.223 does the damage

[Alsone 789]

12 hours ago, David.evans said:

Well 

reading these threads , it's a eye opener.

im only a novice at with c/f , and I did ask a few people for advice , I can say that I was given good advice by those concerned 

im well happy with .223 , and the 55g v max , but then again that's all I know and have used and don't intend to change , because I don't need to , if I hit what I shoot at , it's dead , good enough for me 

Atb 

 

Dead is dead. However there are times most notably at range when some people prefer a little extra margin of power to make up for those occasions when it's a less than perfect shot.

Also, it's about preference, .223 is like the Ford Mondeo of rounds. It's does everything average Joe requires. Not everybody drives Mondeo's though and that's because some like sportier cars, or need cars for specialised purposes or simply want something different for show. Some simply find more power entertaining. Nothing wrong in that. The prey doesn't care and if it reduces the chance of a wound then to that extent it's can be better. Of the more specialised rounds, the ones listed above are the more popular ones.

The equation though is always one of velocity vs bullet weight vs personal preference vs cost, availability, prey fate (ie after death use), etc.

[walshie 2,804]

Are you feeling ok Alsone?  Wasn't long ago you were extolling the virtues of the 17 hornet at every opportunity and as a long range foxing tool, they are very marginal IMO.

All this "vapourising" stuff should be left to the Yanks and they can go "yee-har" as they do it.  To me it shows lack of respect for the quarry. Taking their life is one thing, but feeling the need to blow them to pieces in the process for the sake of it seems wrong to me. 

The only thing that will reduce the risk of wounding is by shooting more accurately, not increasing the calibre. By that logic everyone should use 50BMG for everything they shoot "just to make sure."

My 223 will happily turn a fox inside out at 250 yards and I doubt I will ever change it as my "go-to" fox gun. Why would I? 

Except for maybe my 22 hornet of course. 

[Born Hunter 17,622]

f***ing hell the shit riflemen argue about.

Calibre tarts! 

[Underdog 2,337]

27 minutes ago, walshie said:

Are you feeling ok Alsone?  Wasn't long ago you were extolling the virtues of the 17 hornet at every opportunity and as a long range foxing tool, they are very marginal IMO.

All this "vapourising" stuff should be left to the Yanks and they can go "yee-har" as they do it.  To me it shows lack of respect for the quarry. Taking their life is one thing, but feeling the need to blow them to pieces in the process for the sake of it seems wrong to me. 

The only thing that will reduce the risk of wounding is by shooting more accurately, not increasing the calibre. By that logic everyone should use 50BMG for everything they shoot "just to make sure."

My 223 will happily turn a fox inside out at 250 yards and I doubt I will ever change it as my "go-to" fox gun. Why would I? 

Except for maybe my 22 hornet of course. 

Wise words.

 

U.

[Deker 3,450]

5 hours ago, Alsone said:

Dead is dead. However there are times most notably at range when some people prefer a little extra margin of power to make up for those occasions when it's a less than perfect shot.

Also, it's about preference, .223 is like the Ford Mondeo of rounds. It's does everything average Joe requires. Not everybody drives Mondeo's though and that's because some like sportier cars, or need cars for specialised purposes or simply want something different for show. Some simply find more power entertaining. Nothing wrong in that. The prey doesn't care and if it reduces the chance of a wound then to that extent it's can be better. Of the more specialised rounds, the ones listed above are the more popular ones.

The equation though is always one of velocity vs bullet weight vs personal preference vs cost, availability, prey fate (ie after death use), etc.

It's time you stopped digging and turned to the next page in the shooting book you are reading!   People buy guns and ammo to do a job, a .223 isn't a Ford Mondeo, it is excellent at what it does and also offers an additional and useful degree of flexibility.   Mind you a Ford Mondeo is a lot better than some give it credit for as well.

You don't get a FAC grant because you simply want something different for show or because you simply find more power entertaining, put that on your application for a FAC for Pest Control and see how far you get!

Edited July 5, 2018 by Deker

[Alsone 789]

13 hours ago, walshie said:

Are you feeling ok Alsone?  Wasn't long ago you were extolling the virtues of the 17 hornet at every opportunity and as a long range foxing tool, they are very marginal IMO.

All this "vapourising" stuff should be left to the Yanks and they can go "yee-har" as they do it.  To me it shows lack of respect for the quarry. Taking their life is one thing, but feeling the need to blow them to pieces in the process for the sake of it seems wrong to me. 

The only thing that will reduce the risk of wounding is by shooting more accurately, not increasing the calibre. By that logic everyone should use 50BMG for everything they shoot "just to make sure."

My 223 will happily turn a fox inside out at 250 yards and I doubt I will ever change it as my "go-to" fox gun. Why would I? 

Except for maybe my 22 hornet of course. 

I never remember extolling .17 Hornet as a long range fox tool. A couple of hundred it's ok to from memory. As an alternative to the .22 Hornet though, it's an excellent calibre that's flat shooting and with a potentially more reach for smaller game. It's also easier to get good off the shelf ammo as there's no legacy loads out there for older proofed guns. Would I prefer .17 Hornet to .22 Hornet, yes, but that's my preference. I'd rather have a flat shoot and more reach in energy and velocity, much as some people prefer .22-250 over .223.

As for .223, I'm not knocking it. Just saying there are more destructive and interesting calibres in the .223 bullet size range than .223 itself. There are reasons why people buy .223, and reason why people choose alternatives. If .223 was the prefect calibre, then non of the others would exist and vice versa. Each has it's advantages and disadvantages. 

Edited July 5, 2018 by Alsone

[ChrisJones 7,973]

On 05/07/2018 at 03:27, Deker said:

It's time you stopped digging and turned to the next page in the shooting book you are reading!

It makes a refreshing change from our locals arguing the correct pistol calibre choice. That's 9MM in case anyone was wondering...

[Underdog 2,337]

11 hours ago, ChrisJones said:

It makes a refreshing change from our locals arguing the correct pistol calibre choice. That's 9MM in case anyone was wondering...

.357!

[walshie 2,804]

11 hours ago, ChrisJones said:

It makes a refreshing change from our locals arguing the correct pistol calibre choice. That's 9MM in case anyone was wondering...

40 S&W.

Certain members might prefer a 500 S&W to make up for being a poor shot. 

[Underdog 2,337]

2 hours ago, walshie said:

40 S&W.

Certain members might prefer a 500 S&W to make up for being a poor shot. 

Disqualified, also not a revolver round (40S&W)!

 

U.

Edited July 9, 2018 by Underdog

[walshie 2,804]

52 minutes ago, Underdog said:

Disqualified, also not a revolver round (40S&W)!

 

U.

It is a pistol round though as per CJ's point. 

[Underdog 2,337]

46 minutes ago, walshie said:

It is a pistol round though as per CJ's point. 

Oh, ok then.

[ianm 2,594]

17 hornet, 22 hornet, 204, 222, 223, 22.250, 243 et al , all kill foxes, i wouldn't want hitting with any of them, it would really ruin your day.

[ChrisJones 7,973]

Taurus and Chiappa both do a revolver in .40 S&W. Just saying...

[Alsone 789]

On 08/07/2018 at 23:26, ChrisJones said:

It makes a refreshing change from our locals arguing the correct pistol calibre choice. That's 9MM in case anyone was wondering...

 

10mm. In my opinion, best balance between stopping power and useability.

.357 Mag more powerful but almost exclusively, with a couple of exceptions, a revolver round which limits you to 5 shots. What might surprise a lot of people is unlike the movies, even the FBI MISS in a gun fight with 82% of their shots (18% hit rate). So having just 5 can be an issue. 

9mm, Law Enforcement choice but lacking a little in stopping power. Law Enforcement recently switched to 10mm for more stopping power, then switched back. I read they only changed back to 9mm from 10mm, after accuracy dropped on the range tests and some women found 10mm a little too much gun. Many say 10mm wasn't the issue but a lack of practice and familiarity with the new firearm. I really couldn't comment, beyond saying from what I've seen, it appears to be a really good accurate gun with a significant step up in destructive effect from 9mm for only marginally more recoil.

40 S&W use to be Law Enforcement choice before 9mm, but it's weaker when it comes to stopping power.

500 S&W too powerful Issues with pass through (ie killing the innocent person behind!) and recoil makes it very difficult to get off a subsequent shots. Also the guns are huge and weigh, lots, making them impossible to conceal, draw, fire quick follow ups. Has the power of a .223 in a handgun!

They do make a handgun in .22 Hornet (Taurus Raging Hornet), but .22 Hornet not that impressive in the short barrel.