What caused the Rokslide shift to smallest caliber and cartridges?

[Southern Lights]

O'Connor talking about fragmenting bullets on deer sized animals back in 1961 on bullets he used before WWII:

"With lighter big-game animals, the biggest problem is quick expansion instead of deep penetration. The right medicine is the bullet that expands rapidly and even disintegrates. I have gotten more instantaneous kills on Arizona whitetail deer, which dress out on the average from 90 to 110 pounds, with the Barnes pre-World War II 120-grain .270 bullet than with any other. It had a thin jacket and a soft lead core. When driven at about 3,250 at the muzzle, it was a bomb. I found that a hit anywhere near the heart would almost always rupture the heart with fragments. I never had one of those bullets pass through even a light deer or antelope with a chest shot, and I cannot remember anything but one-shot, instantaneous kills. In fact, I have even seen that bullet stay in the body of a coyote, and I cannot remember hitting a single coyote without killing it instantly."

 

[KHntr]

I've said it before on here, but I have been using a 223 with 69 gr TMK for a few years now for whitetails. My other rifle is a 10 lb 6.5 CM, so not a high level of recoil either. I have been finding, though, that while I shoot both of them similarly at the range, there is a marked difference to how effective I am in the field with that 223. It's not that I don't shoot the 6.5 well, but my field shooting is consistent with the 223 to a level that I did not anticipate.

I had to experience it to see it.

I see that with people shooting my rifles at game, in that they are mentally a lot more careful with aiming and executing the shot.

 

[KHntr]

Add in the question “why?”

Unless I’m struggling to get the job done with what I’ve got, why would I change?

People put it out there that the small calibers can work, and can work well. But this weird idea that it’s “better” so everyone should do it and you’re wrong if you don’t is strange. I feel like the tmk ammo can actually cause too much damage. I haven’t tested the theory on my own, but I’m open to doing this test if I get the opportunity. Sometimes, though, only I get an opportunity to shoot one deer a year. Plus I’m in woods for the most part so deflection of smaller lighter bullets is another concern.

What I’m seeing is almost like someone going in a forum and telling me my vehicle choice is dumb because I can commute to work faster or more efficiently with a different vehicle.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

All bullets deflect when hitting brush.

One thing that I don’t see talked about much anywhere, is that shooting is a diminishing skill.

The more you shoot, the better you are, period. Every single press of a trigger is a learning opportunity if you let it be.

Why WOULDN’T you pick a rifle that you will shoot a few thousand rounds a year out of over one that you will only shoot a handful of shots through over the same time period? Why WOULDN’T you pick the rifle that will make you more effective and give you more opportunities to take a shot that you KNOW you can make, at your one deer for the year?

 

[S-3 ranch]

Herd mentality, it’s prevalent among many different types of topics, guns , political views, views maybe totally ignorant, but logical reasoning becomes irrelevant when these people congregate. It’s almost like arguing with a woke rainbow, woke cult, and being a conservative.

 

[allstajacket]

All bullets deflect when hitting brush.

One thing that I don’t see talked about much anywhere, is that shooting is a diminishing skill.

The more you shoot, the better you are, period. Every single press of a trigger is a learning opportunity if you let it be.

Why WOULDN’T you pick a rifle that you will shoot a few thousand rounds a year out of over one that you will only shoot a handful of shots through over the same time period? Why WOULDN’T you pick the rifle that will make you more effective and give you more opportunities to take a shot that you KNOW you can make, at your one deer for the year?

I don’t shoot any of my rifles a few thousand times per year, and I probably put more rounds through my 308 than any of my rifles. It just fits me perfect, feels great, and I love the accuracy I get with my hand loads. When I’m in my tree stand, I have absolute confidence that if I can see a deer, I can hit it with that rifle. So why would I change that?

As I stated earlier if I get one early and have the chance at more, I’ll try another rifle out if I can find one in time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Choupique]

When I’m in my tree stand, I have absolute confidence that if I can see a deer, I can hit it with that rifle. So why would I change that?

Because its a fact that you could shoot a lighter recoiling rifle better.

What happened was everyone around here became a student of statistics. Once they bought in, they figured out what they "knew" about rifles and shooting and killing stuff was all wrong. Having the collective data of the internet to complie along with the input of certain people who shoot a lot more game than most people validates it enough for people to try it. They feel like they've seen the light and are trying to help others see it.

If there's no reason to change what you like, dont. Im only trying it so my wife and kids can hopefully have a good experience. I suspect I will end up on this train as well though.

 

[allstajacket]

Because its a fact that you could shoot a lighter recoiling rifle better.

What happened was everyone around here became a student of statistics. Once they bought in, they figured out what they "knew" about rifles and shooting and killing stuff was all wrong. Having the collective data of the internet to complie along with the input of certain people who shoot a lot more game than most people validates it enough for people to try it. They feel like they've seen the light and are trying to help others see it.

If there's no reason to change what you like, dont. Im only trying it so my wife and kids can hopefully have a good experience. I suspect I will end up on this train as well though.

I shoot my .308 better than I shoot my 6.5 creedmoor which has less recoil..

I don’t have a problem with flinching, especially since I’m shooting suppressed.

I like the overall feel of the rifle better and am more comfortable behind it.

I think the recoil consideration is getting a little out of hand when we start speaking of suppressed 8lb .308s as potentially having “too much recoil.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Antares]

I think the recoil consideration is getting a little out of hand when we start speaking of suppressed 8lb .308s as potentially having “too much recoil.”

I think there's a lot of confusion on the point of "too much recoil."

The small caliber evangelists are advocating for minimizing recoil to aid in spotting shots not because of physical discomfort.

If you can spot your own shots 100% of the time in realistic, awkward field shooting positions, then you're good to go regardless of the cartridge. If you're standard practice after a shot is to ask your buddy "Did I hit him?", then you need to reevaluate setup.

 

[Choupique]

I think the recoil consideration is getting a little out of hand when we start speaking of suppressed 8lb .308s as potentially having “too much recoil.”

I hunt with a bare muzzle .338 win mag and 250 grain bullets. When I first started reading all this recoil stuff the first thing I thought was man what a bunch of pussies. I don't miss with this thing and it's basically a giant death ray. I really enjoy hunting with it and will continue to do so regardless of my own experiences with a .223. If nothing else, it's worth it for the campfire conversation.

The thought process is that the physics involved dictate that all other things equal, the lighter recoiling rifle will be more consistent. Nothing to do with pain tolerance or anything like that, it's just physics. The muzzle is going to wiggle around less before the bullet leaves, and it allows you to shoot better from increasingly awkward positions the further the recoil decreases.

I know for a fact that I have to be very conscious about positioning before I take a shot with the .338 or the results will likely not be pretty. Not that it hurts or anything - I have shot it something like 80 times in one day before. Its just not going to be consistent without the resistance on the rifle being consistent.

I think that's a big differentiator as well that took me a while to figure out. Most people aren't talking about recoil in terms of being able to tolerate it. They are talking about it in the context of it affecting hit rates and the ability to spot your own splashes at any range. As stated, some of these guys are shooting several thousand rounds of big boomers in a year. It's not that they're pussies. They are just saying they shoot the lighter recoiling rifles better.

I know .338 vs .223 is an extreme comparison, but that's the thought process and why people keep bringing it up, even when talking about stuff that is not painful or difficult to shoot at all, like an 8ln .308 with a can.

 

[allstajacket]

I hunt with a bare muzzle .338 win mag and 250 grain bullets. When I first started reading all this recoil stuff the first thing I thought was man what a bunch of pussies. I don't miss with this thing and it's basically a giant death ray. I really enjoy hunting with it and will continue to do so regardless of my own experiences with a .223. If nothing else, it's worth it for the campfire conversation.

The thought process is that the physics involved dictate that all other things equal, the lighter recoiling rifle will be more consistent. Nothing to do with pain tolerance or anything like that, it's just physics. The muzzle is going to wiggle around less before the bullet leaves, and it allows you to shoot better from increasingly awkward positions the further the recoil decreases.

I know for a fact that I have to be very conscious about positioning before I take a shot with the .338 or the results will likely not be pretty. Not that it hurts or anything - I have shot it something like 80 times in one day before. Its just not going to be consistent without the resistance on the rifle being consistent.

I think that's a big differentiator as well that took me a while to figure out. Most people aren't talking about recoil in terms of being able to tolerate it. They are talking about it in the context of it affecting hit rates and the ability to spot your own splashes at any range. As stated, some of these guys are shooting several thousand rounds of big boomers in a year. It's not that they're pussies. They are just saying they shoot the lighter recoiling rifles better.

I know .338 vs .223 is an extreme comparison, but that's the thought process and why people keep bringing it up, even when talking about stuff that is not painful or difficult to shoot at all, like an 8ln .308 with a can.

This was very well-written.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[General RE LEE]

I shoot my .308 better than I shoot my 6.5 creedmoor which has less recoil..

I don’t have a problem with flinching, especially since I’m shooting suppressed.

I like the overall feel of the rifle better and am more comfortable behind it.

I think the recoil consideration is getting a little out of hand when we start speaking of suppressed 8lb .308s as potentially having “too much recoil.”


Sent from my iPhone using

My issues with recoil isn’t the punch, it’s the split second I lose sight picture which requires reacquiring my target to see if it was a hit and if it’s DRT or took off. The less recoil, the faster I can get in target in my follow through. An 8 lb 308 shooting heavy for caliber bullets will be tough to spot hits and misses.

 

[5811]

The thought process is that the physics involved dictate that all other things equal, the lighter recoiling rifle will be more consistent. Nothing to do with pain tolerance or anything like that, it's just physics. The muzzle is going to wiggle around less before the bullet leaves, and it allows you to shoot better from increasingly awkward positions the further the recoil decreases.

I think that's a big differentiator as well that took me a while to figure out. Most people aren't talking about recoil in terms of being able to tolerate it.

Very well said. There's three things that a hunter needs to get to buy into shooting big game with a .223 :

1. You've got to believe that the right bullet will cause sufficient damage for a quick and humane kill,
2. You've got to get past the idea that people care what caliber you are shooting,
3. You've got to experience how easy it is to be accurate with a light recoiling rifle in positions not prone or bench.

A 223 is just remarkably easy to shoot accurately from awkward positions. It's almost intuitive. You really have to experience it by practicing from positions that are not prone/bench. (I'm learning that people shoot from "not bench" way, way less than I thought.)


If you can try that, and you believe the carnage that you see in the 223 thread is real, all that's left is to overcome your ego.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

Very well said. There's three things that a hunter needs to get to buy into shooting big game with a .223 :

1. You've got to believe that the right bullet will cause sufficient damage for a quick and humane kill,
2. You've got to get past the idea that people care what caliber you are shooting,
3. You've got to experience how easy it is to be accurate with a light recoiling rifle in positions not prone or bench.

A 223 is just remarkably easy to shoot accurately from awkward positions. It's almost intuitive. You really have to experience it by practicing from positions that are not prone/bench. (I'm learning that people shoot from "not bench" way, way less than I thought.)


If you can try that, and you believe the carnage that you see in the 223 thread is real, all that's left is to overcome your ego.

The other big one to overcome is the “you would have gotten a different outcome if you used more gun.” Well, no, the deer ran off because you shot him in the liver, not the lungs. But you couldn’t see that.

Or, “you owe it to the animal to use as much gun as possible.” Without stopping to consider that using “too much gun” (and not the right bullet) might not be the most effective way to kill.

When you have a few generations of hunters who buy into the nonsense that a .270 might not be enough gun for North American big game (as Elmer Keith said, “[the .270 is] a damned adequate coyote rifle.”), trying to convince them that something smaller is more than enough is a tough sell.

And then that mentality gets entrenched in wildlife regulations, further skewing perceptions. I remember arguing on the school bus in middle school that if “.223 could kill deer humanely, then it would not be illegal.” And the poachers’ sons with whom I was arguing vociferously asserting that their dads killed deer year round with the .22-250. Another kid assured us all that a .264 Winchester Magnum, his father’s chosen whitetail rifle, was the best cartridge ever for hunting in our woods.

As others in this thread have noted, these discussions go back more than a century. What I like about RokSlide is the data-driven approach to the topic.

 

[Choupique]

You've got to believe that the right bullet will cause sufficient damage for a quick and humane kill,

This has been my only hang up - how reliably are small match bullets going to exit? I have no doubt that it will kill the animal quickly. Blood trails are of paramount importance to me because of the terrain I hunt in. Once I leave the trail, I can usually stick my hand out in any given direction and not be able to see it anymore. That isn't an exaggeration, you literally cannot see your own feet or hands in places. It's truly impenetrable in lots of our land.

Our fudd caliber/bullet decisions for puny whitetail deer were strictly driven by how reliably the bullet will exit from any angle. We've had deer die 20 yards from where they were shot and needed dogs to find them more than once. Our disdain for small calibers was born in how often deer shot with light fast calibers and traditional hunting bullets didn't have exit wounds and had poor or non-existent blood trails.

 

[allstajacket]

This has been my only hang up - how reliably are small match bullets going to exit? I have no doubt that it will kill the animal quickly. Blood trails are of paramount importance to me because of the terrain I hunt in. Once I leave the trail, I can usually stick my hand out in any given direction and not be able to see it anymore. That isn't an exaggeration, you literally cannot see your own feet or hands in places. It's truly impenetrable in lots of our land.

Our fudd caliber/bullet decisions for puny whitetail deer were strictly driven by how reliably the bullet will exit from any angle. We've had deer die 20 yards from where they were shot and needed dogs to find them more than once. Our disdain for small calibers was born in how often deer shot with light fast calibers and traditional hunting bullets didn't have exit wounds and had poor or non-existent blood trails.

This for me too, sort of. I believe those lightweight match bullets will just “grenade” inside the animal. Might kill it quicker. Might be able to watch it die through the scope. But you’re also making a hell of a mess and potentially wrecking a bunch of meat- both by straight up damaging it, and also by having lead everywhere. (This might be slightly exaggerated, but I prefer a nice clean wound channel through the vitals, and a decent exit wound.)

Edit: I do plan to test this myself though and see how it works in my own application. If I can get my hands on a rifle. My current AR’s are SBR’d MK18’s and I have one run of the mill 16” with a carry handle. I’d prefer something with a scope, so I’m asking around to borrow a flat top upper or a .223 bolty for this year. If not, maybe I’ll save up and buy one for next year.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[5811]

I saw this work out in a similar fashion when I was racing motorcycles. Everyone wanted to start out on a fast 1000cc, 180hp sport bike. Because you had to be faster with all them hp and a 20-40 mph advantage on the top end, right? Maybe call the extra hp some insurance for the straights (sound familiar?)

No matter who told you that you would be faster on a light twin or a 600, you wanted that liter bike power!

Then you get spanked by a guy on an sv650 with 1/3 the hp and he makes it look easy while your nerves are shot from feeling like you were on the ragged edge for 10 laps.

The less powerful, lighter bike was just easier to ride. Easier to BE FAST on vs just going fast. If you wanted to be fast, not just go fast, you had to use the right tool. And even if you worked your way up to the open classes, your times weren't that much quicker. It's just not the difference you think it is when you don't know what you don't know.

Having said all that, I don't fault anyone who just chases the thrill of harnessing hp. As long as they understand what it is.

 

[khuber84]

This has been my only hang up - how reliably are small match bullets going to exit? I have no doubt that it will kill the animal quickly. Blood trails are of paramount importance to me because of the terrain I hunt in. Once I leave the trail, I can usually stick my hand out in any given direction and not be able to see it anymore. That isn't an exaggeration, you literally cannot see your own feet or hands in places. It's truly impenetrable in lots of our land.

Our fudd caliber/bullet decisions for puny whitetail deer were strictly driven by how reliably the bullet will exit from any angle. We've had deer die 20 yards from where they were shot and needed dogs to find them more than once. Our disdain for small calibers was born in how often deer shot with light fast calibers and traditional hunting bullets didn't have exit wounds and had poor or non-existent blood trails.

If your cover and terrain is that dense, you must be shooting at bow ranges, 100y max. Head neck, nothing usually goes more than 10' with that placement, even when using a 22mag.

 

[Don Fischer]

I've never bought into the smaller cartridges for deer hunting, not eve the 243 although I've killed three deer with a 243. I think to this day I was simply showing off and killing something in not the place for that. We consider caliber to much and not enough consideration for bullet's. The 70 gr 22 caliber was made for no more than giving people an excuse to shoot deer like game at much longer ranges than need be. I've watched a lot of people shoot and truth is I doubt many actually have the experience to handle shots much past 300 yds but if one guy says he can a bunch of other that can't, just to justify taking that shot claim they can also. it's like the excuse for taking the to hard shot the last minutes of the season, hell no one wants to go home myt handed! So take the shot and if you blow it with a miss or lost wounded deer, blame it on the cartridge! Seems to me guns and cartridges get the blame for a lot of shots that never should have been taken in the first place. The answer to fix that is to create new bullet's for smaller cartridges? I don't think so, the answer is learn to shoot of find another hobby!

 

[Choupique]

If your cover and terrain is that dense, you must be shooting at bow ranges, 100y max.

Actually, I have some places that I could shoot over a mile. It's narrow and straight right of ways which in places pass through the nasty stuff. The longest straight piece of clearing I have that is entirely on my property is ~ 2,200 yards.

That said, due to the width of the right of way and how much time a buck will spend on it, I've never shot one past 400 yards.

 

[RockAndSage]

So, there's some clarification points that should be made here...the biggest is that there are many reasons lighter-recoiling helps produce better shooters in field realities:

The small caliber evangelists are advocating for minimizing recoil to aid in spotting shots not because of physical discomfort.

This is part of the equation, but a secondary one - the bigger part resides in making the absolute best first shot possible, no matter the situation at hand.

man what a bunch of pussies

This psychological reaction has got to be hardwired into the Y-chromosome. Bigger weapon = bigger man. Smaller weapon = p*ssy who can't handle manhood. Along with, "I am man, I am tool master."

The absence of this is also why women learn to shoot better, faster, all else being equal.

I don't miss with this thing and it's basically a giant death ray

Have you tried this basic measurement of field-shooting competence with the .338 yet?

The thought process is that the physics involved dictate that all other things equal, the lighter recoiling rifle will be more consistent. Nothing to do with pain tolerance or anything like that, it's just physics. The muzzle is going to wiggle around less before the bullet leaves

This is actually a pretty big miss, my friend. There's also some commonly held Fudd-lore in this take on things. The reality is that any accuracy difference between large vs small cartridges from "muzzle wiggle" as the bullet leaves would be so tiny that it would be hard to measure from a fixed bench-mounted shooting fixture. It has zero bearing on human capabilities with that gun.

The reality is that the far larger part of "lighter recoiling = better shooting" is that it's psychological.

The easiest way to test this, is to fire 10 rounds out of your .338 from any position not prone, at a target 100yds out. Even better if you do it within that test I linked above.

Then do it again, but mix in a couple of snap-caps/dummy rounds, in a way where you have zero idea where they are.

Your flinch will be revealed on the snap-cap shot, and will be utterly embarrassing.

That flinch isn't coming from anticipated pain - most of it is coming from a combination of overall anticipated sensory load and mindshare of operations. It's the combo of performance-demand in the mental-physical mechanics of executing the fundamentals of a shot, anticipating the moment of trigger-press, recovering from the shot, getting back on target, assessing the shot, tension about what that shot means, and taking next steps. Every bit of this sensory and mental loading is magnified as recoil goes up, along with varying microseconds of mental-load shock with a violent strike to your body.

The more sensory load you can remove, the less mindshare will be occupied on it, and the more you can focus on excellence in your fundamentals and cycling through it.

All shooting is 95% mental. The more sensory-mental load you can remove, the better.


EDIT: I personally have a round-count of somewhere around low/mid 6-figures of pistol ammo I've fired over the last 40 years. This is a photo of part of my normal routine - IIRC, on this day it was about 50 snap caps randomly mixed in over the course of about 300rds of fire. To this day, I can count on 1 hand the number of times I've made it through 50 snap-caps without flinching at least once. This is just 9mm. Flinching's not about pain, it's what happens with an imbalance between sensory load and mental focus.