What caused the Rokslide shift to smallest caliber and cartridges?

[KHntr]

…

 

[Choupique]

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

No, but I'll try to do it next chance I get. I do my best to stay away from the bench when I do get a chance to shoot.

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.

I've always assumed that the difficulty in making hits from weird positions was from the rifle moving inconsistently under recoil. It seems the flinch would be a consistently inconsistent error driver?

 

[RockAndSage]

I've always assumed that the difficulty in making hits from weird positions was from the rifle moving inconsistently under recoil.

It's more about the rifle moving because of the inconsistency of the body, in a given position, especially when you don't have extensive reps in that exact body posture, at that angle, with the wind blowing, etc. This is why, within limits, people also tend to shoot better with heavier guns, rather than really light ones. The heft absorbs a bit of the micro-movement mistakes your body is trying to make. Plus, weight absorbs a little recoil too, reducing some of that sensory loading.

It seems the flinch would be a consistently inconsistent error driver?

Absolutely. It's extremely hard to remove, because human. But it almost always comes down to that imbalance between sensory load and mental focus.

 

[khuber84]

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.

2200y of uninterrupted sight line for a shot opportunity sounds like a fantastic place for a private range!

 

[Choupique]

I know. I need to rig one up. My furthest target at the normal shooting spot is 600 yards. Its a bit of a chore to get to. Requires a boat.

 

[JackButler]

Am I the only one that never has the perfect shot? I do a lot of still hunting in tall grass and swamps. Have tried the 6mms but without snow whitetail are extremely hard to find. Love the 35 cals or leverguns for this job. I think the trend is so called experts on youtube are brainwashing everyone into this fad of small caliber and long range shots. If that tickles your fancy have at it. I like aiming for my exit from almost any angle.

This seems like relatively short range hunting you describe. If you are having trouble killing deer quickly with a 6mm there is some other issue causing that. A 6mm is more than enough for any deer at any angle at moderate ranges. If you like large caliber lever guns, that’s cool and obviously will work.

 

[Sizzler]

This seems like relatively short range hunting you describe. If you are having trouble killing deer quickly with a 6mm there is some other issue causing that. A 6mm is more than enough for any deer at any angle at moderate ranges. If you like large caliber lever guns, that’s cool and obviously will work.

Absolutely. I usually shoot 3-5 deer a year at 5-50 yards and 5-10 deer at ranges of 50-600. Those little match grade bullets have given me terrible blood trails. Definitely kills the deer and they usually go 50-100 yards. Im working on a 6mm creedmoor currently and im going to try the 108 eld-m on a few this year in the open field. Picked up some 77 gr tmks also to work a load up to try on a few does.


P.s. I love my lever guns. Especially my 450 marlin guide gun.

 

[mt terry d]

- This guy we're referring to, Form...I once asked him directly, what the largest cartridge is that he personally would say fits this optimal envelope, for him, before recoil issues start making the concentration demands and positional options more limiting. This is a guy who shoots upwards of 6000 magnum cartridge rounds per year. His answer was ".22 Creedmoor - maybe 6mm Creedmoor." I think this says volumes, and needs to be taken into account, for anyone who wants to optimize their actual real-world hunting capability.

You do realize he wears fishnets, right?

 

[RockAndSage]

You do realize he wears fishnets, right?

Roksocks??

 

[atmat]

You do realize he wears fishnets, right?

They’re not fishnets. They’re high-performance lace underwear. Geez get it right.

 

[nm.otter]

 

[43.6N]

I’ve finally read through all 1932 posts on this thread, and it’s given me a good bit of time to think about @MT_Wyatt original question.

For me personally, I grew up hunting Idaho with my father. He was A, the most killing-est man in his group of hunters. So his word and opinions carried a lot of weight.
B, very much a fan of small nimble rifles that he could shoot well.
C, very much a part of the “professional” shooting culture, where the job of “the mission” dictated the tools and weapons brought along. Mobility, agility, tenacity and personal proficiency were the hallmarks of his group. They made a point to be deadly and professional with whatever tool they had available. And very much lived by a motto of “it’s the Indian not the arrow. This ethos made its way into how he raised his sons.

His gun was an 18” 7-08 that he hand loaded 140gr ballistic tips. Consequently that was the gun I grew up shooting.

I never grew up with the deer camp or elk camp chatter about “bringing enough gun” probably because my dad had the “smallest” gun in the bunch. What I did grow up with however, was going to the range and mountain with him and his buddies as they poured hours into perfecting their shooting, scouting, and woodsmanship.

When I made my way to rokslide, the statements about hunting with non magnum, sub 30 cal bullets certainly was not foreign or offensive.

What convinced me the most was the vast number of wound pictures and associated impact velocities.

The only thing I’ll add to the discussion is this:
-Ethical hunting is a statement about the individual hunter as a whole, not any specific weapon system.
-to say it a different way, that internal drive to ethically harvest and recover an animal can be done with any tool or weapon. Understanding your system, and what it takes to be successful is absolutely a hallmark of anyone perfecting their craft and trying to be better.
- the threshold for ethical killing is certainly condition dependent. But a 77gr TMK hitting the heart and lungs at over 1800fps is well above any hypothetical minimum wounding threshold.
-and finally, practice makes the professional. It is an outward reflection of someone’s internal motivations. If I am committed to ethical killing I need to explore the limits of my system. For rifle hunting, this means thousands of shots in as many variable positions as possible. Just as it would for the archery hunter. AND if I have a system that I am intimately familiar with from training, why would I not simply take that system hunting?
-The benefits of portability, ergonomics, durability, recoil mitigation, and spotting ones trace cannot be understated.

 

[Thegman]

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

FWIW, I hear what you're saying. "If it ain't broke..."

If in your situation, you're not missing shots, you're not loosing animals, a rifle that might be even easier to shoot may not be able to make much difference because there's not much difference to be made.

Just my opinion, but I think sometimes people envision their hunting situation as the same for others, and that's where things go off the rails.

I know there are people that only hunt in places where shots beyond 100 yards rarely ever happen. Different parameters for them than guys, e.g., who hunt in places where they may be regularly shooting beyond, say, 400 yards.

 

[NMTGrad]

My goodness. No, I’m not going to go back and read 98 pages of previous posts. I’ll read the first page where the thread started and skim the rest.

Over the course of both my professional career (law enforcement, including SRT and firearms/tactical instructor) and a lifetime of hunting, I have shot hundreds of thousands of rounds and watched both handgun and long gun ballistics evolve. Thirty years ago, the terminal performance of 9mm defensive bullets was decidedly “meh,” but the .357 and .45 bullets shined. So I carried a .45 for years. But as ballistic technology evolved, the terminal performance of the 9mm greatly improved; enough so that I eventually, and quite readily, shelved my .45 and began carrying a 9mm. When I made that switch, I always felt as if I had “enough handgun” for any unexpected gunfight (a handgun is a weapon of convenience, so if I really anticipated a potential gunfight, I carried an M-4; and I brought 8-10 of my closest friends who also had M-4s).

Similar trends have impacted hunting bullet terminal performance. Thirty years ago, some smaller, faster bullets had decidedly “meh” terminal performance, so in my “earlier” years, I carried .30 caliber hunting rifles, sometimes in magnum calibers, to make sure I had “enough gun.” But looking back, I now understand it wasn’t making sure I had “enough gun,” but consistent, reliable terminal ballistics, which seemed to be consistently in the .277, 7mm, and .308 rounds.

But again, over time, ballistic technology evolved, and I gradually eased away from the .30 magnums and 7mm magnums because for most realistic hunting scenarios, I could do what I needed to do ethically with something like a 270 WSM or 6.5 PRC knowing the bullet would perform effectively every time (assuming I placed it properly). Thus, I have been one of those guys who’s transitioned to smaller, faster calibers.

That being said, common sense still has to prevail. I would never, ever willingly take a .32 ACP to a gunfight no matter how great bullet technology is today. That’s just dumb. Similarly, I would never, ever willingly use something like a .223 to hunt deer, no matter how great the bullet is supposed to be. Doing so is just tempting fate and asking for a poor outcome.

So the point is that evolving technology allows us to use smaller calibers that recoil less and are more pleasant to shoot, and generally still have very effective terminal performance. But as ethical hunters, it’s incumbent upon all of us to exercise sound judgment when heading into the field about what is really “enough gun” and the right bullet.

FWIW, my go-to medium game gun is a 6.5 PRC with Norma BondStrike bullets because it gives me the range I know I’m comfortable shooting with effective bullet performance, and my go-to big critter gun is a 270 WSM with 130 gr E-Tips. And while I’m comfortable with either of these for black bears, well, that’s still a .300 Win Mag with 165 gr Sierra Gameking HPBT bullets. Why? See the previous statements “don’t willingly take a .32 ACP to a gunfight” and “don’t willingly take just a handgun to a gunfight” either.

 

[RockAndSage]

Similarly, I would never, ever willingly use something like a .223 to hunt deer, no matter how great the bullet is supposed to be. Doing so is just tempting fate and asking for a poor outcome.

You, eh...you know there's a whole thread covering hundreds of pages of evidence, containing thousands of posts of evidence, of people killing stuff far bigger than deer, like elk, moose, grizzly, reliably, right?

You may not want to read through all 98 pages here - but until you dive into that other thread, your opinion will just not outweigh the experiences of dozens of others, and the evidence they've provided.

Up until that quote though, you made some very solid points. I suspect you've got the open-mindedness to reassess your position, given new evidence and perspective.

 

[atmat]

My goodness. No, I’m not going to go back and read 98 pages of previous posts. I’ll read the first page where the thread started and skim the rest.

Over the course of both my professional career (law enforcement, including SRT and firearms/tactical instructor) and a lifetime of hunting, I have shot hundreds of thousands of rounds and watched both handgun and long gun ballistics evolve. Thirty years ago, the terminal performance of 9mm defensive bullets was decidedly “meh,” but the .357 and .45 bullets shined. So I carried a .45 for years. But as ballistic technology evolved, the terminal performance of the 9mm greatly improved; enough so that I eventually, and quite readily, shelved my .45 and began carrying a 9mm. When I made that switch, I always felt as if I had “enough handgun” for any unexpected gunfight (a handgun is a weapon of convenience, so if I really anticipated a potential gunfight, I carried an M-4; and I brought 8-10 of my closest friends who also had M-4s).

Similar trends have impacted hunting bullet terminal performance. Thirty years ago, some smaller, faster bullets had decidedly “meh” terminal performance, so in my “earlier” years, I carried .30 caliber hunting rifles, sometimes in magnum calibers, to make sure I had “enough gun.” But looking back, I now understand it wasn’t making sure I had “enough gun,” but consistent, reliable terminal ballistics, which seemed to be consistently in the .277, 7mm, and .308 rounds.

But again, over time, ballistic technology evolved, and I gradually eased away from the .30 magnums and 7mm magnums because for most realistic hunting scenarios, I could do what I needed to do ethically with something like a 270 WSM or 6.5 PRC knowing the bullet would perform effectively every time (assuming I placed it properly). Thus, I have been one of those guys who’s transitioned to smaller, faster calibers.

That being said, common sense still has to prevail. I would never, ever willingly take a .32 ACP to a gunfight no matter how great bullet technology is today. That’s just dumb. Similarly, I would never, ever willingly use something like a .223 to hunt deer, no matter how great the bullet is supposed to be. Doing so is just tempting fate and asking for a poor outcome.

So the point is that evolving technology allows us to use smaller calibers that recoil less and are more pleasant to shoot, and generally still have very effective terminal performance. But as ethical hunters, it’s incumbent upon all of us to exercise sound judgment when heading into the field about what is really “enough gun” and the right bullet.

FWIW, my go-to medium game gun is a 6.5 PRC with Norma BondStrike bullets because it gives me the range I know I’m comfortable shooting with effective bullet performance, and my go-to big critter gun is a 270 WSM with 130 gr E-Tips. And while I’m comfortable with either of these for black bears, well, that’s still a .300 Win Mag with 165 gr Sierra Gameking HPBT bullets. Why? See the previous statements “don’t willingly take a .32 ACP to a gunfight” and “don’t willingly take just a handgun to a gunfight” either.

Your loss. Lots of us are killing lots of game with these inferior .223s you speak of.

But you keep using a 300wm for those big scary black bears.

 

[NMTGrad]

You, eh...you know there's a whole thread covering hundreds of pages of evidence, containing thousands of posts of evidence, of people killing stuff far bigger than deer, like elk, moose, grizzly, reliably, right?

You may not want to read through all 98 pages here - but until you dive into that other thread, your opinion will just not outweigh the experiences of dozens of others, and the evidence they've provided.

Up until that quote though, you made some very solid points. I suspect you've got the open-mindedness to reassess your position, given new evidence and perspective.

And I would tell those folks the same thing I’d tell someone who willingly takes a .32 ACP to a gunfight. There is lots and lots and lots of empirical data about .32s killing people in gunfights. That still doesn’t make it a good decision to carry one into the breach. In the tactical world, it’s called luck skill building. Doing something wrong or unwise repeatedly but never having a poor outcome doesn’t mean you’re a skilled tactician. It just means you’ve been lucky. But lots and lots of teams do it. And I told them the same thing. Luck skill building gets people killed.

 

[NMTGrad]

Your loss. Lots of us are killing lots of game with these inferior .223s you speak of.

But you keep using a 300wm for those big scary black bears.

Luck skill building.

 

[eric1115]

Luck skill building.

Do you have any reasoned evidence that the specific .223 projectiles being discussed (77TMK, 73/80/88 ELDX/M) are tempting fate and asking for a poor outcome? Like have you used them or seen them used? Or are you assuming they are ineffective the way lots of guys assume 9mm is underpowered if .45 is an option?

 

[Schmo]

And I would tell those folks the same thing I’d tell someone who willingly takes a .32 ACP to a gunfight. There is lots and lots and lots of empirical data about .32s killing people in gunfights. That still doesn’t make it a good decision to carry one into the breach. In the tactical world, it’s called luck skill building. Doing something wrong or unwise repeatedly but never having a poor outcome doesn’t mean you’re a skilled tactician. It just means you’ve been lucky. But lots and lots of teams do it. And I told them the same thing. Luck skill building gets people killed.

Before posting more about this, maybe go read some of that thread. Two of my own kills are in it. We’re not saying it’s the be-all, end-all cartridge. But paired with the right bullet, it offers some incredible terminal ballistics. So much so, that with certain bullets, some say it’s too much damage. It’s not “luck”, as you put it. It’s been replicated hundreds if not thousands of times by members here. It’s a known outcome. No one with an open mind or honesty can read that thread and walk away saying “it’s marginal”.