they move. That means you can continue the engagement well past the first shot and each individual shot is less important than your ability to continue engaging. Small/light cartridges, lots of ammo, and quick follow up shots will win the day. Example: .223
When you hunt, you are a single attacker facing an opponent with clear lines of retreat. At your first shot the deer can take off and once they are out of sight *nobody* is there to make a follow-up shot. At the same time, the sound of the shot will warn off other deer in the area, lowering the odds of a second chance. So your first shot must count. Larger/more powerful cartridges, good optics, and long range accuracy will win the day. Example: .300 Win Mag. (note: that's a joke...I don't think .300 win mag is needed to hunt deer.)
Last edited:
mljdeckard
Member
Following what Ed has said, another way to look at it,
When I am shooting game, I want it as well-preserved as possible. When I'm killing bad guys I want them so bullet-riddled as to be unrecognizeable. Especially if it's one of my petite female soldiers who is putting the bad guy down.
When I am shooting game, I want it as well-preserved as possible. When I'm killing bad guys I want them so bullet-riddled as to be unrecognizeable. Especially if it's one of my petite female soldiers who is putting the bad guy down.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Hollow points and softnose bullets were developed by the British in the 1890s. They had noticed their new .303 cartridge, while flat shooting, smokeless and so on was not a "stopper." The problem was turned over to Captain Bertie Davies at Dum Dum Arsenal in India. By shortening the cup used to make the jacket, and inserting bullet and core into the forming die backward, Davies developed the soft nose bullet -- known from then on as a "dum dum."
The Royal Arsenal at Enfield, adopting the Not Invented Here approach, looked at Bertie Davies' development and took a different approach, developing a hollow point, which was actually issued to British troops. Some of this ammunition was used (accidentally, the British claimed) in the Boer War (1899 - 1901) and the Dutch and Germans (friendly to the Boers) raised holy hell. The British quit issuing it.
In Viet Nam, we used .22 LR pistols for various purposes, including exploring tunnels (you wouldn't want to fire a .45 in such an enclosed space) and the same complaints arose from the holier-than-thou crowd and we actually had to develop a full metal jacket bullet for the .22 LR.
Which proves that Democrats were working hard to reduce our military
(disarmament) even back in the 1960's. .308 to 5.56
Vikingsoftpaw
Member
Shot placement is the key, along with reasonable range. Speer make a good 70 grain softpoint, Barnes also has some solid copper allow bullets. A slug that will not expand uncontrollably is a definite requirement. Many deer have been taken with .22 Hornet Rifles. In Alaska it is legal to take caribou with .17 calibers Centerfires
If there is a difference in the numbers, I'm sure that would have more to do with differences in medical technology(the discovery of a helpful fungus for one), surgical techniques and other factors completely unrelated to ballistic performance differences.
The military does not use the caliber because it is the most effective caliber at dropping the target in one shot. That is a requirement of humane hunting on the other hand.
So it is often not considered an ideal hunting round. It can work, but not as well as calibers people traditionally use for legal, humane, deer hunting.
If hunters gave 3 round bursts to deer then .223 would be just fine in most circumstances.
That was the intent of the 5.56x45 round early on when it was adopted. Selective fire being controllable in a cartridge that could defeat soviet body armor of the time.
Selective fire use may have been the intent during adoption, but the logic for keeping it has changed.
It is a round that is very easy to train new soldiers with. It shoots very flat, greatly reducing the requirements of the soldier in calculating shots.
It has minimal recoil, great for soldiers who vary greatly in stature.
It is a small overall cartridge while still capable of doing the job. Enabling higher capacity magazines of reasonable size and reduced weight per round.
Reduced weight per round is extremely important in combat. Not so important to a hunter. A hunter with a handful of very deadly shots is much more effective. A soldier needs enough ammo to last through an extensive firefight, not only for shooting at the target but providing cover, and will need to carry all of that ammo on thier backs while hiking for many miles. The ammunition needs to make it to the firefight to be of any value, and they can only carry so much weight in ammo in addition to other gear.
Many rounds of suppressive fire can be much more effective than a few that are a bit more deadly while moving in a fire team.
You get the highest efficiency of weight vs ballistics per round with light fast rounds.
Smokeless powder is light, copper, lead and brass (among other materials like steel and tungsten) is not.
So a small projectile that generates acceptable energy from high velocity is simply the most efficient for soldiers.
In addition the smaller round requires less lead, brass, and copper to manufacture. So it stretches raw materials much further, while not being that much less effective.
So it is a great compromise for a soldier, and a horrible compromise for a hunter. The hunter wants every round to be deadly and loses far less by sacrificing reduced weight, capacity, and other factors for increased deadliness per round.
A hunter ideally wants a single round to reliably put an end to the animal in minimal time. With minimal pain, minimal suffering, and not requiring follow up shots. With additional power for greater margin of error. Some also don't want thier trophy ruined, or reduced bragging rights. Multiple shots on the same animal do that.
War is not about being humane or sporting with a limited resource, hunting is.
So it is often not considered an ideal hunting round. It can work, but not as well as calibers people traditionally use for legal, humane, deer hunting.
If hunters gave 3 round bursts to deer then .223 would be just fine in most circumstances.
That was the intent of the 5.56x45 round early on when it was adopted. Selective fire being controllable in a cartridge that could defeat soviet body armor of the time.
Selective fire use may have been the intent during adoption, but the logic for keeping it has changed.
It is a round that is very easy to train new soldiers with. It shoots very flat, greatly reducing the requirements of the soldier in calculating shots.
It has minimal recoil, great for soldiers who vary greatly in stature.
It is a small overall cartridge while still capable of doing the job. Enabling higher capacity magazines of reasonable size and reduced weight per round.
Reduced weight per round is extremely important in combat. Not so important to a hunter. A hunter with a handful of very deadly shots is much more effective. A soldier needs enough ammo to last through an extensive firefight, not only for shooting at the target but providing cover, and will need to carry all of that ammo on thier backs while hiking for many miles. The ammunition needs to make it to the firefight to be of any value, and they can only carry so much weight in ammo in addition to other gear.
Many rounds of suppressive fire can be much more effective than a few that are a bit more deadly while moving in a fire team.
You get the highest efficiency of weight vs ballistics per round with light fast rounds.
Smokeless powder is light, copper, lead and brass (among other materials like steel and tungsten) is not.
So a small projectile that generates acceptable energy from high velocity is simply the most efficient for soldiers.
In addition the smaller round requires less lead, brass, and copper to manufacture. So it stretches raw materials much further, while not being that much less effective.
So it is a great compromise for a soldier, and a horrible compromise for a hunter. The hunter wants every round to be deadly and loses far less by sacrificing reduced weight, capacity, and other factors for increased deadliness per round.
A hunter ideally wants a single round to reliably put an end to the animal in minimal time. With minimal pain, minimal suffering, and not requiring follow up shots. With additional power for greater margin of error. Some also don't want thier trophy ruined, or reduced bragging rights. Multiple shots on the same animal do that.
War is not about being humane or sporting with a limited resource, hunting is.
Also outside of hunting, even if military like firefights are a consideration, a vehicle normally carries a civilian's rounds near to the destination.
So they can have hundreds or thousands of much more effective rounds at hand because added weight per round is not much of a limitation. A soldier needs to be able to carry all of thier ammo on thier backs. So they need to sacrifice power for quantity. A civilian in a home or other fixed location, or near thier vehicle does not have that limitation. Though they may have other safety and penetration considerations.
So even say a SWAT paramilitary type team, (whatever the local PD title is) has very different criteria and limitations.
Weight per round though is not high on the list, while it is one of the most important aspects for the military.
Just because it is the best round in the widest number of circumstances for soldiers does not make it the best round for many other uses. Whether for use against hostile people or animals.
So they can have hundreds or thousands of much more effective rounds at hand because added weight per round is not much of a limitation. A soldier needs to be able to carry all of thier ammo on thier backs. So they need to sacrifice power for quantity. A civilian in a home or other fixed location, or near thier vehicle does not have that limitation. Though they may have other safety and penetration considerations.
So even say a SWAT paramilitary type team, (whatever the local PD title is) has very different criteria and limitations.
Weight per round though is not high on the list, while it is one of the most important aspects for the military.
Just because it is the best round in the widest number of circumstances for soldiers does not make it the best round for many other uses. Whether for use against hostile people or animals.
Officers'Wife
Member
Hi Blakenezy,
And it could be being hit in the shoulder or leg with an expanding projectile destroys so much tissue reconstruction is not possible was also a large factor. Post op infections that would be the use of your fungus was not addressed, only the initial damage to flesh and bone.
And it could be being hit in the shoulder or leg with an expanding projectile destroys so much tissue reconstruction is not possible was also a large factor. Post op infections that would be the use of your fungus was not addressed, only the initial damage to flesh and bone.
Ed Ames
Member
Something most folks nowadays don't realize is that before the mid-20th century all sorts of 'routine' injuries (broken bones for example) frequently led to amputation. Infections kill, and before antibiotics came about amputation was one of the main means of treating infections.
ChCx2744
Member
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2008
- Messages
- 1,228
I disagree. That enemy is still a potential threat in the future. I still care about what COULD happen if I allow the enemy to live. If I am using deadly force against an enemy, the "object" and my goal is not to improvise and injure them; My intent is to use the purpose built tool in my hands and provide the gentleman on the receiving end a nice, long dirt nap.
Officers'Wife
Member
When my husband went to Iraq, one of the things I told him was if he saw a knife, empty the magazine and to hell with the Geneva Convention. I've said it twice so far, should he be sent to Afghanistan I'll repeat it the third time.
doberman
Member
Somewhat apples to oranges but I'll add anyway.
I've had quite a number of discussions about the "ethics etc." of using the .223 for harvesting deer. I rarely entertain the question anymore, and the discussion usally ends when I say bow hunters lob arrows at deer every season and that seems to take deer just fine doesn't it?
And no. I don't hunt deer with .223.
2 pennies.
I've had quite a number of discussions about the "ethics etc." of using the .223 for harvesting deer. I rarely entertain the question anymore, and the discussion usally ends when I say bow hunters lob arrows at deer every season and that seems to take deer just fine doesn't it?
And no. I don't hunt deer with .223.
2 pennies.
When I was in highschool, I was a passenger in my uncle's pickup when we struck a large, 8 point buck. The animal's back was broken but it was still dragging itself accross a field. We caught up to it and my uncle dispatched it with one shot to the head with a .22lr pistol from about 20 feet away. A .223 with proper bullet selection and placement will no doubt humanely kill a deer.
BADUNAME37
Member
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2008
- Messages
- 4,434
I disagree. That enemy is still a potential threat in the future. I still care about what COULD happen if I allow the enemy to live. If I am using deadly force against an enemy, the "object" and my goal is not to improvise and injure them; My intent is to use the purpose built tool in my hands and provide the gentleman on the receiving end a nice, long dirt nap.
I made that statement, and now I also disagree.
I made that statement on false information I received when I used to watch TV.
That is one reason why I don't ever have the cable anymore for TV. So, I cannot watch it!
I TOTALLY agree with you. The .223 is used in military purposes to NOT kill the enemy. The reason being is because it takes 1-2 more soldiers to carry off a wounded fighter. If you kill the fighter than those 1-2 soldiers are still there to return fire.
Look at the evolution of military cartriges over the ages. They used to carry the big 30/06. In Vietnam the kill to shot ratio was abismal. It's all about carrying as much ammo as they can carry. Soldiers are notoriously bad shots, as a group.
Look at the evolution of military cartriges over the ages. They used to carry the big 30/06. In Vietnam the kill to shot ratio was abismal. It's all about carrying as much ammo as they can carry. Soldiers are notoriously bad shots, as a group.
The acuracy problam in Vietnam has several causes, IMO
1. It's a jungle out there. Literaly. I don't care who you are, spray-and pray will seem atractive when you can't see 20 feet and litle green men are shooting at you.
2. human waves. when 1,000 VC charge your position, are you going to calmly shoot semi-auto while they charge, screaming and firing AKs? I thought not.
3. helecopter gunships. The are great, but with a pair of miniguns on the wings plus the door guns, that's a lot of ammo going downrange. And, if you hit them, 20-some rounds were expended. helecopters are good at raining lead from the sky, not all of it hits.
4. training There needs to be more of it. Have you noticed that EVRYBODY has full-auto weapons today? With the exeption of India (the INAS assault rifle) and us (M16A2/A4) all other nations have ful-auto infantry weapons. Even the British, who thought during the Cold War that facing down AK-74-armed Russians with semi-auto FALs was a vialbe policy, adopted the L85. Full-auto is great, but you need to control it. for long range, use semi. For shorter range or when facing mass atacks, use full-auto. In between, fire bursts on full-auto.
1. It's a jungle out there. Literaly. I don't care who you are, spray-and pray will seem atractive when you can't see 20 feet and litle green men are shooting at you.
2. human waves. when 1,000 VC charge your position, are you going to calmly shoot semi-auto while they charge, screaming and firing AKs? I thought not.
3. helecopter gunships. The are great, but with a pair of miniguns on the wings plus the door guns, that's a lot of ammo going downrange. And, if you hit them, 20-some rounds were expended. helecopters are good at raining lead from the sky, not all of it hits.
4. training There needs to be more of it. Have you noticed that EVRYBODY has full-auto weapons today? With the exeption of India (the INAS assault rifle) and us (M16A2/A4) all other nations have ful-auto infantry weapons. Even the British, who thought during the Cold War that facing down AK-74-armed Russians with semi-auto FALs was a vialbe policy, adopted the L85. Full-auto is great, but you need to control it. for long range, use semi. For shorter range or when facing mass atacks, use full-auto. In between, fire bursts on full-auto.
Vern Humphrey
Member
The proper solution is to visualize where the enemy might be and thoroughly cover that area with aimed fire. I used to conduct an exercise in my company to teach that.
You're kidding, right?
I was in a fight or two -- and that ain't what happens. There is no "human wave." There are small groups, well-orgainized with specific objectives -- a lot of small groups. And the way to deal with them is to kill them. To kill them, you have to hit them -- and that means well-aimed fire, not spray-and-pray.
Go back to Vern's entries. He was a Company Commander much like mine, Capt Daugherty. Aimed controlled fire is better especially when resupply is impossible and your ammo is going to run low. March 5th,69, my company was surronded by about 2000 NVA(66th).There was a wave but not massive.Controlled fire repells along with claymores and controlled use of a 60 along with discipline our CO hammered into us. I would not want to have been beside a man spaying and praying.Our CO made it clear to stay on semi and it is more productive fire. The 16 could fire a magazine too quickly.
I liked the 16 and the M193 round.I was there in 68-69 and all worked well.The NVA had some drugged up and they did not feel the pain.There is no 100% stop them in their tracks bullet.
The myth about wounding and it takes 3 out defies logic. In the middle of a fight, wounded cannot be attened to as that takes a rifle out of the fight.When it is over, the wounded can be helped.
Byron
I liked the 16 and the M193 round.I was there in 68-69 and all worked well.The NVA had some drugged up and they did not feel the pain.There is no 100% stop them in their tracks bullet.
The myth about wounding and it takes 3 out defies logic. In the middle of a fight, wounded cannot be attened to as that takes a rifle out of the fight.When it is over, the wounded can be helped.
Byron
MachIVshooter
Member
That pretty much sums it up. This debate would have more merit if Snipers were forced to use 5.56mm. But they don't; they use .300 win mag, .338 Lapua, .408 Chey-tac, .50 BMG............all rounds that most of us would consider overkill on a 200-300 lb deer.
I would personally much rather go into combat with an M4 than my Remington 700 BDL .375 RUM. Is the 250 grain bullet at 3070 FPS more lethal than a 62 grainer at the same velocity? Of course. Do I want such a heavy recoiling and cumbersome weapon and rounds that are 4 times as heavy as 5.56mm if I'm gonna have to manuever and fire many, many rounds at an intelligent enemy that know's he's in combat? hell no.
Last edited:
Redneck with a 40
Member
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2006
- Messages
- 2,273
With good soft point ammo, the .223 would work well for anti-personnel work. Loaded with FMJ's, its next to worthless, punches tiny little holes, like the 9mm.
Having said that, I think the 6.8 SPC is the answer. The military is so entrenched in the 5.56, they didn't even give it serious consideration.
I recently bought a mini-14 in .223 and love it, but I think a mini in 6.8 SPC would be really cool too.
I also think the .223 loaded with 70 grain soft points, would be a good whitetail load, out to 100 yards.
Having said that, I think the 6.8 SPC is the answer. The military is so entrenched in the 5.56, they didn't even give it serious consideration.
I recently bought a mini-14 in .223 and love it, but I think a mini in 6.8 SPC would be really cool too.
I also think the .223 loaded with 70 grain soft points, would be a good whitetail load, out to 100 yards.
W L Johnson
Member
Little holes like the 9mm, compared to what? Same size hole as the .38 & .357. Just 1mm smaller than the .40 and 10mm, and just 2mm smaller than the .45. And as far as the 5.56 FMJ being worthless, check out some wound data before making a statement like that.
Redneck with a 40
Member
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2006
- Messages
- 2,273
You're right, I didn't consider the yaw effect of .223 FMJ, as long as the velocity is sufficient.
- Status
Similar threads
