texashuntingforum.com logo
Main Menu
Advertisement
Affiliates
Advertisement
Newest Members
TraeMartin, Beatixre, MooseSteed, Trappernewt, casyoo
71987 Registered Users
Top Posters(All Time)
dogcatcher 110,788
bill oxner 91,416
SnakeWrangler 65,416
stxranchman 60,296
Gravytrain 46,950
RKHarm24 44,585
rifleman 44,461
Stub 43,769
Forum Statistics
Forums46
Topics537,006
Posts9,719,380
Members86,987
Most Online25,604
Feb 12th, 2024
Print Thread
Page 2 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Re: .223 enough? [Re: stxranchman] #5417965 11/13/14 04:56 PM
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 27,091
N
Nogalus Prairie Offline
THF Celebrity
Offline
THF Celebrity
N
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 27,091
Originally Posted By: stxranchman
Originally Posted By: Nogalus Prairie
Originally Posted By: DuckCoach1985
Originally Posted By: Nogalus Prairie
.17 Remington or .204 Ruger is better-even less recoil. If it were legal, a .22lr or .17 HMR would be even better. After all, it's all about confidence and shot placement.

I would much rather risk traumatizing a child by the risk of a lost deer due to a small projectile and poor shot placement (which sometimes happens with kids) than with the monstrous recoil of a .243 or 7mm-08. Just wouldn't be right.

smile


You're right.. you can tell that to the big 9 pt. hanging on my wall, and the 350lb hog hanging on my dad's wall next to his 140class 8pt, all of which were killed with one shot using a .223. You can also tell that to the countless other bucks, does, and hogs I have killed cleanly with it since I was 11. Yes, there are bigger guns. Yes, there might be better options in different situations. But you cannot sit here and tell me the .223 causes lost animals. The fact that I have had an abundance of wild meat in my freezer and been able to feed my family for years is all the proof I need to trust the .223 to do its job.

The OP's kid has a .223, not a .243, not a .7mm-08. Both are great rounds, but that's not what he has.


It causes lost animals. Physics cannot be denied.

I get the black rifle craze and the ever-increasing trend towards recoil sensitivity has created a bunch of folks who have convinced themselves the .223 is a deer hammer deluxe. I get that people kill a lot of animals with them and use their results to say a 55-60 grain projectile is as lethal as a 100-180 grain projectile. But, it is not.

Which rifle kills a deer "more" dead?


You too? Crap.


Originally Posted by Russ79
I learned long ago you can't reason someone out of something they don't reason themselves into.


Re: .223 enough? [Re: HCGedge3] #5417981 11/13/14 05:01 PM
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 110,788
dogcatcher Online Content
THF Celebrity
Online Content
THF Celebrity
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 110,788
You asked the question because you are not sure. If you are not comfortable with his ability, how can he be comfortable with his ability? You should be sure he can pull it off before you let him "try".


Combat Infantryman, the ultimate hunter where the prey shoots back.
_____________"Illegitimus non carborundum est"_______________

[Linked Image]
Re: .223 enough? [Re: stxranchman] #5417989 11/13/14 05:06 PM
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,426
D
DuckCoach1985 Offline
Pro Tracker
Offline
Pro Tracker
D
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,426
Originally Posted By: stxranchman
Originally Posted By: Nogalus Prairie
Originally Posted By: DuckCoach1985
Originally Posted By: Nogalus Prairie
.17 Remington or .204 Ruger is better-even less recoil. If it were legal, a .22lr or .17 HMR would be even better. After all, it's all about confidence and shot placement.

I would much rather risk traumatizing a child by the risk of a lost deer due to a small projectile and poor shot placement (which sometimes happens with kids) than with the monstrous recoil of a .243 or 7mm-08. Just wouldn't be right.

smile


You're right.. you can tell that to the big 9 pt. hanging on my wall, and the 350lb hog hanging on my dad's wall next to his 140class 8pt, all of which were killed with one shot using a .223. You can also tell that to the countless other bucks, does, and hogs I have killed cleanly with it since I was 11. Yes, there are bigger guns. Yes, there might be better options in different situations. But you cannot sit here and tell me the .223 causes lost animals. The fact that I have had an abundance of wild meat in my freezer and been able to feed my family for years is all the proof I need to trust the .223 to do its job.

The OP's kid has a .223, not a .243, not a .7mm-08. Both are great rounds, but that's not what he has.


It causes lost animals. Physics cannot be denied.

I get the black rifle craze and the ever-increasing trend towards recoil sensitivity has created a bunch of folks who have convinced themselves the .223 is a deer hammer deluxe. I get that people kill a lot of animals with them and use their results to say a 55-60 grain projectile is as lethal as a 100-180 grain projectile. But, it is not.

Which rifle kills a deer "more" dead?

clap

Re: .223 enough? [Re: dogcatcher] #5417994 11/13/14 05:07 PM
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,426
D
DuckCoach1985 Offline
Pro Tracker
Offline
Pro Tracker
D
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,426
Originally Posted By: dogcatcher
You asked the question because you are not sure. If you are not comfortable with his ability, how can he be comfortable with his ability? You should be sure he can pull it off before you let him "try".


^^^ Wise words in the midst of all this hostility

Re: .223 enough? [Re: Nogalus Prairie] #5418000 11/13/14 05:09 PM
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 915
S
sunsetroosters Offline
Tracker
Offline
Tracker
S
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 915
Originally Posted By: Nogalus Prairie
Originally Posted By: DuckCoach1985
Originally Posted By: Nogalus Prairie
.17 Remington or .204 Ruger is better-even less recoil. If it were legal, a .22lr or .17 HMR would be even better. After all, it's all about confidence and shot placement.

I would much rather risk traumatizing a child by the risk of a lost deer due to a small projectile and poor shot placement (which sometimes happens with kids) than with the monstrous recoil of a .243 or 7mm-08. Just wouldn't be right.

smile




You're right.. you can tell that to the big 9 pt. hanging on my wall, and the 350lb hog hanging on my dad's wall next to his 140class 8pt, all of which were killed with one shot using a .223. You can also tell that to the countless other bucks, does, and hogs I have killed cleanly with it since I was 11. Yes, there are bigger guns. Yes, there might be better options in different situations. But you cannot sit here and tell me the .223 causes lost animals. The fact that I have had an abundance of wild meat in my freezer and been able to feed my family for years is all the proof I need to trust the .223 to do its job.

The OP's kid has a .223, not a .243, not a .7mm-08. Both are great rounds, but that's not what he has.


It causes lost animals. Physics cannot be denied.

I get the black rifle craze and the ever-increasing trend towards recoil sensitivity has created a bunch of folks who have convinced themselves the .223 is a deer hammer deluxe. I get that people kill a lot of animals with them and use their results to say a 55-60 grain projectile is as lethal as a 100-180 grain projectile. But, it is not.


here we go again, I knew there was no way in hell that we could have a discussion about the .223 without Nogalus prairie come in here with his freaking "BLACK RIFLE CRAZE PROTEST BANNERS"... and start twisting everyone's words, for his arguing pleasure

Last edited by sunsetroosters; 11/13/14 05:10 PM.
Re: .223 enough? [Re: Nogalus Prairie] #5418004 11/13/14 05:11 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 60,296
S
stxranchman Offline
Obie Juan Kenobi
Offline
Obie Juan Kenobi
S
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 60,296
Originally Posted By: Nogalus Prairie
Originally Posted By: stxranchman

Which rifle kills a deer "more" dead?


You too? Crap.

Well, that answer still don't answer the question I asked you confused2 A lot people kill deer with a bow or a crossbow also. Do they have the knock down power of the .223? When a deer is dead from an arrow or a bolt they are just as dead as the deer killed with the .223 or a .300mag. With any weapon it is about shot placement. If you want to over magnum yourself to be able afford that larger margin of error, go for it.
cheers


Are idiots multiplying faster than normal people?[Linked Image]
Re: .223 enough? [Re: DuckCoach1985] #5418019 11/13/14 05:15 PM
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 110,788
dogcatcher Online Content
THF Celebrity
Online Content
THF Celebrity
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 110,788
Originally Posted By: DuckCoach1985
Originally Posted By: dogcatcher
You asked the question because you are not sure. If you are not comfortable with his ability, how can he be comfortable with his ability? You should be sure he can pull it off before you let him "try".


^^^ Wise words in the midst of all this hostility


Thank you.


Combat Infantryman, the ultimate hunter where the prey shoots back.
_____________"Illegitimus non carborundum est"_______________

[Linked Image]
Re: .223 enough? [Re: HCGedge3] #5418048 11/13/14 05:27 PM
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 5,294
8
8pointdrop Offline
THF Trophy Hunter
Offline
THF Trophy Hunter
8
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 5,294
I've got a 223 with over 30 deer under it's belt and still going. Daughter added to the count Sunday with her buck. I've only ever lost one deer and it was with a .270, yes it was a poor shot, but the "knock down" power didn't help obviously.

Re: .223 enough? [Re: HCGedge3] #5418053 11/13/14 05:28 PM
Joined: Feb 2014
Posts: 862
R
rattler03 Offline
Tracker
Offline
Tracker
R
Joined: Feb 2014
Posts: 862
If that is the gun that he is most comfortable and confident with then I would use it. A well placed shot with a .223 should do the job fine, as stated above it has worked well for others. The key is a well placed shot, which IMHO comes from practice, confidence and controlling your nerves. If he can do that best with a .223, then he should be fine with that gun. Good luck!

Re: .223 enough? [Re: HCGedge3] #5418103 11/13/14 05:53 PM
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 27,091
N
Nogalus Prairie Offline
THF Celebrity
Offline
THF Celebrity
N
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 27,091
I'm not hostile. I'm not mad. But I do grow weary of these threads turning into "dead is dead" and the "223 is a great deer rifle" mantras.

First, we are talking about general lethality for hunting-not "I have killed "X" number of animals with a .223". No one knows what will present itself when hunting.

A .223 is less lethal than a .243 and up. Smaller projectile, less powder. Physics.

This results in less power. Less margin for error. Less penetration. Less range. Smaller or no blood trails. Thus, more lost animals. This is all undeniable. The great irony is-all of this is magnified with kids. Yet, folks want it to be a kid rifle so badly. Just like they want a .410 to be a kid's shotgun. Get him a .243 and a 20 gauge. Please.

If a .223 is all you hunt with, there will come a day when you will wish you had another caliber in your hands. You will not place the shot perfectly. A blood trail will be sparse. A giant buck will show itself at 300+ yards and you will shoot anyway (even though you shouldn't) and lose him or do the right thing and not shoot. Either way, no deer. And you will wish that rifle in your hand was a .243 or .270 or a .257 WBY or a .......

Deny, obfuscate, tell about all your dead animals, deflect, change the subject. Whatever. Physics is physics.

Last edited by Nogalus Prairie; 11/13/14 05:58 PM.

Originally Posted by Russ79
I learned long ago you can't reason someone out of something they don't reason themselves into.


Re: .223 enough? [Re: HCGedge3] #5418108 11/13/14 05:57 PM
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 27,091
N
Nogalus Prairie Offline
THF Celebrity
Offline
THF Celebrity
N
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 27,091
And I don't hate black rifles. But all this ".223 is a hammer" craze started with the popularity of ARs. Again, undeniable.

IDK what caused all the recoil sensitivity.....


Originally Posted by Russ79
I learned long ago you can't reason someone out of something they don't reason themselves into.


Re: .223 enough? [Re: Nogalus Prairie] #5418135 11/13/14 06:09 PM
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 110,788
dogcatcher Online Content
THF Celebrity
Online Content
THF Celebrity
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 110,788
Originally Posted By: Nogalus Prairie
And I don't hate black rifles. But all this ".223 is a hammer" craze started with the popularity of ARs. Again, undeniable.

IDK what caused all the recoil sensitivity.....


Nobody wants to hurt their little baby, I let our son start out with my M14, told him that when he could handle that I told him he could have what he wanted. If I remember correctly his first word after the first time he shot it started with a "S".


Combat Infantryman, the ultimate hunter where the prey shoots back.
_____________"Illegitimus non carborundum est"_______________

[Linked Image]
Re: .223 enough? [Re: Nogalus Prairie] #5418163 11/13/14 06:18 PM
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,057
K
Kenneth1977 Offline
Veteran Tracker
Offline
Veteran Tracker
K
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,057
Originally Posted By: Nogalus Prairie
I'm not hostile. I'm not mad. But I do grow weary of these threads turning into "dead is dead" and the "223 is a great deer rifle" mantras.

First, we are talking about general lethality for hunting-not "I have killed "X" number of animals with a .223". No one knows what will present itself when hunting.

A .223 is less lethal than a .243 and up. Smaller projectile, less powder. Physics.

This results in less power. Less margin for error. Less penetration. Less range. Smaller or no blood trails. Thus, more lost animals. This is all undeniable. The great irony is-all of this is magnified with kids. Yet, folks want it to be a kid rifle so badly. Just like they want a .410 to be a kid's shotgun. Get him a .243 and a 20 gauge. Please.

If a .223 is all you hunt with, there will come a day when you will wish you had another caliber in your hands. You will not place the shot perfectly. A blood trail will be sparse. A giant buck will show itself at 300+ yards and you will shoot anyway (even though you shouldn't) and lose him or do the right thing and not shoot. Either way, no deer. And you will wish that rifle in your hand was a .243 or .270 or a .257 WBY or a .......

Deny, obfuscate, tell about all your dead animals, deflect, change the subject. Whatever. Physics is physics.

This is so true and what i dont see is the ones that are saying i dropped a 200+ lb buck in his tracks or what ones they have lost due to using a small caliber like the .223 and you wont because thats not what makes it seem ok to use all the time ! I am using a 6.8 i built this year and am still a little on the fence about them because i have not killed anything with it but i also carry my .308 so if i see one over 200+ i will not have to pass it up.

Re: .223 enough? [Re: HCGedge3] #5418171 11/13/14 06:21 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 39,481
R
redchevy Offline
THF Celebrity
Offline
THF Celebrity
R
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 39,481
You also don't see people saying they lost a deer with a 270 etc... not many people like to talk about it but I assure you it happens.

I have not missed or lost a deer with my 223. Good ammo good shot placement and know the capabilities of myself and the gun im shooting and I respect them.

I would not be a proponent of shooting deer at 300 yards with a 223 but 100 is no prob.


It's hell eatin em live
Re: .223 enough? [Re: dogcatcher] #5418173 11/13/14 06:22 PM
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,314
K
KG68 Offline
THF Trophy Hunter
Offline
THF Trophy Hunter
K
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,314
Killed my first deer with a Sako 222 with 4X Weaver scope in the fifties. My three kids all used the same rifle to kill their first deer in the seventies and eighties. I carry a Ruger Ranch rifle 223 in my truck 365 days a year. My wife shoots a 30 year old Savage bolt in 22-250. We have five bigger calibers in the safe that haven't seen daylight since the early nineties. We don't pull the trigger at last light on trophies and we don't take 300 yard shots at deer but we love our litty bitty rifles. cheers

Re: .223 enough? [Re: HCGedge3] #5418178 11/13/14 06:24 PM
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 11,124
L
LandPirate Offline
THF Celebrity
Offline
THF Celebrity
L
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 11,124
Knock-down Power???

What is this mysterious force that hunters describe?

How is it measured or quantified? I've never seen it on a ballistics chart, yet you hear about it all the time.

Wound channels kill. Damage to flesh, bones, arteries and organs. Hydrostatic shock can certainly play a role in disruption of vital bodily functions. But in the end blood letting and destruction of certain critical organs is the killer.

A well placed .223 round will certainly get the job done.


Mike
Buda, Tx
Hunt near Freer
Re: .223 enough? [Re: Nogalus Prairie] #5418179 11/13/14 06:24 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 39,481
R
redchevy Offline
THF Celebrity
Offline
THF Celebrity
R
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 39,481
Originally Posted By: Nogalus Prairie
And I don't hate black rifles. But all this ".223 is a hammer" craze started with the popularity of ARs. Again, undeniable.

IDK what caused all the recoil sensitivity.....


My 223 isn't an ar but it does have a black synthetic stock. I shot my first deer with a 270 win chucking a 130 grain bullet and second with a 280 shooting 140's at 10 years old with no recoil problems I even shot both on the bench sighting in. Didn't pick up the 223 for quite some time after. It works and I use it sometimes.


It's hell eatin em live
Re: .223 enough? [Re: HCGedge3] #5418200 11/13/14 06:31 PM
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,426
D
DuckCoach1985 Offline
Pro Tracker
Offline
Pro Tracker
D
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,426
My .223 isn't an AR, it's a Remington 700 ADL, and I started hunting with it long before the 'AR Craze'.

Clearly you've never seen the damage a .223 does to the vitals of a deer (or hog for that matter). I don't blame you, on paper and by looking at the cartridge, you would never think it was so capable.

If I am hunting where I have an opportunity for a 300+ yard shot.. I'll be taking my .270 Winchester Model 70, and will likely not be pulling the trigger anyway.

Reminds me of the age-old adage, "Don't knock it 'till you try it!". People who talk down on the .223 have not tried it. You are making assumptions and coming to conclusions based on second-hand research. If you have used a .223 and lost or wounded an animal, I feel pretty confident that it is a case of user error, and no round will compensate for that (without destroying the meat)!

Re: .223 enough? [Re: DuckCoach1985] #5418209 11/13/14 06:38 PM
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 110,788
dogcatcher Online Content
THF Celebrity
Online Content
THF Celebrity
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 110,788
Originally Posted By: redchevy
Originally Posted By: Nogalus Prairie
And I don't hate black rifles. But all this ".223 is a hammer" craze started with the popularity of ARs. Again, undeniable.

IDK what caused all the recoil sensitivity.....


My 223 isn't an ar but it does have a black synthetic stock. I shot my first deer with a 270 win chucking a 130 grain bullet and second with a 280 shooting 140's at 10 years old with no recoil problems I even shot both on the bench sighting in. Didn't pick up the 223 for quite some time after. It works and I use it sometimes.
Originally Posted By: DuckCoach1985
My .223 isn't an AR, it's a Remington 700 ADL, and I started hunting with it long before the 'AR Craze'.

Clearly you've never seen the damage a .223 does to the vitals of a deer (or hog for that matter). I don't blame you, on paper and by looking at the cartridge, you would never think it was so capable.

If I am hunting where I have an opportunity for a 300+ yard shot.. I'll be taking my .270 Winchester Model 70, and will likely not be pulling the trigger anyway.

Reminds me of the age-old adage, "Don't knock it 'till you try it!". People who talk down on the .223 have not tried it. You are making assumptions and coming to conclusions based on second-hand research. If you have used a .223 and lost or wounded an animal, I feel pretty confident that it is a case of user error, and no round will compensate for that (without destroying the meat)!


Both of you have a lot of experience, a lot better shot control and have the confidence in your abilities. That is a lot different than some young kid that even his own father doesn't have confidence in.


Combat Infantryman, the ultimate hunter where the prey shoots back.
_____________"Illegitimus non carborundum est"_______________

[Linked Image]
Re: .223 enough? [Re: dogcatcher] #5418219 11/13/14 06:41 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 60,296
S
stxranchman Offline
Obie Juan Kenobi
Offline
Obie Juan Kenobi
S
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 60,296
Originally Posted By: dogcatcher
Originally Posted By: redchevy
Originally Posted By: Nogalus Prairie
And I don't hate black rifles. But all this ".223 is a hammer" craze started with the popularity of ARs. Again, undeniable.

IDK what caused all the recoil sensitivity.....


My 223 isn't an ar but it does have a black synthetic stock. I shot my first deer with a 270 win chucking a 130 grain bullet and second with a 280 shooting 140's at 10 years old with no recoil problems I even shot both on the bench sighting in. Didn't pick up the 223 for quite some time after. It works and I use it sometimes.
Originally Posted By: DuckCoach1985
My .223 isn't an AR, it's a Remington 700 ADL, and I started hunting with it long before the 'AR Craze'.

Clearly you've never seen the damage a .223 does to the vitals of a deer (or hog for that matter). I don't blame you, on paper and by looking at the cartridge, you would never think it was so capable.

If I am hunting where I have an opportunity for a 300+ yard shot.. I'll be taking my .270 Winchester Model 70, and will likely not be pulling the trigger anyway.

Reminds me of the age-old adage, "Don't knock it 'till you try it!". People who talk down on the .223 have not tried it. You are making assumptions and coming to conclusions based on second-hand research. If you have used a .223 and lost or wounded an animal, I feel pretty confident that it is a case of user error, and no round will compensate for that (without destroying the meat)!


Both of you have a lot of experience, a lot better shot control and have the confidence in your abilities. That is a lot different than some young kid that even his own father doesn't have confidence in.

I am betting neither one of those had the same level of confidence back then they have today either. You don't gain confidence from the head stamp on the casing.


Are idiots multiplying faster than normal people?[Linked Image]
Re: .223 enough? [Re: dogcatcher] #5418223 11/13/14 06:42 PM
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,426
D
DuckCoach1985 Offline
Pro Tracker
Offline
Pro Tracker
D
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,426
Originally Posted By: dogcatcher

Both of you have a lot of experience, a lot better shot control and have the confidence in your abilities. That is a lot different than some young kid that even his own father doesn't have confidence in.


Good point. My original argument was that the round is perfect IMO, for instilling confidence because it's accurate and has very little report and recoil. I believe starting with that gun is the reason I am so confident in my shots today.

Re: .223 enough? [Re: HCGedge3] #5418229 11/13/14 06:46 PM
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 21,271
S
SniperRAB Offline
THF Celebrity
Offline
THF Celebrity
S
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 21,271
I wish I had a bag of popcorn roflmao

Good luck to your Son, plenty of Weapon


Re: .223 enough? [Re: HCGedge3] #5418250 11/13/14 06:54 PM
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 915
S
sunsetroosters Offline
Tracker
Offline
Tracker
S
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 915
popcorn

Re: .223 enough? [Re: HCGedge3] #5418255 11/13/14 06:56 PM
Joined: Feb 2014
Posts: 30
L
Lennie76 Offline
Light Foot
Offline
Light Foot
L
Joined: Feb 2014
Posts: 30
My son dropped a buck opening weekend with an AR. Well placed shot about 80 yards. 62gr Federal Fusion. I wouldn't have let him take a much longer shot than that based on his current skill level.

Last edited by Lennie76; 11/13/14 06:57 PM.
Re: .223 enough? [Re: stxranchman] #5418289 11/13/14 07:15 PM
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 27,091
N
Nogalus Prairie Offline
THF Celebrity
Offline
THF Celebrity
N
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 27,091
Originally Posted By: stxranchman
Originally Posted By: dogcatcher
Originally Posted By: redchevy
Originally Posted By: Nogalus Prairie
And I don't hate black rifles. But all this ".223 is a hammer" craze started with the popularity of ARs. Again, undeniable.

IDK what caused all the recoil sensitivity.....


My 223 isn't an ar but it does have a black synthetic stock. I shot my first deer with a 270 win chucking a 130 grain bullet and second with a 280 shooting 140's at 10 years old with no recoil problems I even shot both on the bench sighting in. Didn't pick up the 223 for quite some time after. It works and I use it sometimes.
Originally Posted By: DuckCoach1985
My .223 isn't an AR, it's a Remington 700 ADL, and I started hunting with it long before the 'AR Craze'.

Clearly you've never seen the damage a .223 does to the vitals of a deer (or hog for that matter). I don't blame you, on paper and by looking at the cartridge, you would never think it was so capable.

If I am hunting where I have an opportunity for a 300+ yard shot.. I'll be taking my .270 Winchester Model 70, and will likely not be pulling the trigger anyway.

Reminds me of the age-old adage, "Don't knock it 'till you try it!". People who talk down on the .223 have not tried it. You are making assumptions and coming to conclusions based on second-hand research. If you have used a .223 and lost or wounded an animal, I feel pretty confident that it is a case of user error, and no round will compensate for that (without destroying the meat)!


Both of you have a lot of experience, a lot better shot control and have the confidence in your abilities. That is a lot different than some young kid that even his own father doesn't have confidence in.

I am betting neither one of those had the same level of confidence back then they have today either. You don't gain confidence from the head stamp on the casing.


No, but start a kid out with a .223 and he can lose it real quick.

And I'm not saying all .223s are ARs-but that's what kicked off the caliber's popularity. You used to never see a bolt gun chambered for .223. Since the AR craze, all the manufacturers got on board. They ain't stupid.


Originally Posted by Russ79
I learned long ago you can't reason someone out of something they don't reason themselves into.


Page 2 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Previous Thread
Index
Next Thread

© 2004-2024 OUTDOOR SITES NETWORK all rights reserved USA and Worldwide
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.3