What caused the Rokslide shift to smallest caliber and cartridges?

[Reburn]

Valid if you assume the first shot was off due to ranging error or bad wind call. If it’s a result of buck fever/wobbly hold/jerked the trigger, correcting for the spotted shot helps nothing. Those are far more likely at the ranges most shots on game happen. Of course you can argue a light recoiling rifle reduces some of that, but certainly not all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You should not be missing because you did not know where the shot was going relative to your hold.

Lou

So one of yall argues you shouldn't be missing.

One argues you shouldnt be missing but if you do it was probably buck fever.

I just can't do this. Yall win. Forget I responded. Clearly yall have all the answers and never miss. You will not gain anything from lighter recoil or spotting your own shot or faster followups. Because you dont need follow ups because you never miss.

 

[Lou270]

You stated shooting the 223 enough would eventually become obnoxious, implying due to recoil.
I'm not recoil sensitive. I don't need to shoot a 223 because of recoil sensitivity.
I don't need to shoot a 223. <that's a period.
I've shot over a couple thousand rounds through it in the past year ( several hundred in a day) and it's funner to shoot every time and I'm getting better not worse.
I inferred your statement was based upon some personal experience or , as is commonly referred to here, "evidence", rather than just an uneducated feeling or thought.
Sorry. My mistake. I won't make the same mistake agaiWhat in the world does any of this have to do with picking a big game cartridge? You are off on some tangent trying to prove an irrelevant point because you don’t have a valid one.

It will become obnoxious. Anything will. I will type slow so the point maybe makes sense … picking a round because you can shoot it 100, 1000, 10000, etc times in a row is an irrelevant criteria for selecting a hunting rifle. Picking a cartridge you shoot well is regardless if you can shoot it a 10 or a million times in a row or not

Lou

 

[Antares]

 

[Lou270]

You stated shooting the 223 enough would eventually become obnoxious, implying due to recoil.
I'm not recoil sensitive. I don't need to shoot a 223 because of recoil sensitivity.
I don't need to shoot a 223. <that's a period.
I've shot over a couple thousand rounds through it in the past year ( several hundred in a day) and it's funner to shoot every time and I'm getting better not worse.
I inferred your statement was based upon some personal experience or , as is commonly referred to here, "evidence", rather than just an uneducated feeling or thought.
Sorry. My mistake. I won't make the same mistake again.

So one of yall argues you shouldn't be missing.

One argues you shouldnt be missing but if you do it was probably buck fever.

I just can't do this. Yall win. Forget I responded. Clearly yall have all the answers and never miss. You will not gain anything from lighter recoil or spotting your own shot or faster followups. Because you dont need follow ups because you never miss.

Somebody said how do you know where to aim if you miss the first shot. Why should you change your aim on the next shot unless you did not know where to aim on the first. Missing a shot is not the same as not knowing where to aim on the first. Everybody except perfect internet experts miss sometimes. That is human. Missing an animal because you did not know where to aim and need a spotter is sloppy

Lou

 

[Big_wals]

It will become obnoxious. Anything will. I will type slow so the point maybe makes sense … picking a round because you can shoot it 100, 1000, 10000, etc times in a row is an irrelevant criteria for selecting a hunting rifle. Picking a cartridge you shoot well is regardless if you can shoot it a 10 or a million times in a row or not

Lou

The point is, smaller cartridges are easier to shoot well. Obviously nobody is going to shoot 100 times at an elk. But a cartridge/rifle combo that allows the shooter to knock out 100 shots in a row gives you 10 times as much practice as a cartridge that you can shoot 10 times in a row before getting a sore shoulder.

Some of us don’t have unlimited time to spend shooting. I might only be able to take one Saturday morning a month to actually go get some serious practice in, taking the time to shoot in different realistic positions, various ranges etc. I want to make the most of it, not shoot 10 or 15 shots and call it a day. If you have the opportunity to go shooting three days a week, sure, then you might be able to get the same round count in a month as someone shooting a smaller cartridge.

Thats not to mention ease of spotting shots with lighter recoil, faster follow up shots if needed (if you have never needed a follow up, you either haven’t killed many critters or are extremely lucky). Plus, smaller cartridges are usually cheaper, sometimes substantially so depending on what you are comparing. Allowing the average working man who doesn’t have an unlimited budget, even more opportunity to practice.

 

[wyosam]

So one of yall argues you shouldn't be missing.

One argues you shouldnt be missing but if you do it was probably buck fever.

I just can't do this. Yall win. Forget I responded. Clearly yall have all the answers and never miss. You will not gain anything from lighter recoil or spotting your own shot or faster followups. Because you dont need follow ups because you never miss.

I was pointing out that in many cases, knowing precisely where your first shot landed isn’t critical information for a follow up shot, because if it was off the mark at say 250 yards, it probably wasn’t windage or elevation adjustment that took you out of the vitals. Assuming the gun shoots, and the first shot was more or less adjusted for distance and wind, shot execution was the problem.

Not saying there isn’t a benefit to lighter recoil, or that spotting shots isn’t useful, just that I don’t think it’s critical until the range is long enough that being off a little on the range or wind is going to take you out of the vitals.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Lou270]

I agree! More practice is a good reason! I am not against less recoiling cartridges. My long time favorite is the old 270 Win, which got the big bore guys wound up long before even the 223 was a thing.

I am simply disagreeing with the notion that you can’t shoot a heavier recoiling cartridge accurately for hunting because you can’t shoot one some large sequence of shots in a row as accurately as you can a light one. You can also practice with one rifle and hunt with another. There are options. I definitely do not agree with the idea of spotting shots in hunting to adjust your aim. That is busch league

Lou

 

[Antares]

I definitely do not agree with the idea of spotting shots in hunting to adjust your aim. That is busch league

What's "busch" league is making the same poor shot twice in a row because you were unable to make a correction based on the first shot. If you disagree with that, then I guess were back to the premise that you never miss.

 

[Reburn]

I was pointing out that in many cases, knowing precisely where your first shot landed isn’t critical information for a follow up shot, because if it was off the mark at say 250 yards, it probably wasn’t windage or elevation adjustment that took you out of the vitals. Assuming the gun shoots, and the first shot was more or less adjusted for distance and wind, shot execution was the problem.

Not saying there isn’t a benefit to lighter recoil, or that spotting shots isn’t useful, just that I don’t think it’s critical until the range is long enough that being off a little on the range or wind is going to take you out of the vitals.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How would you know where your shot landed if you cant see where it lands?

 

[Grundy53]

I agree! More practice is a good reason! I am not against less recoiling cartridges. My long time favorite is the old 270 Win, which got the big bore guys wound up long before even the 223 was a thing.

I am simply disagreeing with the notion that you can’t shoot a heavier recoiling cartridge accurately for hunting because you can’t shoot one some large sequence of shots in a row as accurately as you can a light one. You can also practice with one rifle and hunt with another. There are options. I definitely do not agree with the idea of spotting shots in hunting to adjust your aim. That is busch league

Lou

No one is saying you can't shoot a heavier recoiling rifle accurately. They are saying it's easier to be accurate with a lighter recoiling round.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

 

[Lou270]

What's "busch" league is making the same poor shot twice in a row because you were unable to make a correction based on the first shot. If you disagree with that, then I guess were back to the premise that you never mis

I simply don’t understand this situation. If I miss it is not because I don’t know where I expect the bullet to go. It is because I missed. What am I correcting? If the bullet goes somewhere I am not expecting then I would be shooting beyond my ability, which I know well before going hunting

Shooting and missing so bad you need to change something is busch league as you are flailing at best. Hitting something because you intentionally took a shot you are incapable of without somebody guiding you in is irresponsible. I am talking shots on game not steel or targets where spotting is a tool.

Lou

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

Somebody said how do you know where to aim if you miss the first shot. Why should you change your aim on the next shot unless you did not know where to aim on the first. Missing a shot is not the same as not knowing where to aim on the first. Everybody except perfect internet experts miss sometimes. That is human. Missing an animal because you did not know where to aim and need a spotter is sloppy

Lou

I took this shot at 866 yards. The wind from shot location was a touch less wind than at the gong due to a couple factors, one being there was two mountain knobs to my right helping to block the wind, the other being a slight direction change in wind due to a steep down draft coming from 4 o clock from where I was shooting, changing to a 2-3 o clock at the gong.

This is 100% a shot I’ve practiced and would have taken on a big game animal. I just barely missed left, and because of a low recoiling rifle with a proper stock design, I could see that my elevation was perfect, but my wind call was slightly off.

I instantly chambered another round, adjusted my wind hold, and within a few seconds shot another one which resulted in a good hit. This is a 100% realistic long range hunting scenario. It was a crappy, sloping away from me prone position, with two field items stacked on the pack to give me enough height for the shot.

If I was shooting my .30-06 or .300 win mag or even my 7 SAUM there is likely no chance in hell I would have seen my miss so clearly or at all. This means instead of a potentially dead animal with a quick and accurate follow up shot, I could have easily missed the kill entirely by either continuing to use the same wind hold, or completely losing the site picture due recoil, etc. the list goes on.

I went ahead and fired the 3rd shot from the magazine which also resulted in a hit (nearly touching the other shot, left side of gong).

Shots

Shot location looking from gong.




3 round magazine 1 miss and 2 hits (left side impact marks nearly touching).

 

[Big_wals]

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

This is the first paragraph of the OP. To everyone arguing against small calibers, lets say 6.5 and down, have you read those three threads? If not, take some time and go do it. At least skim through and look at the necropsy pics. And if you have read them, please link to anything that you think would have turned out different with a bigger bullet.

A picture of lungs that don’t look sufficiently shredded, maybe a post where some guy was finally convinced to step down to a smaller cartridge and had to shoot an elk four times to kill it, anything at all. It’s not like there’s only three or four dudes posting on those. There has been dozens of guys shooting smaller bullets than “conventional wisdom” would recommend. Surely if it didn’t work, they’re gonna post about their bad experience.

 

[Big_wals]

Just saw this on Facebook. Couldn’t help myself

 

[nobody]

I’m getting some serious “2 Weeks from Desert Sheep Opener” vibes from post 1,439…

@Deleted member 8-15-23 is that you!?!?

 

[gabenzeke]

I take back my earlier statement. Instead of proof of insurance from larger calibers maybe we take up a fund and offer a reward for someone to prove they never miss with a magnum and can shoot it better than a 223.

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

 

[Reburn]

I take back my earlier statement. Instead of proof of insurance from larger calibers maybe we take up a fund and offer a reward for someone to prove they never miss with a magnum and can shoot it better than a 223.

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

 

[mt terry d]

It will become obnoxious. Anything will. I will type slow so the point maybe makes sense … picking a round because you can shoot it 100, 1000, 10000, etc times in a row is an irrelevant criteria for selecting a hunting rifle. Picking a cartridge you shoot well is regardless if you can shoot it a 10 or a million times in a row or not

Lou

No, not everything will. Type at whatever speed you prefer.
I pick the 223 because I shoot it better, as do the vast majority of shooters ( actually everyone does shoot a lesser recoiling rifle better. That has been tested and proven).
No one has claimed the number of times in a row one can shoot a round is a deciding factor, or even a factor of consideration. Why would you even say that? (<that's a rhetorical question; I said I wouldn't make the same mistake again.)

 

[Strider]

This thread is reaching Rokslide gold status. Quite entertaining.

 

[Lou270]

No, not everything will. Type at whatever speed you prefer.
I pick the 223 because I shoot it better, as do the vast majority of shooters ( actually everyone does shoot a lesser recoiling rifle better. That has been tested and proven).
No one has claimed the number of times in a row one can shoot a round is a deciding factor, or even a factor of consideration. Why would you even say that? (<that's a rhetorical question; I said I wouldn't make the same mistake again.)

Sorry for that snarky post. Uncalled for.

Lou