Well, I'm reluctant to admit it, but I think you guys are teaching me a lesson. I was thinking that I could throw insults with the best, and at the same time not take it personal, but I'm thinking now that I was wrong on both counts, maybe not to the degree as some, but wrong nevertheless.

In the past, I've learned a few lessons the hard way. One that remains outstanding in my memory is arguing with a women. It always turnes out the same. Such an argument can only be won if she lets you. Winning a battle doesn't mean you won the war. An apparant win means that you have given up something if not known now, yet to be realized. Etc., Etc.

The basic reason for this phenomenon many have experienced and felt bewildered is because the playing field aint an even plane. Asside the fact that women have desirable physical tools, their behavioral tools include lots of emotion and even lies if that's what it takes to win, and their women buddies will gang up on you too. I was pretty hard headed about it, and it took a while to figure out that the best way to win an argument with a woman is simply avoid the argument, and try for a win - win, failing that --- run, go hunting, fishing or something. The moral to the story of course is never argue with a pussy.

There are parallels here too. First and most obvious - this isn't an even plane. Setting my own self-imposed rule that I will insult only for insult, and intentionally avoid insult simply based on disagreement, puts me at a disadvantage, in a field of those who will readily insult others, simply because they disagree. And maybe there is a dry and sort of perverted sense of humor here.

It's humbling to admit that I'm still hard headed and it takes a while, but eventually I catch on. I lost this argument a long time ago, and now recognize that fact. I think the fact is that I lost the argument right at the beginning when I let my judgment fail and let myself be pulled into a snake pit.

I won't change the rules of engagment for myself and certainly have little influence in the opposition. I've thrown the best insults that I'm willing to conjure up. That not being sufficient, I don't want to continue. Your skin is thicker than mine.

I never figured that I would have an emotional detachment to a 223 rifle. It's always been just a rifle. Now, every time I see some AH using one for deer, writing or even talking about it, I'll know, and remember this valuable lesson you guys have taught me. There is no win - win in arguing over a 223. There's too much emotional attachment by the owners and proponents.

I hope it's not too late to walk away with some skin left. Have a nice day, grents. Thanks a lot for the education.

KB

Now that you have got your feelings about the 223 worked out and your meds adjusted, how do you feel about the use of the 375 H&H on white tails, inquiring minds want to know????

Uhh, CHC, it seems you are asking me a ligit question, so I'll answer it straight, mostly. I'm still working on the meds. I still have three left in this six-pac.

The feelings are indeed worked out, but they ain't about the 223, which is why they were "feelings". I am annoyed with myself for allowing myself to be diverted from the core issue by others who don't deserve my time, and who intentionally do that for reasons previously stated, which I have little appreciation for. Simply said, I should know better. The way I "feel" about is that I let them pull me down to their level and empowered their bullshit. There is no one to blame for that but myself. It ain't personal, they do it cause that's what they are about.

I considered going back and deleting all my posts on this thread, but so far decided against doing that, because I'm hopeing that there is yet some redeeming item here. Perhaps if nothing more, others can referr back to it in the event someone starts another discussion like this in the future, and nip this bullcrap in the bud.

Obviously, the 375 is way more than necessary, but it's also good practice in avoiding the development of flinch, and a good excuse to use and own a classic medium bore. I could never go hunting enough for the big game this cartridge has its best use on, so I have used it sometimes for deer.

The added benefit for me is that it covers my insecurity in bear turf. There aren't any whitetail here, all blacktail.

Although I haven't done it yet, it's clear to me that loading it down with lighter bullets at less speed (2300 - 2400 FPS muzzel, with a 235-260 gr bullet) would make it more fun to shoot a lot, and still plenty adequate for something like whitetail at any reasonable range. But so far I've used only full loads, 300 gr, since I have a second reason to use it other than for deer.

It's been a while since I used the 375. I got a 9.3x62, and like it so much more. The thing about my 375 is that it is full custom, with McMillan stock, and it is super slick feeding, etc. When I had it made, I had the bright idea of having two barrels, same contour, fitted to the same receiver, a 375 and a 300 H&H. I would probably use the rifle a lot more by just switching to the 300 H&H barrel and leaving it on there, and sell the 375 barrel.

I've never taken it south for a hog or deer hunt. Generally, I use my sling shot and lead balls for that purpose.

KB

Kabluewy, that was a rather nice post! Perhaps a new thread about hunting smaller game with larger bores would be appropriate? But since this thread has kinda lost its direction anyway, might I ask how the 375 performed on deer? You mentioned loading down to what would be about what I would expect my theoretical 303-375 (375/303 to you folks) would achieve with a 'hot' load - less with a shorter barrel.

quote:

Originally posted by 303Guy:
Kabluewy, that was a rather nice post! Perhaps a new thread about hunting smaller game with larger bores would be appropriate? But since this thread has kinda lost its direction anyway, might I ask how the 375 performed on deer? You mentioned loading down to what would be about what I would expect my theoretical 303-375 (375/303 to you folks) would achieve with a 'hot' load - less with a shorter barrel.

Hunting smaller game with larger bores is done ALL THE TIME, most especially regarding smaller African PG. Not much of a novel topic. You have to be as careful about shot placement as shooting large game with small bores so as not to ruin meat and trophies.

So I guess the answer to most any question related to what firearms do to animals is the one that intelligent people have been pounding on for well over a hundred years. Shot placement, shot placement, shot placement. .223 vs Whitetail or 375/303 vs Pronghorn. Shot placement. The rest is all theoretical "angels on heads of pins" or perhaps "pinheaded non-angels" and shooter ability/equipment accuracy.

.375H&H performs on Whitetail like it performs on equivalent sized European Reds, Sitkas, Axis, Fallow, and African antelopes. Being as they are equivalent sized and all thin skinned, why would one expect different. Fellow that foremans a Whitetail and exotic game/feral and Russian piggie ranch over by Junction, TX that I know socially carries a .22 Mag, a .223Rem and and a .375H&H in his ranch truck. Never over nor under-gunned and shot some of all of the above with all of the above at different times, context dependent and depending on what was in hand.

Would you expect a .375H&H to not kill a whitetail deer if the shot was true? Things that handily kill Cape and Ele tend to also be deer-capable. Sub-250 grain projectiles in .375H&H make a pretty effective and flat shooting deer load. I've done it. 350 grain loads are a bit overkill. I reckon your 375-303 would poke a .375 hole in one side of the deer and a bigger hole in the back side and kill it, projectile and loading dependent.

Saw this in another thread and it tells it like it really is by one of the true Gurus from the past:

"A hunter should not choose the cal, cartridge, and bullet that will kill an animal when everything is right; rather, he should choose ones that will kill the most efficiently when everything goes wrong"
Bob Hagel

quote:

"A hunter should not choose the cal, cartridge, and bullet that will kill an animal when everything is right; rather, he should choose ones that will kill the most efficiently when everything goes wrong"

That is the most profound statement I have ever read and is the most precise one for this discussion.

The main concepts I see overlooked in these various topics by the majority of the folks reading the responses, Is The Inability, To Rationalize The Following Facts:

1. We Do Not ALL Hunt Under The Same Conditions.

2. Our Individual Levels Of Experience And Abilities, Are Just That, Therefore They Are Different.

3. All Game Is Not The Same Everywhere, Some Animals Have A Stronger Will To Live.

4. We Are All Prone To Convinient Amnesia, Especially Where Our Less Than Perfect Shots/Kills Are Concerned.

As others have stated, bullet weight/speed/design, are important in many aspects of a shot on an animal, but more important is Bullet Placement.

The finer line comes in with the individual hunter/shooter, does that individuals skills and knowledge allow them to use something that others would consider in adequate, yet be highly successful, while another person may have skills and abilities on the same level yet feel more comfortable with a more normal caliber choice or with one many feel is excessive for the game being hunted.

With all that aside, I have killed several deer and feral hogs with my 375 H&H over the past 10 years or so and plan on continueing to do so, when not using my 35 Whelen or 300 Weatherby or my wife's 257 Robert's or my 6.5x55 Norwegian Krag.

As for the killing power or effectiveness of the 375 H&H on normal North American game, it along with the 2 other larger guns I mentioned above, are "Confidence" guns with me, and give me that margin of error, so that if the intended target is not standing perfectly still and broadside at a measured 154 yards, if I do my part and get the bullet placed as close to the kill spot as possible, I may end up with a tracking job, but at least there will be plenty of sign to follow.

As I have said elsewhere on other topics, "As A Kid Growing Up In North Texas I Read Elmer Keith And Jack O'Connor, And Elmer's Philosophy On Caliber Choices For Hunting, Bit Me In The Ass Real Hard And I Have Never Seen The Reason To Find A Cure".

I stand corrected Sir, my mistake.

Exrackry

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

As I have said elsewhere on other topics, "As A Kid Growing Up In North Texas I Read Elmer Keith And Jack O'Connor, And Elmer's Philosophy On Caliber Choices For Hunting, Bit Me In The Ass Real Hard And I Have Never Seen The Reason To Find A Cure".

Let's get back to those "Founding Fathers of American Hunting, shall we?

Col. Charlie Askins grew up in Texas mostly, as much as he grew up (the man who once said "you can't have it both ways, trust me, you can't. I have managed to do it but you won't." :-) , his dad (Cap. Charles Askins) was a noted firearms writer who preceded Jack O'Connor in the exact same writing job at Outdoor Life. Charlie was personally friends or at the least, acquainted with most of the authors in the field as his dad tended to bring them around the house, and he once wrote: about Jack O'Connor "The trouble lies in the fact that he did most of his shooting with his trusty IBM Electric while my Old Man shot every day for seventy years. Much of his gunning occured [sic] before the johnny-come-lately types like O'Connor had graduated from three-cornered panties."

Moving on to O'Connor and Keith, in the insightful analysis of Terry Wieland in ""O’Connor vs. Keith: And the Winner Is..."; Grays Sporting Journal:

""THE HUNTING world’s longest-running controversy is the battle between velocity and bullet weight. On one side was Jack O’Connor, revered shooting editor of Outdoor Life and godfather of the .270 Winchester. On the other was Elmer Keith—big-game guide, writer and loud proponent of big bores and heavy bullets.

The arguments went like this:

O’Connor: “If you can place your bullet right, the 130-grain .270 is all you need on most North American big game.”

Keith: “Small bullets at high velocities wound more animals than they kill. For clean kills, you need a heavy bullet that will penetrate.”

It’s impossible to pinpoint exactly when the dispute began, but it dates at least from 1930, when Elmer Keith wrote an article for The American Rifleman. In it, he tells of a sheep hunt in the Rockies in which a hunter, Colonel Harry Snyder, shoots a bighorn ram with a 7x64 and the cartridge fails miserably.

At that time, the .270 Winchester was only five years old and there were few comparable cartridges around. One of the few was the 7x64, shooting a 139-grain bullet at 3,000 feet per second. Keith’s statements about the inadequacy of the cartridge sparked a response from O’Connor, who knew Snyder personally and asked him about the story. Snyder not only denied it but said Keith was not present when the sheep in question was killed. What’s more, he added, it was a clean, one-shot kill.

O’Connor and Keith swung into print, other writers chose sides, and soon there was a full-blown controversy over whether light bullets at high velocity were adequate for larger game. The manufacturers got involved, with Roy Weatherby the most vocal proponent of high velocity.

Most significantly, the debate flared around a thousand campfires. Friendships broke up over it, but it sold literally millions of magazines. Even after Keith and O’Connor died (in 1984 and 1978 respectively), the controversy didn’t end. And hasn’t ended yet.

A few years ago, on a trip to Zimbabwe, I sat down over a few beers with an expatriate American making his living as a professional hunter. After a couple, he fixed me sternly and demanded, “So who was right? O’Connor or Keith?” Sensing this was a test, I thought for a moment, then said, “They both were.” Ed leapt to his feet, stuck out his hand and shouted, “Right on!”

If you look at the arguments dispassionately, you quickly realize that there is really no disagreement at all—especially if you read what Keith and O’Connor actually wrote themselves rather than the writings of their legions of imitators, admirers and enemies.

In later years, Jack O’Connor was always careful to add the proviso, “If you place your shot correctly ...” He even went so far, in a couple of articles, to expound at length on the importance of placing the first shot. And, as he pointed out, a poorly placed bullet is a poorly placed bullet, regardless of caliber.

For Keith’s part, most of his examples weren’t of a 130-grain bullet that hit the heart or lungs and failed to kill (although he produced such examples in his wilder moments), but bullets that hit bone and expanded too quickly or were too far back, allowing a gut-shot animal to escape.

On the essential point, the adversaries agree: Place the bullet correctly, and a light, fast bullet will do the job. Place the bullet badly and it won’t.

Both Jack O’Connor and Elmer Keith were big-game hunters of vast experience. O’Connor, as well, was a tremendous rifle shot, especially in such practical hunting aspects as hitting a running animal at 200 yards. He grew up in Arizona in the years before the First World War, and honed his skills on running jackrabbits and coyotes. His wife, Eleanor, was also an accomplished hunter and marksman, and he often cited her as an example of what a small-bore rifle could do (Eleanor favored the 7x57) in skilled hands.

All of which proves exactly nothing. Examples abound that support both sides of the argument. In my own experience, severely limited compared to either O’Connor or Keith, I have had spectacular one-shot kills on big animals with a small, fast bullet. I have also had spectacular failures. Last year, I made a six-shot kill on a greater kudu (an African antelope about the size of an elk) with a .450 Ackley, a bona fide elephant rifle, which supports the argument that the first shot must be placed correctly regardless of caliber.

Unfortunately, bad bullet placement can be due to any number of things: poor shooting, a gust of wind, an animal taking a step just as you pull the trigger. And so Bob Hagel, another guide-turned-gun-writer, came up with this rule: “A hunter should not choose the caliber, cartridge and bullet that will kill an animal when everything is right; rather, he should choose ones that will kill the most efficiently when everything goes wrong.”

Dick Dietz, longtime public-relations guru for Remington Arms, once opined that as a man gets older he prefers “his meat rarer, his whiskey straighter, and his bullets bigger.” This isn’t because, as a man ages, he grows to enjoy getting pounded by recoil. It’s because, as we become more experienced and witness many of the things that can go wrong hunting big game, we come to realize that one way to minimize problems is to use a bigger caliber and heavier bullets. As Robert Ruark said, “Use enough gun.”

The argument may not be settled, but a few facts have been amply demonstrated.


1. Animals are killed by tissue destruction, not by so-called “hydrostatic shock.”

2. Tissue destruction is accomplished by bullet penetration.

3. Failure to penetrate is the major complaint about light bullets at high velocity, especially if they hit bone.

4. A heavy bullet penetrates better than a light bullet, but even a heavy bullet needs to be well-constructed.


One point O’Connor made repeatedly was that a hard-recoiling rifle that causes flinching and bad shooting is more likely to result in a wounded animal than a light-recoiling .270 shot accurately and well. Obviously, if you can’t handle a .375 H&H you should go to something lighter with which you are comfortable. Just because most of us are more comfortable shooting a .22-250 than a .375 H&H, however, doesn’t mean we should hunt grizzly bears with it.

As you can see, once you go into these arguments in a little detail, so many qualifications pile up it becomes hard to see the original point—which is what made for so many great campfire debates over the years and sold so many millions of magazines.

To answer the original questions: Who was right? They both were. Who won? Neither one. Will it ever be settled for good? No. Not as long as one campfire is left burning.


In The Last Book—Confessions of a Gun Editor, Jack O’Connor looked back on his long-running battle with “the big-bore boys,” and suggested there was more to Elmer Keith’s position than met the eye. The “big- bore versus high-velocity” battle was more than just an argument over ballistics and killing power.

In the late 1930s, O’Connor succeeded Captain Charles Askins as shooting editor of Outdoor Life. Askins, father of the influential gun writer Colonel Charles Askins, wasn’t ready to retire, and Askins the Younger held it against O’Connor until the day he died. He lost no opportunity to slam O’Connor in print, and naturally he took Elmer Keith’s side in the argument.

Ironically, Jack O’Connor and Elmer Keith never met face to face until many years after the battle had begun, when they attended a writers’ seminar hosted by Winchester. There, according to O’Connor, Keith told him that he should have been given the Outdoor Life job instead of O’Connor, and because of it he had been “sucking hind tit” ever since. According to O’Connor, he was then instrumental in Keith moving from Guns to Guns & Ammo, a higher-paying pulpit from which he preached his big-bore gospel for years after.

By that time, of course, the argument could not be allowed to end. Too many reputations hung on it, and it was selling too many magazines."

-----------------------------------------------
AR is no different than any other campfire.
Friendships will be made and broken over the same things over and over again.
If one studies the early African Hunters of European extraction, one finds the same lines drawn in the sand of what bore is adequate, black powder vs nitro, round vs conical...It is the nature of hunters and shooters to argue such things.

None of use are likely going to ever exist in a time when game is plentiful in the storied days and one man might kill 1,100 elephants. Most hunters will never even see an elephant in their life outside of zoos and television. Few will have killed as many deer as Col Askins did, in Texas, growing up. He was purely a meat hunter as his father's salary from outdoor life never amounted to much and his dad never cared about much but hunting and shooting.

And the beat goes on...the smarter man uses the firearm that works for him. As such, there never will be agreement about much of anything anymore than the ideal personal defense handgun round will ever be developed. For the Keith fans, one might keep in mind how many decades after Keith was going around beating people over the head that a .41 caliber would be close to ideal for a LEO round that the world seems to have standardized on a .40 solution not very far off from what Keith wanted as standard, albeit in a modern autoloader format. In spite of that, people will tell you .40 is weak compared to .45ACP and 9mm are "europills" that have no business being used for personal defense though Col. Jeff Cooper writes interesting stories of people not killed by .45s and people with legs shattered by 9mm Para...

That's why I mostly stay outside of these debates other than to occasionally insert a bit of levity. I was on a stag hunt with a friend fall before last and he had his trusty .300 RUM and I had my favorite Antique rem in .300 H&H along and we argued the merits every day and are still friends and both rifles worked for killing stag. He still hasn't settled on rifles and cartridges for purpose, nor shotguns either, I settled on what works when and were for me for the most part eons ago. We both have about the same percentage of success and both gunsmith by hobby or trade, depending which of us you speak of...and at the end of the day we still argue and are still friends and realize we will never agree.

And me saying and quoting all of this still won't prevent a large number of people to near come to blows over what is and isn't a proper firearm for task.

Happy Arguing Everybody...Don't Forget to GET OUT THERE AND DO SOME SHOOTING AND HUNTING TOO,
PM

“A hunter should not choose the caliber, cartridge and bullet that will kill an animal when everything is right; rather, he should choose ones that will kill the most efficiently when everything goes wrong.” is one way to look at it, I look at it as "A hunter should be cognizant of the limitations of the situation and his equipment and often should choose not to shoot at all or endeavor for a better position to shoot from, passing on shooting at all if the circumstances seem iffy, but then I'm not the sort to be disappointed if I don't kill something every day I'm in the field."

what we need to go back to is simple biology. "If you can poke a reasonable sized hole thru an animals heart/lung area it will expire. It does not matter if the hole is created by a bb or a .500 something or another. It might take a minute or two longer for the bb to drain enough blood but nothing short of the lord himself is going to repair a hole of even 17 caliber fast enough to make a "save". Folks can disagree on this stuff but it boils down to shooting them in the right place. It makes not a witt's difference if you shoot them with a 22 or a 45 as long as it goes thru the heart and lungs. Some folks got started out shooting deer with 40 grain varment bullets and noticed it blew a big chunk out of them but did not penetrate, others took texas heart shots with a 22 caliber 64 grain powerpoint and had bad results. Shot thru the lungs and heart (front shoulders) or head and neck with most anything animals will simply have to expire. The big difference that I will freely admit to is the angling away shot where a bullet could punch thru a rear ham and have to make it up into the chest cavity. These shots are for heavier tougher bullets in my opinion.

I just gave you guys your best last chance to let it go, and you both fucked it up.

quote:

Originally posted by tiggertate:
I just gave you guys your best last chance to to let it go, and you both fucked it up.

Didn't fuck up a thing. Pointed out nobody will ever agree. There's a difference. No need to become one of those insulting people yourself, is there? ...Well, I guess there was. Now we can add insulting people over suggesting people not bother arguing about this, like I've done from the beginning of this thread for amusement purposes to the litany of things people can insult each other over.

That was a joke but I guess intent is hard to see in a forum post. I shoulda added more and maybe it would have worked.

I know that good .223 bullets with correct shot placement will kill deer very effectively. However I still think the .223 will feed a lot of wolves, coyotes and crows.

In the hands of an inexperienced hunter I'm sure you're right but that can be said about any cartridge. It's all about shot placement, the correct bullets and the right frame of mind. Knowing when to shoot and when not to. It's a little like hand gun hunting. You need a little more discipline In picking your shot and you have to realize before you go in the woods you may have to pass on an animal. It's never been a problem for me. The freezer is always full at the end of every season. I've shot deer with the small stuff all the way up to a .45-70 and it's been my experience that with a well placed shot there is precious little difference in the speed in which they expire.

Terry

quote:

Originally posted by tiggertate:
That was a joke but I guess intent is hard to see in a forum post. I shoulda added more and maybe it would have worked.

Sowwy...my mistake.

quote:

Sowwy...my mistake.

No need to be sorry at all, that was a damn fine response you gave to the issue.

Maybe some of the younger folks around who maybe have never read any of the stuff written by Keith or O'Connor or some of the other folks of that day, and have no real knowledge of how much of their own opinions went into their writngs, and not what their sponsors and editors wanted them to write.

JMO, but I don't see any of the gentlemen you listed being able to be a writer in our modern world of outdoor hype with no actual opinion being given so as not to offend.

You made a really good response in my opinion.

Another thing that muddy's the waters of this argument more than it did in the day's of Keith and O'Conner is the invention/advancement of Premium and bonded core bullets. There is no doubt these bullets help cartridges perform far beyond their capibilities of years past.

I hear ya on the writters reluctance to give a firm opinion these day's. This thread certainly hasn't suffered from it though

Terry

I just spent a plesant hour or so scrolling through the product review section of half a dozen companies, like Midway,that sell ammunition, plus a few more chat rooms that discuss hunting deer w the 223.

Very interesting!

Start by Googling .223 Remington 60 grain Nosler partition and you will find the ammo retailers, click on the reviews for each type of ammo, and then start following some links.

It appears more people use the partition than anything else, but you will find TBBC, Barnes TSX, Power Point, and even Remigton core lokt.

When you are on an ammo site that offers reviews, be sure to look for TBBC, Barnes, Fusion, Power Point etc.

Out of dozens of posts/reviews from folks who have actually killed deer and boars w the 223, only one got away. Considering how critical some of these reviews can be that surprised me.

The fellow who lost his 300 lb boar took a running away shot, hit him, and found him w meat ruined next morning. He went back to his 30-06 after that.

Everyone else took their time and placed shots carefully. And got their deer.

What impressed me most was that as a group, this is a very responsible group of hunters who seem to know their rifle and their equipments limitations and act accordingly.

PS the discussion of O'Conner and Keith was interesting and very well written but took place before the age of premium hunting bullets and has little relevance today. I knew Elmer pretty well and he never got over the bigger is better philosophy. (I used to send him bison meat on dry ice from my ranch in NE Oregon). He preferred the 275 grain Speer to a 250 grain Nosler partition even though the Nosler was one of best bullets ever made and the Speer one of the worst. (I used them both on my bison). But that was Elmer. They broke the mold when he passed away.

Andy

Short story. True. Mid-eighties, Kenai Peninsula Alaska. Bull moose shot through the chest, broadside, 50 ft with 338 Win Mag - 210 gr Nosler Partition. Moose runs about 100 yds, stands behind spruce thicket, gurgling. After what seemed like 20 minutes, I approach and shoot another round close to same place first shot hit, at less than 100 ft. Moose goes down, gets back up, Next shot in the neck, moose goes down again, but attempts to get up, with back legs under him and almost up, I shoot him again in the neck. Moose expires. No bullets found, none exit, only small pieces of jacket and lead found. Vast amounts of bloodshot meat, not even fit for dogs because of the lead particles throughout the bloodshot part.

Two years later, Tustumena Bench, bull moose, shot through top of heart, broadside, 30 ft, 458 Win Mag, 400 gr TBBC, 2200 fps. 5 steps, Moose down, dead, 45 cal in - 1.5" exit, eat right up to the hole.

So much for premium bullets, high speed - relevant in Keith's day, relevant since the mid-eighties - 20+ years, relevant today.

Or was it shot placment? Perhaps if I had shot the first moose in the heart, I wouldn't have had to shoot him three more times? Naa, had to be the 458.

KB

shot thru the lungs with a 210 partition and still alive after 20 minutes! Then neck shot to boot! Amazing story!

This thread looks to have the staying power of a "Push feed .45/70 loaded with Sierra Matchkings for African DG" thread!

But I can't stop reading it

Wonder if the original poster has sold all his rifles and taken up fishing yet ?

Kabluey,

That story takes the cake.

I really like the 400 grain .458 TBBC too, but Elmer would not have even used it on antelope. He would have used a much inferior unbonded 500 grain RN instead.

I have shot a few bison, deer and elk with the .338 win mag and 210 nosler at 2975 fps using old Hodgen 205 (which may date me). It never disapointed me, droping bison in their tracks, no eye reflex, from neck shots.

I wonder if your bullets were hitting twigs or tree limbs between you and the moose that you could not see through your scope?

The 400 grain TBBC and North Fork make the 458 win mag into a great Alaska caliber I think.

But Mr. Moose wold have been even more impressed if it was going 2,400 fps!

Back on topic, I was impressed so many of the .223 commentators recommended head shots with the Nosler Ballistic Tip and other varmit bullets. (Yes they were shooting at very close range). They seemed to know their stuff!

Andy

quote:

Back on topic, I was impressed so many of the .223 commentators recommended head shots with the Nosler Ballistic Tip and other varmit bullets. They seemed to know their stuff!

If you take a varmint hunter who will shoot 1000-1200 rounds a year at the small targets that many of the varmints are (woodchuck, rockchuck, jackrabbit, etc) at long distances say 250-400 yards they become quite skillful with their shot placement. Then to place them in the hunting field with those same rifles and loads with whitetail deer or smaller mulie bucks at ranges that they are familiar with, it is not that amazing that those hunters are capable of head shooting some of those opportunities. Sometimes a deer head is much larger target than a rockchuck would be at those distances.

This is hard to swallow for the guy that shoots 10-30 rounds a year at deer that are all under 100 yards. Different experience and different capabilities.

A .223 will safely take whitetail deer with reasonable accuracy applied.

Where the hell is a northern hemisphere/sun-spot/terrorist/hurricane/act of God power failure when you need one? Praise Allah/Tetragrammaton/Shiva/Zeus please kill this thread before it consumes all who participate in the cauldrons of Hades!!!

To add a little fuel to the fire, I killed a fair sized white tail doe,a while back with a .17 Remington. This was with a 25gr. Hornady HP to the body, just below the base of the neck facing nearly straight on. All that was left of the lungs was about enough to fill up a decent size coffee mug. Remember one thing, it ain't what you shoot, but. how you shoot it!
Back in the day when I started ground hog hunting, it wasn't just about killing the G/H but hitting it in the head or at the very worst in the neck as these G/H's were destined to be part of the wild game dinner at the Belmont County Sportsmans Club.
After a summer of shooting of G/H's shooting deer became as routine as shooting a box car, not that i'd do that.
'
SC
SC

Tigger,
It’s just a reflection of two different schools on the same subject: Light/fast vs heavy/slow.
Part of the reason I tell my experiences is because I apply the same principals to all calibers. Fast = mangles meat and bullets subject to blow apart. Slow = less meat damage, and better penetration. Small bullets = little hole. Big bullets = big hole. Small bullets = hydrostatic shock more important. Big bullets = big hole & longer wound channel = hydrostatic shock less important.


Andy,
The first shot may have hit a limb, but not the next three. Yes, I’m sure the moose would have been impressed with 2,400 fps. Maybe he wouldn’t have taken any steps. I was hopeful that I could find the TBBC, but it passed right through. Very impressive bullet. At that time they came from Texas as I remember, and cost me $2.55 apiece. I don’t think they make that weight now, and I don’t know where they are made now.

Jimmy,
We just waited a long time, and I could hear the moose, and see antlers through the limbs. I was worried that he would run further away, if I went after him too soon, and really thought he would be down by the time I finally went closer to look. He was hurt too bad to run away, but still standing, when I shot him the second time, which I think was the shot that hit the off side leg joint. The reason I think that is because he went down so quickly, then got up.

I made it a point to look for bullets, and couldn't find any parts big enough to make it worth keeping. I did find the remnants of what looked like the back half of one bullet, but it was missing the core, and was just a small piece of twisted jacket material.

The off side shoulder was a mess, and the near side not much better, but better because the first two bullets went through the ribs, close to the shoulder. I carefully cut into the neck, tracing as best I could, the path of one bullet, thinking surely I would find something where it stopped. The cone shaped damage path was real evident, bloody gelatin and mangled meat, as I remember, and expanded very quickly, ending with lots of small pieces embedded in the meat and neck bone. The bullet looked like it basically blew apart, and quickly, which was probably the front half, but still, I couldn’t find any big pieces, anywhere close to the size of the back half.

I have told this story a few times over the years, and each time the response is the same, making reference to how well their Noslers have performed for them. Those kinds of recommendations were why I chose the Noslers. That same year, I shot a caribou in the shoulder with that same load, at about 150 yards. He did a nose dive and stayed down, but took a few minutes to expire, gurgling and rolling his eyes around. Again, both shoulders were a mess, and that bullet didn't exit. I didn't find it, but I didn't look for it either. I should have shot further back, but he was running, and I led the shot too much. I think the heavies and slow them down will improve the results, and probably I could find some of those classic partition back halves. I have some partitions now to handload, in 35 (250 gr) and 9.3 (286 gr). I think the results would have been different on the moose and the bou if I had used 250gr bullets in the 338.

That was just the beginning of my experiences that differed from the reports of others, in many respects, which is why I am generally skeptical about most things I hear and read. I certainly don't think speed and Nosler Partitions are made for each other, in any caliber. I think partitions are old school, made to expand even if and especially going slow. That's why I think the same principal applies to N P in the 223, which has enough speed to blow the bullet apart even if it's a so-called premium bullet.

I shot a medium size brown bear once with a 9.3x62 using the Lapua Mega bullets. It went down on the first shot and rolled around and bawled. It was rather awful to hear and watch. I definitely did not want it to run into the alders, or at me. I doubt it could get up, but it was making so much fuss and rolling around so much that I shot it three more times, until all was quiet. I was sort of pissed off because my buddy said he would shoot too, but he just stood there and grinned. I remember that first shot very clearly, because it was through the shoulder, but apparently didn't hit big bone, because I could see spray and steam spewing from the other side. It was a cold early fall day, so the warm vapor was very visible. So, I'm sure that bullet exited. I don't remember about the other bullets, but that's why I like and trust the 9.3x62 so much. A bonded or solid metal, like the TSX, is good, but isn't needed if it's moving slow and heavy.

KB

There was a quote from a Texas Ranger, I believe, when asked why he used a .45, he replied because they don't make a 46.

So maybe the response about using a 223 used to be because they don't make a 17. Now there is no reason to not go smaller.

KB

Well, I'll burn in hell but I'll keep going too...I am a big fan of the 223 for many purposes (you might have guessed) and feel more than well-gunned for medium game like Texas deer up to whatever the deer in (fill in blank) weigh.

But after proving its superiority for all these years I decided to relax and use a 140 gr .264 bullet @ 3000 fps for most of my big game hunting (unless I drag out the 550 Magnum).

That doesn't mean I think less of it. It just means I want to do something different with the lesser amount of time I have to harvest game. If I really wanted a challenge, I'd go archery. But then I'd end up in some g-dforsaken argument with someone else about the virtues of the arrow versus bullets.

Tiggertate,
I for one, and can't speak for others, would like to read about your experience with the 6.5 at that muzzel velocity. I've seen one deer shot with a 264 WM, and it made a mess, which is an understatment. But that's just one deer, and I am new to the 6.5, and haven't taken any deer with it yet.

Anyway, if you could speak to your preferred and actual shot placement, and ranges, and results, DRT or run some distance, meat damage, you know - specifics, I would be interested.

I know it's not directly related to the 223, but maybe it is because still it's HV, and small caliber, and you speak highly of the 223. It's a good speak, from someone familiar with both. IMO it's a lot more practical comparison than my experience with the much bigger calibers.

For one thing, I think it's pretty well accepted that the 140 gr 6.5 ain't near as likely to explode, and will exit on deer, compared to a 60 gr 223 bullet.

KB

Kabluey,

I have seen quite a few deer and elk shot w the 264 winchester mag. My 7mm Remington was once that very same mod 70. (Re bored by CLiff lebounty before he went off and made double rifles).

This was a long time ago, and my freind whose rifle I later purchsed for re-boring, used 140 grain Remington ammo rather than the supeior WW power point. The core lokt was very explosive. Not suitible for elk at all, but effective within 100yards on broadside heart shot and similar to 7mm remington that way.

Theres alot better bullets now.

PS Ive been thinking about your 210 nosler and I wonder if I was using a different version than you. this was right after they changed from screw machine to impact extrusion, early 1980's. Mine was impact extruded but very early manufacture.

When they switched to impact extrusion, they made the front end of the 180 grain 30 caliber very thin, I assumed to balance the bullet better since more people test for accuracy than terminal performance. I disintigrated one of these on a bison skull w 300 weatherby, and at 30-06 velocities all youd have was two propellors. Maybe they played around w the thickness of the ogive????

the current nosler medium bore partitions like 338, 358, 9.3 and 375 have real thick ogives. Lots of copper there now. Nice and thick on the 416 and 458 also.

Re. the Trophy bonded, Speer purchased Trophy Bonded from Jack Carter and changed jacket material from pure copper to gilding metal. Lots more brittle now. If you want to keep your 458 going Id sure recommend the 400 grain North fork. It held up to 2750 fps from my 450 Dakota on cape buffalo but still expands at normal velocties. Not too many bullets can say that!

Andy

1. Will a 223 kill a deer, Yes.

2. Will a 17 Remington, 17 HRM, 22 Long Rifle, 204 Ruger, 219 Calhoon, 22 Hornet, 25-20, 300 Weatherby, 458 Win Mag 600 Nitro Express, 700 Nitro Express, 50 BMG, kill a deer, Yes.

3. Is everyone going to hit their knees at the alter of ANY SINGLE caliber/cartridge and proclaim it the absolute last word in deer killing equipment and technology, Fuck No!

As has been said a bunch of times in this Circle Jerk discussion, Proper Bullet Placement is the be all - end all, in making any cartridge a deer killing sumbich.

Each of us have our own personal favorites and our own personal dislikes, and we have our own individual various reasons for having said opinions.

Use whatever the hell works for you, some folks get stuck in a rut and only use 1 caliber or caliber range, other folks can grab any gun out of their safe/cabinet and go out and the results will be the same, a dead deer.

How many believe that there is one abosuletly undisputable perfect deer cartridge, and that everything else out there are only imposters?

Let me guess on that one, we all believe that the one we like the best and use the most is it.

quote:

Originally posted by TEANCUM:
capable of head shooting some of those opportunities. Sometimes a deer head is much larger target than a rockchuck would be at those distances. ...

Now we are back on track for the absolutely STUPIDEST post to the entire thread. Only from the Lying sack of obummer Democrat teanScum.

I can see where a Beginner, that has never watched a Deer move about, "might" believe that would be a great shot by an excellent marksman. What it actually shows is a complete lack of understanding of the Game being Hunted, or complete STUPIDITY!

No folks, it is not all about "Shot Placement". I've had to track many Deer because of the same kind of fools as teanScum believe they are the World's Greatest Shot , where they chose a Head Shot - Pitiful!!!

K, this will be my first season with it so I can't report on those questions. The last eight years or so I've been shooting a 300 Win Mag with 130 gr XBTs at 3600 fps. Since most of my hunting is for meat, I always head-shoot animals (as you can see above me, that's another one of those passionate topics folks like to debate). Actually, I shoot at the base of the skull and the first vertebea. It always explodes enough bone to sever the arteries and bleed out the animal at the same time it shuts down the nervous system. It is the cleanest instant kill I can make, and I hate walking up on wounded animals to put in a finisher or waiting for them to expire. I'd rather they be happy and unstressed one moment; DRT the next. Just a softy, I guess. I don't know yet that this 264 combo will shoot consistently enough to let me continue that. My back up for it is the 95 gr GS Custom back to 3600 fps.

I have body-shot a couple of exotics, lots of coyotes and a few boars (to save the skull) with that 30 cal combo and the trauma is pretty significant.

A head shot sure makes them easier to deal with once they're hanging doesn't it? No blood, no mess.

Terry

+1

quote:

No folks, it is not all about "Shot Placement". I've had to track many Deer because of the same kind of fools as teanScum believe they are the World's Greatest Shot , where they chose a Head Shot - Pitiful!!!

Bull Shit, it is about shot placement, If The Shot Is Placed Where It Is Supposed To Go, It Results In A Dead Whatever, Don't Matter The Caliber.

I do agree with you however, and it is the reason I don't like the 224's as deer guns in general, simply because the AVERAGE HUNTER, is not able to make an ACCURATE decision as to whther to shoot or not, They Lack The Experience.

But, for those folks that do know what they are doing and can put it all together, the 224's work just fine.

I can't help but wonder after reading all sorts of peoples posts on here, if they really know how many animals they have wounded and lost, simply because it was not a bang-flop.

It did not drop at the shot so they did not even go and look for blood.

I guess that makes me one lousy assed shot, because unless it was either a spine shot or a brain shot, I have had very few bang-flops, even on animals that had the whole top third of their heart turned to mush.

I guess I have spent way too much time making sure what I shot at was dead and ready to be gutted, regardless of the number of shots required and length of the tracking sessions, instead of expounding on the virtues of my One Shot-Dead Right There kills.

Gawd Damn I hope I never change.