.223 lethality past 400 yards?

J

jethro21

New member
400 yards is just a number, could be longer or less...

I have been reading lately and .223 seems to be thought of as poor after 3-400 yards. Looking at some ballistic charts, .223 lists at around 370 ft/energy at the 600 yard mark (if I am remembering correct) for 75gr.

I realize there are far better options for that distance, but is the .223 really inefficient at killing at ranges past 400 yards?
 
20" Rifle Length M16 5.56 as per army training manuals:

Maximum effective range:
550 meters (Individual/point targets) 500 meter

The shorter the barrel, 223 ammo specs, and a smaller projectile may change the equation a bit, but it's a pretty capable round out to ~500 meters with a 20" barrel. I wouldn't say I'd feel comfortable shooting that far with the 5.56, but it will still be lethal.
 
Last edited:
No it isn't inefficient. I wouldn't want to get hit at 1000 yds. Like you say, there are much more effective options out there, but the .223 has plenty of horsepower at 400 yds and at greater ranges. Don't buy into the myth that you need XXXX foot pounds of energy in order to be effective on game etc. Having said that, I wouldn't choose a .223 as my primary elk round but if its all I have available, it would work. Don't misunderstand... I am not advocating shooting elk with a .223 at any range, but bullet placement is far more important than the caliber of the round.

The .17hmr gets a lot of flack as underpowered for coyote. Well, yes it is if you don't hit the vitals or take a shot at 300yds. Hit a yote in the vitals at 100 yds and it's a dead dog.... maybe not as fast as a .243 but dead is dead. Many try to make-up their own shortcomings in the accuracy department by choosing a caliber that is so powerful that a hit on an animal anywhere is going to put it down. Thats fine with me, but really, is there a need to hunt so over gunned that the blast is just as likely to kill the animal as the bullet?

Any reputation that the .223 is underpowered at longer ranges (and I consider 600 yds long range) is more likely due to poor shot placement or clean misses. Few can accurately estimate range past 200 yds... which is a dead on hold with a .223.
 
Originally Posted By: dirtdarteNo it isn't inefficient. I wouldn't want to get hit at 1000 yds.

Your chances of being struck by a slug from an AIMED bullet from a .223 is about the same as getting hit by lightening!
 
I'm one of those that, while not restrictive to, but a proponent of generalization, uses the three hundred yard distance as a cutoff for regular shooting of Coyotes with a .223...

If you consider the DRT kill zone of a Coyote and the skill of an average shooter under excitement/stress conditions, it's a challenge to be proficient with the round past that point...

CoyoteVitalSpotc.jpg


IMHO, there are too many factors that come into play that can result in a run off, rather than a quick kill... While the .223 can produce excellent accuracy and knockdown energy past that point, it's my contention that it's just too 'iffy'...

If you are talking about shooting a human target, as the military considers, and with the intent of wounding, as the Geneva Convention considers, then the .223 can be considered proficient at much longer distances..

It's very similar to those that try to get the .204 to be a 'do all' round and then complain when it doesn't come up to their expectations...

If I'm going to be shooting at a relatively small, moving target at longer distances on a routine basis, I want a .243 or .308 for a more effective round and kill factor, when applied to Coyotes...
 
Originally Posted By: OldTurtle
If you are talking about shooting a human target, as the military considers, and with the intent of wounding, as the Geneva Convention considers, then the .223 can be considered proficient at much longer distances..



And should one stop and think about WHY the .223 ( yeah..I know..5.56) came about...they wouldnt be thinking of "1000 yard kills". The M16 ( stampings and plastic) was made because its ( or was at least) CHEAP...and the 223 fit it perfectly because its a low recoil cartridge ( ya got to remember..those guys werent NFL linebackers we were giving them to) that 10 times more rounds could be carried than the M14 round and ya just slap a clip into it...turn it on full auto and spray the jungle. sooner or later your going to hit one of the enemy and take him out of action.

If its such a great long distance "killer"....Carlos Hathcock wouldnt have used a 30-05 Springfield and later on a 308 M70 as his sniper rifle.
 
Originally Posted By: reb8600In my experience, most shooters are ineffective at the longer ranges not the gun.

Good point


For me 300 yds and less will cover all of my hunting spots. Most of the time it's 150 or less.
 
Might be okay off a bench at a known distance, but off a field setup and guessing the distance, that .224 bullet at 400 yards is plunging like a howitzer.
 
I agree with what is being said. Not trying to start an opinion war, but I became interested after my partner at work was telling me about qualifying at 600m in the Marines.

Of course I forgot that in war wounding is as good as, if not better than killing, so the .223 might be a viable option for that reason.

I appreciate the imput guys
 
jethro, kinda off topic but..

true in a conventanol war wounding is as good as killing (in thery it takes out 3 people, the one wounded and 2 to care for him) in todays war it really doesent matter, as i saw in iraq, its every man for himself. you can wound a man and his buddies will run right past him without a second thought. then when you have a guy running at you, your shooting him with a 223 FMJ that inless you hit the nervous system or break him down he will keep on comming or shooting or reaching for that IED trigger. i would have rather had an M14 to take them off there feet so to speak.

just my view on that topic. dont want to highjack this thread
 
I believe with plenty of practice and limiting your shots,,the .223 is plenty lethal to 600 or more....their are folks that shoot groups at that range with open sights,,velocity and down force of the round will kill,,maybe not instantly.

Around me,,i would not have much need to shoot 250 or more ,to kill something...most generally if i cant stalk within that range,,it lives to fight another day.

X
 
Reb8600, hold on there, I resemble that remark. Sort of anyway. I can be ineffective at any range.
But you are correct. It's whats on the back end of the gun that counts.

Shayne
 
Originally Posted By: sully2Originally Posted By: dirtdarteNo it isn't inefficient. I wouldn't want to get hit at 1000 yds.

Your chances of being struck by a slug from an AIMED bullet from a .223 is about the same as getting hit by lightening!

We've shot some very good groups at 1000yds....on purpose even. (grin)

100_1608-1.jpg
 
Back
Top