What caused the Rokslide shift to smallest caliber and cartridges?

[mxgsfmdpx]

don't really trust 243 after I high shoulder shot a big muley and he looked at me

 

[N2TRKYS]

Maybe this is the answer of a simpleton, but for me it was a logically presented argument supported by reason and evidence.

Unfortunately, my one experience has mirror the reason and evidence.

 

[eric1115]

I think it's largely due to rangefinders (and to a lesser extent scopes that dial correctly-ish).

Before precise range measurement, the limiting factor on most guys' range was guessing too close or too far and missing high or low. So the magnums and super magnums (weatherby philosophy) running light-ish for caliber bullets like 165 .30 cal, 140 7mm, etc were the way to minimize that error by creating the flattest possible trajectory.

As muzzle velocity approaches speed of light, very tough bullet construction is needed to help stuff hold together, especially on very close shots. Especially especially since we are talking about light for caliber bullets. Very tough, small diameter, light for caliber bullets will produce wound channels that are not spectacular, especially at longer ranges as velocity decays.

Now the laser range finder enters the scene. If we can say, that target is at 460 yd and compensate fairly precisely for that distance, we don't need the flattest shooting trajectory possible anymore.

We can now do two things that we couldn't before. We can run high bc heavy for caliber bullets since muzzle velocity is no longer the primary way to extend effective range. Because we are no longer chasing speed of light muzzle velocity, we can start using softer bullets again. These heavy for caliber, high BC, soft "match" bullets deliver devastating terminal performance at moderate velocity, even in smaller diameter projectiles since they upset so violently. They retain that velocity very well at distance even if they are not launched at blistering speeds due to their aerodynamic efficiency.

Fact is, there was to some extent valid reasoning for big cartridges pushing tough bullets very fast. The problem is the extent to which people don't think about the "why" for conventional wisdom and whether it still applies.

 

[eric1115]

Unfortunately, my one experience has mirror the reason and evidence.

Don't put too much weight into your one experience. I've seen well shot deer run a long ways and/or leave very faint blood trails from a bunch of different projectiles and delivery systems. A 12 gauge slug doesn't guarantee a great blood trail. There is no way to guarantee a great blood trail.

A smart man learns from his experiences and mistakes. A wise man learns from the experiences and mistakes of others as well. Trust the body of evidence in the 223, 6 mm, etc threads.

 

[SteveAndTheCrigBoys]

It was simple for me, I had shoulder surgery 2x that made recoil painful. I parked my 300's and bought an 11lb 6.5 06. I killed some elk with it. They died instantly. I could match velocity with a 308 case to what I was using....so I bought a machine shop and started cranking out rifles and killing critters.....all well before rokslide was even a thought.

 

[DangerRanger]

Cheaper, more practice, shoot better, deer just as dead

 

[AkMtnRunner]

To answer the OP's question:

Equal parts . . .
- better ranging tools and general shooting accuracy (more accessible education/info)
- bullet technology
- most animals hunted by Rokslide hunters are actually not very large
- most Rokslide hunters are not around dangerous game

 

[JohnJohnson]

For me it was just time on the range seeing that very few people with big bore magnums actually shoot them well. If I had to pull a number out of my ass I'd say at least 90% of people shooting, for instance, 300 Win Mag should go to a cartridge that doesn't recoil as much. There's an epidemic of flinching in the magnum-shooting population in the US and it's compounded by the fact very few of them know they're doing it because (due to recoil and cost per round) they don't shoot that much. Add onto it we have an almost unique national thing of people's manhood being tied to how much unnecessary abuse they can take from their rifle and it results in a lot of bad hunters.

 

[MT_Wyatt]

Thanks for responses so far. From what I have gathered, most feel like the body of evidence shown in those referenced threads is a very large factor. Recoil reduction, follow-ups, cheaper ammo etc all make sense.

What about increased hit rates? There's part of that attributable to range finders and better ballistic solvers, part from better shooting due to smaller cartridges, what about wind? I've heard it mentioned there's statistics or data supporting what small/fast is good for minimizing recoil and shooter error - where can I see this?

Along similar lines - are these smaller match bullets behaving the same way as the larger ones in terms of wound size? From a lot of the photos, I am always looking for that, and it is sometimes very obvious and sometimes not.

For example, say you are trying to push me over the edge on this argument: 180gr 7 PRC vs the smaller 140gr in 6.5 CM, or 108 in 6 CM, all ELDMs/match. Comparable muzzle velocities, with 7 PRC followed by 6 CM and then 6.5 CM. All similar bullet constructions, pretty comparable velocities - the thinking is that the 6mm is enough. It produces enough wound channel - so I would expect would channel to grow with the projectile, right? Takes more powder to hustle a 180gr 7 to same Vel as a 6mm 108gr. So....the bullet only cares how fast it is going for exansion. So if the mass of the projectile is increased, for a given shot at 500 yards between the 3, the would channel should correlate to bullet size, right? I think this is the crux of the magnum being overkill for most argument, assuming you are using bullets suitable for ranges being shot, right?

All are honest questions, trying to learn and understand what's being pushed so much day to day. I get you have a projectile and just need a certain velocity min to open it up and do adequate damage. Part of that damage inflicted is based upon energy input (or in other words mass), is it not?

I have to say 4 pages in, I am truly thrilled this thread hasn't devolved into a locked discussion.

 

[eric1115]

For me it was just time on the range seeing that very few people with big bore magnums actually shoot them well. If I had to pull a number out of my ass I'd say at least 90% of people shooting, for instance, 300 Win Mag should go to a cartridge that doesn't recoil as much. There's an epidemic of flinching in the magnum-shooting population in the US and it's compounded by the fact very few of them know they're doing it because (due to recoil and cost per round) they don't shoot that much. Add onto it we have an almost unique national thing of people's manhood being tied to how much unnecessary abuse they can take from their rifle and it results in a lot of bad hunters.

A few years ago when I was figuring out my first "long range" "elk rifle" (had killed a handful of elk prior with standard bolt face 7mm and .30 cal), I got partway there.

The .300WM pull was super strong, especially with the magic of the 215 Berger hybrid, and especially especially since I was reading quite a bit of what Jeff Brozovich was writing at the time.

I ended up with a 7mm RM, and loading 180 Berger hybrids for it. Much much less recoil than a .300WM. Moderate muzzle velocity, very efficient and pretty soft bullet. I really thought hard about a 6.5-284, but was fairly new to reloading and decided to go with something a little more mainstream and well accepted as a good elk cartridge (also not many factory rifles chambered in it in my price range).

In retrospect, I was still too hung up on things like kinetic energy. Heavy, efficient 6 mm bullets weren't mainstream yet and heavy, efficient 6.5 mm bullets were just starting to get legs.

It was still unquestioned conventional wisdom at least all the places I was looking) that 6.5 cm was way too little gun for long-range elk, and marginal for mid range elk.

Now? I've not drawn an elk tag in a couple of years, but we'll definitely at least have a couple youth cow tags next year that will get filled with a 6mm ARC/108ELDM at most and likely a .223/77TMK.

 

[ARK_Ginger]

Thanks for responses so far. From what I have gathered, most feel like the body of evidence shown in those referenced threads is a very large factor. Recoil reduction, follow-ups, cheaper ammo etc all make sense.

What about increased hit rates? There's part of that attributable to range finders and better ballistic solvers, part from better shooting due to smaller cartridges, what about wind? I've heard it mentioned there's statistics or data supporting what small/fast is good for minimizing recoil and shooter error - where can I see this?

Along similar lines - are these smaller match bullets behaving the same way as the larger ones in terms of wound size? From a lot of the photos, I am always looking for that, and it is sometimes very obvious and sometimes not.

For example, say you are trying to push me over the edge on this argument: 180gr 7 PRC vs the smaller 140gr in 6.5 CM, or 108 in 6 CM, all ELDMs/match. Comparable muzzle velocities, with 7 PRC followed by 6 CM and then 6.5 CM. All similar bullet constructions, pretty comparable velocities - the thinking is that the 6mm is enough. It produces enough wound channel - so I would expect would channel to grow with the projectile, right? Takes more powder to hustle a 180gr 7 to same Vel as a 6mm 108gr. So....the bullet only cares how fast it is going for exansion. So if the mass of the projectile is increased, for a given shot at 500 yards between the 3, the would channel should correlate to bullet size, right? I think this is the crux of the magnum being overkill for most argument, assuming you are using bullets suitable for ranges being shot, right?

All are honest questions, trying to learn and understand what's being pushed so much day to day. I get you have a projectile and just need a certain velocity min to open it up and do adequate damage. Part of that damage inflicted is based upon energy input (or in other words mass), is it not?

I have to say 4 pages in, I am truly thrilled this thread hasn't devolved into a locked discussion.

Form generally brings up the hit rates with magnums vs standard offerings. It's littered throughout his postings in all the threads already mentioned and others (I'm sure someone will link it specifically somewhere).

With similar bullet construction you do generally increase the wound channel, the kicker is that it would likely be hard to tell the difference between the 3 wounds in your example. You would have to step up to an even larger bullet so see a meaningful difference in the wound channel. So, when 6 CM kills fine with less recoil, why choose the 7 PRC? Especially within 500 yards when the wind deflection is so minimal. Throw in an Applied Ballistics WEZ analysis for the average shooters wind calls and other factors and the magnums don't show much advantage until you get closer to the 1000 yard shots.

 

[eric1115]

Thanks for responses so far. From what I have gathered, most feel like the body of evidence shown in those referenced threads is a very large factor. Recoil reduction, follow-ups, cheaper ammo etc all make sense.

What about increased hit rates? There's part of that attributable to range finders and better ballistic solvers, part from better shooting due to smaller cartridges, what about wind? I've heard it mentioned there's statistics or data supporting what small/fast is good for minimizing recoil and shooter error - where can I see this?

Along similar lines - are these smaller match bullets behaving the same way as the larger ones in terms of wound size? From a lot of the photos, I am always looking for that, and it is sometimes very obvious and sometimes not.

For example, say you are trying to push me over the edge on this argument: 180gr 7 PRC vs the smaller 140gr in 6.5 CM, or 108 in 6 CM, all ELDMs/match. Comparable muzzle velocities, with 7 PRC followed by 6 CM and then 6.5 CM. All similar bullet constructions, pretty comparable velocities - the thinking is that the 6mm is enough. It produces enough wound channel - so I would expect would channel to grow with the projectile, right? Takes more powder to hustle a 180gr 7 to same Vel as a 6mm 108gr. So....the bullet only cares how fast it is going for exansion. So if the mass of the projectile is increased, for a given shot at 500 yards between the 3, the would channel should correlate to bullet size, right? I think this is the crux of the magnum being overkill for most argument, assuming you are using bullets suitable for ranges being shot, right?

All are honest questions, trying to learn and understand what's being pushed so much day to day. I get you have a projectile and just need a certain velocity min to open it up and do adequate damage. Part of that damage inflicted is based upon energy input (or in other words mass), is it not?

I have to say 4 pages in, I am truly thrilled this thread hasn't devolved into a locked discussion.

I think the way I would describe it, is that a 6mm match bullet at 2k fps will produce a wound channel equivalent to (or better than) a 200 grain bonded "tough, traditional hunting" bullet at high 2k fps range. In order to get that 200 grain bullet going that fast you may need literally double the powder charge required to move the 6mm 108 grain fast enough to still be 2k fps at the max range you want to shoot. Why in the world would you deal with twice an much powder and bullet to get the same result?

Put a 200 grain soft match bullet in that .30 cal magnum, and now you're getting into the realm of arguably too much terminal performance. Huge meat loss if you go through the shoulders, and for what benefit?

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

I've heard it mentioned there's statistics or data supporting what small/fast is good for minimizing recoil and shooter error - where can I see this?

Not trying to be a a$$hole, but you can see this by doing some side by side research on your own with Berger or another ballistic calculator out there. Federal has a decent one on their site as well. If you've read all the post as stated, you have more than enough starting load data to peform some analysis on your own. That is how you learn, not just listening to what we're all saying. Then you need to buy a rifle and get to the range and build up your experience and skills.

 

[Hnthrdr]

I think it's largely due to rangefinders (and to a lesser extent scopes that dial correctly-ish).

Before precise range measurement, the limiting factor on most guys' range was guessing too close or too far and missing high or low. So the magnums and super magnums (weatherby philosophy) running light-ish for caliber bullets like 165 .30 cal, 140 7mm, etc were the way to minimize that error by creating the flattest possible trajectory.

As muzzle velocity approaches speed of light, very tough bullet construction is needed to help stuff hold together, especially on very close shots. Especially especially since we are talking about light for caliber bullets. Very tough, small diameter, light for caliber bullets will produce wound channels that are not spectacular, especially at longer ranges as velocity decays.

Now the laser range finder enters the scene. If we can say, that target is at 460 yd and compensate fairly precisely for that distance, we don't need the flattest shooting trajectory possible anymore.

We can now do two things that we couldn't before. We can run high bc heavy for caliber bullets since muzzle velocity is no longer the primary way to extend effective range. Because we are no longer chasing speed of light muzzle velocity, we can start using softer bullets again. These heavy for caliber, high BC, soft "match" bullets deliver devastating terminal performance at moderate velocity, even in smaller diameter projectiles since they upset so violently. They retain that velocity very well at distance even if they are not launched at blistering speeds due to their aerodynamic efficiency.

Fact is, there was to some extent valid reasoning for big cartridges pushing tough bullets very fast. The problem is the extent to which people don't think about the "why" for conventional wisdom and whether it still applies.

All of what was said above paves/paved the way for extremely light weight rifles, which usually means shorter barrels and now suppressors. If I time traveled back to the 90’s and told guys I was thinking about taking a 500 yard shots with a heavy bullet coming out of a 16” .308 I would have been laughed out of the room. There was a reason why the weatherby magnums were cutting edge pre range finder days and now… not really necessary anymore kind of like tits on a bull

 

[Happy Antelope]

It seems to me that the main reason is you lot are getting to shoot more deer than hunters did a generation ago
That inspires confidence
In places like Australia, Africa and New Zealand where we get to kill much more game, hunters have been using small calibers forever with complete success

Those small calibers are usually used to cull in Africa and almost always headshots. Most people don't want to be walking around the African bush where there's nasty pissed off Cape Buffalo with a 223 in their hand. Not a whole lot different than I don't want to Caribou hunt with a 223 either.

 

[deadwolf]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mt terry d]

I was fortunate to get in on a shooting class Form put on.

I learned (among many things) that I really sucked and continuing to shoot my 7mm Wby mag and 300 Win mag was not going to make me a better shooter ( even if I could afford the time and ammo and punishment) or that I'd kill more and wound less with the "big guns".

This is my first season shooting the Rokslide Special with the 77 TMK and it's living up to its reputation
in every respect.

In fact, it looks like I'm needing another freezer.

 

[duffman]

I think the way I would describe it, is that a 6mm match bullet at 2k fps will produce a wound channel equivalent to (or better than) a 200 grain bonded "tough, traditional hunting" bullet at high 2k fps range. In order to get that 200 grain bullet going that fast you may need literally double the powder charge required to move the 6mm 108 grain fast enough to still be 2k fps at the max range you want to shoot. Why in the world would you deal with twice an much powder and bullet to get the same result?

Put a 200 grain soft match bullet in that .30 cal magnum, and now you're getting into the realm of arguably too much terminal performance. Huge meat loss if you go through the shoulders, and for what benefit?

I think increased hit probability factors, I mean it’s one of the reasons why .308 was basically replaced by 6.5cm in matches a while back. And you can see the trend continuing with 6mms replacing the 6.5’s. It’s funny how stuff like .243 and 6.5 swede had it right. Also kinda reminds me of 45acp in the pistol realm… better bullets negate the advantages and you’re left with only the downsides. That being said I am planning a 300wsm lol

 

[MT_Wyatt]

Not trying to be a a$$hole, but you can see this by doing some side by side research on your own with Berger or another ballistic calculator out there. Federal has a decent one on their site as well. If you've read all the post as stated, you have more than enough starting load data to peform some analysis on your own. That is how you learn, not just listening to what we're all saying. Then you need to buy a rifle and get to the range and build up your experience and skills.

Yeah - I do not appreacite your assumptions and preaching, at all. Sounds like it might surprise you that I own a few rifles, do indeed shoot them, have ballistic calculators, etc. I don't think this takes hand loading to figure out. This is not about blindly listening to the internet and me asking to be told what to do. No worries though - please just consider that not every single person on this site joined recently and has no experience. I think your intent of running some numbers, trying different things on the range and in the field is good for sure - thanks.

There's a very apparant trends towards small caliber/cartridge recomendations, LOTS of posts telling new folks that is THE way, and I thought it would be helpful to get something dedicated to the "why" out there for people to reference, aside from those main three threads I mentioned. I was simply trying to facilitate a discussion I felt like needed its own thread.

 

[MT_Wyatt]

Re: increased hit probability factors. Is there a way to understand this without purchasing a $200 AB software program? 6UM is "optimized" for hit probability I think I've heard? I understand the concept somewhat, but would like to learn more about it.

I found this: https://appliedballisticsllc.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Weapon-Employment-Zone-Analysis.pdf

Any other references on the topic?