Why you should consider a 223 for a LR rifle

[AvonShooter]

I actually probably didn't do a great job of explaining it cause I'm just so dang enamored with the rifle.

The 223 is stupid efficient. I'm burning 25.5 grains of powder to drive a 75 grain bullet over 3k fps. Recoil isn't a thing, barrel heat is hardly a thing, and downrange ballistics are still awesome. It's also just plain fun, it's the rifle I continue to reach for almost every trip I go on. Everyone I know that has a precision 223 setup for the fast bullets seems to feel the same.

Here is a video of my first day in the field with a long range 223. Back then I was shooting 80 grain ELDM before I found a bunch of 75 ELDM for a good price.

Last spring was when I had my eyes opened wide to the potency of a good 223 when I killed two chucks over 1200 yards away with mine. At the price per shot, I'm not sure it can be beat. Here's the story of the long chucks: https://www.longrangehunting.com/threads/1200-yard-rock-chucks-with-a-223.332524/#post-2833604

What powder did you use "I'm burning 25.5 grains of powder to drive a 75 grain bullet over 3k fps." Thanks

 

[Browninglover1]

What powder did you use "I'm burning 25.5 grains of powder to drive a 75 grain bullet over 3k fps." Thanks

Varget.

 

[JustMe2]

Over the years I've owned a few 223s but they were always set up to run lightweight Varmint bullets and I never thought of the cartridge as a good long range option.

Fast forward a few years and I built a long 223 with a 26" barrel and a 7.5 twist barrel to run 75-80 grain bullets. With a stout charge of Varget I get 3040 fps with a 75 grain ELDM and it just flat out shoots. This load was unbelievably fun on rock chucks last spring and even killed two of them over 1200 yards!

After getting some suppressors last year I wanted to see how the rifle and suppressor would do with a quick 10 shot string. Today was test day so I loaded up a magazine and let it rip. To say I was impressed would be an understatement. What a hoot! 10 shots into 1/2 MOA is just way too much fun.

View attachment 544846View attachment 544847

That doesn't look like .560 MOA if the center thick circle is a 1/2 inch diameter as you stated. The distance between shots 1 & 2 and 1 & 4 are 3/4 inch @ 100 yds. Looks like you need to recalibrate your software program for this target so it calculates correctly. That's a 9 inch group at 1200 yds on a rock chuck and almost 4 inches at 500 yds, definitely not an ethical head shot on deer as someone commented.

 

[Browninglover1]

That doesn't look like .560 MOA if the center thick circle is a 1/2 inch diameter as you stated. The distance between shots 1 & 2 and 1 & 4 are 3/4 inch @ 100 yds. Looks like you need to recalibrate your software program for this target so it calculates correctly. That's a 9 inch group at 1200 yds on a rock chuck and almost 4 inches at 500 yds, definitely not an ethical head shot on deer as someone commented.

It is correct and verified with calipers. Groups are measured center to center not outside to outside.

 

[FireFlyFishing]

This tread has me thinking…maybe I need one.

 

[436]

This tread has me thinking…maybe I need one.
View attachment 545492

LR .223s are a hoot to play with. good luck Cheers

 

[Coyote Shadow Tracker]

LR .223s are a hoot to play with. good luck Cheers

"THEY ARE A FORCE TO BE RECONED WITH"
CST

 

[MtPockets]

I shoot highpower which is standing at 200yds, rapid fire sitting at 200 yds, rapid prone at 300 yds and slow fire prone at 600 yds. I shoot a bolt gun in 260 but if you go to a match at least 80 % of the shooters are shooting AR's. The shooters using longer barreled, 24 to 26 inch rifles in 223 I believe have a easier time with the wind at 600 yds. I have been beaten more than once at 600 yds by service rifle AR's which have 20 inch barrels and you have to be lucky or very good at reading the wind to win at 600 but the good wind readers do very well at 600 with the 223 and usually 80 gr mk's. The 260 I shoot is easier to beat the wind with at 600 but the AR's have an advantage shooting rapid fire and I think the 223 might get twice the barrel life than the 260. I know the 308's get twice the barrel life over a 260. The 223 uses 1/2 the powder, bullets are 60 % of 6.5 bullets, right now primers are 60% of large rifle primers, whats not to like. A year ago I took a young fellow who read too many stories on the computor to a 1000yd match so he could see the realities of contending with the wind and a fellow wqs shooting f class with a 223 bolt gun and he did very well, he was a talented and well practiced wind reader and with a cartridge that doesn't eat barrels and if economical to shoot a person would be more inclined to shoot more at long range which is the most important thing to become proficiant at hitting your target.

I have been thinking about buying or building a .260 AI or possibly some other flavor of 6.5
Your post has me rethinking this.

 

[waspocrew]

My Tikka 1:8 CTR is one of my favorite rifles to shoot - zero recoil and way cheaper components. My only complaint is the factory barrel has a short throat. I've been toying around with the idea of having it throated out a little more so I can load the 77 TMK and 80 gr ELDM further without impeding on case capacity as much as it currently sits.

 

[cajun]

The 77 tmk is a hammer on deer too. There was a thread about it

 

[Reelamin]

That doesn't look like .560 MOA if the center thick circle is a 1/2 inch diameter as you stated. The distance between shots 1 & 2 and 1 & 4 are 3/4 inch @ 100 yds. Looks like you need to recalibrate your software program for this target so it calculates correctly. That's a 9 inch group at 1200 yds on a rock chuck and almost 4 inches at 500 yds, definitely not an ethical head shot on deer as someone commented.

I also was questioning the group size also based on the photo. Yes, I pulled a target out and came up with .617" guestimate. I don't know how that converts to MOA but its close to what the computer said.

 

[Browninglover1]

Calipers zeroed at 0.223 and then measuring outside to outside. It's not me fudging the data with BallisticX to show a better group than it is.

 

[JustMe2]

I also was questioning the group size also based on the photo. Yes, I pulled a target out and came up with .617" guestimate. I don't know how that converts to MOA but its close to what the computer said.

I'm not understanding your comparison. You are measuring a different target than the OP, Browning. If you zoom in or out on the OPs target until the center darker circle is 0.5" then measure the distance between bullet 1 & 2, it appears to me you'll get about 0.75", just eyeballing it. The OP said he used a caliper to verify the software, so the center circle must be smaller than 0.5", I may be wrong. I just thought he may need to adjust his software to get an accurate number. Some people don't realize they need to calibrate each photographed target. Every time
they take a picture of the target, the camera distorts the size of the target and the software needs to be recalibrated for each photo seperately for the software to be accurate. Just trying to help accuracy.

 

[Browninglover1]

I'm not understanding your comparison. You are measuring a different target than the OP. If you zoom in or out on the OPs target until the center darker circle is 0.5" then measure the distance between bullet 1 & 2, it appears to me you'll get about 0.75", just eyeballing it. The OP said he used a caliper to verify the software, so I may be wrong. I just thought he may need to adjust his software to get an accurate number. Some people don't realize they need to calibrate each photographed target. Every time
they take a picture of the target, the camera distorts the size of the target and the software needs to be recalibrated for each photo seperately for the software to be accurate. Just trying to help accuracy.

This software requires a calibration for every photo. As long as you're square to the target and have a reasonable reference frame it's pretty accurate. I wouldn't claim it be be accurate to .001" but I have no problem claiming accuracy to 0.02". I usually just report groups rounded to the nearest 0.01" or even just leave it at the 0.1" place.