This is the most overrated cartridge in America. It's too

>>33364799
It's used to kill humans, why can't it be used to kill deer?

>>33364858
It is not especially good at killing humans, and it is not especially good at killing deer. Intermediate cartridges, by definition, sacrifice power in order to reduce weight and recoil.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_cartridge

>>33364924
>It is not especially good at killing humans
I'll be sure to let all the humans quickly dispatched by 5.56 that they're just being babies.
>Intermediate cartridges, by definition, sacrifice power in order to reduce weight and recoil.
Right, so don't go taking potshots at deer from 1000m.

>>33364924
you are aware by that same kind of definition a .308/7.62X51 is also an intermediate cartridge?

>>33364924
>it is not especially good at killing deer.

It's illegal to hunt deer with .223 in some states. It's a good pig gun, though.

>>33365013
There are states where you can't hunt deer with anything that isn't a full rifle cartridge, what's your point?

>>33364999
>you are aware by that same kind of definition a .308/7.62X51 is also an intermediate cartridge?

Not the anon you responded to, but to me, a .223 is just a .22, and I'd call it a small cartridge. It works, but so does a .17 Hornet.

>>33365028
>you can't hunt deer with anything that isn't a full rifle cartridge,

A .223 isn't a full rifle cartridge? I think you made my point. Thanks.

>>33364999
Which is why I don't use 308 anymore. The actual velocities you get with 308 are 200 fps less than what they are supposed to be according to paper ballistics. I don't own a 30-06, but 30-06 is much better than 308.

>>33365062
>A .223 isn't a full rifle cartridge?
It isn't. It's an intermediate cartridge.

>>33365062
No, I didn't. You say it isn't good for deer because some morons don't allow deer hunting with it. It kills humans fine, why can't it kill a deer?

>>33365076
>fine
There is a different between fine and merely adequate. Here's the defintion of adequate from the OED:

>Satisfactory, but worthy of no stronger praise or recommendation; barely reaching an acceptable standard; just good enough.

>>33365107
Ok, I'm done here. You are just deflecting, now.

>>33365076

Anyway you look it it, it's still a .22. The rifle and round was introduced in Viet Nam, when humping large amounts of ammo was necessary, and spray and pray tactics were important in the jungle.

It's a very poor round for long distance desert warfare, and it doesn't have the knockdown power of a .30 for deer hunting.

I like ARs for plinking and pig hunting, but it's STILL just a .22

>>33365065
Hornady super performance, broseph. Cronos damn near advertised velocities, and it's higher than most.

>>33365235
If I could get Superformance with the bullets I want, I would be all over it, but it's offered only with SST and monolithic copper bullets, neither of which are to my liking.

>>33365076
I'm thinking maybe it just doesn't kill a deer fast enough.

.223 is great for home defense if you don't want to kill your sleeping kids two rooms over

>>33365279
So are shotguns and varmint loads in full size rifles.

>>33364799
It was developed to be a varmint/predator cartridge and it's pretty good at that.

It was adapted for military use when the bigwigs concluded that fire superiority was what wins fights, and it did/does that pretty much OK.

It's a more specialized cartridge. It's not a general purpose cartridge, at least not in my opinion.

Personally, when I think "general purpose rifle", I think of my .30-06. But I've learned to quit worrying and love the AR and 5.56/.223. It's a great rifle/cartridge in it's niche. I'd I had to get in a fight, that's the what I'd want.

If I were exploring unknown territory, I'd want my .30-06.

A lot of guys nowadays think the AR in 5.56 is the general purpose, "do most things most of the time" rifle, and a high powered rifle (.308 and up) is a specialized tool.

Just my .02$

>>33365341
>It's a more specialized cartridge. It's not a general purpose cartridge, at least not in my opinion.
Exactly, which is why it's ridiculous that it has become the most popular rifle cartridge in America.

>>33365341
Dammit, phone.

>cartridge in it's niche
*its niche
>I'd I had to get in a fight
*if I had to get in a fight

>>33365349
I think that has more to do with the rifle than the cartridge though.

Standardized modular rifle that shot .308 and only cost $500-1000? I bet there'd be a lot more people shooting .308.

>>33364799
>but there's no reason to own a rifle in a coyote cartridge when a deer rifle will kill them even more easily.
I don't even use .223 on Coyotes any more, a pelt with 1 hole is worth more than one with 2, and a XL Grade 1 winter Coyote was $40 last year, $80 if dark phase.

.17 WSM, bitches.

>>33365349
>it's ridiculous that it has become the most popular rifle cartridge in America

Well, the thing is most gun owners are shooters but not necessarily hunters. (And a depressingly large number don't even really shoot at all.)

It's a great cartridge for punching paper, ringing gongs, and blowing up 2-liters.

And it can be had in bulk relatively cheaply.

It's the standard chambering for the AR, and AR ownership became a social/political thing during the Obama years. So altogether, boom, .223/5.56 dwarfs everything else.

If more people hunted a wider variety of game, I think people would have a better appreciation for other cartridges and rifles.

>>33365394
You're basically on to why ar10 and 300 blkout builds have become more popular lately

>>33365394
I'd shoot more .308 than .223 if decent .308 was the price of .223.
>>33365155
I'd rather hunt deer with .223 than 7.62x39.

>>33365394
I understand that, but the AR is available in many caliber other than .223.
>>33365430
>It's a great cartridge for punching paper, ringing gongs, and blowing up 2-liters.
That's all well and good, but if you just want to shoot for fun, why use .223 when 22 LR is one quarter of the price?
>>33365454
>I'd rather hunt deer with .223 than 7.62x39.
Why not just use a 30-06?

>>33365448
> ar10
Now if they would just standardize.

>>33365454
> if decent .308 was the price of .223.
140% more powder, more brass, 200% more bullet. It's always going to be more expensive.

>>33365472
Hell why not use .300WM?

You can catch Federal Fusions on sale for .98/rd

>>33365527
>Hell why not use .300WM?
It would work, but the recoil is a little abusive for a deer cartridge.

>>33365537
I'm a big guy...

>>33365548
Shoot the most effective cartridge you can shoot well. A man has to know his limitations. If you can shoot the 300 WM as well as a 30-06 and don't mind the recoil, go for it.

>>33365472
> The AR is available in many caliber other than .223.

Yes, and hen you go to switch the stock and handgaurds out on your $1500 rifle, you will find there is a custom barrel nut that requires a custom tool and the stock requires it's own custom buffer tube and spring that cause FTF errors.

>>33365454
>I'd rather hunt deer with .223 than 7.62x39.

>I'd rather hunt deer with a .22 caliber bullet than a .30 caliber bullet

>>33365582
Which is why I don't own an AR. The whole "modular" thing is overblown. I'd rather just have a decent 22 LR for plinking and a good 270 or 30-06 for serious shooting.

File: e2a.jpg (16KB, 720x405px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 720x405px

>>33364799
>b8, fudds, and actual retards: the thread

>>33365472
>if you just want to shoot for fun, why use .223 when 22 LR is one quarter of the price?

I guess .223/5.56 is still a "major" cartridge to some people. It's powerful enough to make them go, "Ooo! Ah!" but it doesn't batter them.

And as the other anon said, I really think it has a lot to do with the rifle. I bet .223s in bolt action or sporting semi-autos have fallen off like a lead balloon.

People like to shoot the evil black guns.

In fact, consider this, people like to shoot the evil black guns SO MUCH that they actually are reaching the limits of the .223/5.56 cartridge, and are desperately trying to develop new cartridges with greater ballistic capability that can still squeeze into an AR. .50 Beo, .458 Socom, .300 Black, whatever.

In the meantime, .45-70 and .30-30 have been around for well over a century, have taken teeming millions of game, and are much more capable now than they were when they were introduced... But, damn, people just love their ARs.

There's your answer, I think. People just absolutely adore ARs.

>>33365604
yes. does it blow your tiny mind that projectile diameter is not the only consideration for caliber selection?

>>33365604
Velocity matters, bullet construction matters, precision matters.

So while I'm not going to say that a .22-250 is a better deer rifle than a .308, I am going to say that I'm more confident in my ability to ethically take a deer with .223 in a longer envelope than I am with a 7.62x39.

>>33365620
>fudds
Gee, it's almost as if the rifles which have become popular among hunters are well suited to hunting. Who would have guessed?
>>33365631
>sporting semi-autos
What is a sporting semi-auto?
>There's your answer, I think. People just absolutely adore ARs
I understand that, but I don't think it's a good idea to choose a cartridge for its rifle rather than vice versa.
>>33365652
Either one is the wrong tool for the job. Why not use one of the many cartridges designed for the purpose?

>>33365501
>> if decent .308 was the price of .223.
>140% more powder, more brass, 200% more bullet. It's always going to be more expensive.
No shit?
>>33365472
>Why not just use a 30-06?
Because I'd rather lug a 16 inch AR into the woods than a Garand?
Because I'd go 6.5mm if I was buying a modern bolt gun, and I haven't yet because I don't have the dosh to outfit my theoretical 6.5 bolt gun the way I want to yet?
>>33365527
Because .300 WM is way too much cartridge for deer sized game inside 500?

>>33365666
>Why not use one of the many cartridges designed for the purpose?
Such as?

>>33365710
I think he meant more suited for the purpose

.270

.308

.30-06

.300Win Mag

7mm

File: jvYe9yd.png (286KB, 610x341px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 610x341px

>>33365631
>ar in .30-30 or .45-70. Pic related.

>>33365666
fudds=/=hunter

i hunt but am not a fudd. ive seen plenty of fudds who are not hunters.

you can spot fudds by listening for their mating call. they angrily spout ignorant and pointless statements like "why would you use too-too-tree when muh gool ol turdy-ott-six works just fine" and other such things which allude to them lacking a basic understanding of ballistics, commonly known as fuddlore. this causes fudds to congregate and spawn little fuddlets. truly, life is a beautiful thing.

>>33365726
Is .30-30 good for deer?

>>33365739
>Not realizing that mass is a thing.

It's called energy transfer. A larger bullet can travel slower than a smaller one and still transfer more energy

>>33365755
I wouldn't take it over any of the ones I listed but I'd take it over a .223

>>33365666
>Either one is the wrong tool for the job. Why not use one of the many cartridges designed for the purpose?
Because I have what I have and I'm killing deer just fine as is.

Also "wrong" is a pretty strong word, considering. .223 is the wrong choice if I want to anchor a deer by shooting it in the ass, or at ranges past 400 yards or so. If I have a broadside or quartering away shot out to 400, or a quartering towards or head-on shot out to 300, it's perfectly fine.

Millions of fudds use thirty-thirty, and the exterior ballistics of .30-30 make it an inferior choice for deer than .223 anywhere you might expect to take a 200 yard shot.

Anywhere sightlines are constrained enough that you can't, it's a better choice than .223 or 7.62x39 because of bullet weight and bullet selection, respectively, but exterior ballistics matter.

>>33365764
So you'd use .30-30, but not the basically identical 7.62x39?

>>33365774
I never said I wouldn't use a 7.62. I was only shitting on .223

>>33365289
>shotguns good for not over-penetrating

>>33365666
Hi, satan. Checked.

>What is a sporting semi-auto?
Pardon me, I accidentally slipped into CNN-speak. I mean grampaw guns. Fudd guns. I was visualizing a Remington 7400 when I typed that.

You and I both know there is basically zero material difference between any given semiautomatic rifles, whether they're black or they've got wood on 'em.

>I understand that, but I don't think it's a good idea to choose a cartridge for its rifle rather than vice versa.
Preachin' to the choir, amigo, I agree with you. Select the right cartridge for the job, then choose your favorite rifle to chamber it.

But I do think that is the answer to your original statement, ie, the .223 is overrated. The .223 is the most popular cartridge in America because it is the AR cartridge.

Hey, arguably the .32 Special and .35 Remington were better cartridges than .30-30, but for whatever reason, the Winchester 94 and .30-30 got stuck together and that's that. That combo just has the glimmer, the x-factor, that eclipsed everything else, even options that might technically be better.

>>33365279
>A bullet moving nearly 4000 fps is good for not overpenetrating at 10ft

Nigger, what?

>>33365736
Neo-noir space Western shit right there, tovarisch. Nice.

>>33365736
I'd settle for an AR in .300WM

>>33365757
that has literally nothing to do with what i said. besides, you dont exactly need a ton of energy to kill a deer. 1300 ft-lbs is plenty.

>>33365755
Inside of 200 yards, it's fantastic.
>>33365726
Unless you want to own one rifle for whitetail and elk, .300 win mag is the mark of a poser or a magazine addicted benchracer.

7mm-08 or .260 remember both have better exterior ballistics and are gonna kill the deer just as dead, but ruin less meat and cost less to shoot.

>>33365826
You meta-mocked a 30 cal rifle over the .223.

I'm a fat fuck, I'd rather not have to do any chasing or tracking

>>33365810
Depending on the bullet they have a tendency to either blow up in or deflect while going through walls because of their velocity. Someone 3-4 walls over from you is pretty safe because the bullet will veer off its flight path before it gets to them and end up in your floor/ceiling if not outright turn into low-mass shrapnel (varmint bullets).

>>33365810
like any caliber, it depends greatly on projectile.

>>33365837
I already have a .300 and I've slaughtered the shit out of just about every game and nuisance animal the southern US has to offer with it save for black bear

>>33365840
>I'm a fat fuck, I'd rather not have to do any chasing or tracking
have you tried not being a shit shot?

>>33365065
Are you shooting a rifle with a shorter than a 24" barrel?

Because almost all published velocities for rifle ammo are from a 24" test barrel, and are pretty fucking close to real life (+/- 30fps) from a 24" barrel.

>>33365844
>Eh it'll probably just glance off a stud or something

Nice safety mindedness

File: nemo-omen-watchman-right-profile.jpg (409KB, 2000x1200px) Image search: [Google]

409KB, 2000x1200px

>>33365736
>>ar in .30-30 or .45-70. Pic related.
.300 blackout and .458 SOCOM.
>>33365824
Pick related
>>33365774
.30-30 has much better bullet options, at least much better availability for good bullet options.

>>33365860
I'm not a shit shot but I have made clean heart shots with .243 and have a deer run 200 yards

>>33365028
No, there aren't. There are states with minimum bullet diameter requirements (either 6mm/.243" or .25cal/.257") and there are a lot of states that mandate centerfire. There are no states that give actual caliber names as a minimum because that would be a de facto ban on wildcats and there are literally thousands of calibers out there.

>>33364924
It's quite good at killing humans. It's also quite good at killing deer, hogs, black bears, and basically any other animal that's routinely in the 400lb-and-down weight class.

Stop shooting military ball ammo at things you wish to die rapidly. Yes, I know softpoints that're worth a shit cost more, I don't give half a fuck, do it anyway.

>>33365272
Generally kills them faster than .30-30, .308, .30-06, and similar relatively-large-caliber full rifle rounds because it dumps all its energy early on and expands humongously or fragments violently in the vitals instead of poking a .30 to .40 caliber hole clean through something and exiting out the back side with much of its velocity and energy retained.

There's a reason why light-bullet high-velocity full rifle calibers are so popular in deer hunting. Shit like .243, .25-06, 6mm remington, and to a lesser extent .270 (since most factory ammo will be a light-for-caliber 130-140gr bullet).

>>33365912
I've wanted a .243 AR for a while

>>33364799
yeah man my eyes flash red when i get hit with 5.56 but it doesnt take me down

>>33365880
the distance an animal runs after being shot isnt a function of the mass of the bullet, retard. its only somewhat related to energy seeing as full sized men can drop when hydrostatic shock affects them after being shot with 9mm (1/4 the energy of .243).

even if it were, a caliber doesnt have to cause an animal to drop dead to be considered perfectly good for that animal. hit a squirrel in the heart with a .22lr and watch how often theyll run a ways. does that mean you need a bigger caliber for squirrel?

>>33365774
>basically identical
One throws a 150-170gr bullet at 2350-2400fps. The other throws a 123gr bullet at 2300fps. That's nearly 500lb-ft of energy difference.

Hardly is that near-identical.

>>33365922
Well you're in luck, about 8 different companies make them and almost all companies that produce large-frame AR barrels make a .243 barrel if you wanna build your own.

>>33365884
>It's quite good at killing humans. It's also quite good at killing deer, hogs, black bears
>quite
Here's the OED definition of that word.
>completely, fully, entirely; to the utmost extent or degree
It is not quite good. It is not even good. It is adequate--barely. It is a marginal caliber for anything larger than a coyote. There's a difference between getting the job done and being excellent.
>>33365912
>thinks 223 will kill deer faster than 30-06.
This is why you don't hunt while stoned.

>>33365880
Try not getting his dander up by missing him twice first °>°

Running after a heart shot is 100% dependent on adrenalin and nothing else. I've watched a whitetail shot in the heart with a .358 Norma Mag do all of 200 yards after the shot, because, unbeknownst to my friend, it was being chased by wolves when he shot it.

.300 win mag or .338 Lapua, it's not going to change how dead he is.

On the other hand, you can shoot him in the heart with a nice 70 grain bonded solid at 400 yards and he'll just lay down dead if you don't give yourself away with noise, scent, or motion.

>>33365956
This sounds an awful lot like you don't hunt at all desu. Because so far all you've stated are (wrong) opinions and spouted memes.

>>33364924
what is 7.62x39

>are bullets memes? If so how do we beat spread them?

>>33365880
And I have DRT'd elk with a 7mm-08. Animals do strange things, and adrenaline can keep a body moving long after it's clinically dead.

Since we're throwing out examples, I had a heart/aorta/double-lung hit with a Brenneke slug on a small whitetail that wasn't spooked, and he just trotted off. Found him over a mile away, he'd made it that far with no lungs or circulatory system at all and he hadn't sprinted it. The blood trail looked like someone was sloshing a bucket down the trail for the first few hundred yards then tapered off to a trickle because he'd completely bled out, yet he kept going. I guess deer pussy is just that good that he was completely ignoring a mortal wound to try to find some.

>>33365970
Like what? Name one thing I stated that was not factually correct.

>>33365341
>when I think "general purpose rifle", I think of my .30-06.
Really? I mean, they made it work in Jew War II, but it was sidelined for a reason.

>>33366024
And that reason was that they wanted a shorter cartridge for the M14.

>>33365999
>everything
In all seriousness,
>it's not quite good
Statistics and energy calculators say otherwise. More than twice the muzzle energy of .30-30 and 5x the retained energy at 100m.
>it's not even good
Statistics and energy calculators say otherwise. More than twice the muzzle energy of .30-30 and 5x the retained energy at 100m.
>it is adequate-barely
See above.
>it is a marginal caliber for anything larger than a coyote
See above. See the literally hundreds of thousands of humans, which average around 6x the weight of a coyote, that've been killed with .223/5.56 despite the generally shit design of military FMJ. See the literally tens of thousands of first-round immediate stops of humans hit by .223/5.56 and the fact it has a crazy high morbidity rate on not-immediately-fatal hits even when given prompt professional medical care.
>this is why you don't hunt while stoned
Yeah nah now you're just being a cunt.

Literally the only thing you got right was the definition of "quite" and that's because you copy-pasted it from someone else.

>>33365999
>It is not quite good. It is not even good. It is adequate--barely. It is a marginal caliber for anything larger than a coyote.
Mostly this.

Rimfire .17s are more than enough for yotes, .223 is good for deer sized game at 400 yards of less, unless you want to be able to take meat-ruining skeletal shots at a trophy (hindquarters, double shoulder shot, et al).

>>33364799
Why would it matter that it has a small bullet? It's specifically designed to kill babies, duh.

>>33365279
That's some shitty bait nigger.

>>33365341
There's a reason most people think a 5.56 AR is a general purpose, "do most things most of the time" rifle.

It's because it is. Depending on what ammo you feed it it does everything from vaporizing small rodents to downing 500+lb wild game, at ranges running from "fix bayonets" to 700m. And it does it while being lighter, shorter, cheaper, and softer recoiling than pretty much any other option.

Modern bullet design has come far enough that it's a no-bullshit legitimately good deer round, and due to being a semi with very very little recoil or muzzle rise works "well enough" against even the largest dangerous animals on any continent but Africa.

>>33366034
>everything
I think you probably mistook something that someone else said in this thread for something I said.
>Statistics and energy calculators say otherwise. More than twice the muzzle energy of .30-30 and 5x the retained energy at 100m.
Prove to me that muzzle energy is a valid measure of killing power.

Also, where are these statistics from? I've never seen any statistics comparing 223 to 30-30.

>See the literally hundreds of thousands of humans, which average around 6x the weight of a coyote, that've been killed with .223/5.56

And plenty of humans, deer, and even bears have been killed with 22 LR too, but 22 LR is still not an excellent cartridge for any of the above. The fact is that it, like all other intermediate cartridges, was designed as a compromise. That's the whole concept of an intermediate cartridge.

>>33366062
>downing 500+lb wild game, at ranges running from "fix bayonets" to 700m
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75aGG27dGUA

>>33366081
Well for starters, 4 states use muzzle energy as their basis for minimum caliber for at least one species of large game. In two of those states, .30-30 and 7.62x39 don't meet it but .223 does.

Second, how is a wound created? What determines penetration depth? Energy plays a major role in both. What creates the more lethal wound, a large bullet moving slowly and plowing a caliber-sized hole through the animal with minor if any secondary wounding, or a small bullet moving really fast plowing a twice-caliber sized hole through the animal and creating a shitload of secondary wounding? I mean, yeah, ideally you'll have a large bullet moving really fast, but that comes at the cost of weight and recoil, and there is a point where secondary wounding is just ruined meat because you've already killed the animal as dead as it's gonna get. Which is why you don't see deer hunters running shit like .338lm and .50bmg.

So start refuting with primary sources fuccboi. Show your work, just like your 4th grade teacher tried telling you between your autism fits and your ADD medication doses.

>>33366081
Y'see there's a difference between
>a lot of people have been killed with X
and
>almost nobody survives getting hit with X
.22lr falls under the former. Yeah, a lot of people are killed with it, but most of the people shot with it survive. .223 falls under the latter. Yeah, a lot of people are killed with it, but very few people survive being shot with it.

>>33366030
Yeah, and that one got scrapped for general use in pretty short order, too.

>>33366131
>Well for starters, 4 states use muzzle energy as their basis for minimum caliber for at least one species of large game. In two of those states, .30-30 and 7.62x39 don't meet it but .223 does.

And since when is the government an expert on stopping power?

>Second, how is a wound created? What determines penetration depth? Energy plays a major role in both. What creates the more lethal wound, a large bullet moving slowly and plowing a caliber-sized hole through the animal with minor if any secondary wounding, or a small bullet moving really fast plowing a twice-caliber sized hole through the animal and creating a shitload of secondary wounding? I mean, yeah, ideally you'll have a large bullet moving really fast, but that comes at the cost of weight and recoil, and there is a point where secondary wounding is just ruined meat because you've already killed the animal as dead as it's gonna get. Which is why you don't see deer hunters running shit like .338lm and .50bmg.

Kinetic energy is only one of many formulas that use both mass and speed. Prove to me that it is more valid than, say, momentum or any of the other formulas.

>So start refuting with primary sources fuccboi.
You are the one who asserted that kinetic energy=stopping power, so the burden of proof is on you.

>Show your work, just like your 4th grade teacher tried telling you between your autism fits and your ADD medication doses.
Not an argument.

>>33366164
Because they wanted soldiers to carry more ammo, a rationale that is not really applicable to the civilian market.

>>33366253
But a general purpose rifle cartridge has to meet more use targets than just the civilian market.

>>33366024
Bruh, you don't get what I meant by "general purpose".

As in, "not just for warfare, but also for most things you would want a rifle for".

If you follow my reply chain you'll see that I'm totally OK with the .223/5.56 cartridge and the AR for fighting.

>>33364987
When compared to other cartridges yes.

It can still kill, it was never designed to wound it just happened to play out that way.

But it's by far the most practical caliber because of it's long range, accuracy, and how many you can carry.

>>33365912
>.223 kills faster than 30-30, .308, .30-06

Man, we've had exactly the opposite experience with the .30 caliber bullets then, especially the .308 and .30-06 with SST bullets. I like exit wounds for tracking (lost a deer when a .223 jsp failed to exit, so maybe I'm unduly bitter), and I also enjoy not having to avoid the shoulder on a hog with a .308.

File: calibers.jpg (104KB, 586x750px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 586x750px

>>33364924
uhhuh