The Shoot2hunt Podcast

[omicron1792]

Tikka tmk rokstock soon to be montana rifles. You don't have to push a brand to impact sales. Just look at the rokstok

No dog in fight. But the fact tikka and MRC are both on your list is telling. He also recommended a federal load to me for my elk hunt.

 

[omicron1792]

I bought a Tikka 223 to test the theory. Unfortunately, I didn't get the 77g TMK bullet in time to get a load developed before the hunt.

I hope to get a whitetail with one next fall. I expect it will do just fine. Deer are not hard to kill.

But, I note that Ryan doesn't hunt large game with the 223.

Also note that Africa forum almost imploded over him using a 6mm……

 

[bmart2622]

I guess that’s where JVB and his crowd are and why there is this battle of internet neckbeards on both sides

No, he says you cant and shouldnt....big difference

 

[swavescatter]

No, he says you cant and shouldnt....big difference

I think only local laws say you can't. They say you shouldn't, the 223 crowd says you should. Very few people on this planet have actual, documented and statistically significant datasets with a range of calibers and projectiles at various velocities. Those people don't share that data because it's likely owned by the entities that funded it.

What we're left with is internet anecdotes that likely don't include wounded animals and various rodeos that happen. On both sides. People ignore or dismiss the smaller caliber stuff selectively. Arguments arbitrarily weight shootability, penetration, weight retention, ballistics, wallop, etc.

I'll continue using everything from 223 to 7PRC depending on the expected shot opportunities and whichever rifle called my name that day. Unfortunately in my state I'm limited to a couple tags max per year usually. And I have a day job. And kids.

I just don't care to convince people anymore that smaller calibers with suppressors and reliable optics on Tikkas just work. I need those people out there failing to tag out so I can increase my draw odds

 

[jzeblaz]

So glad to know i won't be judge for my basic white girl white chocolate mochas.

If you're talking about Vault Coffee, all good. That place is magical. Still think about it 7 months later.

 

[Ryan Avery]

This is exactly how a lot of guys feel when talking about smaller calibers imo. I guess each shooter needs to figure out where the line in the sand is on when a rifle is not shootable enough to make the shot. I know you have built and shot a bunch of larger rifles, did you feel like you were not able to accurately shoot them at longer range? Or what made you have want to get down to a smaller cartridge?

I want to spot my shot in all positions. That alone will make you more deadly.

I switched to smaller calibers after watching my wife, uncle, and Jim Carr's daughters shoot many elk with a 6XC, 6CM, and 6.5 PRC shooting ELD-Ms and Dtacs. It's clear to me that JVB has not spent any time with these cartridges on elk.

 

[bergerking21]

Being able to spot shots is so important. Even if you have a spotter, which is nice to have, being able to see where you hit and have immediate info on what the next step is, just more efficient.

There's been a couple of oh man, never going back moments in long range shooting for me. 1st was shooting high bc bullets back to back with my 308, wind was so much easier to deal with lol. 2nd was muzzle brakes and spotting impacts. 3rd was hunting with suppressors.

As we trend to shorter and shorter barrels with increased suppressor use, how is muzzle jump and subsequent spotting of impacts affected by the shorter barrels when there's a can that's 5-9" long and weights 6-16 oz. I'm sure the weighted cans out front help minimize some of the muzzle jump. Is there a big difference between muzzle jump/spotting impacts from same cartridge at 18" vs 22"?

 

[Birch1996]

Besides the barrel life/stability, some high volume shooters still prefer a .308 for:

1. Trace with a .308 bullet can be easier to see than smaller diameters
2. The relatively slow retained velocity can make it easier for spotter to see bullet trace to begin with
3. Even if the shooter doesn't see bullet trace, the longer TOF may allow the shooter to see splash that might be missed with faster, higher BC loadings
4. There's enough recoil to keep you on your toes, but it's not punishing

People used to recommend shooting a 308 to "improve wind reading" but I think there's more to it than that.

A 16" 308 with can has been an unexpected favorite of mine the past few years but it's obviously not for everyone.

what kind of 16 308 rifle? Been looking at getting the socom m14

 

[4th_point]

SIG Cross

However, the adjustment for LOP will not lock now and I have an RMA to send it back.

 

[4th_point]

Some of the early individual evaluation reports had more visual details and later tests are more short hand saving the writer and us readers the redundancy of how this “standard evaluation” is being conducted.

Nobody wants to see a very long post with a swfa 6x drop test in every scope test post. It would make it way too complex to follow.

Well, that explains it.

Too much information?!

I get your points. But you may want to take a moment to realize that negative results are being publicly posted about another organization's product(s). Their scopes, correct?

And the reporting would benefit from details to support the conclusions. That's all part of competitive testing, and best practice.

Or is this just for the Rokslide fanboys?

Or just page clicks?

I thought it was to eventually improve scopes, and the industry as a whole, which is highly commendable.

If so, that audience expects details. Technical details. Especially with negative results being claimed.

The original question, by another member, was in regards to whether a proof scope was going to be used. Which is stated in the original method.

Mr. Avery then confirmed that there's always a control.

Well, where are the proof results then?

Those details strengthen the reporting, even if it's too much of an inconvenience for you to read.

I don't know what your backgrounds are, but I spent 20+ years as an engineer in research and product development.

I am now very fortunate to have clients in various industries across the globe where I evaluate their processes, testing, reporting, and manufacturing. And I make them fix issues like what is being discussed here. I approve the fixes before implementation.

In case you are wondering, I don't work with any companies that make sporting optics. I do have clients that make optics for astro, surveillance, comms, and energy.

 

[fwafwow]

Well, that explains it.

Too much information?!

I get your points. But you may want to take a moment to realize that negative results are being publicly posted about another organization's product(s). Their scopes, correct?

And the reporting would benefit from details to support the conclusions. That's all part of competitive testing, and best practice.

Or is this just for the Rokslide fanboys?

Or just page clicks?

I thought it was to eventually improve scopes, and the industry as a whole, which is highly commendable.

If so, that audience expects details. Technical details. Especially with negative results being claimed.

The original question, by another member, was in regards to whether a proof scope was going to be used. Which is stated in the original method.

Mr. Avery then confirmed that there's always a control.

Well, where are the proof results then?

Those details strengthen the reporting, even if it's too much of an inconvenience for you to read.

I don't know what your backgrounds are, but I spent 20+ years as an engineer in research and product development.

I am now very fortunate to have clients in various industries across the globe where I evaluate their processes, testing, reporting, and manufacturing. And I make them fix issues like what is being discussed here. I approve the fixes before implementation.

In case you are wondering, I don't work with any companies that make sporting optics. I do have clients that make optics for astro, surveillance, comms, and energy.

Will you contribute time or funds towards the testing? Or a scope?

 

[4th_point]

No. There are some issues with the test method.

Mr. Avery asked me not to share alternative methods or improvements, and I respect that request. There is one method - the official Rokslide method.

My only suggestion is to improve the reporting.

 

[fwafwow]

No. There are some issues with the test method.

Mr. Avery asked me not to share alternative methods or improvements, and I respect that request. There is one method - the official Rokslide method.

My only suggestion is to improve the reporting.

You could still pitch in for ammo.

 

[Reburn]

I don't know what your backgrounds are, but I spent 20+ years as an engineer in research and product development.

respectfully i have better thing to do then argue with a persnickity engineer online. Life is too short. Glad you are getting out of the scope threads what you have put in. I'm out.

 

[Wiscgunner]

Well, that explains it.

Too much information?!

I get your points. But you may want to take a moment to realize that negative results are being publicly posted about another organization's product(s). Their scopes, correct?

And the reporting would benefit from details to support the conclusions. That's all part of competitive testing, and best practice.

Or is this just for the Rokslide fanboys?

Or just page clicks?

I thought it was to eventually improve scopes, and the industry as a whole, which is highly commendable.

If so, that audience expects details. Technical details. Especially with negative results being claimed.

The original question, by another member, was in regards to whether a proof scope was going to be used. Which is stated in the original method.

Mr. Avery then confirmed that there's always a control.

Well, where are the proof results then?

Those details strengthen the reporting, even if it's too much of an inconvenience for you to read.

I don't know what your backgrounds are, but I spent 20+ years as an engineer in research and product development.

I am now very fortunate to have clients in various industries across the globe where I evaluate their processes, testing, reporting, and manufacturing. And I make them fix issues like what is being discussed here. I approve the fixes before implementation.

In case you are wondering, I don't work with any companies that make sporting optics. I do have clients that make optics for astro, surveillance, comms, and energy.

Perhaps it isnt the responsibility of this forum to do all the work for the big companies.

Perhaps the big companies will take your suggestions for better methodology to show their products still fail and need improvement.

Perhaps most people are not crippled by lack of lab certification of wood particulate size in Kleenex when a short sleeve would suffice to prove snot comes out when you blow your nose.

Over complicating things rarely changes the results in matters such as this. Just another way to disagree with the findings in a passive aggressive non-committal way.

 

[RyanT26]

I understand they’re necessary in today’s society, but Jesus Christ most engineers are just damn near insufferable.

The reporting and documentation of the drop test has been well established. The beauty of the test is that even a simpleton like me could easily complete the test and see if the scope fails or passes. I don’t need an engineering degree. I don’t need to work at Leopold or night force. You don’t need fancy equipment.
You need a rifle, a scope, rings, ammo, target, and a foam pad, it either passes or doesn’t.
All the documentation you need is gonna be on the target.

 

[nubraskan]

I understand they’re necessary in today’s society, but Jesus Christ most engineers are just damn near insufferable.

The reporting and documentation of the drop test has been well established. The beauty of the test is that even a simpleton like me could easily complete the test and see if the scope fails or passes. I don’t need an engineering degree. I don’t need to work at Leopold or night force. You don’t need fancy equipment.
You need a rifle, a scope, rings, ammo, target, and a foam pad, it either passes or doesn’t.
All the documentation you need is gonna be on the target.

I think a lot of engineers suffer from when to call it "good enough"

Could a test be overall better, more accurate, and repeatable? There's almost always a better way, sure, but there are laws of diminishing returns in terms of effort and cost that come into play.

 

[T28w]

Mr. Avery then confirmed that there's always a control.

Well, where are the proof results then?

Iirc the early testing, he did show the proof group results immediately after a scope failed. This confirming the the only changing variable was the scope.

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

I think a lot of engineers suffer from when to call it "good enough"

Having a feel for the scope of things (pun intended) as a jumping off point vs needing absolutes where unnecessary is a thing.

It’s incredibly common to develop a methodology and then reference/link to that methodology rather than constantly regurgitating it.

The main complaint seems to be not posting up long reports on each scope versus stating it followed the referenced methodology. Well the reporter isn’t getting paid to do it and has previously walked folks through the details to the point most of the audience understands what’s going on. If a scope company doubts these FREE results they have been invited to show up in person to run through it with the caveat it will be filmed and posted, no company has followed through.

The entire basis of the “field evaluations” is to flush out if designs are suspect, not to document specific magnitudes, etc. The goal is to get some scope companies to pull their head out of their ass and start making designs that hold up to common field conditions.

If cars were known to loose alignment regularly hitting common pot holes and numerous folks were noticing it (but brainwashed to think it’s just the way it is), it wouldn’t take a massive test protocol and documentation to drive various cars down the same stretch of road at roughly the same speed to be able to report which ones weren’t in alignment anymore.

(Edit to add, all the while the car companies and their fans try and gas light drivers saying you should NEVER hit a pot hole or hard bump as if everyone drives on perfect roads in real life. No one wants to hit pot holes or hard bumps but anyone with an ounce of pragmatism knows it’s a reality in driving a car in the real world.)

 

[nubraskan]

Having a feel for the scope of things (pun intended) as a jumping off point vs needing absolutes where unnecessary is a thing.

It’s incredibly common to develop a methodology and then reference/link to that methodology rather than constantly regurgitating it.

The main complaint seems to be not posting up long reports on each scope versus stating it followed the referenced methodology. Well the reporter isn’t getting paid to do it and has previously walked folks through the details to the point most of the audience understands what’s going on. If a scope company doubts these FREE results they have been invited to show up in person to run through it with the caveat it will be filmed and posted, no company has followed through.

The entire basis of the “field evaluations” is to flush out if designs are suspect, not to document specific magnitudes, etc. The goal is to get some scope companies to pull their head out of their ass and start making designs that hold up to common field conditions.

If cars were known to loose alignment regularly hitting common pot holes and numerous folks were noticing it (but brainwashed to think it’s just the way it is), it wouldn’t take a massive test protocol and documentation to drive various cars down the same stretch of road at roughly the same speed to be able to report which ones weren’t in alignment anymore.

(Edit to add, all the while the car companies and their fans try and gas light drivers saying you should NEVER hit a pot hole or hard bump as if everyone drives on perfect roads in real life. No one wants to hit pot holes or hard bumps but anyone with an ounce of pragmatism knows it’s a reality in driving a car in the real world.)

Couldn't agree more. I also think a lot of people "choose" to not understand the methodology, or want to attack it specifically to reinforce their existing bias