re: .223 vs 5.56 performance question

quote:

---

Just no.

---

So you think that there are more military caliber sharpshooters utilizing the .243 or smaller rounds hunting whitetail, than young kids or people just getting started hunting?

quote:

---

Or in reality, the shooter can not effectively shoot to the the max effective range of the cartridge.

---

I would agree with that.

quote:

---

Many cartridges weren't originally designed for large game, such as the 45-70 Government, but they adapted well.

---

Well yea but the 45-70 weighs 2-3 times more than a 223 depending on bullet selection. A true statement but the straw man's reply.

.223 Remington was designed as a military round. It was developed so that troops in Vietnam could carry much more ammo. Our chest cavity is not very similar to a deer. That's why I mention it.

And to address Dstone, 223 vs 5.56 for a human target will be a negligible difference. Like I said before, bullet selection is a much more important factor.

Those are extremely slow ballistics for either caliber.. My .243 is pushing 3050 fps with 115 grain bullets.. Either way I've killed several deer at just over 100 yards with my AR.

Shot a doe last year facing towards me and hit her square in the chest and dropped her with a 62 gr hollow point.

quote:

---

If you're hunting deer, .223 Remington is not a good round to use. It was designed as a military round against human targets.

---

It's a fine round for light skinned small and medium game. That's what Remington designed the .223 for. DoD just happened to like what it offered as part of the program researching high-velocity, smaller caliber ammo.

quote:

---

"Better" is very subjective but if you mean "accurate" then .223 will be more accurate.

Since 5.56 adheres to NATO spec, it will typically provide about 2-3MOA accuracy. You can achieve much better accuracy with match .223 ammo.

In terms of lethality, the 5.56 will be marginally better. More important than that though is bullet selection. Both will perform similarly with ball ammo but can be drastically different with a different bullet.

---

This is one of those "it depends" things. 5.56 vs .223 offer practically the same accuracy all things equal, it's the chambers of mil-spec rifles that are cut looser with more free bore that hinder terminal accuracy more than the ammo. Consider that M855A1 turns match level accuracy in match grade service rifles. My AR's with 5.56 chambers are also much more accurate with M855 than any M16 or M4 I've ever used, our issued rifles only have to stay within 7 MOA to be serviceable afterall. Lethality is a toss up too. All depends on the bullet and how much powder is behind it. M855A1 will be a very lethal NATO spec 5.56, it has a very effective bullet and enough powder to be at the edge of max chamber pressure. You can make a .223 that is probably more lethal to meat sacks with 75gr OTM's and less chamber pressure too.

Smaller is objective and a matter of perception. Maybe I didn't word it perfectly for interpretation or missed a typo, but I offered more than "just no"

What I meant was more kids and beginners start off with smaller calibers and move on as they grow.

The number who start off small and move on is much greater than those hunters who are confident enough to use smaller calibers (.243 and below by my definition) for the lifespan of their hunting "career".

I didnt grow up around too many people who were started off at 10 year old shooting a .270-.30-06 vs a .243

Both will be equally horrible deer loads. Neither is going to provide any margin for error and neither will consistently exit with expanding ammo.

.25-06 is the bare minimum for deer.

I grew up hunting with a .243, and although I've killed numerous deer with it, I feel it is a bad round for an inexperienced hunter, who usually lacks the confidence and often ability to produce a lethal shot every time.

It is great for someone learning the mechanics of shooting, like you can from a .22LR but will be buying my son a 7mm-08 in the future when he reaches the appropriate age.

Something for those that state .223 Rem doesn't cut it for deer, deer were being taken long before .223 was around with cartridges that offer nowhere near the terminal performance of even basic .223 loads. Now you have 70+ gr bullets that offer plenty of penetration and weight retention to take down any whitetail within common shooting ranges. And that's in compromised loads to fit AR mags, run a bolt gun and you can really open up the choices. A lot of these statements were made in the 1920's and 30's when the Army was trying to figure out which to chose between .30-06 and .276 Pedersen. The .276, just on going by terminal effects on soft people targets, was far and away more damaging than .30-06. More accurate, less recoil, more bullets to be carried in rifle and pouches. If it wasn't for the fact that it was a wet extractor and top brass being convinced the enemy would be wearing body armor the .30-06 might now just be a footnote in history.

Thing is "is it sufficient" is largely arbitrary. 1000 lb-ft threshold has no real basis in scientific study. Much like "stopping power" in the common self-defense caliber discussion. Right bullet, right rifle and .223 is little different than 30-30 in terns of being effective. .243 is very popular in Europe and has long proven to be very effective. Not even skill because it is a strong choice amongst novice hunters their too.

quote:

---

Thing is "is it sufficient" is largely arbitrary.

---

I see a distinction from "sufficient" and "ideal" being important here.

While no cartridge is 100% "ideal", I see many cartridges being more ideal for whitetail than 223.

Is it "capable" or "sufficient", yes. Is it ideal or more effective compared to other cartridges? No, in my humble opinion.