.223 goat bullet

Feidhlim Dignan

hi lad i have been asked by a farmer i shoot foxes for if i would shoot a few goats on his farm. theres only 8 from what i have seen and we aggreed that i would shoot 4 of them and leave the rest as he doesnt want them all gone.
what round would be best suited for the job, ill be using a .223 with a 1 in 9 twist i think (its a cz 527), so i think 60gr is as heavy as i can go. i wont be shooting past 100m to make sure so drop isnt a problem.
any advice welcome thanks

bunny shooter

Something in a softpoint or hollowpoint and and heavier the better I reckon. Ballistic tips would be too frangible? Not sure if there is anything available factory loaded that would suit tbh. Lads I know who shoot goats reckon Swift/22.250 is minimum calibre with .243 & above being preferable.

poulo6.5

Feidhlim Dignan wrote: »

hi lad i have been asked by a farmer i shoot foxes for if i would shoot a few goats on his farm. theres only 8 from what i have seen and we aggreed that i would shoot 4 of them and leave the rest as he doesnt want them all gone.
what round would be best suited for the job, ill be using a .223 with a 1 in 9 twist i think (its a cz 527), so i think 60gr is as heavy as i can go. i wont be shooting past 100m to make sure so drop isnt a problem.
any advice welcome thanks

I have not used them yet on an animal but the 75gr HPBT are very accurate and carry great energy into a target.
Or the 75gr hornady tap.
I used the 155gr tap in the .308 and they are excellent.

Tackleberrywho

Feidhlim Dignan wrote: »

hi lad i have been asked by a farmer i shoot foxes for if i would shoot a few goats on his farm. theres only 8 from what i have seen and we aggreed that i would shoot 4 of them and leave the rest as he doesnt want them all gone.
what round would be best suited for the job, ill be using a .223 with a 1 in 9 twist i think (its a cz 527), so i think 60gr is as heavy as i can go. i wont be shooting past 100m to make sure so drop isnt a problem.
any advice welcome thanks

Berger reckon 75grain VLD's are very effective on goat sized animals

I got some grain Superperformance the other day

I must do some field testing!

poulo6.5

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

Berger reckon 75grain VLD's are very effective on goat sized animals

I got some grain Superperformance the other day

I must do some field testing!

Surely you mean we tack.

bunny shooter

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

Berger reckon 75grain VLD's are very effective on goat sized animals

Are they available here?

Cass

Feidhlim Dignan wrote: »

.............. so i think 60gr is as heavy as i can go. i wont be shooting past 100m to make sure so drop isnt a problem..............

The CZ will shoot up to 75gr. At 100 yds a Hornady 75gr will carry nearly 1,600ft/lb of energy. Enough to do the job. Just don't go too much further as the energy of the bullet drops considerably.

Tackleberrywho

bunny shooter wrote: »

Are they available here?

Yes
HPS

not in .204 though

bunny shooter

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

Yes
HPS

Fair enough

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

not in .204 though

You're somewhat wrong again HPS can/will load .204 Ruger, maybe not in a 75 grain bullet, granted

Tackleberrywho

bunny shooter wrote: »

Fair enough



You're somewhat wrong again HPS can/will load .204 Ruger, maybe not in a 75 grain bullet, granted

No VLD in .204 Bunny


22 cal 90 Grain Match Target VLD

0.224

90grain

0.551 BC :eek:

A different league!

customrifle

The 64gr federal would more than do the job its a soft point, and they re not expensive as regards ammo prices for good 223 rounds

bunny shooter

customrifle wrote: »

The 64gr federal would more than do the job its a soft point, and they re not expensive as regards ammo prices for good 223 rounds

+1

Forgot about them

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

..............A different league!

You certainly are :rolleyes:

bunny shooter

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

No VLD in .204 Bunny


22 cal 90 Grain Match Target VLD

0.224

90grain

0.551 BC :eek:

A different league!

24 Grain NTX = .170

32 Grain BT = .210

40 Grain BT = .275

Isn't it the smaller the number the better when discussing BC?

90 Grain .223 will drop how much compared to any of the above .204 rounds at 300 yards?

Like you say a different league :P

Glensman

bunny shooter wrote: »

24 Grain NTX = .170

32 Grain BT = .210

40 Grain BT = .275

Isn't it the smaller the number the better when discussing BC?

90 Grain .223 will drop how much compared to any of the above .204 rounds at 300 yards?

Like you say a different league :P

Nope, the exact opposite when it comes to stopping power...

clivej

I would say the soft points are the way to go as they will not break up like the BT's do and so will retain more energy.

Sako do good 223 soft points as well.

Don't be taken in by the long coats on those goats and aim low, figure out where your aim point will be from their shoulder and work down to where you know the heart and lungs are.

BELOWaverageIQ

You said that you won't be shooting outside of 100m, therefore any BT with head shots would do the job.

tomcat220t

Ive had no problem with .204 hornady 45gr for goats out to 200 yards ,so far !

Vegeta

A local chap uses the Hornady 75 grain BTHP for foxes and goats and swears by them for knock down power.

I have never tried them myself but got a few boxes and will check out what they are like on inanimate objects to see if I deem them suitable.

I don't like the soft nose federal 64 grains, didn't group in my gun but if they do suit your gun OP I'd say they'd do the job.

tomcat220t

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

No VLD in .204 Bunny


22 cal 90 Grain Match Target VLD

0.224

90grain

0.551 BC :eek:

A different league!

http://www.204ruger.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6402

As you can see ,if you spend enough time and money on most calibers you can achieve some amazing results .What realistic M/V is achieved with the 90gr .223 you claim is in a different league ?

endasmail

Vegeta wrote: »

A local chap uses the Hornady 75 grain BTHP for foxes and goats and swears by them for knock down power.

I have never tried them myself but got a few boxes and will check out what they are like on inanimate objects to see if I deem them suitable.

I don't like the soft nose federal 64 grains, didn't group in my gun but if they do suit your gun OP I'd say they'd do the job.

same as that
wouldn group in my t3

tomcat220t

Ezridax wrote: »

The CZ will shoot up to 75gr. At 100 yds a Hornady 75gr will carry nearly 1,600ft/lb of energy. Enough to do the job. Just don't go too much further as the energy of the bullet drops considerably.

What speed is you hornady 75gr ?1600ft/lbs sound high @ 100 yards

It wasn't me!

tomcat220t wrote: »

What speed is you hornady 75gr ?1600ft/lbs sound high @ 100 yards

No .223 round produces anything like that muzzle energy. The 75gr Superformance load produces 1429 ft/lbs by factory specs. The 53gr Superformance produces 1413 ft/lbs. Might get that from a Swift or a .22-250, but a .223? Not a hope.

bunny shooter

Glensman wrote: »

Nope, the exact opposite when it comes to stopping power...

Are we not discussing accuracy potential?

And it shouldn't be forgotten that BC is only part of the formula when working out the power of any given bullet:D

ArseLtd

Ezridax wrote: »

At 100 yds a Hornady 75gr will carry nearly 1,600ft/lb of energy.

Hardly. 223 is in and around 1300 foot-pounds for all bullet weights. Unless you mean joules?

Tackleberrywho

ArseLtd wrote: »

Hardly. 223 is in and around 1300 foot-pounds for all bullet weights. Unless you mean joules?

Hornady 75 Grain Super Performance

Test Barrel (24") Velocity (fps) / Energy (ft-lbs)
MUZZLE 100 200 300 400 500
2930/1429 2694/1209 2470/1016 2257/848 2055/703 1863/578

could a 26" or even 28" .223 increase speed enough to increase energy out to 1600 foot pounds

bunny shooter

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

........could a 26" or even 28" .223 increase speed enough to increase energy out to 1600 foot pounds

Doubt it...................not even at the muzzle. That's Swift, 22.250 territory

stick shooter

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

Hornady 75 Grain Super Performance

Test Barrel (24") Velocity (fps) / Energy (ft-lbs)
MUZZLE 100 200 300 400 500
2930/1429 2694/1209 2470/1016 2257/848 2055/703 1863/578

could a 26" or even 28" .223 increase speed enough to increase energy out to 1600 foot pounds

Dont think so;) Think we would be grasping at straws to think so.

Tackleberrywho

stick shooter wrote: »

Dont think so;) Think we would be grasping at straws to think so.

75fps x 2" an extra 150ft/p/s

See the 75 Grain match

Test Barrel (24") Velocity (fps) / Energy (ft-lbs)
MUZZLE 100 200 300 400 500
2790/1296 2561/1092 2344/915 2137/760 1941/627 1757/514

same barrel length x200~fps more is ~200 ft pound more

So MKathematically a longer barrel could bring the .223 Superperformance to 1600 even 1700ft/lb's :eek:


A 28" Trueflite on a Remmy .223 action .223.................

Anyone a way of measuring Energy, I'll have the Rifle next week

Cass

It wasn't me! wrote: »

No .223 round produces anything like that muzzle energy. The 75gr Superformance load produces 1429 ft/lbs by factory specs. The 53gr Superformance produces 1413 ft/lbs. Might get that from a Swift or a .22-250, but a .223? Not a hope.

ArseLtd wrote: »

Hardly. 223 is in and around 1300 foot-pounds for all bullet weights. Unless you mean joules?

Lads, lads, lads.

Could you take a big deep breath and settle yourselves.

I used a ballistic programme and hit the "3" twice by accident giving a MV of 3300 fps instead of 3000fps which lead to the reading of 1600ft/lb. As Tackleberrywho pointed out the max would actually be 1429ft/lb with a MV of 3000fps.

I fired less than a box of 75gr through my .223, and a total of 100 or so rounds. The gun was great, but i had nothing but bad luck with it or more to the point setting it up so i got rid of it ASAP and got myself a .308.

I got it wrong and i apologise.

Tackleberrywho

Ezridax wrote: »

Lads, lads, lads.

Could you take a big deep breath and settle yourselves

Very relaxed, just after a pizza and Belgian imported Beer

I used a ballistic programme and hit the "3" twice by accident giving a MV of 3300 fps instead of 3000fps which lead to the reading of 1600ft/lb. As Tackleberrywho pointed out the max would actually be 1429ft/lb with a MV of 3000fps.

I fired less than a box of 75gr through my .223, and a total of 100 or so rounds. The gun was great, but i had nothing but bad luck with it or more to the point setting it up so i got rid of it ASAP and got myself a .308.

I got it wrong and i apologise.

Do you think a 28" Barrel delivers Higher Energy as a result of Higher Velocities achieved?

Which CRAZY as it sounds could bring the 24" Test barrel Vs a 28" Truelite up to 1600ft lb's?

tomcat220t

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

75fps x 2" an extra 150ft/p/s

See the 75 Grain match

Test Barrel (24") Velocity (fps) / Energy (ft-lbs)
MUZZLE 100 200 300 400 500
2790/1296 2561/1092 2344/915 2137/760 1941/627 1757/514

same barrel length x200~fps more is ~200 ft pound more

So MKathematically a longer barrel could bring the .223 Superperformance to 1600 even 1700ft/lb's :eek:


A 28" Trueflite on a Remmy .223 action .223.................

Anyone a way of measuring Energy, I'll have the Rifle next week

To make 1600 ft/lbs at the muzzel with the 75gr hornady your M/V would have to be a min. of 3100 fps .

Tackleberrywho

tomcat220t wrote: »

To make 1600 ft/lbs at the muzzel with the 75gr hornady your M/V would have to be a min. of 3100 fps .

28" Barrel would be 3090 give or take fps

Do I hear a Challenge

Mythbusters style??

tomcat220t

Have you superformance 75gr hornady ?If so ,im up for the crack if you are ?Have a good crono ,aswell;)

Tackleberrywho

tomcat220t wrote: »

Have you superformance 75gr hornady ?If so ,im up for the crack if you are ?Have a good crono ,aswell;)

I have 1 Box of 75 Grain Superperformance!

I'll have a barrel on my .223 wed or so!

Test firing day would also be a good day to chrono!

It wasn't me!

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

28" Barrel would be 3090 give or take fps

Do I hear a Challenge

Mythbusters style??

Your returns on increased barrel length are going to be severely diminished the longer you go. With a case the size of a .223, I think you're grossly overestimating how much you're going to gain in velocity.

Tackleberrywho

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Your returns on increased barrel length are going to be severely diminished the longer you go. With a case the size of a .223, I think you're grossly overestimating how much you're going to gain in velocity.

I think guessing is pointless

Experimentation and data analysis is what I do for a living(amongst other things)

We will test and prove/disprove

customrifle

your better off not chronoin the barrel until you have couple hundred rounds through it tack. You ll get a better reflection of what its capable of then, your mv will be faster after barrel is run in than what it would be running through a brand new barrel

Tackleberrywho

customrifle wrote: »

your better off not chronoin the barrel until you have couple hundred rounds through it tack. You ll get a better reflection of what its capable of then, your mv will be faster after barrel is run in than what it would be running through a brand new barrel

All Virgin territory for me

customrifle

you ll prob find your groups gettin even tighter aswell after couple hundred rounds. what twist are you going with

ArseLtd

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

I think guessing is pointless

Experimentation and data analysis is what I do for a living(amongst other things)

We will test and prove/disprove

You would think that with a cartridge created in the 60's, someone, from the US military or whereever, would have tryed a 28" barrel before.

Tackleberrywho

ArseLtd wrote: »

You would think that with a cartridge created in the 60's, someone, from the US military or whereever, would have tryed a 28" barrel before.

Why would they?

Military purpose is very different than Civie purpose.

bunny shooter

ArseLtd wrote: »

You would think that with a cartridge created in the 60's, someone, from the US military or whereever, would have tryed a 28" barrel before.

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

Why would they?

Military purpose is very different than Civie purpose.

Wasting your time :P

Thought this was interesting

http://benchrest.com/showthread.php?50595-Advise-needed-!-.223-For-Fclass

Tackleberrywho

bunny shooter wrote: »

Wasting your time :P

Thought this was interesting

http://benchrest.com/showthread.php?50595-Advise-needed-!-.223-For-Fclass

Benchrest is not what really interests me, prefer a nice walk in the midland hills.

Article is 3 years old, Superperformance was not around then.

You should see them in .308 :eek:

.223 75grain superperformance will be tested next week!

ArseLtd

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

Why would they?

Military purpose is very different than Civie purpose.

Because it's their job? To find what barrel length is optimum. Thought goes into a cartridge before its made. Also, its been 50 years since that happened. 50 years of people tinkering around.

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

Benchrest is not what really interests me, prefer a nice walk in the midland hills.

Article is 3 years old, Superperformance was not around then.

You should see them in .308 :eek:

.223 75grain superperformance will be tested next week!

Would you bet money on it?

I can see it now, "Tackleberrywho's 28 inch 223 deer buster". What an innovation. The Us will buy thousands of them.

Test it by all means, and the results will be interesting, but its not going to be brilliant.

bunny shooter

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

Benchrest is not what really interests me, prefer a nice walk in the midland hills.

It's referencing F Class with a .223 actually :P

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

Article is 3 years old, Superperformance was not around then.

I like Hornady ammo BUT it ain't magic & can't defy physics And as you say 3 years ago they were chatting about the same thing you are now

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

You should see them in .308 :eek:

No interest

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

.223 75grain superperformance will be tested next week!

:eek: Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ...................... I can't wait

How anal has this thread gotten, seriously though .......................... .....................

Tackleberrywho

ArseLtd wrote: »

Would you bet money on it?

??

On Article written in 2008, or that Superformance are not great:)??

Time for sleeps anyway!;)

ArseLtd

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

??

On Article written in 2008, or that Superformance are not great:)??

Time for sleeps anyway!;)

Sorry I should have made that clearer. Would you bet money that you will get 1600 - 1700 foot pounds? We will bet lets say a house?

poulo6.5

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

I have 1 Box of 75 Grain Superperformance!

I'll have a barrel on my .223 wed or so!

Test firing day would also be a good day to chrono!

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

Benchrest is not what really interests me, prefer a nice walk in the midland hills.

Article is 3 years old, Superperformance was not around then.

You should see them in .308 :eek:

.223 75grain superperformance will be tested next week!

how did you get your hands on 75gr superformance.

i'd love a go of them

Tackleberrywho

poulo6.5 wrote: »

how did you get your hands on 75gr superformance.

i'd love a go of them

@Arse. I never said 1700, however 1600 is plausible.
It could solve a lot of these .22-250 guys problems if we cab prove our theory that a 26 or 28" barrel increases Energy as well as ft/lb's


We have only a way of measuring speed though.

And I don't have a house to bet!

rugerman

Feidhlim Dignan wrote: »

hi lad i have been asked by a farmer i shoot foxes for if i would shoot a few goats on his farm. theres only 8 from what i have seen and we aggreed that i would shoot 4 of them and leave the rest as he doesnt want them all gone.
what round would be best suited for the job, ill be using a .223 with a 1 in 9 twist i think (its a cz 527), so i think 60gr is as heavy as i can go. i wont be shooting past 100m to make sure so drop isnt a problem.
any advice welcome thanks

4 GOATS LADS FOR FU~~ SAKE I WILL CALL DOWN WITH EITHER 22-250 243 OR 30-06 FOR HALF HOUR u shoot JOB DONE:mad::mad::mad::mad: