.44 mag vs. .223 effectiveness in a carbine - Page 3

Double Naught Spy · April 13, 2024, 01:43 PM

Quote:

The bigger rounds just seem to do more damage.

I am quoting this a bit out of context. "Damage" is how I like to consider effectiveness in regard to hunting and self defense. However, after doing considerable testing of different bullets, different weights, different materials, etc. for my 6.5 Grendel and seeing some similar work done by a buddy with .308, I have come to decide that gross statements about caliber effectiveness are either shortsighted and in some cases are really bogus without the consideration of the particular type of bullet being fired. My terminal ballistics testing is on hogs. If I am trying ball ammo or Fort Scott TUI (tumble upon impact), I would say that the Grendel is struggling to be a good hog round as the damage is inconsistent and often minimal. If I use a Berger VLD-Hunting 140 gr. bullet, the damage is monumentally worse.

Of course going with this is just that different types of bullets will often create different levels/scopes of damage - right bullet for the job sort of issue.

The Verminator · April 15, 2024, 01:49 PM

For a short range rifle the .44 is just fine.

After 100 yards the .223 is superior.

This is pretty elementary ballistics.

stinkeypete · April 15, 2024, 03:01 PM

As a hunter, let me tell you a secret: hope for success, plan for failure.

This thing about "if the hunter does his job" is nearly saying "I don't mind wounding game animals."

With a .44 Magnum, the bullet can fail completely and still be very effective. It will break bones and leave an easy to follow blood trail. I used to use one in the woods. Now 12 gauge.

I would rather not shoot a deer past 100 yards than shoot one with a .223. I have a 30-06 for that job.

But then, I live in Wisconsin and our white tailed deer are much bigger than the little brown goats down south!

105kw · April 15, 2024, 03:33 PM

Part of the choice for me would be use.
I don't hunt varmints, and I live in Washington State. 223/5.56 aren't legal for big game, which means deer or larger.
I would take the .44mag carbine as a light carry gun, and yes I'd be range limited. But I've seen 44mag cleanly take deer, within about 125yds with a carbine.

April 15, 2024, 03:01 PM	#53
stinkeypete Senior Member Join Date: July 22, 2010 Location: Madison, Wisconsin Posts: 1,293	As a hunter, let me tell you a secret: hope for success, plan for failure. This thing about "if the hunter does his job" is nearly saying "I don't mind wounding game animals." With a .44 Magnum, the bullet can fail completely and still be very effective. It will break bones and leave an easy to follow blood trail. I used to use one in the woods. Now 12 gauge. I would rather not shoot a deer past 100 yards than shoot one with a .223. I have a 30-06 for that job. But then, I live in Wisconsin and our white tailed deer are much bigger than the little brown goats down south! __________________ My book "The Pheasant Hunter's Action Adventure Cookbook" is now on Amazon. Tall tales, hunting tips, butchering from bird to the freezer, and recipes.

April 15, 2024, 01:49 PM	#52
The Verminator Senior Member Join Date: April 19, 2013 Location: Minnesota Posts: 334	For a short range rifle the .44 is just fine. After 100 yards the .223 is superior. This is pretty elementary ballistics.

April 15, 2024, 03:33 PM	#54
105kw Senior Member Join Date: June 30, 2017 Location: Columbia Basin Washington Posts: 416	Part of the choice for me would be use. I don't hunt varmints, and I live in Washington State. 223/5.56 aren't legal for big game, which means deer or larger. I would take the .44mag carbine as a light carry gun, and yes I'd be range limited. But I've seen 44mag cleanly take deer, within about 125yds with a carbine.