That opens a whole nuther can of worms...why on earth would you want to handicap yourself with a bullet that can't handle close shots? Is it just for the academic excercise of proving that you can kill a deer with a 40 grain bullet?

Let's say you do use distance to limit expansion, or that you download those little bullets to a more moderate velocity; what happens if you flub the shot a little (or the wind is blowing) and hit a shoulder bone? Will that tiny, fragile bullet still have enough left to penetrate into the vitals?

I'm just not understanding why you'd want to use a 40 grain bullet, especially when even if the only rifle you own is a .223 you can get reasonably good deer bullets for it.

The same reason some people limit themselves with black powder, archery or any other challenging method.

If I only had hunting opportunities two or three days a year I might feel differently.

As to your second issue, that was clarified several times including in the original post. Those little tiny bullets, when properly used, will penetrate a deer's shoulder with the right impact velocity. When I said broadside shots with the 220 Swift, I meant shoulder shots too. Later I got cocky and reverted to head shots but now I'm starting another never-ending thread about the morality of head-shooting. Regardless, the wind is an issue regardless of caliber. Anyone who thinks just shooting a bigger heavier caliber wind-proofs a long shot is a far bigger risk taker that a steady shot with a 22 caliber centerfire.

You're not appreciating it because it doesn't fit your personal hunting style and goals. Which suits me fine; I wouldn't want anyone to it just to prove a point or some other gamesmanship thing. I learned to do it because my only rifle at the time was a 220 Swift and later (after I burned the barrel out), a 223. By the time I bought the 223 my confidence level was such that I was at no more risk of a misplaced shot than I would have been with any other caliber. Certainly less at risk that the big kickers.

The use of tiny bullets on deer like game is just to show off. The showoff thinks he is fooling someone that he is somehow superior as a marksman or hunter.

Of course the downside is that the animal might suffer longer if it turns as the shot is fired.

"It's all you need." I hear it sometimes from braggarts in gun shops.

quote:

Originally posted by Conservative Rifleman:
The use of tiny bullets on deer like game is just to show off. The showoff thinks he is fooling someone that he is somehow superior as a marksman or hunter.

Of course the downside is that the animal might suffer longer if it turns as the shot is fired.

"It's all you need." I hear it sometimes from braggarts in gun shops.

and once again, I'll bet this is experiences passed on by an 'expert' who has never used one, to know first hand if it failed or succeeded...

my personal choices for deer rifles has been the 260 or the 7 x 57...but there are experts who have never used either who would swear by their uses are just stunts also...

so far there has not been ONE critic who has used it, and come to the conclusion it is a failure, and then could tell us why....

all they are doing is passing off third hand information and theories from gun 'experts'...

and I bet the same gun experts, had to actually use a 223 with a 40 grain bullet to put food on the table, they'd use it and have successful results despite its perceived handicap...

why do some of these so called naythesayers, think that many states who use to make it illegal to use a 22 caliber centerfire on deer and did so for decades, have suddenly reversed that opinion?

No one seems to bring up that small minor fact, and for good reason... it would put a hole in their little anti 22 caliber campaign...

its not their argument that puts me off... it is the fact they state their opinion with such authority and conviction, when they don't present a case of trying it and then telling us why it failed...

they just assume so and then claim they know it all anyway...

then they flame the guys who have done so and have done so successfully, more than once..

so what does that tell ya?

The reason I used a .22-250 on deer is that's what my dad gave me to hunt with. Until I got a summer job and was able to save enough funds for a new rifle, I was stuck with it. So I can understand how one might be driven by necessity to use a less-than-optimum caliber for deer.

That still doesn't answer the why with regard to 40 grain bullets. Even if they will work within their limitations, there's no good reason I can see to pick a 40 grain bullet over a 55 grain or heavier bullet that's actually designed for use on medium game instead of prairie dogs. I guess "because I can make it work under an extremely narrow set of circumstances" just isn't a good enough answer for me.

The blackpowder/archery analogy doesn't hold water for me either. IMO, what the 40 grain bullet guys are doing is the equivalent of using a field point when perfectly good broadheads are available.

I've done it once.. and that is because that is what I had with me and I was hunting for coyote and an antelope presented itself out of the blue, and I had a tag...

I had a 40 grain V Max.. nailed it behind the shoulder.. it took off and made it about 40 yds in open country...

the other 40 grainers are tougher...

my philosophy is I am not going to argue over what equipment a guy chooses to use, especially when they are producing results..

I've seen a deer lost this season when hit with a 139 grain Hornady 7 mm cartridge at 40 yds just as the sun was dropping.. deer took off a hillside into some deep and thick brush...

looked for him with 4 guys, and then we had 3 of us go out the next morning and looked another 3 hours... and never found it...

a bear could have drug it off in the night, or even a cougar...

but that experience would make one draw the conclusion that a 139 grain SP Hornady is suddenly a poor choice for deer hunting and that a 7/08 was suddenly a bad deer round..

a 223 round with a 40 grainer is not my personal first choice... at the same time who am I or anyone else to flame it, when successful results are happening...

a guy at the range just before the start of season was giving me crap about a 7 x 57, without even being invited to do so...because he thought minimum for taking a black tail should be a 7 Remington Mag with 175 grain bullets... which just so happened to be what he was shooting... imagine that....

it boils down to how many guys think that someone who is using something smaller in caliber and power to what they are personally using are idiots, those that are using exactly what they are using are somehow Rocket Scientist...

and then if the 'idiots' using something smaller than they are suddenly having successes, they are further labeled stunt shooters...

this thread is secondary about the effectiveness of the round and bullet on deer, primarily it quickly degrades to who is more egotistical and a self professed expert...

does one think the 15 grains difference in bullet weight is that big a deal breaker?

we are talking about one having an MV of 3950 fps MV vs another one with a max MV of 3250 fps or so...

if you were a soldier in combat, and were shot in the shoulder, would you rather have it be a 55 grain bullet at 300 yds, with the above MV or a 40 grain bullet with the above MV?

I can tell you with the training I had as a combat medic, and put in the position of having to be in charge of triage scenarios...the guy hit with the smaller bullet is going to get on the chopper first, because I can assure you he had more tissue damage than the guy hit in the same spot with the 55 grain bullet...and we are talking both being ballistic tips...

the heavy bullet is more likely to pass thru, where as the smaller bullet is going to have a larger wound...

last season I saw the blood shot rear haunch of a deer shot with a 204 shooting a 26 grain Barnes HP...pour placed shot by some kid.. deer went 40 yds and laid down because it couldn't go any further.. tried to get up when I came walking down the trail, but couldn't stand and fell back down...I had the kid put the barrel right up on the deer's cheek, right below the ear and pull the trigger.. that killed it..

I can tell you from military training as a combat medic, high speed, small pieces of metal penetrating a body can cause some very lethal tissue damage...

and I can also tell you, a bullet proof vest that cops wear can stop a 9mm round with no problem... a 40 grain bullet from a 22 Mag will slice thru it like butter...

Addendum...
just to fill in my credentials in regards to my military training, I completed Basic Combat Medic Training, Clinical Specialist with Advanced Combat Medic Training to include Med Evac and MASH unit training, and finally the 300F1 Green Beret Medic Course, so I have a little knowledge on bullet wounds and tissue damage..

Tean, how far did that 40gr BT make it inside the deer? Did the base make it to the far rib cage, or was it all over in the first 4 inches?

quote:

Originally posted by carpetman1:
Kabluey--You posted numerous times you had NO experience--now all of a sudden you do. Tell us how it's done on the keyboard--Troll.

Just because you are foolish enough to try something doesn't mean everyone should try it or even believe what you say your personal experience supposedly proves. Obviously this is a fine example of the human condition known as subjectivity. As said in the Simon and Garfunkle song - a man hears what he wants to and disregards the rest.

I don't need actual trigger time with a 223 wounding deer and such to prove to myself what the mfg itself already knows, since they designed the bullet for a specific purpose, which ain't what you are using it for. And that's just for starters. I don't need actual trigger time with a 223, when actual observations of its wounding effect is plenty good.

Why don't you focus your efforts at invalidation on the manufacturer of your bullets of choice, rather that me? Is it because you think I'm easier? You haven't learned much yet from the embarrasment, so at least you are consistant.

The troll raises the BS flag saying he posted actual experience. Now he doesn't have actual experience. Wonder why I don't believe a thing he says?

quote:

Originally posted by carpetman1:
The troll raises the BS flag saying he posted actual experience. Now he doesn't have actual experience. Wonder why I don't believe a thing he says?

It depends on what one defines as actual experience. I say it comes in a variety of forms.

One thing that is obvious, and that's if actual experience is limited to trigger time and shooting deer with a 223, IMO it ain't worth much, as you have demonstrated; which is subjectivity wins, no matter what the facts are.

You, and others say experience with something that ain't supposed to work, as well as you say it does, proves everything. I, and others say it's a case of don't confuse your subjectivity with the facts, which you choose to ignore. Us opponants have even gone so far to acknowledge, being polite, that the 223 will take deer, but stand on the opinion that it ain't such a good idea, and give reasons why. Proponants however are not willing to acknowledge even the basic flaws in their stand, which is first and formost that many of you, and you specifically, are advocating the use of varmint bullets on deer, and furthermore for such use by children.

Besides, I raised the BS flag because of that specific preceeding post, where you said that we (opponents) had not given our reasons. It wasn't about the 223 itself, but your ignorance and selective listening/reading instead.

KB

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:

quote:

Originally posted by carpetman1:
Kabluey--You posted numerous times you had NO experience--now all of a sudden you do. Tell us how it's done on the keyboard--Troll.

Just because you are foolish enough to try something doesn't mean everyone should try it or even believe what you say your personal experience supposedly proves. Obviously this is a fine example of the human condition known as subjectiveity. As said in the Simon and Garfunkle song - a man hears what he wants to and disregards the rest.

I don't need actual trigger time with a 223 wounding deer and such to prove to myself what the mfg itself already knows, since they designed the bullet for a specific purpose, which ain't what you are using it for. And that's just for starters. I don't need actual trigger time with a 223, when actual observations of its wounding effect is plenty good.

Why don't you focus your efforts at invalidation on the manufacturer of your bullets of choice, rather that me? Is it because you think I'm easier? You haven't learned much yet from the embarrasment, so at least you are consistant.

Is the picture of the animal on the box really that important to you? Back in the 80's they made a kids line of cloths called GerAnimals. Each piece of clothing had an animal on it, if the animals matched so did the cloths. Is this GerAmmunition?

It's a weak argument but what the hell.

The soft points on the ammo box are for big game, that is why they have a picture of a Capybara, which can weigh 232 lbs.


As for the Grizzly on the FMJ's, even the big bore guys know that solids are for dangerous game.


Original poster, did you have a plan B if the deer came too close for the Ballistic Tips?

And then there are these. I would guess he WAS about the same size as a deer.

To summarize.

People for 223 on deer. People against 223 on deer.

The result?



And a lot of

quote:

Originally posted by Antelope Sniper:
Tean, how far did that 40gr BT make it inside the deer? Did the base make it to the far rib cage, or was it all over in the first 4 inches?

Penetration was superb with an exit out the other side of the ribs with a average size exist wound for a deer; say 2.5-3".

Usually these NBT at the "magic" distances, which we find all the time here in the West, have complete pass troughs. Hunting out here when the cheat grass is a foot high and the sagebrush is 2 feet high lends itself to a lot of long range shooting. I don't think that I've shot a deer or elk with a rifle in under 150 yards since forever.

I used to bow hunt and took a lot of critters with a bow so I had some experience with getting close. Our rifle seasons follow the archery seasons, as is common in a lot of states, and the areas where you could get close enough for archery outfits changes dramatically when the rifle season opens up. Lots more hunters, lots more loud noises.

I took another mulie buck at 345 lazered yards with a 22-250 using a Barnes 53g X bullet and hit it in the neck which also was a DRT. That exit wound looked like a .224 hole on the other side of the neck. I've since passed on Barnes bullets and Partitions for those reasons of pass through. JMHO

quote:

Originally posted by scottfromdallas:
To summarize.

People for 223 on deer. People against 223 on deer.

The result?



And a lot of

Exactly.
It's a pointless, endless cluster-phuck of rationalizations and BS.

I suppose I'll never understand why a real hunter would use a varmint bullet for deer and brag about it.

Ya'll have fun.

Regards,
KB

quote:

Originally posted by scottfromdallas:
To summarize.

People for 223 on deer. People against 223 on deer.

The result?



And a lot of

bout sums it up.

funny stuff on the

Kabluey--Is your problem a reading problem or that you twist things so much you cant distinguish reality. You say you raised BS flag because I said opponents had not given reasons. Scroll back, it's there for all to see. What I said was Not one told of an actual experience that prompted their negative thinking. Big difference in the two. You can post all kinds of reasons based on your VAST keyboard experience--but none on actual experience. But if you like shooting them end to end with your magnum and spreading the green stuff on your food go ahead.

As I said, CM, I posted my actual experience and it made no difference. I count observations of deer being shot with 223, and its effectivness or lack thereof. You and others dismissed it. It only makes a difference to those that already share my opinion, and to those who don't, it doesn't matter.

OTOH, you explained your experience, some of which I found far fetched, but for the most part authentic. Actually, I probably never mentioned, in the heat of the argument, that I think that perhaps you are one of the more authentic of the proponants of the 223. Most are not as naive as you, and would not disclose the finishing shots with the pistol. At least you said it, but perhaps rationalized the meaning of it. Also, most proponants wouldn't acknowledge they use a bullet that is specifically designed to blowup. I can't figure whether you are just ignorant, naive or don't give a chit. But at least you are authentic, with sufficient extra credit given for excessive subjectivity.

I mean really - think about it - sometimes there is a sort of ironic reality and/or naivity to the simple question or lack of the question - "Just where is the problem"? Either way is authentic - right?

Reality??? WTF is that? That comes multi-layered when it's about the 223 on deer. We can't even get past the top layer, so the rest of it is hopeless.

The first reality for me is the use of varmint bullets on deer. IMO, that's a first point of any rational reality discussion. That's a fact, which has a very easily defined and predictable reality to it, in many ways. You and other proponants do a very good job at not addressing that, and preventing us opponants from effectively discussing it, with side-tracks and red herrings, which I think are intentionally twisting things to avoid distinguishing reality.

KB

At the time I made my post stating nobody with actual experience---- you had made NO posts--zero. Now if you think you are such a well known authority that people are going to research all your great words of wisdom and quote them----really I do think your opinion is so high that you believe that. I think more along the lines of a blivit. A blivit being 10 pounds of dung in a 5 pound sack.

I don't care whether you research my posts or not. Your history herein on this subject is relatively new. Also, this discussion and other related discussions recently have been very mild compared to some of the past years - thankfully. Those threads of the past did not serve to settle the debate on the use of the 223, however they did serve the purpose of makeing it clear that deterioation to personal insults is very - very counter-productive.

Your post above, IMO, is a red herring. The point is that what I observed means something to me, but it means less than nothing to you.

So what?

My observations confirmed my presupposed opinion about the 223 on deer. Your personal experience confirmed your opinion about its use on deer. We fail to reconcile. That's about all. I believe I was objective in reaching my conclusions. I suppose that you believe you are objective, or perhaps you just don't know what objectivity is, or perhaps that's not one of your goals. We each don't believe the other is objective, and can't have a discussion of the facts without making it personal.

What have I missed?

Oh -- maybe I missed the part of distinguishing "making it personal". There is a difference, IMO, in simply using the word "you" and personal insults. IMO, you don't have such distinction clearly, yet.

KB

Kabluey the Great has spoken. The world is in awe. Kabluey has said it cant be done. .223 can't be used on deer. The deer Teancum shot came back to life, jumped out of the freezer and ran off. Now Teancum will starve. Carpetman to the rescue. Send your dollars to me for a fund I have started to feed Teancum. Your .223's being useless can be sold off to folks not in the know--those that have not read Kabluey's great writings. This money can be used for your donations.

You are on a roll. I'll pass and let others have their say. Obviously we're past meaningful discussion.

Regards,

KB

Carpetman, Teancum,

I don't want to get into a big argument here. Each of us has to do what we think is right. I would just like to point out that as you move north, the deer get bigger and bigger in body size. Thus, I think it is appropriate to use more gun. In Nebraska and Kansas, they can get big because they have a good food source. North Dakota and South Dakota even bigger and in Canada, forget about it. You just never know when that buck of a lifetime is going to walk out in front of you and when and if that happens, I don't want to be holding a .223. For me anyway, any .223 load is not enough gun but you do what makes sense to you. Good luck and good hunting.

Dave Bush--I have lived in Alaska and Texas and a few states in between and I'm in full agreement with you that going North from Texas deer tend to get bigger. I also noticed none were wearng Kelvar. I also noticed that caribou get much bigger than the deer you mentioned and the native Alaskans frequently use .223 on them. Did you perhaps notice that Teancum that started this thread was hunting in Idaho? Northern border of Idaho is Canada. Did you read the part that he and his sons have done this many times? Not his first rodeo. You make the statement that any .223 load is not enough gun but do what makes sense to you. (Thanks for the permission). Many have posted favorable actual results. To me this is like when folks thought the earth was flat--ships kept returning to port--none fell off the edge---but that didn't matter to some-- the world is flat. I hope I have covered your points and you will be so kind as to reciprocate and answer a couple questions. First, "the .223 with any load is not enough". What is enough gun and what do you happen to shoot? What actual experience do you have for the basis of that statement?

I'm mostly questioning the bullet choice. I'd be just as puzzled by somebody using a 55 grainer in a 6mm, or a 110 grain in a .308. There are proper deer bullets available, why use a bullet that was desinged for varmints, and is even on the light end of the varmint bullets?

This thread has been fun and most enlightening. I have learned that I thought I had been hunting and harvesting deer--not the case. I have been experiencing a series of bullet failures. You don't just go shoot a deer and gut it and take it home and butcher it. If numerous things were not followed, you just thought you had killed a deer. One thing for sure if you were using a .223--it didn't happen. But the big factor is that the picture on the box of ammo has to match the game. With this in mind I went out and found a box of ammo with a nice 8 point buck on it. Luck would have it, I saw a nice 10 pointer and of course couldn't shoot it as I had 8 point ammo. Now I realize I sure enough have a dilemma. I have doe tags. I have never seen ammo with a picture of a doe--can anybody help here? I have another question. I don't buy factor ammo and do buy bulk packed bullets that have no picture. Can I go take a picture of a game animal and put that picture on the box? Would seem that would be custom precision tailoring of a load to the specific animal you were shooting. I look forward to using those custom bullets and not have all the bullet failures I have been experiencing.

quote:

Originally posted by kjjm4:


The blackpowder/archery analogy doesn't hold water for me either. IMO, what the 40 grain bullet guys are doing is the equivalent of using a field point when perfectly good broadheads are available.

Does it really mater "why" as long as it works? Sheesh!

kjjm4--I partly agree with you on bullet weights. I have always used 100 grainers in my .243. I use 55 grainers in .22 cal. Many don't agree with my next choice which is 150 grainers in .30 cal. I use 150's in my 30-06 and .308 on everything to include moose. How many times have I heard you have to use atleast 180's? Would I have considered using a 40 grain bullet in my .22's? No. Now that Teancum has told of a fair number of times he has successfully done it, I'd consider it. I don't think he is a liar. Will I ever do it? Probably not--the old if it aint broke don't fix it and 55 grainers have been working for me. Your question of why use it? Teancum has done it for years a number of times and it works. Question becomes, why not? I know--wrong picture on the box.

Maybe it would help to explain that there is a big difference beteen a 40 gr BT and a regular 40 gr cup and core bullet. The Ballistic Tip jacket is impact-extruded and has a much heavier wall thickness toward the base than the drawn jacket of most 22 caliber cup & core bullets. This jacket design started with the Nosler Solid Base bullet line (hence the name) and carried into the Ballistic Tip line and finally the Accubond line.

These pictures are of bigger bullets and an Accubond at that, but the 22 caliber Ballistic Tips have the same characteristic; even the varmint bullets. The point being the solid base and heavy jacket penetrate much better than conventionally jacketed 22 caliber bullets of the same weight. Also many 1:14 or 1:12 rifles shoot the 40 grainers like magic ray guns. So there is reasonable logic behind it, even if you choose to go another direction for your purposes.

Tiggertate--Those pictures of the bullet tell us nothing. The animal depicted on the box is THE factor. Think I'll send Kabluey a package of Royal Knight condoms. They have a picture of a knight in shining armor.

Tigger,
Your post is an example of misinformation. Hopefully you don't actually believe it, or can be talked into reason.

The following links describe the 40gr BT and 55gr BT. Note the words "varmint" and "violent expansion" and "fragment", in total contridiction to what you have tried to show with the accubond. They don't call it accubond for nuttin - it's a bonded bullet. The Sierra isn't a good comparison either since we dont know the impact velocity. However the BT is designed as a varmint bullet to explode.

In other words, the claims made by teancum and cm, re CM's 55 gr Winchester and tm's 40gr BT are complete BS.

http://www.midwayusa.com/Produ...in-spitzer-boat-tail

http://www.midwayusa.com/Produ...in-spitzer-boat-tail

KB is right on the last comment about the 40 NBT. They are varmint bullets with very thin jackets. Yes they have a solid base but they have extremely thin jackets all the way to the base.

http://www.nosler.com/Bullets/...tic-Tip-Varmint.aspx

This is what a varmint BT looks like:



Note that the jacket is very thin, to ensure that the bullet flies apart on impact.

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:
Tigger,
Your post is an example of misinformation. Hopefully you don't actually believe it, or can be talked into reason.

The following links describe the 40gr BT and 55gr BT. Note the words "varmint" and "violent expansion" and "fragment", in total contridiction to what you have tried to show with the accubond. They don't call it accubond for nuttin - it's a bonded bullet. The Sierra isn't a good comparison either since we dont know the impact velocity. However the BT is designed as a varmint bullet to explode.

In other words, the claims made by teancum and cm, re CM's 55 gr Hornady and tm's 40gr BT are complete BS.

http://www.midwayusa.com/Produ...in-spitzer-boat-tail

http://www.midwayusa.com/Produ...in-spitzer-boat-tail

What the hell do you expect marketing execs to say about a varmint bullet, Kube? I know how they advertise them. I also know what they'll do in the field in addition to what the press says. If you had read the original post more carefully, you would also have read the part where the Nosler rep admitted the offical line might be a little different than the reality.

I'm a very reasonable guy, Kube. I have no problem posting a reversal when I'm incorrect. But just like you, I'm not going to back down from sets of facts I know are valid from reasonably extensive personal experience.

I think you are an unreasonable guy, and full of it as well.

Exactly what am I incorrect about? Tell me and I'll post a reversal as well. The question is are they varmint bullets or not? The second question is are you and others using bullets for purpose in which they were not designed?

My answers to those basic questions are clear, and if I'm wrong, I'll post a reversal.

KB

Teancum, why did you choose the 40 grain over heavier Ballistic Tips, with better ballistic coefficient?
In the deer you and the boys have killed, has there been any noticeable difference if the bullet hit or missed ribs going in? Have any shorts hit shoulder blades or heavier bone?
I was also interested by Seafire's reports on penetration of slowed down varmint bullets. On his recommendation, my 260 load for my daughter is a slowed down 100 grain Ballistic Tip.

quote:

Originally posted by bja105:
my 260 load for my daughter is a slowed down 100 grain Ballistic Tip.

I am interested also in your report on the effectivness of the 100 gr 6.5mm slowed down. Looking at the Nosler site, one would expect near perfection on deer with that bullet, in mild loads. I'm starting out with some 100gr TTSX bullets in my Grendel, which I'm sure will be the equivilent to the 260 slowed down a bit. I would expect the 100gr BT to work well in the Grendel.

BTW, I think your choice for your daughter would be difficult to improve upon.

I am anxiously awaiting the arrival of my finished 6.5 Grendel on a Ruger action, so I can use it this season for deer hunting. I think I will not be dissappointed, and it will perform just as predicted.

Having no experience with that combo, what the heck do I know. According to many of those herein, mfg design specs and info as well as predictions based on that, and more, are worthless on such things.

KB

Sorry Kube, you're on ignore from now on.

quote:

Originally posted by tiggertate:
Sorry Kube, you're on ignore from now on.

Don't worry about appologizing to me. You've already been ignoring me all along, and it's only when I get in your face, so to speak, with facts that are relevant that you formally put me on ignore.

I didn't argue so much in order to convince you or the other proponants, but to make sure that your BS is transparant for those who are on the fence, or not well informed. The point is that the 223 isn't a good idea for deer, with the exception of specialists or experts. Heck, I can't even think of a single good reason to use a 223 for deer. I go about my way whether you use a 223 varmint bullets and rifle on deer or not. The last thing I think is that you owe me an appology. However, I do think you owe an appology to others here for the dose of BS you gave them.

KB