Meanwhile on RS they're killin bear, deer, elk , and moose with .223 and 77gr TMK.

[xsn10s]

That's not the strongest of arguments!

They do have many positive attributes…..but, some very strong negatives as well! memtb

Well you said it yourself that the .223/ 77 TMK/ 300 WM 180 TTSX looked like your 308 Win shots. I bet it looks like many big game loads including for elk. I contacted the OP for that comparison and he said no weight loss for the 180 TTSX. So for your raking shots that bullet would work. And we see similar terminal performance pictures resulting from using the 77 gr TMK.

 

[xsn10s]

Couldn't agree with you more.

Which is why shooting accurately is so important.

If someone only sees quick and successful kills, with 6mm, 243, 223, 30-30, etc then the only conclusion they can come to is they work extremely well.
In the same way that someone who sees animals run off, when shot with a 300, 308, 338, etc can form their idea of how they don't work well. Maybe they do work okay, but the shooter sucks.
Me, I would bet my money on the best shooter, not if they were carrying a 243 or 338.
When I hear/read stories about people who rarely shoot, don't even know how to 0 their rifle, much less properly account for longer shots, and adjust accordingly, those are the unethical hunters in my opinion.
If the government wants to impose rules and regulations, how about instead of cartridge, they make it on proficiency.
To get your tags annually, you must first every year show up on designated days at a range. Upon arriving you have brought exactly 20 rounds with you, and at 100 yards must hit 4 out of 4 targets the size of a quarter. At 200 yards 4 out 4 twice the size of a quarter. At 300 three time the size of a quarter 4 out of 4 times. And the same thing at 400, and 500 yards, where the target is only 4 and 5 times the size of a quarter, 4 out of 4 times. If you miss once, you'll be allowed to retest after 30 days. That qualifies people to hunt up to 500 yards only. If someone wants to qualify for longer ranges, they can try, but the targets no longer get larger, or else the error factor is too huge. They must hit a target 5 times the diameter of a quarter, 4 out of 4 times, at the range they wish to qualify to hunt at.
5 times the diameter of a quarter is pretty large, if they cannot be accurate on something that BIG, well then they best get practicing. It would also assure their rifle is properly sighted, and they have a clue about bullet drop, windage, etc.
Dude A, who has a 243, and is a good shooter, is a vastly more ethical hunter, than Dude B, who can't shoot worth crap but has a 338.

Perfect test for an overbearing, controlling government to do. sounds like something they would do in Europe.

 

[Small Lady]

I'll put money down you, me and most people on this forum couldn't pass this test. You're talking less than a one minute target with zero misses allowed. Try it and see. I bet you don't get to 300 yards.

Perfect test for an overbearing, controlling government to do. sounds like something they would do in Europe.
[/QUOTE]

Sounds exactly like something that our government would do.
But actually a quarter is pretty large, should be easy to hit at 100 yards, or at 3oo yards a target 3 times that size.
I feel comfortable hitting something that size at 100 yards, or triple the size at 300 yards.
At 0.955 inches across, that is very close to an inch, which shouldn't be a problem for most good shooters.

 

[Small Lady]

I've had 3 friends and 2 aquaintces murdered…..I suspect that none woke-up that morning suspecting they would be murdered that day!

Just as you do a "risk assessment"…..one should always do a "worst case" assessment! memtb

They were murdered by hunters?
Sorry for your loss, but unless they all died on hunting trips, don't see any relatively to this thread.
I thought this was about hunting deer etc.
Not hand gun fights in the city...on that topic I have no suggestion, as I've never held a hand gun, or been shot at.
But would think a 223 or 243 would be ample to stop the person shooting at me if such was the case.

 

[xsn10s]

Perfect test for an overbearing, controlling government to do. sounds like something they would do in Europe.

Sounds exactly like something that our government would do.
But actually a quarter is pretty large, should be easy to hit at 100 yards, or at 3oo yards a target 3 times that size.
I feel comfortable hitting something that size at 100 yards, or triple the size at 300 yards.
At 0.955 inches across, that is very close to an inch, which shouldn't be a problem for most good shooters.
View attachment 514812
[/QUOTE]
The vitals on big game are much larger than a quarter. So even though that's something I could easilly hit it's not a need criteria. Some rifles will not shoot 1.5 moa at 100 yards, maybe even many factory rifles. And to be effective hunting tools they don't need too. A rifle that I can shoot 1.5 moa or even 2 moa would be fine out to 200 yards, maybe even more in the right conditions.

 

[Small Lady]

I have a fairly acute sense for BS…..and you've been swinging the needle for quite a while! This topic is no different!

Wishing you the very best! Have a great one! memtb

Interesting observation, because that's my gut feeling about many of your posts as well. Especially when throwing in very strange comments about needing big caliber rifles to stop murderers...or however that random out of context post was supposed to be taken.

 

[Ckleeves]

Perfect test for an overbearing, controlling government to do. sounds like something they would do in Europe.

Sounds exactly like something that our government would do.
But actually a quarter is pretty large, should be easy to hit at 100 yards, or at 3oo yards a target 3 times that size.
I feel comfortable hitting something that size at 100 yards, or triple the size at 300 yards.
At 0.955 inches across, that is very close to an inch, which shouldn't be a problem for most good shooters.
View attachment 514812
[/QUOTE]
Try it and see. Put four .95 dots at 100, four 1.9" dots at 200, four 2.85" dots at 300 and four 3.8" dots at 400 and hit every one of them from a field shooting position (no benches) without a single miss. I bet you will find it pretty challenging.

 

[victor3ranger]

Since 1980 hunted on a section by Laredo, just me and a friend. The first deer I killed I put in the boiler room as it stood in the middle of the sendero trying to figure out the bump on the road. That was me prone on my shooting mat.. Blood trail ran into the thorny, rattler infested brush, and haven for those stinky javelinas. After crawling through the the brush destroying my original issue field jacket, and emptying my 1911 on group of javelinas, I found the deer. Dragging it out was another story.

Never again.

Ever since then, I place the shots at high shoulder. Never chased one more deer till the section was sold 7 years ago. The 210 VLDs coming out 2950 from the AI AWM never failed to drop the SoTex WT where they stood. Sometimes the 7 mag gets the nod.

That's the same reason I learned.
Between the

Since 1980 hunted on a section by Laredo, just me and a friend. The first deer I killed I put in the boiler room as it stood in the middle of the sendero trying to figure out the bump on the road. That was me prone on my shooting mat.. Blood trail ran into the thorny, rattler infested brush, and haven for those stinky javelinas. After crawling through the the brush destroying my original issue field jacket, and emptying my 1911 on group of javelinas, I found the deer. Dragging it out was another story.

Never again.

Ever since then, I place the shots at high shoulder. Never chased one more deer till the section was sold 7 years ago. The 210 VLDs coming out 2950 from the AI AWM never failed to drop the SoTex WT where they stood. Sometimes the 7 mag gets the nod.

That's the exact same for me, between the mesquite thickets and dense tamarack and rattlesnakes plus now the wild pigs I don't want to chase them.
A couple of times of that is enough.
Shot placement is very important.

 

[sp6x6]

You won't catch a guide alive letting you use one of these p shooters on a AK grizzly or brown bear hunt, go figure?

 

[victor3ranger]

Wow this took a slide sideways

 

[willfrye027]

My hunting rifles have been trending to smaller and smaller cartridges. I wounded and made more bad shots (never lost one though) on animals with my 30-06 than I care to admit. I had a terrible flinch that liked to show up at the moment of truth. I did not enjoy shooting that rifle and did not practice much, if at all.

Fast forward and now I've got some expendable income. My hunting rifles are all creedmoor sized cases. I shoot them a lot and I enjoy it. Adding a 223 to the stable so I can shoot twice as much for the same cost as the creedmoor cases.

I am a better hunter and more effective killer for having downsized.

Personally a lot of my shot opportunities are beyond 500 yards so a 223 doesn't make a ton of sense for me, strictly from a hit percentages standpoint.

But I will continue to use the lowest recoiling options that will get the job done effectively.

 

[sp6x6]

Yes I have a 223 and use it.Just I would never grab it to elk hunt.Unless it was the only option .Ive also shot half my elk with archery, along with another 75+

 

[cajun]

I listened to one of their podcasts discussing this. The point they were trying to make is bullet performance can be more important than caliber for terminal results. The 77 tmk in 223 is an extreme example of a small caliber bullet that performs well and kills stuff above it's pay grade.

 

[PlumberEd]

This new 22 ARC has 73gr, 77gr and 88gr written all over it. It's tempting to, my problem is, my income and my want/shooting budgets are in two different zip codes and apparently on two different continents

Your post is hilarious.