Yes shooting a deer in the hips is a great shot, kills em ever time. Maybe too much gun or they wouldn't be making such poor shot placement. The old hit em anywhere that you hear at gun counters so often. Probably skins em and quarters em too.

By all means you need a big boomer in bear country. The threat by bears is so high. Past over 100 years less than one fatal bear attack per year in all of North America--this includes wild bears as well as those in captivity such as zoos and circuses. BTW attach a fly swatter to your magnum--bee stings and mosquitoes cause many fold more deaths. Pet dogs kill far more people every year--so when you walk in your neighborhood, tote that magnum.( You can google all this and get the facts) When you hunt, never hunt alone and for bear protection all you need is a .25ACP. You don't have to be able to outrun a bear, you only need to be able to outrun your partner. Shoot your partner in the knee with a .25ACP and you can outrun him easily. As a sign says--for black bear wear a bell and it will scare most away. For the more aggressive you might need pepper spray. If you see grizzly scat leave immediately. Grizzly scat easy to recognize. Has bells and smells like pepper.

Hunting for those dangerous WOLVES !!!!

I was talking to a hunting buddy of mine that lives a few hundred miles away and his sons are avid hunters. One is also an avid marathon runner which accounts for the way those two hunt.

They have been successful on taking wolves here in Idaho each year and report that it takes a lot of hiking and some very long shots. One kill was a trailing job of about 200-300 yards in the snow and the other 3 were in the DRT to 50 yards for recovery. Distances for the shots have ranged from around 150 to close to 450 yards which in this open terrain is common.

Their weapon of choice is a Winchester Model 70 stainless with a pillar stock modification and a bedded action in a 22-250.

They also use it and have given it to friends to hunt antelope with here in Idaho. They were telling their dad that some of the guys show up with 300Win mags and 7mm Mags for the antelope and complain about not being able to hit them at the long ranges found in these open spaces. Hand them the 22-250 and those hunters can't believe how easy that gun is to shot (also has a Timney trigger) and how accurate it is.

His boys also add that they are not so concerned about the recoil and that is the main reason for the success by the shooter.

The dad reloads for those boys and has worked up some very accurate loads with a 50g NBT that is moving out at a good clip.

quote:

Originally posted by wasbeeman:
I have killed a variety of game animals with rifles chambered in .338 on down to .260. Elk, mulies, and WTs. I have killed a few truck loads of Ghogs and Pdogs with .222's, .223's. and 22-250's. FWIW, I won the WV state championship for 100/200 yds one year and the next I finished 2nd at 100 yards and 1st at 200 yards. Using a ta-da .223. The next year I moved away. I don't shoot deer with a .223 for the same reason that I don't elk hunt with a 7-08 even though I have probably shot both of those cartridges at least as much as most in this room. I have better tools in my box.

I worship at the alter of "heavy for calibre" bullets. I don't understand why someone would think that a 180gr bullet from a .300WM at 3000fps will do anything a 180gr bullet from a 30-06 at 2800fps won't do. Other than the "boyhowdylookwhatIcando" factor, I don't understand why someone would pack around a 7mag so's he could shoot 140's when a 7-08 or a .280 will give you all the velocity you can use. And the folks that crow about the flatter trajectory haven't spent too much time in a ballistic book and few could shoot competently at the distances where it would be meaningful.

Folks like my LOL in TN and the guys in WV and the herd cullers are not like hunters. They have a specific job to do. And they have multiple targets and multiple opportunities. They can wait until things are perfect or let the animal walk. If a trophy animal walks out, he gets a free pass since that isn't what they are there for. They don't grab their platform and arkansas the shit out of the hapless animal and hope for the best.

When I was fishing bass tournies, conventional wisdom was to rig for the largest fish you hoped to catch in the worse conditions you might encounter. That's excellent advise for hunting also. To steal someone's tag line, you want a rig that will handle things when they are all wrong, not when they're just right.

Well written, I think you make some excellent points and put out a lot of sensible things. However other then your comment that you feel you have better tools in your toolbox, (and how can one disagree) you really offer up nothing to oppose the use of 22's for deer.

I think your comments concerning ballistics, trajectory and 200 fps of difference in muzzle velocity are spot on. I think I could make the same types of points regarding the differences of a few ten thousands of an inch of bullet diameter too. In fact I will argue that bullet construction is much more important that diameter or velocity; within certain ranges of course. For example from .22 to .30 in diameter and 2500-3500 in velocity. I would say that bullet construction is second only to bullet placement in determining results and diameter and velocity are left fighting over a distant third.

The one point I will tend to disagree on is the idea of "rigging" for worst case as opposed to likely case or most common case or use. I see no sense in driving a heavy duty truck when for 95% of my use a half ton is a better choice and can be made to work for the remaining 5%. I know many disagree and that is fine.

Cheers.

quote:

Originally posted by carpetman1:
Can't use a .224 in areas of dangerous game? What game is more dangerous than another man armed and shooting back?

Another man armed with a rifle larger than a .223.

SR4759--Another man armed with a rifle larger than a .223. Maybe not--he might be flinching and cannot shoot it accurately whereby if he had a .223 he might be deadly. Certainly someone shooting them through the hips has more gun than they can handle.

quote:

Originally posted by carpetman1:
SR4759--Another man armed with a rifle larger than a .223. Maybe not--he might be flinching and cannot shoot it accurately whereby if he had a .223 he might be deadly. Certainly someone shooting them through the hips has more gun than they can handle.

It has always been my view that people that insist on shooting deer with .223s and such do so because they are not enough of a rifle man to handle the rceoil of anything larger. Based on your logic do you also hold that opinion for shooting game of all sizes because the shooter may be a recoil pussy?

SR4759---I think first off that someone that shoots em through the hips certainly needs more practice or possibly they are shooting too much gun. I sure hope that it's not a planned shot. I'd rather be a pussy shooting something I can handle--than a macho type shooting them through the hips--apparently more than they can handle. I also think that things are relative--a .243 or even a .308 is not too much recoil for an experienced adult. But for a youth it could be--most likely is. My experience has been let the youth shoot it a few times, given a steady rest they can make the proper shot(not through the hips). If this works 100% of the time which has been what I have observed, it becomes an if it aint broke don't fix it deal. Just because someone on the internet with no experience at it says it's unethical, marginal or whatever else---just don't make it so. I comfortably shoot 30-06, but stepped down to a .243--no why to it--all why not? Now I'll step down from my .243 to a .222 or .223--same reason--why not It works and it works well. None of this is a knock on the 30-06 or the .243. If I were limited to one gun--it would be a 30-06 or possibly .308 (it's right there with a 30-06 in my books). You keep saying no one has answered the why. I think it has been answered many times. The only ones speaking out against it seem to be the ones with no experience. Kinda like the priest and rabbi setting next to one another on the plane. The priest told the rabbi that Catholics now eat meat on Friday and wondered if Jews still forbid eating pork. The rabbi confirmed that it was forbidden. The priest asked if he ever violated that rule. The rabbi said he once ate a ham sandwich. The rabbi said he had heard talk that priests were going to be allowed to marry. Was it still required they remain abstinent? The father confirmed it was required. The rabbi asked if he ever violated that rule? The priest admitted that once during a weaker moment he violated the rule. After a few minutes the rabbi said--sure beats the shit out of a ham sandwich doesn't it?

People arguing against 22's for deer remind me of the media harping on George Bush during his first run for president. They kept trying to make a big deal of his opposition to "hate" crimes legislation and pointing to a "hate" crime in Texas as the perfect example of the need for the legislation. Bush kept saying over and over, "we gave the guy the death penalty, how much more legislation do we need?"

The dispute of my idea to rig for the worst situation reminds me of a joke: The old wrangler at a dude ranch was never seen without his pistol on his belt. Regardless of his task, he wore his pistol. One day a lady dude (dudette??) confronted him: "You'are always wearing that pistol. what is your problem? This is no longer the wild west. I'll bet you rarely have a need for that pistol!", she said. The old wrangler replied: "yes maam, you're right. I rarely need this pistol. But when I do, I need it damn bad."

Not disputing to each their own. I like your story, it's funny.

However there is a difference between have a tool for just in case and having a tool that works poorly for most use on the off chance something will happen.

To use your fishing analogy. You can rig for the monster if you stumble across him but in doing so you will miss many average fish that a lighter more senstative rod and lighter line would catch.

If you use that firearm daily for potting snakes, jackrabbits and assorted vermin would you carry a 22 or a 458 mag on the off chance you will run into a rabid grizzly?

To back up to Carpetman's post for a moment, why oh why do folks seem to think that because a weapon is substanctial, one will shoot it poorly and because one shoots a mattel rifle or something of that ilk, they will shoot it well? If you're a box a year shooter that only pulls old trusty rusty out of the closet a couple of days before hunting season and looks up that partial box of ammo he had left over from last season, he is gonna shoot it poorly. I don't care if it's a Red Ryder BB gun. If he practices regularly during the off season, he will shoot well regardless of the rifle.
I will admit that if whilst you're practicing, you are shooting a mix of target rifles and boomers, you do have to keep your head in the game as one mounts a target rifle (of the .222 sort)in a most dainty manner. Touching the rifle as little as possible. When you switch off to a boomer, if you unconciously do the same, the boomer will knock the snot out of you.

quote:

Originally posted by wasbeeman:
why oh why do folks seem to think that because a weapon is substanctial, one will shoot it poorly

Because it's a fact. Ask any guide or African PH about the unending procession of "hunters" who show up year after year with the latest magnum they are so afraid of they haven't a prayer of shooting it accurately.

The fact is big calibers kick harder and the harder it kicks the more prone you are to flinching and the less accurate you will be.

That being the case there is a better chance of success with a milder cartridge that increases the likely hood of accurate bullet placement.

You must of missed the part where I said, "if he practices regularly during the off season...." I've never talked, one on one, with a PH and seems like the guides that I've known are mostly out of work house painters and sheep herders during the off season. But while you were talking to all of the PH's and guides, did you ask them how many of their clients were pretty ordinary or did you ask them to tell about the exceptions that stand out in their minds. Like folks talking about trips to the rifle range, they don't tell about all of the folks that were shooting in a competent manner, just the exceptions. My example of one that I looked at closely before I posted my property had been burnt acrost the shoulders, had another in the short ribs, one in the guts and the final one in a ham. Little bitty holes you couldn't put your finger in. I guess the shooter didn't get the memo that said if you shoot a mattel, you're supposed to shoot it well.

I didn't miss it and didn't address it for two reasons. One is I happen to agree the other is because it's irrelevant.

You can live in the what should be or the what is world. Fact is that the huge majority of "hunters" who take to the field don't regularly shoot their rifles, never have and never will.

All bullets make little bitty holes. Unless you found the actual bullet you have no idea what caliber was used. Once again though doesn't really matter. Gut shot is gut shot regardless of caliber. I think that is something we can agree on.

All of this applies equally to all calibers. None of it speaks to the acceptability or opposite of specific calibers.

The point Beeman is making is just because you shoot more than a 223, doesn't mean you are gonna shoot the deer in the ass because of a flinch. Honestly, the recoil argument for something bigger than a 223 is laughable. Most grown men can handle at least a 243, 257 Roberts, 260 Rem, 7mm-08. If you can't, then hunt with a 223. I have no issues with it but don't try to tell me I'm going flinch because I use something bigger.

quote:

Originally posted by scottfromdallas:
The point Beeman is making is just because you shoot more than a 223, doesn't mean you are gonna shoot the deer in the ass because of a flinch.

Course not. Nor do I personally buy into the argument that being "recoil shy" somehow justifies a light caliber. That has always struck me as someone saying, "I know it's a bad idea but I have no other options".

Well yeah you do. Don't hunt is always an option but the very real workable EFFECTIVE solution for recoil is get a heavier rifle. Nothing tames recoil like weight.

I just happen to think that almost everyone vastly underestimates the lethality of all our hunting cartridges equipped with appropriate bullets.

Howard, I suppose it depends on where I was killing the assorted varmints.
If out in my pastures the 22 Rf would be fine BUT a mere 30 miles from here, where the big signs say "Be Bear Aware", I'd be happier with the 458.
Even when Rockchuck hunting in that country with a .224 of some type, the S&W 329 stoked with 300 gr hardcasts and max loads of H110 rides in my El Paso Saddlery Tanker holster. Mr Griz also like Rockchucks as a snack ..... you know. If you see a bear of any breed or size, the prudent man leaves.

As for the "hip shot" deer, the dolts, as usual, tried to make something of nothing. Anyone who has hunted Whitetail in cover for over 5 decades will (if truthful) admit that a few shots did not land where intended. When that happens, a 308 with TSXs is far superior to a 22 caliber varmint rifle.

As for the man hunting man with 223s dope, obviously never wore the green suit and played hide and seek in Vietnam with guys who had AK47s.
Start with the basics: an AK will shoot through lotsa stuff that an M16 would/will not. To make it real simple: you're dead he is not !
Perhaps he supposes that all our troops who really get in the thick of it are grabbing 45 ACPs and 308 M-14s as fast as they can because they are not as smart as a big deer hunter like him.

Typical Internet blog: 25% who know the facts, 25% who don't and 50% who jump on whatever bandwagon is going by.

B-O-R-I-N-G

Free enertainment and a bunch of wannabe tough guys calling others names.

quote:

Originally posted by Howard:


I just happen to think that almost everyone vastly underestimates the lethality of all our hunting cartridges equipped with appropriate bullets.

I'm not sure I agree with that. I tend to agree on principle but when you get to where the rubber meets the road, most people buy into the latest hype and hope for the best. They buy a chambering because they're told it will shoot flat as a table top out to 500+ yards so's they don't have to be bothered with learning range estimation; they buy the latest magic bullet 'cause it'll out penetrate all others and will gut and skin the animal to boot. Any hit, any where. Ah yes, remember kenetic energy? So they don't have to be bothered with marksmanship. Just arkansas away.
So yes, any cartridge can be lethal but somewhere along the line you have to stick it in the right spot. And the right spot is bigger for a larger bullet than a small one. It still doesn't absolve you of your responsibility as a hunter but it does help you out when your fingers are cold and wet, the scope is steamed half over, the rain is pelting down, and the biggest buck you've ever seen is walking by. You've rigged for the worst and hoped for the best.
BTW, I can tell the difference between a 22 bullethole and a 7mm.

Wasbeeman--Why do people think if a weapon is "substantial" they will shoot it poorly. This has the connotation that a .223 is not substantial. Seems the only ones saying it is not are those with zero experience--those that do it report favorably.

Oh yes a bigger gun makes for a bigger kill zone--hit em anywhere.
45-70 having no experience with someone shooting back I'll bow to your experience that if you have a .223 all the other guy needs to win is a bigger gun. Thank you for your service.

Tell you what old underfoot, you grab your plastic 223, come on out and we'll set up unknown range 1/2 and full man targets from 100 to 600 yards. I'll borrow my pal's SAKO rebuilt Mosin Sniper with it's ancient scope and Russian issue sniper ammo. (ballistics about like a 308)
60 shots, 60 minutes, no sighters, with ref. designating target. It will be shot here, where the crosswinds vary from 0 to 40mph, some mirage and you cannot use any attached rest, sticks or benchrest.
Spot we'll shoot looks about like this:



There are Antelope in the picture .... can you spot him/them ?

Loser cleans up the range, buys the beer and leaves his rifle with the winner.

As for the ammo comment:
"I'm not sure I agree with that. I tend to agree on principle but when you get to where the rubber meets the road, most people buy into the latest hype and hope for the best."

Well said and in the X ring (you utes can look up what an X ring is)

This whole thread is an example of buying into hype with no rational reason. Even the folks in our G&F dept have bought the hype and are allowing .224 cartridges 2" long for Deer and Antelope. Can hardly wait for some 223 spray and pray type to be up in the Wyoming range and stumble across Mrs Griz, her two cubs and their latest cattle kill. And no ..... you cannot sue as Wyoming, unlike most "sheepie states" has a liability law that says if you do something stupid and end up dead .... well that's just too bad. Helps keep the gene pool in better shape than "sheepie states". Please come and spend your money as we know you're no real threat to anyone/thing but yourself.

Most of this thread is like "a box of choc-u-lats" (made in a Chines slave labor factory.)
Lots of mouse droppings, very few Godivas.

quote:

Originally posted by carpetman1:
Wasbeeman--Why do people think if a weapon is "substantial" they will shoot it poorly. This has the connotation that a .223 is not substantial. Seems the only ones saying it is not are those with zero experience--those that do it report favorably.

I did not mean to imply that the .223 is not substantial, I meant to say it as plainly as possible. It is a varmint cartridge. Despite the fact that the originators tried to cover up that fact, the folks with "boots on the ground" said it was inadequete. Why would a marine squad equip themselves with AK47s? (only to draw friendly fire due to the distinct firing signature of the AK) Why would the Commandant Marine Corp issue a letter saying that any more negative reports on the M16 would result in disclipine?
Shall we say the .223 carries with it more "responsibility". Because the bullet placement has to be more precise than with a larger calibre. When a .223 bullet exspands (mushrooms), it may achieve the same diameter as a 30 cal unexpanded. Thus, when someone reports shooting a deer at XXX through the big middle and it was DRT. I tend to not believe it. And too, I have been lurking around cyberspace for quite a while an I've yet to read a report about anyone hitting a deer and having it run off where they admitted that it was crappy shooting on their part.
And once again we come to the "you ain't never done it and I have, neener, neener, neener" bullshit. Sounds like a spiteful little kid doesn't it. And so I won't explain my reasoning again.
Something that hasn't been addressed is the "why" of all this. Most folks have gotten a mattel 'cause it looks baaaaad. Like the weapons in the video parlours where they got their gun training. (you remember when all the rage was getting a 10/22 Ruger and putting it in "battle dress") And after they've shoot up a few beer cans and telephone books, they get to wondering what else can they do? And some self-styled eggspert with his ninji rag tied around his head and his cammie pants tucked into his socks opines "if it'll kill a man, it'll kill a deer". And so you get the posts of: "will a .223 kill a deer?" and "what bullet should I use to kill a deer at 600 yards from my platform?" And our cyberspace eggsperts are only too eager to accomadate them. Each trying to outdo the other.
For the record, I haven't a doubt that I could kill a deer with a sub-standard cartridge. But then I am a good hunter; I have good woods skills; and I am a very good marksman. But even with these creds, I wouldn't try some of the hot dog shit I read in cyberspace.
Sorry if these shoes pinch some toes but that's the way I see it.
YMMV

quote:

It is a varmint cartridge.

Not true. It's a direct copy of a military battle cartridge.

quote:

Why would a marine squad equip themselves with AK47s? (only to draw friendly fire due to the distinct firing signature of the AK) Why would the Commandant Marine Corp issue a letter saying that any more negative reports on the M16 would result in disclipine?
Shall we say the .223 carries with it more "responsibility".

Despite what you want to believe the vast majority of the troops like and approve the cartridge. The 5.56 NATO has been used longer than any other rifle cartridge in US history for front line service. That alone should tell you a lot. The Russians thought well enough of it to drop thier beloved 7.62X39 for a similar cartridge to the 5.56 NATO.

quote:

Shall we say the .223 carries with it more "responsibility". Because the bullet placement has to be more precise than with a larger calibre.

A bad shot is a bad shot no matter what caliber you use. A big caliber never made a slob hunter a better shot.

quote:

When a .223 bullet exspands (mushrooms), it may achieve the same diameter as a 30 cal unexpanded.

Not true. they open up more than that. do a little research.

quote:

Thus, when someone reports shooting a deer at XXX through the big middle and it was DRT. I tend to not believe it.

This is because you have no experience with the subject at hand and can only assume.

quote:

And once again we come to the "you ain't never done it and I have, neener, neener, neener" bullshit. Sounds like a spiteful little kid doesn't it.

It probably does sound like that in your own head. The simple fact is you really need to have a little experience with the subject to be taken seriously. The funny part is you claim to have more experience than me and you've never even done it!

quote:

Something that hasn't been addressed is the "why" of all this.

I did.

quote:

Most folks have gotten a mattel 'cause it looks baaaaad.

I use a very nice custom .223 mini mauser bolt rifle. Nothing "tacticool" about it.

quote:

And some self-styled eggspert with his ninji rag tied around his head and his cammie pants tucked into his socks opines "if it'll kill a man, it'll kill a deer". And so you get the posts of: "will a .223 kill a deer?" and "what bullet should I use to kill a deer at 600 yards from my platform?" And our cyberspace eggsperts are only too eager to accomadate them. Each trying to outdo the other.

All in your head. Maybe you spend too much time on the internet.

I use to be in the camp that thought it was a really bad idea. I even got on the net and spouted off some of the same BS you have on this thread. Then I read an informative post by John Barsness saying he had used it successfully for many years and I decided to open my mind and give it a try. I was amazed at the results.

Other cartridges will extend your range and enable you to take shots that shouldn't be taken with a .223. The cartridge certainly limits your range but to me that's part of it's charm. When I go hunting it's never a do or die situation. My hunting property is close to my home and I have plenty of time to get the job done. There is never any pressure to harvest.

The .223 isn't the ultimate deer cartridge. Nobody has said that. But, used within it's limitations it's very effective and more than adequate to get the job done. It's far from a stunt.

One thing I've noticed over time is the vast majority of those who have actually tried it have no complaints and those who crow about it constantly have never done it. Think about that.

Time to turn off notifications on this thread.
Only a wimp, irresponsible, uninformed person would use a varmint cartridge on deer. Even a plastic rifle owner (I own two, a DPMS large frame with 4 uppers, and a carbon fiber "built" AR 15). Even the AR 15 owner can upgrade to a 6.7. 450 or 50 and have a real deer rifle.
No reasons, just egos talking .... no point in wasting anymore time with fools.

Please do. Nobody takes you seriously anyway.

TC1, you're starting to get shrill. Please don't stamp your feet and hold your breath. I don't know that I could stand it.
Those mini mausers are nice. My BIL has one in .223. He takes it when we go varmint shooting. He has a real rifle that he takes deer hunting.

quote:

Originally posted by 45-70 shooter:
Time to turn off notifications on this thread.
Only a wimp, irresponsible, uninformed person would use a varmint cartridge on deer.....
No reasons, just egos talking .... no point in wasting anymore time with fools.

FYI my wife took her 4th deer this morning with her little .223, one bullet, one deer dead. It was a decent (for public land) 8 point. We hooked it up to the scale and it weighted 188 lbs dressed! My wife is notorious for mis-judging distance but she said it was about 30yds away when she took the the shot. Based off of the blood trail the deer ran 40yds before it died. So i guess she is a irresponsible wimp that should be informed that a .223 is insufficient of killing a deer!

This the same guy?

quote:

Originally posted by 45-70 shooter:
It was only a matter of time until the name calling (absent facts) started.

quote:

Originally posted by 45-70 shooter:
Only a wimp, irresponsible, uninformed person would use a varmint cartridge on deer....................No reasons, just egos talking .... no point in wasting anymore time with fools.

quote:

Originally posted by 45-70 shooter:
You know you've hit a nerve when the "stalking trolls" start calling you names (while hiding their own identity.)

A .22 will expand to .30 cal???? That speaks volumes on a persons lack of experience. All except two were a complete pass through, so only two bullets recovered. Both situations were nearly identical. Both were smaller deer--and in the 60-100 yard range. (to me it's odd that bigger deer at longer distances were shot completely through) the recovered base was just under the skin on the off side. Both bases were the perfect mushroom and weighed 40 grains which is 72.7% of the original 55 grain weight. Both were Winchester bulk packed bullets (from Midway). I didn't measure the diameter but they were in the 3/4-1 inch range---much larger than .30 cal. NONE of the nay sayers have explained to me how a hole that size through the vitals wont kill it. Spray and pray?? ALL have been one shot. I don't wait 30 minutes after the shot. I go immediately. Any sign of life a finishing shot is given. A few have required a finishing shot. About the same rate as those I've seen shot with larger cals. I have no doubt that with a waiting period no finishing shot needed. Only two have required ANY tracking. One doe ran maybe 60 yards and a buck went maybe 30. Mattell?? ALL have been with bolt actions. ( I just haven't warmed up to the AR"s) One that I found odd was my great nephews first deer. It was a forked horn about 125 lbs and shot with my .222. He shot it a little forward--passed through both shoulders--but didn't hit the vitals. I would have expected that to put it down and have a flailing animal. It was dead when it hit the ground.

Proof posted on this thread of why it won't work.

It's a varmint cartridge.

It won't work at long range.

Our deer are bigger then yours.

There are better tools available.

If you can't handle recoil you are a whimp.

Our soilders pick up enemy rifles and use them.

It's too small.

There are grizzly bears where I hunt.

sure I am missing many. Guess that is all the naysayers have to offset all the first hand testimony of how it not just works but works well.

quote:

Originally posted by wasbeeman:
TC1, you're starting to get shrill. Please don't stamp your feet and hold your breath. I don't know that I could stand it.

HAR!

Howard--A very good summary of why not to use. You left out that larger cals increase the kill zone. You can hit em anywhere---shot placement not a factor. Even a shot through both hips becomes an ideal shot. Also with the bigger boys, they will shoot through any obstacle. In a war situation the other guy with a bigger gun will shoot through trees or whatever and you're dead. The .223 wont kill them after all it's just a varmint round or toy (Mattell).

TC1--I know when you go afield with that toy---that mini mauser, you get laughed at. I'd be happy to find an AK-47 to trade you and save you all that embarrassment (only cause I'm such a nice guy) and then you'd have a real rifle. I'd suffer through getting laughed at and carry it. Swallow your ego and post a picture of it so the naysayers can have their big laugh.

quote:

Originally posted by carpetman1:
TC1--I know when you go afield with that toy---that mini mauser, you get laughed at. I'd be happy to find an AK-47 to trade you and save you all that embarrassment (only cause I'm such a nice guy) and then you'd have a real rifle. I'd suffer through getting laughed at and carry it. Swallow your ego and post a picture of it so the naysayers can have their big laugh.

Here ya go.




It's just a toy I'm forced to use because I'm inexperienced and don't know better.

You'll have a great day, I'm going hunting.

Terry

The ultimate 223 for sure.

TC1

Sweet looking shooter there.

Beautiful rifle. Not Mattelish at all.

I shot a doe whitetail yesterday with my 223 wssm. Pass through with a 55 grain TTSX. Nothing surprising about the result. Its my sixth deer with a 22 centerfire. This was the farthest at 360 yards though.

quote:

Originally posted by RMiller:
I shot a doe whitetail yesterday with my 223 wssm. Pass through with a 55 grain TTSX. Nothing surprising about the result. Its my sixth deer with a 22 centerfire. This was the farthest at 360 yards though.

Stunt shooter