223 vs heavier caliber

[montveil]

Some time back there was a discussion of calibers/bullets for deer sized game.

I am confused

One line of thought was that shock did not kill the animal but loss of blood did-- hence a through and through provided a faster kill due to rapid bleeding usually obtained by a large caliber fast bullet

Some stated that calibers of 223-243 kill deer and many shots are not through and through.

If bleeding is the main factor why does the military use a small caliber 223 to kill men ~ approximately deer sized.

I can understand the militarys need for a light weapon and lighter ammo

[DavOh]

Military uses .223 main because a soldier can carry more rounds than with a .308... also it's cheaper to produce, and easier for grunts(most of whom have never handled a firearm) to handle due to recoil.

That said, the military does not necessarily intend to kill its enemy, but only to make them stop fighting.(Marine Corps declares that the best way to defeat an enemy is to break his will to fight) .223 or 45-70, you get hit, you'll likely not want to fight anymore(unless you're a drug crazed al-qaeda terrorist, but that's another story)....

Some people swear by the .223 for deer.  I personally prefer at least a .243, but that's just me. I think that as long as you're cognizant of angle, range, and bullet construction limitations, you can kill deer just fine with .223. Just make dang sure you will hit in the boiler room. Shot placement is EVERYTHING with all calibers, but if you gutshoot with an -06 you can usually find the animal.  With a .223 and no exit wound, you'll likely never find it.  It gets tough to track when all you find is a fleck of blood and some half digested food every 200 yds... for miles.

I guess my point is this.  The major difference between exit hole and no exit hole is the recovery.

BTW, military rounds are bound by geneva convention(if memory serves) to use non-expanding bullets to do as little ragged damage as possible. Hunting rounds are meant to do as much damage as possible, so as to bleed profusely and to prevent the wound from closing up quickly.(the whole point of controlled expansion)  If they stop bleeding out of the wound, and you're trying to track it, that's a bad thing.  The deer will die, but you will not find it.

[Don Fischer]

Something to remember is that if you put a bullet in an animal, it will probally do some kind of damage. When it does that, sooner or later the animal will probally die if from nothing else the infection. The idea is to kill the animal as quickly and therefore as humanely as possible and to recover the animal. Even with like hit's, unless you hit the central nervious system, the reaction to the hit can vary from falling right there to running off a conciderable distence to die. There for many people, probally most, like a bullet to pass completely thru and open the animal on the off side to make it bleed, leaving a blood trail to follow. The blood trail helps recover the animal. If the wound is superficial and it doesn't close up, at some point the animal will probally bleed to death, or perhaps infection kill's it. Either way it's a lost animal. What some like to think is that this wound they never saw was not bad enought to kill the animal and it will be alright. Maybe and maybe not. I think that the bad thing about a bullet not exiting is that if the shot was at longer range, doesn't exit and we go look for evidence of a hit, there is none and we assume a miss. In fact the animal may be a short few hundred yds off dead but we have not much way to track it with out snow or soft dirt,,,or a blood trail. There for a shoot thru is a good thing if it bleeds well. With smaller bullets especially if they don't open well, the exit hole could be very small and restrict bleeding to the point that a killing shot might actually appear to be a superficial wound and the blood trail run's out to soon and the search come's to an end even tho there is a dead animal.

[montveil]

Got it-
iIt seems that one does not need a blood trail in humans as we don't track the enemy.
 I suppose if one wanted to kill an enemy a head shot would would be called for with a 223 or a 308 about anywhere.

I was coming at the issue from a drop dead kill and not from the differences in philosophy.

Some parallels might be with a home defense weapon --big hole to stop and not a wounding shot

Thanks for the clarification

[mikedb]

Somewhere in military theory I heard that a wounded enemy is better than a dead one.  The wounded will take others to care for him and therefore there will be less on the field of battle; one hit several out of battle,.  One that is dead they only lost one.

[K.K]

I know that many of you may disagree, but I don't believe that the .223 is an effective deer round. There are scores of more effective rounds, and they don't have to pound you either.  The above points about the military are very good. However,there has been much clamoring from our troops in the Middle East for a more powerful round. My father in law, who fought in Viet Nam had nothing good to say about it's effectiveness on a determined enemy either.

Keep in mind, that it's all about shot placement. a shot to the head or CNS will kill a deer, but a bad shot with a cannon will not drop a deer in it's tracks.  If you are shooting at stationary (what's that?) deer with open shots, the .223 will work, but I think that our quarry deserves better, and the .243 is my personal minimum, and I personally like a more powerful round. Just my 2c.

[Don Fischer]

Some parallels might be with a home defense weapon --big hole to stop and not a wounding shot

Don't think I'd want complete penetration in a home defence weapon. To much chance of the bullet not only completely penetrating the intruder but also the wall's. Who's on the other side of the wall?

As for blood trail on wounded solder's, the only one's we really care about are our's. I think I read somewhere that durning WWll, the japs got to shooting our guy's with 22's with the knowledge that we didn't just leave our wounded if it could be helped. wound one guy and it take's another to carry him out.

[Don Fischer]

Well, I'm not sure I know how Pete got in there??

[DavOh]

The above points about the military are very good. However,there has been much clamoring from our troops in the Middle East for a more powerful round. My father in law, who fought in Viet Nam had nothing good to say about it's effectiveness on a determined enemy either.

hehe... that's kinda what I was getting at with mycomment about alqaeda nutjobs.... they'll hop themselves up on adrenaline and methamphetamines to make them feel invincible.  I got a buddy that did 2 tours in Iraq, and I think 1 in afghanistan.  He said he'd often have to empty 5-10 rounds into chest of one of these guys to stop them. Even the 3-round burst(which was supposed to be the fix for the less damage) didn't phase them.  Bad guys missing both legs and both arms reaching for the pin on their grenade with their teeth.  .308 or .223, it doesnt matter with these guys... they'll fight as long as they breathe.

I'm not a combat vet, I'm not even in the military, so I can't judge the M-16. All I can do is comment on other's accounts.

[ccoker]

223 with the right load is very lethal on Texas whitetails
if you are a good shot and take your time they absolutely work

[beemanbeme]

I haven't a doubt that in the hands of a careful and precise hunter, the .223 would account for any deer found in WV.  But the minute you say that the .223 is fine for WT's, some drooler with his mini ranch rifle or whatever is gonna go on a "spray and pray" rampage thru the woods. 
FWIW, the .223 is legal in WV. I guess they weren't wounding enough with the .243. 

[DavOh]

I haven't a doubt that in the hands of a careful and precise hunter, the .223 would account for any deer found in WV.  But the minute you say that the .223 is fine for WT's, some drooler with his mini ranch rifle or whatever is gonna go on a "spray and pray" rampage thru the woods. 
FWIW, the .223 is legal in WV. I guess they weren't wounding enough with the .243. 

Those same sprayers and prayers would be out there wtih Remington Semi Autos in .308 if we said .308 was a minimum caliber, and they'd lose the same number of deer with a .30-06 or 7mag that they would with the .223.....

[beemanbeme]

You're probably right.  Someone around here --I don't know who it is-- hunts with what I think is a BAR in either 7mag or .300.  When he rolls out a vollley, it'll rattle your windows. 

[ronbow]

Having transited from the M-14 (.308) to the M-16 (.223) in the USMC, I can tell you that a "functiong" M-16 is a superior combat weapon in a firefight. The overwhelming reason for this is the .223's lack of recoil as opposed to the kick of the M-14. In a firefight time on target is the name of the game. Of course hunting is just the opposite and the .223 should not even be used for deer sized game and the .308 is arguably the best white tail deer round available. Just my .02.

[beemanbeme]

Let's see,
WW1, USA .30 gov'ment and '03, heavy recoiling 30 cals, USA 1 enemies 0

WW2, USA, weapon M1, heavy recoiling 30-06 semi, USA 1 (Ger and Jap) enemies 0

Korea, USA M1 and M14, heavy recoiling semis in 30 cal, USA 1 enemy 1 (political stalmate)

Viet Nam, USA M16, light recoiling pea shooter in .223 USA 0 enemy 1 (a route as it were)

Iraq, USA M16, light recoiling pea shooter in .223, Undecided as yet but things don't look good.

    

[elmer]

We are a "bit" off topic here, but when looking at Viet Nam and Iraq you must take into account politics and the "will to win".

[DavOh]

We are a "bit" off topic here, but when looking at Viet Nam and Iraq you must take into account politics and the "will to win".

Very Good point.

.30 caliber bullets didn't win WW's I and II... same as .223 did not lose Vietnam(and potentially Iraq and Afghanistan)

The support of the mission by the people of our nation is what decides the fate of our conflicts.

In WWII EVERYONE did their part.  Though it was the heroic men on the battlefield who gave all for the cause, It was our industrial prowess that won that war.

In todays society, most people care more about their 2% cafe late than they do the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Sad but true.

[PartsMan]

If I had to choose one rifle out of my closet for all year It would be my 223.
They work fine as long as you know your limits.

[The Gamemaster]

The difference between deer and people is the will to live.

As soon a a human is shot - it's first instinct is self preservation.  I want to get the he11 out of here and I want this bleeding to stop and I want to live.

A deer on the other hand as soon as it hears a bang, looks around and then runs as far as it can because there are no doctors or hospitals or a house to go back to after the sun goes down.

It lives there and it dies there.

Deer don't lay there and cry like a babie unless it can't run no more and it is scared as he11 that you are going to kill it.

Although I guess them little whimpy deer in Texas don't have all that fight in them like them deer in Pennsylvania does.

In all my years of hunting, usuall a deer that weighs less than 100 lbs - will travel the least amount of distance after being shot.  The ones over 175 lbs refuse to die and would probably take 5 - 10 223 rounds to kill it.

I shot a doe one year, it was 2*F outside and it was a 175 lbs deer and it was snowing and cold as hell and the only shot I had was in the brisket at 40 yards.  It had just climbed up a highwall - A term to describe a place where people mined coal and left.  It's just a wall - this one was 50 feet high straight up.  The doe didn't want to go back down and she couldn't go past me and so she stood there and I shot her with my 35 Remington and she jumped back wards and landed in the pit - a term for the bottom of the coal mine - the floor.  There she spun around in circles until I found a place where I could get off the top of the highwall and back down in the pit where the doe was at.

She was hit in the lungs, but because it was so cold outide and she weighed so much and the brisket is probably the thickest part of the whole deer.  She did not die and I had to finish her off.

With a 223, she would probably still be alive today - maybe with a broken rib at the very most.

You cannot get good penetration with a small bullet and a velocity so slow that it will not penetrate the hide and bone of a deer and leave a good size exit wound.

[rockbilly]

For approximately 30 years I ran a 4600 acre spread west of Abilene, TX.  The land was leased, with a maximum of 14 hunters each year.  During this period, I had hunters that used every caliber under the sun.  I found that the majority of the deer that were lost, or that we spent half the night looking for, were shot with one of the .22 class guns (.222, .223, .225, 22-150,)

About ten years before I stopped running the place, we stoped the .22s, and set a minimum caliber of .243.  We still lost a deer now and then as a result of in-experienced hunters, but it was by far many less than when the .22 class bullets were allowed.

My opinion of the little black gun was formed early in my first tour to Viet Nam.  In addition to the fact that we had major jam and feed problems, mostly when the chips were down, the gun was not effective in an urban situation, and left a lot to be desired in heavy jungle cover.  Just ask any member of 2nd Bn., 4th Marines (dubbed the "The Magnificent Bastards" for their combat record in WWII.) and the battle at Dai Do.  Capt. Jay Vargas started out with a Company of 123 men, after fighting their way into the village, only 41 remained.  Every trooper had a captured AK-47.  The little black gun was totally usless against the VC hiding amoung the banana trees, and in the masonry buildings.  Our troops in Iraq are also finding this to be true.  The improved version of the black gun performs much better than the ones we used, but the bullet is still in-effective in the cement and masonery structures.

[usmcgundr]

I have been reading the forum for about 2 months now and think its great and has an endless amount of knowledge. As the user name says, I am an armorer for the Marine Corps and have done 2 tours to Iraq. 1 in Fallujah and 1 in Ramadi and have seen first hand what the 223 will do and not do. As many has said about shot placement on deer, it is the same for a human. While a single round to the body will incapacitate an individual and will stop him in most instances, we were taught 2 to the body 1 to the head. Over and done with. But now over there they have been issuing the new Black Hill's 77 grain hollow point. Now it is a different story. Because most shots taken are within 100-150yds. the 77 grain with certainly do the job with 1 shot to the chest. And I would also like to say THANK YOU to all who have served before me.

Now as for the 223 on deer, I think as long as you pick your shot carefully it will do what you want it to do. JMO

Ron

[beemanbeme]

"two to the body, one to the head"  so with three rounds, you are accomplishing what one round from a 30-06 or 308 would do.  So where is the big logistical gain of lighter ammo?? 
If the enemy is coming in over the top, I don't know that I could sustain interest in just one target long enough to shoot him three times but I could body shoot anything and everything in front of me at least once.  What about your traversing fire where you weren't shooting at targets but were merely laying down a field of fire acrost a front?
I understand the war in Viet Nam was considerable different from a "conventional" war.  I remember the generals complaining because the Cong would not "stand and fight".  I guess the British generals said the same thing about us during the Revolution.
We've kinda gotten off deer killing but its still an interesting thread. 

[usmcgundr]

I agree with you 100% on using a larger caliber but we have to use what we are issued and make due. As you stated, I did not ponder on any one target more than a millisecond before moving on to the next. I personally prefer the DMR ( M14 w/ 10p Inertl).  But on the horizon is hope. The N/MC has started using the MK11 Mod 0 (SR-25).  But as for the 223 round, it will stop a person dead in his tracks with one shot using the new ammo. And for the wave of insurgents, there is the M240G(7.62mm). These and heavier weapons are usually mounted on vics and set at fixed sites/FOB's.  While on foot patrols we would always have trace vics or tanks as react force incase we got to deep into it.

Ron

[beemanbeme]

Bless your heart, Gunner, and thank you for what you do.  I rest better at night knowing there are still a few good men out there looking out for me. 

[deltecs]

Yes, the .223 Rem and the like will kill deer,  Like the man said though, he lost quite a few of them in Texas after being shot.  The bullets lighter than 55 gr are just to fragile for effective penetration and punch power.  Even with the best premium 55 gr bullets I consider the .223 Rem to be an adequate deer rifle.  I use a .243 as my minimum choice WITH premium bullets and consider it a bit light except for shots around the 150 yd and less range.  This is due to bullet placement and not due to energy levels or killing power.  I know that shots are more precise where the shot range is less than 150 yds.  With good bullets, clear field of fire, substantial kinetic energy, and large target relative to the range, the .243 Win is fine for deer size animals.  Is it the best? No.  Is the .223 Rem the best? Definitely not.  Will they get game? Yes, when all goes well.