Is .223 caliber Deer legal??

German pointer

Got my deer licence application in post today and it states centerfire rifle not less than .22 caliber, muzzle energy of 1700 foot pounds. Does this mean they are reducing the caliber for deer?

Cass

No.

A .223 does not produce sufficient energy to be classed as deer legal.

German pointer

Ezridax wrote: »

No.

A .223 does not produce sufficient energy to be classed as deer legal.

Thanks for that I know it says 1700 foot pounds but did not know if .223 could make that energy

4200fps

22-250 or .220 swift is only .22 centrefire that has the ability to exceed 1700ftlbs with a 60grain bullet and will be accepted for deer application. They wont pass it unless you state u be using a 60gr load

German pointer

4200fps wrote: »

22-250 or .220 swift is only .22 centrefire that has the ability to exceed 1700ftlbs with a 60grain bullet and will be accepted for deer application. They wont pass it unless you state u be using a 60gr load

My rifle is ok .270 Win. 130g. Just that the wording on new licence application is different than previous years and did not know if a .223 could make 1700 foot pounds

Grizzly 45

Hate to say this...But there IS ammo out there now in .223 that would satisify this requirement of the Wildlife act.
IE not less than .22 centrefire.. [.223 a given] not less than 55 grains and Muzzle velocity of not less than 1700 Foot pounds



Black Hills Ammunition Ballistic Specifications

• Ammo Caliber: 223 remington
• Bullet Weight: 60 Grains
• Ammo Muzzle Velocity: 3100 FPS
• Ammo Muzzle Energy: 3800 FT LBS
• Bullet Type: V-Max
• Ballistic Coefficient: .265

• Ammo Caliber: 223 remington
• Bullet Weight: 68 Grains
• Ammo Muzzle Velocity: 2850 FPS
• Ammo Muzzle Energy: 3800 FT LBS
• Bullet Type: Match Grade Hollow Point
• Ballistic Coefficient: .355

Scary that compared to a .243 Hornady of 75 grain HP it has actually MORE muzzle energy than a.243 @1925 ft lbs.[info from Hornady website]

NOW,
I'm not saying this is RIGHT or the correct calibre of ammo[which it most certainly is NOT for large deer:eek:] and that all and sundry will now besige their dealers looking for Black Hills ammo.Which ASFIK is not sold outside CONUS.
But I am saying that eventually some sort of European load like this will arrive ,or with ,if and when reloading happens how long will it be before somone develops a "hot " round to equal that??
Ballistics and firearm technology has marched on alot since 1976 .
When the 55 grain ,more or less only in FMJ was the only thing available..

Are we going to have to specify in future a bigger caliber/bullet grain again in the wildlife act??:(

Cass

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Black Hills Ammunition Ballistic Specifications

• Ammo Caliber: 223 remington
• Bullet Weight: 60 Grains
• Ammo Muzzle Velocity: 3100 FPS
• Ammo Muzzle Energy: 3800 FT LBS
• Bullet Type: V-Max
• Ballistic Coefficient: .265

• Ammo Caliber: 223 remington
• Bullet Weight: 68 Grains
• Ammo Muzzle Velocity: 2850 FPS
• Ammo Muzzle Energy: 3800 FT LBS
• Bullet Type: Match Grade Hollow Point
• Ballistic Coefficient: .355

Grizz can you provide a link to these numbers. Tried their website and nothing.

I ask because i find it impossible, actually i simply don't believe, that ANY .223 round can produce 3800 ft/lbs at the muzzle. A .223, 60gr V-Max doing approx 6000fps would, but as thats not possible it's moot.

Even a 75gr, ,223, Match bullet would have to be doing in excess of 4800 fps to achieve these numbers.

The bullets you listed above doing the speeds you quoted would only produce approx. 1270 ft/lbs.

tomcat220t

60gr @3100fps=1280 ME!
68gr@2850=1226 ME!

Cass

Still cannot get into the Black hills website, but found the ammo for sale on a few sites such as Midway USA;

• Black Hills 60 gr, .223, MV - 3150, Energy - 1322 ft/lbs.
• Black Hills 68 gr, .223, MV - 2850, Energy - 1227 ft/lbs.

steyrman2

.223 wssm will do it 60 grain bullet 3650 fps 1770 fb

Spunk84

Ammo .223 Winchester Super Short Magnum Winchester Supreme 55 Grain Ballistic Silvertip 3850 fps 20 Round Box
Muzzle Velocity: 3850 fps
Muzzle Energy: 1810 ft/lbs
100 Yard Velocity: 3438 fps
100 Yard Energy: 1444 ft/lbs
200 Yard Velocity: 3064 fps
200 Yard Energy: 1147 ft/lbs
300 Yard Velocity: 2721 fps
300 Yard Energy: 904 ft/lbs

Cass

They work, but did anyone find a .223 of any make that'll do 3800 ft/lb?

Spunk84

Ezridax wrote: »

They work, but did anyone find a .223 of any make that'll do 3800 ft/lb?

Browning A-Bolt
Savage 110 .223 Rem
Winchester Model 70 featherweight SS

Cass

I'm either missing the joke, or simply not getting the meaning of the above.

They're all models of rifles. How do they relate to a bullet of .223 caliber that can produce 3800 ft/lb at the muzzle?

Grizzly 45

Ezridax wrote: »

Grizz can you provide a link to these numbers. Tried their website and nothing.

Here you go!

http://www.outdooroutfitters.com/black-hills-223-ammunition.aspx

If it is wrong...I hope we can sue them for false advertising!!:D
BTW cant get into that web site either.However it seems BH is like a mega expensive brand of ammo over in the US,used by serious target shooters,police,military etc...So I doubt they would be bragging about somthing they cant or couldnt do without some serious dirt on their repuation.

rowa

Don't forget the 5.6x57 rws, i was talking to a lad a few weeks back that still uses one.

Cass

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Here you go!

http://www.outdooroutfitters.com/black-hills-223-ammunition.aspx

Cheers.

If it is wrong...I hope we can sue them for false advertising!!:D

Good luck with that.:D

BTW cant get into that web site either.However it seems BH is like a mega expensive brand of ammo over in the US,used by serious target shooters,police,military etc...So I doubt they would be bragging about somthing they cant or couldnt do without some serious dirt on their repuation.

I don't think that BH are wrong merely that website you linked to is wrong. Those numbers are simply not achievable.

As said above to achieve that ft/lb of energy with a .223 bullet you need decisively more speed (MV). Also other sites advertising the same ammo have different readings, which tally to each other, but are different to the site above. Also 3 ballistic calculators support the lower ft/lb readings.

On the price front it is more expensive than normal (for the states), but seems to be a better round.

It wasn't me!

They give the bullet weight and the velocity. Those are believable enough. The energy listings are not in line with bullet weights and velocities, however. I can say my rifle does 2000fps with a 100gr bullet and produced 6500 ft/lbs of muzzle energy. Won't make any of it true, but if the first two are, the last certainly isn't, and that's the case here. Only two of those numbers make sense.

kildare.17hmr

Black hills quoting lower figures on their site
http://www.black-hills.com/rifle_calibers.php

Glensman

I reload for .223.
I couldn't get enough powder into the case to get those types of speeds. I don't think my barrel would be too keen on it either.

It wasn't me!

By the way lads, remember: What it says on the box for energy/velocity figures doesn't matter worth a damn. It's what it does from your rifle. If we took all the .22-250s, .220 Swifts and .243s around and chrono'd them, I reckon lads would be looking very uncomfortable. Any of those in short, sporter-weight barrels, particularly factory barrels, are likely very borderline at best, and if it doesn't make the figures, it's not legal to use, regardless of what the box tells you.

Glensman

It wasn't me! wrote: »

By the way lads, remember: What it says on the box for energy/velocity figures doesn't matter worth a damn. It's what it does from your rifle. If we took all the .22-250s, .220 Swifts and .243s around and chrono'd them, I reckon lads would be looking very uncomfortable. Any of those in short, sporter-weight barrels, particularly factory barrels, are likely very borderline at best, and if it doesn't make the figures, it's not legal to use, regardless of what the box tells you.

Why would that make a difference?

It wasn't me!

Glensman wrote: »

Why would that make a difference?

Barrel weight won't, but typically they'll be in either sporter-type rifles or long-barrelled varmint guns. If you've a sporter in either, you're unlikely to be making the velocity.

The Big Fella

It wasn't me! wrote: »

By the way lads, remember: What it says on the box for energy/velocity figures doesn't matter worth a damn. It's what it does from your rifle. If we took all the .22-250s, .220 Swifts and .243s around and chrono'd them, I reckon lads would be looking very uncomfortable. Any of those in short, sporter-weight barrels, particularly factory barrels, are likely very borderline at best, and if it doesn't make the figures, it's not legal to use, regardless of what the box tells you.

This is utter waffle at best. Why should sporter weight barrels make a difference when hunting.

It wasn't me!

The Big Fella wrote: »

This is utter waffle at best. Why should sporter weight barrels make a difference when hunting.

Keep reading dear. the point is length, not weight. Way to miss the actual substance and latch onto one word.

Longranger

Now now lads, the length vs girth debate is best discussed on a different forum;)

4200fps

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Hate to say this...But there IS ammo out there now in .223 that would satisify this requirement of the Wildlife act.
IE not less than .22 centrefire.. [.223 a given] not less than 55 grains and Muzzle velocity of not less than 1700 Foot pounds



Black Hills Ammunition Ballistic Specifications

• Ammo Caliber: 223 remington
• Bullet Weight: 60 Grains
• Ammo Muzzle Velocity: 3100 FPS
• Ammo Muzzle Energy: 3800 FT LBS
• Bullet Type: V-Max
• Ballistic Coefficient: .265

• Ammo Caliber: 223 remington
• Bullet Weight: 68 Grains
• Ammo Muzzle Velocity: 2850 FPS
• Ammo Muzzle Energy: 3800 FT LBS
• Bullet Type: Match Grade Hollow Point
• Ballistic Coefficient: .355

Scary that compared to a .243 Hornady of 75 grain HP it has actually MORE muzzle energy than a.243 @1925 ft lbs.[info from Hornady website]

NOW,
I'm not saying this is RIGHT or the correct calibre of ammo[which it most certainly is NOT for large deer:eek:] and that all and sundry will now besige their dealers looking for Black Hills ammo.Which ASFIK is not sold outside CONUS.
But I am saying that eventually some sort of European load like this will arrive ,or with ,if and when reloading happens how long will it be before somone develops a "hot " round to equal that??
Ballistics and firearm technology has marched on alot since 1976 .
When the 55 grain ,more or less only in FMJ was the only thing available..

Are we going to have to specify in future a bigger caliber/bullet grain again in the wildlife act??:(

http://www.hornady.com/store/223-Rem-75-gr-bthp-Superformance-match/
That's the most ft/lbs really anybody will find for a 223 and shes a 75 grain superformance.
Black Hills 223 ammo must be stuffed with ''semtex''

4200fps

I personally think the 223 is well fit for shooting deer with good shot placement. That's my opinion. Its a good round

German pointer

Thanks to all for the info, and I take it the answer is no, a .223 is not deer legal yet and I say yet, because it might be a while but I think with advances in technology a .223 will make 1700 foot pounds. Not today or tomorrow but in time.

Cass

No offence intended, but i never fail to be amazed by the amount of people would like, agree, or want the "smallest" caliber possible as a deer rifle. The discussion of ethics is prohibited on this forum so keeping that in mind i want a rifle/caliber that will drop the animal dead by shot placement, but also impact energy.

A .223 and a .270 may both drop a deer with a well placed shot. however as deer are not a stationary target if that "sweet spot" moves or your shot is not as well placed as you think the .270 carries enough ebergy to do the damage necessary to still ensure a good kill shot whereas the .223 will merely wound.

This is a debate that can go on, and on with people firmly split on both sides of the fence, but personally speaking i would sooner have the larger caliber and be sure.

palo

I don't think the Black Hills is that dear as it comes in Boxs of 50 rds. so that would average it down a bit.

kildare.17hmr

palo wrote: »

I don't think the Black Hills is that dear as it comes in Boxs of 50 rds. so that would average it down a bit.

Know anywhere that sells it?

Longranger

We're not buying ammo here lads. The OP asked if a .223 is deer-legal and it aint. As Ez pointed out, sometimes people are very quick to want to use the minimum calibre but it won't always do the job even with ideal shot placement. We've all seen,or heard stories about a hardy sika keep running after a well placed round from a .308 or .270,so maybe we should err on the side of caution and choose something with plenty of poke.it'll save suffering on the deers part, and save a long drag to the jeep after trailing a wounded animal halfway through the forest. as regards price, you can feed a .308 for a good bit less than a .243 or a 22-250.
Just my 2c
LR

Grizzly 45

kildare.17hmr wrote: »

Know anywhere that sells it?

CONUS only!! Wont export it at all as they have a US Govt contract number.IOW selling to Uncle Sam is worth a lot more than supplying us with an odd box or two.

4200fps

Longranger wrote: »

We're not buying ammo here lads. The OP asked if a .223 is deer-legal and it aint. As Ez pointed out, sometimes people are very quick to want to use the minimum calibre but it won't always do the job even with ideal shot placement. We've all seen,or heard stories about a hardy sika keep running after a well placed round from a .308 or .270,so maybe we should err on the side of caution and choose something with plenty of poke.it'll save suffering on the deers part, and save a long drag to the jeep after trailing a wounded animal halfway through the forest. as regards price, you can feed a .308 for a good bit less than a .243 or a 22-250.
Just my 2c
LR

Karl Scollan sells 100grain soft point remmys for 20euro a box for .243 thats good value and 30euro for box of Hornady ballistics. I think a euro a bullet is very good for a .243 and Remington isn't a bad brand

Longranger

4200fps wrote: »

Karl Scollan sells 100grain soft point remmys for 20euro a box for .243 thats good value and 30euro for box of Hornady ballistics. I think a euro a bullet is very good for a .243 and Remington isn't a bad brand

That's great value for a .243,which brings me
back to my last post. Why would you bother using a .223 for deer when you can feed a .243(which,in my humble opinion,is the very bare minumum you sholud use for deer anyway) for 20 quid!!:cool:As was said here many a time,better have a little more firepower than not enough:D

ssl

There's a couple of supers licensing .243's for foxing. Maybe OP can apply and swap/trade up so he doesn't have to question the .223's deer credentials.
Personally donno why any hunter wants a .223. Get a deer caliber for fox & deer that's cheep to feed .243/.308 and a rabbit caliber .22/.17. End of.

It wasn't me!

ssl wrote: »

There's a couple of supers licensing .243's for foxing. Maybe OP can apply and swap/trade up so he doesn't have to question the .223's deer credentials.
Personally donno why any hunter wants a .223. Get a deer caliber for fox & deer that's cheep to feed .243/.308 and a rabbit caliber .22/.17. End of.

Cheap, easy to feed, low recoil, low noise, kills foxes further than most people have any business shooting them, generally just great fun guns that don't break the bank.

ssl

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Cheap, easy to feed, low recoil, low noise, kills foxes further than most people have any business shooting them, generally just great fun guns that don't break the bank.

I could say the same about my .308 with a moderator on it.
But if someone's into foxes and has no interest in deer then a .223 etc may be the job

Constab2

Best of both worlds buy both ?

German pointer

Longranger wrote: »

We're not buying ammo here lads. The OP asked if a .223 is deer-legal and it aint. As Ez pointed out, sometimes people are very quick to want to use the minimum calibre but it won't always do the job even with ideal shot placement. We've all seen,or heard stories about a hardy sika keep running after a well placed round from a .308 or .270,so maybe we should err on the side of caution and choose something with plenty of poke.it'll save suffering on the deers part, and save a long drag to the jeep after trailing a wounded animal halfway through the forest. as regards price, you can feed a .308 for a good bit less than a .243 or a 22-250.
Just my 2c
LR

Please read post No. 5 My rifle is deer legal I have a Rem. 700 SPS .270 I use Hornady 130gr SST for deer and am very happy with it. I do not want to shoot deer with a .223 I do not have one. I am only asking the question as the wording on the licence is different this year and did not know if a .223 could make the 1700 foot pounds needed..

German pointer

ssl wrote: »

There's a couple of supers licensing .243's for foxing. Maybe OP can apply and swap/trade up so he doesn't have to question the .223's deer credentials.
Personally donno why any hunter wants a .223. Get a deer caliber for fox & deer that's cheep to feed .243/.308 and a rabbit caliber .22/.17. End of.

Please read my last post

Longranger

Your thread title asked if a .223 was legal for deer. I answered.

German pointer

Longranger wrote: »

Your thread title asked if a .223 was legal for deer. I answered.

yes, but people think I want to shoot deer with a .223 I don't

4200fps

German pointer wrote: »

Please read post No. 5 My rifle is deer legal I have a Rem. 700 SPS .270 I use Hornady 130gr SST for deer and am very happy with it. I do not want to shoot deer with a .223 I do not have one. I am only asking the question as the wording on the licence is different this year and did not know if a .223 could make the 1700 foot pounds needed..

I see exactly what your explaining lad. The .270 is a great round and about the .223 i don't think ever will deliver anything near 1700ft/lbs unless its overcharged with something else.

German pointer

4200fps wrote: »

I see exactly what your explaining lad. The .270 is a great round and about the .223 i don't think ever will deliver anything near 1700ft/lbs unless its packed with semtex

Give it a chance, look how far we have come from the musket round.

:

Longranger

German pointer wrote: »

yes, but people think I want to shoot deer with a .223 I don't

I'm not trying to be smart with you mate. I never thought you yourself wanted to shoot deer with a .223 and I'm sorry if you thought I did.

German pointer

Longranger wrote: »

I'm not trying to be smart with you mate. I never thought you yourself wanted to shoot deer with a .223 and I'm sorry if you thought I did.

Your ok no prob here.

4200fps

German pointer wrote: »

Give it a chance, look how far we have come from the musket round.

:

I still can't see it ever happening lad, there's not enough capacity in the case to take the enough powder to deliver 1700 ft/lbs. The swift and 22-250 nearly has double the amount of capacity for powder,that's why it just about crosses the 1700ft/lbs with a 60 grain load.