Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game 5.56 for Big game

Yeah buddy^^^

I dig it man!

Nailed that!

Also killed a number of jackals with a suppressed .223 over there

Wait times on stamps are only 4-8 months right now...tempting

Friend of mine from the Sportsman’s club hunts Africa.

The stories he tells.

He was recently developing a load for his 22 hornet with Barnes, to keep it slow enough as to fully deposit bullet energy. Something to do with those bullets petals and expansion. Of course it required the purchase of a Brno, not a CZ.

After looking at this for almost a whole day, I'm still trying to wrap my brain around this concept....

Both of my centerfire bolts are Rugers - a .223 and a .22-250. Both have the older, slower twists of 12 and 14 respectively. The .223 loves 40g bullets but accuracy degrades quickly above 50g.

Neither is what I would chose for big game hunting, although I've taken a lot of 'yotes with the .22-250. While I think most of the deer (all mulies) and elk I've taken over the years would have fallen to a properly place .224" bullet from either, there is no way I would chose them for such use, even if they were legal in this state.

A fast twist .223 with a heavy bullet is something I might use for antelope but, although I've hunted elk and mulies with a .44 Mag handgun, and carbine and a .30-30, it would be far down on my list of choices for elk and deer. Maybe in part because I've seen more elk wounded and lost after being shot with a .243 Win than all other cartridges combined, bullet choice unknown in most cases.

That said, a fast twist .224: with a good bullet is undoubtedly a pretty capable cartridge. But for elk I'll stick with my .257 Roberts and a 120g A-Frame @ 2947fps (+P load and brass) as my minimum. I've always used 2000fps and 1500fpe as my rule of thumb yardstick to compare the effective range for elk. Granted, my .44 Revolver doesn't get there and my carbine only reaches the 1500fpe mark but not the 2000fps. I don't know of any .223 Rem or 5.56 NATO load that reaches the 1500fps mark at the muzzle. My Roberts is good to about 320 yards at 7000 feet altitude, which is well within the range where I've taken most of my elk.

@ingwe

That befuddled me also, I’ll ask him about it at next weekends woodchuck match

Probably to keep it from going too fast to expand. You know, just zip right through. 😉

I don't deviate much from 50-55 grains. I talked to a guy once who killed 300+ deer for crop damage. He said he used a lot of different cartridges so of course I asked him what was the best? He didn't even hesitate when he said "222 with Remington 50 grains".

Did he mention cripples?? Lots of these guys don't follow up those that are hit and leave the fields...

I have 64 gr bondeds. I can't remember if they are Winchester or what. I just can't make myself load them. I can't take a 22 to the field. I have 308, 358, and 45-70 single shot pistols. That's what I'm looking at for doe season in Misery. Or maybe the 41 Ruger Bisley. The 223 is in inventory in a pistol but ........... I like to sneak up close so I guess it would work. If I wounded one it just wouldn't sit well with me. Be Well, RZ.

Why would you feel more apt to wound one with a 223 but not with a 45/70? Using a good bullet takes that doubt out of the equation and the rest is just shot placement. Good placement is good placement regardless of caliber.

No. I remember he did say that his 222 dropped deer as quickly as his 30-06. I had another friend who said the same thing and put away his 25-06 and 30-06 in favor of his 222 for deer because he said it was just as good. Between them and a farmer kid I grew up with who got excellent results on deer with his 22-250 and 55 soft points on deer, it convinced me that 50-55 grains was a sweet spot for .22 caliber and that's where I stay. That and the fact that Eugene Stoner told the US Army that if they use a heavier bullet than 55 grains, and a twist faster than 1-14", they will lose the dramatic kills that make the 5.56 a great choice

That's the first I have heard of that. While I wouldn't argue that lighter bullets (and I presume lighter construction) may result in more dramatic kills, as in more parts and pieces of smaller critters flying around and lungs being absolutely destroyed on bigger critters, I have found a quicker twist does as well.

Stoner said the 55 grain shouldn't be over stabilized so that it would quickly upset and tumble through flesh. Now that's only important with FMJ's.

There is more to it than just shot placement - not every shot goes where intended and one needs to be prepared for that. For inside 300 yards, Ill take my .45-70 because size matters.

Compare a .458" 350g bullet @ 2000fps MV to a .224" 75g bullet at 2900fps and assume no expansion. The .45 cal bullet has 3108fpe at the muzzle and 976fpe at 300 compared to 1400fpe and 903fpe for the .22 caliber. The .45 is twice the diameter of the .22 with 4x the frontal area. In terms of momentum the .45 wins 700 Kg-m/s to 217.5kKg-m/s. Which one do you think will penetrate more if heavy bone is hit?

If both expand to double their original diameter, the .45 still has 4x the frontal area of the .22.

I killed an elk with my .45-70 at 213 lasered yards. The 350g bullet obliterated sections of the near side front leg and near side rib, then shatterd a far side rib before coming to rest under the hide.

Would a .223 do that? I wouldn't trust one to do so.

WTF???

I'm tempted to mark the various things wrong and send this back to you to have you correct your work. The area of a circle is Pi times the square of the radius. An example: the radius of a doubled 45 caliber rifle bullet's cross-section is .458 inches. Square this and get .209764 square inches. Multiply that by 3.14 and get .65865896 square inches, or about 2/3 of a square inch. Pretty big, really, but no where near the 2.54 square inches you quoted. You'd need to start with a 90 caliber bullet and double its diameter.

I'll answer your question at the end though. NO, a 223 wouldn't do that. What kind of idiot would expect it to do that? What kind of idiot would imagine that a 223 is going to do the same damage as a 45-70? And lastly, what kind of idiot would assume that the damage a 45-70 does is the only amount that will kill an elk?

I can hit a half-liter water bottle at will with a 223 and a good rest at 300 yds. Can you do that with a 45-70? Do you understand the difference between a splitting maul and a scalpel? What's funny here is you aren't even comparing apples and oranges. More like apples and tuna fish.

You are a little late - I corrected the error in area measurement before you posted.



I agree.



Maybe the guy I quoted? Or others like him?



Maybe the guy I quoted? Or others like him?



That's a straw man. I never suggested "the damage a 45-70 does is the only amount that will kill an elk". In addition to the .45-70 I've killed multiple elk each with my .338WM, .300WM and various .30-06 rifles and more with my 7mm RM than all my other rifles put together - so it would be a pretty stupid argument on my part. Especially since I've stated multiple times on this site that I believe most would have fallen to my .22-250. (Didn't get a .223 until relatively recently.)


Yes. And I can consistently hit the steel rams at 500 meters at the NRA's Whittington Center using my .45-70.


Of course I do.



I'm not the one that brought the comparison up. I just responded to it.

Well for one the fellow I was responding to stated that he was going deer hunting, does specifically, and that he would hate to wound one.

Now that said, you state that not every shot lands where it’s supposed to and that being your reasoning for choosing the 45/70. Whether the shot goes where intended or not boils down to shot placement. If you can’t place the bullet where it belongs don’t take the shot.

Even assuming stuff happens, which I agree it does to everyone eventually. How much margin for error does the 45/70 give us over a 22cf? All the frontal area math you posted goes out the window when we use expanding bullets, assuming they actually expand. Reference the pictures in the link to the Rokslide thread, my experience mirrors theirs.
A deer my wife shot last fall using a 223/77TMK had an approximately 2” hole through the organs that were in the bullet’s path. What about “eating right up to the hole” with the 45/70? Everything I’ve shot with a 45/70 has had a narrow wound path, nothing like a high velocity rifle cartridge, even a 22 caliber one.
I’m thinking that the only thing a 45/70 has going for it in this case is breaking heavy bones. But deer don’t have any heavy bones really.

A good shot is a good shot and a bad shot a bad one once we take crappy bullets out of the equation.

Op was asking about deer hunting with a 223 and now it's about elk hunting????

Back on topic. Op No problem with 223 and well placed shots, even just a 55gr sp through the rib cage will work. It's about shot placement.