What caused the Rokslide shift to smallest caliber and cartridges?

Joined
Apr 5, 2015
Messages
5,944
So far I have avoided the trends for neck beards, skinny jeans and man buns but I did buy a 6.5 creed and I was covetously fondling my buddies 28 gauge on my last bird hunting trip As my shoulder throbbed from shooting +100 rounds of hot upland 12 gauge that weekend. My dad, rest his soul, was a baby boomer, a man’s man and toted 300 win mag and a savage 12 gauge and would have told me to turn in my man card if he knew I was thinking of a lesser gun.

Why are calibers getting skinny? I think it is a combination of (1) ammo tech improving somewhat and as @Formidilosus points out, (2) better understanding of smaller caliber rounds’ terminal ballistics on animals combined (3) with a push from the long range target community demonstrating how well smaller calibers perform in long range accuracy.

I draw inference from the handgun caliber debates that raged in the pistol community for decades. as a kid in the 1980s i read pistol magazines that were still permeated with the thinking of Jeff Cooper, Elmer Keith and Bill Jordan. Many of them were lawmen that had been in gun fights in various wars and on the streets. They had seen early and mid 20th century versions of .38 and 9mm Hand guns in use in the real world and knew their deficiencies that made them prefer, and in Keith’s case, invent bigger, more powerful handguns calibers like the 45 acp, 357 and 44 magnums. Evan Marshal declared the 357 the king of “one shot stops” and Dirty Harry carried a gun that was “the most powerful handgun in the world”. Calibers like 40 S&W and 10mm became popular. They weren’t as shootable in most people’s hands but they shot bigger, faster bullets and the shooting public assumed that was a good thing.

flash forward 40-50 years and bullet design has improved a lot. A top shelf 9mm hollow point is a hell of a round for anti social purposes and terminal ballistic data is much better and more widely available To show that good 9mms do their job. While larger calibers still hit harder, the gap is more narrow than in decades past In terms of stopping real threats. Higher capacity and shootability are favored by many professionals and shooting enthusiasts. These days, you are much more likely to find an experienced, knowledgeable shooter with a compact G19 or a micro compact p365 loaded with +p pills in a kydex holster on their appendix than a 1911 45 or a 686 loaded with wad cutters in a tooled leather, strong side, hip holster.

opinions change. People and the gun press will follow and promote one trend for a while and then find another. Debates will rage. Then things will change again. Maybe in a few years we will all be shooting .75 cal muzzle loaders and talking about 1500 yard shots on elk with a mid 21st century version of a 50 BMG, That is suddenly fashionable again.

for my part, I guess I have a foot on each side of the skinny/fat bullet debate. My “EDC“ gun is one of those tiny 9mm compacts riding on my appendix when it does. On the other hand, “Ole Ben” my nearly 20-year Benelli M2 12 gauge is still dirty from my last pheasant trip and waiting for the next one. yesterday Afternoon when I headed out to my deer stand, I opened the safe and that 6.5 creed was sitting right next to a 300 WM in the Tikka department. For what ever reason, “Thomas”, the Magnum, got the nod. Thomas and I sat watching a little buck wander back and forth for a while but we decided not to take the shot and headed home. If we had, I doubt the buck would have really noticed if it had been a 300WM or a 6.5 creed that zipped through his lungs, but somewhere dad would have smiled a bit when he heard that 300 roar.
 

Wyo_hntr

WKR
Joined
Oct 20, 2023
Messages
1,297
Location
Wy
Thats right. I am trying to compensate for my 170-pound frame by shooting a big and bad gun. You should see how big my truck is. I can hardly fit my ego head through the fuggin door.
Don't feel bad. I was merely pointing out the true underlying reason there is so much push back to shooting "small caliber centerfire cartridges" at big game is really ego. It can get the best of all of us if not purposefully checked sometimes.

I actually applaud your bluntness in the matter, it makes the discussion clearer.

Shoot what you want.

But it's clear the reason people make disparaging comments and cling to their magnums is feeling based, not fact. Facts have been presented and will continue, yet emotion rules for some. And that's fine, shoot what you want, seriously.
 

willtim

WKR
Joined
Oct 14, 2020
Messages
401
The only disadvantage I see to smaller rounds is having to pass on certain shots. For example, you're on your last day of a hard hunt. You're in the timber and spot a bull staring at you from 250 yards. Quartering to, all you can see is his shoulder. In three seconds he is going to dive into the canyon behind him never to be seen again.
 

Wyo_hntr

WKR
Joined
Oct 20, 2023
Messages
1,297
Location
Wy
Whether you were joking or not, your post was a good representation of the vast majority of folks who vehemently oppose hunting with "smaller" calibers. Some people actually think the way you "jokingly" expressed your opinion.

I wasn't trying to attack you personally, sorry if I came across that way.
 
Last edited:

mt100gr.

WKR
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
3,000
Location
NW MT
The only disadvantage I see to smaller rounds is having to pass on certain shots. For example, you're on your last day of a hard hunt. You're in the timber and spot a bull staring at you from 250 yards. Quartering to, all you can see is his shoulder. In three seconds he is going to dive into the canyon behind him never to be seen again.
Take the shot. Easy.

Shoulders don't stop good bullets.
 
Joined
Aug 10, 2019
Messages
2,581
Location
Lowcountry, SC
It's an ever increasing thread that repeats. I don't feel like I had to read every post to get the points. ;). Reading every post would get the specifics ... or maybe I should just see how good google search is.

If you don't want to continue to look intellectually lazy, you might take the time to read the applicable threads instead of asking for proofs that are already posted and answers that are already stated.
 

brockel

WKR
Joined
Feb 8, 2017
Messages
919
Location
Baker,mt
The only disadvantage I see to smaller rounds is having to pass on certain shots. For example, you're on your last day of a hard hunt. You're in the timber and spot a bull staring at you from 250 yards. Quartering to, all you can see is his shoulder. In three seconds he is going to dive into the canyon behind him never to be seen again.
Im taking that shot everytime.
 

Squincher

WKR
Joined
Jan 25, 2020
Messages
634
Location
Midwest
@Squincher , posting that small caliber bullets are on the fringe of capability is pretty darn close to saying they arent reliable killers, and is a stretch at best if you've been paying attention. And avoiding taking into account recoil and shootability as relevant factors also goes beyond mere preference--that is well documented beyond rokslide as a significant contributing factor to better accuracy and better ability to make an effective followup--that part is fact and is not debatable, increased recoil is universally a detriment to better shooting. And your post about the social aspect was at best an (intentionally?) condescending poke at people that you have no idea what generation they are actually from, and deflects addressing the actual issue, which is using data to inform decisions...that you explicitly stated were a fad that wold be disproven. Which is, again, awfully close to saying that small caliber bullets dont work.

I didn't mean fringe of capability, but rather on the fringe of usual hunting bullet weight. You can take my as condescending if you like, but it was simply a statement that viewpoints, even those that are valid, change.
 

mt100gr.

WKR
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
3,000
Location
NW MT
I'm certainly no expert but a lot of elk outfitters would disagree.
No disagreement there. Tall tales, traditions, and folklore often stand the test of time - because people have a "professional" title like "outfitter" so they must know a lot about terminal ballistics. I don't hunt with outfitters and I make a point to educate myself and ask questions to avoid that group think trap.

Have you read the entire .223 thread? 6mm thread? 6.5mm thread? Honest questions - it is a lot of screen time...

How many "elk outfitters" do you think would even get past the title of the .223 thread??

The info there/here is an opportunity to be better and know more!! Enjoy.
 

brockel

WKR
Joined
Feb 8, 2017
Messages
919
Location
Baker,mt
I'm certainly no expert but a lot of elk outfitters would disagree.
I’ve had an outfitter tell me that he doesn’t like people shooting suppressors because the bullet loses its “smack” on animals. I explained that you lose no velocity with the suppressor. He said I know you don’t lose velocity but you still lose smack. Only been around a couple but all of them know how to hunt animals but know very little about bullets and ballistics
 

Squincher

WKR
Joined
Jan 25, 2020
Messages
634
Location
Midwest
You're assumumtions of your 100% success rate are telling that you aren't honest with yourself and arent having a honest conversation.

Fact is lighter recoiling calibers are shot more accurately then big boomers, therefore your hit rates increase and your wounded and rodeo animals decreases.

Not to mention follow up shots are faster and easier.

I don't consider standard calibers .30-06 and below "big boomers."

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.

if you read between the lines they say the tmk doesn’t expand on Varmits. That’s a 3” wide animal, probably too thick a jacket. Doesn’t mean they won’t expand on a deer which is a 12-18” across. I don’t think anyone is saying to use a light for caliber varmit bullet.

this is also why it’s going to be a long process to change minds and regulations. Colorado for one, doesn’t allow 223 for elk. If the law is changed it needs to be specific enough to say what to use as not every 223 bullet will do the job.

I think it goes far beyond reading between the lines to extrapolate any recommendation for use on deer from what Sierra wrote.
 

Macintosh

WKR
Joined
Feb 17, 2018
Messages
2,754
@Squincher ,Yep, totally true. But the important part is WHY they change. When they change based on whim thats called fashion, and that may very well be worth the scorn that I read into your post. At the same time, when they dont change based on myth or on out of date info thats called fudd (or obstinance or?). When they change based on data thats called learning. Its probably not black and white of course, but to me that distinction is critical to the conversation.

Theres nothing wrong with sticking with whats worked in the past, the problem (and the reason people get worked up) is that many people actively ignore, discount or attempt to discredit the actual data and try to shout-down the learning based on either myth or incomplete info. Look, I hunt with a 3006 and a 270, and copper bullets…all anathema to this “trend”. I know quite well that they work. That is not the same thing as actively trying to discredit other ways to skin the same cat.
 

Reburn

Mayhem Contributor
Joined
Feb 10, 2019
Messages
3,430
Location
Central Texas
I don't consider standard calibers .30-06 and below "big boomers."

I dont care what the caliber is.
I stopped a while again considering recoil and killing efficacy based on a headstamp.
I use a recoil calculator. And I havent shoot non suppressed in well over a year.

An 8.2 lb 223 bare muzzle at less then 5lbs is stupid easy to shoot.
an 8.2 lbs 6 creed bare muzzle is less then 10 lbs and while not as easy as the 223 its still very nice.
 

Squincher

WKR
Joined
Jan 25, 2020
Messages
634
Location
Midwest
As long as this discussion has gone along, surely Sierra and other ammo companies have become aware of it. It seems strange to me Sierra hasn't done their own testing and evaluation and come out with a recommendation. Honestly, a .22 bullet proven and backed to reliably take most big game animals on earth would be in the top three developments in the history of firearm projectiles, surpassed only by the invention of the bullet and when they stopped being round.

Sierra or any other company who made a similar bullet could well be sitting on a financial goldmine, not to mention the prestige of a huge breakthrough, yet not a single ammo company has embraced the idea. Any idea as to why?
 
Top