quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:

But when it comes to the worst choice, the 223 is among that group, somewhere up a line, starting perhaps with a 22LR or something in .17 caliber.
KB

This is YOUR opinion. You need to brush up on your English composition so when you post you can effectively present these kinds of statements as opinions. Yours or others. Even though Bill Clinton couldn't figure out what the word "is" is, I'm confident that you can. Doesn't matter how strong an opinion is, it still isn't a fact and shouldn't be presented as such.

IMHO, I wouldn't have a problem with this.

quote:

Should have been posted by Kabluewy:

But when it comes to the worst choice, I think the 223 is among that group, somewhere up a line, starting perhaps with a 22LR or something in .17 caliber.
KB

Ackley would strongly disagree with those that diss the small calibers for big game. He also generated plenty of data to back up his opinion. If he were limited to one cartridge it would have been the 220 Swift.

quote:

My point being that there is no best choice and that's an absolute fact.

Can you expound on that point please. You set no minimums, and disregard any maximums.

quote:

Went to your Web site; doesn't say much about your capability. roger

quote:

Originally posted by gunmaker:
It is your simple , non rambling, statement opinion


My point being that there is no best choice and that's an absolute fact.

Notice how quick he discounted your personal experience with the subject at hand and went personal?

And then we get a dissertation on law and how those that make them are all wise and know better than anyone else. I know that type of thinking is in vogue right now by looking at who's running the country. Fact is it isn't true and that was about the stupidest thing I've read on this thread so far!

9 pages and another year later. The .223 did a fine job last year and it'll do a fine job this year. Of course there will always' be those with little or no real experience that whine about it but there will be others that use it and use it successfully.

Terry

quote:

Originally posted by TC1:
Notice how quick he discounted your personal experience with the subject at hand and went personal?

And then we get a dissertation on law and how those that make them are all wise and know better than anyone else. I know that type of thinking is in vogue right now by looking at who's running the country. Fact is it isn't true and that was about the stupidest thing I've read on this thread so far!

9 pages and another year later. The .223 did a fine job last year and it'll do a fine job this year. Of course there will always' be those with little or no real experience that whine about it but there will be others that use it and use it successfully.

Terry

I don't see anyone talking about lawmakers being all-wise, and knowing better, or others being stupid, or whineing etc. except you.

Of course your .223 did a fine job for you, and other's experience or lack of it has little to do with that.

Also, of course we are all subject to the laws of the land in some way or another, including the multitude of fish and game laws that our lawmakers saw fit to pass. The presumption is that you are a law abiding citizen, and since apparantly your state has no law preventing the use of the .223, then the discussion doesn't pertain to you.

KB

I didn't even know I had a web site.

quote:

Originally posted by MickinColo:

quote:

My point being that there is no best choice and that's an absolute fact.

Can you expound on that point please. You set no minimums, and disregard any maximums.

I guess I'm confident enough in my own abilities and limitations to effectively harvest deer with my .223, 22-250, 22-250 ACK IMP, 25-06, 280Rem, 300 WIN MAG, 30-338 and nothing has dropped as fast as those shot with my 223. Nothing has ran off either. After reading my local big game laws it looks like I can use my 204 Ruger as well. I'll have to do some research on that one.

Kind of like driving in the snow. If you're not comfortable doing it, DON'T. Just don't tell me it's some silly fact that it can't or shouldn't be done.

quote:

Originally posted by gunmaker:

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:

But when it comes to the worst choice, the 223 is among that group, somewhere up a line, starting perhaps with a 22LR or something in .17 caliber.
KB

This is YOUR opinion. You need to brush up on your English composition so when you post you can effectively present these kinds of statements as opinions. Yours or others.

IMHO, I wouldn't have a problem with this.

quote:

Should have been posted by Kabluewy:

But when it comes to the worst choice, I think the 223 is among that group, somewhere up a line, starting perhaps with a 22LR or something in .17 caliber.
KB

Ackley would strongly disagree with those that diss the small calibers for big game. He also generated plenty of data to back up his opinion. If he were limited to one cartridge it would have been the 220 Swift.

Ackley didn't have enough to do, IMO, so he did a bunch of worthless stuff.

But when it comes to the worst choice, I think and many others think, and in some places the law thinks, all supported by objective data, the 223 is among that group, somewhere up a line, starting perhaps with a 22LR or something in .17 caliber.
KB


How's that?

KB

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:Ackley didn't have enough to do, IMO, so he did a bunch of worthless stuff.

But when it comes to the worst choice, I think and many others think, and in some places the law thinks, all supported by objective data, the 223 is among that group, somewhere up a line, starting perhaps with a 22LR or something in .17 caliber.
KB


How's that?

KB

I think that's a fair and honest opinion.

On another note, what do you do for a living? In my field, Ackley is one of the ballistic poineers. While I don't have the taste for all the wildcat and improved stuff now, I think he did a large amount of credible & pioneering research in the field that I make a living from.

quote:

Originally posted by gunmaker:

How's that?

KB

I think that's a fair and honest opinion.

On another note, what do you do for a living? In my field, Ackley is one of the ballistic poineers. While I don't have the taste for all the wildcat and improved stuff now, I think he did a large amount of credible & pioneering research in the field that I make a living from.[/QUOTE]

Uhh, yea, you are right. I shouldn't have said that about the esteemed Mr. Ackley. It was mostly provocative. You are far more qualified in all respects in your opinion about the full scope of his work and contribution. If I could retract my statment, I would appreciate your gracious consent.

Although I have a deep opinion about the A.I. cartridges, and their usefullness to me, that probably has little to do with his overall career achievments and contributions.

KB

quote:

Originally posted by gunmaker:

quote:

Originally posted by MickinColo:

quote:

My point being that there is no best choice and that's an absolute fact.

Can you expound on that point please. You set no minimums, and disregard any maximums.

I guess I'm confident enough in my own abilities and limitations to effectively harvest deer with my .223, 22-250, 22-250 ACK IMP, 25-06, 280Rem, 300 WIN MAG, 30-338 and nothing has dropped as fast as those shot with my 223. Nothing has ran off either. After reading my local big game laws it looks like I can use my 204 Ruger as well. I'll have to do some research on that one.

Kind of like driving in the snow. If you're not comfortable doing it, DON'T. Just don't tell me it's some silly fact that it can't or shouldn't be done.

And that's where the problem lies. Most of the people here whining about the .223 have absolutely no experience hunting with one. They whine and protest but have no real experience to draw from and it shows. One actually said he got his infomation from watching a TV show that talked about the .223 in combat! He made up an amazing hunting story to help prove his point but, when pressed for details changed the facts. It's comical to say the least.

You just can't fix stupid

Even after a good enema, that white ball cap floats.

quote:
Originally posted by TC1:
And that's where the problem lies. Most of the people here whining about the .223 have absolutely no experience hunting with one. They whine and protest but have no real experience to draw from and it shows. One actually said he got his infomation from watching a TV show that talked about .223 in combat! He made up an amazing hunting story to help prove his point but, when pressed for details changed the facts. It's comical to say the least.

You just can't fix stupid
End Quote.

Continuing saga about the stupid others, whining, experience, and distortions.

Experience comes in various forms. One doesn't have to use a 223 on deer to form a valid opinion on it's effectivness. That can easily be formed by witnissing what happens when others use it, and deer are lost, to become buzzard feed.

One can get information from various sources, including TV, using a little common sense. The TV show in question was indeed about combat and self defense use, and the specific statment used in this context was that they were not advocating the normal tripple tap with a 223 AR, but saying to shoot until the threat was terminated. This being on humans, with the apparant presumption that it would take more than one shot - and plan on more than three shots. Such could be interpolated to apply to deer as well, since the threat from deer is not direct, but toward the threat of escape wounded.

In that context, I think it is not ethical to hunt deer with a cartridge that has such a high probability of needing multiple shots to do the job that a real deer rifle can do easily with one shot. This has nothing to do with shot placment, since we all generally agree on its importance. In my book, one of the first and basic principals of hunting ethics is to make the first shot count. IMO the use of the 223 pushes consideration of that basic ethic aside to some arguable degree. It comes down to whether one values the ethic of making the first shot count, to the best of his ability, given the variables of circumstance. Adding a variable of a cartridge that is adequate only in the best of circumstances, is a choice that I think many don't appreciate enough in the balance. Apparantly the freedom of choice, is more valuable to some than stacking the odds in favor of maintaining the ethic of making the first shot count, regardless of how much they talk about 200 yd shots in the head, experience, and shot placment, etc.

I am glad that you are amazed and amused with my stories, although the point was not to amaze or amuse, especially you, but to give a basis for my opinion for anyone objective enough to see it that way.

The facts are the same now as they have been, whether you understood them and reached an objective stage is the question.

KB

Kaboom

My dear lad;

You are yourself deeper.

My advice is to quit while your behind!!!!

Yep, 10 pages now of made up stories, facts learned from TV shows, side stepping issues and a serious mental break down on your part but the fact remains. You have no experience with the subject at hand.

No matter how many way's you try to explain it, many others have no trouble taking game with a cartridge you say shouldn't be used.

quote:

The facts are the same now as they have been, whether you understood them and reached an objective stage is the question.

The question as I saw it was, is the .223 a capable deer cartridge?

Now, do we listen to people with real experience with the subject at hand or those no real experience?

Simple question for all reading.

Terry

TEANCUM,
Good advice, I'm sure.

KB

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:


Experience comes in various forms. One doesn't have to use a 223 on deer to form a valid opinion on it's effectivness. That can easily be formed by witnissing what happens when others use it, and deer are lost, to become buzzard feed.KB

Just trying to help here:

ex·pe·ri·ence
Active participation in events or activities, leading to the accumulation of knowledge or skill.

An event or a series of events participated in or lived through

quote:

Originally posted by TC1:


The question as I saw it was the .223 a capable deer cartridge.

Now, do we listen to people with real experience with the subject at hand or those no real experience?

Simple question for all reading.

Terry

I haven't read this whole discussion again, but as I remember, I don't think anyone - certainly very few have taken the stance that the .223 is not a capable deer cartridge. At least I have not. It is obviously capable and adequate, as so many have attested. Frankly, I don't believe that is the argument.

Of course listening to people with experience in actually taking deer with a 223 is relevant. Does the listening stop there? I don't think so.

There is more to the story, and that is where many falter, including you.

I have tried to say, in many ways, that I acknowledge the adequacy and capability of the 223, but I won't use it, and I don't advocate or condone its use on deer for the many reasons I have stated. I have also said that I appreciate and try to respect a difference of opinion, even yours.

KB

quote:

Originally posted by gunmaker:

Just trying to help here:

ex·pe·ri·ence
Active participation in events or activities, leading to the accumulation of knowledge or skill.

An event or a series of events participated in or lived through

Exactly. Seeing a big doe flop around for a long time, then get up and run off after being shot with a 223, and seeing a big buck limp off and live until the following year after being shot with a 223 in the shoulder are a few of the experiences I have based my opinion upon.

If you think that I have to actually use a 223 on deer myself, before my opinion on the subject is valid, of course you are entitled to that opinion. But me using a 223 on deer ain't gonna happen. That's my opinion for whatever it's worth. It means something to me, and frankly I don't care whether it means anything to you or not.

KB

The question really was that simple. All the rest was just stupidity on parade.

Terry

quote:

Originally posted by TC1:
The question really was that simple. All the rest was just stupidity on parade.

Terry

If the question was so simple - the adequacy or capability of the 223 as a deer cartridge - yes or no - then obviously I don't get it.

Again, it's adequate and it's capable, but I for one don't like tracking deer, and especially hogs, and other critters after the shot. For those who don't mind it, more power to them - they are gonna need it sometime.

KB

They don't run any further when shot with a .223 than they do with any other round.

They did in my experience. They ran so far that they didn't end up in the freezer of the guy who pulled the trigger.

Of course I also acknowledge that deer I have shot with what I classify as adequate deer rifles have evaded the freezer too. If anyone has not had that experience, now is a good time to speak up. That doesn't change my mind, or cause me to put the 223 in the same class as a real deer rifle, which IMO starts with something like 6mm, but for me personally starts with 6.5mm simply because I have a choice and I happen to like the 6.5mm and because I see no reason to shoot something smaller. If others want to do it, that's their business, but that doesn't prevent or hinder me in any way from having an opinion about it, or expressing my opinion.

KB

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:

I for one don't like tracking deer, and especially hogs, and other critters after the shot. For those who don't mind it, more power to them - they are gonna need it sometime.

KB

Ever had to track something that wasn't shot with a 223?

So Logically, If She Weighs The Same As A Duck…She's A Witch!

Have you ever had to track something that was shot with a 223? I can be pretty sure that I won't have to track anything I shoot with a 223, because I don't use a 223. I tried unsuccessfully helping a buddy track a deer he shot with a 223.

But of course that means little, since the tracking of a wounded deer could happen with the use of any cartridge. What does that prove? It's simply a diversion supposedly to prove a point. It proves nothing.

The point is still as TC1 said, is the 223 capable and adequate. I have said, and others have said - yes. I have said that the rest of the story is the addition of the word barely or marginally. With that opinion I would not feel good about hunting deer with a 223, because I believe by making that choice I'm increasing the odds of wounding a deer, and I also believe those same odds apply to anyone who chooses the 223 for deer, simply based on the ballistic characteristics of the cartridge/bullet combo, as a matter of physics, whether they will admit it or not.

So, logically if a 223 shoots varmit bullets, that makes it a varmit rifle. So, does the use of varmit bullets on deer make it a deer rifle? Does the use of heavy for caliber, fast twist, in a varmit cartridge make it something it isn't?

To me this whole subject is real simple. In comparison, it's like someone fishing with 6 lb test line or lighter for salmon, claiming it's adequate and capable, which of course is true for a skilled fisherman, combined with a little luck. However, logic and actual raw physics says that the greater probablilty of landing salmon is best achieved with a line of the lb test generally considered appropriate for salmon. If there is no game law against it, most would agree that those choosing the very light line, do so for their own reasons, and need not justify it. But it is a different story when those using the light line begin saying it is in the same class as normal salmon line, based on the fact they have had success with it, and because it is adequate and capable. Then the argument starts.

Of course, one other major difference between my comparison with the fishing line, and the use of a 223 on deer, is to think about the last time you practiced catch and release on a deer hunt.

KB

quote:

Originally posted by gunmaker:

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:

I for one don't like tracking deer, and especially hogs, and other critters after the shot. For those who don't mind it, more power to them - they are gonna need it sometime.

KB

Ever had to track something that wasn't shot with a 223?

So Logically, If She Weighs The Same As A Duck…She's A Witch!

Funny stuff.

quote:

So, logically if a 223 shoots varmit bullets, that makes it a varmit rifle. So, does the use of varmit bullets on deer make it a deer rifle? Does the use of heavy for caliber, fast twist, in a varmit cartridge make it something it isn't?

Bad logic. The .223 shoots many different types of bullets, each made for a different purpose. Some are made for varmints, others are made for big game. When you hunt deer you use deer bullets, when you hunt varmints you use varmint bullets. The classification of a .223 being only a varmint cartridge is in your head only

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:
Have you ever had to track something that was shot with a 223?
KB

No.

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy: But of course that means little, since the tracking of a wounded deer could happen with the use of any cartridge. What does that prove? It's simply a diversion supposedly to prove a point. It proves nothing.
KB

I think this video link brilliantly mimics your logic for not using the 223.
Monty Python witch scene

223 varmint rifle - right

223 big game rifle - oxymoron

The thing you are getting close to understanding is that my opinion is based on logic rather than your witchcraft of belief that it is something which it isn't.

You can call a trout rod a salmon rod, but just saying so, and even catching salmon with it doesn't make the trout rod into something else. It is still what it is, because of its limitations by design. As with a 223, calling it a guppy rod would be a more accurate description, and calling the 223 a guppy rifle fits too.

KB

quote:

Originally posted by TC1:
The .223 shoots many different types of bullets, each made for a different purpose. Some are made for varmints, others are made for big game. When you hunt deer you use deer bullets, when you hunt varmints you use varmint bullets. The classification of a .223 being only a varmint cartridge is in your head only

Last time I looked up the available 223 bullets, the vast majority were the explosive type used for varmints. Only a few were the heavy type, and then only fewer were the type that maybe - maybe could be expected to not explode. It's not just in my head, it's also in the head of the bullet mfgs.

Furthermore, it is not as simple as you say. It seems to me the 223 is one of the more sensitive cartridges regarding twist rate, thus shooter of that caliber match the bullet weight to twist rate rather carefully. In other words, they shoot the bullet that is accurate in their rifle, and for the vast majority that excludes the use of the heavy bullets. So it appears to me that the vast majority just shoot deer with a varmint bullet and call it something else, ignoring reality.

Please inform us - exactly what big game bullet do you use in that magical 223 big game rifle of yours, and what twist rate?

KB

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:
Only a few were the heavy type, and then only fewer were the type that maybe - maybe could be expected to not explode. It's not just in my head, it's also in the head of the bullet mfgs.

Please inform us - exactly what big game bullet do you use in that magical 223 big game rifle of yours, and what twist rate?

KB

Well, I call deer medium game, not big game but here is a partial list of .224 bullets suitable for body shots on deer:

Barnes: (3) 55, 67 & 70 gr TSX

GS Custom: (4) two different styles of 55 and 60 grain

Nosler: (1) 60 grn Partition

Sierra: no less than (10) .224 bullets from 60 to 80 grains. They also have 90 grn but I don't think they can be driven fast enough to be practical in a 223 Win. I could be wrong about that.

Hornady: (2) in the right weight range plus I have personally been involved in shooting the 52 gr Match HP. It is a tough jacketed bullet and gives full penetration, good mushrooming on deer-size animals.

Speer: Has a nice 70 gr bullet

Winchester: 63 grn bullet designed specifically for deer.
So that's 22 bullet to choose from, just with a cursory investigation.

As for me, I have no magic bullets. Just good ones that work when I do my part. I'm partial to the afore mentioned 52 grain Hornady because it works in my older rifles with 12 and 14 twists. I never got the accuracy I wanted from the Partition but other folks tell me they like them. I shoot some of the 60-70 grain bullets in a 1-9" AR15 with decent results. Word-of-mouth is all I know about the 80 grain bullets for hunting.

Tigger,
I think that was a great response. I actually learned something from it. That's difficult to argue with, but on the other hand it focuses the argument.

Einstein said E=MC2, but obviously he was wrong. If you don't believe me, just ask a guy who uses the 223 for deer hunting to get a reality check.

KB

Kaboom

You are again!!!!!!!

Thanks. I'm just adding to the conversation, not trying to change any minds.

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:

The thing you are getting close to understanding is that my opinion is based on logic rather than your witchcraft of belief that it is something which it isn't.

No, what we understand is your opinion is based on inexperience and naivety.

quote:

Last time I looked up the available 223 bullets, the vast majority were the explosive type used for varmints. Only a few were the heavy type, and then only fewer were the type that maybe - maybe could be expected to not explode. It's not just in my head, it's also in the head of the bullet mfgs.

Lots of .223 bullets to hunt deer with, but sorry, none of them are magic. It takes about a 1 in 8" twist barrel to shoot them well.

quote:

Einstein said E=MC2, but obviously he was wrong.

KB

Well,if it helps you get through the day.

quote:

Originally posted by TEANCUM:
Kaboom

You are again!!!!!!!

Thanks for your concern, but I'm having fun, and it's just a discussion - right?

Certainly I'm man enough to admit when I was wrong, or made a mistake. When or if that time comes, I will be happy to say so.

I can't with certainty say that about others. They will have to speak for themselves.

KB

"she turned me into a newt"

.



I got better

quote:

Originally posted by TC1:
what we understand is your opinion is based on inexperience and naivety.

Lots of .223 bullets to hunt deer with, but sorry, none of them are magic. It takes about a 1 in 8" twist barrel to shoot them well.

quote:

Einstein said E=MC2.

KB

Well,if it helps you get through the day.

Others understanding my opinion is my goal. The part about my inexperience etc., is your opinion, which I think we are all clear about.

1 in 8" twist - exactly

E=MC2 helps us all get through the day. A mathmatical formula based in the laws of physics, created by some higher power, first understood by a great mind. Without it we would not exist to be having this argument. Be thankful.

KB

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:

Others understanding my opinion is my goal. The part about my inexperience etc., is your opinion, which I think we are all clear about.

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:

One doesn't have to use a 223 on deer to form a valid opinion on it's effectivness.

Yeah, I think we're all clear on that.


Terry

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:
The part about my inexperience etc., is your opinion, which I think we are all clear about.
KB

The part about your inexperience is one of the few facts that you've brought to this discussion.

quote:

Originally posted by gunmaker:
The part about your inexperience is one of the few facts that you've brought to this discussion.

I have clearly stated that I have no experience in pulling the trigger myself using a 223 on deer, and refuse to go there. I have also stated clearly that I have witnessed the use of a 223 on deer several times. That combined with the fact that I am an experienced deer hunter, using rifles of various calibers.

That's the extent of fact. Your intrepretation that it is simply inexperience is your opinion, and intrepretation.

The reality of that is up for all to decide for themselves. Declaring it so by you doesn't make it so. Having little experience with a 223 does not invalidate my opinion on its use for deer. If it does, well that's what it is. It's apparantly arguable or we wouldn't be arguing about it. The two things that ain't gonna happen is for me to go out and shoot deer with a 223, because it will prove nothing for me, since I already know that I can take deer with a 223. I just don't have a reason good enough to take a varmint rifle deer hunting. Nor am I going to take your opinion as truth.

KB

quote:

Declaring it so by you doesn't make it so.

But having done it does make it so. That's the part you don't seem to be able to comprehend.

quote:

Having little experience with a 223 does not invalidate my opinion on its use for deer.

Yes, it does.

quote:

I already know that I can take deer with a 223.

OK, so are you going argue with yourself now?

quote:

Nor am I going to take your opinion as truth.

Let's see, who are we going to believe here?

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:
One doesn't have to use a 223 on deer to form a valid opinion on it's effectivness.

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:
Having little experience with a 223 does not invalidate my opinion on its use for deer.
KB

I beg to differ But that's just my opinion.