Questions for Form and other "small caliber for big game" folks

[Macintosh]

I dont wash my car. But as far as you know my undies are clean.

(I clean my guns even if I dont “turbo-scrub” the way some do…several of my guns are older and have worn bluing or softer steel, etc and are prone to rusting. My 1980’s remingtons will rust where bluing is worn if you leave them alone unsupervised for a week, just as one example. Not sure if “or carbon” was referring to carbon steel or carbon fiber with a stainless insert…but I sort of think maybe a one-size-fits-all solution of not cleaning may not be a good idea, even if not cleaning the bore of a modern stainless rifle might be fine)

 

[Maverick1]

You have to accept carbon barrels will pit without cleaning - that fact of life hasn’t changed since Lewis and Clark were still in diapers.

I personally don’t care if people clean or not - it makes no sense since cleaning only takes a few minutes, but grown adults can do what they want. It’s talked about like nothing bad will happen, but barrels rust, metal below stock lines rust, bolts rust, triggers rust. It all works fine until it doesn’t. Avoiding basic maintenance because it takes too long is right up there with making a bed, wearing clean underwear, and washing the car.

How is making a bed basic maintenance? What is the impact or consequences of not making a bed?

What about washing the car? What happens if you don’t wash the car?

 

[JohnJohnson]

Tape the muzzles when in the field. No, I/we do not clean the barrels. Wipe the bolt down, spray brake cleaner and flush the action is needed, relube the bolt and action, move on with life.

Think I missed the larger post about this but not even every 500 rounds or whatever for copper buildup?

 

[Wrench]

Some guys put their rifle away and it won't be shot for months. If mine goes 5 days without firing it's been a busy week. I will shoot rocks and yotes every time I'm out.

 

[Castle Rock]

I live near the coast, believe me barrels rust internally in no time if they are left dirty, they get a light wipe with barricade each night in the field and a good hit of it before storage

 

[TaperPin]

How is making a bed basic maintenance? What is the impact or consequences of not making a bed?

What about washing the car? What happens if you don’t wash the car?

If you make the bed, you’ll get a star on the chore chart, maybe even ice cream.

 

[5MilesBack]

If I don't make the bed, I can't sleep in it. The covers have to be pulled up to the right length, the sheet folded far enough over the blankets or comforter so it doesn't flip back up or get in my way when I tuck it all under my chin, and all three sides need to be tucked in TIGHT. Been that way as long as I can remember. I always had to make my bed as a kid because my mom never did it right.

Oh, and I stopped cleaning my barrels about 30 years ago.......until they start shooting erratically, then I clean them and start over with fouling the barrel.

 

[wind gypsy]

Near all of my barrels are stainless but i'll have another carbon steel one soon.. In midwest climate if a guy shoots it monthly, does the bore really need to be cleaned to keep it from pitting?

 

[NSI]

Linked thread is already the cleaning vs anti-cleaning thread. Please leave this one alone for the OP's 3 excellent unrelated questions. Thanks guys.

-J

 

[RockAndSage]

BUT, I really am interested in reducing the "I suck" portion of the process

OP, as I'm sure you know, the only way around this is practice. Good, quality, consistent, frequent practice.

When it comes to ammo selection, what works directly, proportionally against this are cost and recoil.

I'd offer that you'd reduce the "I suck" portion of the process most effectively by going with .223. If that's just an absolute no-go for you for some reason, look to the least severe jump up in cost and recoil - something like .22 ARC or 6mm ARC. Separate from cost, the more you go up the scale in recoil, the more intensely you have to focus on each of your shooting fundamentals to achieve your desired accuracy - and the harder it gets to do that in the realities of unpredictable, informal, and sub-optimal shooting positions and conditions you'll be faced with in the field.

Paraphrasing just a bit here - a few months back in a related thread, I asked @Formidilosus what he personally felt was his own upper limit on cartridge selection before recoil started to become a factor for maximum field accuracy. He suggested it was right around .22 Creedmoor. I think that says a lot, and should be carefully considered when you make your own cartridge decision.

Keep in mind that none of this is a black-and-white question of "can be done" vs "can't be done" - it's a spectrum. The more cost and recoil you incur with every shot, the more you slide to the "hard" side of the spectrum, with every penny and ft/pound you go up.

 

[Formidilosus]

One follow-up. Form, you say to tape the muzzle when in the field. Do you cover all of the holes on the suppressor? My Nomad has the center bore-hole, but also a series of smaller holes around the end cap.

Same question for a muzzle brake, do you cover the entire thing with electrical tape?

Thanks,

Yes.

 

[BLJ]

Near all of my barrels are stainless but i'll have another carbon steel one soon.. In midwest climate if a guy shoots it monthly, does the bore really need to be cleaned to keep it from pitting?

And to add to this. I wonder what the difference would be in a 10 round group between a “normal” cleaning regiment and some pitting and rust?

 

[Steve300xcw]

And to add to this. I wonder what the difference would be in a 10 round group between a “normal” cleaning regiment and some pitting and rust?

I bet there are a pile of barrels out there that shot pretty good, until the guy bought a bore scope

 

[DagOtto]

And to add to this. I wonder what the difference would be in a 10 round group between a “normal” cleaning regiment and some pitting and rust?

I'd be interested to hear others take on this. Does corrosion in a barrel negatively affect accuracy? It sure seemed to for me.

My personal experience with blued carbon barrels is that once your teenage self lets them rust on the inside of the bore, the barrel is cooked as far as being truly accurate. I had a Winchester model 70 in 7mm-08 and a Ruger in 7 rem mag from the 90s and both guns lost accuracy. Both turned out to have rust in the barrels and many years later I tried to revive the 7mm-08 by bed setting, working on the trigger, putting a decent scope on it, and working the inside of the barrel with various cleaners, eventually resorting to JB Paste and lapping. The gun never shot better than 1.5 3 round groups, (yes this was before I knew that 10 rounds groups were a minimum.) So call it a 3" gun. Similar story for the blued carbon 7 rem. mag.

Based on this experience, and my desire to treat guns as durable tools rather than collectors items or fragile dishes--- I intend to forever more buy stainless or stainess/carbon wrapped barrels and synthetic stocks. At least for guns I intend to use in the field.

D.O.

 

[DagOtto]

OP, as I'm sure you know, the only way around this is practice. Good, quality, consistent, frequent practice.

When it comes to ammo selection, what works directly, proportionally against this are cost and recoil.

I'd offer that you'd reduce the "I suck" portion of the process most effectively by going with .223. If that's just an absolute no-go for you for some reason, look to the least severe jump up in cost and recoil - something like .22 ARC or 6mm ARC. Separate from cost, the more you go up the scale in recoil, the more intensely you have to focus on each of your shooting fundamentals to achieve your desired accuracy - and the harder it gets to do that in the realities of unpredictable, informal, and sub-optimal shooting positions and conditions you'll be faced with in the field.

Paraphrasing just a bit here - a few months back in a related thread, I asked @Formidilosus what he personally felt was his own upper limit on cartridge selection before recoil started to become a factor for maximum field accuracy. He suggested it was right around .22 Creedmoor. I think that says a lot, and should be carefully considered when you make your own cartridge decision.

Keep in mind that none of this is a black-and-white question of "can be done" vs "can't be done" - it's a spectrum. The more cost and recoil you incur with every shot, the more you slide to the "hard" side of the spectrum, with every penny and ft/pound you go up.

Great summary and thanks for this.

I had not seen your question and Form's answer regarding .22 CM being a cut-off for when recoil begins to negatively affect accuracy. That is helpful and the kind of insight I was trying to get at with my question. Form replied that "the lower the recoil the better." But this helps to clarify.

I've heard that Olympic level shooters like to dry-fire practice a minimum of 10 times for every live fire round as they feel the live fire practice develops bad habits. (Aren't they shooting 22LR?!?)

Increasing the amount of field-simulation sessions in 2023-2024 has already greatly improved my actual shooting animals. And that is with only 10-15 range sessions where we did field simulation drills. I hope to increase the number of range visits, number of rounds and the variability of stress/simulations in the coming year to push it even further.

And based on Form's input and the story about Olympic shooters it seems like the best for cost and pure skill work would be to build a .22 practice rifle. In some ways I like this model which I know many folks are proponents of. It sounds like it would maximize the affectiveness of training, while allowing me to switch to various larger calibers depening on actual hunting goals.

Plus! It's an excuse to build another gun!

 

[RockAndSage]

Great summary and thanks for this.

I had not seen your question and Form's answer regarding .22 CM being a cut-off for when recoil begins to negatively affect accuracy. That is helpful and the kind of insight I was trying to get at with my question. Form replied that "the lower the recoil the better." But this helps to clarify.

I've heard that Olympic level shooters like to dry-fire practice a minimum of 10 times for every live fire round as they feel the live fire practice develops bad habits. (Aren't they shooting 22LR?!?)

Increasing the amount of field-simulation sessions in 2023-2024 has already greatly improved my actual shooting animals. And that is with only 10-15 range sessions where we did field simulation drills. I hope to increase the number of range visits, number of rounds and the variability of stress/simulations in the coming year to push it even further.

And based on Form's input and the story about Olympic shooters it seems like the best for cost and pure skill work would be to build a .22 practice rifle. In some ways I like this model which I know many folks are proponents of. It sounds like it would maximize the affectiveness of training, while allowing me to switch to various larger calibers depening on actual hunting goals.

Plus! It's an excuse to build another gun!

The .22s can be great for training, but a word of caution: they don't reveal errors and deficiencies in form the way recoil does.

In my experience, .223 really is an excellent sweet spot in providing just enough recoil over rimfires for errors in form/body dynamics to show up, but not so much recoil or muzzle blast that you develop a flinch or start anticipating recoil.

To be frank, it wouldn't be a bad idea at all to think of it like pilot training, and not move up to a more powerful platform until the standards are mastered with less high-performance ones first. Start with .22LR and a set of very clear, measurable standards for accuracy and time, and only move up to .223 after you can meet those on demand. Do same with .223 before moving up to something like .243, 22CM, 6CM, etc.

 

[DagOtto]

Okay, thanks for the answers and feedback to my questions. Here is another one I've been stewing on:

4)

Since listening to Form's podcasts and reading more from all of the "smaller caliber for big game" pundits on Rokslide I've been trying to align a classic hunting trope about bullets with this newer information in my head.

We have all read that Alaska Grizzly Guides and Dangerous Game hunters in Africa will load their giant caliber rifles with solid non-expanding bullets in case they need to shoot charging Grizzly Bear or Buffalo in self defense at very short range.

Where is the logic in that strategy?

Would the Rokslide Small Caliber crew suggest a different bullet choice would be more affective?

To extend the question to the other end of the spectrum, wouldn't these guides and hunters have a better chance of protecting themselves from the charging beast using a 4:10 shotgun shell loaded with buckshot? (is that the ultimate frangible bullet after all?)

Thoughts?

P.S.-- I don't think Peter Hathaway would have liked what ya'll have to say!

 

[Bowfinn]

We have all read that Alaska Grizzly Guides and Dangerous Game hunters in Africa will load their giant caliber rifles with solid non-expanding bullets in case they need to shoot charging Grizzly Bear or Buffalo in self defense at very short range.

Where is the logic in that strategy?

Would the Rokslide Small Caliber crew suggest a different bullet choice would be more affective?

It doesn’t make alot of sense to me as well. My choice would be a SBR with a red dot shooting 77 tmks. The goal is to have a bullet that causes maximal tissue damage with sufficient penetration in the most shootable platform for rapid shots.