What caused the Rokslide shift to smallest caliber and cartridges?

[KenLee]

Umm…

I didn't learn how to shoot, I was taught. And I was taught by someone who knew how to shoot, as well as how to teach. There’s a difference.

And I shoot a fair bit. Okay, maybe more than a fair bit, but less than some I know, so I don’t want to overstate. And I’ve been shooting a long time. Okay, maybe even a loooong time, if you ask my boy.

Anticipation of recoil can still mess up my shot, especially if I’m shooting a larger cartridge. I’m a much better shot with my .223 than with my 7mm Rem Mag, and better still with my .17 HMR.

But that’s just me.
P

I shoot a 300 rum with no brake better than anything else I own...cause I don't wanna shoot it again. Make sure anything I shoot at is dead

 

[KenLee]

So, how accurate is that?

Question isn't to me, but I'm chiming in. My 2 Marlin 45-70 1895 gbl carbines are pussycats. Fairly heavy laminated furniture and have factory Pachmeyer Decelerator pads. They fit me well. Seriously the perceived recoil is less than many 30-06 I've shot.

 

[wyosam]

Recoil anticipation is only part of the equation.

Recoil is happening before a bullet exits a barrel and magnifies inconsistencies in how how it is managed. So unless one is absolutely perfect in form and consistency, more recoil is going to result in lesser results all else being the same.

I can get prone or sit at a bench behind a magnum and shoot some bugholes. When you get into compromising field positions or shoot a group after breaking from position and rebuilding it with every shot, recoil will amplify weaknesses.

I think if people would just acknowledge the fact that it’s easier to shoot a rifle with less recoil, then there is a discussion to be had. Arguing the premise itself isn’t going anywhere. A better question, if someone for whatever reason doesn’t want to go all the way to a 223, or wants to cling to their magnum or whatever is “do I practice enough/have the skill to make accurate shots on game?”.

Shooting off a bench or smooth ground prone doesn’t do it. I have no interest in shooting a magnum enough to be accurate with magnums (which is why I don’t own one), but moderate cartridges aren’t that hard to shoot very effectively from field positions with adequate practice. Statistically not as good as a light recoiling cartridge, but the difference can certainly be small enough to not make a real world difference.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Anschutz]

Look, I shoot my Marlin Guide Gun (48lbs/ft free recoil) as accurately as I do my AR15 - I'm no superman.

If this is true, you probably aren't as good of a shooter as you think you are, or you're shooting from a bench.

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

 

[Gravel Road]

Alaska's Wolf Man- one of my favorite reads.

Thanks for this. I don't know how I've never seen this book since I used to go through the hunting sections in the Alaska libraries when I lived there; and never saw it. Time to order through Amazon!

 

[thinhorn_AK]

Thanks for this. I don't know how I've never seen this book since I used to go through the hunting sections in the Alaska libraries when I lived there; and never saw it. Time to order through Amazon!

It’s an ok book.

 

[JohnJohnson]

If this is true, you probably aren't as good of a shooter as you think you are

I was trying to figure out a diplomatic way to say this too.

 

[id_jon]

Thanks for this. I don't know how I've never seen this book since I used to go through the hunting sections in the Alaska libraries when I lived there; and never saw it. Time to order through Amazon!

It's really good.

 

[mt terry d]

Look, I shoot my Marlin Guide Gun (48lbs/ft free recoil) as accurately as I do my AR15 -

Question isn't to me, but I'm chiming in. My 2 Marlin 45-70 1895 gbl carbines are pussycats. Fairly heavy laminated furniture and have factory Pachmeyer Decelerator pads. They fit me well. Seriously the perceived recoil is less than many 30-06 I've shot.

I meant accuracy of him shooting his rifle. Say, like ten shot groups at 100 yards. Not accuracy of the his stated amount of recoil.

I am just as accurate at half-court shots with my left hand as with my right.
That's just a practically meaningless a statement.

 

[ThunderJack49]

I'll add my version of what has probably already been said here.
I saw the problem as a human issue and not an equipment issue. Most shooters and hunters are not as competent as they would like to believe. Many hunters go through their entire careers without shooting enough to really dive into the skillset and take a more measured stance on their abilities.
Larger calibers produce more recoil, recoil effects fundamentals of shooting and causes poor performance. To "most" hunters, they don't see this as an issue because they don't shoot with a frequency or in a context that truly stretches their ability. Also, culturally, most hunters view themselves as truly deadly, where they are most likely, average at best.
Of course, the issue of lethality is of utmost importance to hunters, and that often justifies/demands the use of a larger caliber. "Using enough gun" is an ethos and is paramount to making quick clean kills that we all desire.
Enter the 223 thread and the TMK. If we understand that as a hunting population, most of us are not shooting very far (400yds+) the 77TMK now offers an almost, best of both worlds.
Acceptable lethality crossed with the benefits of mild recoil and ammo cheap enough to train consistently with in all types of conditions. This is the "dead is dead" take. If the weapon produces a clean and efficient kill, there is a point of diminishing returns as we scale up in caliber and the price is shooter's performance.
CLEARLY, there will be some give and take. The argument is, however, that inside of normal hunting conditions, the trade offs all land in favor of a lighter recoiling, heavy for caliber bullet.

Gentlemen, I would like to suggest that if we are taking "toughness" into account for the weapon we choose to carry, that our priorities are not clear. One's ability to handle recoil is a completely inadequate measuring stick to compare our manhood against. That is an entirely different subject in itself.

 

[dla]

I'm going to pour a little more on this thread

What does shooting 10 shot groups prove? And what does that have to do with hunting, or practical accuracy for that matter?

If a fellow hits what he intends with his shot, isn't that the definition of "good shot"? How does it matter whether he's shooting a 30-06 or a .223 if he hits what he intends? Old timers defined a marksman as someone who could shoot up to the limits of his weapon.

I reload 223 for $.26 each, 45-70 for $.70 each. I can buy new 223 for $.60 each, and 45-70 for >$2 each. Even the 30-06 is $1.60 a round if you don't reload. So the 223 is much easier on the wallet - cheaper to put in the rounds to "learn to shoot".

Now if the object of the shooting exercise is to put 10 shots in a tiny group, my 45-70 will put more wear and tear on my body than will my 223. But truthfully, my Guide gun groups as good or better than my AR.

If you're going to hunt with a 7lb pack rifle chambered in 300 Win, and you don't reload or have access to a shooting space except the annual "sight-in days" - you're not likely to be happy with your hunting shots. Shooting proficiency is like golf - you've got to do it to get good.

To say "everybody shoots a lighter recoiling weapon more accurately" is not correct. Cheaper - yes, less fatigue over long sessions - yes, but more accurately - nope.

Just my opinions of course.

 

[brhillman]

I think a little too much emphasis is placed on arguing based on the recoil thing. Everyone wants to think they’re special, but this argument always goes like “I’m a man, I shoot big guns as well as small guns, therefore shooting small guns is pointless”, which really misses a lot of the important points I think. To those people though, a question: do you also think you’d be just as good at spotting impacts and getting back on target for a follow up shot with an un-braked 7 lbs 338 lapua as you would with a 223? And yes, that’s a ridiculous comparison, as ridiculous as discounting the premise that “bullet construction matters” because you’re man enough to shoot big guns.

 

[KenLee]

Look, I shoot my Marlin Guide Gun (48lbs/ft free recoil) as accurately as I do my AR15 -


I meant accuracy of him shooting his rifle. Say, like ten shot groups at 100 yards. Not accuracy of the his stated amount of recoil.

I am just as accurate at half-court shots with my left hand as with my right.
That's just a practically meaningless a statement.

Why would you worry about a 10 shot group from a 250 yard max gun that has never needed a follow-up shot?
Who shoots 10 shot groups with a 45-70?

 

[wyosam]

I think a little too much emphasis is placed on arguing based on the recoil thing. Everyone wants to think they’re special, but this argument always goes like “I’m a man, I shoot big guns as well as small guns, therefore shooting small guns is pointless”, which really misses a lot of the important points I think. To those people though, a question: do you also think you’d be just as good at spotting impacts and getting back on target for a follow up shot with an un-braked 7 lbs 338 lapua as you would with a 223? And yes, that’s a ridiculous comparison, as ridiculous as discounting the premise that “bullet construction matters” because you’re man enough to shoot big guns.

In addition to recoil, I think spotting impacts and “getting back on target” are also both greatly affected by how much zoom you’re shooting at. I see impacts on steel better with my 223 and 6 Dasher vs my hunting rifles (various short and long action standard bolt face cartridges). The larger cartridges I see the reaction of the plate, but not necessarily where on the plate the impact was (the 223/dasher are also 13-14# vs sub 8 pound hunting rifles). I’ve never had an issue getting back on target on game, and I suspect that is because I hunt at 2-3x and fire 95% of my shots on game without increasing that. I can imaging that would be very different with a bunch of recoil and a 10-15’ field of view. I Don’t see impact on game, but do see the animal’s reaction. I’m guessing that to see impact, I’d have to go to less recoil, but also more zoom. Maybe when my eyes were younger that would be different, but I’d be surprised if I could see impact on hair at 100 yards at 3x, much less beyond that.

Many people may not place spotting impacts very high on their list of wants, and may not feel that “getting back on target” is an area in need of improvement.

If I shoot a 7# unbraked 338LM, I don’t care about getting back on target or spotting my shot. I care about getting someone to sew my eyebrow back together and spotting an orthopedist to put my shoulder back together (again).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ozarkansas]

I think a little too much emphasis is placed on arguing based on the recoil thing. Everyone wants to think they’re special, but this argument always goes like “I’m a man, I shoot big guns as well as small guns, therefore shooting small guns is pointless”, which really misses a lot of the important points I think. To those people though, a question: do you also think you’d be just as good at spotting impacts and getting back on target for a follow up shot with an un-braked 7 lbs 338 lapua as you would with a 223? And yes, that’s a ridiculous comparison, as ridiculous as discounting the premise that “bullet construction matters” because you’re man enough to shoot big guns.

To your point, I can probably shoot my 45/70 offhand with open sights as well as I can shoot a 5.56 offhand with open sights, but it would take me significantly longer to clear the same course of fire with the 45/70. Off a bench there’s no contest, I WILL get flinchy with my 45/70 in just a handful of shots unless I’m shooting trapdoor loads

 

[Stalker69]

@Ryan Avery @Formidilosus can @dla get a paid trip to be filmed shooting a 30 round group from a 338 magnum of some variety just as well as he shoots a 223 from a similar rifle platform? I think all of use could learn from it.

Shot sequence should be 15 rounds from the 223, 30 from the magnum, then 15 more from the 223.

Edit: Of course if he does not shoot them the same, both time and accuracy, then he pays for his own trip.

Great idea, might throw this in there as well, recoil don't matter right.

if they can't shoot this as well as the 223, they pay for the 15 rounds they each shoot also.

 

[ElPollo]

I'm going to pour a little more on this thread

What does shooting 10 shot groups prove? And what does that have to do with hunting, or practical accuracy for that matter?

If a fellow hits what he intends with his shot, isn't that the definition of "good shot"? How does it matter whether he's shooting a 30-06 or a .223 if he hits what he intends? Old timers defined a marksman as someone who could shoot up to the limits of his weapon.

I reload 223 for $.26 each, 45-70 for $.70 each. I can buy new 223 for $.60 each, and 45-70 for >$2 each. Even the 30-06 is $1.60 a round if you don't reload. So the 223 is much easier on the wallet - cheaper to put in the rounds to "learn to shoot".

Now if the object of the shooting exercise is to put 10 shots in a tiny group, my 45-70 will put more wear and tear on my body than will my 223. But truthfully, my Guide gun groups as good or better than my AR.

If you're going to hunt with a 7lb pack rifle chambered in 300 Win, and you don't reload or have access to a shooting space except the annual "sight-in days" - you're not likely to be happy with your hunting shots. Shooting proficiency is like golf - you've got to do it to get good.

To say "everybody shoots a lighter recoiling weapon more accurately" is not correct. Cheaper - yes, less fatigue over long sessions - yes, but more accurately - nope.

Just my opinions of course.

Why would you worry about a 10 shot group from a 250 yard max gun that has never needed a follow-up shot?
Who shoots 10 shot groups with a 45-70?

10 shot groups give you a little more sample size to evaluate accuracy. 30 would be better, but ammo is expensive. There are multiple threads on here that discuss this and a recent Hornady podcast. If you shoot three groups that each average 0.2 MOA at the same point of aim but they are each 2 MOA apart, do you have 0.2 MOA performance or a 2 MOA? Even a blind hog can find a truffle, and we all tend to cherry pick to support the result we want. But testing yourself without your own biases means that you actually know what you can do when the results matter.

 

[wyosam]

10 shot groups give you a little more sample size to evaluate accuracy. 30 would be better, but ammo is expensive. There are multiple threads on here that discuss this and a recent Hornady podcast. If you shoot three groups that each average 0.2 MOA at the same point of aim but they are each 2 MOA apart, do you have 0.2 MOA performance or a 2 MOA? Even a blind hog can find a truffle, and we all tend to cherry pick to support the result we want. But testing yourself without your own biases means that you actually know what you can do when the results matter.

Lots of ways to skin this cat if putting 30 through a hunting rifle in a single sitting isn’t of interest. I like a cold bore/cold shooter group over time for hunting rifles. 3x5 Index card with a target dot in the middle of it. Tack it to the target backer, it’s always the first (and only the first) shot on a range trip. Sometimes that’s the only shot from that rifle for the trip. All shots count.

Doesn’t really work if you can only do it a couple times a year, but if you shoot frequently it doesn’t take long to see what your rifle (and you) is doing on that shot that matters most.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[KenLee]

10 shot groups give you a little more sample size to evaluate accuracy. 30 would be better, but ammo is expensive. There are multiple threads on here that discuss this and a recent Hornady podcast. If you shoot three groups that each average 0.2 MOA at the same point of aim but they are each 2 MOA apart, do you have 0.2 MOA performance or a 2 MOA? Even a blind hog can find a truffle, and we all tend to cherry pick to support the result we want. But testing yourself without your own biases means that you actually know what you can do when the results matter.

You fool yourself if you think I shoot more than one 3 shot group with my 45-70 just before a 2.6 month rifle season

 

[Fartrell Cluggins]

When you learn to shoot, recoil becomes a very minor part of making the shot. If you don't shoot enough to have "learned to shoot", then anticipation of recoil can mess up your shot.

So learn to shoot.

Look, I shoot my Marlin Guide Gun (48lbs/ft free recoil) as accurately as I do my AR15 - I'm no superman. IMO, there is no substitute for actually shooting - just can't make up for it with furniture, optics, or cartridge.

What load are you shooting to generate that kind of recoil energy?