tas@sat.datapoint.com (Tom Stewart) (04/17/91)
I've had a .223 Remington for several years. It shoots great, with little recoil, and is accurate out to somewhere past 200 yards with a simple rest and no particular care in aiming. Although I've thought about taking it deer hunting here in the Texas Hill Country and along the Gulf Coast I've never done so. All the statements about "a .223 is too little to kill a deer" have had something to do with not using it. However, I haven't really ever understood why a .223 is big enough for the military to shoot at 200+ pound warriors in a battle but not big enough for a 50-130 pound deer at rest. Obviously, an M16 is gonna push several rounds at a single man, but I don't believe all of them are expected to hit. If anyone would care to express an educated (or not so educated) opinion on why 55-65 gr. bullets work on people but not whitetails I'd appreciate it. Thanks, Tom Stewart Canyon Lake, Texas
wytten@uunet.UU.NET (Dale Wyttenbach) (04/18/91)
In <544@erb1.engr.wisc.edu> tas@sat.datapoint.com (Tom Stewart) writes: >If anyone would care to express an educated (or not so educated) >opinion on why 55-65 gr. bullets work on people but not whitetails >I'd appreciate it. I think it's because the ballistics of a 5.56mm M-16 round and a .223 cal are different...the M-16 round is specially designed to tumble and roll on impact, wreaking havoc on flesh. Folklore says that when the 5.56mm rounds don't tumble, the M-16 has very little stopping power compared to the Soviet AK-47, which fires a 7.62mm round. Incidentally, the U.S. M-60 machine gun (Rambo fired one from the hip, you remember :-) also uses a 7.62mm round, but I think it's backed with a lot more powder. dale -- Dale Wyttenbach | We all shine on, wytten@cs.umn.edu | like the moon, the stars and the sun. | --John Lennon
ee5391aa%triton.unm.edu@ariel.unm.edu (Duke McMullan n5gax) (04/18/91)
In article <544@erb1.engr.wisc.edu> tas@sat.datapoint.com (Tom Stewart) writes: >If anyone would care to express an educated (or not so educated) >opinion on why 55-65 gr. bullets work on people but not whitetails >I'd appreciate it. Several reasons, running in different directions. First, a .223 _will_ kill deer...you just have to be closer, and you need to get a better shot. In general, heavier slugs, with more power behind them, will kill at greater ranges and with greater reliability than less massive, smaller cross-section, lowered-powered bullets. Hell, you can take deer with a .22 pistol..._if_ you're a good enough stalker to get in position for the shot...and the phase of the moon is right. ;^) I seem to recall that New Mexico doesn't permit anything smaller than .30 cal. for deer hunting, but don't quote me. Now, let's address the deer vs. human question: You want to _kill_ your deer as quickly and reliably as possible. You want to _wound_ an enemy soldier...badly enough to neutralize him as an individual fighter, but not so badly that his comrades write him off. It then takes up time and other resources of the enemy to apply life support, patch him up and evacuate him from the field...or continue support if he can't be evac'd. Also, having enemy fire to worry about, a soldier needs to be able to move quickly, and shouldn't have too much recoil to worry about, so he can make his next shot ASAP. Hence, the .223...but heavier (and lighter) calibers are used in combat, too, so really, it's not so different. The whole anti-.223 idiology is based on a mix of fact and fancy, as usual. It's just YA case of the many Religious Arguments regarding such things as autopistol vs. revolver, wadcutter vs. ball, caliber x vs. caliber y, and others without enumeration. Bang, d
klotz@ihlpf.att.com (David A Klotzbach) (04/18/91)
>From article <544@erb1.engr.wisc.edu>, by tas@sat.datapoint.com (Tom Stewart): > I've had a .223 Remington for several years. It shoots great, with > All the > statements about "a .223 is too little to kill a deer" have had > something to do with not using it. However, I haven't really ever > understood why a .223 is big enough for the military to shoot at > 200+ pound warriors in a battle but not big enough for a 50-130 pound > deer at rest. > Thanks, > > Tom Stewart > Canyon Lake, Texas The best I can do is explain what was told to me durring basic training. We were scoring at the rifle range and the DI told us to count any strike on the target as a hit. When ask why we didn't count only the ``Kill Zone'' or ``Bullseye'' hits, he explained that the "modern view of warfare was to disable the opponent not to kill him." The reason is that a wounded opponent takes 3 men out of combat, the wounded man and two to carry him out. Because of this philosophy, the US had gone to a smaller higher speed round that would cause massive trauma with even the slightest hit, but would not be as deadly as the earlier .30 cal weapons. On the contrary, when hunting deer, you would want the hit to kill the animal as quickly as possible. Although a well placed .223 will do this, it require more skill than I would expect to have. I like to think that one shot is good enough, and with the traditional deer hunting calibers, the kill zone is much larger. Now for the disclaimer, its been 20 years since I went through basic training and I have seen far to many war films that have tried to justify the smaller cal. and high munition to kill ratio's to be absolutely certain of my facts anymore. But I think I will stick to my .270 and .303 British and leave the .223's to much more experienced sportspersons.
lvc@cbvox.att.com (Lawrence V Cipriani) (04/18/91)
In article <544@erb1.engr.wisc.edu> tas@sat.datapoint.com (Tom Stewart) writes: >However, I haven't really ever understood why a .223 is big enough for >the military to shoot at 200+ pound warriors in a battle but not big >enough for a 50-130 pound deer at rest. The goal of the military with the .223 is to INJURE the opposing warriors. The theory being it costs the opposition more to take care of a wounded soldier than to throw the corpse down a hole. This theory doesn't work when your oppostion decides that injured warriors are too much of a burden and just executes them, which I understand the Viet Cong did. .30-06, .308, .223, see the trend to lighter faster bullets? Designs for the next military cartridge include flechettes, basically darts! The goal of deer hunters is to kill the deer as soon as possible. This requires a more powerful cartridge, e.g. .30-06, than .223. -- Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox!lvc or lvc@cbvox.att.com "Offensive is in the eye of the beholder." -- me
cassman@athena.mit.edu (Baby Killer) (04/18/91)
tas@sat.datapoint.com (Tom Stewart) writes:
# Although I've thought about taking it deer hunting here in the Texas
# Hill Country and along the Gulf Coast I've never done so. All the
# statements about "a .223 is too little to kill a deer" have had
# something to do with not using it. However, I haven't really ever
# understood why a .223 is big enough for the military to shoot at
# 200+ pound warriors in a battle but not big enough for a 50-130 pound
# deer at rest. Obviously, an M16 is gonna push several rounds at
# a single man, but I don't believe all of them are expected to hit.
# If anyone would care to express an educated (or not so educated)
# opinion on why 55-65 gr. bullets work on people but not whitetails
# I'd appreciate it.
The .223 is generally not suitable for deer because the cartridge is
insufficient for causing a reasonably quick kill for medium-sized
game (deer). The light 55-65 gr. bullets do not penetrate as far as
heavier bullets, and the wound channel caused by the small-diameter
bullet is relatively small.
The .223 is fine for Wounding soldiers. If medical attention is not
fast enough, the soldier will die if anything vital has been hit.
Also, it takes more than twice as many people to treat and care for
a wounded soldier as it does to bury a dead soldier; consequently,
clean and quick kills are not a big concern for the military.
Clean and quick kills are a concern for hunters that hate to wound
animals and cause them unnecessary suffering. A .223 could kill a
deer, but there are more humane choices for those whose shooting
skills are less than expert.
---------------------------------------------------
- I was gambling in Havana
- I took a litte risk
- Send lawyers, guns, and money
- Dad, get me out of this
----- Warren Zevon
---------------------------------------------------tighe@convex.com (Mike Tighe) (04/19/91)
In article <544@erb1.engr.wisc.edu> tas@sat.datapoint.com (Tom Stewart) writes: > However, I haven't really ever understood why a .223 is big enough for the > military to shoot at 200+ pound warriors in a battle but not big enough for > a 50-130 pound deer at rest. > If anyone would care to express an educated (or not so educated) opinion on > why 55-65 gr. bullets work on people but not whitetails I'd appreciate it. Obviously these claims come from hunters that have never tried, or can't aim very well. Several years ago, I dropped a deer with a single M193 round >from an AR-15 at a range of about 50 meters. It was dead before it hit the ground. -- ------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Tighe, Internet: tighe@convex.com, Voice: (214) 497-4206 -------------------------------------------------------------
jimiii@mips.com (Jim Warford) (04/19/91)
In article <544@erb1.engr.wisc.edu> tas@sat.datapoint.com (Tom Stewart) writes: > >If anyone would care to express an educated (or not so educated) >opinion on why 55-65 gr. bullets work on people but not whitetails >I'd appreciate it. > In war, if you kill your enemy you have taken 1 enemy out of the battle. If you wound him you have taken him out of the battle and also the people who supply medical aid and logistics. There is also the psycological effect of a wounded screaming man. Thus wounding with smaller lighter bullets make more sense in war (if anything about war makes sense). In hunting if you kill your target, you dress it and eat it. If you wound it, you must track it and finish it off. Depending on how far and fast the animal runs before you finish it off the meat may get tougher and gamier not to mention the unnecessary suffering of the wounded animals and the slow death of the animals which were shot by hunters not responsible enough to track them down. I once took a questionable shot at an elk and wounded it. It covered almost 20 miles and took me most of the night and half the next day to catch up and find it (it was dead or I may never have caught it). This was in snow about 6-12 inches deep so the tracking was easy. The same situation without snow and I may have never found the animal as after the first mile the blood spots were rather infrequent. I have never taken a shot since then unless I was 99.99999% sure of a clean kill. --jimiii@mips.com -- Faster horses Younger women Older whiskey More money!
dambrose@dri.com (David Ambrose) (04/19/91)
In article <544@erb1.engr.wisc.edu> tas@sat.datapoint.com (Tom Stewart) writes: > >If anyone would care to express an educated (or not so educated) >opinion on why 55-65 gr. bullets work on people but not whitetails >I'd appreciate it. > There's a major difference in mission between military uses and hunting. When hunting, the primary goal is to kill the animal as quickly and surely as possible. For the military, it is much more advantageous to severely wound and disable the enemy soldiers. Once wounded it takes at least 2 other soldiers to carry the wounded soldier from the battlefield. So, for the military, it's more advantageous to disable and wound, than it is to kill. Don't know whether this qualifies as educated, but the guy saying it had 2 stars on his collar. ;) -- Play it cool; play it cool; fifty-fifty fire and ice -- Joni Mitchell David L. Ambrose, -- Digital Research, Inc dambrose@pan.dri.com Don't blame DRI. They wouldn't approve of this anyway.
JJD118@psuvm.psu.edu (John Donovan) (04/19/91)
Being in the army I will agree with all of you that the CURRENT army doctrine is a wounded enemy is as good as a dead one if not better. There are plenty of stories of people hit by .223 that did funny things. One is a man hit in the chest had the bullet go around his rib cage 2 or 3 time then richoct off of a rib upward finaly exiting the top of his head putting a hole in his helmet Needless to say the guy was dead almost instantly. There are also stories of people getting hit by 2 clip fulls of shots and they keep right on comming. The .223 does have the power BUT you need to PLACE the shot better. Those of you who have 5-8 inch groups the .223 is NOT for you, but if you can control where you put your shot then the .223 can be a great round but only if used properly. The choice is yours. I like light accurate weapons but others like huge less accurate weapons. Rember you bought it you are going to use it so you have to be happy with what ever you buy. _______________________________________________________________________________ John Donovan student lab attendent at | I'd like to be an engineer so Penn State University | people would think I was smart. | Then there are times when I don't Internet JJD118@PSUVM.PSU.EDU | want to be an engineer so people Bitnet JJD118@PSUVM | would think I am smart. | |
keith@clodii.columbiasc.NCR.COM (04/19/91)
>From: tas@sat.datapoint.com (Tom Stewart) >I've had a .223 Remington for several years. It shoots great, with >Although I've thought about taking it deer hunting here in the Texas >Hill Country and along the Gulf Coast I've never done so. All the >statements about "a .223 is too little to kill a deer" have had First, you should check the hunting regs. for the places you hunt in concerning the types of calibers permitted. Some states have restrictions for big game animals. For instance, Tennessee requires .25 caliber weapons or larger for deer. This eliminates all .24X or smaller calibers, I believe. >understood why a .223 is big enough for the military to shoot at >200+ pound warriors in a battle but not big enough for a 50-130 pound >deer at rest. Obviously, an M16 is gonna push several rounds at >a single man, but I don't believe all of them are expected to hit. Correct. But it only takes one round to injure the "warrior". Then it takes one or two of his buddies to carry him to the rear. Then you have two or three guys out of the battle who are not fighting. Get the idea? If the "warrior" had been killed, he would have been left and buried later. I got this from rec.guns and believe it true to an extent. >If anyone would care to express an educated (or not so educated) >opinion on why 55-65 gr. bullets work on people but not whitetails >I'd appreciate it. I suggest looking in some reload manuals and compare the foot pounds of energy on impact at 200 yds. for .223 55 grn. bullets versus a more typical caliber such .270 130 grn. bullets which is what I hunt with. This is what mostly determines the amount of bone/tissue damage on impact. Don't get me wrong. A .223 will bring down a big game animal but only with a very lethal spine shot. Anywhere else and I think even a smallish deer could manage to run quite some distance. Maybe enough for you to lose track of it. Not good. Also, I recently saw on Sixty Minutes, I think, some people comparing the .223 Evil Assault Caliber gun with a Browning 7mm Magnun BAR rifle on a watermelon. The .223 made a tiny entrance hole and blew out a 4 or 5 inch circle at the exit hole. The BAR 7mm mag. literally blew up the entire watermelon leaving nothing but "juice" on the cinder block. I hope this helps you to make a wise decision. >Thanks, Sure thing! --- | Keith M. Boyd (NCR E+M Cola.) | Nothing could be fina' than huntin' and | | 3325 Platt Springs Rd. | fishin' in South Carolina! -Me- | | West Cola., S.C. 29170 | Fax: 791-6998 | keith@clodII.Columbia.NCR.COM | | Vp: 803-791-6419 | From uunet: !uunet!ncrlink!ncrcae!sauron!clodII!keith |
joseph@uunet.UU.NET (04/19/91)
tas@sat.datapoint.com (Tom Stewart) writes:
# Although I've thought about taking it deer hunting here in the Texas
# Hill Country and along the Gulf Coast I've never done so. All the
# statements about "a .223 is too little to kill a deer" have had
# something to do with not using it. However, I haven't really ever
# understood why a .223 is big enough for the military to shoot at
# 200+ pound warriors in a battle but not big enough for a 50-130 pound
# deer at rest. Obviously, an M16 is gonna push several rounds at
# a single man, but I don't believe all of them are expected to hit.
# If anyone would care to express an educated (or not so educated)
# opinion on why 55-65 gr. bullets work on people but not whitetails
# I'd appreciate it.
From one of the NRA's books on hunting come the following suggestion
for energy (in foot pounds) needed for hunting North Am game:
Minimun Adequate Preferred
Deer, Antelope, Sheep, Goat 900 1200 1500
Elk, Bear (up to 600 lbs) 1500 2000 2500
Large Bear, Moose 2100 2800 3500
A .223 with a 55gr bullet has 921-939 foot lbs at 100 yards
(as per Remington). I didn't see data for a 65 gr bullet.
But, on the other hand, my brother-in-law took a huge moose this year
in Montana using his .270 and 150gr handloads. Aprox energy of 2165 ft
lb at 100 yrds and 1649 ft lb at 200 yrds. His was a one-shot,
drop-where-it-stood hit. A friend of his the following weekend used a
.270, and chased his moose about 2 miles, putting 5 rounds into it
before it dropped. It was ok that the aminal was moving because the
whole time it was headed in the direction of their truck. :-)
Personally, I prefer the one-shot, drop-where-they-stand shoots.
-Joseph Crunkpetert@uunet.UU.NET (Peter Toth) (04/19/91)
In article <549@erb1.engr.wisc.edu> plains!umn-cs!LOCAL!wytten@uunet.UU.NET (Dale Wyttenbach) writes: > >Folklore says that when the 5.56mm rounds don't tumble, the M-16 has >very little stopping power compared to the Soviet AK-47, which fires a >7.62mm round. Incidentally, the U.S. M-60 machine gun (Rambo fired >one from the hip, you remember :-) also uses a 7.62mm round, but I >think it's backed with a lot more powder. > >dale The AK-47 (Kalashnikov) and it's forerunner the SKS-56 (Simonov)fire the 7.62x39mm cartridge, which generates very similar energies to the 5.56x45, or 5.56NATO also known as the .223 Remington. The M-60 fires the 7.62x51mm, or 7.62NATO, also known as the .308. Peter Toth .
bae@uunet.UU.NET (Brian Ehrmantraut) (04/22/91)
In article <544@erb1.engr.wisc.edu>, tas@sat.datapoint.com (Tom Stewart) writes: > However, I haven't really ever > understood why a .223 is big enough for the military to shoot at > 200+ pound warriors in a battle but not big enough for a 50-130 pound > deer at rest. The intent of the .223 "in battle" is not to kill the opponent, but rather to inflict a disabling wound. An injured soldier results in more drain on your opponent's resources than a dead one. (source: Dr. Martin Fackler, Military Trauma Research Division, Letterman Army Institute of Research) The intent of a hunting cartridge is to drop the target cleanly and as humanely as possible. -- Brian A. Ehrmantraut BELL: voice:(408) 492-0900 fax: (408) 492-0909 USnail: Auspex Systems, 2952 Bunker Hill Lane, Santa Clara, CA 95054
gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman) (04/22/91)
In article <544@erb1.engr.wisc.edu> tas@sat.datapoint.com (Tom Stewart) writes: > >If anyone would care to express an educated (or not so educated) >opinion on why 55-65 gr. bullets work on people but not whitetails >I'd appreciate it. The purpose of the military weapon is to *wound* an opposing soldier rather than kill him. The purpose of a hunting weapon is to cleanly *kill* an animal. Therein lies the difference. It's a well known fact that wounding a soldier takes *three* soldiers out of the battle line. The wounded one and two of his buddies to carry him back to the aid station. Thus wounding is better militarily than killing. So light little pipsqueak caliber weapons that an infantryman can carry a *lot* of ammo for is a big plus in combat and a lousey choice in the hunting field. Gary
case@leland.stanford.edu (Helen Ginzburg) (04/22/91)
In article <544@erb1.engr.wisc.edu> tas@sat.datapoint.com (Tom Stewart) writes: >I've had a .223 Remington for several years. It shoots great, with >little recoil, and is accurate out to somewhere past 200 yards with >a simple rest and no particular care in aiming. ***I have some friends who are ex-Marines. The US M-16 rifle (which I believe is 5.56mm aka .223) is accurate to 500 yards when used by a trained Marine in clear terain with little wind. ************ This could imply higher muzzel velocity or better spin characteristics, though I am no expert on guns or hunting. > >Although I've thought about taking it deer hunting here in the Texas >Hill Country and along the Gulf Coast I've never done so. All the >statements about "a .223 is too little to kill a deer" have had >something to do with not using it. However, I haven't really ever >understood why a .223 is big enough for the military to shoot at >200+ pound warriors in a battle but not big enough for a 50-130 pound >deer at rest. Obviously, an M16 is gonna push several rounds at >a single man, but I don't believe all of them are expected to hit. ***** In my inexpert opinion, I suspect that ".223 too little to kill a deer" means that shooting a deer with one .223 will not cause it to reliably die conveniently close to the spot where it was shot. A body shot with any bullet would probably kill most deer eventually, though possibly a few miles away. ***** The M-16 and .223 military FMJ was introduced largely to give the infantryman greater firepower as in output of bullets. The lighter ammo allows a soldier to carry many more rounds than before, and the lack of instant killing opwer is offset in war by the higher rate of fire and extreme accuracy (for an assault rifle). ***** In war it is usually preferable to wound your enemy so that his fellows must worry about transporting the wounded man, whereas if you kill him, they can ignore the body and keep shooting at you. A 200 popund soldier hit by one .223 is probably alive, and probably able to move away, but he is not likely to keep firing at you and he has to worry about keeping himself alive. -Case Kim Frozen Ghost >If anyone would care to express an educated (or not so educated) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (key exp.) >opinion on why 55-65 gr. bullets work on people but not whitetails >I'd appreciate it. > >Thanks, > >Tom Stewart >Canyon Lake, Texas
gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman) (04/22/91)
In article <549@erb1.engr.wisc.edu> plains!umn-cs!LOCAL!wytten@uunet.UU.NET (Dale Wyttenbach) writes: > >I think it's because the ballistics of a 5.56mm M-16 round and a >.223 cal are different...the M-16 round is specially designed to >tumble and roll on impact, wreaking havoc on flesh. Urban legend. The M16 round and the commercial .223 rounds differ in that the commercial round has an expanding bullet while the military round does not. They are ballistically identical. The military round is not designed to tumble. Both rounds *will* tumble if they strike bone though the commercial round likely will deform so much that the tumbling will go unnoticed in the wound channel. >Folklore says that when the 5.56mm rounds don't tumble, the M-16 has >very little stopping power compared to the Soviet AK-47, which fires a >7.62mm round. Incidentally, the U.S. M-60 machine gun (Rambo fired >one from the hip, you remember :-) also uses a 7.62mm round, but I >think it's backed with a lot more powder. Indeed the 7.62 Nato round, identical to the .308 Winchester civilian round, is much more powerful than the Soviet AKM round. Ballistically the AKM round is about equivalent to a 30-30. Gary
stsien@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Sherman Tsien) (04/24/91)
This is off the subject of hunting, but the thread of the discussion has led me to wonder about the accuracy of recent statements to the effect that "... the purpose of a military round is to wound, not kill." Is this right ? I understand the "economics" argument, but it seems to me that a dead enemy is better than a live one who might come back at you some day. Isn't "if we can't have 'killed', then we'll settle for 'wounded', and the .223 is just fine for that." a better statement ? [Moderator's note: This is getting a bit off the subject of hunting. Please answer this through email and/or post it to sci.military or rec.guns. tjr] -sherman tsien stsien@s.psych.uiuc.edu
tgl@slee01.srl.ford.com (Tom Leone) (04/26/91)
In article <544@erb1.engr.wisc.edu> tas@sat.datapoint.com (Tom Stewart) writes: > > However, I haven't really ever >understood why a .223 is big enough for the military to shoot at >200+ pound warriors in a battle but not big enough for a 50130 pound >deer at rest. Well, my guess is that quick oneshot kills are a lot more important in deer hunting than in battle. If the deer can run for 5 minutes after being shot, you are not happy. However, in a battle, most people who get shot in the guts are likely to stop fighting immediately. Later on, they either die or become a burden on their army (at least while they recover). Just an opinion. Tom Leone <tgl@slee01.srl.ford.com>
bud@ucrmath.ucr.edu (bud mckenzie) (05/02/91)
During my training in the Army, we were specifically told that the .223 was very effective because wounding soldiers is better than killing them: Each wounded soldier is removed from battle, and requires other soldiers to tend to them. It also limits mobility, and is harder on morale. Bud