What caused the Rokslide shift to smallest caliber and cartridges?

[Macintosh]

re ballistic gel. I know nothing about it per se, but any "test" mandates controlling variables. If variables are not controlled your "test" is invalid (or certainly a LOT less valid) for comparison purposes, becasue you cant say whether the result was due to performance of the subject, or if it was more determined by an uncontrolled variable, and to what degree. Real life has variables that make it harder to draw conclusions from or use for comparison purposes. But the test has to actually represent (or be correlated to) reality in order to draw conclusions from it. Also, tests in general are often representing reality based on one technology and the mechanisms by which it works--if a new technology comes along that accomplishes the same thing via a different mechanism, there is nothing that says the old test will still be predictive of THAT performance in reality--so while it sounds like ballistics gel is a pretty good representation of "reality", I like the comment above that tests always need to be compared to reality, and any time there is a significant divergance from what the test predicts you DO have to ask yourself if the test is actually capable of predicting reality. in this case it sounds like the reality and the test match pretty closely. So what's to question?

 

[eric1115]

View attachment 637631

You win the thread. I saw that and knew someone would meme it, and this is better than anything I imagined.

 

[Thegman]

In regards to properly calibrated organic ballistic gelatin testing:

1). Gel works and does have a strong correlation with most mammals of all sizes- deer/elf/bear/moose. This does not mean 12” penetration in gel means only 12” penetration in all shots in tissue.

2). Barrier performance with regard to the FBI protocol and animals- bare gel is useful for “least” upset likely. The heavy clothing test shows mostly likely standard chest or muscle impacts and is probably the most useful, as well can tend to show bullet clogging refusing upset. Auto glass is by far the most stressful thing a bullet can go through- I.E., if a bullet makes it through the auto glass barrier and still penetrates 12” plus, no bone in an animal will stop it.

3). Penetration depth with regards to varying resistance in actual tissue/animals/bones/etc isn’t nearly the issue that one would think. Properly calibrated 10% ballistic gel is a very good average representation of bullet performance across tissue types. In other words- it works.

Elf? Well, I guess December probably is Elf season, but I'm not sure we need even 12" of penetration on them. Sorry, just a little levity...

Damn, you guys are fast, this is old news...

 

[Thegman]

Another thought I had regarding FBI tests and what they're looking for: Their targets are generally facing them, and shooting back. If their targets were turned 90 degrees to them, holding their arms straight out, generally holding still and they had time to set up precise shot placement, their requirements might be different(?).

As BjornF16 stated, I think field performance trumps gel tests.

Bottom line, I think, is that there has been more than ample evidence presented to warrant trying smaller calibers with certain bullets. Each individual will have to decide if they work as they'd like after their own testing. There really is no other way to know. No testing etc. is going to answer the question if they're suitable for one's purposes, or not.

 

[TheGDog]

After getting a 6.5cm in an UltraLite model for my Son. And falling in love with how light it is to carry, and how the recoil is nice and easy to deal with.

Then.. doing the research on the ballistics between that 6.5cm @ 130gr.. and a .308 Win w/ 130gr... I learned that they're essentially the same til about 400yd. Then the 6.5cm SURPRASSES the .308 Win 130gr in terms of Retaining the energy since less frontal area.

And the only reason I bothered getting a .308 Win as my first rifle, was because getting ammo can be tricky now that stupid CA makes getting it from online sources a PITA. And I live near the coast too, so it can be harder to find the more hunter-popular cartridges that don't have a military history to them.

And also.. I knew I wanted to try for Black Bear if the opportunity presented itself... and when still very green, I at least knew for sure a .308 Win should handle one of them. And you jump on forums and everybody's all like "Use enough Gun!" and all this business, so I errored on the side of caution and just went with the .308 Win, as opposed to a .243 Win which was something I'd also considered as the initial purchase.

But now... I'd much rather have that less weight to carry and less recoil is always a good thing! And I wouldn't have even really needed a rifle with the nice ballistics to it for the 1st zone I'd hunted in, but now that I'm trying to take one in this much more Alpine zone... getting another one of those Ultralite 6.5cm's is really starting to call out to me.

 

[CTXhunter]

On page 30, but I figured I’d chime in a few thoughts.

For starters I’d like to throw in a quote that is not my own but goes:

“A man cannot learn something that he thinks he already knows”

Keep an open mind people, you just may learn something.

When I was growing up, everyone talked about what cartridge they shot. Absolutely no thought was given to which bullet and how fast it was going. The “trend” that I think this thread refers to is people paying attention to specific bullets, at specific speeds, out of specific twist rates. If you go read the “small bore” posts, you’ll see all of these factors at length and then people will typically mention what their rifle is chambered in last, as almost an afterthought. You’ll also see chambering mentioned in the context of “what chambering should I go with to get this bullet at this speed”.

When I read through this thread, the “ayes” are still talking about specific bullets and speeds, and they “nays” are people saying “well my 30-06 is doing great for me” with very few mentions of specific bullets and performance. This to me illustrates the two sides of the conversation pretty clearly, one side is studying bullets, the other is still talking about “enough gun”

I’d also like to point out that many times in the “small bore” threads, people note the success of many “large bore” bullets and how effective they are on game. The emphasis is on nerding out on hit rates and figuring out what makes them higher or lower, and also pointing out that some small caliber bullets like 77tmk and 108 eldm are incredibly easy to shoot out of mild chamberings, super high hit rate, and the same amount of tissue damage as much larger and harder hitting bores and chambers.


Lastly, I’d like to throw out a thought for the hive mind but I’d really love to get @Formidilosus thoughts on it. Have brown bears (and even moose and elk) gotten a reputation for being “tough” because for 50 years people have used massive, tough bullets that penetrate 30” but leave a small wound track?

There is my early morning pontifications. Really enjoy reading all of these threads and people’s experience.

 

[Formidilosus]

Lastly, I’d like to throw out a thought for the hive mind but I’d really love to get @Formidilosus thoughts on it. Have brown bears (and even moose and elk) gotten a reputation for being “tough” because for 50 years people have used massive, tough bullets that penetrate 30” but leave a small wound track?

Absolutely. The same is true of mountain goats.

 

[Thegman]

Moose are big, and there's a fair amount to penetrate, but they're not particularly tough to kill. Even poorly hit they often go a short ways and lay down. A friend describes them as "big babaies". That describes my experiences with them pretty well.

Bears are easy to kill with the right shot...hit them not quite right and they're "tough".

 

[Sled]

Moose are big, and there's a fair amount to penetrate, but they're not particularly tough to kill. Even poorly hit they often go a short ways and lay down. A friend describes them as "big babaies". That describes my experiences with them pretty well.

Bears are easy to kill with the right shot...hit them not quite right and they're "tough".

They enter respiratory distress sooner than other ungulates.

 

[Nomosendero]

On page 30, but I figured I’d chime in a few thoughts.

For starters I’d like to throw in a quote that is not my own but goes:

“A man cannot learn something that he thinks he already knows”

Keep an open mind people, you just may learn something.

When I was growing up, everyone talked about what cartridge they shot. Absolutely no thought was given to which bullet and how fast it was going. The “trend” that I think this thread refers to is people paying attention to specific bullets, at specific speeds, out of specific twist rates. If you go read the “small bore” posts, you’ll see all of these factors at length and then people will typically mention what their rifle is chambered in last, as almost an afterthought. You’ll also see chambering mentioned in the context of “what chambering should I go with to get this bullet at this speed”.

When I read through this thread, the “ayes” are still talking about specific bullets and speeds, and they “nays” are people saying “well my 30-06 is doing great for me” with very few mentions of specific bullets and performance. This to me illustrates the two sides of the conversation pretty clearly, one side is studying bullets, the other is still talking about “enough gun”

I’d also like to point out that many times in the “small bore” threads, people note the success of many “large bore” bullets and how effective they are on game. The emphasis is on nerding out on hit rates and figuring out what makes them higher or lower, and also pointing out that some small caliber bullets like 77tmk and 108 eldm are incredibly easy to shoot out of mild chamberings, super high hit rate, and the same amount of tissue damage as much larger and harder hitting bores and chambers.


Lastly, I’d like to throw out a thought for the hive mind but I’d really love to get @Formidilosus thoughts on it. Have brown bears (and even moose and elk) gotten a reputation for being “tough” because for 50 years people have used massive, tough bullets that penetrate 30” but leave a small wound track?

There is my early morning pontifications. Really enjoy reading all of these threads and people’s experience.

Absolutely. The same is true of mountain goats.

I think also the Gun writers have contributed a great deal to this belief of using bigger than necessary cartridges. Several years ago there were several articles along the lines of needing bigger cartridges for
"Big Deer". One of those writers had another "Big Deer Rifle" article recently, not to mention names but his initials are CB.

 

[JohnJohnson]

Several years ago there were several articles along the lines of needing bigger cartridges for
"Big Deer". One of those writers had another "Big Deer Rifle" article recently, not to mention names but his initials are CB.

Sometimes the big bodied deer need more KNOCK DOWN POWER®™ else they'll just shrug it right off like it was a BB gun.

 

[Pharmseller]

Knock down power, one of my favorites.

 

[Anschutz]

I think also the Gun writers have contributed a great deal to this belief of using bigger than necessary cartridges. Several years ago there were several articles along the lines of needing bigger cartridges for
"Big Deer". One of those writers had another "Big Deer Rifle" article recently, not to mention names but his initials are CB.

Bigger Guns for Bigger Bucks - Game & Fish

Hunting cartridges are not equal, and neither are deer. Do today's deer hunters use enough gun?

www.gameandfishmag.com

Context matters. Y'all can read the article if you want, but the author (Craig Boddington) states towards the end that he prefers the .270 Win for general purpose deer hunting. There's a few things that does set the CB apart from many hunters.

A) He's a gun writer. He's not using a TMK or similar in T&E and is likely personally using what he's had good experiences with testing on game in over 40 years of testing for his writings.

B) He hunts a lot in Africa. He's considered a person to listen to on hunting the Big 5, which means .375 and up in most countries. Recoil has been a large part of his career. I've read many articles of his on big rifles, and he shoots them quite well.

C) He's a retired Marine. The Marines are consistently behind the times on updating equipment. Part of that is budget, but it's also steeped in their tradition of placing an emphasis on rifle marksmanship. The Army fully replaced the M16 by 2010, while the Marines did not until 2016.

D) His opinions are based on his personal use of several different cartridges from .223 and up. I doubt he's used the TMK, but his observations (small entrance, rarely exit, poor blood trails) are consistent with what I've seen in the .223 thread (Most of the photos, about 60% of the text, I skip the quarreling).

E) If you take the cartridges out of the article, there's a lot of good points. Like shoot a rifle you're comfortable with, understanding that less penetration takes away certain shot presentations (i.e. You can shoot a Florida Whitetail at a more extreme quartering angle than an Alaska Moose)

My opinion remains to shoot what makes you happy, just as he does.

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

 

[Nomosendero]

Yes, some good points but not what I was talking about at all. I mentioned the articles about hunting Big Deer, not African game. The Deer won't know if the shooter was a Marine.
Only talking about Deer and writers referencing Deer.

 

[wind gypsy]

So ol lamb slayer is insinuating mid sized 6.5s are marginal for deer.

 

[jimh406]

Not all people think knock down power actually means knocking animals literally down.

On the other hand, I don’t think all people here that use 223s think their guns are as capable as larger calibers. Most, are just avoiding kick which is fine. I’d rather them know their limitations than use a gun that is too big for them or is simply bigger than they want to use.

The name of the game is quick humane kills no matter the caliber. There isn’t “one” answer.

 

[JohnJohnson]

Not all people think knock down power actually means knocking animals literally down.

What does it mean then?

 

[jonpall]

So ol lamb slayer is insinuating mid sized 6.5s are marginal for deer.

Just "big deer"

 

[Wyo_hntr]

Not all people think knock down power actually means knocking animals literally down.

"Knock down power" is fuddlore. Words mean things. Perhaps better articulation is needed to understand what these "knock down power" folks mean....

 

[Beendare]

Nothing public. There are some general guidelines that I and others have seen, aka a large body of anecdotal experience; but no in-depth study with hunting rifles and field hit rates. And it greatly changes with less than perfect positions and any stress whatsoever. In other words the rate of skill decay is exponential as you go up in recoil when stressed at all.


The simplest way I do it is to have someone with their zeroed rifle and a Kraft target-

View attachment 634604


Then they build a prone position and fire one shot. Then pick everything back up, rebuild the position, fire one shot. Etc, etc for a minimum of 20 shots, 30 is better. Whatever their worst shot, becomes their perfect condition baseline precision- they can do no better than that.
Then, repeat it and add a time component to it- say ten seconds to go from standing to prone and fire one round. Then pick everything back up, stand up, and ten seconds to go prone, build the position and fire one round. Repeat for 10-20 rounds. Whatever the worst shot becomes their realistic baseline precision from prone.

You can and should do this for all positions.


What I have seen consistently under any stressor whatsoever, is that going from 4-5lbs of recoil (223) to 15’ish lbs of recoil (6.5cm) almost doubles the group sizes. Going from 15’ish Ft-lbs of recoil (6.5cm) to 25ft-lbs of recoil (30/06/7 mag) almost doubles it again. Etc, etc.

Interesting

I’m an archery guy and I can tell you thats about right for me with rifles…though I would think that could be trained out of a dedicated rifleman.