AR Sponsor
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Is .223 weak? (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 6/25/2005 6:50:56 PM EDT
|
I need a non-bs answer. Some have claimed that .223 is such a weak and puny round, but in fact it kills around the world. Then why do some states prohibit .223 to be used in some hunting games? I am confused. |
Quit listening to people that talk shit out of their ass. Its been killing humans world wide for 40 years. Is it perfect? Far from it. Does it work? Well enough the majority of the time. |
Theres a big damned difference between killin a man and killin an animal. I think more to the point is whats the intended purpose? I wouldnt use .223 to hunt with unless I was huntin 2 legged critters or varmints. Course, Texas deer are about as big as a small dog around here so..... 
|
b/c you are not suppost to let deer/other large game to SUFFER the .223 is a weak round when compared to other rounds out there h/w against people, and w/ the right loads, and deer are sufficient to kill--wheter swiftly and surely depends on many variable but i would rate it pretty ok as a rifle cartrige |
|
I have shot deer with 30-06, .270, 7.62x39 and 30-30's. You can shoot them in the heart and they will still run. Doesn't matter how big of a bullet. They don't freak out and lie to die because they have no idea what just happened. Instinct takes over. A good shot with a .223 is plenty to kill a whitetail deer. I know many people who have dropped whitetail deer with .22 shorts. Shot placement is the key. Animals are alittle harder to kill than human beings. I was going to do some whitetail hunting this season but I think I am going to be in boot camp or MOS training about that time. |
|
I have hunted in a few states that had caliber restrictions. In the states I was in (I am not saying it isn't different where you live), they didn't name specific cartridges that were banned: they specified a bore size. In other words, it has to be .25 caliber or whatever the case may be. Obviously there are cartridges that qualified that were totally inadequate for big game hunting and others that were perfectly adequate that were banned. For example, in the example I gave, a .25 ACP would be legal and a .223 would be banned. A .31 muzzleloader would be legal and a .22-250 would be banned. In other words, the law doesn't mean a thing about how potent or suitable the cartridge is for big game hunting. As has been posted many times, more deer have fallen to a .22 long rifle than everything else combined (with the possible exception of cars). Yet the much more potent and suitable .223 is banned. I have a friend that uses a T/C Encore with a .223 barrel as his first choice for deer or antelope (he has taken both with that rifle). I have another friend that is a very serious trophy hunter. He video tapes hundreds of deer (usually) before he decides that he sees one big enough to shoot. His choice of a rifle is the .22-250. If I was hunting at fairly close range similar to the conditions I hunted in during my teenage years in eastern Ohio, I would consider the .223 to be a great cartridge for whitetail deer. It wouldn't be legal since ALL rifles are illegal in Ohio for deer hunting. But if legal, I think it would make a great cartridge for short range deer hunting. As was already mentioned, I have shot deer with several different rifle cartridges in the .30-06 class as well as shotgun slugs and muzzleloaders (as well as other animals such as elk). I have NEVER had a big game animal drop in it's tracks. They all took at least a few minutes to die (bleed out) and most of them ran at least a little way after being hit. Of course, I have never shot a big game animal in the head as my first shot either. Unless you hit the animal in the central nervous system, the bullet will kill due to hemmorage. There is no magical power that causes the animal to die: it bleeds out. This takes a certain amount of time. Obviously, the larger the wound the faster this occurs. Obviously a shot to the heart/lung area will make this occur faster. Shot placement is FAR, FAR, FAR more important than what cartridge you shoot it with. Humans are just another kind of animal with the same organs and the same thing kills them. One of the problems with the .223 (5.56mm Nato) is that it is a medium range cartridge at best. Within that range, I don't think it gives anything up to other common military cartridges. I also don't think that most people can make a shot much further than 100-200 yards under field condtions anyway, so it is a moot point. The problem is that people want to compare it to rifles that are capable of much greater range. Or they complain that it isn't capable of making a shot at 800 yards (or whatever). Everything is a compromise and I think the limitations of the .223 are limitations that would not come into play on a normal regular basis. I have seen persons shot with the .223 cartridge and the damage is horrible. People don't seem to have any problem with the idea of defending themselves with a handgun (any caliber: doesn't matter), yet complain about the .223 which is infinitely more potent (yes, I have seen many handgun wounds from all manner of handguns). |
|
Time for this link. Read it. Learn it. Live it: www.ammo-oracle.com |
I reread the original post, and I see no indication this is a hunting discussion, but what the hell, I'll work on my reading comprehension. |
|
Oddly enough there are some states that indeed do ban the use of .223 for hunting big game like deer and so on but at the same time they support Archery hunts of the same game animals. For example here in AZ, I am under the understanding that it is illegal to hunt Deer or Elk with a rifle that shoots .223 but there are Archery Deer and Elk Seasons. Another oddity that I have observed is that in AZ , if you are hunting squirrel or doing anything else for that matter in an area in which there is an active Deer or Elk hunt and you have an AR-15 in your possesion, according to the LAW you can be arrested for conspiracy to commit poaching because you are in possesion of a center fire rifle. Fortunately most of the AZG&F Officers have more sense than the their superiors. |
Yup. Razorback fives baby! 
|
This is crap. The mil HAS guns that fire bigger rounds. The special ops guys just would like a little more out of their standard issue weopons. In my opinion there ain't nothing wrong with that. As far as a 223-556 being a weak round I think not. If you compare apples to apples the 223-556 is actually a strong round when grouped against others in its class. Its not a 220 swift or a 22-250 but then I doubt a full auto would last very long at all spitting out either of those rounds. I would imagine if you could tally up all of the dead bodies that were taking with the 223-556 round you'd probably be damned impressed--or horrorified. I always felt safe with my m-16 but if I could have had an easily carried-shoulder fired assualt rifle in 50 cal bmg I'd took it instead, but we all know that ain't gonna happen. Don't forget that the mil don't have only m-16s either. There are shotguns, mp5s, m-14s, 50 bmg sniper rifles and other odd things. Everyone just cant have everything. At any rate if you feel un-protected with your 223-556 poodle-shooter then send the thing to me and go buy yourself a tank or an apache helicopter or something. If that wont do then maybe I could interest you in a good pair of running shoes  Wes |
NO! For that you need a tank or an apache helicopter. Seriously dude, would you run your grandma's old station wagon at the Indy 500? Think not. You need to buy an armalite AR-50 and be done with it. You can kill all the bears and cars you want with that. Wes |
|
Bows and arrows are indeed very very good nowadays. I have a set of compound bow and it's great toy to play. Don't mock the bow, if you are shot, it kills. I wouldn't want to be shot by either arrows or bullets. And your body armor that can stop a handgun may not stop a bow arrow. For hunting, bows are just difficult to shoot accurately. Rifles are much easier to shoot. Of course, it's difficult to carry a low of arrows and shoot fast.
|
| 55gr punches through 1/4" steel no problem. 55gr will also fragment causing more damage, so I'd say it's fairly effective. Wolf or green tip is not the best stuff to use cause it stays togather, punching nice neat ice-pick sized holes. There's tons of stories telling of instant one shot stop kills with 55gr and speciality type ammo. |
So which ammo is better, M193 or M855? And what is all this discussion about fragmentation? Are these dumdum bullets?
|
A .223 is not suitable for bear. Larger caliber ammunition with a heavier bullet would be necessary unless you had a very lucky shot, bearing in mind (no pun intended) the overal density of the animal's hide, muscle mass, etc., bone deflection issues, and how fast you can run when you wound the bear (not fast enough). Penetration against cars is better than handgun ammunition, but you are dealing with a very small, light bullet (usually in the 55-75 grain range depending on the bullet) that is not likely to carry much energy after having to go through part of a car (excluding the windshield). The bullet will not penetrate an engine block, and is likely to fragment upon hitting solid things like window frames, internal door guard beams, etc. Against body armor, the question is what NIJ level. Below Level III, yes. Level III and above, no. Remember that the 5.56 NATO round was adopted because of the perceived need to carry lots of ammunition into combat for use in a select fire assault rifle. At the time, no one wore body armor (I'm not including the old flak jackets, which do not stop bullets), and no one thought about shooting at cars. The gun was adopted for jungle warfare against guys wearing cotton pajamas. Keep that in mind when considering the proper application for the round. |
Apparently you should. Good luck with that reading comprehension. |
| I have seen at least a dozen deer killed by a friend of mine with the .223, several with ball ammo. Of course, they were all neck shots and they were all within 100yds. Every one of them dropped right where they stood, and the damage even with the 55gr FMJ's, was quite impressive. My friend uses the .223 because he can shoot it with the precision required for this type of hunting, he has a horrible flinch with larger calibers. I do not think the .223 is the right choice for everyone all the time, though, but it works for him. As for military use, judging by the damage inflicted on those deer, I think that the 5.56 can be a very effective load when proper shot placement at appropriate ranges(probably no more than 300 meters)is used. Just my 0.02 |
Get the fuxor outta here! Are you serious?  Does anyone else know of a .222 as a regular Polar bear (Largest of all bears including Grizz) killer?
|
|
Whenever someone tells you the .223 is designed to wound, ask them to stand downrange about 75 yards while you take a shot at them. Same goes for those that say it is weak. People can talk, but if you were at the receiving end of something like that, you'd give it all the respect of a caliber that will make you fertilizer in a heartbeat. |
Yeah, on walrus too.
Would you believe .22LR (not supposed to do that though): north.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=clyde-polar-07062005 |
|
Read here if you want to know the truth about 5.56/.223 and not the gun store lore you have heard. www.ammo-oracle.com |
 .... thats freaking awesome. they have to be shooting them through the eye socket or something.I know shot placement is key and all but I woul much rather have good shot placement with a .416 Rigby then a .222 or a .22 LR. 
|
|
.223 is more than adequate against Human beings. It is nearly ideal as a military round, which is why almost every country in the world is using it, and have been for many years. There are some people out there that think that you shouldn't own a rifle less than a .45-70, or a handun less than a .44 magnum. To them, anything less is inadequate. You can argue either side. I know someone who's son used an M1 Carbine to hunt deer because he was uncomfortable with the recoil of the lightweight single shot .243. Anyway, shot a buck at 50 yds with a .30 cal carbine fmj and it dropped without taking another step. At the same time, my uncle shot an 8 pointer with a .30-06 with expanding bullet dead in the breadbasket, and it ran several hundred yards before falling dead. There have been recorded cases of people dropping dead instantly with a .22 longrifle bullet wound, and people who have survived a close range 12 gauge shotgun blast to the face that nearly tore their head off. Results vary greatly from one case to the next. However, I think that people in the US tend to think that "more is better". The reason that the military uses 5.56 Nato? Simple #1 It is very effective, extremely lethal at most combat ranges #2 It is lightweight allowing people to carry more ammo into the fight #3 It has less recoil which makes it more controlable during full auto firing #4 A wide range of people can shoot it comfortably allowing it to be fired more accurately because people are less likely to flinch So, it is accurate, lethal, and readily available. So why shouldn't they use it? |
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Is .223 weak? (Page 1 of 2)
AR Sponsor