What caused the Rokslide shift to smallest caliber and cartridges?

[jimh406]

Feel free to believe all animals regardless of size or body type are just the same. All of the people who say something different could all be wrong.

Most of us, are dealing with a small sample size. I don't personally have a large sample size or any sample of actually shooting a charging Grizzly, but I'm going with practical experience vs theory if the animal might kill me. YMMV.

 

[hereinaz]

I wouldn't mind having a rifle with 31 rounds on deck with which I can also put 5 shots a second into a USPSA a zone if things go poorly at close range.

I built a 14.5 inch AR and man is it fun and fast to shoot. I have never shot so much money in a a few seconds.

An illuminated LPVO is a fun thing.

Ha!
I prefer sour gummy bears or peach-O's in between shots.

I was trying to be as charitable as possible for the rifle that people think of as a best choice to stop a charge.

mmmm, gummi bears

 

[gerry35]

Nope. I’ve dealt with them.





What does “hard to stop” have to do with the reality of wound channels and shootability? Your cartridge and bullet you choose to use creates narrower wounds, is vastly harder to shoot well, can not be shot as quickly by anyone, and makes you lose sight of your target during recoil. Those are facts. Ignore bullet diameter, that’s reality.
Now if you tell me your are shooting 390gr A-Tips out of your 375, and you are a world class shooter… ok, that changes a bit.



I have yet to find an animal that is magical. First it was “big deer”- well they die like everything else. Then it was “elk”, they die like everything else. Then it was “big elk”, they also die like everything else. Then it was moose.. die like everything else. Then bear, they too die like everything else. Maybe when I kill 100 brown bears I will find that magical creature that works with holes in their brain and missing parts of lungs and heart… Somehow I doubt it.

We have to deal with them all the time here too and it's gotten worse since the season was closed. No AR's allowed here either. I'm not sure where the line is of a good bear stopper but I'm sure not going to use a 223. I have carried my 260 though. We actually did the better with 300's over 375's because they are easier to shoot. I would be comfortable using my 6.8 Western with the 170 gr Berger when we get our season back. Bet it opens a giant hole. Was thinking the other day a 300 WSM with a 210 gr ABLR or whatever the Hornady or Berger equivalent would be a beast on close range bears.

I would like to see what the guys who have actually hunted them have to say that have had real world experience.

 

[Formidilosus]

We have to deal with them all the time here too and it's gotten worse since the season was closed. No AR's allowed here either.

For me that would be a 223 lever action then.

I'm not sure where the line is of a good bear stopper but I'm sure not going to use a 223. I have carried my 260 though. We actually did the better with 300's over 375's because they are easier to shoot. I would be comfortable using my 6.8 Western with the 170 gr Berger when we get our season back. Bet it opens a giant hole. Was thinking the other day a 300 WSM with a 210 gr ABLR or whatever the Hornady or Berger equivalent would be a beast on close range bears.

Well, you’re already on the same train track then, just not as far along.

I would like to see what the guys who have actually hunted them have to say that have had real world experience.

The problem is that no one has done a comprehensive evaluation on the difference between large and small rifle calibers on bears, and especially not with differences in projectiles. I know of a few that have killed multiple brown and grizzly bears with AR’s- they all said they died as they did with anything else and the AR is their choice for killing them.

 

[hereinaz]

If anyone is familiar with cut propagation I believe tissue behaves the same. When a group of fibers are stretched near their elastic limit, a tiny nick to one fiber will pop it—and the resulting transfer of stress that had been held by that fiber is suddenly transferred to the next one and it pops, and you get a cascading effect of damage. This is how climbing ropes cut—only under tension, and a tiny nick propagates across the entire rope. If I understand correctly its something like this—or very similar to this—that the fragments of a bullet do during the temporary stretch cavity.

Good analogy.

There are mechanical properties of the tissues and dynamic action of the bullet that are explains the paradox of why a tiny 77 grain bullet to do far more damage with less “energy” than a mono double it’s weight.

This is why the “energy” and “frontal” area of “penetrating” bullets don’t really convey much information and it is meaningless to say X energy for deer and X for elk.

Our brain has heuristics that tell us bigger is better, and that is why it is so hard to believe a smaller thing can cause more damage than a bigger thing.

Tissue damage is caused by cutting like an arrow or hydraulic damage of the bullet impact.

Blood shot meat is an example of “low pressure” failure of capillary vessels. It happens near any bullet. Soupy lungs is the extreme example.

That’s what I gather from experience, pictures, and trauma literature. Practically speaking, a trauma surgeon would rather see a wound from a FMJ than a ballistic tip… literature says that they dont have to cut away much tissue around the bullet channel of an FMJ. They just have to clean the channel and get fragments out.

Your example reminds me about one way I have thought about how the bullet could do far more damage than each little fragment alone. It’s like one water balloon popping in a bucket of balloons that pops others. When they are the little ones filled to the point they have no more stretch, it doesn’t take much to pop them.

I do think a part of the process of tissue destruction is a sort of a domino effect on the blood filled tissue and vessels are pressed to pressure and then fragments puncture them.

 

[wyosam]

I didn’t mean that dealing with bears is a spurious argument. I meant that using the “what about bears running straight away from you and chewing on your buddy’s leg when you need to defend him” argument- after all their other arguments have failed, is spurious. It only comes up as a last resort fallacy to try to have something to stand on when it’s clear their base belief is wrong.


I’m not going to carry a bolt gun hunting deer that is specifically just in case of a bear attack. It the worst of all worlds- I get a massive, heavy, very hard to shoot rifle for deer or elk; and in return I get a massive, heavy, and very hard to shoot rifle for a very quick, often total surprise shot on a moving animal.
If bears are that large of a legit concern, and I can’t, or am not comfortable with a pistol (I am) and am not comfortable with whatever rifle I am hunting with on bears (I am)- then I absolutely would carry a very short AR in my hands with my hunting rifle strapped to the pack, or just choose to hunt and use an AR.

There is no task with bears where I would choose a 375 H&H over a purpose built AR platform.

I think there is an in between. There are plenty of rifles that aren’t massive, heavy, very hard to shoot rifles. But I guess if it’s a 375, it’s probably going to be very hard to shoot if it’s not heavy, or very well braked. If one practices moving targets from a carry position (or slung if you’re going to use one), a well fitted rifle in a moderate recoiling cartridge (06 based cartridges for example) isn’t that hard to shoot quickly, and accurately. Like shooting at anything moving, practice is important. I’m not an AR guy, but I’d imagine that is a great platform if one is practiced with it- certainly part of the design plan. In my mind, a hunting rifle should point as comfortably as quickly as a shotgun. A lot of game gets killed close, quick, and offhand, though I’d bet a lots gets wounded or missed by people who sight in off a bench and call it good.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Formidilosus]

Feel free to believe all animals regardless of size or body type are just the same.

Can you explain how an animal continues to function with holes in its brain? Or parts of its lungs and heart missing?

All of the people who say something different could all be wrong.

Not to be a prick about it- but they have been about almost everything else so why not this?


Again, conventional wisdom was wrong about what it takes to turf deer, elk, moose, bear, big deer, big elk, big moose, humans, and everything else. Do you actually believe it’s just the magical Brown bear (that is killed easily year I a nd year out by pointed sticks), that somehow these people really, really mean it this time. For super cereal realses.

Most of us, are dealing with a small sample size. don't personally have a large sample size or any sample of actually shooting a charging Grizzly, but I'm going with practical experience vs theory if the animal might kill me. YMMV.

What practical experience? The people saying it can’t be done, have never done it.

 

[wyosam]

If anyone is familiar with cut propagation I believe tissue behaves the same. When a group of fibers are stretched near their elastic limit, a tiny nick to one fiber will pop it—and the resulting transfer of stress that had been held by that fiber is suddenly transferred to the next one and it pops, and you get a cascading effect of damage. This is how climbing ropes cut—only under tension, and a tiny nick propagates across the entire rope. If I understand correctly its something like this—or very similar to this—that the fragments of a bullet do during the temporary stretch cavity.

I believe that applies well to tissue. I think it’s why a mono like the hammers or others that shed petals as opposed to a mushroom like a Barnes give much better tissue damage. Those petals slow immediately and end up going through tissue while is stretched by the temp cavity created by the shank.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jimh406]

Can you explain how an animal continues to function with holes in its brain? Or parts of its lungs and heart missing?

Not to be a prick about it- but they have been about almost everything else so why not this?

Again, conventional wisdom was wrong about what it takes to turf deer, elk, moose, bear, big deer, big elk, big moose, humans, and everything else. Do you actually believe it’s just the magical Brown bear (that is killed easily year I a nd year out by pointed sticks), that somehow these people really, really mean it this time. For super cereal realses.

What practical experience? The people saying it can’t be done, have never done it.

That's the thing. I don't have to explain it.

I know you think everyone that disagrees with you is wrong. That's ok, but that's not the same as them being wrong.

Anything is possible, but given the choice between getting killed and not, I think it's a better idea to go with something that has already worked vs something that "might" work.

Btw, there have been Brown Bears/Grizzlies killed with many different calibers, but that isn't the point. The point is if you want the best choice ... what should it be?

 

[Formidilosus]

I think there is an in between. There are plenty of rifles that aren’t massive, heavy, very hard to shoot rifles. But I guess if it’s a 375, it’s probably going to be very hard to shoot if it’s not heavy, or very well braked. If one practices moving targets from a carry position (or slung if you’re going to use one), a well fitted rifle in a moderate recoiling cartridge (06 based cartridges for example) isn’t that hard to shoot quickly, and accurately.

Of course. But at that point, the wound created by a 30/06 isn’t functionally different or better than a 223.

In my mind, a hunting rifle should point as comfortably as quickly as a shotgun.

It’s interesting that usually (not saying you are) when people mention pointing like a shotgun”, they generally mean something like this-




But the world of shooting moving targets quickly is dominated by guns more like this-











I am not saying it right or wrong, it’s just that people use “shotgun” as a marker of shooting offhand quickly, swinging correctly, etc. and yet at the highest levels you see that they left the open, swept back grips and low cheek pieces a long time ago, and now use things that resemble modern rifles- vertical grips, raised cheek pieces, etc.

 

[Der Schwabe]

I feel for the guys who can't get over the diminutive size of the .22 calibers, I really do. After reading the ".223 for deer, et al" thread earlier this year I was faced with a big decision: hunt whitetails with my .270 Win., or try the .22-250 with the TMK. I was so used to hunting with .270/.30-06/7RM every year for big game and .223/.22-250/.243 for varmints, that I actually felt a pit in my stomach the day before the hunt, thinking I had made a huge mistake with the .22-250. It's hard to embrace such radical new thinking the longer you have experienced the previous ways. Fortunately for me, my guide had been hunting with several .22-250s for everything up to elk for years, so when I showed up with one he didn't even react. Of course, the .22-250 dropped the deer at 300 yards. My biggest problem now is deciding what to do with all of the .264/.277/.308 cal. paraphernalia I have accumulated over the years. I don't really think I'll go back to using those again. Just today I went to the range, where I practiced with the .270 Win., the .22-250, and the .222 Rem. Mag. The .22s are just so much nicer to shoot, and if they work just as well, or better, on bigger animals, they make the bigger guns redundant at best.

 

[Bluefish]

Good analogy.

There are mechanical properties of the tissues and dynamic action of the bullet that are explains the paradox of why a tiny 77 grain bullet to do far more damage with less “energy” than a mono double it’s weight.

This is why the “energy” and “frontal” area of “penetrating” bullets don’t really convey much information and it is meaningless to say X energy for deer and X for elk.

Our brain has heuristics that tell us bigger is better, and that is why it is so hard to believe a smaller thing can cause more damage than a bigger thing.

I think this shows some of the issue with getting onboard with smaller is better. There is no way a smaller bullet of the same construction of the larger bullet does the same damage. Yes a fragmenting bullet that’s small may be better than a larger one that doesn’t, but that doesn’t mean a larger bullet that fragments won’t do even more damage (maybe too much). With that said, at what point is the damage enough to get the job done. with big bullets it’s easier to hit that combination and the price is recoil and ability to make reliable hits. unfortunately our testosterone/egos get in the way and most casual hunters won’t admit they shoot a magnum poorly.

what people are showing in the many threads is if you choose the right bullet and deliver it at the right speed and location you can get enough damage to make ethical harvests.
Does that make me rethink my next build, yes it does. Unfortunately I am stuck with 35 cal or larger rifles for my deer hunting. But I am considering moving down to subsonic loads as I usually hunt at less than 100 yards.

 

[mt terry d]

...find that magical creature that works with holes in their brain .....

Cue " Hail to the Chief" !

sorry.

carry on.

 

[Formidilosus]

That's the thing. I don't have to explain it.
I know you think everyone that disagrees with you is wrong. That's ok, but that's not the same as them being wrong.

That’s a nice fallacy- but it has nothing to do with thinking someone is wrong. There is literally no ground creature on earth that can continue with pieces of its brain missing from bullets tearing through it. There’s no opinion there.

 

[Thegman]

@Formidilosus I agree with the premise of most of what you stated there, including that a smaller caliber could make it to the CNS, except for this quote:

"Well since the whole “but what about bears” is a spurious argument to begin with, why wouldn’t one learn to shoot an AR well and then use it?"

If you, or anyone else here, has hunted blacktail or elk on Kodiak or Afognak Is., then you will know that this is in no way a spurious or trivial matter. And I'm not talking about the one off trip with a group of 6 guys to the Island, but year in and year out hunts in these areas, often solo.
I struggle to think of anyone I know that has done this for years or decades and has NOT had to DLP (Defense of Life and Property) an aggressive Brown Bear.

We always get to "what if you have to shoot bear in x situation?"

I get it, I guess, grizzlies and brown bears are scary ass animals. But I do think it gets a little overblown.

I literally look around first when I step out the front door, partly because the place I live is crawling with grizzlies. Given that, maybe I worry about it a little less because I've hunted Kodiak for years and no one I personally know has had to DLP a brown bear while we hunt there (yet anyway). I've never, yet, (in 30 years living around grizzly and black bears) had to DLP an aggressive bear, anywhere, and I've killed north of 50, so it's not like I avoid them at all.

In my case the risk appears pretty small, maybe in other's experience it's more. I did carry my little 223 on Kodiak this year and didn't feel particularly nervous about it...hell, sometimes I'm with guys bow hunting Kodiak with nothing more than a 5 round 44 for bear defense. So...?

I may just be a dummy though, hopefully I don't end up a statistic. There will be a thread here, "Remember that guy that hunted around brown bears with a 223? Well..."

Seriously though, if guys hunt around brown bears and grizzlies with nothing more than a handgun for bear defense, which they do, we may be overthinking it.

 

[Choupique]

I'm going to sleep with my big rifle tonight. I feel so violated. So misled. I like my big gun. Quit telling me small ones work.

 

[hereinaz]

That's the thing. I don't have to explain it.

I know you think everyone that disagrees with you is wrong. That's ok, but that's not the same as them being wrong.

Anything is possible, but given the choice between getting killed and not, I think it's a better idea to go with something that has already worked vs something that "might" work.

Btw, there have been Brown Bears/Grizzlies killed with many different calibers, but that isn't the point. The point is if you want the best choice ... what should it be?

I think this shows some of the issue with getting onboard with smaller is better. There is no way a smaller bullet of the same construction of the larger bullet does the same damage. Yes a fragmenting bullet that’s small may be better than a larger one that doesn’t, but that doesn’t mean a larger bullet that fragments won’t do even more damage (maybe too much). With that said, at what point is the damage enough to get the job done. with big bullets it’s easier to hit that combination and the price is recoil and ability to make reliable hits. unfortunately our testosterone/egos get in the way and most casual hunters won’t admit they shoot a magnum poorly.

what people are showing in the many threads is if you choose the right bullet and deliver it at the right speed and location you can get enough damage to make ethical harvests.
Does that make me rethink my next build, yes it does. Unfortunately I am stuck with 35 cal or larger rifles for my deer hunting. But I am considering moving down to subsonic loads as I usually hunt at less than 100 yards.

That gets to the recoil vs. damage tradeoff.

The .308 ELDm doesn’t cause death any significant amount faster than a .223 ELDm.

The question is: Do you need more carnage than shown in the .223 77 gr TMK thread?

Because you will be exchanging it for: reduced precision, spotting shots, follow up shots, etc. from field positions.

Besides, there is the cost and ability to practice which makes a massive difference in lethality of a rifleman.

 

[wind gypsy]

We know one thing, a 54 hawken isn't enough for griz. Hatchet Jack was bad enough to be livin' two year in a cave up on the Musselshell with a female panther but he couldn't save himself from a griz with his hawken...

 

[Thegman]

I've been planning on killing a grizzly this spring with the 77TMK. Zero concerns about a broadside lung shot killing one. Now I'm considering taking a full frontal chest shot instead. Maybe settle these kinds of questions a little- one way the other...I'd be really interested to see the results.

 

[Axlrod]

Appreciate it. I'm in the same boat. I have no interest in fireforming brass.

Numbers really aren't that bad, especially if you factor in the use of a brake or suppressor.

I look at this a little different. Every new barrel needs a hundred or so rounds before they speed up a bit. I fire at least a hundred new brass in every new rifle initially. So technically fire forming the brass is not really a big deal.