What caused the Rokslide shift to smallest caliber and cartridges?

[Castle Rock]

As I understand the history of the development of the smaller AR it wasn’t initially intended to be a first tier infantry weapon, but rather a second tier weapon similar in role to an M 1 Carbine

 

[jimh406]

This is where it gets confusing- literally everyone discussing this knows that.

There is no version in the same cartridge where decreased BC but increased MV results in less wind drift.

Sometimes, a minor point in a post has no hidden meaning.

I don't believe that is true, but feel free to find ballistic charts from the same ammo manufacturer that demonstrate what you think. Or ... don't.

 

[Reburn]

As I understand the history of the development of the smaller AR it wasn’t initially intended to be a first tier infantry weapon, but rather a second tier weapon similar in role to an M 1 Carbine

Arent you literally proving the military said that a 223 kills a 200 lb mammal as well as a 30-06?
60 years ago

 

[Bluefish]

As I understand the history of the development of the smaller AR it wasn’t initially intended to be a first tier infantry weapon, but rather a second tier weapon similar in role to an M 1 Carbine

It’s also a ball round which offers horrible terminal performance compared to todays hunting rounds. completely different application.

 

[Squincher]

Again- the wound is the only thing that kills- the animal has no idea what bullet shot it. If two bullets create identical wounds, they kill
Identically- regardless of caliber and cartridge. If one bullet creates a large wound than another, the bullet that creates a larger wound kills faster- even if it is a smaller bullet.





No, I won’t. Because I use evidence and data to drive decisions, not “feelings” or “grand pappy said so”. What makes a “fudd” is someone with no evidence or experience proclaiming something, that evidence and experience has shown to be false.

Like I said, I'm not mad if you want to use it. But don't act like you are something special; things that didn't work never stayed around long. Dead animals are also evidence and have been the measurement of a cartridge since we started shooting at animals.

And yes, at some point your views will be discounted regardless of what you think of them. Though they will probably call you something else since they probably will never have heard of Elmer.

 

[Formidilosus]

I don't believe that is true, but feel free to find ballistic charts from the same ammo manufacturer that demonstrate what you think. Or ... don't.

It doesn’t matter what your beliefs are, reality is reality.

 

[Choupique]

Arent you literally proving the military said that a 223 kills a 200 lb mammal as well as a 30-06?
60 years ago

I think the drivers were lighter ammo and a lighter/smaller rifle. Not necessarily killing the enemy as well so much as knocking them out of the fight either way. Etc.

I dont think the military is relevant to this discussion. They were using 55gr ball ammo.

 

[Squincher]

Says whom? The .223/5.56 was designed/intended to kill humans with smaller bullets than the 77, and we vary greatly in size. How is a 150-300 pound human different/easier to kill than a similar sized non-human mammal?

The TMK is a target bullet and relatively small in comparison to more "standard" hunting bullets, no?

 

[Formidilosus]

The TMK is a target bullet and relatively small in comparison to more "standard" hunting bullets, no?

What does “target bullet” mean in terminal effects?

 

[Castle Rock]

Says whom? The .223/5.56 was designed/intended to kill humans with smaller bullets than the 77, and we vary greatly in size. How is a 150-300 pound human different/easier to kill than a similar sized non-human mammal?

Arent you literally proving the military said that a 223 kills a 200 lb mammal as well as a 30-06?
60 years ago

I was referring to this post on the history of the development of this 5.56, not making any other point

 

[Shō[t]gun]

Weight is not a factor in trajectory and deflection. Velocity and BC only. Calculators will tell you a 110 grain 6mm and a 250 grain 338 of the same BC and velocity will have the same wind deflection. I've heard folks say it doesn't pan out that way but never seen a clear test on it.

Weight impacts BC so it's not needed as a 3rd variable.

Older reloading books have drop charts in the back that go off of BC and velocity only. I always thought more people knew this but I guess it was lost and rediscovered by the masses.

 

[Squincher]

What does “target bullet” mean in terminal effects?

It means the only terminal effect for which it was designed is punching holes in paper.

 

[Formidilosus]

It means the only terminal effect for which it was designed is punching holes in paper.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

It means the only terminal effect for which it was designed is punching holes in paper.

At this point, you're either just trolling to be a jacka$$ or truly are ignorant.

 

[Shō[t]gun]

It means the only terminal effect for which it was designed is punching holes in paper.

It’s still a bullet with the same construction that others designed for hunting utilize. A deer season XP bullet is darn near a varmint round, yet nobody bats an eye. Marketing and practical use are not the same thing.

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

I think the drivers were lighter ammo and a lighter/smaller rifle. Not necessarily killing the enemy as well so much as knocking them out of the fight either way. Etc.

I dont think the military is relevant to this discussion. They were using 55gr ball ammo.

The M16 was introduced in 1959 and has been produced in several variants since roughly 1963. Militaries all over the world continue to use the 5.56 round today, 60 years later.

The argument was stated to the effect that using the .223 with 77 TMK on game animals was on the "fringe" of the rounds capability and not what it was intended for.

My point is that whether originally "intended" to kill 150-300 pound humans or not, it has successfully killed I dare say hundreds of thousands of folks in the last 60 years with inferior ball ammo to your point.

As a result, to say that a heavier "match" bullet in .223 designed to radically and violently upset at velocities as low as 1800 fps, is working at fringe levels on other mammals up to and exceeding 300 pounds is simply ignorant.

 

[Squincher]

You have no idea what you are talking about.

At this point, you're either just trolling to be a jacka$$ or truly are ignorant.

Sierra must be a bunch of dumbasses, too. This is what the manufacturer has to say:

While they are recognized around the world for record-setting accuracy, MatchKing® and Tipped MatchKing® bullets are not recommended for most hunting applications. Although MatchKing® and Tipped MatchKing® bullets are commonly used for varmint hunting, their design will not provide the same reliable explosive expansion at equivalent velocities in varmints compared to their lightly jacketed Hornet, Blitz or Varminter counterparts.

jj, if you want make this personal with name calling and profanity, I'm all in.

 

[jimh406]

There is no way to know what you will get from "target" bullets without somebody trying them. My guess is they are brand specific like "hunting" bullets.

Berger says their target bullets have a heavier jacket to stand up to a hotter barrel common in more rapid fire. Other manufacturers may or may not do something similar. Note: this is not an endorsement of Berger ... just passing along information.

 

[Squincher]

The M16 was introduced in 1959 and has been produced in several variants since roughly 1963. Militaries all over the world continue to use the 5.56 round today, 60 years later.

The argument was stated to the effect that using the .223 with 77 TMK on game animals was on the "fringe" of the rounds capability and not what it was intended for.

My point is that whether originally "intended" to kill 150-300 pound humans or not, it has successfully killed I dare say hundreds of thousands of folks in the last 60 years with inferior ball ammo to your point.

As a result, to say that a heavier "match" bullet in .223 designed to radically and violently upset at velocities as low as 1800 fps, is working at fringe levels on other mammals up to and exceeding 300 pounds is simply ignorant.

Military ammo isn't necessarily designed to kill. In fact, even the wounding capability of military ammo is limited by international agreement.

 

[Formidilosus]

Sierra must be a bunch of dumbasses, too. This is what the manufacturer has to say:

Again, you are speaking out of ignorance. There are several reasons for a company to say “not designed for hunting”- all of which have been hashed out in the threads you haven’t taken the time to read.

I will make this one easy- the 77gr TMK was specially and purposely requested to create the largest wound channel possible from a mag fed 233/5.56 while still penetrating 12-14”.


This is true for quite a few of the “match” bullets that you have never killed with but are arguing how they work.