Thread: 223 on deer

Another with 69 grn Targex a few days ago. 115 yards. Did a little .223 stagger and tipped over.

While doing research on another calibre (6.5x55, 160 gr round nose soft point), I came across this Kiwi website that has a lot to say about the .223 as a hunting round. The page briefly recounts the history of the calibre, discusses its performance, compares factory and handloads, and then makes a few concluding remarks. One of the author's performance observations is: "Apart from the use of FMJ ammunition, hunters using the .223 on medium game will achieve best results with neck and head shots. Typical sporting loads with conventional soft point ammunition can penetrate through the chest walls of medium game but kills are always slow if the CNS is not destroyed. The .223 does not have the power to initiate hydrostatic shock."

I'm not capable of determining the accuracy of the author's remarks but wonder whether those of you who do have such a skill set would agree or disagree with his observations?

Originally Posted by NoMis

I'm not capable of determining the accuracy of the author's remarks but wonder whether those of you who do have such a skill set would agree or disagree with his observations?

All he's saying is that you've gotta be on the money to ensure a fast kill. Which is pretty obvious to anyone who chooses to take a .223 Rem over a .308 Win, for example.

The "always slow" part is outdared - try a 69gr or 77gr TMK into the lungs and see how slow "slow" is. Ditto the old 75gr A-Max I used to use. My old school 70gr Speer semi-spitzers will make a red hind stagger and fall over in short order.

It's important to remember that Nathan Foster is a magnum cartridge long range man. Not really that inclined towards the small calibre precision business.

Originally Posted by NoMis

While doing research on another calibre (6.5x55, 160 gr round nose soft point), I came across this Kiwi website that has a lot to say about the .223 as a hunting round. The page briefly recounts the history of the calibre, discusses its performance, compares factory and handloads, and then makes a few concluding remarks. One of the author's performance observations is: "Apart from the use of FMJ ammunition, hunters using the .223 on medium game will achieve best results with neck and head shots. Typical sporting loads with conventional soft point ammunition can penetrate through the chest walls of medium game but kills are always slow if the CNS is not destroyed. The .223 does not have the power to initiate hydrostatic shock."

I'm not capable of determining the accuracy of the author's remarks but wonder whether those of you who do have such a skill set would agree or disagree with his observations?

My first large game riffle was the 7mm rem mag and I thought it was the only calibre to use on deer until I started reading posts from champion hunters like Tahr.

After the endless kills posted I decided why not try this myself? So I bought a 223 and reloaded 62gr -80gr projectiles and have shot numerous deer since.

My conclusion is the 7mm rem mag can stay in the safe and I will happily use my 223 on all game, 7mm rem mag will only come out if I know I'm going to be shooting over 300 meters.

Originally Posted by NoMis

While doing research on another calibre (6.5x55, 160 gr round nose soft point), I came across this Kiwi website that has a lot to say about the .223 as a hunting round. The page briefly recounts the history of the calibre, discusses its performance, compares factory and handloads, and then makes a few concluding remarks. One of the author's performance observations is: "Apart from the use of FMJ ammunition, hunters using the .223 on medium game will achieve best results with neck and head shots. Typical sporting loads with conventional soft point ammunition can penetrate through the chest walls of medium game but kills are always slow if the CNS is not destroyed. The .223 does not have the power to initiate hydrostatic shock."

I'm not capable of determining the accuracy of the author's remarks but wonder whether those of you who do have such a skill set would agree or disagree with his observations?

I would call Nathan Foster One of the most knowledgeable people worldwide on the subject of terminal ballistics. I own several of his book, the most recent one he wrote on the subject does cover the more modern heavy projectiles for the .223. He speaks quite highly of the the likes of the Hornady ELDM and the Sierra TMK's. He tends to recommend the Match grade projectiles for longer ranges because they tend to expand better than some of the heavier jacketed projectiles like the Barnes Tripleshock intended for game shooting.
His writings on Long range shooting and bullet performance on game are great reads, I recommend them for both seasoned hunters and newbies.

Originally Posted by zeropak

I would call Nathan Foster One of the most knowledgeable people worldwide on the subject of terminal ballistics. I own several of his book, the most recent one he wrote on the subject does cover the more modern heavy projectiles for the .223. He speaks quite highly of the the likes of the Hornady ELDM and the Sierra TMK's. He tends to recommend the Match grade projectiles for longer ranges because they tend to expand better than some of the heavier jacketed projectiles like the Barnes Tripleshock intended for game shooting.
His writings on Long range shooting and bullet performance on game are great reads, I recommend them for both seasoned hunters and newbies.

I have the opposite opinion

He learned everything he could by reading forums and ringing everyone to pick their brains

His motivator to create a latent income from his website

Verbose generalisations do not an expert make

There are some very humble hunters and shooters in NZ that are light years ahead in actual experience and technical capability, They’re just not inebriated with the exuberance of their own verbosity

"They’re just not inebriated with the exuberance of their own verbosity."

That's a well-written and mirth-inducing phrase, 7mmsaum

Originally Posted by NoMis

"They’re just not inebriated with the exuberance of their own verbosity."

That's a well-written and mirth-inducing phrase, 7mmsaum

Dont encourage him NoMis ,that sentence, comes tantalizingly close to the epitome of verbose in its self , as does this.

Originally Posted by NoMis

While doing research on another calibre (6.5x55, 160 gr round nose soft point), I came across this Kiwi website that has a lot to say about the .223 as a hunting round. The page briefly recounts the history of the calibre, discusses its performance, compares factory and handloads, and then makes a few concluding remarks. One of the author's performance observations is: "Apart from the use of FMJ ammunition, hunters using the .223 on medium game will achieve best results with neck and head shots. Typical sporting loads with conventional soft point ammunition can penetrate through the chest walls of medium game but kills are always slow if the CNS is not destroyed. The .223 does not have the power to initiate hydrostatic shock."

I'm not capable of determining the accuracy of the author's remarks but wonder whether those of you who do have such a skill set would agree or disagree with his observations?

Holy shit a lot of words. Reckons the 80gr Amax is unreliable. Is wrong - probably has not actually used it. Will steer clear of commentary in general on that source but I'd suggest testing any particlar assertion to check evidence.

Originally Posted by gimp

Holy shit a lot of words. Reckons the 80gr Amax is unreliable. Is wrong - probably has not actually used it. Will steer clear of commentary in general on that source but I'd suggest testing any particlar assertion to check evidence.

Actually In Nathan Fosters latest book "Long Range hunting cartridges" 2nd Edition. He recommends the 73,75 and 80gm ELDM's (Amax) as well as the Sierra 69 and 77gn TMK's. Quote "No other .224 calibre projectiles are in my experience capable of the same level of reliable fragmentation in the absence of both high velocity and bullet energy - while carrying sufficient bullet weight for retained energy at extended ranges" end of quote.

Originally Posted by zeropak

Actually In Nathan Fosters latest book "Long Range hunting cartridges" 2nd Edition. He recommends the 73,75 and 80gm ELDM's (Amax) as well as the Sierra 69 and 77gn TMK's. Quote "No other .224 calibre projectiles are in my experience capable of the same level of reliable fragmentation in the absence of both high velocity and bullet energy - while carrying sufficient bullet weight for retained energy at extended ranges" end of quote.

Well Ive read that quote several times and still cant figure out what it means??

Originally Posted by Tahr

Well Ive read that quote several times and still cant figure out what it means??

Yeah I agree with you in a way. Think the word "Fragmentation" is wrong, a poor choice of words. To me that would indicate projectile failure. However in the context of the book he tends to use this word to describe a projectile which has expanded reliably and lost a certain percentage of its weight as it travel through the animal. Most projectiles intended for soft skinned game, such as deer do exactly that.

Jeez I really do hope the humble .223 lives up to some of the hype I have read on this thread. Seriously though all this info got me interested in giving the .223 a go, I've never owned one. I started hunting with a 30/06, down sized to a 6.5x55 and now use a 6.5 creedmoor, a couple of them actually. I never thought I would downsize further than this when it came to deer sized game. But here we are and I just put together 2 x .223's. One is a TAC A1 barreled action in a Stocky's stock, barrel shortened to 20" with a Delta 4-24x50 scope. The plan for this one is mainly range work. The other is a T3x carbine 20" barrel also in a stocky's stock with a Delta 2.5-15x50 scope. Just playing around with loads at the moment. the T3x hasn't even had any shots through it yet, that will happen this Wednesday the TAC A1 seems to really like the Hornady 75gn HPBT match.
I also have on hand some 69gn Targex and some 73gn ELDM's. ADI 2208 and CFR .223 powder.

Originally Posted by Tahr

Well Ive read that quote several times and still cant figure out what it means??

that the ywill still expand even at longer range/slower speed better than anything else..and they are heavy enough to still hit hard enough to kill cleanly

well thats how I read that.

Originally Posted by zeropak

Actually In Nathan Fosters latest book "Long Range hunting cartridges" 2nd Edition. He recommends the 73,75 and 80gm ELDM's (Amax) as well as the Sierra 69 and 77gn TMK's.

that’s probably because he read this thread!