What caused the Rokslide shift to smallest caliber and cartridges?

[Mule3006Elk]

Seems like one of the most important points in these threads is that “bullets matter more than headstamps”. Based on that, the way I would approach your question is 1) pick a bullet that gives the terminal performance you are looking for, 2) determine the maximum range you want to shoot (at an animal), and 3) pick a cartridge that maintains minimum expansion velocity for that bullet at your maximum chosen range. If you haven’t answered at least 1) and 2), I think it’s hard to answer 3) objectively.

I get it. I'm trying to be discrete b/c some are passionate about their cartridges and/or caliber. I'm looking to avoid cartridge and caliber bias.

In particular, would it be wise to ignore flatness and drift and go with the lowest recoil?
Would be wise to go with the least drop and ignore recoil and drop.
Or would be wise to go with the one that bucks the wind the best and ignore drop and recoil.

All 3 will absolutely do the job. Each is a different caliber. Each one wins one category. I don't buy a lot rifles so I likely over analyze when I do. All 3 will be using factory ammo and the exact same bullet. All three are bullet weights (130-155 range) that would be appropriate for deer/elk and ph. My thought is flatness isn't that important in part d/t range finders, Kestrels, and I have both. I tend to lean wind bucking b/c it's the variable that I have the least control over. Open to input and/or personal experience.

 

[Formidilosus]

I get it. I'm trying to be discrete b/c some are passionate about their cartridges and/or caliber. I'm looking to avoid cartridge and caliber bias.

In particular, would it be wise to ignore flatness and drift and go with the lowest recoil?
Would be wise to go with the least drop and ignore recoil and drop.
Or would be wise to go with the one that bucks the wind the best and ignore drop and recoil.

All 3 will absolutely do the job. Each is a different caliber. Each one wins one category. I don't buy a lot rifles so I likely over analyze when I do. All 3 will be using factory ammo and the exact same bullet. All three are bullet weights (130-155 range) that would be appropriate for deer/elk and ph. My thought is flatness isn't that important in part d/t range finders, Kestrels, and I have both. I tend to lean wind bucking b/c it's the variable that I have the least control over. Open to input and/or personal experience.

What’s the difference in wind bracket between option #2 and #3?

 

[Mule3006Elk]

What’s the difference in wind bracket between option #2 and #3?

1.7 inches

 

[Formidilosus]

1.7 inches

Can you give me the G1 BC of the bullet, and the MV for each?

 

[specneeds]

I think there's a shift from, my 30 caliber rifle shoots 1 moa all day long, makes big holes, and I don't need to shoot it much to prove it (thank God). To, my rifle shoots 1 moa all day long, makes big holes, and I shoot it all day long. It isn't expensive either.

The advantage you gain as a hunter is you at this point. Placing your confidence in the tool isn't wrong but establishing greater confidence in yourself is a far more valuable asset. Not every hunter gets here.

I did it for decades. Take the rifle out a month before season start, shoot it, make any adjustments I needed, marvel at it's moa groups, and wait for opening day. Every single year.

Changed everything I ever believed. On top of it all, I have a white tail buck and cow elk in my freezers this year cementing the, small caliber equals deadly, in my head. The other day I shot 100 rounds from 400 to 800 yards at my club range. 400 has gotten easy in those conditions. The longer ranges were for learning, without pressure, how the wind at long range affects the bullet. A bullet that kills animals dead.

A few guys can shoot heavies enough to get here. I'm a big guy, still somewhat strong, but old. My neck ain't what it used to be. I'm having a great time and reaping the benefits from this new found knowledge and the ongoing training that I'm doing.

I have 225 yard range at home about a 2 minute ranger ride from the house. I shoot way more 22 caliber than anything else. I’m old so passed a million rounds fired long ago. The weatherby doesn’t get shot much - even reloads aren’t cheap. The 500 yard elk vitals sized rock is pretty easy with several center fire rifles without dialing.

A few miles away I have access to a range past 1200 yards. Do that before elk hunt & it’s usually less than 10 shots with the 300 to be comfortable at 7 or 800 depending on wind.

Several younger hunters will ask me to check their rifle in a given year to take their shooting out of the variables. If I can’t shoot a reasonable group after checking mounts - it’s a bad scope-So far 100%, More often the rifles shoot fine or have a mounts issue. No I don’t need to shoot my 7mm or 300 or 22-250 often to stay sharp with them. An AR or most often a rimfire is cheaper that is cheaper to shoot keeps me in practice.

I’m glad you have a practice regimen you like. Having my own range I usually practice assisting other folks & get to see/shoot lots of different guns. Mentoring younger hunters is rewarding no matter how hard headed they start. Technology changes everything particularly longer range capability.

If you’re uncomfortable with recoil it doesn’t make you completely unmanly. I’d love a 338-378 for elk but the cost outweighs the benefit over the 300 Weatherby. I sold the light 375H&H but do have a nephew that needed his eyebrow taped back on after 1 shot, he still has a little scar.

 

[Mule3006Elk]

Can you give me the G1 BC of the bullet, and the MV for each?

Option 2: 0.532 and 3000 fps
Option 3: .586 and 2930 fps

 

[Formidilosus]

Option 2: 0.532 and 3000 fps
Option 3: .586 and 2930 fps

Option two if it has less recoil. I will trade 1 mph wind bracket for less recoil, provided it’s significantly (5ft-lbs) less recoil.

 

[Mule3006Elk]

Option two if it has less recoil. I will trade 1 mph wind bracket for less recoil, provided it’s significantly (5ft-lbs) less recoil.

3 ft/lbs difference

 

[Formidilosus]

3 ft/lbs difference

Hmmm. Between them, is there one you can spot your own hits with easier? If not, I’d use whatever one I like better.

 

[Mule3006Elk]

Hmmm. Between them, is there one you can spot your own hits with easier? If not, I’d use whatever one I like better.

Good ?. Not sure TBO.

 

[Anschutz]

So you run ballistics with 3 different calibers/cartridge at 500 yards:

Option 1) flattest, 2nd best wind drift, most recoil
Option 2) mid drop, 3rd best wind drift but nearly equal to option 1, least recoil
Option 3) most drop, least wind drift, middle recoil
*each option is using a bullet that is effective for deer/elk/pronghorn* Each still has 2300+ fps at 500 yards.

Which would you chose IF you had to only pick 1?

My choice will be option 3. Wind is the most variable of all conditions based on many factors (terrain, vegetation, direction, etc.) and can vary over the distance of a shot. 2300+ fps at 500 yards requires a high stepping cartridge no matter what, and low recoil will still be mild at the least. Just a quick go at it, the lowest recoil option would be a .240 WBY shooting a 103ELD-X at 3250 (15lb of recoil, 8lb rifle).

Edited to add: After reading down a little more, you're picking fly poop out of chili. I'd go with whatever was the most available quality factory ammo (Hornady, Barnes, Federal (not blue box), Nosler, etc) and quality components available.

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

 

[treydfoster]

Its an attempt to show with data that some of the conventional wisdom around cartridge choice (and optics) is either wrong or unnecessary or based on spurious correlations, and often ends up being counter-productive in the long run for no better result. The folks presenting conventional wisdom have decades of accumulated articles and “sources” to point to, so the data-driven approach is necessary to illustrate many of the points—its a lot harder to argue with data.
I admit it gets tiresome for me, but at the same time it is just as tiresome to see the same questions answered with the same “traditional wisdom” that is just as, if not more, prevalent and often isnt based in fact. I think it is only so noteworthy because it isnt the conventional wisdom. I hope at some point this stuff is common-enough knowledge that it doesnt require being beaten over the head with it.

Elaborate on optics please

 

[eric1115]

Elaborate on optics please

I'm not Macintosh, but I find my views and his very often align.

I think the conventional wisdom of prioritizing (in a rifle scope) glass quality and light weight over zero retention and accurate tracking (Leupold often being seen as one of the primary examples of this) is backwards.

A rifle scope is an aiming tool, not an observation tool. As long as glass is good enough to see your target, the priority should be that the reticle never moves unless you tell it to, and when you do tell it to move, it goes exactly where your dial says to go. Few scope companies do this well, and even fewer scope buyers even have it on their radar. They think "glass clarity" is what makes a good rifle scope, they want "tactile turrets" and high magnification, but don't care about what actually matters for putting a bullet where it needs to go.

 

[OneGunTex]

Holy cow I actually made it to the end of the thread! Incredible!
I have been thoroughly convinced, such that the next rifle I buy will likely be a RSS
I'm also convinced that my 6.5CM will be entirely adequate for anything out there, and I'll be better off investing in reloading equipment & range time/ammo than another rifle.
I still have a couple questions about different types of bullets, but I'll let y'all know if they still persist after reading the "Why Match Bullets" thread.

 

[eric1115]

Holy cow I actually made it to the end of the thread! Incredible!
I have been thoroughly convinced, such that the next rifle I buy will likely be a RSS
I'm also convinced that my 6.5CM will be entirely adequate for anything out there, and I'll be better off investing in reloading equipment & range time/ammo than another rifle.
I still have a couple questions about different types of bullets, but I'll let y'all know if they still persist after reading the "Why Match Bullets" thread.

Attaboy! Much respect for the open minded approach!

 

[Hnthrdr]

Holy cow I actually made it to the end of the thread! Incredible!
I have been thoroughly convinced, such that the next rifle I buy will likely be a RSS
I'm also convinced that my 6.5CM will be entirely adequate for anything out there, and I'll be better off investing in reloading equipment & range time/ammo than another rifle.
I still have a couple questions about different types of bullets, but I'll let y'all know if they still persist after reading the "Why Match Bullets" thread.

One of us… one of us… lots of converts here. I went with 6.5cm and am very happy, but wait till you see the performance of 6mm cm

 

[JackButler]

That conclusion is already incorrect, and bullet technology will only continue to improve.

I think the shift is somewhat attributable to every generation thinking it has a better idea, combined with Gen Z wanting to go to the opposite extreme of boomers on every issue. The fact is 130-180 grain bullets driven at standard velocities have always been suitable for everything in North America. But since the boomers went with big magnums as their "better idea," Gen Z has to go with sub-100 grain bullets as their protest. Some future generation will eschew the practice of using the lightest bullets for purposes for which they were not intended, and shooting at ranges that require the hope your quarry won't turn or step between the time your brain can't stop the trigger pull and your bullet reaches the target, or that a slight gust of wind a quarter mile away won't turn your shot into a marginal or bad hit. Through all the trials and tribulations, though, 130-180 grain bullets driven at standard velocities will still be the sweet spot.

 

[JackButler]

I’m a huge fan of the 77tmk for deer and elk.
That said, when it comes to brown bears, reducing the experience of seasoned Alaskan guides to “dogma” is a mistake. There’s a reason many of them have minimum calibers. A good friend of mine has owned an outfitting business there since the late 80’s. He has a 30-06 minimum. He’s taken 12 bears personally and guided clients to 150 more. These aren’t feelings. He has evidence and experience of what works in the real world consistently.

“Feel” is the problem. Feelings lie. The only reason people “feel” that a magnum is better for teeth and claws is because they have been told it is, not because of rigorous testing or empirical evidence comparing all the actual e options, but because of dogma that was never put under scrutiny.

 

[Formidilosus]

I’m a huge fan of the 77tmk for deer and elk.
That said, when it comes to brown bears, reducing the experience of seasoned Alaskan guides to “dogma” is a mistake. There’s a reason many of them have minimum calibers. A good friend of mine has owned an outfitting business there since the late 80’s. He has a 30-06 minimum. He’s taken 12 bears personally and guided clients to 150 more. These aren’t feelings. He has evidence and experience of what works in the real world consistently.

No, by your own statements he has no evidence of what works below 30-06.

 

[JGRaider]

No, by your own statements he has no evidence of what works below 30-06.

I think you should explain it to him.......