I plan on taking my AR hunting this year and was wondering if yall could give me an idea as to which commercially loaded .223 would work best.

Pick a round loaded with one of these and you will be good to go.

Barnes Triple Shock X (63gn is my personal favorite)
Nosler Partition
Speer Trophy Bonded Bear Claw
Swift Scirocco II (bonded)
Sierra Game King 65gn
Winchester 64gn Power Point

Winchester 64gr power point bullet.

As far as bullet weight is concerned (type has been covered above), pick the heaviest bullet your twist rate will stabilize.

I have killed alot of animals with Remington 55 grain hollow points but you need to be a surgeon when you place any 223 round.  If your hunting in open areas it wont be an issue but in Florida or dense wet areas it is a poor choice.  I use a stainless mini-14 ranch with a 4x scope on days I feel indifferent.

Just make sure you are "THAT GOOD" or your going to leave a trail of hurting wounded animals in your path. We owe it to our quarry to take them without suffering.

I used 53 g Barnes X .. last year in my M4.  I shot a deer at 20 yds. and it left NO blood trail and did not recover the deer.  

IF I choose (probably will) to use 223 in the future on deer .. then I am sticking to partition type bullets that WILL expand.  The barnes bullet just punches through without expanding.

JMHO YMMV

Do some tests with the 55 grain Remington hollow point they work great. A .223 is really to small a caliber but can do the job with the right round and good shot placement.

Buy a large pork butt and put it out 50 yards suspended in twine. Then wack it with a 55 grain rem hp. See for your self then cut out the meat around the bullet path and cook it up.

Quoted: I used 53 g Barnes X .. last year in my M4.  I shot a deer at 20 yds. and it left NO blood trail and did not recover the deer.   IF I choose (probably will) to use 223 in the future on deer .. then I am sticking to partition type bullets that WILL expand.  The barnes bullet just punches through without expanding. JMHO YMMV

Ho Hum....this topic again??

.223 causes a lot of disagreement among hunters and others.  I have a neighbor that loves his. 223 AR's for Hogs, but thinks they are "way too small for deer."  Why the inconsistency?  When I pressed him on this he replied "well, because...you know...it doesn't matter if you lose a hog....."  Exactly  

It has its place, but we as hunters, and yes, the US military are now and have been using this caliber for things which it was not designed.  Sound like a recipe for failure??  Sure, it is.  Doing stuff like this is going to hamstring the round, and force it to fail.  I have stopped trying to convince anyone that .223 is "weak, lame, impotent, inadequate a mouse gun, blah, blah, blah....."  The reason is that, when used for its intended purpose, and within the original specifications, it has some utility, and its best attributes are these:

1) lightweight & easy to carry the ammo
2) low recoil, even a woman, beginning shooter or child can shoot or learn with it.
3) very high velocity, when properly loaded, and fired in the proper barrel length
4) due to its high velocity, very flat shooting
5) extremely widely varied bullet selection available
4) marginal, but possible to take small and medium game with the proper bullet, velocity and barrel length

What you learned is what the Army is now discussing.  The fact that, when shot in the M4 (with 16" barrel) , you lose several hundred FPS and thus, you now have a bullet that won't deform  in tissue in many instances.  Yours didn't.  You should already have taken into account that the Barnes TSX is a TOUGH bullet that requires very high velocity, and with this bullet, you need to hit bone, in most instances.  Did you shoot the deer through the lungs?  If so, I wouldn't have expected expansion, blood trail or anything but a pencil wound.  Unfortunately, you did kill that deer but it died a slow, agonizing death.

If you are going to use .223, you have to choose the right bullet, the right barrel, the right velocity and then place the bullet "like a surgeon," as one other poster so appropriately stated above.  If you really, really want to use your M4 -style rifle for deer hunting, get a 6.8 SPC, 6.5 Grendel, .458 SOCOM, or .50 Beowulf.  These all perform well in 16" barrels.

Personally, I just don't use the caliber at all for deer.  There are too many things that can go wrong, and if I have to work that hard to avoid a cripple, with stakes that high...well...I just want more insurance of a humane kill.

Just my $ .02   YMMV

Quoted: Quoted: I used 53 g Barnes X .. last year in my M4.  I shot a deer at 20 yds. and it left NO blood trail and did not recover the deer.   IF I choose (probably will) to use 223 in the future on deer .. then I am sticking to partition type bullets that WILL expand.  The barnes bullet just punches through without expanding. JMHO YMMV Ho Hum....this topic again?? .223 causes a lot of disagreement among hunters and others.  I have a neighbor that loves his. 223 AR's for Hogs, but thinks they are "way too small for deer."  Why the inconsistency?  When I pressed him on this he replied "well, because...you know...it doesn't matter if you lose a hog....."  Exactly   It has its place, but we as hunters, and yes, the US military are now and have been using this caliber for things which it was not designed.  Sound like a recipe for failure??  Sure, it is.  Doing stuff like this is going to hamstring the round, and force it to fail.  I have stopped trying to convince anyone that .223 is "weak, lame, impotent, inadequate a mouse gun, blah, blah, blah....."  The reason is that, when used for its intended purpose, and within the original specifications, it has some utility, and its best attributes are these: 1) lightweight & easy to carry the ammo 2) low recoil, even a woman, beginning shooter or child can shoot or learn with it. 3) very high velocity, when properly loaded, and fired in the proper barrel length 4) due to its high velocity, very flat shooting 5) extremely widely varied bullet selection available 4) marginal, but possible to take small and medium game with the proper bullet, velocity and barrel length What you learned is what the Army is now discussing.  The fact that, when shot in the M4 (with 16" barrel) , you lose several hundred FPS and thus, you now have a bullet that won't deform  in tissue in many instances.  Yours didn't.  You should already have taken into account that the Barnes TSX is a TOUGH bullet that requires very high velocity, and with this bullet, you need to hit bone, in most instances.  Did you shoot the deer through the lungs?  If so, I wouldn't have expected expansion, blood trail or anything but a pencil wound.  Unfortunately, you did kill that deer but it died a slow, agonizing death. If you are going to use .223, you have to choose the right bullet, the right barrel, the right velocity and then place the bullet "like a surgeon," as one other poster so appropriately stated above.  If you really, really want to use your M4 -style rifle for deer hunting, get a 6.8 SPC, 6.5 Grendel, .458 SOCOM, or .50 Beowulf.  These all perform well in 16" barrels. Personally, I just don't use the caliber at all for deer.  There are too many things that can go wrong, and if I have to work that hard to avoid a cripple, with stakes that high...well...I just want more insurance of a humane kill. Just my $ .02   YMMV

Ho Hum...another dead horse icon.  If you feel this topic has been "beat to death", why'd you respond?  It's quite evident from your avatar that you're a proponent of the 6.8.  Probably a fine round for deer, but then so is the .223.

I'm not sure what you mean by, "what the Army is now discussing", and which part of the Army is still discussing something other than the Nato 5.56mm?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I used 53 g Barnes X .. last year in my M4.  I shot a deer at 20 yds. and it left NO blood trail and did not recover the deer.   IF I choose (probably will) to use 223 in the future on deer .. then I am sticking to partition type bullets that WILL expand.  The barnes bullet just punches through without expanding. JMHO YMMV Ho Hum....this topic again?? .223 causes a lot of disagreement among hunters and others.  I have a neighbor that loves his. 223 AR's for Hogs, but thinks they are "way too small for deer."  Why the inconsistency?  When I pressed him on this he replied "well, because...you know...it doesn't matter if you lose a hog....."  Exactly   It has its place, but we as hunters, and yes, the US military are now and have been using this caliber for things which it was not designed.  Sound like a recipe for failure??  Sure, it is.  Doing stuff like this is going to hamstring the round, and force it to fail.  I have stopped trying to convince anyone that .223 is "weak, lame, impotent, inadequate a mouse gun, blah, blah, blah....."  The reason is that, when used for its intended purpose, and within the original specifications, it has some utility, and its best attributes are these: 1) lightweight & easy to carry the ammo 2) low recoil, even a woman, beginning shooter or child can shoot or learn with it. 3) very high velocity, when properly loaded, and fired in the proper barrel length 4) due to its high velocity, very flat shooting 5) extremely widely varied bullet selection available 4) marginal, but possible to take small and medium game with the proper bullet, velocity and barrel length What you learned is what the Army is now discussing.  The fact that, when shot in the M4 (with 16" barrel) , you lose several hundred FPS and thus, you now have a bullet that won't deform  in tissue in many instances.  Yours didn't.  You should already have taken into account that the Barnes TSX is a TOUGH bullet that requires very high velocity, and with this bullet, you need to hit bone, in most instances.  Did you shoot the deer through the lungs?  If so, I wouldn't have expected expansion, blood trail or anything but a pencil wound.  Unfortunately, you did kill that deer but it died a slow, agonizing death. If you are going to use .223, you have to choose the right bullet, the right barrel, the right velocity and then place the bullet "like a surgeon," as one other poster so appropriately stated above.  If you really, really want to use your M4 -style rifle for deer hunting, get a 6.8 SPC, 6.5 Grendel, .458 SOCOM, or .50 Beowulf.  These all perform well in 16" barrels. Personally, I just don't use the caliber at all for deer.  There are too many things that can go wrong, and if I have to work that hard to avoid a cripple, with stakes that high...well...I just want more insurance of a humane kill. Just my $ .02   YMMV Ho Hum...another dead horse icon.  If you feel this topic has been "beat to death", why'd you respond?  It's quite evident from your avatar that you're a proponent of the 6.8.  Probably a fine round for deer, but then so is the .223. I'm not sure what you mean by, "what the Army is now discussing", and which part of the Army is still discussing something other than the Nato 5.56mm?

I responded because I have a strong interest in seeing that hunters (especially those that choose to shoot deer with EBR's) don't cripple them, and give all the rest of us a bad name.  Wouldn't you agree that is possible if guys are out there shooting deer with M4 barrels, with bullets that are "margnial" at best for deer?  When word of this gets out, it looks very, very bad.  Many of us call the bolt-action guys FUDDS.  There is probably an analagous name for the guys that take their AR15 afield, not knowing what it will / can / cannot do, and then they cripple deer.  When word of this gets out, it gives the rifle and those using it for hunting, a bad reputation.

I am not singling out ds762, because I have friends that have done this, too, and they felt very guilty afteward.  They stopped using .223 altogether after losing a couple of animals, so your gloabal generaliazion/statement that ".223 is a fine round for deer," is highly debatable, as has been done here ad nauseam.

I personally think the round has some great attributes, as I pointed out.  I just don't think it is universally a good deer / medium game cartridge.  That opinion has been formed over 35 years of hunting / shooting and reloading experience.  Please feel free to disagree, because it is, after all just an opinion. .  We form those through personal experience, and mine has not been very good.  Yours may have been good, so that is why I said " YMMV."

The Army has been writing about the concern of 5.56 M855 shot through the M4 length barrel since Somalia.  The issue still has not gone away.  That is exactly why Murray and Holland, from the 5th Special Forces group, introdued the 6.8 SPC.  It isn't perfect, and it may never be adopted, but clearly there is a move aftoot to address the issue of M855 not fragmenting because it did not reach adequate velocity when fired from a barrel which is too short.

Your information about the Army's evaluation of the 6.8 is quite old.  That round has not received further consideration for a couple of years.  There may still be individuals or small units over there with weapons and stocks of ammo, but the Army has not favorably considered it, or any other round for some time.  The Army moved on.

Quoted: Your information about the Army's evaluation of the 6.8 is quite old.  That round has not received further consideration for a couple of years.  There may still be individuals or small units over there with weapons and stocks of ammo, but the Army has not favorably considered it, or any other round for some time.  The Army moved on.

Thanks for your opinion on my information.  Yours however, is the info that is dated.  The military continues to test the 6.8 SPC.  This link shows the "discussion is ongoing," as I stated, and this was one of many to which I am referring.

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080527/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/battling_over_bullets


Some of the tests are going favorably, and some are showing issues in the guns,  which might  be expected of a newly designed cartridge.   Again, I can't and won't predict if it will be "adopted," but I know firsthand accounts of NATO countries and U.S governmental / Federal agencies testing it continuously.

But, just so we don't totally hijack this thread....I don't want this to become a discussion about the 6.8 SPC. You were the one that pinned me to that.  I suggested the OP consider 6.8 SPC, 6.5 Grendel, .458 SOCOM, or .50 beowulf, all designed to ameliorate the problem of the .223 being too light for medium game.   The OP's question was "which bullets should I use if trying to kill a deer with the .223?"  

I personally would answer " those larger than .22 caliber..."  but if not being a smart ass , my answer would be, you should probably use the

1) Winchester Power Point
2) Barnes TSX, only if you can drive them over 2800 FPS (I.e use a 20" or longer barrel)
3) Nosler Partition

ETA:  as DPeacher said, I also like the TBBC

In Nebraska I took my deer with Black Hills 68gr. BTHP at about 100yds out of my M4gergy.  She ran about 40yds with a very good blood trail starting 10yds from where she was shot.  It went in behind the right shoulder and exited through the left shoulder, breaking the bone.  Exit wound was big enough i could stick my fat thumb through it.  Dressed out at around 130lbs.  

This year, though, I am in KS, .223 is not allowed for deer, and the shots are too long to make it an effective deer cartridge.  I would keep shots to ~125yds or less with .223.  This was a great excu... errr... reason to get my new 6.8SPC.

hi-tech-rancher, I read your cited article.  It says nothing about the 6.8 in particular, or any other round except the M855 and a passing mention to the round fired from the M14 (obviously the 7.62 Nato).  Yes, there was a "mention" of "others" being looked at.  Let me tell you how "Combat Developments" works.

The mention of the Colonel directing "Combat Developments" at the Infantry School takes me back a few years when I worked combat developments in another school (than the Infantry School).  I guess I can partially validate your point about the Army talking about something other than the M4/M16.  There will not a day pass that the Directorate of Combat Developments at the Infantry School does not talk about this.  It is their charter to keep up with current technology in the world of weapons.  Combat Developments works on the "project" basis.  This means the development of a "Needs" document – in other words, something is broke and needs to be fixed.  The need comes from the operating commands.  I'm sure there was a "needs" document for the early look at the 6.8spc, the 6.5 grendel, and many other rounds.  These actually got to a test phase, but the tests did not result in the development of a full scale weapon system (weapon, ammo, repair parts, support personnel, etc.) and as the Colonel said, it was dropped.

Is the Infantry School evaluating (news reports, input from industry, industry periodicals, visits from the firearms companies sales folks, unsolicited proposals)?  Absolutely.  It's their job.

Is there an ongoing test and evaluation phase for the 6.8spc, or any other previously looked at round?  I don't think so.  There were news reports that these had been stopped.

I appologize if I come across as a know-it-all.  It's just that I used to work in this area, and know how military equipment and the doctrine that employs them are developed.  I don't put any faith in an AP news story.  This one doesn't really support either my or your positions.  Civilians who do not work in the military's "Materiel Acquisition" area read way too much into the snippits that come from news articles or especially press releases from the gun or ammo manufacturers themselves.  Their job is to promote their products, and usually blow out of proportion any even sideways glance offered them by the military.  I had that happen to me in my field of Combat Developments many times.  ...but then, without this, what would we talk about!

I will agree with you on a couple of things concerning the .223 and deer.  Those not skilled in the art of harvesting game animals should use something larger.  ...and the 14.5 inch M4 barrel is probably too short for anything but 100 yards shots.

Kind regards,

Quoted: hi-tech-rancher, I read your cited article.  It says nothing about the 6.8 in particular, or any other round except the M855 and a passing mention to the round fired from the M14 (obviously the 7.62 Nato).  Yes, there was a "mention" of "others" being looked at.  Let me tell you how "Combat Developments" works. The mention of the Colonel directing "Combat Developments" at the Infantry School takes me back a few years when I worked combat developments in another school (than the Infantry School).  I guess I can partially validate your point about the Army talking about something other than the M4/M16.  There will not a day pass that the Directorate of Combat Developments at the Infantry School does not talk about this.  It is their charter to keep up with current technology in the world of weapons.  Combat Developments works on the "project" basis.  This means the development of a "Needs" document – in other words, something is broke and needs to be fixed.  The need comes from the operating commands.  I'm sure there was a "needs" document for the early look at the 6.8spc, the 6.5 grendel, and many other rounds.  These actually got to a test phase, but the tests did not result in the development of a full scale weapon system (weapon, ammo, repair parts, support personnel, etc.) and as the Colonel said, it was dropped. Is the Infantry School evaluating (news reports, input from industry, industry periodicals, visits from the firearms companies sales folks, unsolicited proposals)?  Absolutely.  It's their job. Is there an ongoing test and evaluation phase for the 6.8spc, or any other previously looked at round?  I don't think so.  There were news reports that these had been stopped. I appologize if I come across as a know-it-all.  It's just that I used to work in this area, and know how military equipment and the doctrine that employs them are developed.  I don't put any faith in an AP news story.  This one doesn't really support either my or your positions.  Civilians who do not work in the military's "Materiel Acquisition" area read way too much into the snippits that come from news articles or especially press releases from the gun or ammo manufacturers themselves.  Their job is to promote their products, and usually blow out of proportion any even sideways glance offered them by the military.  I had that happen to me in my field of Combat Developments many times.  ...but then, without this, what would we talk about! I will agree with you on a couple of things concerning the .223 and deer.  Those not skilled in the art of harvesting game animals should use something larger.  ...and the 14.5 inch M4 barrel is probably too short for anything but 100 yards shots. Kind regards,

Six,

I think we agree more than we disagree.    No apology necessary, but I certainly respect the gesture.  I will be among the first to admit that you probably do know more than I about military procurement and development.

My knowledge comes firsthand from some very smart people, whom I am now privileged to call "friends."  These gentlemen are manufacturing rifles and ammo, which are being actively tested by military and govenmental agencies, but I think you are correct in stating that there is no large scale movement afoot to completely revamp the entire arsenal of infantry weapons by replacing them with 6.8 SPC.

The .223?  Well, I think we agree.  Maybe part of the problem is that, with the US Mil. choosing the 5.56 NATO round, hunters naturally think it would be "cool" to shoot a deer with it, and that surely it should work, right??  The 5.56 NATO cartridge certainly wasn't selected by the Army because of its prowess in killing medium sized game animals.  I think everyone will agree to that.

I must admit, I get into trouble sometimes because I probably come across as a little opinionated when it comes to killing animals with it. I hunt in south Texas.  Our deer and hogs are huge, as big as Texas herself...my luck with hunting same, with the .223, has been rotten, so I gave up on it. (and this from someone that can place a bullet in the heart / Aorta / mediastinum 99% of the time, or doesn't take the shot).   I just can't stand to see a deer crippled.

Sorry OP if we hijacked!!  I hope the discussion still gave you some info of value.

I have harvested deer with a variety of calibres including 5.56/223. The 223 out of a 26" rifle is a "good" whitetail bullet when used at short distance and with a rest and great optics (so shots can be placed in the head, spine, or heart). I do not use 223 to harvest deer sized animals (any more) as there are better choices. If I were to go out and hunt with the 223 again I would choose hornadys 55 grsp or the 64 gr winchester based on my past experiance. I have not had a chance to try the barnes but they seem well built.

hi-tech, I think you're right.  We are closer than we let on.

I reload my owne hunting rounds and like 73gr match grade from Berger Bullets, Shot placement is the key useing .223/5.56 cal . Head and neck for ranges out from 100 to 300 yds and from 0 to 100 yds  I will take a heart shot, know your  rifle and shoot often and you wont miss.  

Quoted: I used 53 g Barnes X .. last year in my M4.  I shot a deer at 20 yds. and it left NO blood trail and did not recover the deer.   IF I choose (probably will) to use 223 in the future on deer .. then I am sticking to partition type bullets that WILL expand.  The barnes bullet just punches through without expanding. JMHO YMMV

Some of you aren't going to like me after this post.....


243 minimum!

So you shot a CXP2 Class animal with a 53gr hollow point at basically muzzle velocity and you expected to take it down? That bullet should not be used at less than 75yds.

Really, the 223 should not be used on deer with anything less than a 65 - 70+ grain bullet of the right make (Partition, Scirocco, etc).

If you're going to hunt deer, at least give them the respect to use enough gun for a humane kill. Instead, the deer you shot died a long, painful death from infection.

I know, I know..."Thousands of deer have been killed with a .22lr". Save it.

It's all about having the right tool for the job.

I've seen deer lost with bigger calibers than .223.  If you don't put it through the kill zone, don't matter if you're using a .50 cal.  Well, maybe a .50 cal.  

In fact, you're better off with a fragmenting bullet of any caliber for deer than a bonded one.  IMHO.  Does more damage and as long as it penetrates far enough.  I think the best of both worlds is the heavier calibers with lighter bullets.  If you put one through the boiler room, it makes the internals messed up real bad.  All the important stuff.  It doesn't "ruin" the meat like I've hear people whine about, and it kills quicker.  My uncle, cousin and I have used this theory MANY times with good results.  Then my cousin went to a .300 RSAUM and lost one.  Hehehehe.  He typically uses a .243 with the lighter 80 grain bullet and my uncle uses an ott 6 with 125 grain vmax.  I used a .30-30 with the federal 125 grain hollow points.   Those all work very well to kill quick.  Which helps when you're on public land.  I've yet to shoot one with a .223, but if I feel like it will penetrate enough, I would do it.  Problem is, in our state, a BTHP bullet isn't necessarily legal.  I wish the 75 grain AMAXES fit in an AR mag.

Quoted: In fact, you're better off with a fragmenting bullet of any caliber for deer than a bonded one.

Relying on a substandard bullet to fragment for a whitetail is a recipe for losing a deer...     I don't know how big and heavy deer grow by you, but a 180lb+ deer is not going to just fall over because you scrambled its guts......    The only time I had to track a deer shot with a 7mm is when it caught a rib just right and fragmented......    It made a horrible mess out of the lung on the entry side and blended its belly inside....  The deer was found still alert and breathing an hour later......
A good shot from a .50 BMG, let alone  a bonded .30-06  has zero chance of ruining any meat....

Quoted: I plan on taking my AR hunting this year and was wondering if yall could give me an idea as to which commercially loaded .223 would work best.

There is a reason that ammunition manufacturers have rating systems for the appropriateness of their loads for specific game...   There are very few loads rated for deer sized game, and none for larger.  
I personally use the 64 gr Power Points because of availability, but I know of others who swear by the 60 grain Nosler loads....

Quoted: Quoted: In fact, you're better off with a fragmenting bullet of any caliber for deer than a bonded one.   Relying on a substandard bullet to fragment for a whitetail is a recipe for losing a deer...     I don't know how big and heavy deer grow by you, but a 180lb+ deer is not going to just fall over because you scrambled its guts......    The only time I had to track a deer shot with a 7mm is when it caught a rib just right and fragmented......    It made a horrible mess out of the lung on the entry side and blended its belly inside....  The deer was found still alert and breathing an hour later...... A good shot from a .50 BMG, let alone  a bonded .30-06  has zero chance of ruining any meat....

Your one experience doesn't change my opinion.  My uncle and cousin have culled a pretty good amount of deer using the combinations I pointed out.  And they like them to die quicker because they hunt on public land sometimes.  It doesn't mean I'm saying the .223 is a death ray.  But what I'm saying is when you have a fragmenting bullet, in a caliber that pentetrates deep enough, it will stop them quicker than a bullet that may expand a little and go through all the way.  I know this is controversial thinking for hunters, but I think it's sound theory AND PRACTICE.  There is a reason that the heavier BTHP's in 5.56 seem to do better on soft targets than M855.  And same goes for the AMAX in .308.  And even BTHP's in .308.  You can hunt with what you like.  But your experience isn't the only right one.

anyone ever use a barnes varmint grenade on a white tail?

the load them on up to .243 and i have been juggling on whether or not to pick some up and try them out this coming year

Quoted: anyone ever use a barnes varmint grenade on a white tail? the load them on up to .243 and i have been juggling on whether or not to pick some up and try them out this coming year

Those bullets are designed to open up very quickly on small animals and will come apart way too quickly to be consistently effective on deer sized animals.  When using .224" projectiles on deer sized animals, I strongly recommend a bonded bullet that weighs at least 60 grains.

Remmy is doing an AR10 now too?  That is news to me!!

Quoted: www.remington.com/products/firearms/centerfire_rifles/Model_R-25.asp

Made it hot.

Something that I don't think has been emphasized enough is barrel length.  You lose a LOT of velocity out of a 14.5" bbl, and that translates into effective range for many of these cartridges.  20 or 24" bbls, are, IMHO, a better choice for hunting with a AR.

About two years (when I posted this same thread), MOST arfcommers recommended this as the premiere ammo to use for a deer hunt. Not sure if it still is.

Cor-Bon DPX Hunter Ammunition 223 Remington 62 Grain

We had some extra guys on with us that year so I used my AR as a back-up. Used a 30-06 for the rest of the week though. Didn't get a chance to actually use the DPX (at least not on anything worth taking). The aricle below says Corbon ran tests of it on a 16" barrel...so was the .223 DPX designed for as small as a 16" barrel?

Article on DPX Hunter

Comments/opinions?

14 rounds

-
Compared to a 30-06

-
Compared to a 30-06

IMO Cor Bon DPX is the toughest expanding bullet available.  I got full penetration with no bullet recovery on an 100+lb. OK boar w/ 62gr DPX.

Although another hunter with us got full penetration no recovery on a 200lb sow w/ 55gr Fed. Trophy Bonded = Fed. Tactical Bonded.  Also a good round.

Good bullets but expensive.
RRA15

got mine with winchester powere point 64gr droped it were it stood

Here are some more perpectives on the question at hand.

Quoted: Pick a round loaded with one of these and you will be good to go. Barnes Triple Shock X (63gn is my personal favorite) Nosler Partition Speer Trophy Bonded Bear Claw Swift Scirocco II (bonded) Sierra Game King 65gn Winchester 64gn Power Point

All I can find to use are the 62gn.  

22 Caliber

 Diameter Weight Description S.D. B.C. CAT#  
NEW .224" 45 gr  TSX FB  .128 .188 22441
 .224" 53 gr TSX FB .151 .204 22443
 .224" 62 gr  TSX BT  .177 .287 22460*
 .224" 70 gr TSX BT .199 .314 22470*

*Recommended twist rate is 1:7 - 1:9 for #22460
*Recommended twist rate is 1:7 - 1:8 for #22470

Quoted: Quoted: Pick a round loaded with one of these and you will be good to go. Barnes Triple Shock X (63gn is my personal favorite) Nosler Partition Speer Trophy Bonded Bear Claw Swift Scirocco II (bonded) Sierra Game King 65gn Winchester 64gn Power Point All I can find to use are the 62gn.   22 Caliber  Diameter Weight Description S.D. B.C. CAT#   NEW .224" 45 gr  TSX FB  .128 .188 22441  .224" 53 gr TSX FB .151 .204 22443  .224" 62 gr  TSX BT  .177 .287 22460*  .224" 70 gr TSX BT .199 .314 22470* *Recommended twist rate is 1:7 - 1:9 for #22460 *Recommended twist rate is 1:7 - 1:8 for #22470

Ha!!  Looks like I've got a "new" favorite.