What caused the Rokslide shift to smallest caliber and cartridges?

[eric1115]

I don’t know why it was so upsetting - I thought I was helping bringing up a more suitable cartridge for those short shots like are so common with whitetail hunting.

Then you didn't understand (or just didn't read/listen). It was clearly explained why it wasn't a practical solution for what you were suggesting.

Not to be a dick, but if you can't articulate the argument against your position beyond "lolz, they got big mad", you probably don't really understand either side of the argument very well.

 

[TaperPin]

No they didn’t. They addressed the reality that a 22 Hornet can not shoot the same projectiles as the 223 and other 22 centerfires- you can’t load a 77gr bullet in a 22 Hornet, therefor your comparison is a non sequitur at the start.
To that silly example however, the 223 with a 55gr VMAX does 3,250fps MV and hits 1,800fps at 485 yards. The 22 hornet does 2,400fps MV with the same bullet and hits 1,800fps at 220 yards. There is not an elk alive that I would not turf right now with that bullet at 200 yards from a 22 hornet.

You, and others keep thinking this is about “power” and/or some ignorant belief in energy. It isn’t. It’s about the only thing that actually affects tissue- the bullet and the resulting wound channel. It does not matter what cartridge or caliber created the wound, only the actual wound.

A pointed stick is a death ray, but you need a magnum to be effective with a rifle.

Even since then I’ve been picking up parts to build a fast twist 22 hornet just to see how fast it will shoot a 77 gr.

 

[PNWGATOR]

I started of by listening to shoot2hunt podcasts "we suck at shooting" and "bullet ballistics." Then some serious nerd time researching the threads you referenced as well as just about everything Form has written here. It rattled my brain and challenged what I "thought" I knew about calibers, bullets, terminal performance, etc.

So, I did the responsible thing and put together a RSS'ish setup and figured I'd see for myself. Tikka SL 6.5cm, UM rings, SWFA scope. Mounted it like everyone said to. Shot what everyone said to (140 ELDM picked up off a shelf for $30 vs >50$). 10 shot group, moved zero and 10 more shots to finalize zero. Trued at distance. 30'ish shots and I was feeling really good about the setup. No tricks, no fancy reloads and no flyers. Almost annoyed me how easy it was.

Biggies are:

1. Overwhelming data of bodies stacked up with good bullets in small guns. 223 thread was overwhelming, 6mm and 6.5mm threads sig add to the damage. The 6.5 was a good gateway for me, but now I'm putting together a 223 now for practice.

2. Understanding how bullets actual kill things...giving up on energy. Read the papers by Fackler and others.

3. Looking at what WEZ data posted. Had a "come to Jesus" with my real life shooting ability (all flyers count). My theoretical small % increase in hit rate was sig cancelled out by the extra MOA (now 3+ MOA) that I shot.

4. How easy the RSS'ish setup was.

5. Killing stuff. Set aside my bigger calibers this fall and used 6.5. Things died the same. Wounds looked similar. Nothing got away and didn't pass on any shots.

6. Realized that I need to be shooting a caliber consistent w/ my actual capabilities vs my "future" capabilities. Maybe one day I'll have the skill to be hitting confidently at 800-1000 yards and will leverage what the 30/33 cal mags offer, but until then I should shoot a caliber that fills my current needs <600 yards.

Amazing how simple killing efficiently actually is.

Appreciate your experience.

 

[Formidilosus]

I started of by listening to shoot2hunt podcasts "we suck at shooting" and "bullet ballistics." Then some serious nerd time researching the threads you referenced as well as just about everything Form has written here. It rattled my brain and challenged what I "thought" I knew about calibers, bullets, terminal performance, etc.

So, I did the responsible thing and put together a RSS'ish setup and figured I'd see for myself. Tikka SL 6.5cm, UM rings, SWFA scope. Mounted it like everyone said to. Shot what everyone said to (140 ELDM picked up off a shelf for $30 vs >50$). 10 shot group, moved zero and 10 more shots to finalize zero. Trued at distance. 30'ish shots and I was feeling really good about the setup. No tricks, no fancy reloads and no flyers. Almost annoyed me how easy it was.

Biggies are:

1. Overwhelming data of bodies stacked up with good bullets in small guns. 223 thread was overwhelming, 6mm and 6.5mm threads sig add to the damage. The 6.5 was a good gateway for me, but now I'm putting together a 223 now for practice.

2. Understanding how bullets actual kill things...giving up on energy. Read the papers by Fackler and others.

3. Looking at what WEZ data posted. Had a "come to Jesus" with my real life shooting ability (all flyers count). My theoretical small % increase in hit rate was sig cancelled out by the extra MOA (now 3+ MOA) that I shot.

4. How easy the RSS'ish setup was.

5. Killing stuff. Set aside my bigger calibers this fall and used 6.5. Things died the same. Wounds looked similar. Nothing got away and didn't pass on any shots.

6. Realized that I need to be shooting a caliber consistent w/ my actual capabilities vs my "future" capabilities. Maybe one day I'll have the skill to be hitting confidently at 800-1000 yards and will leverage what the 30/33 cal mags offer, but until then I should shoot a caliber that fills my current needs <600 yards.

Nicely done.

 

[TaperPin]

Then you didn't understand (or just didn't read/listen). It was clearly explained why it wasn't a practical solution for what you were suggesting.

I like the idea of a 223 hunting round - you guys have convinced me it’s a killer. I’ll probably put one together to play with.

 

[woods89]

As the OP of the 6.5 thread, I'm thrilled it has grown like it has, alongside the 223 and 6mm threads. Thanks to every person who has documented wounds and shared them.

Evidence based ballistic choices are the the way!

 

[jimh406]

I haven’t been around here to know when/if there was a conversion. I do find it interesting how adamant some are that everyone has to use what they do. If they aren’t using small calibers, they need to read a few threads and obviously they will change.

Some of the comments are interesting, like better hit rates, for example. I don’t exceed my skills, and I’ve only been hunting for big game several decades. I’ve never missed a big game animal on my first shot with a rifle. I grew up head shooting squirrels. A big game animal is huge by comparison. Yet, some here think I should change to a small caliber.

If you are missing or want to hunt with your target rifle so that you’ll stop missing, that’s fine with me. However, I don’t need to join the 12 step program to move away from 30 cal magnums … not yet, any way.

However, maybe the first step is admitting I have a problem.

 

[Lou270]

As others have mentioned this is a very old discussion. Absolutely nothing new or revolutionary here. In fact, those who embrace the soft/match bullets are bigger fudds than the tough bullet guys! The first jacketed hunting bullets where all thin jacketed soft points that behaved precisely like the thin jacketed match bullets. They were not as precise or aerodynamic but they performed the same terminally. This is because they were a lead core wrapped in a thin copper or gilding jacket with no means to control expansion or retain weight. Worked perfect for low velocity and dynamite most of the time at high impact velocity lung shots. However sometimes didnt penetrate enough and hunters complained. Bullet makers listened to hunters

Bullets like your grandpa’s Remington corelokt or Win Silvertip came along which thickened / tapered jackets to limit expansion. Cores could still slip, but in general, you had less failures due to insufficient penetration. I will interject here that Jack O’Connor often pointed out that these new fangled “controlled expanding” bullets did not kill deer as fast as the old soft points (sound familiar?) on lung shots but were advisable for shoulder shots, bigger game or “brush hunting”. However, failures were made worse by smaller calibers at higher velocites (6mms, weatherbys, win/rem mags)

Then came partitions, bonding, and eventually monos to increase weight retention. Now lack of penetration were mostly a thing of the past even with light bullets on bigger game. Along with MSR, rise the popularity of using smaller calibers on bigger game….22s on deer, 6/6.5 on elk, etc….

So there is bullet history lesson to get me to my point…. Now we are combining small calibers and bullets with no means to control expansion or retain weight. There are history lessons here. This is not new at all. There is nothing cutting edge in bullet performance with soft bullets. What IS new is we are now focusing on longer ranges where impact velocity is lower and I believe in general guys on places like RS are better educated and equipped. Shot placement and lower impact velocity can forgive some sins in bullet construction. I think that is at least part of reason this trend is gaining here. I will probably get flamed by folks who think I am shading their choice but I am not. I don’t think any bullet construction is perfect for all scenarios and load for my hunting circumstances

So is this trend good for masses. I don’t think so. People wonder why manufacturers don’t recommend their match bullets for hunting. It is because of the history of hunting bullet design not some fuddery or lack of understanding. Despite the long range trend, for every guy that shoots a deer or elk broadside at 300+ yards there is probably 500 that shoot one quartering at under 100 yards even with “long range ammo”. Bullet makers know this and they want to make sure all of their hunting bullets handle both shots well as often as possible. This is why somebody like Hornady will say their match bullets are not for hunting. There is NO design feature in a match bullet to limit expansion or retain weight to increase odds of penetration on non-perfect shots. Like they say it may or may not work. They don’t design match bullets for that and don’t care and certainly don’t want to hear people complain if they fail in that scenario.

Lou

 

[Castle Rock]

Even since then I’ve been picking up parts to build a fast twist 22 hornet just to see how fast it will shoot a 77 gr.

If you were actually being serious, may I suggest a 221 fireball, it will probably feed from magazines better, and I think that it would be a good and practical alternative
You could build a lovely little rifle on a CZ action

 

[Choupique]

However, maybe the first step is admitting I have a problem.

If its working and you like it, whatever. Arguing that it's "better," eh. I dont think I'll argue a .338 win mag is better than a rokslide special for hunting anything anymore. I really like shooting deer with it though and I'm not going buy another rifle until I can't kill stuff with this one.

But I'm rigging out a .223 to shoot some deer with and see how great this is for myself.

 

[Castle Rock]

Actually if pistols were legal to hunt with here I would build one myself on a classic Remington platform

 

[Wrench]

Most people don't use half of the bc advantage of match bullets....a partition is ugly compared to a hybrid, but at most typical hunting ranges for average shots....it's not worth the squeeze to swing a match bullet and be forced to be selective and accurate. A center lungs hit with a partition at 30 yards is always fatal. Bounce a hybrid off a humerus and it's ugly.....but guys don't shoot match bullets to bust bones....they do it to bomb organs.

I encourage everyone to grab a can of paint and go dot some rocks to shoot from less than perfect positions and ranges. Keep track of your environmentals and impact points. Pretty soon you will be able to get a good grip on where your limits are and identify your weaknesses......it's never the headstamp and it's always the pilot.

 

[Harvey_NW]

Bullet makers know this and they want to make sure all of their hunting bullets handle both shots well as often as possible. This is why somebody like Hornady will say their match bullets are not for hunting. There is NO design feature in a match bullet to limit expansion or retain weight to increase odds of penetration on non-perfect shots. Like they say it may or may not work. They don’t design match bullets for that and don’t care and certainly don’t want to hear people complain if they fail in that scenario.

Lou

As marketers and employees they express that critical concern on their own podcast, but as guests they admit they've shot animals with their own match bullets. Summed up from a marketing perspective the math isn't complex, and the documented results plastered in multiple threads on this forum are irrefutable.

 

[Ryan Avery]

There's a TON of posts on cartridge selection and bullet threads that go "have you read" the following:
1) the .223 thread
2) the 6mm thread
3) the 6.5mm thread

I've read those, and see a lot of animals and wound channels. I likely missed the nexus or catalyst for what has created this, but Rokslide is very much a place where you're going to get a posting response such as:
"you don't need a 7 PRC, get 7mm-08"
"Magnums are uneccesary to effectively kill game < 700 yards"
etc etc.
@Ryan Avery you shifted from margin of error, big 30s, and came around to super fast 6mm like 6 UM in like 2 years. What was the main thing that changed your mind?

I've read one comment along the lines of "being tired of the constant recommendations for smallest cartridge possible" or similar. I imagine that sentiment is not singular.

My Question: is the justifcation or cause of this people successfully killing animals with smaller catridges and caliber bullets using match-type bullets creating large wound channels? I've heard hit rates/statistics cited, but unsure where to read about this. For those "converts" who have seen the smaller cartridge light - can you please expain to me what/why? If repeated elsewhere in hundreds of pages of the evidence based (ie kills) threads, I still thought it might be useful to tuck the "why" topic into a dedicated thread.

Again I'm not saying it is wrong - I'm just noticing a very prevelant trend and trying to fully understand it. And I own a 6.5CM which was purchased due to cheaper ammo, less recoil, availability, etc so I have some understanding and experience with the benefits cited. I also own a suppresssed 7 PRC, which I read is basically too much recoil/gun for western hunting? I think Form said somewhere a full 6.5 PRC around 16 ft-lb of recoil was the practical limit for most adults, and they always do better < 10 ft-lbs?

I've heard the Shoot2Hunt podcasts and read the threads, and haven't walked away with a clear "why."

Brief me. Please.

You can't tell me you gotta show me... Long story short... going hunting tomorrow with gods cartridge.. the 6UM
Over the past six years, I have watched Jim Carr's daughters use my 6CM to lay waste to elk from 400 yards to 700 yards. Then I watched those girls and my wife shoot a bunch of elk with a 6.5 PRC from 100 to 1000 yards. I witnessed death every bit as fast and effective as a big 30 cal without the recoil. Also, during this time, a loser named @Formidilosus came into my life and made sense of what I was seeing and answered all the dumb questions I had. The rest is history.

 

[Wrench]

You can't tell me you gotta show me... Long story short... going hunting tomorrow with gods cartridge.. the 6UM
Over the past six years, I have watched Jim Carr's daughters use my 6CM to lay waste to elk from 400 yards to 700 yards. Then I watched those girls and my wife shoot a bunch of elk with a 6.5 PRC from 100 to 1000 yards. I witnessed a death every bit as fast and effective as a big 30 cal without the recoil. Also, during this time, a loser named @Formidilosus came into my life and made sense of what I was seeing and all the dumb questions I had. I hate that guy. The rest is history.

I hope Whaley read this. He flipped me chit for not using my big stuff back in the day.

I 100% agree that a 6.5 pill smashing into an elk anywhere close to 2k fps is simply magical in it's results. I've watched elk come bed down with the one I just bang flopped when done from 600 and beyond. It's like they never heard the shot.

 

[Ryan Avery]

I hope Whaley read this. He flipped me chit for not using my big stuff back in the day.

I 100% agree that a 6.5 pill smashing into an elk anywhere close to 2k fps is simply magical in it's results. I've watched elk come bed down with the one I just bang flopped when done from 600 and beyond. It's like they never heard the shot.

30 cal and accudongs or you were a dipshit with old Whaley. HAHA

 

[gerry35]

 

[Marbles]

I'm the exact opposite, I like the old big stuff with a History. I love the hard to find bullets, the ones used at the turn of the century in Africa and the old west. I would much rather own a .425 Westley Richards, .404, .375 Flanged, .300 H&H or a .275 Rigby than a 6.5 PRC all day. Had someone in Africa once tell me American gun owners are basically buying a hammer vs something personal with History or a piece of art. Most of you are obviously correct though, pretty awesome what they can do with small bullets these days.

275 Rigby introduced in 1907
300 H&H introduced in 1925
375 Flanged introduced in 1899
404 introduced in 1905
425 Westley Richards introduced in 1909

7x57 Mauser introduced in 1892
6.5x55 Swedish introduced in 1886
30-30 introduced in 1895

Old with history is not always big. The history of the last and oldest three easily rivals that of the others. The last three have also been killing big game animals for over 127 years and doing it well, so smaller is not modern and only due to better bullets (as many others have asserted in this thread).

 

[Marbles]

As others have mentioned this is a very old discussion. Absolutely nothing new or revolutionary here. In fact, those who embrace the soft/match bullets are bigger fudds than the tough bullet guys! The first jacketed hunting bullets where all thin jacketed soft points that behaved precisely like the thin jacketed match bullets. They were not as precise or aerodynamic but they performed the same terminally. This is because they were a lead core wrapped in a thin copper or gilding jacket with no means to control expansion or retain weight. Worked perfect for low velocity and dynamite most of the time at high impact velocity lung shots. However sometimes didnt penetrate enough and hunters complained. Bullet makers listened to hunters

Bullets like your grandpa’s Remington corelokt or Win Silvertip came along which thickened / tapered jackets to limit expansion. Cores could still slip, but in general, you had less failures due to insufficient penetration. I will interject here that Jack O’Connor often pointed out that these new fangled “controlled expanding” bullets did not kill deer as fast as the old soft points (sound familiar?) on lung shots but were advisable for shoulder shots, bigger game or “brush hunting”. However, failures were made worse by smaller calibers at higher velocites (6mms, weatherbys, win/rem mags)

Then came partitions, bonding, and eventually monos to increase weight retention. Now lack of penetration were mostly a thing of the past even with light bullets on bigger game. Along with MSR, rise the popularity of using smaller calibers on bigger game….22s on deer, 6/6.5 on elk, etc….

So there is bullet history lesson to get me to my point…. Now we are combining small calibers and bullets with no means to control expansion or retain weight. There are history lessons here. This is not new at all. There is nothing cutting edge in bullet performance with soft bullets. What IS new is we are now focusing on longer ranges where impact velocity is lower and I believe in general guys on places like RS are better educated and equipped. Shot placement and lower impact velocity can forgive some sins in bullet construction. I think that is at least part of reason this trend is gaining here. I will probably get flamed by folks who think I am shading their choice but I am not. I don’t think any bullet construction is perfect for all scenarios and load for my hunting circumstances

So is this trend good for masses. I don’t think so. People wonder why manufacturers don’t recommend their match bullets for hunting. It is because of the history of hunting bullet design not some fuddery or lack of understanding. Despite the long range trend, for every guy that shoots a deer or elk broadside at 300+ yards there is probably 500 that shoot one quartering at under 100 yards even with “long range ammo”. Bullet makers know this and they want to make sure all of their hunting bullets handle both shots well as often as possible. This is why somebody like Hornady will say their match bullets are not for hunting. There is NO design feature in a match bullet to limit expansion or retain weight to increase odds of penetration on non-perfect shots. Like they say it may or may not work. They don’t design match bullets for that and don’t care and certainly don’t want to hear people complain if they fail in that scenario.

Lou

Yeah, but they say those match bullets work great for 250 pound war apes that shoot back and may actually be wearing armor or behind a barrier. Not every match bullet is equal.

Of course, with war apes, no one cares about blood trails, so long as they stop shooting back.

 

[Castle Rock]

View attachment 633810

Me, I use the go fast version