.223 for bear, deer, elk and moose.

[Southernfried]

Please, Please excuse my ignorance with my question. I have never ever hunted a bear, seen a bear, live near a bear in the wild any where withing 250+miles of me. So I know NOTHING, about hunting or killing a bear. Keep that in mind with my question. The only experience I have of even shooting at a "bear" was 40 years ago shooting 3D archery tournaments, I had a terrible, terrible time then of finding the "vitals" of a bear in a tournament. I thought then, and still do lol, so my question. Why cant ya just shoot a bear in the head? Not have to worry about missing the heart/lung area, not mess up any meat, just put one in the ear hole? Thanks in advance.

 

[Pharmseller]

Are you good enough to shoot the most mobile part of the animal in a roughly 5”x5” target?

I’m nowhere near good enough.

 

[Maverick1]

Please, Please excuse my ignorance with my question. I have never ever hunted a bear, seen a bear, live near a bear in the wild any where withing 250+miles of me. So I know NOTHING, about hunting or killing a bear. Keep that in mind with my question. The only experience I have of even shooting at a "bear" was 40 years ago shooting 3D archery tournaments, I had a terrible, terrible time then of finding the "vitals" of a bear in a tournament. I thought then, and still do lol, so my question. Why cant ya just shoot a bear in the head? Not have to worry about missing the heart/lung area, not mess up any meat, just put one in the ear hole? Thanks in advance.

Ear hole? Very small target. Surrounded by dense bone. Bears have fairly normal kill zone/vitals, especially broadside, which is a much bigger target than an “ear hole”.

Probably also a similar reason why aiming for the vitals is preferred over head shots for most other animals.

 

[RockAndSage]

Ear hole? Very small target. Surrounded by dense bone. Bears have fairly normal kill zone/vitals, especially broadside, which is a much bigger target than an “ear hole”.

Probably also a similar reason why aiming for the vitals is preferred over head shots for most other animals.

For years, the world-record grizzly bear kill was held by a woman who used a .22, aiming between the eye and the ear - which generally centers you on the brain. The sides of the brain case are often relatively thin and more or less vertical, while the front is both thick and angled. That angle works like tank armor being angled - when material is at an angle, not only does it tend to deflect projectiles, it actually creates more mass to be penetrated. You can see the bullet hole in the skull here:

Twin’s record kill revisited -

Cree woman kills giant grizzly bear in 1953 Chris CleggSouth Peace News It happened in 1953 but it’s still making news. Bella Twin’s killing of a world record grizzly bear on May 10, 1957 with her Cooey Act #1 .22 is featured in the May-June edition of Bear Hunting magazine. The article is...

www.southpeacenews.com

 

[Castle Rock]

Are you good enough to shoot the most mobile part of the animal in a roughly 5”x5” target?

Head shooting seems to be frowned upon in the US, not so much south of the equator

 

[Maverick1]

For years, the world-record grizzly bear kill was held by a woman who used a .22, aiming between the eye and the ear - which generally centers you on the brain. The sides of the brain case are often relatively thin and more or less vertical, while the front is both thick and angled. That angle works like tank armor being angled - when material is at an angle, not only does it tend to deflect projectiles, it actually creates more mass to be penetrated. You can see the bullet hole in the skull here:

Twin’s record kill revisited -

Cree woman kills giant grizzly bear in 1953 Chris CleggSouth Peace News It happened in 1953 but it’s still making news. Bella Twin’s killing of a world record grizzly bear on May 10, 1957 with her Cooey Act #1 .22 is featured in the May-June edition of Bear Hunting magazine. The article is...

www.southpeacenews.com

I've read that before as well. If it worked for her, why don't you "give it a shot" - with the .223 - in the ear hole. Let us all know how that works out for you.

 

[RockAndSage]

I've read that before as well. If it worked for her, why don't you "give it a shot" - with the .223 - in the ear hole. Let us all know how that works out for you.

She waited for her shot from the side - and didn't aim for the ear hole. She aimed between the ear and the eye, and punched a bullet right into its brain. About the only land mammal a .223 in that spot wouldn't work on would be an elephant or a cape buffalo. And I sure as hell wouldn't have advised Bella Twin to do what she did - but it worked, drop-dead, lights-out. It's instructive, even if not advisable.

 

[Southernfried]

In the "ear hole" is an old baseball jargon for hitting someone in the head. Guess I should have just said head and not ear hole......Makes sense based on what has been said, how the vitals are so much bigger than the head and the hardness of the skull. Thanks for clearing that up. I had no idea their head was that hard. Thanks again.

 

[Pharmseller]

Head shooting seems to be frowned upon in the US, not so much south of the equator

Maybe they’re better shots down south.

 

[Mountainrancher]

In regards do Alaskans killing bears with 223 fmjs regularly how is the wound channel being created? Is the bullet tumbling? Is it traveling fast enough that it causes fragmentation despite being an fmj? It seems kind of contradictory to this thread that a 22 cal fmj could create a large enough wound channel to be very effective on anything.

 

[Formidilosus]

In regards do Alaskans killing bears with 223 fmjs regularly how is the wound channel being created? Is the bullet tumbling? Is it traveling fast enough that it causes fragmentation despite being an fmj? It seems kind of contradictory to this thread that a 22 cal fmj could create a large enough wound channel to be very effective on anything.

This is the problem with people not understanding terminal ballistics, repeating what they’ve read or been told, and believing in mythical creatures (not inferring you).

Common 55gr and 62gr FMJ are velocity dependent for fragmentation,have low mass for fragmentation, and in general exhibit variable behavior in tissue. However, they can and will kill well at higher impact velocities. Their common behavior inside of tissue is to penetrate 2-6”, yaw (tumble) and if at sufficient velocity- fragment at the cannelure.

I would rather have an AR15 with FMJ’s in a “bear charge”, than any cartridge or caliber bolt action.

 

[Luke S]

We've been talking about bears so much I thought maybe I should start a thread about that topic to keep this one focused on .223s. Short version. Bear skulls, shoulders etc are nothing special. The only logical reason to think of grizzly rifles and elk rifle different is that grizzly bears can fight back.

What does it take to kill a grizzly?

There has been such a focus on bears in the .223 thread I thought I’d start a thread on what I think it takes to actually kill a bear. I am not a guide, other people have killed more bears then me. But I have killed lots of black bears, I mentored other hunters to their first bear, and I’ve...

rokslide.com

 

[Castle Rock]

It’s not difficult to kill a cattle bull with a 22 LR under the right circumstances, I would imagine a bears skull is much thinner

 

[JCMCUBIC]

Head shooting seems to be frowned upon in the US, not so much south of the equator

Maybe they’re better shots down south.

This reminds me of my brother's friend in college that he brought home to visit. I don't remember where he was from but I "think" it was Trinidad or Tobago (?)...I could be wrong on that though.

Anyhow, my dad had a deer hanging and we were going to be cutting it up. He saw where it was shot, basic behind shoulder heart/lung shot, and he asked "how did you shoot it there?". Dad explained it was the easiest shot, etc.

My brother's friend explained that they only shoot them in the head back home because all they they could see to aim at where the reflections of the eyes.

 

[Fireflyfishing]

Wow, I read to about page 50. Interesting thread indeed.

From my perspective, the only downfall for the 77 TMK is range and wind drift. I usually take game under 200 yards. But…not always. There are occasions where longer shots are required given the circumstances.

That being said, I like hunting with .30 cals and have really liked the newest rifle in my arsenal which is a Tikka .308 20” CTR. Fantastic rifle. It really likes the 168 SMKs. IU’m not excited about using these on game other than I know hey will hit where I aim. This thread has me intrigued using TMKs…regardless of cartridge due to terminal performance. I’ve heard the 175 TMKs are devastating, how about the 168s? Any experience outside of the .224 cal bullets I would find interesting.

I’ll give the 77 TMK a go too out of my 1:7” ARs.

 

[Robobiss]

If I remember correctly it was said they work similarly but with less penetration. I believe multiple people are using them in 9 twist barrels. 77s are definitely the preferred weight but I understand 69 are more available.

I know the twist calculator exists and I’ve used it but… What am I risking shooting the 77’s in a 1:9 as long as they shoot at the distances I would ever reasonably shoot something at?

the only 223 I have/had was AR’s and I wanted to load them longer than 2.26, my dad (FFL) had a savage model 12 with a 1:9 in the back of the safe he took in on trade years ago and hadn’t moved it. He gave it to me because he had no use for it and didn’t feel like throwing it on gunbroker. Yay me (thanks dad)

I loaded 100 77 TMK’s at 2.35” with 22 grains of IMR4064 and… they shoot. They shoot more than well enough for my intended purposes thus far. 10 shot groups at 100 a little bigger than 1”, maybe 1.25-1.3 with many of them in the same hole.

I haven’t put them on paper at any distance further but I went 5 for 5 on a 6” steel plate at 300 once I figured out the holdover (has a junk truglo on it that was on it when they traded it in, no reference marks in the reticle). I’m sure I could be on this plate 100% of the time with better glass that I can actually dial or use actual mil designations for holdover instead of guessing.

I’ll never shoot a deer over 200 yard in my AO, and probably never over 100. They shoot, I obviously need a larger sample size to make sure, assuming that they do, what negative could ever come from running them in a 1:9?

 

[Formidilosus]

Wow, I read to about page 50. Interesting thread indeed.

From my perspective, the only downfall for the 77 TMK is range and wind drift. I usually take game under 200 yards. But…not always. There are occasions where longer shots are required given the circumstances.

Read the whole thread- 223/77gr TMK is way more then a 200 yard combo

That being said, I like hunting with .30 cals and have really liked the newest rifle in my arsenal which is a Tikka .308 20” CTR. Fantastic rifle. It really likes the 168 SMKs. IU’m not excited about using these on game other than I know hey will hit where I aim. This thread has me intrigued using TMKs…regardless of cartridge due to terminal performance. I’ve heard the 175 TMKs are devastating, how about the 168s? Any experience outside of the .224 cal bullets I would find interesting.

I’ll give the 77 TMK a go too out of my 1:7” ARs.

TMK’s in all calibers kill get well.

 

[RockAndSage]

Read the whole thread- 223/77gr TMK is way more then a 200 yard combo





TMK’s in all calibers kill get well.

I think I remember you mentioning recently that larger caliber TMKs may be more devastating than some hunters would want to use on their game animals, in terms of meat damage...can't quite remember the exact phrasing, but if you had to use something other than .22, what would your personal upper limit be on using TMK on a deer or an elk to ensure the best meat harvest, before you'd choose a different bullet, like a bonded, etc? As in, someone handed you a 7mm, or a .30cal, or the like, that you had to use in taking a mule deer with a heart/lung shot. And is it just a caliber thing, or would velocity make a difference? Such as, you'd use a TMK in a 7mm-08, but not a 7mm mag?

 

[grfox92]

I have a guide that will sell me a Buffalo from Ted Turner's ranch for a discount. I'll start a GoFundMe for it here and if Rokslide pays I'll use the 223

We can probably find a few guys to throw down and split the meat. South Dakota?

Sent from my SM-G990U2 using Tapatalk

 

[Formidilosus]

I think I remember you mentioning recently that larger caliber TMKs may be more devastating than some hunters would want to use on their game animals, in terms of meat damage...can't quite remember the exact phrasing, but if you had to use something other than .22, what would your personal upper limit be on using TMK on a deer or an elk to ensure the best meat harvest, before you'd choose a different bullet, like a bonded, etc? As in, someone handed you a 7mm, or a .30cal, or the like, that you had to use in taking a mule deer with a heart/lung shot. And is it just a caliber thing, or would velocity make a difference? Such as, you'd use a TMK in a 7mm-08, but not a 7mm mag?

In general I use the most effective (read- terminally) bullet in each caliber/cartridge available. I moderate damage by reducing caliber/cartridge- not by taking spark plugs out of a V8 because it’s too fast. If you want less meat damage, drop down in caliber/cartridge. Though, there still will be lost meat if you hit bone.

So, I would use TMK’s or ELD-M’s/X’s regardless of caliber. Impact velocity does play a large part in tissue disruption, along with bullet construction. For close range doe/meat hunts- I would/do use Barnes or other narrow wounding bullets in 223’s.