.223/5.56 is a dandy varmint cartridge. Flat shooting and speedy, it will vaporize prairie dogs and the like, but I’m with you on its use as a military cartridge. I understand that weight of spare ammo was a primary concern, and the bullets were designed to tumble via rifling twist.As someone pointed out above, incapacitating an enemy is preferable to killing him, since it takes a couple of his buddies out of the fight, too. Of course, the military is not known for stellar thinking when it comes to ordnance. Single shot rifles held sway in the military long after repeaters were available, because the brass thought soldiers would waste ammunition.

Bingo!!!

He was aided and abetted by those who lied to Congress about the M14 being cheaper and easier to build because Springfield could use much of the existing tooling for the M1 Garand. Besides, winning at Camp Perry was more important than winning across the Fulda gap.

Boy; fully agree with all of this! I personally believe the .22 center-fires should generally not be used on deer. However, there are LOADS of whitetail deer killed in Central Texas every year by .22 center-fires - especially the .223. No data on how many are not found or expire from wounds later on. I suspect it's a fair number. The ones we tend to hear about are dropped where they stood.

Just as the .410 bore shotgun should rightly be considered an expert's hunting firearm and yet is too often relegated to inexperienced youth because of low recoil, the .223 is also considered a "kids" deer rifle around here. It's unfortunate.

No doubt in experienced or expert hands the .223 is perfectly capable of clean kills on 150 pound deer it seems a poor choice for 14 year olds. My "favorite" Texas deer rifle is a .257 Roberts with 100 grain bullets at around 2850 fps. Very adequate; yet I tend to hunt in the evenings with one of my .264 Win Mags simply because sufficient experience indicates a higher chance of DRT deer or at least piling up in my field of view. I'd rather not track wounded deer by flashlight - even for a few dozen yards.

I am a certified Texas Hunter Safety Instructor with Texas Parks & Wildlife and can't tell you how many sub-18 year olds indicate they'll be hunting with a center-fire .22 caliber rifle during our classes. If I was the ruler of the galaxy I would probably mandate .25 caliber minimums - but that's just me.

Bryan

__________________
Ordnung muss sein
SWHF #789

I used to watch Nung Mike Force troopers heading out. An M1 rifle and clips all over their body, slipped onto shirt pocket flaps, several on the rifle sling, a few bandoleers and the web pocket belt. They wanted as much as they could carry. The M16 7 20's in a bandoleer was the answer.

Eskimos would "Get the big gun" when confronted with a Polar Bear. It was a 30-30. Skin out a 200lb Mule Deer that has taken one in the engine room with a 30-30, if it hits a rib going in it will blow a hole as big as your fist. Worst gruesome dead guy in VN? A Buddhist Monk killed with 5 gallons of petrol. Read "Blackhawk Down" and learn that Skinnies would take 3-4 M16 hits and just flinch.
It is more about carrying ammo and easier training than anything else. People who had never shot a weapon will be hitting everything. The average Doggie with a M14 couldn't hit his butt with both hands.

On a sort of related topic- the Russians (Soviets) developed the 5.45x39 rd, stepping down in caliber from the more commonly known 7.62x39. I think the purpose was for the same reason as the 5.56; lighter, easier for the soldier to carry more ammo.

Anyone know definitively what they're using in the current Ukraine conflict? I know, a bit of everything... but are they finding one to be more effective vs the other?

The sporterized 98 I mentioned did pretty well on various small varmints out to beyond 100 yards. I picked it up cheap when I was in college, but I added the scope later myself and also had the bolt handle bent. Whoever did it knew his business. Barrel was nicely turned and polished, a good peep sight installed, and a good blue job. It had a perfect bore. The only thing I really didn't like was it had one of those fancy "Hollywood-type" stocks with lots of curves and a high cheekpiece. But I left that alone. It was a nice rifle, one of those I sort of wish I had kept. I never shot anything with it other than varmints and paper targets. Nothing wrong with an 8mm.

FWIW, the ADI supplied Hogdon powders are temperature insensitive. I tested several in below freezing temps and in near 100* temps, letting them cool in the shade in the winter, heat up in the sun in the summer. There was no discernable velocity change over my chronograph. More pressure = more velocity, so they were stable, as they were designed to be. ADI = Australian Defense Industries.

Fwiw, while I prefer to use a larger caliber bullet than .223" for deer, imo, with proper bullet selection the 223 Remington is adequate for large feral hogs, and for the much more lightly built whitetail deer. TSX and Federal's 62gr Fusion are two bullets that would are great.

The AR platform with thermal scope or night vision scope (second choice) is a great night time hog and predator tool since many times several, even many, targets present themselves on the stalk or coming to the call. I prefer the 6.8 SPC for hogs, but my son has killed more than his share with the 223. Coyotes and foxes at night with thermal scope on a 223/5.56 AR are a perfect match, imo. I like 50gr VMax's for predators.

Simply bullet selection!

They are slow to change when it suits them. 7.62 NATO is a great example.

The US forced it down NATO’s throat rather than adopting the much better thought out .280 British or the compromise .280/30 (which could be made on existing .30-06 tooling). Then just 7 years after the 7.62x51 and M14 entered service the US military was switching horses with the M16 and 5.56x45.

——

But my concern isn’t the length of time it takes the US military to change a service cartridge, it’s the fact that nearly 80 years on, they still fail to grasp the fundamental nature of a good assault rifle cartridge.

They had a shot to get it right with an 6.8mm intermediate cartridge, but once again they’ve let themselves get drawn off track with an over emphasis on armor penetration which is driving them away from the essential need for an assault rifle round to not just be effective, but also to be controllable in full auto in a select fire weapon.

We all know a .223 is rather low on the power scale of centerfire rifle cartridges. Great for groundhogs! It's a shame the media has spun it into some sort of death ray. Reminds me of back during the crusades when the Pope outlawed the use of the crossbow against Christian knights. It was only approved for killing muslims.

It’s the same with the “long range” hunters who are apparently wanna be snipers who want to take deer and even elk at 1000 yards. Yes, some do pull it off with their 65. Creedmoor. But far more often if they hit the animal they low velocity and lack of terminal performance means the animal walks off to die a slow death while the Hunter seldom bothers to track the animal and instead convinces himself he must have missed.

—-

I started hunting with a .243 Winchester. It would get the job done on white tail, mule deer and antelope, but you had to respect its limitations as shot placement still mattered.

I’m still ok with the .243 Win and .244 Remington as minimums, provided appropriate bullets are used and the ranges are kept to reasonable limits. But the .257 Roberts, 7x57, and 7mm-08 are better choices for a youth cartridge.

Ukraine has seen and emptying of the armories by those involver, meaning that all sorts of odd weapons are being used.
But, the Russian military switched to infantry rifles chambered in the 5.45x39 with the adoption of the AK-74 which started production in 1974, and that has been their standard round since.

Their current AK-12 still uses the 5.45x39.

I believe that should apply to ANY hunter, big game or varmint.
When I kill mice or rats I try to not cause any undue suffering.

M822, optimized for penetration to meet a NATO requirement to penetrate a steel helmet at 800 meters. Contrast that with well noted damage caused by M193 ball in RVN.

The Russian 5.45 has a long for caliber bullet with an aft CG to promote yaw and tumble. An idea the British put to good use in MkVII ball in 1910. As soon as the bullet hit the target and decelerated, its heavier lead base caused it to yaw violently and deform, thereby inflicting more severe gunshot wounds than a standard single-core spitzer design.

Like anything else, bullets are a compromise, "pays yer money and takes yer choice."

Live for a year in a tent with about 40 large rats below the floor. Wait for them to come out at night and run around squealing.

Live through a bubonic plague epidemic that kills all of them.


I'd kill every rat and mouse on the planet if I could.

As posted there is Volumes regarding 5.56/.223, a little research is all thats needed without experience.
I don’t “ research” individuals on forums.

As originally intended in the 20” M16 and M16A1 M193 ball ammunition would tumble and fragment at ranges up to 200 meters. It had a fragmentation threshold of 2600 fps, so the shorter the barrel the shorter the fragmentation range, dropping to 150m from a 16” carbine to 100m in a 14.5” barrel and to down around 50m in an 11.5” barrel.

The fragmentation velocity for the M855 ball round was the same 2600 fps. Unfortunately in a 20” M16A2 it had a muzzle velocity that was slower (3130 fps versus 3280 fps). That reduced the fragmentation range to 150 meters.

Problems with it boring nice clean .224” holes were noted in the gulf war.

Then the M4 was adopted and reduced the muzzle velocity of M855 to 2920 fps. That reduced the fragmentation range to 100m, half that of M193 in the M16A1.

——

Interestingly people think the concept of fragmentation and tumbling to increase lethality came along with the 5.56 NATO. But if you dig into old ordinance records you’ll find that was a primary argument for adopting the .30-40 Govt round over the .45-70. The lighter, smaller but much faster diameter Krag round was presented as being more lethal as it would tumble on impact.

The later spitter rounds increased this effect by retaining more velocity as well as having a pointy tip that was less stable post impact.

The British did extensive research prior to WWI and determined .276” was the best diameter for a battle rifle round to optimize the velocity and tumbling effects. Had WWI not intervened, they would have adopted a .276” round in the Pattern 13 Enfield rifle. With WWI looming the plan was delayed as they did not want two service rifles and cartridges in the supply chain, although they did acquire the Pattern 14 in .303 British as an alternate standard rifle. After WWI the conversion plan was scrapped as they had a massive surplus of .303 ammunition in stock and plenty of SMLE rifles.

Between the wars the US Army was interested in adopting a .276” round in the form of the .276 Pedersen in the M1 Garand, however large existing stocks of .30-06 ball ammunition resulted in the conversion of the Garand design to fire the .30-06.

After WWII the .280 British cartridge reflected the intention to use a .276 diameter bullet (now expressed as the larger groove diameter rather than land diameter).

Agreed. Any new hunter that can handle a 223 can handle a 243 with a 100gr bullet such as the Remington Core Lokt. It’s not just sufficient it is a darn good deer round.

All of this because the OP didn't know .223 was a varmint cartridge.

Well, it is, among other things.

I'm going to go with a drunk post. Or maybe just a troll.

__________________
That's just somebody talkin.

ALL hunter have a moral duty to not cause undue suffering.
Even if they are only hunting garbage dump rats.

Thanks to all the gentlemen and scholars who were patient enough to read/respond to my thread with courteous, informative replies.

I was hesitant to post such a question because I knew it was the sort of clueless, inexperienced question which would surely be met with ridicule by those who are perhaps better informed, yet lack the patience to share knowledge with those who come seeking it, but fortunately the majority of responses were helpful, informative, and reasonably polite.

You may consider the subject closed.

__________________
Shooting Comfort is bilateral.

OP, I thought your question was a good one.
The only dumb question is the one left unasked.

Problem is new or less experienced hunters just don't understand letting game walk on if your can't make a quality kill shot . To many times they see meat and fire and bad shot with a larger cartridges is not better than a bad shot with a 22lr or 223 or 30-06. Game may run off to die .

I killed hogs in large circle traps as a boy old out with a older hunter . A 22lr 40gr thru the ear will drop a hog faster than a lung shot with a 30-06 . You have to be able to place a bullet well and know when to not fire and let the animal walk on some times .

The 223 has a number of bullets for hunting larger game today . , Fist time I saw a 223 was remington 760 pump and I think the ammo was winchesters 64gr sp . The owner of that 223 killed many a deer with it over the years and a number a hogs .

Today you have bullets like barnes TSX and TTSX from 55gr to 70gr that are very good for deer and even for hogs with in some yardage limits . IF you think it's not good that shows your lack of skills and knowledge .

OP has requested that all his questions have answered and the thread be closed.

Thank you all for your input.

__________________
SWCA #2306
DAV in honor of POP