Hunting with your AR...

[Dearhunter61]

I am curious to know how far you will legitimately take a shot on a game animal using your AR. And I'm talking about .223.

Open sites?

Red dot?

Scope?

What is a legitimate distance? 150-200 yards?

[slim9300]

I predator hunt with my RRA Carbine with a 3x9 Zeiss Conquest scope (amongst other mods). It shoots very well out to 500 yards and sub 1" groups at 100 yards all with factory ammo. I normally hunt with a 10 round mag though.

[Mausermolt]

my girlfriend killed her first buck at 150 yds with my AR. but i wouldnt go past that on muleys

[BumbleBug]

I am curious to know how far you will legitimately take a shot on a game animal using your AR. And I'm talking about .223.

Emphasizing the word "legitimately" & "game animal"the answer is zero. Most hunters consider the .223 insufficient for deer hunting. Yes it can be done, but its not even close to being ideal. The fact that it is an AR is irrelevant.

Just FWIW...

...bug

[salvadore]

Back in the late seveties I shot two mule deer with my SP-1 and another with a #1 Ruger in .223. I shot another with a .38 spec. with my cast bullet. The last I shot with .357 @ over 100 paces. I guess the deer didn't know my shooters weren't legetimate.

[slim9300]

Originally Posted by BumbleBug

Emphasizing the word "legitimately" & "game animal"the answer is zero. Most hunters consider the .223 insufficient for deer hunting. Yes it can be done, but its not even close to being ideal. The fact that it is an AR is irrelevant.

Just FWIW...

...bug

I agree with this. I hunt deer and elk with a .300 RUM. Lol.

[Dr Big Bird PhD]

Back in the late seveties I shot two mule deer with my SP-1 and another with a #1 Ruger in .223. I shot another with a .38 spec. with my cast bullet. The last I shot with .357 @ over 100 paces. I guess the deer didn't know my shooters weren't legetimate.

quoted for emphasis

I think using higher caliber rounds is considered more "humane" because they allow for less precise shot placement. Hitting a deer in the leg with a 30-06 isn't as effective as hitting one with a .223 in the heart.

[Double Naught Spy]

I am curious to know how far you will legitimately take a shot on a game animal using your AR. And I'm talking about .223.

Hmm. Loaded question. A "game" animal is defined differently by different states. Depending on where you are, beaver, fox, coyote, bobcat, martin, mink, squirrel, hog, etc. are either considered game animals or they may not be. Where I am, hogs are considered exotics, to technically I can't call them a game animal, though I have hunting a bunch of them with 5.56. So as a trash animal in Texas, hogs are hunted without restriction (assuming all other laws are observed). In California, however, they are a prized game animal and you draw tags for them and tags are limited. Go figure.

.223/5.56 is a caliber/cartridge that maybe requires the shooter to be a little bit more on the ball in making hits with better precision to assure a humane kill than some larger and more powerful calibers on bigger game. However, in the right hands, it can be used quite effectively.

Getting buck fever is not ideal with such a loading on bigger game. Hail Mary shots, rushed shots, etc. often don't end up well with any caliber, but are even less likely to end well with smaller/weaker calibers.

It does help to use better ammo on larger game. I have been impressed, for example, with the exit holes produced by Barnes TTSX ammo. I haven't managed to recover any of the bullets because they have all managed to pass through and make nasty exits. I like that on hogs.

I prefer to shoot inside 100 yards and ideally inside of 50 or so, but have taken a shoat at 160. I course, I prefer that for my .308 and .45-70 as well. I prefer to shoot at distances where I have a good understanding of where my shots will impact and given the limits of usually night hunting.

Know your limitations and how your ammo will perform in your rifle. Choose quality ammo and a quality rifle and choose your shots wisely and so long as it is legal where you are, then you should be good to go.

[Palmetto-Pride]

Most hunters consider the .223 insufficient for deer hunting.

Food for thought some hunting rounds for .223 have around 1400 ft/lbs of energy.

The best bows with the best broadheads don't produce more that 100 ft/lbs of energy.

There are a lot of deer taken with bows every year.

Stick that in your piece-pipe and smoke it......

[Mausermolt]

Palmetto: one thing to point out is most bow hunters aren't lobbing arrows out to ranges past 60 yds usually. my personal limit is 60 anyway.

that being said,i wouldnt think twice about using one, but i also wouldnt use a 223 as my first choice

[BlackSheep6]

There is a handful of ammo companies that make .223 AR bullets for deer hunting. Extreme shock is one but they are a bit spendy.

BlackSheep6

[bcarver]

This topic comes up about every three days.
Consider this situation.
Your car is out of gas and you need to be pulled to the next exit,
A friend drives up in his truck with a chain, a rope and an extension cord.
Which do you choose?
If your smart you use the chain. If you have to you use the rope. And unless you are an idiot you only use the extension cord as a last resort.

[slim9300]

Originally Posted by Palmetto-Pride

Food for thought some hunting rounds for .223 have around 1400 ft/lbs of energy.

The best bows with the best broadheads don't produce more that 100 ft/lbs of energy.

There are a lot of deer taken with bows every year.

Stick that in your piece-pipe and smoke it......

A bullet and an arrow kill in a completely different manner. That is a very poor comparison and shows you clearly don't know what you are talking about. An arrow kills either by collapsing the lung cavity causing asphyxiation or massive blood lose due to the cutting of an artery. A bullet kills by trauma plain and simple. A bullet 'eviscerates' a large canal as it expends energy and expands within it's target, and an arrow has no ability to do this (nor would it be effective). The 'goal' of the arrow is to pass-through the animal with a sharp broadhead (think razor blades) and cause two exterior holes, that make blood trailing easier.

Here's a perfect example of why your example sucks.

http://youtu.be/uQx2eHpDVnE

http://youtu.be/GaRnReCajRI

Fast forward to 1:25 for the arrow demonstration.

I hunt with both my rifles and my bows, so I have a pretty good idea based on experience alone. I have killed quite a few animals with both.

[Double Naught Spy]

Well you are in distress along the side of the road, so the analogy misses the mark on several levels.

However, given how well many hunters shoot, it really doesn't matter if they use a .223 for .50 BMG. Many simply aren't going to have their guns properly sighted in for the ammo they are using at the time, or maybe at all. They don't verify zero between season to season. They are going to shoot high, shoot low, confuse the head and the butt ends, drastically misjudge distance, misidentify their intended game, yank the trigger, rush the shot, shoot at moving targets for which they have no experience in making such shots, shoot through foliage, etc.

Scary thread here...
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=401369

What gets me is the number of times I hear people complaining about the ammo, caliber, and even sometimes the gun, but they simply don't do their part to make the shot work. They often don't know their anatomy well enough to make any shot but and flat out broadside shot. If the game quarters away, they aim at the same external spot and shoot it, but the trajectory results in missing all the vitals. They claim great shot placement (and it might have been on a broadside target) and blame the ammo or caliber for failing to do the job.

You gotta bring "enough gun" but enough gun depends on how well you use it. There ain't no such thing as "enough gun" if you don't do your part.

I love these videos...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEHIkvQ7ISQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QbTkgmfxgI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WypbzC6mi8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeXGt4nn3CM

Not everybody likes .223, but it certainly can be used effectively if used right. Just because a hunter uses the caliber doesn't make him an idiot as you have implied, bcarver.

[slim9300]

Originally Posted by Double Naught Spy

Well you are in distress along the side of the road, so the analogy misses the mark on several levels.

However, given how well many hunters shoot, it really doesn't matter if they use a .223 for .50 BMG. Many simply aren't going to have their guns properly sighted in for the ammo they are using at the time, or maybe at all. They don't verify zero between season to season. They are going to shoot high, shoot low, confuse the head and the butt ends, drastically misjudge distance, misidentify their intended game, yank the trigger, rush the shot, shoot at moving targets for which they have no experience in making such shots, shoot through foliage, etc.

Scary thread here...
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=401369

What gets me is the number of times I hear people complaining about the ammo, caliber, and even sometimes the gun, but they simply don't do their part to make the shot work. They often don't know their anatomy well enough to make any shot but and flat out broadside shot. If the game quarters away, they aim at the same external spot and shoot it, but the trajectory results in missing all the vitals. They claim great shot placement (and it might have been on a broadside target) and blame the ammo or caliber for failing to do the job.

You gotta bring "enough gun" but enough gun depends on how well you use it. There ain't no such thing as "enough gun" if you don't do your part.

I love these videos...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEHIkvQ7ISQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QbTkgmfxgI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WypbzC6mi8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeXGt4nn3CM

Not everybody likes .223, but it certainly can be used effectively if used right. Just because a hunter uses the caliber doesn't make him an idiot as you have implied, bcarver.

Are you actually a hunter?

[dean1818]

For me, the 223 is too small for hogs here in Texas.

The 6.8 is a great round for deer or hog....... Its what I use

I feel much more comfortable taking a shot on a 250 lb pig with a 120 grain SST
Than a 60 grain bullet from a 223

Maybe in the hands of a true marksman, can a 223 be humanely leathal to bigger game.......

BUT....

I would guess that the number that fall in that group are relatively small.

I see many people at the range who talk the tlk about hunting but cant shoot so well ith their AR15

Hitting a 5 inch circle on a moving animal , when the light isnt great, is tough.

Knowing that, i would rather have a bigger bullet, it performs better when the shot isnt exactly perfect

[Skans]

Not me.

[Double Naught Spy]

Are you actually a hunter?

You would know that if you actually read the thread. With that said, I have only taken one hog this week, but then again, I have only been out once this week, LOL.

[Palmetto-Pride]

A bullet and an arrow kill in a completely different manner. That is a very poor comparison and shows you clearly don't know what you are talking about.

I think you are missing my point I am not saying that you can't kill animals with a bow, but my point is that why would one expect to be able to kill animals with a bow and think that a .223 rifle wouldn't be enough. And your little videos prove to me that a .223 would have done a lot more damage than the three bladed arrow did. I too have killed deer with a bow and a rifle so I have experience with both also. As others have said shot placement plays a key role in the outcome. I have shot deer at less than 100yds with a 30-06 and had to go find them, and I have dropped them where they stood with a .223 at 200yds the difference was shot placement obviously.

Ok he wasn't nearly as big as yours you win lol.......

[slim9300]

Originally Posted by Palmetto-Pride

I think you are missing my point I am not saying that you can't kill animals with a bow, but my point is that why would one expect to be able to kill animals with a bow and think that a .223 rifle wouldn't be enough. And your little videos prove to me that a .223 would have done a lot more damage than the three bladed arrow did. I too have killed deer with a bow and a rifle so I have experience with both also. As others have said shot placement plays a key role in the outcome. I have shot deer at less than 100yds with a 30-06 and had to go find them, and I have dropped them where they stood with a .223 at 200yds the difference was shot placement obviously.

Ok he wasn't nearly as big as yours you win lol.......

I guess I see what you are saying but keep in mind that there is a huge difference between whitetails and mule deer, and an even larger difference between mule deer and elk. A .223 may be just barely sufficient on most whitetails in ideal circumstances but it's not on a 300 lb. mature mule deer buck nor a 700+ lb. elk in my opinion. And remember, I have never said a .223 wont kill nearly everything if the conditions are perfect, but so will a .22 LR or a field tipped arrow. The point is to use a caliber that's the most effective at killing quickly and 'humanely.' Many states say that hunting deer with a .223 is not legal. I wonder why that is? If a .223 is your only rifle and it's legal, fine. You had better greatly limit your range, have exceptional familiarity with your weapon and most importantly shoot the proper bullet. But if you have better choices of calibers to pick from, I would suggest leaving the .223 at home for anything deer sized or larger.

BTW, the videos absolutely do not prove that a .223 would do more damage than a 4-blade broadhead tipped arrow. You are thinking of 'damage' incorrectly again, and in terms of trauma. That's not how an arrow works as I tried to explain. The less 'trauma' caused by the arrow, the better. Ideally the arrow zips through the animal undetected and expends as little energy as possible. An arrow though both lungs is a dead deer 100% of the time.

[slim9300]

Originally Posted by Double Naught Spy

You would know that if you actually read the thread. With that said, I have only taken one hog this week, but then again, I have only been out once this week, LOL.

I read your thread but that didn't answer my question. Sitting over bait is not hunting, it's killing. I see nothing wrong with it, just don't get the idea that you are hunting (or doing something that requires skill).

Furthermore, your opinion on the average hunter is frightening and downright stupid. I know dozens of hunters and not one of them resembles the idiots that your described. One look at the stats will show you that hunting related 'accidents' are almost non-existent compared to the number of hunters in the field. It seems to me that you are describing the minority and making it seem like a much bigger problem than it is.

Maybe someday you will get outside of your little bubble and actually hunt in other places in the country. Maybe then you will learn not to talk for hunters as a group like you actually know something.

[Double Naught Spy]

slim, regardless of your opinion, by state law, my activities of shooting hogs and other vermin do constitute hunting. So that isn't even up for discussion, though I don't just sit over bait. I also stalk.

Furthermore, your opinion on the average hunter is frightening and downright stupid.

RIF. I never made a claim about an "average hunter" in this thread. I stated that "many hunters" have real issues. I stand by that claim as it is absolutely true. Incidents on this forum, other hunting forums, reported in various types of incident reports by state and national groups, etc. attest to this. Youtube and news accounts have a lot more to add to this. Yep, many hunters have real issues with knowing their gear and safety.

I know dozens of hunters and not one of them resembles the idiots that your described.

I know dozens as well that are generally good hunters. I have also been to the range on the weekends before hunting season and seen yahoos who don't have their scopes on their rifles correctly or who that think hitting a 10" circle at 50 yards is "minute of hog" or "minute of deer" and it "good enough to hunt."

One look at the stats will show you that hunting related 'accidents' are almost non-existent compared to the number of hunters in the field.

Those would be "reported" incidents. They do not include the number of times hunters don't actually injure other humans (IHEA). They don't include the trucks that get shot, boats, houses, and random livestock, not to mention the non-game or illegal animals taken in error. They don't include all the missed shots because hunters didn't do their part. They don't include all the negligent discharges or the "shovel and shut up" crowd.

That the average numbers of hunters and bystanders getting shot is down is a big improvement. I will grant you that. Of course, shooting other people isn't even remotely excusable. Either you know your target and observe ALL the safety rules or you don't.

.223 is fine for the hunter who knows what they are doing. It certainly may not be for those who don't.

[Gunplummer]

If an arrow kills by cutting, why do bow companies tell hunters they need a 70+ pound bow? I put a lot of meat in the freezer with the old 43# recurve. And the .22 Hi-Power. And the .223. I better not even bring up the 22-250. I would stay at 100 yards on the .223 and the Hi-Power. Sure would never shoot an arrow at a deer at 60 yards either.

[slim9300]

Originally Posted by Gunplummer

If an arrow kills by cutting, why do bow companies tell hunters they need a 70+ pound bow? I put a lot of meat in the freezer with the old 43# recurve. And the .22 Hi-Power. And the .223. I better not even bring up the 22-250. I would stay at 100 yards on the .223 and the Hi-Power. Sure would never shoot an arrow at a deer at 60 yards either.

That's a easy question to answer. Penetration and the need for speed. Now-a-days bowhunters have been sold a bill of goods that large diameter expandable broadheads are needed to do more cutting (ie. killing) and at the same time, that light and fast arrows are ideal. This is all wrong if your goal is penetration (which is directly correlated with momentum), so obviously you need to have high poundage to achieve 'acceptable' penetration.

My bow is only 60# but shoots a 455 grain arrow at 290 fps. (I shoot a small diameter fixed blade braodhead) That's about 86 ft. lbs. of KE and .585 momentum. I could shoot through three deer with my setup but when it comes to elk hunting, getting a passthrough can be tough. Hence the need for so much energy.

For example a 300 grain arrow going 330 fps only makes 72 ft. lbs. of KE and .439 momentum. That's about 25% less penetrating ability despite a 'blazing' fast arrow.

[Bamashooter]

I have killed deer and pigs with both of my 5.56 sporting rifles. I used 65gr Gamekings and I have never lost game with this bullet. Shot placement is key but when is it not?