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

[RockAndSage]

Thanks so much for this thoughtful response.

I can tell you that for the last 5 or 6 months I have been going through a very similar process as it sounds like you went through in terms of Form's "data" and my own beliefs.

My first reaction upon listening to Form's first podcast with the Exo Mtn Gear guys was to call B.S. and be defensive.

I've written this before, but if what Form stated in that podcast about the "toughness" of penetrating a large bull elk or Alaska moose is correct, it literally wipes out 70 years of commonly held "best practices" for hunting rifle cartridge and bullet selection; and essentially makes hundreds of Guides, PHs and hunting journalists flat-out-wrong. Frankly, that still makes me skeptical. Hence the question regarding African dangerous game and Grizzly defense guns. Could all of us have gotten things so wrong as to be sending African PHs into the bush with the wrong bullet in the wrong caliber rifle?

I even shot off a shitty email to Mark basically accusing him of joining a cult. (little did I know about the cult of Rokslide!) But I had grown to appreciate Mark and Steve's podcast because of their scientific and level headed approach to all things hunting..... and after listening through the podcasts a second time I stopped a .308 Win. build I was in the middle of and ordered a 6.5 CM proof barrel instead.

While I will remain a healthy skeptic, Form and his minions have profoundly changed my approach to becoming a better, more humane and more successful hunter. And for that I am really, really grateful.

Sounds like I'm not the only one on this kind of journey.

Regarding African dangerous game guns and cartridges, it's a great question that I've wondered about quite a bit myself. I'm definitely a cartridge geek, and personally love big-bore guns. But I've also questioned different parts of the inherited wisdom about them at times.

Here are a couple of points that come to mind...

The first is that many of the "stopping cartridges" still used today, were invented during the black powder era - things like .577 Nitro Express, etc. Their designs were excellent for the task, with the propellants and bullet tech of the era. It was proven to work. Why change what works, right? Especially now if it works better, with smokeless powder!!

From there, you also get human factors cementing those cartridge ideas in place - the extreme money needed, with upper-class Brits leading the cultural charge of what "hunting Africa" entailed, combined with the romanticization of it all through hunting memoirs and fiction. That gets you to some form of culturally dictated..."One simply does not hunt the dangerous game of the dark continent without a proper large bore double-rifle, ol' boy. It would be quite unseemly." Culturally, large-bore gets hardwired, and the more expensive the gun, the better the hunt. At least until Hemingway and other writers got Americans more interested in the 1950s, and the plebian mass-produced guns we'd bring with us, while still pining away for a Westly Richards in .500 Nitro Express.

Combined though, I suspect you essentially have PHs mostly going with what they know has proven to work on dangerous game - mostly just grandfathered in, with little to no interest in risking their lives in a very real way to test small-caliber themselves. Those norms get advised to clients, and many of those clients come with their own big-bores out of a combination of inherited wisdom and romanticization of an Africa hunt. PH norms may change if they observe enough small-caliber success from their clients, over time...but likely only from the comfort of having a big-bore double rifle in their hands as a "stopping gun", while they observe.

There's also the seemingly genetically hardwired human behavior of tying how big your weapon is with how mighty and manly you are as a person. Which is absolutely playing a part here in why people push back with such emotional violence against Form's small-caliber truths - it's hitting them in the man-card. A man uses a proper man's gun, not a women's and kids' cartridge, right?

Keep in mind - Form is not the first person to advocate small-caliber. An Africa hunter named Walter Bell killed over 1100 elephants with 6.5 and 7mm cartridges - and was absolutely meticulous in analyzing and documenting the results of that performance when cutting into his game animals. His most emphatic points revolved around the importance of shot placement. But he also noted that .303s and other small caliber guns would often kill just as fast as big bores when the bullets went in the same place.

 

[ElPollo]

What additional data would you like to see? I can see if I still have it. Of course it would be nice to do a completely exhaustive test, but results are genuinely so bad with all bullets that I’m not sure there’s any conclusion to make other than: don’t try to shoot through the brush. Sample size was definitely too small to draw concrete conclusions. Rather, I was pointing out some trends like mono bullets universally showing less deflection and failure, and lighter, faster, pointier bullets weren’t necessarily worse, which is what O’connor concluded.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hey thanks for the response, Tyler. If you have the data on keyholing and deflection rates by bullet type, it would be pertinent to this discussion.
It would also be interesting to see this repeated keeping bullet type consistent across calibers from 22-33. This article came up in a discussion that was asking about reasons one might select larger calibers for hunting. Brush deflection and large or dangerous game are factors that are often cited to support that decision. There has already been a lot of discussion on this site about how bullet construction can have a larger effect on wound channel size than caliber.

 

[Flynhunt]

Great thread. I read a ton of the posts on small caliber hunting for big game. While I may have been swayed a little, I still am skeptical and can’t jump on board, especially for elk. Here’s my thoughts:

Scenario #1: I’ve got a trophy bull at 500 yds (although distance probably doesn’t matter). I’ve got 2 of the exact same guns sitting there, except one is a big 7mm/30 cal., and the other is a 6mm. I’ve got 1 shot. I’m going to pick the big magnum every time.

Scenario #2: I’ve got a grizzly charging. Same options on the guns and 1 shot. Again, no question I’m picking the big mag. Why?, because I feel like the mag has the best chance at stopping the animal and causing the most damage.

So if it the magnum has the best likelihood at stopping the grizzly, how would it not also remain true with the elk? What I cannot wrap my head around is a 115 gr bullet vs a 200ish gr bullet. Assuming they both perform as expected, either mushrooming or fragmenting, how is it possible that the bigger, wider, heavier bullet does not cause more damage? Now at this point I’m sure someone is itching to tell me shot placement. I’ve come to hate that saying. Not because I disagree, of course it’s important, but because it seems so blatantly obvious it doesn’t need to be said again and again. Like telling someone you need to “shoot good”, well of course you do. I start to wonder if some of the people hooked on that phrase have ever actually hunted? While you may shoot perfect clover leaf groups at 100 yds, things become a whole lot different in the hills. Wind, moving animals, bushes, poor rest, etc. With perfect shot placement through the eye or ear canal into the brain, you could probably kill everything with a 22lr, but of course that’s a silly idea. So on the days when my shot isn’t perfect, I want a bigger mushroom, or more shrapnel moving to hopefully gives me better odds at hitting a vital organ.

Im not denying there has been a good argument put forward along with evidence of successful kills, by people with a lot of experience and knowledge here. I find it very intriguing. But I also think no one wants to put out there when it didn’t go right. I certainly get the arguments of reduced recoil, easier to spot impacts and follow up shots, and flinching. However I can’t recall ever noticing the recoil when taking a shot on an animal. On LRO the mods insist that the 215 Berger is the best elk medicine, and they too seem to have extensive experience on hunts. So are they wrong? It seems that if you happen to still prefer your magnums and aren’t on board, you’ll get hammered on here.

Not trying to start an argument, or saying I’m right, just where I’ve fallen on the issue thus far. Maybe I’ll be convinced otherwise eventually, and that could save me some money on powder!

 

[Castle Rock]

There are two reasons to use a smaller caliber, the first being shootability, under tough conditions everyone shoots smaller guns better, and follow up chances are so much better, not every scenario goes your way.
The second is many bigger combinations don’t offer any more wound channel, and with some it is less due to traditionally poor choice in bullets

 

[B_Reynolds_AK]

I feel like the mag has the best chance at stopping the animal and causing the most damage.

So if it the magnum has the best likelihood at stopping the grizzly, how would it not also remain true with the elk?

A brief response to this and not meant to be disrespectful;

You are still in the "I feel" stage.
You feel the mag has the best chance, which leads to a presumption that is true and thus be a better choice for that elk.

You stated yourself that there has been evidence presented of successful kills of big game with small cartridges by people with a lot of knowledge & experience.

Of course a 225 ELD-M will cause a larger wound channel than a 108 ELD-M. But, when the 108 is entirely sufficient to create a devastating wound channel in an elk at 500 yards, why would you need that 225 with the added recoil, slow follow up shot, no chance of spotting the impact or even being profficient enough with it to place the shot accurately in the first place?

 

[Ozarkansas]

Scenario #1: I’ve got a trophy bull at 500 yds (although distance probably doesn’t matter). I’ve got 2 of the exact same guns sitting there, except one is a big 7mm/30 cal., and the other is a 6mm. I’ve got 1 shot. I’m going to pick the big magnum every time.

Scenario #2: I’ve got a grizzly charging. Same options on the guns and 1 shot. Again, no question I’m picking the big mag. Why?, because I feel like the mag has the best chance at stopping the animal and causing the most damage

In scenario 1, I think the most objectively correct answer is you should grab whichever one provides the best chance of a 1st round vital hit. A 6mm double lung is much better than a .30 gut shot or miss. It may be that at 500 yards you don’t shoot the 6mm that much better, but a lot of the guys advocating for small calibers are doing so because of better 1st round hit rates and shot spotting at longer ranges. I am not one of these guys (I don’t shoot long range) but that’s their perspective and it makes sense to me. I personally don’t see a difference in hit rates between my main hunting rifles and a .223 at the ranges I hunt, but I also already hunt with smallish (.243 and 6.5) calibers. I can definitely tell the difference in shoot ability between them and my 45/70.

For scenario #2, I’d argue you’ve created a false dichotomy, and that the actual best gun would be a mild-recoil if, reliable semi-auto that can give you the most chances at a brain shot, while still doing sufficient damage to the vitals if you miss. I’d take an AR-10 or even 15 over a .416 bolt gun

 

[30338]

Can't use the .22 caliber here in CO but we trended down over the years to 6.5x47 for everything. Got a pic last night of another bull elk for my son. 140 berger vld at 2650 fps and dead elk. We've discussed going down to 6 creedmoor but I hate retooling when the little 6.5 stuff works so good. I did build a bolt 6/45 gun and hope to try it soon.

 

[Forestryguy]

Thoughts and more questions.

Things to remember about Bell taking elephants. He started with 6.5s, then moved up to 7mm after seeing that he was having bullet deflection, not straight wound channels. He was also shooting military FMJ ammo and taking only brain shots at close distances.

Listening to the podcast with Form, he said that recoil around the 10-12 ft lbs range is tolerable by most people (paraphrased from what I remember). Is that Free or felt recoil or total recoil generated by a cartridge? If it is felt recoil, the shootability of a larger cartridge should become more tolerable with a heavier rifle, correct? If that is correct the old timers may have had it somewhat figured out with 8-12lb rifles. Rough figuring, a 10-12 lb 30-06 would get you close to a tolerable felt recoil range. It is not always the most pleasant weight to carry, but it is doable and has been done in the past.

With the 6mm cartridges and modern, well-constructed bullets, what seems to be the percentage of pass-throughs vs. only having organ trauma? That is, within realistic hunting ranges (300-500 yds). I am mostly a Midwest hunter with more property line boundaries, thicker swamps, and clear-cut areas where I want definite blood trails.

 

[Ozarkansas]

With the 6mm cartridges and modern, well-constructed bullets, what seems to be the percentage of pass-throughs vs. only having organ trauma? I am mostly a Midwest hunter with more property line boundaries, thicker swamps, and clear-cut areas where I want definite blood trails.

Speaking only to the 6mm discussion, I haven’t seen a .243 partition stay in the annimal after at least a half dozen deer and a big pig, I imagine monolithic copper bullets also generally exit. In regular cup-and-core and bonded bullets I’ve seen that it’s about 50/50 whether it exits or not. The furthest I’ve seen a deer run after a hit from a .243 or 6mm was 75 yards, and that includes a couple gut shots. Double lung shots have all either dropped or run less than 50

 

[Felix40]

I think some of the deep “thinkers” in this thread need to get out and shoot some animals. If the evidence already presented isn’t convincing to you, then there’s nothing anyone can say here to change your mind.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

I think some of the deep “thinkers” in this thread need to get out and shoot some animals. If the evidence already presented isn’t convincing to you, then there’s nothing anyone can say here to change your mind.

Bingo!

 

[DagOtto]

What additional data would you like to see? I can see if I still have it. Of course it would be nice to do a completely exhaustive test, but results are genuinely so bad with all bullets that I’m not sure there’s any conclusion to make other than: don’t try to shoot through the brush. Sample size was definitely too small to draw concrete conclusions. Rather, I was pointing out some trends like mono bullets universally showing less deflection and failure, and lighter, faster, pointier bullets weren’t necessarily worse, which is what O’connor concluded.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks to all for sharing the "brush-busting" research. Thanks to you Tyler for actually doing some field study and sharing!

Based on all of this data and conversation it appears to me that "brush busting capability" is one valid reason why someone might choose a heavy caliber / hard bullet combo. Clearly a very rare condition would justify this reasoning. Honestly, I'm not sure what condition would justify making this decision given the loss of accuracy and terminal performance. Maybe a Alaska bush Moose hunter who is never taking shots past 100 yards and is always following shot moose into the brush or similar.

But at least there appears to be a valid and data-backed reasoning behind the decision! Yay!

The base reason for my original question was that this use case and question seems to test the overall theory espoused here that smaller caliber/ softer bullets are more terminally affective (faster acting and more damaging) than the typically recommended "best practices" across all game species. It just happens that this is an "edge" case so I hoped it would more clearly separate data from lore.

Based on this thread, the current answer to why African PHs and Alaskan Grizzly Guides and Dangerous Game hunters all use very large calibers and hard bullets is:

1) Brush busting capability. (lets accept the data that Tyler and others have compiled as "settled science" that these larger/harder bullets do indeed perform better in this condition.

2) Straighter and Deeper penetration than smaller / softer bullets. Again, let's assume that this is also "settled science" as it appears that there is lots of data to reinforce this claim.

The reasoning then is simply that if charged by a Grizzly or Cape Buffalo and you only have time to get one wildly aimed shot off at very close range you want a bullet that will crunch through anything and everything to increase your chances of stopping the animal.

This seems then to be based on pretty solid "fact-based" footings in my opinion. But the valid reasons for this "best practice" are so unique that it doesn't relate to the overall smaller caliber /softer bullet debate.

And it still seems to me that a short 12 gauge shotgun would be a better backup option if ALL you wanted the system to do was perform in the case of a charging animal. I get that a lot of PHS and guides probably also need their rifles to perform in other scenarios (backing up their clients errant shots etc.)

DA

 

[ztc92]

Great thread. I read a ton of the posts on small caliber hunting for big game. While I may have been swayed a little, I still am skeptical and can’t jump on board, especially for elk. Here’s my thoughts:

Scenario #1: I’ve got a trophy bull at 500 yds (although distance probably doesn’t matter). I’ve got 2 of the exact same guns sitting there, except one is a big 7mm/30 cal., and the other is a 6mm. I’ve got 1 shot. I’m going to pick the big magnum every time.

Scenario #2: I’ve got a grizzly charging. Same options on the guns and 1 shot. Again, no question I’m picking the big mag. Why?, because I feel like the mag has the best chance at stopping the animal and causing the most damage.

So if it the magnum has the best likelihood at stopping the grizzly, how would it not also remain true with the elk? What I cannot wrap my head around is a 115 gr bullet vs a 200ish gr bullet. Assuming they both perform as expected, either mushrooming or fragmenting, how is it possible that the bigger, wider, heavier bullet does not cause more damage? Now at this point I’m sure someone is itching to tell me shot placement. I’ve come to hate that saying. Not because I disagree, of course it’s important, but because it seems so blatantly obvious it doesn’t need to be said again and again. Like telling someone you need to “shoot good”, well of course you do. I start to wonder if some of the people hooked on that phrase have ever actually hunted? While you may shoot perfect clover leaf groups at 100 yds, things become a whole lot different in the hills. Wind, moving animals, bushes, poor rest, etc. With perfect shot placement through the eye or ear canal into the brain, you could probably kill everything with a 22lr, but of course that’s a silly idea. So on the days when my shot isn’t perfect, I want a bigger mushroom, or more shrapnel moving to hopefully gives me better odds at hitting a vital organ.

Im not denying there has been a good argument put forward along with evidence of successful kills, by people with a lot of experience and knowledge here. I find it very intriguing. But I also think no one wants to put out there when it didn’t go right. I certainly get the arguments of reduced recoil, easier to spot impacts and follow up shots, and flinching. However I can’t recall ever noticing the recoil when taking a shot on an animal. On LRO the mods insist that the 215 Berger is the best elk medicine, and they too seem to have extensive experience on hunts. So are they wrong? It seems that if you happen to still prefer your magnums and aren’t on board, you’ll get hammered on here.

Not trying to start an argument, or saying I’m right, just where I’ve fallen on the issue thus far. Maybe I’ll be convinced otherwise eventually, and that could save me some money on powder!

Have you listened to the two part podcast from Exo with Form discussing this exact topic in depth for 3+ hours? If you haven’t, you really should, it was pretty much made to address every concern you’ve raised. I say this after acknowledging that I was basically you about 2-3 years ago. I was going to build a 7mm Rem Mag for elk because it’s “good elk medicine”.

Then I got on rokslide and started learning all about the idea of shooting smaller calibers because you will shoot them better and almost certainly will practice more. I bought a .223 and practiced a ton (1000+ rounds), which is about 900 rounds more than all combined rifle practice in the prior 30 years of my life. That fall, I killed an elk with that .223 even though everyone thought I was insane, because I loved that gun and shot it well. A mature cow elk went 8 yards and died in less than a minute. I put 4 shots into it with ease and though my shooting form and position was far from ideal, I still watched it all happen through the scope, which I had never done before.

I say this with the best intentions, having been in your shoes recently. You don’t know what you don’t know. Listen to the exo podcast with form and take it all in. You may need to listen a few times. I can almost guarantee you wouldn’t want the magnum for the elk or the grizzly in your scenario once you understand how significantly the recoil affects your hit rates and how irrelevant the larger wound it has the potential to create is.

Rokslide is a wealth of information. Continue asking good questions and keep an open mind when people respond, then you’ll be well on your way to maximizing your abilities as both a shooter and a hunter.

Podcast links for reference:

Hunt Backcountry Podcast 469 | Why Smaller Calibers May Be Better For Big Game Hunting — The Experience Project

This podcast will challenge decades of

exomtngear.com

Hunt Backcountry Podcast 470 | Why Smaller Calibers May Be Better For Big Game Hunting (Part 2) — The Experience Project

This is the second half of a conversation that explores why smaller rifle calibers may be better for big game hunting. This Hunt Backcountry Podcast episode explores how different types of bullets create different wound channels, the relationship between impact velocity and bullet...

exomtngear.com

 

[DagOtto]

Bin

I think some of the deep “thinkers” in this thread need to get out and shoot some animals. If the evidence already presented isn’t convincing to you, then there’s nothing anyone can say here to change your mind.

Hah, I find myself totally agreeing even though I'm clearly one of those deep thinkers.

I apologize again for the mental drool.

In defense of myself...

I just have to say that in the last three days I've been to the range twice, done several practical hunting drills and put 64 rounds down range. I've also been out hunting twice.

Somewhere in the puddle of mental drool there really is a person who is 1) in the field hunting a lot and 2) understands that the mental BSing is just that.

 

[DagOtto]

Have you listened to the two part podcast from Exo with Form discussing this exact topic in depth for 3+ hours? If you haven’t, you really should, it was pretty much made to address every concern you’ve raised. I say this after acknowledging that I was basically you about 2-3 years ago. I was going to build a 7mm Rem Mag for elk because it’s “good elk medicine”.

Then I got on rokslide and started learning all about the idea of shooting smaller calibers because you will shoot them better and almost certainly will practice more. I bought a .223 and practiced a ton (1000+ rounds), which is about 900 rounds more than all combined rifle practice in the prior 30 years of my life. That fall, I killed an elk with that .223 even though everyone thought I was insane, because I loved that gun and shot it well. A mature cow elk went 8 yards and died in less than a minute. I put 4 shots into it with ease and though my shooting form and position was far from ideal, I still watched it all happen through the scope, which I had never done before.

I say this with the best intentions, having been in your shoes recently. You don’t know what you don’t know. Listen to the exo podcast with form and take it all in. You may need to listen a few times. I can almost guarantee you wouldn’t want the magnum for the elk or the grizzly in your scenario once you understand how significantly the recoil affects your hit rates and how irrelevant the larger wound it has the potential to create is.

Rokslide is a wealth of information. Continue asking good questions and keep an open mind when people respond, then you’ll be well on your way to maximizing your abilities as both a shooter and a hunter.

Podcast links for reference:

Hunt Backcountry Podcast 469 | Why Smaller Calibers May Be Better For Big Game Hunting — The Experience Project

This podcast will challenge decades of

exomtngear.com

Hunt Backcountry Podcast 470 | Why Smaller Calibers May Be Better For Big Game Hunting (Part 2) — The Experience Project

This is the second half of a conversation that explores why smaller rifle calibers may be better for big game hunting. This Hunt Backcountry Podcast episode explores how different types of bullets create different wound channels, the relationship between impact velocity and bullet...

exomtngear.com

Hey ztc,

Yes, like you those Exo podcasts started me down this road. I've listened to them 2-3 times each and even took notes! I've since basically "hoovered" up every bit of Form content possible and that is how I landed here on Rokslide.

I've also put these theories into practice altering a rifle build from .308 win to 6.5CM, switching bullets from typical mono metals to DRT, leaving behind my beloved Leuopold brand for the first time in 30 years and going to Trijicon and NF, and transitioning from a ton of bench shooting to a ton of practical hunting drills.

I think that I have probably advanced my skills in terms of affectively and humanely kiling game more in the last 6-8 months than in the previous 30 years. And that is from someone who has been "trying" to be better than the average hunter for many years. This effort really accelerated for me about 5 seasons ago after a total rodeo on a large muley.

So while I still have a million questions and am skeptical by nature, I do feel incredibly appreciatve for Form and others on Rokslide and for Mark at Exo for sharing this info.

 

[DagOtto]

Regarding the info Form provides, I'd have to summarize my current default position is that what he says is true and should just be trusted, unless something specific is demonstrably proven otherwise, with evidence. It didn't start that way.

But as I learned more, and more of my own experiences started matching up with what I began understanding him to say...I just started defaulting to him being an instructor, with vastly more experience successfully killing big game and long-range field-reality precision rifle shooting than me, and all but the rarest hunters. He's human, nobody's perfect, he's made mistakes, but he's also a trove of info - with the courage to speak truths while being vilified by some. We're just not likely in this era to ever find a higher volume of real-world data on the results of shooting small-caliber on North American big game, including number of shots per kill, distances, and time for the animal to go down. All that gets magnified even more by his experiences as a shooting instructor, and seeing what happens to a person's shooting accuracy in simply switching from smaller or larger cartridges.

I'm definitely not saying this as a fanboy - I'm saying this as someone who has been the expert on a couple of things in my own life, and who has had the privilege to instruct on those issues.

There are always partially-experienced but righteously vehement people who just don't know how ignorant they are, arguing against your superior expertise, experience, and cumulative wisdom. The more I discovered Form wasn't just some internet rando, but had a substantial background on the claims he was making, the more I realized he seemed to be in this position himself, on what he shared here.

People with no background, cultural biases, or preconceived ideas are the easiest to teach - it's the people with just enough experience to be immersed in the Dunning-Kruger effect that are the problem.

There's a learning curve, where the people with the least experience, and the people with the absolute most experience, are the easiest to teach. It's the people in the middle that can be such an absolute pain in the ass.

Form would have zero problem teaching his experiences and wisdom to new shooters and new hunters, and would get them up to speed far quicker than he could your average hunter. And he would likely have a similarly easy time teaching his stuff to former Delta or CIA Ground Branch people - who are used to trying on new ideas, even if they go against their current preferences or understandings. They're comfortable with that, as professional students, and seek it out. It's the people who think they know more than they actually do that are the problem. Especially when those people's dispositions blind them to negative-evidence of their beliefs. I've experienced this over and over when instructing, until those middle people experience enough pain for the realization of their mistakes to crack through their mentality. And I've been on the wrong side of it myself once or twice as a kid, too.

The dude goes through a tremendous amount of crap here, sharing his knowledge and experience, when other people of similar expertise would have bailed on it a long, long time ago.


EDIT: In case clarification is needed, the Dunning-Kruger stuff wasn't directed at you. It's clear you're uncommonly good at learning and following truths.

Damn, that is such a true and accurate summary IMHO.

As one of those who is not a beginner and not an expert, I feel somewhat bad for asking questions. It's obvious to me that someone needs to say, "shut up kid, just do as a I say." And they are probably correct.

BUT, even on this site I see lots of people who don't have the experience of a Tyler or Form but who are, as you so eloquently say, "righteously vehement." And it is that attitude along with 75 years of industry marketing that have gotten us where we are to begin with.

Just 8 months ago I was happily working to build a rifle that would launch a 180 grain mono-metal bullet at 2900 FPS because that is what I had taken away from industry experts and trusted gurus was the ideal elk cartridge. And this was after A LOT of reading, researching and dialogue with experts. Some of whom I still greatly respect. (Nathan Foster for one, recommended .30 cal minimum when I asked specifically)

Form's data and stance has been such a world-rocker for me that I have lots and lots of questions and just want to learn and see more data! I feel like we all have been miss-led and lied-to for so many years regarding hunting rifles and affective killing that I'm being slowly deprogrammed from a cult. And I'm so pissed about it I don't want to fall into another one.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

Regarding the info Form provides, I'd have to summarize my current default position is that what he says is true and should just be trusted, unless something specific is demonstrably proven otherwise, with evidence. It didn't start that way.

But as I learned more, and more of my own experiences started matching up with what I began understanding him to say...I just started defaulting to him being an instructor, with vastly more experience successfully killing big game and long-range field-reality precision rifle shooting than me, and all but the rarest hunters. He's human, nobody's perfect, he's made mistakes, but he's also a trove of info - with the courage to speak truths while being vilified by some. We're just not likely in this era to ever find a higher volume of real-world data on the results of shooting small-caliber on North American big game, including number of shots per kill, distances, and time for the animal to go down. All that gets magnified even more by his experiences as a shooting instructor, and seeing what happens to a person's shooting accuracy in simply switching from smaller or larger cartridges.

I'm definitely not saying this as a fanboy - I'm saying this as someone who has been the expert on a couple of things in my own life, and who has had the privilege to instruct on those issues.

There are always partially-experienced but righteously vehement people who just don't know how ignorant they are, arguing against your superior expertise, experience, and cumulative wisdom. The more I discovered Form wasn't just some internet rando, but had a substantial background on the claims he was making, the more I realized he seemed to be in this position himself, on what he shared here.

People with no background, cultural biases, or preconceived ideas are the easiest to teach - it's the people with just enough experience to be immersed in the Dunning-Kruger effect that are the problem.

There's a learning curve, where the people with the least experience, and the people with the absolute most experience, are the easiest to teach. It's the people in the middle that can be such an absolute pain in the ass.

Form would have zero problem teaching his experiences and wisdom to new shooters and new hunters, and would get them up to speed far quicker than he could your average hunter. And he would likely have a similarly easy time teaching his stuff to former Delta or CIA Ground Branch people - who are used to trying on new ideas, even if they go against their current preferences or understandings. They're comfortable with that, as professional students, and seek it out. It's the people who think they know more than they actually do that are the problem. Especially when those people's dispositions blind them to negative-evidence of their beliefs. I've experienced this over and over when instructing, until those middle people experience enough pain for the realization of their mistakes to crack through their mentality. And I've been on the wrong side of it myself once or twice as a kid, too.

The dude goes through a tremendous amount of crap here, sharing his knowledge and experience, when other people of similar expertise would have bailed on it a long, long time ago.


EDIT: In case clarification is needed, the Dunning-Kruger stuff wasn't directed at you. It's clear you're uncommonly good at learning and following truths.

This is very well explained.

When I first stumbled upon what Form was writing I was lockstep with him on several subjects. I had already been using 6.5 and 6mm match style bullets on big game for years. Most of my fleet of guns were Sako and Tikka. I taught folks on 17 and 22 rimfire guns as a baseline because I saw and knew all the benefits from shootability. I also had multiple hundreds of big game kills experience, was a shooting instructor, shot thousands of varmints a year, shot thousands of target rounds per year, etc. Based on what he typed and recommended for folks on Rokslide, proved to me that what he was saying was legitimate and fact/real life based, because of having such similar experiences personally. Yet I still thought “my knowledge and experience” with certain subject couldn’t be “wrong”.

Where I disagreed was on scopes and made some very brash and harsh claims here, on why throwing guns around is pointless when you’re going to zero check anyway after a significant enough “drop”. Once my slow brain realized it’s not about throwing guns on the ground, but the overall approach was aimed at helping folks realize how easily scopes lose zero, from flawed designs, to ring torque, to paint penning things in, etc. Now all of my scopes, rings, bases, etc are Form approved models, and guess what. Mysterious loss of zero has all but been eliminated.

My second stance wasn’t a disagreement but more a question of, does this really work? Going down from 6.5 and 6mm to .224, I was still hesitant. Despite reading every page of PNWgators .223 kill thread I was nervous going out this year with my .223 and .22 Creedmoor guns. The .223 now has 3 big game kills and the 22 Creedmoor is up to 7, both in just a little over 2 months of hunting. Another “idea” from Form that just flat out works when you actually go out and try it and apply it.

Coming into threads with “I’m always going to choose the bigger diameter bullet, or magnum” should be a very hard look in the mirror for folks with zero experience killing with .224 bullets. Open your mind, give something a try, and report back.

 

[RockAndSage]

There are two reasons to use a smaller caliber, the first being shootability, under tough conditions everyone shoots smaller guns better, and follow up chances are so much better, not every scenario goes your way.
The second is many bigger combinations don’t offer any more wound channel, and with some it is less due to traditionally poor choice in bullets

I'd add to this what were some of the biggest points Form made that resonated with me personally, from my own experience and just the logic of it: the cheaper the ammo, and the less the recoil, the higher the volume of shooting a person will do with a given gun.

That point was probably the most resonant one for me personally, and it's one that gets lost quite a bit in the small-caliber discussion. You're just going to shoot better if you're shooting more, all things being equal. Add to that the shootability point you're making, and the role of recoil in that, and it just keeps stacking up in favor of small-caliber.

 

[RockAndSage]

This is very well explained.

When I first stumbled upon what Form was writing I was lockstep with him on several subjects. I had already been using 6.5 and 6mm match style bullets on big game for years. Most of my fleet of guns were Sako and Tikka. I taught folks on 17 and 22 rimfire guns as a baseline because I saw and knew all the benefits from shootability. I also had multiple hundreds of big game kills experience, was a shooting instructor, shot thousands of varmints a year, shot thousands of target rounds per year, etc. Based on what he typed and recommended for folks on Rokslide, proved to me that what he was saying was legitimate and fact/real life based, because of having such similar experiences personally. Yet I still thought “my knowledge and experience” with certain subject couldn’t be “wrong”.

Where I disagreed was on scopes and made some very brash and harsh claims here, on why throwing guns around is pointless when you’re going to zero check anyway after a significant enough “drop”. Once my slow brain realized it’s not about throwing guns on the ground, but the overall approach was aimed at helping folks realize how easily scopes lose zero, from flawed designs, to ring torque, to paint penning things in, etc. Now all of my scopes, rings, bases, etc are Form approved models, and guess what. Mysterious loss of zero has all but been eliminated.

My second stance wasn’t a disagreement but more a question of, does this really work? Going down from 6.5 and 6mm to .224, I was still hesitant. Despite reading every page of PNWgators .223 kill thread I was nervous going out this year with my .223 and .22 Creedmoor guns. The .223 now has 3 big game kills and the 22 Creedmoor is up to 7, both in just a little over 2 months of hunting. Another “idea” from Form that just flat out works when you actually go out and try it and apply it.

Coming into threads with “I’m always going to choose the bigger diameter bullet, or magnum” should be a very hard look in the mirror for folks with zero experience killing with .224 bullets. Open your mind, give something a try, and report back.

Yeah...the scope thing was painful for me too. It's tough to look at a beautiful Swarovski that I've enjoyed so much, and realize that it may not be the best tool for the job, in terms of reliability and durability. But then again, one doesn't take a Mercedes to places you take a Tacoma.

 

[RockAndSage]

Damn, that is such a true and accurate summary IMHO.

As one of those who is not a beginner and not an expert, I feel somewhat bad for asking questions. It's obvious to me that someone needs to say, "shut up kid, just do as a I say." And they are probably correct.

BUT, even on this site I see lots of people who don't have the experience of a Tyler or Form but who are, as you so eloquently say, "righteously vehement." And it is that attitude along with 75 years of industry marketing that have gotten us where we are to begin with.

Just 8 months ago I was happily working to build a rifle that would launch a 180 grain mono-metal bullet at 2900 FPS because that is what I had taken away from industry experts and trusted gurus was the ideal elk cartridge. And this was after A LOT of reading, researching and dialogue with experts. Some of whom I still greatly respect. (Nathan Foster for one, recommended .30 cal minimum when I asked specifically)

Form's data and stance has been such a world-rocker for me that I have lots and lots of questions and just want to learn and see more data! I feel like we all have been miss-led and lied-to for so many years regarding hunting rifles and affective killing that I'm being slowly deprogrammed from a cult. And I'm so pissed about it I don't want to fall into another one.

Your cult point got a chuckle out of me. So true. But our great-grandfathers' generation got a lot of side-eye from their Boomer kids and grandkids for shooting things like .220 Swift and .22-250 at big game. And they slayed damn well.