What caused the Rokslide shift to smallest caliber and cartridges?

[Drenalin]

I would like very much for the shift toward smaller calibers to end and for the vast majority of people to go back to the larger stuff.

 

[Big_wals]

I would like very much for the shift toward smaller calibers to end and for the vast majority of people to go back to the larger stuff.

Me too! I’m getting sick of never being able to find 77 tmks!

 

[Macintosh]

@KenLee @gabenzeke To be fair, all of the photo threads and the folks perceived as gurus in this "cult of the small gun" have repeatedly said a larger cartridge with a like-bullet (ie small eldm vs big eldm, small tmk vs big TMK, etc) will create a bigger hole in the critter, and with photos to illustrate it. All of those photos are posted to show "excessive damage", and the move to the smaller cartridge was to accomplish "enough" damage for a fast, efficient, reliable kill. If a bigger hole qualifies as an "insurance factor", then as far as I can tell it's 100% certain the larger cartridge, given the same bullet, does typically provide some amount of insurance strictly from a terminal perspective. So, from what I can gather the hard evidence DOES clearly support there being at least some "insurance factor" with a big gun. The key is whether that is 1) partially or entirely offest by greater difficulty to put the shot in the right place with a harder-recoiling gun, 2) enough of a bigger hole to provide a meaningful degree of "insurance", 3) is the big gun actually using a bullet that makes a bigger hole, or is it using a bullet that produces smaller diameter wound channel, in which case the smaller cartridge may actually provide more insurance, and 4) if using a larger cartridge with a highly damaging bullet introduces other negatives, such as not having an acceptable amount of critter left after making such a big hole in it.

This is all ballistic masturbation to a large degree, but did want to point out that the evidence I have seen posted on this site, in all cases, does support bigger cartridges making bigger holes--but only if the same bullets are used. The typical statement of a small gun making "as big a hole or bigger" is focused on larger calibers only when they are throwing bullets designed to produce a narrower wound.

 

[LimeSpoon]

@KenLee @gabenzeke To be fair, all of the photo threads and the folks perceived as gurus in this "cult of the small gun" have repeatedly said a larger cartridge with a like-bullet (ie small eldm vs big eldm, small tmk vs big TMK, etc) will create a bigger hole in the critter, and with photos to illustrate it. All of those photos are posted to show "excessive damage", and the move to the smaller cartridge was to accomplish "enough" damage for a fast, efficient, reliable kill. If a bigger hole qualifies as an "insurance factor", then as far as I can tell it's 100% certain the larger cartridge, given the same bullet, does typically provide some amount of insurance strictly from a terminal perspective. So, from what I can gather the hard evidence DOES clearly support there being at least some "insurance factor" with a big gun. The key is whether that is 1) partially or entirely offest by greater difficulty to put the shot in the right place with a harder-recoiling gun, 2) enough of a bigger hole to provide a meaningful degree of "insurance", 3) is the big gun actually using a bullet that makes a bigger hole, or is it using a bullet that produces smaller diameter wound channel, in which case the smaller cartridge may actually provide more insurance, and 4) if using a larger cartridge with a highly damaging bullet introduces other negatives, such as not having an acceptable amount of critter left after making such a big hole in it.

This is all ballistic masturbation to a large degree, but did want to point out that the evidence I have seen posted on this site, in all cases, does support bigger cartridges making bigger holes--but only if the same bullets are used. The typical statement of a small gun making "as big a hole or bigger" is focused on larger calibers only when they are throwing bullets designed to produce a narrower wound.

This is exactly correct.

Obviously you can get a bullet in a larger caliber that will do far more damage than the best .223, .243, 6.5 Creedmoor, etc. can do, this is just basic physics. At the level demonstrated with this deer hit by .338 Lapua Magnum, clearly you do have more leeway for shot placement, and this isn't even the best performing bullet for that cartridge.



(This isn't my pic, I'd give credit to whoever it came from but I forgot the name, so if that's you, thank you.)

However, most of the people who decry the use of .223 or whatever small round would never advocate for a round this destructive. Which is reasonable for this weight class of game, but frequently they wouldn't even be in favor of a bullet that did only somewhat more or as much damage as 77 gr TMK. Somehow the concept of greater insurance is supposed to be achieved with a round that doesn't actually do as much damage.

And if they did favor bullets that did more damage, the notion that a 3-4" wide wound channel - as is produced by 77 gr TMK at common hunting distances - is inadequate for medium game, just comes off as inherently ridiculous. There's never been any convincing justification provided as to why this would be in any way deficient for responsible hunting, and if it is, well, then that takes a whole lot of .308 (or larger) loadings off the table as well.

Then there's the constant changing of goalposts, saying, oh this evidence doesn't count, oh well this new evidence doesn't count either, so on and so forth. The proponents of small calibers have to meet an evidence threshold that basically can't ever be met, because the 'traditionalists' will always respond with something like "well what about the theoretical one that got away that you didn't post" which leaves the former with the goal of practically trying to prove a negative.

Anyways all that is to say I can appreciate the greater potential of larger calibers, and if I were personally hunting for game with size and temperament to scale, I'd probably prefer something big for such purposes too. And if you just like using big magnums to shoot medium game, well, I can't really fault you for that too much as long as you use an optimized projectile because a heavy fragmenting bullet in those calibers kills stuff really well and does give you a greater margin for shot placement. (Whether that's canceled out by poorer shooting in the first place is a necessary consideration, but one that may be hard to quantify.)

Where I see a lot of problems is in how the performance of something like 77 gr TMK for most game would never be judged as insufficient by many traditionalists were it not for that fact that it's a .223 "match bullet", which somehow changes things so that the same wound channel is less effective; and the questions of "but why would you use a smaller caliber" when the question ought to be posed the other way around: If the smaller caliber already offers terminal performance that is more than good enough, why wouldn't you take the smaller caliber with all the other requisite advantages it affords?

 

[Big_wals]

Where I see a lot of problems is in how the performance of something like 77 gr TMK for most game would never be judged as insufficient by many traditionalists were it not for that fact that it's a .223 "match bullet", which somehow changes things so that the same wound channel is less effective; and the questions of "but why would you use a smaller caliber" when the question ought to be posed the other way around: If the smaller caliber already offers terminal performance that is more than good enough, why wouldn't you take the smaller caliber with all the other requisite advantages it affords?

This. If the 223 thread and 6mm thread had the same pics of terminal performance, the same reports of quick kills and being able to observe the animal through the scope for the entire shot process, but did NOT specify the cartridge or bullet weight…. I wonder what most would think of the terminal performance with no other bias other than wound channel size and time from firing the round until the animals death?

I shot three deer last fall with 77 tmks, never got a chance at an elk unfortunately. My dad, who has shot a 30-06 with core-lokts for most of his hunting career, looked at all three and said if I hadn’t told him he wouldve thought I was using my 06.

 

[Bluefish]

Anyways all that is to say I can appreciate the greater potential of larger calibers, and if I were personally hunting for game with size and temperament to scale, I'd probably prefer something big for such purposes too. And if you just like using big magnums to shoot medium game, well, I can't really fault you for that too much as long as you use an optimized projectile because a heavy fragmenting bullet in those calibers kills stuff really well and does give you a greater margin for shot placement. (Whether that's canceled out by poorer shooting in the first place is a necessary consideration, but one that may be hard to quantify.)

Listened to the Q&A podcast today and Form does address hit rates with magnums vs 22/6mm. It is a difference that can be measured.

I am rethinking my deer loads for this year. Going to a much smaller weight bullet as I can’t go down in caliber, I have used that bullet successfully in a pistol, but going to use it in a rifle almost 1000 fps faster for more usable range.

 

[Mark.c]

Another aspect: Larger calibers have a wide range of bullet weight and powder charges available. You can tailor it based on the animal size, expected shot distance, environment and species type. Many times low-mid range powder charges prove most accurate, reducing recoil but still have plenty of velocity/down range energy for an ethical shot. You see this particularly with 30 cal cartridges. Plenty of hunting bullet selections available as well 125 grain - 180 grain.

 

[pilgrim7]

I would like very much for the shift toward smaller calibers to end and for the vast majority of people to go back to the larger stuff.

I told a friend I was selling my 300 win mag yesterday and he asked me why I was selling the perfect elk rifle? I said it sounded like he needed another elk rifle like the one I had for sale

 

[wesfromky]

Don't know if this belongs here or not, but he does talk about why he is using a 6mm with edlm.

 

[5811]

Some guys walk into a home improvement store to buy a paintbrush without knowing anything about paintbrushes. When confronted with the selection of brands and bristles and prices, they typically make a choice not based on anything to do with the brushes themselves.

They look at price and almost always rule out the cheapest and most expensive. Then they look at packaging and familiar brands. So they buy something in the middle made by a brand they know someone close to them used or recommended with nice packaging.

And they stick with it. They have no idea if the cheap brush is as good or better, and they don't want to know if it is. They recommend their brand to the next person. Humans aren't all that complex.

The problem with the .223 conversation is it is framed as the minimum. If we had a thread showing the lethality and efficacy of 20 and 17 cal, a lot more people would adopt the 22 because it wouldn't be the cheapest brush on display.

 

[PistolPete]

Some guys walk into a home improvement store to buy a paintbrush without knowing anything about paintbrushes. When confronted with the selection of brands and bristles and prices, they typically make a choice not based on anything to do with the brushes themselves.

They look at price and almost always rule out the cheapest and most expensive. Then they look at packaging and familiar brands. So they buy something in the middle made by a brand they know someone close to them used or recommended with nice packaging.

And they stick with it. They have no idea if the cheap brush is as good or better, and they don't want to know if it is. They recommend their brand to the next person. Humans aren't all that complex.

The problem with the .223 conversation is it is framed as the minimum. If we had a thread showing the lethality and efficacy of 20 and 17 cal, a lot more people would adopt the 22 because it wouldn't be the cheapest brush on display.

True. I hope to examine the effects of a 60 gr TMK at 22 Hornet speeds (~1800 impact velocity) on some deer this fall. Will report back, but I anticipate it should be a nice, ethical minimum for deer-sized game, given that the 77 TMK is more than enough.

 

[5811]

True. I hope to examine the effects of a 60 gr TMK at 22 Hornet speeds (~1800 impact velocity) on some deer this fall. Will report back, but I anticipate it should be a nice, ethical minimum for deer-sized game, given that the 77 TMK is more than enough.

I was on a prairie dog hunt when someone raised the question of shooting a whitetail with 17hmr. A few scoffed at the notion, but allegedly it had been done. Not the typical 22lr story where someone says a perfect head shot did the job, but a 17gr hp at 125 yards to the heart resulted in a normal, timely death without drama.

The story was met with a lot of skepticism, but really you just have to get through 1-2 prairie dogs to take out a heart, and we line up doubles at those ranges all day. I'd call it plausible, as Mythbusters used to say.

I know that's not legal in a lot of places and I am not condoning it, but 17hmr is a cartridge where you need to be exact on bullet placement and keep ranges short. .556 NATO is an ultramag by comparison.

 

[Formidilosus]

I was on a prairie dog hunt when someone raised the question of shooting a whitetail with 17hmr. A few scoffed at the notion, but allegedly it had been done. Not the typical 22lr story where someone says a perfect head shot did the job, but a 17gr hp at 125 yards to the heart resulted in a normal, timely death without drama.

The story was met with a lot of skepticism, but really you just have to get through 1-2 prairie dogs to take out a heart, and we line up doubles at those ranges all day. I'd call it plausible, as Mythbusters used to say.

I know that's not legal in a lot of places and I am not condoning it, but 17hmr is a cartridge where you need to be exact on bullet placement and keep ranges short. .556 NATO is an ultramag by comparison.

I know of multiple deer killed with 17’s.

 

[RockChukkar]

I know of multiple deer killed with 17’s.

I’d love a cz 527 in 17 hornet.. shame they quit making them. I’d for sure use one on white tail.

 

[Thegman]

I know of multiple deer killed with 17’s.

Add a caribou to that...probably lots actually but only one I know of personally.

 

[Axlrod]

I’d love a cz 527 in 17 hornet.. shame they quit making them. I’d for sure use one on white tail.

Anschutz makes a pretty nice 17 Hornet

 

[mt terry d]

I dont see how the diameter of the bullet alone makes a frog's hair difference in killing effectiveness;
whether that hole going in is .308 or .223 or .17. Now I'm not talking about BC, wind drift, etc.
Just the hole. I'm pretty sure if I could stab an elk with a 2" diameter spear and puncture only one lung I would never retrieve the animal.

If someone develops a bullet that's the diameter of a needle which does internal damage like
the 77 TMK, how would the diameter of the projectile alone mean anything of value?

 

[KenLee]

I told a friend I was selling my 300 win mag yesterday and he asked me why I was selling the perfect elk rifle? I said it sounded like he needed another elk rifle like the one I had for sale

Friends and family like gifts and loaners

 

[FAAFO]

I love using small calibers, gives a guy time to brush up on his tracking skills

 

[KenLee]

I love using small calibers, gives a guy time to brush up on his tracking skills

"Can I pet that Daaaaawwwwwggg?"