PDA

View Full Version : Curiousity, a terrible thing.


elkman06
April 9, 2008, 09:34 PM
Not really wanting to start an argument or flamefest but I've noticed a disturbing trend IMHO.
I've been noticing the number of posts lately where individuals are asking about inferior calibers beyond what conventional wisdom or experience(and sometimes state laws), suggest being adequate killing calibers. This applies to the handgun group as well as the rifle group equally.
I wonder why anyone would go on a hunt, undergunned, intentionally, and maybe illegally, just to see if it could be done.
I truly see this as casting a bad light, and or unethical actions on us, the sport hunting crowd.
I think we have a moral responsibility to dispatch our prey quickly, humanely, and effectively. This at least makes us appear to be serious and professional about what we are doing.
We don't need to give the tree hugging, gun hating, vegans any more ammo than they already have, do we?
elkman06

Scorch
April 10, 2008, 01:12 AM
I wonder what our forefathers would have thought about our magnum-loving hunters. Possibly they would have loved the idea, maybe hated it. I was raised at a time when the 270 was king, the 30-06 was everywhere, but there were still quite a few older rounds that seem to have disappeared since then. 30-30, 25-35, 44-40, 401 WSL, 351 WSL, 300 Savage, 30 Remington, all of these are considered marginal on deer nowadays, but our grandparents killed thousands of deer with them, no problems. I agree that we need to make sure we dispatch our prey humanely and quickly, but I also think that too many people have been brainwashed into thinking you need a cannon to kill deer. As I have pointed out repeatedly, 100 years ago, the 32-20 was considered a great deer round and the 30-30 was a high-powered cannon, and the new round was the 30-06. Deer haven't gotten any tougher, we just think firepower is the answer.

Yithian
April 10, 2008, 03:05 AM
The problem isn't bullet diameter any longer.
The problem is shooters that wanna-be hunters.

Hunting is a sport. It is a challenge a person provides themselves.
It should be treated as such.
Not as a video-game.

I hunt deer with a 204Rug.
It isn't easy and it isn't supposed to be.
Modern technology in bullet manufacture is making it easier, but that perfect shot is still the challenge.
Having a V-max explode in a deers ear-hole is just as deadly as the hasty 45-70 in its brisket.
If I miss, the V-max still shatters the skull, or the deer cleanly runs away.

I treat it as my grandfather did. A sport.

And, yes. The thought of just wounding an animal causes great disturbance with me. And, I don't break the law.

One just has to remember: Experience must be learned, not taught.
Patience is something I learned by fishing as a kid. It is most used by me as a hunter.

The point for me here is, it isn't an ethics issue.
Ethics is the Politically Correct term. "Conventional Wisdom" can fall into this same category.
I hunt for the challenge and for the meat.

To "hunt" as if it were an arcade, is disrespectful to the sport.
That is the problem we face. People who have never learned, and don't wish to.
IMO.

lon371
April 10, 2008, 04:58 AM
+1 ^^^^^^^

I agree with the abillity of the shooter as an issue, instead of the chosen round of the day. I here stories every year (another one got away wounded) USING A 12 GUAGE SLUG! Not a round issue.

elkman06
April 10, 2008, 08:01 AM
Hmm, solid discourse, just what I had hoped for.

Interesting enough, I agree w/ most of what you guys have said, hunting is now a 3d Cabelas game, not a 5hr spot and stalk. At least for many people.
I also have to realize that my perspective is different than many, particularly back east and down south.
I hunt 600lb elk w/ a typical crosswind upwards of 20 mph. Not German Shepherd size animals at close proximity. The .204 and 10mm aren't up to that challenge, not to mention illegal, here.
I too agree that many have become enamored w/ the magnums. I have one, which pretty much is a safe queen. I like my 06. My grandfathers were 270 and .300 Savage fans, respectively.
One point about our forefathers though. They didn't get too serious about large animals w/ their 30/30s. They broke out the 45/70's and up, didn't they guys? Buff hunters knew they had to have something better for a large animal. The great herds of the 1800's were killed off by commercial hunters who used large firepower.
elkman06

Art Eatman
April 10, 2008, 08:10 AM
Repeating myself: Many of us here are serious hunters/shooters. We're not, generally, the average Joe Normal who shoots maybe one box of shells a year, and hunts two or five weekends only.

What ol' Joe can do isn't the same as what a lot of us can do or have done.

My first instinct when the "Can a .223 kill an XXX?" question shows up is to think of ol' Joe, not Harry Highskill.

There is just so much more to this whole hunting thing than the cartridge.

Yithian, I think your video-game comment is apt, for newbie hunters in today's world...

Art

deanadell
April 10, 2008, 09:01 AM
I hunt 600lb elk w/ a typical crosswind upwards of 20 mph. Not German Shepherd size animals at close proximity.

This is another good point. There is a "regional issue" that needs to be addressed , and usually is, in these thread...."Where are you planning to hunt"

When someone asks "Can I hunt with my SKS?"...if you're down here in the Southeast where deer run small and ranges are short, then absolutely. If you're west of the Mississipppi and plan to hunt Mule Deer or Elk at extended ranges.....then, no, you are probaby well undergunned.

bhw4235
April 10, 2008, 11:57 AM
I agree with almost everything said here.That Everyone should know the gun they are useing and what it is capable of. There is no substitution for a well placed shot.Comon sense should prevail.:)

castnblast
April 10, 2008, 09:05 PM
I'm repeating myself too...See this tissue damage for yourself...tell me that is marginal...I dare you to...:D http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=233844&highlight=tissue+damage+graphic

RedneckFur
April 10, 2008, 10:22 PM
Castnblast, thanks for the pics. They're worth a thousand words. :) I've seen very similar damage done with the .223, but I hear all the time "its not enough gun" I think alot of the .223 deer that get away are shot with milsurp FMJ ammo. A good hollowpoint will kill them just fine.

I'd rather see a competent marksman hit a deer in the vitials and kill it with a .223 than I would Mr. Supermag gutshoot it with a flinched shot from a .300winmag from the ultralight rifle(that field and stream said you simply MUST have) and then have to follow it for the next 1/4 mile.

Being a good hunter is about being observant, being quiet, knowing your game animal, and being a good marksman with your rifle of choice. Add to that a healthy dose of common sense and you'll find that you'll be a very sucessful hunter.

I'm from the Southeastern US, home to the smaller sized whitetails. I know many, many hunters who do not shoot well. A suprisingly large portion of that group seem to think that the answer to their problem is not to pratice with their rifle, but instead to get a bigger, harder hitting caliber. They refuse to consider that mabey they are missing the target, and assume that their 30/30 or .270 "isnt enough gun". Left untreated, you'll have guys going after 150lb deer with belted weatherby magnums. The deer have nothing to fear, because most of the time these guys have a flinch so bad it registers on the richter scale.

I used to think seeing hunters with "scope bites" on their forhead was funny, but now I think its sad. Last deer season I even heard a group of southern deer hunters getting all hot and bothered by the balistics of the .338 winchester cartridge. :barf:

If those same hunters used the money they spent on supermags and bought themselves a used levergun or turnbolt .243, and spend the rest of the cash on pratice ammo, the'd miss far fewer deer.

aaalaska
April 11, 2008, 12:38 AM
regional issues may have a lot to do with caliber choices ,while our blacktails aren't hard to kill the visitor you get while dressing or packing on Kodiak or many other areas here generally keep people from hunting with light calibers.

bcarver
April 11, 2008, 01:32 AM
I have seen the scars of what a 223 can do. I don't underestimate it.
I agree with your comments on the post.
When is the .223 the best round for the job?
Is a .270 win in the same spot going to be better?
Who can't take the recoil of a 95 grain .243/6mm from a short action gun?
Can larger calibers (7mm) be as accurate as a .223?

These four questions if answered honestly will lead you to choose something other than those small rounds for animals larger than 60 lbs.

PS the answers in my eyes are never,yes,nobody and pretty much.

taylorce1
April 11, 2008, 02:10 AM
One point about our forefathers though. They didn't get too serious about large animals w/ their 30/30s. They broke out the 45/70's and up, didn't they guys? Buff hunters knew they had to have something better for a large animal. The great herds of the 1800's were killed off by commercial hunters who used large firepower.

While I'm pretty sure the .30-30 has been used to take down many of large animals, but I don't think it was around during the time of the buffalo hunters. Most of the great buffalo herds were killed off by 1884 and the .30-30 wasn't developed until the 1890's. I understand your point very well about using the right tool for the job though but a .38-55 or .44-40 would have been a better analogy.

My biggest problem is why limit yourself to something as small as the .204 or .223 for deer sized game. If you want a challenge break out the bow or the old smoke pole. They both have less range than the .223 or .204 and require even greater stalking skills and self discipline to use IMO.

I have some large caliber rifles but only one can be considered a magnum cartridge. I pretty much stick to .30-06/.308 based cartridges and the only one out side that is my .375 Ruger. I might try it for elk this year but I know I don't need it as I've killed most of my elk deer and pronghorn with the .270 Win.

Yithian
April 11, 2008, 02:33 AM
When is the .223 the best round for the job?
Is a .270 win in the same spot going to be better?
Who can't take the recoil of a 95 grain .243/6mm from a short action gun?
Can larger calibers (7mm) be as accurate as a .223?

...The answers in my eyes are never,yes,nobody and pretty much.


I don't mean to be weird on you or anything but You are exactly my point.

"When is the .223 the best round for the job?"
When Technology and Budget collide.
I work at Walmart and am recently divorced. I can't afford much, so in reloading, smaller is cheaper.
Accuracy and patience make the difference in a good hunter.

"Is a .270 win in the same spot going to be better?"
Nope.
Here is a true story of a friend.
300WinMag at 100 yards to a deers head. Blows lower jaw off and well, half its skull.
The deer got up and ran farther off.
Took another shot from same rifle at 200 yards in the brisket.
Got to the deer and it was still alive and wanted to get up and run away.
45ACP to the head/mess/whatever.
It was a learning experience. Those bullets may work well in other calibers, but not the 300WinMag at those ranges.
180gr Sierra GameKings.
I know! Go figure.:rolleyes:

"Who can't take the recoil of a 95 grain .243/6mm from a short action gun?"
Many disabled persons.
Just because you may be disabled would not exclude you from hunting....would it?

"Can larger calibers (7mm) be as accurate as a .223?"
A weird question that doesn't apply....
Accuracy takes way more into account than just caliber.

I appreciate your opinion, but you are what I was meaning buy forcing "ethics" or "common knowledge" on other hunters.
Caliber isn't an issue in my mind as a hunter.
It is people who wanna-be hunters but don't want to understand what it is to hunt.

I must learn what I am capable of, what my rifle is capable of, what my load is capable of, and what my bullet is capable of.
Then I must learn my prey.
Then learn about that specific animal within that species.
Watch that animal.
What spooks it? How long is it still when spooked?
Why it is there? What are its intervals of looking-out?
Is the shot available in the pauses?
Always be ready for a follow-up shot.

These are things I have learned.
It takes experience, including errors, in order to learn.

If what I say isn't true, then please explain to me why archery is allowed, but a .223 is too small a caliber.
Any time someone mentions caliber, and declares it too small to hunt with, I know they are video-game hunters.
They aren't interested in hunting, they are interested in trophies and prestige.
Bigger is preferred, but not always attained.
There is a difference between Hunting and Killing.
Caliber size has remarkably little to do with Hunting.

And to deanadell, (lol, ouch) That's defence in fear of life... after hunting.
Be sure not to hunt alone, and carry large caliber back-up firearms.

Side note:
If someone was willing to pay for it all, I would gladly take the challenge of a hunt on a bear with my 204Rug.
Within a hundred yards, and a good angle, I could pop its eye with a Hornady 45gr soft point.
(Tred Barta is nuttz, but I do idolize him somewhat.)
Are they very edible? I tend to taste what I harvest.
I will need time to study the species. Sight, hearing, sense of smell, etc.

elkman06
April 11, 2008, 09:00 AM
Ha,,, I almost said 44.40 there Taylorace. Just wasn't sure everyone would understand the difference I was trying to make.
I just hope that the new/average skill, hunter here does not fall into the trap that "Joe, so and so said" I could use a .204 on deer w/o the skills to do so.
Conventional wisdom is always pointed at using what you are accurate and comfortable with. that being said, when a new hunter posts up that he is going to start hunting there is always a fairly large group who chime in about their .223 and how great it is. Well, maybe for them, but not necessarily for the masses.
To your point Yithian:
If a person is new at it, his demographic typically is that he isn't going to run out and purchase a collection to include all of the above calibers to fit each situation. Mid range calibers will always be a better choice.
Archery typically is a whole different concept than a bullet travelling at supersonic speeds. Not sure how to illustrate this to you though. To use your analogy, a hasty shot w/ a small caliber milsurp bullet travelling at supersonic speed, compared to a 500gr arrow making a 1-1&1/4 in wound channel on a pass through shot. I would put my money on the arrow.
I doubt there is a guide in the world who would take you out on a bear hunt w/ your .204. If you did pay him enough to jeopardize his license, as you said, there would be a large caliber back up waiting behind you. Shooting a large carnivore presents an entirely different set of circumstances than a 120lb deer.
Back to BCarvers' comments.
1: I believe the .270 a better choice. Larger bore and wound channel=better odds for DRT.

2: .243 will allow legal hunting in more states for that disabled person.

3: 7mm vs .223 in accuracy. Yes it can be just as accurate or moreso, depending on the shooter.

Now, I absolutely agree w/ you that there is no substitute for experience. Also, you are spot on that failure leads to being much more careful and accurate in future efforts.
I still have to suggest to the new hunter to start w/ something that has a lot more kinetic energy before they gain that lofty sniper status. It's common sense. That doesn't mean belted magnums or 45/70's.
elkman06

taylorce1
April 11, 2008, 09:37 AM
Yithan, I know you and I've had these discussions before and this might be beating a dead horse between us.

"When is the .223 the best round for the job?"
When Technology and Budget collide.
I work at Walmart and am recently divorced. I can't afford much, so in reloading, smaller is cheaper.
Accuracy and patience make the difference in a good hunter.


Sorry about your situation, but a .30-30 or .243 isn't terribly more expensive to shoot or reload for than the .223 Rem or .204 Ruger. Plus there are probably several pistol caliber that would be better choices inside 100 yards on deer that are cheaper to reload for a lever action rifle. .44 and .357 Magnum come to mind. They probably aren't legal in my State as they would not meet minimum energy requirement but should be fine for TX.


Here is a true story of a friend.
300WinMag at 100 yards to a deers head. Blows lower jaw off and well, half its skull.
The deer got up and ran farther off.
Took another shot from same rifle at 200 yards in the brisket.
Got to the deer and it was still alive and wanted to get up and run away.
45ACP to the head/mess/whatever.
It was a learning experience. Those bullets may work well in other calibers, but not the 300WinMag at those ranges.
180gr Sierra GameKings.
I know! Go figure

If you shoot a deer in the jaw that is what happens regardless of caliber and bullet. Regardless if it was a Sierra bullet or not head shots are marginal shots at best, and most people can't shoot a .300 Win Mag well enough for head shots. If your friend had shot through the ribs the bullet may not have exited but I'm sure it would have taken out the lungs. I blame your friends shooting ability and shot choices here more than the bullet and caliber selection.

If what I say isn't true, then please explain to me why archery is allowed, but a .223 is too small a caliber.
Any time someone mentions caliber, and declares it too small to hunt with, I know they are video-game hunters.
They aren't interested in hunting, they are interested in trophies and prestige.
Bigger is preferred, but not always attained.
There is a difference between Hunting and Killing.
Caliber size has remarkably little to do with Hunting.


Archery hunters who are experienced like you are claiming you are, have learned to wait for perfect shots as well. They know that they have to do damage to major organs to bring a deer down successfully and humanely. I have a friend who bow hunts and he will only take two shots quartering away and broadside. He has learned through his mistakes that these are the only two shots that he wants to take.

I declare that the .223 is too small to hunt with and I'm not a video game hunter. I just don't see where using that caliber benefits anyone when hunting game larger than vermin. I want a bullet of proper construction and weight with a muzzle velocity of 2000 fps or faster for most of my big game hunting. There are exceptions to the rule but the .223 isn't one of them. Does this make me a "Video-Game, Prestige, or Trophy Hunter"?

I agree caliber size has little to do with hunting, there is a lot more to hunting than selecting a caliber. Selecting a bullet is important however, and you complain about Sierra Game Kings in a .300 Win Mag but condone using Varmint bullets in a .204 for deer or larger animals? Your logic confuses me.:confused:

If someone was willing to pay for it all, I would gladly take the challenge of a hunt on a bear with my 204Rug.
Within a hundred yards, and a good angle, I could pop its eye with a Hornady 45gr soft point.

There is no way anyone in their right mind would allow you to hunt black bear with a .204 Ruger let alone pay for it. .204 caliber bullets just are not designed for big game hunting, you might be getting away with it for now, but they will not always work for you. It is just plain stupidity and a stunt to use a .204 on a bear. Sure a guy killed a Brown Bear last year in AK with a .220 Swift, but he didn't have a choice it was mauling his buddy. If I remember the story right it took every bullet in the rifle at point blank range to the head to kill that bear. He didn't have a choice in what he used, but you do.

ELMOUSMC
April 11, 2008, 09:57 AM
Here in Iowa we hunt deer with shotgun slugs or muzzle loaders 45 cal and above(special pistol season .357 and above)Our Whitetails are large 200 to 300 lbs and some of the bucks over that.But their hide is not any thicker than their smaller cousins in the south east.Every year we hear the old refrain "If I had a rifle it wouldn't have gotten away"No if you had aimmed instead of relying on your semi auto to throw lots of lead in the general direction of the deer it would not have gotten away!A competent marksman with most any caliber(within reason .204 on bear?) can humanly harvest game with 1 well placed shot.ART is right for the most part the members of this forum are hunters that practice their skills year round and not just for a few days in the field so the question of is this caliber right for this game is not something we are concerned with ELMOUSMC

Yithian
April 11, 2008, 02:13 PM
Hey, no problem taltorce1.
I am not perfect. But it wouldn't be a sport if there wasn't a risk of failure.
It wouldn't be Hunting if it wasn't a challenge.
Every person defines their own challenge.

Oh and the 300WinMag shot didn't hit the jaw of the deer, it hit the skull and passed thru. The shockwave blew the jaw off.
Even tho it was a ballistic tipped bullet, it didn't have time to expand fully in that short a space.
I wasn't present for the shot but I have seen the skull...whats left. It has no bottom. The lower jaw was cracked in two.
It's probably still out there unless a coyote has run off with it. It was last December when shot and January when I looked at it.
As he is my freind, I believe in him and his word.

...no way anyone in their right mind would allow you to hunt black bear with a .204 Ruger let alone pay for it. .204 caliber bullets just are not designed for big game hunting, you might be getting away with it for now, but they will not always work for you. It is just plain stupidity and a stunt to use a .204 on a bear.

I thought exactly the same thing about Tred Barta hunting and harvesting a black bear with his homemade longbow.
That is why he did it. The challenge of doing it.
And, just because no one makes a solid copper bullet in 204 yet, doesn't mean I can't have any made.
It is a challenge I am willing to make for myself. That is all.
There is a high likelihood that the shot opportunity, if I did go, never shows itself. And I go home empty.
Like fishing, the enjoyment is in being there. Actually harvesting, is icing on the cake.

chow chow
April 11, 2008, 02:20 PM
Hunt to bring home the bacon and venison. Know marksmanship and practice. Practice again and again. Know your limits of the caliber being used. Use it to your best advantage. Best of luck.

taylorce1
April 11, 2008, 03:34 PM
I thought exactly the same thing about Tred Barta hunting and harvesting a black bear with his homemade longbow.
That is why he did it. The challenge of doing it.
And, just because no one makes a solid copper bullet in 204 yet, doesn't mean I can't have any made.
It is a challenge I am willing to make for myself. That is all.


A lot of people out there have hunted animals with home made bow, muzzle loaders and rifles. They still have to meet requirements to be hunted with I'm sure your hero Tred wasn't hunting with a #25 draw weight bow, it was probably closer to #50-60. Plus comparing how a bow kills to how a rifle does it's job is comparing apples to oranges. About all they have in common is there ability to punch a hole in an object.

Earlier you said nothing about using a solid copper bullet in your .204 for bear you stated a 45 grain Hornady soft point. Plus remember in most States the bullet regardless of caliber and construction still must expand, so copper solids like used in DG hunting are out. The money it would cost you to have custom .204 solids made that still expand would offset the cost of a new caliber rifle very fast. I'm sure the bullet manufacturer will not just let you place an order for 50-100, probably more like 500-1000 would be the minimum. So don't forget what you stated earlier as well.

"When is the .223 the best round for the job?"
When Technology and Budget collide.
I work at Walmart and am recently divorced. I can't afford much, so in reloading, smaller is cheaper

elkman06
April 11, 2008, 04:43 PM
Everybody loves data so here's some to think about.

FWIW, I pulled some comparisons from a very well known Ammo Manufacturers spread sheet. I don't want to screw up on copyright infringement.
Velocity Energy
Muzzle 100yd 200yd
.204 Ruger
39gr SierraBK 3750fps 853lbft 626lbft
Sorry didn't list any bigger bullets.
.223 Rem
55gr SP 3240 958 704
.243 Rem
100gr SP 2960 1615 1331
3006 Spr
150grSP 2910 2279 1824
300WM
180gr SP 2960 3014 2583

Taylorace is dead on about arrows. I have friends who routinely kill black bear over bait here.
An arrow simply opens a bleeding channel, rifles/pistols impart kinetic energy upon the intended target. Kinetic energy equals DRT(dead right there) value.
As you can see from the data provided, there is a near double Kinetic energy difference between the 50ish grain bullet to the 100gr bullet. All things being equal, bullet expansion, etc, then going to at least a .243 equates to nearly double the DRT factor. Simple physics.

Again all things being equal, larger bore/larger energy type projectiles will kill more effeciently than their smaller cousins.
You will be hard pressed to find a cheaper bullet from a major manufacturer than a 30/06. I've seen them for $12.00 on sale in the not so recent past.
I've killed enough animals from 100lbs to 900lbs and watched them die, run off, take the hit, that I cannot buy the idea that a .204 or .223 is an adequate round for deer on up. Will it kill them,,,Yes, in the right hands. My hat is off to you Yithian in this sense. I still see it as poor advice to anyone though. Especially if on a limited budget. One rifle? It should be big enough to get the job done even if the hunter is not perfect and still learning.
elkman06

thallub
April 11, 2008, 05:16 PM
The three most important aspects of hunting are shot placement, shot placement and shot placement. No bullet will turn a gut shot into a bang flop 100 percent of the time. Shot placement is much more important than the caliber of the gun or the muzzle velocity of the bullet.

I have seen a lot of badly hit animals, it is becoming more frequent every year. Several times I have followed up wounded animals that others abandoned to a slow and painful death. Got several deer and a big 6X6 elk that way. The guy who shot that elk said that it was just grazed and would live. Watched him shoot it and knew that it was gut shot. Asked if he would mind if I took the animal out. He said OK, laughed like mad and drove off. I found it bedded about 500 yards from where it was shot. It got up and was quickly killed.

I have hunted wild hogs with a .223 and military ball ammunition. Nearly all of my shots with this round have been bang flops, no hog went over 20 yards after being hit with my .223.

castnblast
April 12, 2008, 10:06 AM
BTW, did all of you look at the pix I posted in the attached thread? Just curious....notice the bullet almost exited, and the degree of tissue damage? You just can't argue that hypervelocity generates a hell of a wound channel...that was a 55gr Sierra Game King spitzerboatail soft point, traveling about 3750fps behind 33 gr. of Benchmark powder.

roy reali
April 12, 2008, 10:55 AM
Numbers don't kill. Kinetic energy isn't some magical formula. If it was, then a .22-250 would be superior to a .45-70 when facing a charging bear.

taylorce1
April 12, 2008, 09:07 PM
Numbers don't kill. Kinetic energy isn't some magical formula. If it was, then a .22-250 would be superior to a .45-70 when facing a charging bear.

Don't know where you got your figures but everything I looked at shows the .45-70 far outclassing the .22-250 in the energy department. Standard wimpy factory loads 1800 fps for .45-70 starts out with around 700 more ft-lbs of energy at the muzzle than a 3500 fps .22-250. I'll take the extra 700 lbs any day along with the bullet that on average is 5-6 times heavier against any charging bear.

schnarrgj
April 12, 2008, 10:03 PM
This type of question always bothers me a little. If someone needs to ask if the 223 is enough, that person probably does not have the right knowledge and experience to use it effectively.

The phrase--Its not the arrow that kills the deer but the Indian--answers the question. Too often, I see the new hunter at the range with the newest magnum or the 22 calibers. they will both do the job of killing the deer it you do your part but both will cause lost wounded animals. With the magnums, it takes practice, knowledge of your limitations and more practice to be able to shoot them well enough to use them effectively. Most once a year hunters develop a highly developed flinch from them. The extra power will not make up for bad bullet placement. With the 22s, you have to know your own limitations and that of your choice of caliber. Again, if you need to ask, you probably should not be using it.

With all that being said, I have used the 223 to great effect at times and my brother uses it exclusively. He has a cervical spine injury that prevents him from using even a 243. Where we hunt, the average shot is well under 50 yards. We both have been hunting for well over 40 years and now know what we can and cannot do with those rifles. My usual deer calibers are 7x57,8x57,7.62x54r or the 7.5x55.

Yithian
April 12, 2008, 11:26 PM
I can make my own bullets. I know people with lathes.
I can hit a primer at 100 yards with my 204. ATTT posted a vid of it on youtube.
A bears eye has how much armor in it to protect the bears brain?
I believe a 45gr soft point can penetrate it. I propose, we find out.
Sorry, for those that don't know, taylorce1 and I are having a conversation.
I'll quit here... maybe PM's?

This thread is about inexperienced hunters.

+1 schnarrgj
lol

roy reali
April 13, 2008, 08:29 AM
Here are the numbers. I just looked them up on the Remington website.

Muzzle Energy
.22-250 1654
.45-70 1590

Yes, there are hot rod .45-70 loads with more energy. But, I used a load that duplicates the original, blackpowder load. Again, according to these numbers, at point blank the .22-250 would be superior against an angry bear. If kinetic enrgy was so important, then how were the bison wiped out?

fisherman66
April 13, 2008, 09:05 AM
If someone needs to ask if the 223 is enough, that person probably does not have the right knowledge and experience to use it effectively.

I think that's a good point. So much is dictated by the skill and knowledge of the individual. Poachers "do fine" with a 22lr, but that doesn't make it an acceptable choice for a cartridge.

So much has changed in bullet construction in the last 20 years. That opens up a lot of options for the experienced rifleman. I'd never recommend a .223, but there are many people capable of have the shot discipline to make it work.

I'm a "middle of the road" type of shooter, but I have no problem with a marksman taking an AR out to the field.

I truly see this as casting a bad light, and or unethical actions on us, the sport hunting crowd.

The people who would see us in a bad light already do or lack the understand of how ballistics work to understand the handicap imposed by an "inferior" cartridge. They are the least of my concerns. A humane death is near the top. The shooter is in control of that, not the load (but I will admit the load suffers as the shooter suffers).

When I was new to hunting I had a lot of self imposed hard and fast rules. As I learned I gained a greater understanding of how tissue and lead mix or don't mix; whatever. I still adhere to my rules, but I don't look down my nose at anyone with the understanding of how their choices affect them.

elkman06
April 13, 2008, 01:18 PM
Yes, there are hot rod .45-70 loads with more energy. But, I used a load that duplicates the original, blackpowder load. Again, according to these numbers, at point blank the .22-250 would be superior against an angry bear. If kinetic enrgy was so important, then how were the bison wiped out?

I gotta ask, why would you not compare apples to apples? A modern 45/70 per Federals' program is sending a 300gr bullet out of the barrel at 2355lbft of energy. Man, talk about a Mack truck hitting you...
The bison were wiped out via a lot of guys using 45/70s', 45/90s' and the like. Not the 44/40's of the day. Too many bullets to get the job done. They were business men who didn't want to affect the profit margin by using too light a caliber. Bang for the buck you know.
Back to the subject matter, As has allready been hashed and rehashed..Yes, any caliber in the right hands will kill an animal. I just hope that we all consider the advice we might give a rookie and give it wisely.
What I have learned with this thread is that my mentality(being a Western state longer range type hunter), does not equate into common sense per se a Southeastern hunter. We have totally dissimilar experiences and attitudes.
I have also learned a lot about peoples attitudes and opinions about energy xfer on animals. That is a wholly different concept that can be beat to death as well. A difference of opinion that I had not really considered.
Anyway, happy hunting folks.
elkman06

taylorce1
April 13, 2008, 07:00 PM
Yes, there are hot rod .45-70 loads with more energy. But, I used a load that duplicates the original, blackpowder load. Again, according to these numbers, at point blank the .22-250 would be superior against an angry bear.

I never said it was all about energy, but you got to ask yourself even with less that 100 ft-lbs of energy which bullet is going to transfer that energy longer. The 55 grain bullet of the .22-250 will not be able to maintain it's energy like the 405 grain .45-70. The .45-70 will be harder to stop so it's energy will remain in effect longer until it comes to a stop inside the animal or completely exits. I'm sure with all the energy advantage of the .22-250 round well be lost in the first few inches of penetration, while the larger .45-70 bullet will continue for several inches more.

I'm pretty sure the "hot rod" load I picked which is the Federal 300 grain isn't too hot for most older rifles. Most ammunition manufactures will not load the .45-70 hot because the fear of it being shot in older rifles. I didn't go looking for hot loads at all I just went looking for a standard load, if I had wanted a hot load I would have quoted something out of Buffalo Bore's web page.