.44 mag vs. .223 effectiveness in a carbine

[44 AMP]

The 223 will kill deer with a proper bullet properly placed. But its the bare minimum of a round.

There are many "less powerful" rounds that will also kill deer with a proper bullet, properly placed. And, like the .223, some are legal to use in some places and not in others. There are even places where some less powerful rounds are legal and the .223 is not. And, there are also some places where ARs (or other semi autos) are not legal for deer. And some places where no rifle is legal for deer but shotguns are.

Looking at my personal collection of .22 centerfires, my .223 would be my last choice for deer. If I had to, I would use one of my .22 Hornets, or .222s or even my .221, and certainly consider my .22-250 over my .223.

Because of the guns they are in. And by that I mean their accuracy and weight. I have .22 Hornet and .222 Remington in rifle and pistol, my .221 is a pistol, and my .22-250 is a varmint rifle. All are scoped, and capable of the precision needed for a head or neck shot within the cartridges efficient range.

My .223 is not. Its an older Ruger Mini 14 with iron sights, and not nearly as accurate as my other .22s. Which is a moot point, anyway since my state has a minimum .24 caliber requirement to be legal for deer.

I have never been a fan of any of the AR rifles for hunting. Not even the larger calibers. I hunt deer (and other big game) on foot, for sport and happily trade firepower (magazine capacity) for weight reduction. Even when made of wood and steel a bolt gun, a single shot, and several lever guns can weigh less in the same calibers as an AR pattern gun, and often has as much or more barrel length as well, if I choose that.

It's a personal choice, and I won't fault anyone who hunts with an AR type rifle, if that is their personal preference. Its just not my preference.

 

[deadcoyote]

A couple decades ago someone tried to explain the difference in high grain weight and lower velocity vs lower grain weight and higher velocity to me with a question:

If you had a break action rifle and one cartridge and had to kill a Buffalo would you take a .223 with a 55 grain bullet at 1200 lbs of energy or a .45 colt with a 255 grain bullet at 1000 lbs energy? One has 20% more energy but most people would take the other.

 

[taylorce1]

@deadcoyote, I'd choose neither in your scenario. Both will surely kill a buffalo, though I think neither will do it dramatically if were talking broadside heart lung shots. The thing about both cartridges is that both might not travel in a fairly straight wound channel once they hit said animal. Light weight high velocity rounds as well as slow heavy projectiles don't always do whats expected at impact.

I don't think energy is ever a good indicator of killing performance on game. The bullet that creates the largest temporary and permanent wound channel into the vitals will always be the winner. On game larger than deer, I'd find both cartridges to be very inadequate. I wouldn't trust either to penetrate dense muscle or heavy bone at any range.

 

[44 AMP]

Bullet energy is a calculatable value, and by itself is good for nothing except as a uniform standard for relative comparisons between cartridges.

Energy alone is no indicator of how effective a bullet will be for any given task. Other factors must be included, in order to draw any valid conclusions.

Where the bullet hits, and where it goes and what it does after impact are much more important factors than energy when shooting animals.

No matter what anyone claims, size does matter. How much size matters is a different question.

As I've said before, you can load a .22-250 and a .45-70 to identical energy (ft/lbs) numbers. It is the other factors that determine which one will be most effective on game. TO drop that buffalo "right now" after bullet placement, size and bullet construction matter more than energy.

I once saw a fellow shoot a skunk with a .357Mag carbine. Factory 158gr SWC .357 magnum. Energy was certainly more than enough for the task. He hit it, TWICE without putting it down. That time, he was not a good shot!!

First off, he gutshot it. TWICE. Second factor was that the SWC just sailed right through (naturally). Having a lot more than the needed amount of energy did not prevent failure. It never does.

 

[Drm50]

How come the 44mg is a pile driving killer in a revolver but once in carbine it’s flimsy? That is according to gun rags. So happens I’ve never killed a dear with a 44mg carbine, lost count of the kills with Ruger SBH. I was hunting in commercial apple orchards with new Ruger carbine back in 60s. Would have been ideal gun for in thickets, not worth spit for much over 100 yds. Only difference is average guy could shoot a carbine more accurately. If you are going to hunt different terrains the 44 or the 223 are both poor choices for deer hunting. 44 has no range the 223 has no knock down. The extended range of 223 comes with loss of killing power. In the Eastern deer woods where you run into thickets to open fields a 308 or 30/06 is much better choice.

 

[44 AMP]

How come the 44mg is a pile driving killer in a revolver but once in carbine it’s flimsy? That is according to gun rags.

Same reason a .30-30 is a short range mediocre round in a rifle but a kick butt long range round from a single shot pistol.

Its the frame of reference.

Rifles include the big magnum rounds and go all the way up to elephant guns, so compared to them, the .44 Mag isn't a lot.

Frame of reference, and of course what gun rag writers want to put out.

Remember denigrating a popular and useful round creates dissent, and dissenters are still readers, and often will continue to be disagreeing readers, just to see what kind of crap the writer comes up with, next.
Which is what sells the magazines and PAYS the writers.

 

[georgehwbush]

well just to stur the pot a bit. there are places where a 338LM is not large enough to be legal to hunt deer with.

seriously!

has to be 20gage or larger and slugs only. go figure.

 

[taylorce1]

44 has no range the 223 has no knock down. The extended range of 223 comes with loss of killing power. In the Eastern deer woods where you run into thickets to open fields a 308 or 30/06 is much better choice.

I'll defer to you on the .44 Mag, I have almost zero experience with it. However, I don't have the same opinion of the .223 that you do. I've been around for a dozen or more white tail kills with the .223 as far out as 150 yards. Most were "knocked down" where they stood or after a very short run. As a caveat, all the .223 kills were done with mono metal bullets and they punch above their pay grade.

I know from experience that I'd rather use a .223 than a subsonic .300 BLK on deer. Even with the new bullets that are supposed to expand, they don't wound as well as the 55 grain TSX or CEB Raptor. Again my experience with .300 BLK is a lot more limited, one deer with 125 grain Sierra Pro Hunter, and one with a 190 grain Sub-X. The Sub-X wasn't impressive at all, but I recovered the deer.

 

[44 AMP]

. 44 has no range the 223 has no knock down.

That's a pretty extreme opinion, and I have to disagree.

Especially the "no range" part for the .44.

Is 200yds "no range" in your opinion? I can ring the 200yd rifle gong with a .44 pistol, off hand, one handed, unsupported, and do it repeatedly. From a rest, I'm better, of course. The limiting factor is not the gun, or the round, it is the shooter. The fact that few people practice enough to learn how to make good hits at longer ranges with a .44 Magnum )or any other "pistol" round is not the fault of the gun, or the round.

As a caveat, all the .223 kills were done with mono metal bullets and they punch above their pay grade.

have any idea what those bullets expanded to?? were any even still in the deer??

A .22 slug would have to double in diameter to be what the .44 starts out as, and I have never heard of any expanding to more than around .30ish and staying together.

The smaller the caliber, the more surgically precise bullet placement is needed for a humane kill on big game. This is the responsibility of the person pulling the trigger, no one else.

 

[taylorce1]

have any idea what those bullets expanded to?? were any even still in the deer??

I've never recoverd a bullet from a deer shot with a Barnes or CEB bullet. I have found a couple of polymer tips when using a TTSX, and have found the petals from the Raptors. The Raptor bullet used was a brass fracturing bullet, but never caught the shank of the bullet. The Raptor is more devastating than the TSX/TTSX. Both brands of bullets will punch through both shoulders on an Oklahoma white tail deer.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

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]

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

After 100 yards the .223 is superior.

This is pretty elementary ballistics.

 

[stinkeypete]

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]

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.