N. texas shooters

[fartwinkle]

Originally posted by Toad


And then there's that pesky FACT that the .223 is an absolute minimum cartridge for deer BY LAW in about every state that allows deer hunting. What do all those Game and Fish departments know anyway, right?

Its more the pesky fact that the majority of "hunters" cant shoot for chit.

[Toad]

Originally posted by fartwinkle
Let me quote the sierra reloading manual for ya.


using Viht powder at 26.5 gns you have a muzzel velo of 3.100 and energy of 1.473 ft lbs.

These are striaght from the manual not outta someones arse.

Here, arse... some "straight outta" for ya.

I think even you can figure out how to use them.

Remington's factory ballistic charts - the place I got that data posted above. So it's right outta "Remington's Arse". What the hell does Remington know about the cartridge it invented, anyway? Right? You tell 'em buddy!

Ballistics Comparison Charts

Well, how about Winchester..... Winchester .223 Light Game Loads

Gee.. they don't have ANY .223 rounds that they list as suitable for even CXP2 - Light Game. They DO have VARMINT loads for it though. But what the hell does Winchester know?

Maybe Federal...

Federal .223 Ballistics

Their Premium 60 gr bullet at 500 yards has an amazing velocity of 1403 fps and a WHOPPING 262 ft/lbs of energy. That's a real killer. Heck at 300 it's down to, you guessed it, 532 ft/lbs.

It's a weak cartridge for deer. Period. Even little bitty 100 lb deer.

[GtoRA2]

Toad,
 You just don't understand, he is just a better shot then you! He can prolly BBQ better to, just ask!

[Toad]

Originally posted by fartwinkle
Its more the pesky fact that the majority of "hunters" cant shoot for chit.

Hardly.

Bet you can't find any reputable source that claims the .223 is anything more than barely adequate for deer.

You're talking the talk. Put up or shut up.

Let's see some data, some support for your argument.

Show us some articles claiming the .223 Remington is a fine deer cartridge.

Other than one you wrote, of course.

[fartwinkle]

Originally posted by fartwinkle
I belive the current 1000 yard champ used a 300 win mag.
The 300win mag is a long distance cartridge.

You can use a 223 on white tail in tx.
But in Colorado for mule dear I think they require a 30 cal.

I was at 50 yds when I shot the steal.

I often put up groups that you could cover with your thumb nail with my 223.

Both the bulletts and brass cost more for the 308 also large rifle primers are more so shot for shot it is more expensive.

I must correct myself on this one.
The new record is with a 6mm


http://www.6mmbr.com/page/page/1309618.htm

[fartwinkle]

Originally posted by Toad
Hardly.

Bet you can't find any reputable source that claims the .223 is anything more than barely adequate for deer.

You're talking the talk. Put up or shut up.

Let's see some data, some support for your argument.

Show us some articles claiming the .223 Remington is a fine deer cartridge.

Other than one you wrote, of course.

Heres the one you missed

http://www.fishandhunttexas.com/debate_over_22_center.htm

[fartwinkle]

Originally posted by GtoRA2
Toad,
 You just don't understand, he is just a better shot then you! He can prolly BBQ better to, just ask!

Put up or pipe down.

[fartwinkle]

Originally posted by Toad


Here, think on this. 5 elk taken, closest about 250, farthest 475. Only the close one was standing still. Never shot at an elk that wasn't bagged.

 

Talk is cheap there dead eye:rofl

[fartwinkle]

Originally posted by GtoRA2
He spells to good to be the old towd, plus he does not use neocon as every other word.


It's clearly Mrsniperblack.


It's all in his posting style and how in every post he has to be better then everyone else. Go read the roadwarrior thread for a good laugh, this time instead of a supersniper he is an X cop.

Won't be as fun to watch the melt down this time though, the MPs I am sure will kill nuke it.

deleted out of respect

[Toad]

Super-Duper Shortie, .223 WSSM

from Guns & Ammo by Dan Johnson

...Game was taken, and reports on shot placement, bullet path and the animal's reactions were enough to reaffirm my conviction that the .22 bore will take deer with proper bullets and precisely placed shots but is not a deer cartridge per se. At least, not an ideal one.

...My only reservation with using the .22 caliber on deer is that it limits the hunter's options. I personally passed on a monster buck on the Wingmead hunt due to a less-than-perfect opportunity for a well-placed broadside shot. Most any centerfire will work with a classic behind-the-shoulders lung shot, but trophy whitetail bucks tend to offer fleeting opportunities at odd angles--if they present opportunities at all. That's why I like a bullet with a bit more frontal mass and penetration than the .22 provides.

The cartridge will likely gain some popularity as a deer round in Texas, where the .223 and .22-250 are already quite popular. But Texas deer are on the small side mostly, and the hunting style there makes perfect broadside shots the norm. While I don't see the .223 Winchester Super Short Magnum (WSSM) as a great dual-purpose round, as some are already claiming, it does promise to be an outstanding varmint cartridge that will, under ideal circumstances, take deer-size game.[/b]

"it does promise to be an outstanding varmint cartridge that will, under ideal circumstances, take deer-size game".

And THAT'S a .223 WSSM that shoots 64-grain Power-Point at 3,600 fps, 500 fps FASTER than the load you quoted.

Focus on this fact: Yet another author saying "the .22 bore will take deer with proper bullets and precisely placed shots but is not a deer cartridge per se". This is referenced to KILLING POWER, not "average hunter accuracy".

Maybe your love affair with the .223 stems from your Texas way of hunting little bitty deer.

Let me guess... you're a "stand" type hunter not averse to hunting in areas where game feeders bring the deer into so you can get a shot at a contentedly grazing small animal at extreme short range (<100yards)?

[GtoRA2]

I never claimed I was a good shot, in fact I have claimed the oposite here for some time.

See, unlike you,  I dont have to run around on the internet yelling look at me I am a "sniper, or good shot, or spandex biker tough guy, or cop  or diver etc".


I do have the common sense to know that posting a target on the internet with no way to prove it is yours is not proof an therefore would not do it.

Nor would I post fake government papers to prove I was a sniper, nor would I post fake diver paper work to prove I was a diver.

You know if you stopped being such a fake, internet tough guy, and then got your ego under control you wouldn't have to come back with a new ID every few months.

[fartwinkle]

Your using 500yds as the bench mark.
I said up to 500yds and yes if you hit a deer in the right spot he will die.

I have taken small russian boars 250-350lbs with my 223.
Granted I was no further away than 50yds but these animales have very thick
cartiledge surrounding there vital built up from fighting so shot placement is evrything.

Now if you go back to the beginning I was simply telling who ever it was that If you are not hunting anything bigger than white tail a 223 is fine.

Also if he planned on shooting alot a 223 simply cost less to shoot there fore giving you more range time wich IMHO is far more important than the size of you gun.

What is it they say about men with big guns:rofl

[GtoRA2]

Originally posted by fartwinkle
One word fat boy ! jenny craig:rofl

That is two words. But we all know your not real bright, you make it clear in just about every post.



I may be fat, but atleast I am not a guy who has to make things up to try and look better then a bunch of guys on a game bbs.

[Toad]

Originally posted by fartwinkle
Heres the one you missed

http://www.fishandhunttexas.com/debate_over_22_center.htm

From your chosen article: (Did YOU read it?)

All cartridges have certain limitations and the 22 center-fires are no exception.  Even with the factory ammunition and bullets of more robust construction and slightly heavier weights in some cases.  These rounds still lack some of the aspects more traditional cartridges have always had.

The obvious is caliber.  Which lacks frontal diameter and weight.  The frontal diameter being small means, even if the bullet performs well and mushrooms properly wound channels will likely be small.  Being lighter weight these bullets will have less momentum to penetrate thru bone and less likely to give a reliable exit on less than favorable angles thru the body. Another disadvantage to lightweight bullets is their inability to retain energy over long distances.

Even with the high muzzle velocities energy drops off significantly after 100 yards.  Another factor to consider is lightweight bullets are also more subject to the effects of wind, rain, and other in field elements.  This reduces the effective range of what was a 300-400 yard coyote rifle to around 100-200 yard maximum hunting rifle requiring critical shot placement.

With all these factors stacked against these little cartridges.  Why would anyone consider them for hunting deer?  Some are drawn to a challenge, but I think it’s mainly because these cartridges are generally accurate and felt recoil is very light.  

So, if you've read the article even you should understand that the author is saying the .22 CF's as a whole are barely adequate and then ONLY if the shots are close to 100 yards at the most. You did see this part right?

Another disadvantage to lightweight bullets is their inability to retain energy over long distances

Again, in your Texas case with little bitty 100 lb deer posing sideways by the Game Feeder at 65 yards it probably works. But that is a pretty isolated case in the universe of deer hunting.

[fartwinkle]

Originally posted by GtoRA2
I never claimed I was a good shot, in fact I have claimed the oposite here for some time.

See, unlike you,  I dont have to run around on the internet yelling look at me I am a "sniper, or good shot, or spandex biker tough guy, or cop  or diver etc".


I do have the common sense to know that posting a target on the internet with no way to prove it is yours is not proof an therefore would not do it.

Nor would I post fake government papers to prove I was a sniper, nor would I post fake diver paper work to prove I was a diver.

You know if you stopped being such a fake, internet tough guy, and then got your ego under control you wouldn't have to come back with a new ID every few months.

Deleted out of respect.