Status Update 7th July 2016

[stancomputerhunter]

I believe those with 4K are now reporting, since the community led patch of the last update, that it is now good. http://forum.thehunter.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=74462

[nosnerb]

Very nice update. Haven't been playing a lot lately but this is great

[Mavrx]

Is there any info on when the next major update will be. Like with a new map or some new features. Just wondering, and might anyone know when the next map will be released if there will even be another.

[caledonianblues]

Just wondering, and might anyone know when the next map will be released if there will even be another.

We're just players here, with the same info as you. We won't know anything like this until an announcement is made. Personally I would rather they hold off on a new reserve and focus some efforts on major bug fixing. New content in the scale of reserves has a tendency lately to compound underlying problems.

[waiora]

New skins for the 3 rifles look great, please have another look at the iron sights, the previous .300 was much better, they center sights are MUCH to thick

[Lawger]

With the 12g and the in line muzzle loader we have a multi choice option for projectiles and if this option was applied to the 223 with the addition of a 62 or 65gr bullet weight option there would be no reason for not adding Blacktails and Sitka to the permitted species list. It was designed as an anti personell cartridge for Human sized targets, many mature human males are close to 200 lbs or more.

Sorry, this is a bit of a late reply (been out sailing the archipelago and then hiking the mountains for weeks without internet), but I stumbled on this post while reading up on the forums, and as both an army man (part time the last few years) and a hunting enthusiast, I felt obliged to reply.

You can't ever compare hunting to conflict scenarios when it comes to cartridge performance and applications. First of all, the aim of hitting said human sized targets in conflict scenarios is not to kill them as quickly and humanely as possible, just to take them out of the fight. In fact, an injury is preferable to death (both from a moral standpoint and from a tactical/strategic standpoint). Thus, it's fundamentally different from hunting where the aim should always be to dispatch the target as quickly as possible. Second of all, the 5.56 NATO (.223) wasn't selected as the standard anti-personell cartridge in the western world primarily for it's effect on targets. It was designed as a substitute for the 7.62 NATO (.308) because it enabled soldiers to carry a lot more ammunition. There's been a lot of talk the last few years that the 5.56 (.223) is insufficient as a standard round because it often fails to take combatants out of the fight. Again, you can't draw any meaningful conclusions from this that applies to hunting, mostly because you're comparing full metal jackets fired from short barrels to soft point rounds typically fired from long barrels.

Personally, I wouldn't ever feel comfortable using a .223 on anything larger than a roe deer. Partly because it's the law around here, but mostly because I feel that the margin for error is just too small. Of course a .223 of the right weight and bullet design can be used effectively on much larger targets, but that doesn't mean that it should be done IMO. Lots of people (mostly poachers lately) have taken out elephants with .308's and smaller calibers still, but that doesn't mean it should be done.

[DanthemanBoone]

With the 12g and the in line muzzle loader we have a multi choice option for projectiles and if this option was applied to the 223 with the addition of a 62 or 65gr bullet weight option there would be no reason for not adding Blacktails and Sitka to the permitted species list. It was designed as an anti personell cartridge for Human sized targets, many mature human males are close to 200 lbs or more.

Sorry, this is a bit of a late reply (been out sailing the archipelago and then hiking the mountains for weeks without internet), but I stumbled on this post while reading up on the forums, and as both an army man (part time the last few years) and a hunting enthusiast, I felt obliged to reply.

You can't ever compare hunting to conflict scenarios when it comes to cartridge performance and applications. First of all, the aim of hitting said human sized targets in conflict scenarios is not to kill them as quickly and humanely as possible, just to take them out of the fight. In fact, an injury is preferable to death (both from a moral standpoint and from a tactical/strategic standpoint). Thus, it's fundamentally different from hunting where the aim should always be to dispatch the target as quickly as possible. Second of all, the 5.56 NATO (.223) wasn't selected as the standard anti-personell cartridge in the western world primarily for it's effect on targets. It was designed as a substitute for the 7.62 NATO (.308) because it enabled soldiers to carry a lot more ammunition. There's been a lot of talk the last few years that the 5.56 (.223) is insufficient as a standard round because it often fails to take combatants out of the fight. Again, you can't draw any meaningful conclusions from this that applies to hunting, mostly because you're comparing full metal jackets fired from short barrels to soft point rounds typically fired from long barrels.

Personally, I wouldn't ever feel comfortable using a .223 on anything larger than a roe deer. Partly because it's the law around here, but mostly because I feel that the margin for error is just too small. Of course a .223 of the right weight and bullet design can be used effectively on much larger targets, but that doesn't mean that it should be done IMO. Lots of people (mostly poachers lately) have taken out elephants with .308's and smaller calibers still, but that doesn't mean it should be done.

............................................................................................................................................................................

The major anomaly with your argument is that military ball does not give anywhere the same result as an expanding sporting projectile. So agreement on that point.
The other problem that you pointed out is that you have no experience using the 223 in the field because of your local legislative restrictions.
Here in NZ there are no restrictions on caliber, sectional densities or energy delivery results. If you are of such a mind you can legally shoot any animal with a .22 rifle.

It is not a caliber I would recommend for a beginner to use on reds by any means, but for smaller animals the size of Blacktails, it would be more than adequate.
The NZ Forest Service used to issue 222 and 303 as standard ammo for red deer culling. A large number of us were weaned on 222.
223 in mini 14 or AR is so much better and a whole lot easier to handle than a FN or BAR in 308. This alone made them extremely popular with Helicopter venison recovery operations here.

My experience, (40 plus years in the field ) ((with 223, 20 years )) as a meat hunter and govt culler, runs to over a thousand kills with Red deer with the mini 14 rifle ( NB Short Barrel length ) at ranges out to 100 yrds, with a few to 200 yrds.
Mostly 1 shot kills. My fail rate would be less than a dozen , all attributable to bad shooting on my part.
But if I was to change my hunting environment from closer Bush hunting to say, open tops and longer ranges, I would obviously be looking at 270 or better.

Its very much a matter of "when in Rome" and here down under its dosnt even raise an eyebrow.

And finally your statement...

First of all, the aim of hitting said human sized targets in conflict scenarios is not to kill them as quickly and humanely as possible, just to take them out of the fight.

That must be a great comfort to anyone lucky enough to be hit by a 50 cal sniper rifle.


Cheers.

[Lawger]

The major anomaly with your argument is that military ball does not give anywhere the same result as an expanding sporting projectile. So agreement on that point.
The other problem that you pointed out is that you have no experience using the 223 in the field because of your local legislative restrictions.
Here in NZ there are no restrictions on caliber, sectional densities or energy delivery results. If you are of such a mind you can legally shoot any animal with a .22 rifle.

It is not a caliber I would recommend for a beginner to use on reds by any means, but for smaller animals the size of Blacktails, it would be more than adequate.
The NZ Forest Service used to issue 222 and 303 as standard ammo for red deer culling. A large number of us were weaned on 222.
223 in mini 14 or AR is so much better and a whole lot easier to handle than a FN or BAR in 308. This alone made them extremely popular with Helicopter venison recovery operations here.

My experience, (40 plus years in the field ) ((with 223, 20 years )) as a meat hunter and govt culler, runs to over a thousand kills with Red deer with the mini 14 rifle ( NB Short Barrel length ) at ranges out to 100 yrds, with a few to 200 yrds.
Mostly 1 shot kills. My fail rate would be less than a dozen , all attributable to bad shooting on my part.
But if I was to change my hunting environment from closer Bush hunting to say, open tops and longer ranges, I would obviously be looking at 270 or better.

Its very much a matter of "when in Rome" and here down under its dosnt even raise an eyebrow.

And finally your statement...

First of all, the aim of hitting said human sized targets in conflict scenarios is not to kill them as quickly and humanely as possible, just to take them out of the fight.

That must be a great comfort to anyone lucky enough to be hit by a 50 cal sniper rifle.


Cheers.

While I can't claim to have nearly as much experience as you do, I do have some experience with the .223 on animals up to the size of roe deer, and plenty of experience shooting it in the military, although mostly on paper The point of my post was mainly to clear up a few points on the military use of .223/5.56 since you wrote that it was designed as an anti-personell round for human sized targets, which I feel is completely irrelevant when it comes to discussions about its hunting applications. I'm not going to say that it's objectively wrong to use the .223 on anything larger than a roe deer, just that I personally wouldn't feel comfortable doing it because I prefer to have a larger margin for error when it comes to hunting. I know that it's more or less the norm in NZ, but that's very much an exception in the world of hunting. In the most parts of the world the .223 is considered insufficient for larger deer and similarly sized game.

And as for your last point, the .50 BMG isn't an anti-personell round at all. Its primary application is as an anti-materiel round. It's sometimes used as an anti-personell round for long range work, but that's because it's often on hand and can get the job done. Designated long range sniper rifles for anti-personell use aren't chambered in .50 BMG unless they're primarily intended for anti-materiel use, but in something like the .338 Lapua.

[DanthemanBoone]

I dont see any point in pursuing this debate further.
We are the products of different experiences, and we both base our conclusions on that experience, which while seemingly similar in terms of use, are not exactly the same.
But next time you take out a 223 on a serious hunt, ( Not 5.56 ammo ), try using the Remington power point load with a 62 or 65 gr projectile.

(and about the 50 BMG, maybe I watched to many unsanctioned videos of real life combat use in Afghanistan )
LOL

Our military has served alongside U.S. personnel in many conflicts and many have returned home safely as a result of that interaction.

Be Well.
And thank you for your service.