Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 43

Thread: 223. enough for caribou?

  1. #1
    Member ruvimarrow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Delta Junction
    Posts
    94

    Default 223. enough for caribou?

    just wondering if my 223. bolt is enough gun for caribou and maybe sheep
    i will mostly use it for coyots but wondering if its enough for bigger anamals

    P.S anyone have experiance with Stevens modle 200 223. Rem ?
    just bought it used but brand new in condition with senthetic stock blued floating barrle bolt action.dosn't have a scratch for $195 bucks.
    is it a good deal? thanks

  2. #2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ruvimarrow View Post
    just wondering if my 223. bolt is enough gun for caribou and maybe sheep
    i will mostly use it for coyots but wondering if its enough for bigger anamals

    P.S anyone have experiance with Stevens modle 200 223. Rem ?
    just bought it used but brand new in condition with senthetic stock blued floating barrle bolt action.dosn't have a scratch for $195 bucks.
    is it a good deal? thanks
    I wouldn't use a .223 for caribou... not nearly enough damage if you're shot's not exactly perfect. You should step up to something larger... at least something that's commonly used for deer. Just my personal $.02....
    Hunting, camping & shooting goodies. http://www.laksupply.com

  3. #3
    Member rimfirematt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Eagle River
    Posts
    2,133

    Default

    I agree, its a little light. 243 would be my minimum standard.

  4. #4
    Member alaska bush man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    904

    Thumbs up 223 Tsx

    Lord yes.....use a Barnes TSX 53gr or 63gr WW 64gr PP and 60gr Nosler Part.

    Place the bullet close to the bottom and rear of the ear.....he will drop in his tracks.......Moose too!

    Since a high degree of accuracy is needed suggest keep your shots under 100 yards.

    The TSX in 53gr works great for me.

    You have to be certain of your shot or you will have alot of wounded game.

  5. #5

    Default

    223 is plenty as long as shot placement is good. I have shot several caribou with 22 caliber rifles, and have seen many other people do the same. using a 50 grain hollow point the bullet goes about half way through at 100 and causes huge amounts of internal damage. drops em in their tracks.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks
    Posts
    439

    Default

    We all have our own opinions so I'll give mine too. No doubt lots of caribou have been shot with the .223 but they are on the light side in my humble opinion. I feel the animal deserves as quick and painless death as possible both out of ethics and to make the best eating meat as possible. I personally would choose a larger caliber rifle.

    As far as shooting large game with a .22 caliber round be aware that rim fire cartridges are illegal for large game in this state.

  7. #7
    Member rimfirematt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Eagle River
    Posts
    2,133

    Default

    Over at another forum there was a rather heated debate on wether or not a .223 was suitable for whitetails. I think that thread went on for 6 pages...

    One thing is for certain, the .223 and big game combo always teeters on the edge of controversy.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rimfirematt View Post
    Over at another forum there was a rather heated debate on wether or not a .223 was suitable for whitetails. I think that thread went on for 6 pages...

    One thing is for certain, the .223 and big game combo always teeters on the edge of controversy.
    I agree... it is controversial because it is inadequate for big game if the shot is not perfect. There are many offerings that give you a little room for error; the .223 is not one of these.

    I would rather use something that is more adequate; with all of the cartridges available there are more ethical choices IMO.
    Hunting, camping & shooting goodies. http://www.laksupply.com

  9. #9
    Member .338-06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,045

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Contender View Post
    As far as shooting large game with a .22 caliber round be aware that rim fire cartridges are illegal for large game in this state.
    Except taking swimming caribou from a boat in Units 23 & 26.

  10. #10
    Member .338-06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,045

    Default

    The subtext to this thread is interesting. We all know that a lot of people living in the Bush use .223s to hunt big game. To mainstream American hunters this is horrifying. The two schools of thought; using a light caliber, mostly autoloading rifle to hunt and using a caliber "big enough", (big enough for a one shot kill) to hunt really originate in the same place-the economics of subsistance hunting. When America started it's hunting tradition it was subsistance hunting during Colonial times. Who was rich enough or fast enough to waste more than one shot on food? One shot, one kill was the goal. Anything else was wasteful or lost you your dinner. Fast forward to the present with people in Bush Alaska living a subsistance life. Ammo is expensive when you have limited cash. 20 rounds of .223 runs about $5 (or did), 20 rounds of .30-06 runs about $20 (or did).
    The .223 is easier to shoot, most of your hunting is going to be 150yds or less and your kids can use it to. Would you like to hunt a Griz with a .223? People in the Bush often do, as well as Polar Bear. Yes, .223 is enough gun to hunt caribou or any other Alaskan big game critter-just in a way most of us (Mainstream American hunters) are uncomfortable with, ie multiple shots until the animal is down.

  11. #11

    Default

    I'm personally not "horrified" by the use of self-loading .223's... I own more than one evil black rifle. I also use them for hunting, but it's limited to varmints due to my state's caliber restriction.

    There is nothing wrong with using the .223 for hunting... I trust my aim enough to use one if I didn't have any other options. It's simply a marginal cartridge for big game.... if your shot is not precisely on target you have a wounded animal running in the brush. I'm not opposed to people using whatever they're comfortable with.... if you have so much flinch from a larger caliber that you can't shoot the gun well you're better off using the smaller one. I am also not in favor of government regulation of hunting cartridges.

    That said, why use something that is marginal when there are hundreds of other options for hunting big game? There are plenty of guns that boast a bullet 3x the weight of most .223 loads that are more than comfortable to shoot. Calibers such as the 7.62x39, .243, .260, .308, .45 Bushmaster, 458 SOCOM, .50 Beowulf, etc that are available in the AR platform. I'm not trying to tell anybody what to use.... just saying there are better choices out there. I simply prefer something that will increase my kill zone due to bullet trauma.... there are some days you're just off.
    Hunting, camping & shooting goodies. http://www.laksupply.com

  12. #12
    Member Matt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    3,410

    Default

    FWIW, I have a friend that has taken two caribou on Adak with a Ruger mini-14.

  13. #13

    Default

    I have a Stevens model 200 in .223 and I really like that rifle. I paid $250 new so you acquired a pretty good deal. My rifle is very accurate with 55 gr vmax's, especially the molly coated version. All factory ammo has shot well, even my FMJ handloads. I can't complain, for the money it's a great rifle. I have a Burris FF2 3-9 and I am very happy with that scope, and I don't even carry a spare in the field.

  14. #14
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    4,431

    Default

    Whoa!! A 223 is way over kill for a caribou! Aw, heck use it anyway. Just lung shot him. It will take about 20 minutes for him to fall over but if you don't want to see him stand there and cough just turn away or maybe go and pick some berries while he suffers. Ear plugs will work well to if you don't want to hear his mournful cough and wheezes. Who cares about the dumb ol' animal?

    Why would anyone of sane mind even ponder such a feat? Yeah he'll probably die but you would need to hit him in a vital spot and most people I know how would even consider such stupidity couldn't hit 'em at the end of a 10 foot rope. Geez, I know, get some kind of a semi auto or something belt fed and just shoot a whole bunch in his direction, that should work fine.

    I don't want to hear any stories about how your brother-in-law's, neighbors, best friends, cousin kilt one at 900 yards with one shot from a 17 HMR. Regardless of the results it still a dumb idea!!
    Is there nothing so sacred on this earth that you aren't willing to kill or die for?



  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    SwampView AK, Overlooking Mt. Mckinley and Points Beyond.
    Posts
    8,801

    Default

    I agree with Murphy again. A 223 is entirely unsuitable for killing Caribou.

    Howsomever, “Caribou Country” can also be “Bear Country”, and ever’body knows, a 223 is just about perfect for killing the Beeg Bars.

    Smitty of the North
    Walk Slow, and Drink a Lotta Water.
    Has it ever occurred to you, that Nothing ever occurs to God? Adrien Rodgers.
    You can't out-give God.

  16. #16
    Member AKDoug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Talkeetna
    Posts
    5,714

    Default

    I have to do it Murphy

    I watched a co-worker (no names since I don't have his permission) from Kivalina shoot three bulls at 100 yards (subsistance and within the limits at the time) with three rounds of .223. All three bulls were either lung shot or heart shot. All were shot as quick as he could work the bolt and aquire the target. None of the bulls took more than a couple steps before they dropped. That day, with that rifleman, the .223 was more than effective enough.

  17. #17
    Member .338-06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,045

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Murphy View Post
    Whoa!! A 223 is way over kill for a caribou! Aw, heck use it anyway. Just lung shot him. It will take about 20 minutes for him to fall over but if you don't want to see him stand there and cough just turn away or maybe go and pick some berries while he suffers. Ear plugs will work well to if you don't want to hear his mournful cough and wheezes. Who cares about the dumb ol' animal?

    Why would anyone of sane mind even ponder such a feat? Yeah he'll probably die but you would need to hit him in a vital spot and most people I know how would even consider such stupidity couldn't hit 'em at the end of a 10 foot rope. Geez, I know, get some kind of a semi auto or something belt fed and just shoot a whole bunch in his direction, that should work fine.

    I don't want to hear any stories about how your brother-in-law's, neighbors, best friends, cousin kilt one at 900 yards with one shot from a 17 HMR. Regardless of the results it still a dumb idea!!
    I didn't say I liked the idea of hunting with a .223, I was just trying to point out that other people have different hunting traditions and ethics. Aside from my .22lr I don't own anything smaller than a .30 caliber. Guess what I hunt with?

    I've read any number of articles about hunting in Africa (never been) where the PH complains that Americans are never ready with a follow-up shot. We're taught from the getgo that hunting is one shot-one kill. That's all.

  18. #18

    Default One shot, one kill

    That's because if you place the shot right with a reasonable sized caliber for what you're shooting at, all you should need is one shot. Maybe it's a matter of pride in one's ability or maybe it's a thing about putting an animal down cleanly and mercifully. We receive a gift when we are allowed to take an animal for sustenance, especially if it isn't really a matter of necessity. I don't think a lot of people respect animals and hunting as was once the case. There was morals and ethics that have faded and blurred over the years. I actually don't care what people use to hunt with, as long as they make it work for a clean accurate kill. I guess it is just common sense. I wouldn't want an animal to suffer. A lot of guys can't track worth s**t, so they shouldn't hunt with anything unless they place their shots right. Even then, a big animal with a slow moving system might travel a ways before falling over. So the idea of having "enough gun" for what you're hunting comes into play. It's true, why not carry enough gun, keep the margin for error ayt a minimum.
    Unfortunately, the guys who agree with this don't need to be told and those that don't agree won't listen anyhow.

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    SwampView AK, Overlooking Mt. Mckinley and Points Beyond.
    Posts
    8,801

    Default

    Mauserboy:

    You betcha.

    Smitty of the North
    Walk Slow, and Drink a Lotta Water.
    Has it ever occurred to you, that Nothing ever occurs to God? Adrien Rodgers.
    You can't out-give God.

  20. #20
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    4,431

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AKDoug View Post
    I have to do it Murphy

    I watched a co-worker (no names since I don't have his permission) from Kivalina shoot three bulls at 100 yards (subsistance and within the limits at the time) with three rounds of .223. All three bulls were either lung shot or heart shot. All were shot as quick as he could work the bolt and aquire the target. None of the bulls took more than a couple steps before they dropped. That day, with that rifleman, the .223 was more than effective enough.

    I don't doubt it. I am familiar with the caliber. I still think to advocate the use of the 223 as a big game round is a mistake. As you say that day for that rifleman and that situation it went well and it has before for many. The ramifications of it though are such that if so-and-so did it anybody can do it and we both can see how that may not go well. I'd say it is also true that a poor hunter with poor shooting ability with a 300 mag could wound just as many and will likely not make the effort to recover any animal unless it drops at the boat. Here again is a poor hunter. Quite honestly I'm sure I could drop caribou with a 223 also but sometimes the animal moves the wrong way and the shot does go as intended and with this marginal caliber, and when a wounded animal is lost in the herd, it could be lost with a broken leg or worse, to die a lingering death. We know that so to use a marginal caliber is to show wreckless regard for the animal.

    I have no quarrel with a hunter who uses what he has to bring home the winters meat. In this situation this hunter, who is likely a very good hunter, is not unethical by using a small caliber as long as he considers its limitations and gets close and makes a sure shot. And close, here is a relative term and should be determined by individual ability and the cartridge ballistics. I have to would here why would we select a 223 over a 243 or a 260 or a 7mm-08. They cast about the same and significantly more effective. 223 ammo is extremely inexpensive and is also part of the problem with the FMJ military ammo used by many subsistance hunters.
    Is there nothing so sacred on this earth that you aren't willing to kill or die for?



Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •