.44 mag vs. .223 effectiveness in a carbine

Philosophies and techniques change over time. I personally find the discussion interesting, especially since i have owned both a 44mag lever gun, and 223 rifles.

There are several key differences here imho. But i feel the over all concept comes down to fast and light vs slow and heavy.

44 mag should not be under estimated especially out of a carbine. It has lots of momentum and makes a big hole to hit hard. But it sacrifices trajectory to do it.

223 can hit hard as well. But it is much more dependent on velocity and bullet design to do it. It does however have a much better trajectory and loses velocity at a much slower rate.

I cant say as i have ever heard anyone reccomend 233 for large and or dangerous game. However 44 mag would be more than adequate imho, given a reasonable distance. And im talking a traditional heart/lung, not the 22lr to the eye philosophy. Thats a whole nother can of worms.
 
I personally find the discussion interesting, especially since i have owned both a 44mag lever gun, and 223 rifles.
Click to expand...

The preferred method of getting the discussion from an old old thread going again is to start a new thread asking the question and restarting the discussion with current members and more current information. Link to the old thread if you wish.

For consideration, the .223 hits "pretty hard"? I guess, but if energy is your standard, consider that a .55gr @ 3200fps is about 1250ft/lbs (muzzle) and a 240gr @ 1700fps (which can be done from a carbine) is about 300ft/lbs more.

Is 300ft/lbs significantly better? I guess that might depend on what you're doing, but I can't think of a situation where its worse....:rolleyes:
 
Things have changed a bit. There was no 75gr loading commercially available back in 2001 for 5.56, now there are several. 75gr @2910 is going to get you 1410ft/lbs at the muzzle and have negligible drop at 300 yards. This makes it near ideal for short to medium range, small to medium size game+ hunting.

Also, .223 was more popular back then due to the AWB94. When that expired 5.56 became the new standard.
 
TKO worked well when bullet design didnt make as much of a difference.

Now bullet design has made a HUGE IMPACT, pun aside.

Back when this thread was started, I was all about large calibers, .308, .44, .444, .45ACP.

Now two of my main goto rifles are .22WMR and .223/5.56. And my main sidearms: .22WMR and .38/.357. I even ran a 9mm for a few years before I went to mostly revolvers.

Why my switch bullet designs! The terminal ballistics with modern bullets is far superior to what we had even two and a half decades ago, let alone 40+ years years ago when I started shooting and hunting.

Its fun to see how things have evolved even during the lifespan of forums.
 
When you ask the question about "effectiveness" I have to ask "Effective on what? Under what circumstance?"

Do folks argue about the effectiveness of the 5.56 as a battle cartridge?
If the rifles for battle were single shots with iron sights the 30-40 Krag might be pretty spiffy. A big part of "effective" is how many 30 round magazines can a troop carry . "Effectiveness" might be more about making the enemy duck till fire support shows up. Use a Hellfire missile to take out a sniper with a Moisin?
Sure!
Because we might lose 2 or 3 grunts using fire and movement to take out a sniper.
The choice to use a 5.56as a big game rifle is not about the effectiveness of the cartridge.
Its about using your "Modern Sporting Rifle" to hunt with.

Pretty much a similar logic applies to the 44 Magnum. The revolver GUN or the Lever action GUN or the 10-22 size Ruger GUN select the cartridge,

AND if the 5,56 or 44 magnum HUNTER does their part, these two cartridges are effective enough for success.

The same can be said for a muzzle stuffer 54 cal patched round ball flung from a flintlock.

Now ask me how they rate in effectiveness as 1) Medium game rifles 2) Lawfully taking Pronghorn through deer and elk 3 ) Generally using any of the cartridges and rifles developed from about 1893 on for warfighting and the families of necked up and down derivatives.

It can be argued a Ruger American in 7-08 is "More effective" than a 5.56 or 44 Magnum even figuring in list price.

But Grandpa (or Grandma) may have slapped venison to the cast iron with a Rem Model 25 in 25-20 .

Folks make do with what they have, and "The Folks" knowing the limitations and adapting is a large component of "effectiveness"

Near all of these "Whats the best" posts main value is discussion.

"The best" on Tuesday may not be "the best" on Friday. Wind,weather, open plains of dense doghair forest, cozy blind or humping uphill at 9000 feet, holster gun or do you just really like your AR-10 T ? (Even though you shoot well enough to carry a Ruger # 1 ?)
 
When you ask the question about "effectiveness" I have to ask "Effective on what? Under what circumstance?"
Click to expand...

This is a major, and often overlooked point.

What may be the best combination tool for task A, might serve adequately for tasks B, C, and D, but be ridiculously inefficient for task E.

You can drive tacks with a 9lb sledgehammer. Its not efficient, but it absolutely will do the job. You might be able to drive a fence post with a tack hammer, but its going to take a LOT of work...

Calculated bullet energy is only a means for comparison between rounds using a common standard to do so. It is not, by itself, a direct meaningful indicator of how well any bullet will perform a specific task.

You can load a .22-250 and a .45-70 to exactly the same ft/lbs of energy. Which one do you think will be more "effective" putting down a large animal?
 
I am retired from the US COAST GUARD and was stationed in Kodiak, ALASKA, twice.
First time from 1975 - 1978, and the second time from 1983 - 1986.
The first time I was there every one carried a 44 Mag pistol when salmon fishing.
The second time I was there was different. Most of us carried either a 454 casull, or 480 pistol. Those two rounds put out almost tripple the energy of the 44 mag, with bigger bullets.
A couple of months ago, I traded for a 45 colt/454 casull Rossi R 92.
I figure what a 44 mag can do, I can do with a hot loaded 45 colt, or 454 casull, and maybe would not drop near as bad at 100 yards .
 
Hornady's 200 grain hollow tip produces very wide wound channels throughout a deer's chest organs. Bullet flattens out to approximately .80 diameter. Quick kills within reasonable shooting distances, say about 100 yards or less. Jack
 
Do folks argue about the effectiveness of the 5.56 as a battle cartridge?
People have been arguing about the effectiveness of the 223/556 round ever since it came out. There is a reason there are so many different ammo and bullet selections for the round and why there are so many different rounds that have been shoehorned into the AR platform. All to make it more effective than it is.

Remember the 556 was part of a spec set by the military so that the gun and 200 rounds of ammo weighed a certain amount. The 556 was developed to meet that weight requirement and for nothing else. It wasn't chosen because it could shoot through barriers or would blow an enemy soldier off their feet. It was picked because it met a weight requirement. Thats all. Does it work? Sure, most of the time and when used against human targets. It was never intended to be a Big Game round. But with proper hunting bullets it will work. Most of the time.

When someone asked about a 223 compared to a 44 mag I suspect the person asking has never hunted, never killed a deer or other larger game. Or gutted and skinned out a deer to see just what a bullet does when it hits.

I have killed one deer with a 44 mag and helped my bud skin and gut about 5 deer he has killed with his 44 mag. Its an effective round as long as you respect the range. 100 yards and less and its nasty. Hit a bone and its extra nasty. It shatters and blows bone fragments into the meat. So does a reduced 45-70 load like I used on one deer. That was my quickest deer kill. It just fell over with its legs straight out.

I have killed deer with several rounds from 243 up to 45-70. The bigger rounds just seem to do more damage. I have killed most of my deer with a 7x57 and later a 7-08. Those are good deer rounds. I have killed one deer with a 30-30 at 60-70 yards and was really impressed with the damage a 170gr Remington soft point did.

I guess I am in the camp that I would rather have a bigger moderate speed bullet than a fast, lightweight bullet to hunt with. For where and how I hunt a flat shooting long range round isn't needed. You will never go wrong with a .270 or 30-06.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I can't help but notice that .223/5.56 wasn't among the rounds you listed using for deer hunting, would it be inaccurate to assume that means you've never shot a deer with either and therefore you aren't qualified to comment on how effective .223/5.56 is for deer hunting?
 
Remember the 556 was part of a spec set by the military so that the gun and 200 rounds of ammo weighed a certain amount. The 556 was developed to meet that weight requirement and for nothing else.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that was why the 5.56mm was developed, and none of the books and Army documents I know of ever mentioned any requirement about the rifle plus 200 rnds weight.

What is discussed is that a faction in the Army, that didn't want the AR15 produced a ballistic requirement (certain velocity at a certain range) that the AR15 could not meet in its original chambering, which was .222 Remington.

That faction hoped that the requirement the .222 AR 15 could not meet would lead to the entire idea of the rifle as the service rifle being dropped.

The .222 Remington Magnum could meet the requirement, but was too long to fit in the AR15.

Another faction in the Army development section got around this by designing the 5.56mm round, short enough to fit into the AR15 but enough larger capacity than the .222 to meet the velocity requirement. And since the AR in 5.56mm could meet the requirement, we got the M16 and the 5.56 as our primary service rife round. There's a lot more to it, of course, but that's it in a nutshell.

Which, of course has nothing to do with the .223 for deer hunting, or the .223 vs. the .44 Magnum.

I wouldn't choose a .223 (with any bullet) for deer hunting, for two reasons. First is, I believe bigger bullets work better, but more importantly, the .223 isn't legal for deer hunting where I've lived and hunted.

For most of the last 60 years, about 2/3 of the states did not allow the .223 for deer hunting. In the last few decades, that number has changed, but there are still about 1/3 of the states where legal deer rifles must be .24 caliber or larger.

There is a world of difference between military use of the 5.56mm and big game sport hunting. Not the least of which is that sport hunting rules are based on what most people are most likely to do, not what trained soldiers with select fire weapons are able to do in combat.

To humanely take game, with any round, you need to be reasonably precise with your shot placement. The smaller the caliber gets the more precise you need to be.
 
Its generally a mistake to paste a label on a whole group of people.

There are a lot of bow hunters and muzzle loader hunters that are good at what they do. My respects to them!

There are a number of people that have used their AR-15 or Mini-14 to successfully ,cleanly take their last 12 deer with no problem.

Its certainly possible to smack down a deer with a Super Blackhawk.Some folks are quite good at it.

Results matter. If you can deliver a clean, merciful with whatever tool you use, enjoy your meat.

For myself, I have never tried a 5.56 to hunt big game. I have used a Super Blackhawk .44. I got an instant kill but do select the right bullet.

For myself, I'm expecting the first shot to get business done. I have nothing against semi-autos, but in the context of big game hunting,volume of fire means very little.

I've written a lot about the Mexican 98 Mauser I built. With the 6x by 42 mm Leupold attached it weighs 7 lbs. It flings a 115 gr .257 Ballistic Tip at 3050 fps. Its effective on deer and pronghorn. I can't think of a reason ((for myself) to carry an AR-15 or a 5,56 rifle instead.

I'd confidently use the .257 on elk,but why? I prefer the 30-06.

You do what works for you.

What I cannot respect are the folks who think it might be fun to pull off a stunt where the game pays the price. Then they dismiss it with "The coyotes gotta eat too"

And FWIW,no,I'm not saying that is the 5.56 shooter.

It COULD be the .378 Weatherby shooter that closes his eyes and cringes just before the trigger breaks.
 
A 22lr under perfect conditions will kill a deer but does that mean it’s a good choice?
The firearms industry for years started their deer/medium game cartridge offerings at .243/6mm. Remington even marketed their 24 cal (.244) as a varmint gun initially.
Today we have some controlled expansion loads in 223/556 and maybe some other 22 center fires but their ballistics fall far short of a 243 Win. Very little room for error, tree limb, questionable rest, etc. and these will be magnified using something like a 223.
If a hunter were buying a deer rifle, why would he cut his margin for success so close by purchasing something that was so low on the power spectrum?
If that’s all you have and your hungry, that’s a different story.
 
Last edited:
I don't believe that was why the 5.56mm was developed, and none of the books and Army documents I know of ever mentioned any requirement about the rifle plus 200 rnds weight.
Click to expand...

I found that in the Stoner tapes posted on You Tube when they interviewed Eugene Stoner and he talked about the parameters they were given when developing the AR rifle. Its free for anyone to watch and very interesting. IIRC there are 5 tapes in the series.

I can't help but notice that .223/5.56 wasn't among the rounds you listed using for deer hunting, would it be inaccurate to assume that means you've never shot a deer with either and therefore you aren't qualified to comment on how effective .223/5.56 is for deer hunting?
Yesterday 07:05 PM
Click to expand...

You are correct. I haven't hunted with a 223 and don't intend to. Why would I? I have far better rounds for deer hunting and like the poster above me (HiBC) stated the deer take all the risk if the shot doesn't kill. I have too much respect for the animal to play games with it when its just as easy to use a bigger round. There is a good reason some states don't allow it use. And I did state that "it will work. Most of the time".

I don't have to wound or lose a deer to be "Qualified" to speak on a rounds effectiveness. I have a friend who lives in deep East Texas who does hunt with a 223 and got tired of long tracking sessions. The guys at the gun store sold him a box of Barnes Triple Shock bullets and he said those did work better than the soft points he had been using. So a 223 will kill a deer. Hell a 22lr will kill a deer. But that doesn't make it a good choice for a deer round either.
 
Last edited:
OK here is the Stoner video. Go to the 13 minute mark and he talks about the Army Board wanting a 6 pound rifle when loaded with 20 rounds of ammo. Its been a couple of years since I watched this so was a little fuzzy on the details but the only way to meet the weight requirements was with a small bore round. He states the 222 was the obvious choice but of course got tweaked to become the 223 round. This round met the weight, size and penetration specs. Good anti personel round but still not designed as a big game hunting round.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaIU0nCxwGg

The actual work done on the gun was interesting and very well thought out. I know why people consider Stoner a genius. Genius or n=ot he was extremely smart.
 
Last edited:
Different knives for different cuts. I think the 44 is better for big game and for stopping power as a defensive carbine but the 223 has the edge when it comes to flatter trajectory and accuracy out to 200 or 300 yards where the 44 is dropping like a rock. Now if you were to have to carry 200 rounds of 44 mag vs 200 rounds of 5.56, the difference is probably significant and if you have to limit what you carry by weight, then it might be an advantage to have more ammo and not run out in combat. People are going to use what is best given the circumstances. I don't think hunting big game with a 223 is worth the loss in stopping power and I don't think the loss in accuracy is worth using 44 on small game or in combat where you might be shooting at a 6 inch circle 200 yards away.
 
Different knives for different cuts.
Click to expand...

There's a reason golfers have a whole bag of different clubs. (and why they often pay someone else to carry it...:D

The .44 Magnum was created so Elmer could increase the handguns effectiveness on game animals (and, of course, because he could). It gets a boost out of a carbine, but its still a handgun round, never made to be a long range thing.

The .223/5.56mm round was designed for military use in a select fire rifle. It was made to shoot people and its effective range is over 400 yards.

This is not an apples to apples comparison, not even close.
 
The .223/5.56mm round was designed for military use in a select fire rifle. It was made to shoot people and its effective range is over 400 yards.

This is not an apples to apples comparison, not even close.
Click to expand...

Excellent point. No the 44 mag from a RIFLE is really at it best used at 100 yards or less. The 223 will kill deer with a proper bullet properly placed. But its the bare minimum of a round. And why limit yourself when the world is filled with rounds that will easily take a deer cleanly at 300 or more yards?
I think most who talk about hunting deer with a 223 just really want to shoot a deer with their AR-15 rifle no matter how marginal the 223 round is for deer hunting.

I like my 44 mag rifle because its light to carry and I hunt some pretty thick woods where the ranges are short. But if I hunt where a shot might be at a hundred yards or more my 7-08 Remington model 7 is my first choice. I really consider a 243 to be a minimum round even though I made my only long range deer kill with one at 250 yards.

The OP asked a good question that deserves a good answer. I hope he has it now. This was a good discussion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top