What caused the Rokslide shift to smallest caliber and cartridges?

[Antares]

I just don’t get why one would think an animal will stand still and let you shoot it again.

Sounds like we've had different experiences.

A hit in the vitals is soup whether little off from aim or not (ie stays in vitals).

How do you know if it's a hit in the vitals?

1) You saw the impact.

2) You're a certified dirt nap dealer and every shot you take is perfect.


We can do this all day, Lou. Sounds like you've got your system and it works well for you. I'm not here to change your mind. Carry on.

 

[turbo406]

For me it all started when I realized I suck at shooting... That caused me to practice significantly more and started reloading, I put 90 rounds through an unsupressed 300 win mag that the scope turret smacked the brim of your hat every shot. Which in turn cost me an elk because I developed a flinch because I "had to shoot enough gun". It was a learning experience that I am taking as such.

 

[Macintosh]

…For those "converts" who have seen the smaller cartridge light - can you please expain to me what/why?

The original question from the OP^^^

Has this not already been answered 100-fold?
Isnt it enough to say the trend is a result of people seeing enough hard evidence the small cartridges reliably produce plenty-sufficient wounds and ethical kills, while also recoiling less, which combo is beneficial for reasons ranging from cost of shooting, more fun to shoot without recoil, easier/faster follow up shots when needed, and shot-spotting when needed?

Re: recoil resulting in better hit rates. I am certain I have read at least 1 scientific study on this which pretty definitively said lower recoil results in higher hit rates among military recruits or something like that. But I dont have that link. If someone does, maybe it would help with the constant “yes it does”…“No it doesnt”…“Yes it does”…“No it doesnt”…

Failing that, wouldnt it be fun to actually test? Ie do the hunting rifle drill with a 223 and then do it with a similar “big gun”. If a bunch of people do it we could probably come up with a pretty definitive answer.

 

[KenLee]

For me it all started when I realized I suck at shooting... That caused me to practice significantly more and started reloading, I put 90 rounds through an unsupressed 300 win mag that the scope turret smacked the brim of your hat every shot. Which in turn cost me an elk because I developed a flinch because I "had to shoot enough gun". It was a learning experience that I am taking as such.

Practice can ruin ya!

 

[Thegman]

The original question from the OP^^^

Has this not already been answered 100-fold?
Isnt it enough to say the trend is a result of people seeing enough hard evidence the small cartridges reliably produce plenty-sufficient wounds and ethical kills, while also recoiling less, which combo is beneficial for reasons ranging from cost of shooting, more fun to shoot without recoil, easier/faster follow up shots when needed, and shot-spotting when needed?

Re: recoil resulting in better hit rates. I am certain I have read at least 1 scientific study on this which pretty definitively said lower recoil results in higher hit rates among military recruits or something like that. But I dont have that link. If someone does, maybe it would help with the constant “yes it does”…“No it doesnt”…“Yes it does”…“No it doesnt”…

Failing that, wouldnt it be fun to actually test? Ie do the hunting rifle drill with a 223 and then do it with a similar “big gun”. If a bunch of people do it we could probably come up with a pretty definitive answer.

And this puts a nice wrapping on this thread of people talking past each other...

The above is a good summary of why most that moved to smaller cartridges/calibers did so, although I'm sure it's a little different for every individual (I went to progressively smaller cartridges because a. They still killed very well. b. The smaller they were, the lighter the platform could be).

None of this is saying larger cartridges/calibers don't work; they work very well. That wasn’t the question and shouldn't be the argument though. The question was why the shift to smaller cartridges...that's been answered x1,000

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

Failing that, wouldnt it be fun to actually test? Ie do the hunting rifle drill with a 223 and then do it with a similar “big gun”. If a bunch of people do it we could probably come up with a pretty definitive answer.

It is very fun! We’ve tested this to the tune of 100s of shooters and thousands of rounds, shooters of all skill ranges. From PRS, IBS, NBRSA, and NRL competitors to my wife’s friends who hadn’t shot a rifle until that day. All for fun and to gather data for ourselves, and of course the random competition/bbq for those interested.

The most accurately shot gun on average by every single shooter was a custom semi auto 10-22 clone chambered in 17 Mach 2 with a fixed power scope. This is various hunting shot positions shooting at 100 yards target with time limits to get a full magazine shot (10 rounds).

As you move up in “recoil” the average group accuracy goes down exponentially. That does not mean that somebody cannot shoot heavier recoiling rifles accurately/consistently. It simply means that 100% of tested shooters shoot the 17 Mach 2 more accurately for 10 shot groups at 100 yards when timed and shooting from a real field shot.

Great/Good shooters will see minimal loss in group accuracy moving to standard calibers under 6mm. Once we move to 6.5mm and above all bets are off. The data sets show a sharp fall in general on demand accuracy using the same guns and same scopes, simply just moving up in chambering.

 

[eric1115]

It is very fun! We’ve tested this to the tune of 100s of shooters and thousands of rounds, shooters of all skill ranges. From PRS, IBS, NBRSA, and NRL competitors to my wife’s friends who hadn’t shot a rifle until that day. All for fun and to gather data for ourselves, and of course the random competition/bbq for those interested.

The most accurately shot gun on average by every single shooter was a custom semi auto 10-22 clone chambered in 17 Mach 2 with a fixed power scope. This is various hunting shot positions shooting at 100 yards target with time limits to get a full magazine shot (10 rounds).

As you move up in “recoil” the average group accuracy goes down exponentially. That does not mean that somebody cannot shoot heavier recoiling rifles accurately/consistently. It simply means that 100% of tested shooters shoot the 17 Mach 2 more accurately for 10 shot groups at 100 yards when timed and shooting from a real field shot.

Great/Good shooters will see minimal loss in group accuracy moving to standard calibers under 6mm. Once we move to 6.5mm and above all bets are off. The data sets show a sharp fall in general on demand accuracy using the same guns and same scopes, simply just moving up in chambering.

How do you know that you just haven't gotten one of those guys that recoil "doesn't bother"? Maybe that guy who shoots his .300WM just as well as his .223 for 3 shots , and that's 2 more than he'll ever need hunting is out there and you just haven't found him yet. Did you ever think of that? Didja?

 

[KenLee]

How do you know that you just haven't gotten one of those guys that recoil "doesn't bother"? Maybe that guy who shoots his .300WM just as well as his .223 for 3 shots , and that's 2 more than he'll ever need hunting is out there and you just haven't found him yet. Did you ever think of that? Didja?

Yep it's a significantly skewed test for hunting purposes. I'd argue 2 shots should be the standard.
Extra ammo cuts into my liquor $

 

[Macintosh]

I agree a 10-round group isnt representative of hunting (and even if it is it invites people to question if its relevant). So, lets test it in way people think is realistic for hunting. The hunting rifle drill only tests 2 shots at a time, with realistic target-sizes for each position, but with 4 realistic field positions in a couple of “situations”, on a 100 yard flat range. We could even increase the time limit. Shoot drill once with little gun, and once with big gun. That's 1 box of ammo for each gun. Post both targets and include rifles total weight, cartridge, bullet weight and velocity for each rifle. A lifetime of glory to anyone who can shoot their big gun as well as their similar quality/format little gun…and if a bunch of people do this we get a data point for each person.

Full drill breakdown and targets are at this link (or targets are super easy to make yourself): https://shoot2hunt.com/product/s2hu-100-yd-hunting-rifle-drill/

I'd say even give your self a 25-second par time on the 2nd string, and a 1:15 on the 3rd string so it isnt quite as speed-focused.

Post your target and info here.

You guys who say you can shoot your big gun just as well as a little gun, do you think this is a legit way to test this? If not, what do you think would be better?

 

[eric1115]

Yep it's a significantly skewed test for hunting purposes. I'd argue 2 shots should be the standard.
Extra ammo cuts into my liquor $

Actual serious question... Have you ever done, say, 5 separate 2 shot "groups" (or 10 cold bore shots) on the same target with a heavier recoiling rifle, and the same with a .223? 10 shots same POA tells a much more complete story than 3, and if you spread it out it really tells what you can expect under perfect conditions, best case scenario.

 

[Formidilosus]

Always interesting how people are “proud” of how little they shoot and practice.

 

[Dave_S]

Practice can ruin ya!

I’m truly hoping this isn’t serious.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[KenLee]

Actual serious question... Have you ever done, say, 5 separate 2 shot "groups" (or 10 cold bore shots) on the same target with a heavier recoiling rifle, and the same with a .223? 10 shots same POA tells a much more complete story than 3, and if you spread it out it really tells what you can expect under perfect conditions, best case scenario.

Heck no. My OCD and hatred of wasting ammo would never allow me to hang out for hours shooting cold bore shots. I'd drink a quart of liquor during that foolishness.

 

[Dave_S]

Either fine trolling or the height of ignorance. Well done, sir.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ozarkansas]

I agree a 10-round group isnt representative of hunting (and even if it is it invites people to question if its relevant). So, lets test it in way people think is realistic for hunting. The hunting rifle drill only tests 2 shots at a time, with realistic target-sizes for each position, but with 4 realistic field positions in a couple of “situations”, on a 100 yard flat range. We could even increase the time limit. Shoot drill once with little gun, and once with big gun. That's 1 box of ammo for each gun. Post both targets and include rifles total weight, cartridge, bullet weight and velocity for each rifle. A lifetime of glory to anyone who can shoot their big gun better than their similar quality/format little gun…and if a bunch of people do this we get a data point for each person.

Full drill breakdown and targets are at this link (or targets are super easy to make yourself): https://shoot2hunt.com/product/s2hu-100-yd-hunting-rifle-drill/

I'd say even give your self a 25-second par time on the 2nd string, and a 1:15 on the 3rd string so it isnt quite as speed-focused.

You guys who dont buy the shot-spotting argument and think you can shoot your big gun just as well as a little gun, do you think this is a legit way to test this? If not, what do you think would be better?

I’m firmly in the “little guns shoot better” camp, but I think the other guys have a point that shot-spotting isn’t a very big benefit to the majority of hunters. I also think there’s a point of diminishing returns where a gun kicks “light enough” that you don’t gain a lot by continuing to drop in recoil.

Also I think that drill is great but you could probably cut it down to 8-10 rounds per gun and get more involvement (ammo ain’t cheap)

 

[HandgunHTR]

I am saying that for 99% of hunting shots, I don’t care precisely where the first one landed IN THE CONTEXT OF ADJUSTING FOR THE SECOND SHOT. That is, the vast majority of my hunting shots are inside 300 yards, most less than half that. If the shot didn’t land where I intended, it was shot execution, not something to adjust the second one for. If I don’t see the impact, I have a very good idea if/how something changed in the moment between my decision to break the shot, and the pin hitting the primer. For shots beyond that range, I’m not shooting without building a very solid position, which means from about 300 and beyond (where those adjustments might come in to play), spotting impacts with a moderate recoiling rifle is not difficult.

If you are making ranging errors/wind calls bad enough to need to correct for a second shot inside 300 yards, or your dope isn’t good enough that your going to have to adjust for the follow up at that range, you have larger problems than spotting shots.

Here is an actual real world example of a shot that was just inside of 300 yards where my ability to spot my shot and quickly readjust resulted in a dead animal rather than a missed opportunity.

I was hunting black bears in a WV WMA. I glassed one across the valley, ranged at 525 yards. I dialed my elevation and set up for the shot. The bear moved such that it was facing dead away by the time I got comfortable. I watched him for about 5 minutes, waiting for my shot and he ended up going up and over. No big deal. As I sat back up and was getting ready to move, I saw a couple of deer and got distracted glassing them as one was a buck and I still had a buck tag as well.
I didn’t readjust my scope to zero.

Fast forward 2 hours and I come over a different ridge, and there is a bear well within 300 yards. It looked like a shooter, so I quickly dropped down, put the rifle on my pack, held for elevation, and pulled the trigger. I immediately saw that I shot high, my brain engaged that I hadn’t readjusted, put another round in the chamber, held for the right elevation and fired the second shot. Dead bear.

And for those wondering why he didn’t bolt right away, such is the beauty of shooting suppressed.

 

[Axlrod]

Sounds like we've had different experiences.



How do you know if it's a hit in the vitals?

1) You saw the impact.

2) You're a certified dirt nap dealer and every shot you take is perfect.


We can do this all day, Lou. Sounds like you've got your system and it works well for you. I'm not here to change your mind. Carry on.

Or
3) Saw powder burns on the side of the pig, and impression where barrel was pressed against the pig.

 

[KenLee]

Either fine trolling or the height of ignorance. Well done, sir.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Y'all not knowing which one is 3/4 the fun.

 

[Macintosh]

I’m firmly in the “little guns shoot better” camp, but I think the other guys have a point that shot-spotting isn’t a very big benefit to the majority of hunters. I also think there’s a point of diminishing returns where a gun kicks “light enough” that you don’t gain a lot by continuing to drop in recoil.

Also I think that drill is great but you could probably cut it down to 8-10 rounds per gun and get more involvement (ammo ain’t cheap)

My quoted post doesnt necessarily have anything to do with shot-spotting, its about whether actual hit rates are better, the same or worse due to increasing recoil. And, you may be right, but its all hot air (from both me and you and anyone else) until its data we can all see…so why not test it?

Also, Holy hell, we’re talking about 40 rounds of ammo—1 box each in 2 cartridges, one being a 223! Do you really think thats excessive? This is a group of people that obsess about guns and shooting year round, many of whom shoot hundreds if not thousands of rounds a year practicing. Frankly, if 40 rounds in a practice session to see what they are actually capable of doing with 2 of their hunting rifles is too much for someone, that is perhaps the best reason yet to use a 223 thats cheap to practice with, and NOT use a big gun. That's exactly the person who maybe should be looking at having one gun (not two) that they can both practice and hunt with, which is all the more reason to choose something that is easy, fun and relatively inexpensive to practice with.

If its too much for anyones attention span, wallet, jois de vivre, or jeu de vache, shoot the 2nd string only, 25-second par time, and omit either one of the sitting positions or the prone position, whichever you use least when hunting, and then repeat the drill for the 3 positions with one shot each. That’ll give you one 3-round group on each circle—two cold bore shots and one follow-up shot from each position, for 9 shots total. Repeat for the other gun. We all know 3 data points is less certain than 5 or 10, but its better than zero data points.

 

[Ozarkansas]

My quoted post doesnt necessarily have anything to do with shot-spotting, its about whether actual hit rates are better, the same or worse due to increasing recoil. And, you may be right, but its all hot air (from both me and you and anyone else) until its data we can all see…so why not test it?

Also, Holy hell, we’re talking about 40 rounds of ammo—1 box each in 2 cartridges, one being a 223! Do you really think thats excessive? This is a group of people that obsess about guns and shooting year round, many of whom shoot hundreds if not thousands of rounds a year practicing. Frankly, if 40 rounds in a practice session to see what they are actually capable of doing with 2 of their hunting rifles is too much for someone, that is perhaps the best reason yet to use a 223 thats cheap to practice with, and NOT use a big gun.

If its too much for anyones attention span, wallet, jois de vivre, or jus de vache, shoot the 2nd string only, 25-second par time, and omit either one of the sitting positions or the prone position, whichever you use least when hunting, and then repeat the drill for the 3 positions with one shot each. That’ll give you one 3-round group on each circle—two cold bore shots and one follow-up shot from each position, for 9 shots total. Repeat for the other gun. We all know 3 data points is less certain than 5 or 10, but it’s better than zero data points.

I was just making the distinction between arguing against small calibers generally and arguing against the necessity of shot spotting, since your last paragraph started with “You guys who dont buy the shot-spotting argument and think you can shoot your big gun just as well as a little gun”. Put another way, I was saying “I’m in that first group but not the second one”.

As for the round count; for guys who shoot thousands of rounds a year 40 rounds isn’t a lot, but I’d bet most hunters are probably shooting less than 200 rounds of centerfire per year. Many are shooting less than 100. For that group 40 rounds is a lot. I think if you want guys of “average” capability to contribute data it’s something to take into account.

For myself I’d gladly burn through 20 rounds of .223 in a practice session, but I’d hesitate to do the same with my single-stage-press-loaded .243, 6.5x55, or 45/70 ammo.