M855 thoughts

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: Robenstein
Not to mention laws in many states don't allow it, especially were the deer tend to be a big better fed and bigger.


And there is a very good reason for that.

 

[punisher]

Originally Posted By: Robenstein
In that case a 243 winchester tends to be the small caliber high velocity cartridge of choice.


243 is really underrated. Just a great all around varmint to medium size game cartridge. Seriously, in S TX we have guys that think a 7mag is minimum size for our little white tails. You just shake your head sometimes.

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: hatt
I was in the same camp not that long ago. Times change.


Times may change, but the cartridge, along with it's ballistics haven't. It's the same varmint and small game cartridge it was a over a half century ago.

 

[hatt]

Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: hatt
I was in the same camp not that long ago. Times change.


Times may change, but the cartridge, along with it's ballistics haven't. It's the same varmint and small game cartridge it was a over a half century ago.
Bullets do all the work. Cartridge simply holds primer/powder/bullet together in a convenient package. Bullet tech is light years ahead of what we had 50 years ago.

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: hatt
Bullets do all the work. Cartridge simply holds primer/powder/bullet together in a convenient package. Bullet tech is light years ahead of what we had 50 years ago.


True to a point. But the reality of it is the .223 is still a high performance .22, nothing more. There are far better, and more legal, cartridges one can hunt deer sized game with. Just because something "can do it", doesn't make it the best choice to do it with. You must remember the same advancement in bullet technology also applies across the board to the larger calibers as well. The fact of the matter is a .243 or .25-06 is a much better choice for deer sized game than the .223 will ever hope to be.

You must also remember that in war, it is better to wound than it is to kill. A wounded soldier takes other soldiers out of the fight, and costs more in manpower and money to care for, than one who is shot dead on the spot. The .223 shines in that department.

 

[hatt]

Deer can only be killed so dead. So a cartridge that makes a deer dead is just as good as the next. Other rounds may be more versatile but not necessarily better if all you need is what a .223 offers. The same argument applies to one of the most popular deer rounds ever. The .30-30. Clearly on paper the .30-30 is far inferior to the .30-06/.308/.270/hundreds of others. In the real world, so what. If your long shots are 100 yards having a round that performs better at 400 yards doesn't make it better. The "more legal" is meaningless. It's either legal or not. Most states it's legal. Can a .223 do everything a .243 can? Of course not. Can you practice with a .243 for $6/box. No you can not.

Your last point is simply more old wives tales. Next you'll tell me how .45 ball knocks enemy down to stay.

 

[hatt]

http://www.northamericanwhitetail.com/ammo/223-remington-viable-deer-cartridge/

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: hatt
Can a .223 do everything a .243 can? Of course not.


Then why would you even consider it for deer, when a .243 is a marginal choice? To save $5 bucks a box on practice ammo? That's ridiculous. As "inferior" as the .30-30 is compared to the .30-06, .308, and .270 for deer, it rates far above the .223. Especially for close in woods shots under 150 yards, where most deer are taken. So again, why would you choose something so inferior, when there are so many better choices in a centerfire deer cartridge? No matter how "good" you think it is, or you try to make it, any other cartridge is a better choice. Which means you're choosing an inferior cartridge by choice. That's not applying very good logic.

 

[Robenstein]

223 can indeed kill a deer. It is not really just a question of legality, but making a humane and efficient kill. A 223 is really on the very edge of not being able to do that. If you MUST use a 223 I would definitely do it up close as the round really becomes increasingly inefficient with distance because it relies on the high velocity small caliber principle.

There was a guy in Alaska that killed a polar/grizzy crossbread bear with a Colt SP1 chambered in 5.56/223. Only took 20 rounds! So does that make it a good bear round?

If you want a cheap dear gun that is cheap to practice with, I would rather have a 7.62x39mm.

 

[bsmithwins]

Originally Posted By: hatt
Deer can only be killed so dead. So a cartridge that makes a deer dead is just as good as the next.


Yes, but...

A cartridge with more killing power (penetration/energy/tissue destruction) gives you a reserve if your shot misses the vital organ or large blood vessels.

Can .223 put down deer? Yes. But, because it's low power in comparison to other common cartridges, your shot placement has to be much more exacting to get a humane kill.

I detest wounding animals.

BSW

 

[hatt]

There is no ideal round under all conditions. Every round is a tradeoff. If you have a .223 and know how to use it, you'll be fine. If you have a 7mm mag and are dumb you'll have problems. No one has presented any factual evidence as to why a .223 with premium bullets and suitable conditions is a bad choice.

 

[Robenstein]

I am not saying it is bad...as if you are out starving in the woods it will put food in your stomach. But it is on the bottom tier of center fire rifle cartridges for the job as are others like the 22 Hornet, 222Rem, and even the much faster 220 Swift.

The issue is really the rapid loss of energy over distance and the poor penetration performance of these HVSC when they hit things like bone. They tend to fragment (at close ranges especially), which may hinder damage to vital organs. You will still get a kill, just a messy one.

You could do worse I suppose....like the .30 M1 Carbine round.

But feel free to use what you want within the limits set by your state for hunting. I have found the best balance is usually found in the 25 caliber rounds. My fav being the very flat and sweet shooting 6.5x55 Swede,

 

[chevrofreak]

I've shot thousands of rounds of ZQI 5.56, and it is very reliable and accurate ammunition for the money.

 

[hatt]

Originally Posted By: Robenstein
I am not saying it is bad...as if you are out starving in the woods it will put food in your stomach. But it is on the bottom tier of center fire rifle cartridges for the job as are others like the 22 Hornet, 222Rem, and even the much faster 220 Swift.

The issue is really the rapid loss of energy over distance and the poor penetration performance of these HVSC when they hit things like bone. They tend to fragment (at close ranges especially), which may hinder damage to vital organs. You will still get a kill, just a messy one.

You could do worse I suppose....like the .30 M1 Carbine round.

But feel free to use what you want within the limits set by your state for hunting. I have found the best balance is usually found in the 25 caliber rounds. My fav being the very flat and sweet shooting 6.5x55 Swede,
You're saying a Barnes TSX/Fed Fusion/etc will fragment and not penetrate on deer sized game? I have never seen it. You're talking about old out of date tech. A 6.5 Swede is nice but it doesn't fit in a micro Mauser or AR15 and have almost no recoil and have $6 boxes of ammo. The M1 carbine is also capable in certain situations. Power is similar to a .357 mag. A .357 carbine is clearly capable as a short range deer round.

 

[Robenstein]

Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: Robenstein
I am not saying it is bad...as if you are out starving in the woods it will put food in your stomach. But it is on the bottom tier of center fire rifle cartridges for the job as are others like the 22 Hornet, 222Rem, and even the much faster 220 Swift.

The issue is really the rapid loss of energy over distance and the poor penetration performance of these HVSC when they hit things like bone. They tend to fragment (at close ranges especially), which may hinder damage to vital organs. You will still get a kill, just a messy one.

You could do worse I suppose....like the .30 M1 Carbine round.

But feel free to use what you want within the limits set by your state for hunting. I have found the best balance is usually found in the 25 caliber rounds. My fav being the very flat and sweet shooting 6.5x55 Swede,
You're saying a Barnes TSX/Fed Fusion/etc will fragment and not penetrate on deer sized game? I have never seen it. You're talking about old out of date tech. A 6.5 Swede is nice but it doesn't fit in a micro Mauser or AR15 and have almost no recoil and have $6 boxes of ammo. The M1 carbine is also capable in certain situations. Power is similar to a .357 mag. A .357 carbine is clearly capable as a short range deer round.


Like I said...it will work, just has to be short range. Jeez! Even with a solid barnes bullet you are still scrubbing off energy fast with the 223 and it becomes increasingly marginal with distance. Even the heavy 5.56 rounds have had complaints on putting down two legged prey at distance, let alone deer.

Again....give me a 7.62x39mm for a "cheap 6 dollar a box" gun anyday for medium sized game. Out to 150 yards it does just as well as the old 30-30, and puts a bigger hole in the food.

Guess I am just used to shooting the darned things at 200 plus yards with my old 303 Enfield. I see no reason to make it more of a challenge to kill an animal humanely. Rather have it go down hard and fast than bleed out.

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: hatt
You're talking about old out of date tech.


I don't care how much "tech" you pump into a .223, it's still a .22, and always will be. Technological advancement applies to all calibers and bullets. Not just .223. And none of it will make a deer cartridge out of a varmint round. Which is what the .223 in fact is.