.44 mag vs. .223 effectiveness in a carbine

Dave3006 · June 21, 2001, 10:40 AM

I don't understand the criticism some people have for the .44 mag in a lever action carbine. I frequently hear it dismissed as "only" a pistol caliber. However, when I compare it to the energy of the .223 out to 100 yards, the .44 mag is superior. If you consider a momentum approach to effectiveness the results are even more in favor of the .44 mag.

.44 mag - muzzle energy of 240grain bullet = 1650ft/lbs, 100 yards = 1015ft/lbs

.223 - muzzle energy 55grain bullet = 1282, 100 yards = 929 ft/lbs

Why do people knock the .44 mag as only a pistol caliber? It seems more effective than a .223 within 100 yards.

Bud1 · June 21, 2001, 11:06 AM

Other than the fact that the .44 mag loading drops about 4 inches in that 100 yard distance, your analysis is right on.

Different tools for different purposes. I like a .44 mag carbine for hog hunting in the brush, but would be hard pressed to take a shot longer than 150 yards or so.

BB · June 21, 2001, 11:17 AM

Energy isn't everything. The 223 creates a large, permanent stretch cavity from the high-velocity hydrostatic shock that the .44 does not.

kerth · June 21, 2001, 11:42 AM

For 3 seasons I used a .44 mag carbine on southern whitetail, and cleanly killed deer withing 100 yards. My criticism of .44 in a carbine is it's high trajectory, I'm simply not good enough at range estimation to take shots at game beyond 150 yards with this combination. After passing up on one too many powerline shots I decided if that I'm going to lug around a rifle it's going to have more range. My 18.5" barreled 30-'06 carbine is not much more difficult to carry and better than doubles my effective range.

As far as .223 goes, it's an excellent varmit cartridge but I won't use it to hunt deer, even though it's a legal caliber in Alabama.

Steel · June 21, 2001, 02:46 PM

.44 Mag = better bone buster (especially in hunting trim)

444 · June 22, 2001, 12:47 AM

"Energy isn't everything. The 223 creates a large, permanent stretch cavity from the high-velocity hydrostatic shock that the .44 does not."
I certainly don't buy that.

Fatcat · June 22, 2001, 01:26 AM

http://www.firearmstactical.com/imag...files/M193.jpg

This is a wound profile of the M193 55 grain .223 round. As you can see, it has a large temporary cavity (stretch cavity). This stretch cavity is decidedly smaller in a lower velocity round, such as 45ACP ball (http://www.firearmstactical.com/imag...30gr%20FMJ.jpg). Make your own conclusions, but to me this looks to be the work of high velocity. I dunno about "hydro-static shock", though.

radom · June 22, 2001, 01:36 AM

The .223 seems to do a decent job on deer at longer range than the .44 does. You have to pick the shot but it works and does better than the .30 carbine which is a very good deer caliber out to 125 yards. The .44 lever gun is good for a brush gun but not a hit on the crosshair round due to the drop. Plus most do not have a scope but just real "poor" sights. Practice, practice and good sights tend to make the caliber used seem to be a non issue to a extent. Been there done that and the 25-35 even works better on elk at 150-200yds than a .44. A 55 grain SX in a deers neck at 150 yds will drop it every time, if it does not break the neck the deer will dround before it hits the ground almost.

June 22, 2001, 01:36 AM

I wouldn't wanna get hit with either. I think that in the case of a war, the 223 would punch holes in kevlar hides better while the 44 mag would crush the bones that lie beneath. Other than 22's, I currently own one rifle. It is a Ruger Mini 14 in 223 Rem. My next planned rifle is gonna be the Ruger Deerfield Carbine in 44 Magnum. I might as well get the best of both worlds.

Shooter 973 · June 22, 2001, 03:55 PM

I have both calibers and would use the 44mag. out about 150 yrd, once you get that big bullet going it is already pre-expanded compared to the 223. The 44 has a lot of power with in its power range and distance restrictions. I have hunted with both and think the 44 is more effective , it punchesa bigger hole and they usually exit, 223 soft points don't.

Tony Rumore · June 22, 2001, 05:51 PM

Big game hunters in Africa have long know that foot pounds of energy does not mean squat when taking large game. A much better rating scale is the Taylor Knock Out formula. The .223 has a TKO of 6, the 44 Mag has a TKO of 19. I have shot a lot of large wild hogs with calibers from .222 to .340 Weatherby Mag and in pistols from .45 ACP to .454 Casull and I have to agree with Mr. Taylor's formula. The little fast bullets can churn up the energy, but it isn't worth a damn when the animals get large.

Dave3006 · June 22, 2001, 10:51 PM

Can you tell me more about where to find info on the Taylor knock down formula?

Thanks.

Son of the Gael · June 23, 2001, 01:59 PM

Dave
Tony will probalbly post more specifics, but in short form Taylor KO is a variation on Hatcher's formula of Mass x Velocity x Frontal Area for comparing the relative effectiveness of different cartridges. IMHO it's much better than comparing ft/lbs of energy or temporary wound cavities; and was (I think) based on real world big game hunting experience. Others will disagree, but I see two short comings of both Taylor & Hatcher - first they shouldn't be used to compare widely divergent cartridges (e.g. .45 acp & .300 Win Mag), second they do not accurately address the difference in bullet construction & type (a .30-06 FMJ looks better than a .257 Roberts SP, but the Roberts is really much better for shooting that pronghorn on the next hill).
Neither the .44 or the .223 is best for every situation, if you want the best compromise rifle, buy some sort of .308 scout.

Buy a Dillon, load lots, shoot lots.

Edward429451 · June 23, 2001, 05:23 PM

I used to beleive that high velocity crap, too. The more I yhought about it, the more reason took over, and the truth is that momentum wins every time folks. If I bounced a childs rubber playground ball off your head at 10 MPH, you would laugh, If I bounced a bowling ball (same general size, heavier.) off your head at 5 MPH, you may die.
Because the light weight of the .223 slug, its only a 200-300 yard cartridge anyway, (if your serious, and not just showing off or poaching, er, I mean eating). So you go with the .44 Mag and practice, practice, practice. 200 yards is not unheard of with a decent pistol and lots of practice.
When I'm out and about with my (sub-caliber) Mini-14, I carry a 7.5" redhawk to back it up. If I had a Mini-14 size carbine chambered in 44 Mag, I'd leave the .223 at home every time.
Lever actions never really appealed to me, and the Ruger Deerfield is gas operated they say, so I wouldn't be able to shoot my lead reloads in it.

PaulTX · June 23, 2001, 11:15 PM

I've found that my Marlin 1894P shoots pretty flat out to 100 yards.

How about a .44 mag, 240 LSWC, with a muzzle velocity and energy of about 2,200 fps and 2440 ft. lbs. repectively? I did it in my Marlin using 22 grains of 2400.

IZZY · June 23, 2001, 11:56 PM

I see your point, and I agree that the .44 mag is a good round within 100 yards. But what about 300?

Besides the greater range you may want consider the fact that the Spitzer type bullet tends to tumble in a living organisims..this causes nasty wounds ( in 223 between 50 and 300 meteres), the Russians did us up one better with 5.45...they had a nice reliable heavy caliber (7.62X39)...immitation is flatery.

.44 mag really belongs in a carbine, as most folks can't handle it in a pistol. But why re-invent the 45-70 ( arguably better)?

Shawn2571 · April 5, 2023, 08:21 PM

The .44 mag is 100 yard gun. It has it's purpose, i'd rather shoot a charging bear with a .44mag than a .223 at close range. Long range shooters have there place too though. I prefer .243 or larger for deer sized game though. My henry big boy .44 mag is a pleasure to carry and shoot though. Very efficient rifle for up to 100 yards. It all depends on where your hunting and how far you'll be shooting.

smee78 · April 5, 2023, 08:48 PM

Shawn2571, you do realize this thread is from 2001.

bamaranger · April 5, 2023, 10:52 PM

When Bill Ruger introduced his original .44 mag semiauto carbine in the early 60's, part of the marketing ploy was he took the little rifle to Africa. I cannot say what all he shot with the carbine, I know his ad with the gorilla brought some flack and he shot some warthogs and other critters too. He later went on record stating that the killing power of the .44 from the carbine amazed his pro hunters and he likened it to other popular centerfires like the 30-'06. Ruger choose his words carefully, I do not have the direct quote at my finger tips, and Bill R. DID NOT SAY the .44mag from a carbine was the equal of the '06, more like it killed out of proportion to it's size and was as effective inside it's range as other deer calibers.

I've hunted one of the original .44 tube feed carbines for years. My Dad hunted a Win '94 so chambered when first offered in the 1970's. One must be very careful about how and where he hunts, as noted by others, it is essentially a 100 yd gun. With 240 grain projectiles, the .44 carbine offers penetration that the .223 cannot match with expanding bullets. Any bullet weight from 200 grains up will cleanly take medium game , with no or little concern for quartering or raking shots, something I cannot say for the .223.

stagpanther · April 6, 2023, 07:30 AM

I've successfully hunted with a 44 mag lever gun. I'd never shoot larger game beyond 100 yds with it and would make sure I knew the trajectory well for a quick snap shot; otherwise no problem IMO.

jmr40 · April 6, 2023, 01:40 PM

Thread was dead for 22 years. Let it RIP.

Shadow9mm · April 6, 2023, 08:20 PM

Philosophies and techniques change over time. I personally find the discussion interesting, especially since i have owned both a 44mag lever gun, and 223 rifles.

There are several key differences here imho. But i feel the over all concept comes down to fast and light vs slow and heavy.

44 mag should not be under estimated especially out of a carbine. It has lots of momentum and makes a big hole to hit hard. But it sacrifices trajectory to do it.

223 can hit hard as well. But it is much more dependent on velocity and bullet design to do it. It does however have a much better trajectory and loses velocity at a much slower rate.

I cant say as i have ever heard anyone reccomend 233 for large and or dangerous game. However 44 mag would be more than adequate imho, given a reasonable distance. And im talking a traditional heart/lung, not the 22lr to the eye philosophy. Thats a whole nother can of worms.

**44 AMP** · April 6, 2023, 10:15 PM

Quote:

I personally find the discussion interesting, especially since i have owned both a 44mag lever gun, and 223 rifles.

The preferred method of getting the discussion from an old old thread going again is to start a new thread asking the question and restarting the discussion with current members and more current information. Link to the old thread if you wish.

For consideration, the .223 hits "pretty hard"? I guess, but if energy is your standard, consider that a .55gr @ 3200fps is about 1250ft/lbs (muzzle) and a 240gr @ 1700fps (which can be done from a carbine) is about 300ft/lbs more.

Is 300ft/lbs significantly better? I guess that might depend on what you're doing, but I can't think of a situation where its worse....

MTT TL · May 25, 2023, 10:42 AM

Things have changed a bit. There was no 75gr loading commercially available back in 2001 for 5.56, now there are several. 75gr @2910 is going to get you 1410ft/lbs at the muzzle and have negligible drop at 300 yards. This makes it near ideal for short to medium range, small to medium size game+ hunting.

Also, .223 was more popular back then due to the AWB94. When that expired 5.56 became the new standard.

Plainsman · March 21, 2024, 09:14 PM

TKO worked well when bullet design didnt make as much of a difference.

Now bullet design has made a HUGE IMPACT, pun aside.

Back when this thread was started, I was all about large calibers, .308, .44, .444, .45ACP.

Now two of my main goto rifles are .22WMR and .223/5.56. And my main sidearms: .22WMR and .38/.357. I even ran a 9mm for a few years before I went to mostly revolvers.

Why my switch bullet designs! The terminal ballistics with modern bullets is far superior to what we had even two and a half decades ago, let alone 40+ years years ago when I started shooting and hunting.

Its fun to see how things have evolved even during the lifespan of forums.

June 21, 2001, 10:40 AM	#1
Dave3006 Senior Member Join Date: July 25, 2000 Location: Lake Forest, CA USA Posts: 493	.44 mag vs. .223 effectiveness in a carbine I don't understand the criticism some people have for the .44 mag in a lever action carbine. I frequently hear it dismissed as "only" a pistol caliber. However, when I compare it to the energy of the .223 out to 100 yards, the .44 mag is superior. If you consider a momentum approach to effectiveness the results are even more in favor of the .44 mag. .44 mag - muzzle energy of 240grain bullet = 1650ft/lbs, 100 yards = 1015ft/lbs .223 - muzzle energy 55grain bullet = 1282, 100 yards = 929 ft/lbs Why do people knock the .44 mag as only a pistol caliber? It seems more effective than a .223 within 100 yards.

June 22, 2001, 12:47 AM	#6
444 Senior Member Join Date: November 20, 2000 Location: Ohio Posts: 3,968	"Energy isn't everything. The 223 creates a large, permanent stretch cavity from the high-velocity hydrostatic shock that the .44 does not." I certainly don't buy that. __________________ You know the rest. In the books you have read How the British Regulars fired and fled, How the farmers gave them ball for ball, From behind each fence and farmyard wall, Chasing the redcoats down the lane, Then crossing the fields to emerge again Under the trees at the turn of the road, And only pausing to fire and load.

June 22, 2001, 01:26 AM	#7
Fatcat Senior Member Join Date: November 2, 2000 Location: Rockaway Beach, OR Posts: 376	http://www.firearmstactical.com/imag...files/M193.jpg This is a wound profile of the M193 55 grain .223 round. As you can see, it has a large temporary cavity (stretch cavity). This stretch cavity is decidedly smaller in a lower velocity round, such as 45ACP ball (http://www.firearmstactical.com/imag...30gr%20FMJ.jpg). Make your own conclusions, but to me this looks to be the work of high velocity. I dunno about "hydro-static shock", though. __________________ Patrick J. Sullivan :: [email protected] "When I whet my flashing sword, and my hand takes hold in judgement, I will take vengeance upon mine enemies, and I will repay those who haze me."

June 23, 2001, 01:59 PM	#13
Son of the Gael Junior Member Join Date: March 19, 2001 Location: Oklahoma Posts: 9	Dave Tony will probalbly post more specifics, but in short form Taylor KO is a variation on Hatcher's formula of Mass x Velocity x Frontal Area for comparing the relative effectiveness of different cartridges. IMHO it's much better than comparing ft/lbs of energy or temporary wound cavities; and was (I think) based on real world big game hunting experience. Others will disagree, but I see two short comings of both Taylor & Hatcher - first they shouldn't be used to compare widely divergent cartridges (e.g. .45 acp & .300 Win Mag), second they do not accurately address the difference in bullet construction & type (a .30-06 FMJ looks better than a .257 Roberts SP, but the Roberts is really much better for shooting that pronghorn on the next hill). Neither the .44 or the .223 is best for every situation, if you want the best compromise rifle, buy some sort of .308 scout. Buy a Dillon, load lots, shoot lots. __________________ Persevere SotG

April 5, 2023, 08:21 PM	#17
Shawn2571 Junior Member Join Date: September 19, 2017 Posts: 11	.44 mag The .44 mag is 100 yard gun. It has it's purpose, i'd rather shoot a charging bear with a .44mag than a .223 at close range. Long range shooters have there place too though. I prefer .243 or larger for deer sized game though. My henry big boy .44 mag is a pleasure to carry and shoot though. Very efficient rifle for up to 100 yards. It all depends on where your hunting and how far you'll be shooting.

June 21, 2001, 11:06 AM	#2
Bud1 Senior Member Join Date: February 4, 2000 Posts: 194	Other than the fact that the .44 mag loading drops about 4 inches in that 100 yard distance, your analysis is right on. Different tools for different purposes. I like a .44 mag carbine for hog hunting in the brush, but would be hard pressed to take a shot longer than 150 yards or so.

June 21, 2001, 11:17 AM	#3
BB Junior member Join Date: August 17, 1999 Posts: 812	Energy isn't everything. The 223 creates a large, permanent stretch cavity from the high-velocity hydrostatic shock that the .44 does not.

June 21, 2001, 11:42 AM	#4
kerth Senior Member Join Date: November 29, 2000 Location: Huntsville, Alabama Posts: 130	For 3 seasons I used a .44 mag carbine on southern whitetail, and cleanly killed deer withing 100 yards. My criticism of .44 in a carbine is it's high trajectory, I'm simply not good enough at range estimation to take shots at game beyond 150 yards with this combination. After passing up on one too many powerline shots I decided if that I'm going to lug around a rifle it's going to have more range. My 18.5" barreled 30-'06 carbine is not much more difficult to carry and better than doubles my effective range. As far as .223 goes, it's an excellent varmit cartridge but I won't use it to hunt deer, even though it's a legal caliber in Alabama.

June 21, 2001, 02:46 PM	#5
Steel Senior Member Join Date: September 12, 2000 Location: Texas Posts: 504	.44 Mag = better bone buster (especially in hunting trim)

June 22, 2001, 01:36 AM	#8
radom Senior Member Join Date: January 21, 2000 Posts: 1,358	The .223 seems to do a decent job on deer at longer range than the .44 does. You have to pick the shot but it works and does better than the .30 carbine which is a very good deer caliber out to 125 yards. The .44 lever gun is good for a brush gun but not a hit on the crosshair round due to the drop. Plus most do not have a scope but just real "poor" sights. Practice, practice and good sights tend to make the caliber used seem to be a non issue to a extent. Been there done that and the 25-35 even works better on elk at 150-200yds than a .44. A 55 grain SX in a deers neck at 150 yds will drop it every time, if it does not break the neck the deer will dround before it hits the ground almost.

June 22, 2001, 01:36 AM	#9
PreserveFreedom Guest Posts: n/a	I wouldn't wanna get hit with either. I think that in the case of a war, the 223 would punch holes in kevlar hides better while the 44 mag would crush the bones that lie beneath. Other than 22's, I currently own one rifle. It is a Ruger Mini 14 in 223 Rem. My next planned rifle is gonna be the Ruger Deerfield Carbine in 44 Magnum. I might as well get the best of both worlds.

June 22, 2001, 03:55 PM	#10
Shooter 973 Senior Member Join Date: February 3, 2001 Location: Home town of John M. Browning, Utah Posts: 499	I have both calibers and would use the 44mag. out about 150 yrd, once you get that big bullet going it is already pre-expanded compared to the 223. The 44 has a lot of power with in its power range and distance restrictions. I have hunted with both and think the 44 is more effective , it punchesa bigger hole and they usually exit, 223 soft points don't.

June 22, 2001, 05:51 PM	#11
Tony Rumore Member Join Date: October 22, 2000 Posts: 21	Big game hunters in Africa have long know that foot pounds of energy does not mean squat when taking large game. A much better rating scale is the Taylor Knock Out formula. The .223 has a TKO of 6, the 44 Mag has a TKO of 19. I have shot a lot of large wild hogs with calibers from .222 to .340 Weatherby Mag and in pistols from .45 ACP to .454 Casull and I have to agree with Mr. Taylor's formula. The little fast bullets can churn up the energy, but it isn't worth a damn when the animals get large.

June 22, 2001, 10:51 PM	#12
Dave3006 Senior Member Join Date: July 25, 2000 Location: Lake Forest, CA USA Posts: 493	Can you tell me more about where to find info on the Taylor knock down formula? Thanks.

June 23, 2001, 05:23 PM	#14
Edward429451 Junior member Join Date: November 12, 2000 Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado Posts: 9,494	I used to beleive that high velocity crap, too. The more I yhought about it, the more reason took over, and the truth is that momentum wins every time folks. If I bounced a childs rubber playground ball off your head at 10 MPH, you would laugh, If I bounced a bowling ball (same general size, heavier.) off your head at 5 MPH, you may die. Because the light weight of the .223 slug, its only a 200-300 yard cartridge anyway, (if your serious, and not just showing off or poaching, er, I mean eating). So you go with the .44 Mag and practice, practice, practice. 200 yards is not unheard of with a decent pistol and lots of practice. When I'm out and about with my (sub-caliber) Mini-14, I carry a 7.5" redhawk to back it up. If I had a Mini-14 size carbine chambered in 44 Mag, I'd leave the .223 at home every time. Lever actions never really appealed to me, and the Ruger Deerfield is gas operated they say, so I wouldn't be able to shoot my lead reloads in it.

June 23, 2001, 11:15 PM	#15
PaulTX Senior Member Join Date: March 9, 1999 Location: Denton, TX Posts: 107	I've found that my Marlin 1894P shoots pretty flat out to 100 yards. How about a .44 mag, 240 LSWC, with a muzzle velocity and energy of about 2,200 fps and 2440 ft. lbs. repectively? I did it in my Marlin using 22 grains of 2400.

June 23, 2001, 11:56 PM	#16
IZZY Senior Member Join Date: February 2, 2000 Location: Florida Posts: 938	I see your point, and I agree that the .44 mag is a good round within 100 yards. But what about 300? Besides the greater range you may want consider the fact that the Spitzer type bullet tends to tumble in a living organisims..this causes nasty wounds ( in 223 between 50 and 300 meteres), the Russians did us up one better with 5.45...they had a nice reliable heavy caliber (7.62X39)...immitation is flatery. .44 mag really belongs in a carbine, as most folks can't handle it in a pistol. But why re-invent the 45-70 ( arguably better)?

April 5, 2023, 08:48 PM	#18
smee78 Senior Member Join Date: July 14, 2008 Location: South Carolina Posts: 2,918	Shawn2571, you do realize this thread is from 2001. __________________ We know exactly where one cow with Mad-cow-disease is located, among the millions and millions of cows in America, but we haven't got a clue where thousands of illegal immigrants and terrorists are

April 5, 2023, 10:52 PM	#19
bamaranger Senior Member Join Date: October 9, 2009 Location: North Alabama Posts: 8,317	.44 mag carbines When Bill Ruger introduced his original .44 mag semiauto carbine in the early 60's, part of the marketing ploy was he took the little rifle to Africa. I cannot say what all he shot with the carbine, I know his ad with the gorilla brought some flack and he shot some warthogs and other critters too. He later went on record stating that the killing power of the .44 from the carbine amazed his pro hunters and he likened it to other popular centerfires like the 30-'06. Ruger choose his words carefully, I do not have the direct quote at my finger tips, and Bill R. DID NOT SAY the .44mag from a carbine was the equal of the '06, more like it killed out of proportion to it's size and was as effective inside it's range as other deer calibers. I've hunted one of the original .44 tube feed carbines for years. My Dad hunted a Win '94 so chambered when first offered in the 1970's. One must be very careful about how and where he hunts, as noted by others, it is essentially a 100 yd gun. With 240 grain projectiles, the .44 carbine offers penetration that the .223 cannot match with expanding bullets. Any bullet weight from 200 grains up will cleanly take medium game , with no or little concern for quartering or raking shots, something I cannot say for the .223.

April 6, 2023, 07:30 AM	#20
stagpanther Senior Member Join Date: March 2, 2014 Posts: 11,803	I've successfully hunted with a 44 mag lever gun. I'd never shoot larger game beyond 100 yds with it and would make sure I knew the trajectory well for a quick snap shot; otherwise no problem IMO. __________________ "Everyone speaks gun."--Robert O'Neill *I am NOT an expert--I do not have any formal experience or certification in firearms use or testing; use any information I post at your own risk!*

April 6, 2023, 01:40 PM	#21
jmr40 Senior Member Join Date: June 15, 2008 Location: Georgia Posts: 10,810	Thread was dead for 22 years. Let it RIP. __________________ "If you're still doing things the same way you were doing them 10 years ago, you're doing it wrong" Winston Churchill

April 6, 2023, 08:20 PM	#22
Shadow9mm Senior Member Join Date: March 21, 2012 Location: Indianapolis, IN Posts: 3,977	Philosophies and techniques change over time. I personally find the discussion interesting, especially since i have owned both a 44mag lever gun, and 223 rifles. There are several key differences here imho. But i feel the over all concept comes down to fast and light vs slow and heavy. 44 mag should not be under estimated especially out of a carbine. It has lots of momentum and makes a big hole to hit hard. But it sacrifices trajectory to do it. 223 can hit hard as well. But it is much more dependent on velocity and bullet design to do it. It does however have a much better trajectory and loses velocity at a much slower rate. I cant say as i have ever heard anyone reccomend 233 for large and or dangerous game. However 44 mag would be more than adequate imho, given a reasonable distance. And im talking a traditional heart/lung, not the 22lr to the eye philosophy. Thats a whole nother can of worms. __________________ I don't believe in "range fodder" that is why I reload.

May 25, 2023, 10:42 AM	#24
MTT TL Senior Member Join Date: October 21, 2009 Location: Quadling Country Posts: 2,780	Things have changed a bit. There was no 75gr loading commercially available back in 2001 for 5.56, now there are several. 75gr @2910 is going to get you 1410ft/lbs at the muzzle and have negligible drop at 300 yards. This makes it near ideal for short to medium range, small to medium size game+ hunting. Also, .223 was more popular back then due to the AWB94. When that expired 5.56 became the new standard. __________________ Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war.

March 21, 2024, 09:14 PM	#25
Plainsman Member Join Date: October 31, 1998 Location: Grand Forks, ND, USA, NA Posts: 53	TKO worked well when bullet design didnt make as much of a difference. Now bullet design has made a HUGE IMPACT, pun aside. Back when this thread was started, I was all about large calibers, .308, .44, .444, .45ACP. Now two of my main goto rifles are .22WMR and .223/5.56. And my main sidearms: .22WMR and .38/.357. I even ran a 9mm for a few years before I went to mostly revolvers. Why my switch bullet designs! The terminal ballistics with modern bullets is far superior to what we had even two and a half decades ago, let alone 40+ years years ago when I started shooting and hunting. Its fun to see how things have evolved even during the lifespan of forums.