What caused the Rokslide shift to smallest caliber and cartridges?

[yeti12]

The Hornady Amax drew rave reviews from everyone who seriously used them for shooting and/or hunting. Everyone loved the performance. Along came Steve Hornady, who also mandated every employee get the farce of a Covid jab, who proclaimed after further testing the Amax bullet tips actually melted in flight so they announce the ELDM so they could charge more money. They're a bunch of clowns IMO

Not everyone got the Jab at hornady. He also later issued a updated letter after more information came out and employee pushback. Was it right that he ever issued the first letter? No but he did go back on his words and issue an update saying it's not required.

Also the tips were melting and they are now using a different material for the tip. If things weren't all covered with NDA's there could be alot of information shared. Same goes for sierra, federal, barnes etc. You would be suprised about the process/materials.

Hornady eldm/x are some of the lower priced options compared to other bullets they compete with so I don't know why you are so worked up when you don't have ANY of your facts straight.

I'd love for you to spend a day over there with them and call them "clowns".

Now if sierra could just make a heavy 6.5 tmk I could stop shooting hornady.

 

[JGRaider]

The only reason Steve backed down on the jab mandate was because of the push back he received from many of his workers, and the general shooting public's comments. It was a bush league move.

So why did the Amax bullets shoot and perform so well if the bullet tips were all jacked up?

 

[Formidilosus]

So why did the Amax bullets shoot and perform so well if the bullet tips were all jacked up?

I have explained this before to you, I will try again in the chance that you are not trolling as normal.

The tips deform over time in flight (distance) due to friction. The deformation causes a reduction in BC versus what it should be. That is, the BC variation is much higher from near to far than it should be. The AMAX’s were developed before legitimate BC testing was done, and only when it was shot over Doppler radar was it seen why.
It doesn’t mean that AMAX’s suck, or were/are bad- just that they have higher drag at longer ranges than the exact same bullet with a different tip material. So do other bullets from other makers. Most that use Doppler radar know about it.

It was an inline improvement with an explanation of why- not some ridiculous conspiracy that you say it is.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

The only reason Steve backed down on the jab mandate was because of the push back he received from many of his workers, and the general shooting public's comments. It was a bush league move.

So why did the Amax bullets shoot and perform so well if the bullet tips were all jacked up?

The amaz bullets at long range had inconsistent BCs from what I read quite a while ago. Once they started doing more advanced radar tests they found the issues with them.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

I have explained this before to you, I will try again in the chance that you are not trolling as normal.

The tips deform over time in flight (distance) due to friction. The deformation causes a reduction in BC versus what it should be. That is, the BC variation is much higher from near to far than it should be. The AMAX’s were developed before legitimate BC testing was done, and only when it was shot over Doppler radar was it seen why.
It doesn’t mean that AMAX’s suck, or were/are bad- just that they have higher drag at longer ranges than the exact same bullet with a different tip material. So do other bullets from other makers. Most that use Doppler radar know about it.

It was an inline improvement with an explanation of why- not some ridiculous conspiracy that you say it is.

There you go. Didn’t see this one when I posted… @JGRaider

 

[JGRaider]

I have explained this before to you, I will try again in the chance that you are not trolling as normal.

The tips deform over time in flight (distance) due to friction. The deformation causes a reduction in BC versus what it should be. That is, the BC variation is much higher from near to far than it should be. The AMAX’s were developed before legitimate BC testing was done, and only when it was shot over Doppler radar was it seen why.
It doesn’t mean that AMAX’s suck, or were/are bad- just that they have higher drag at longer ranges than the exact same bullet with a different tip material. So do other bullets from other makers. Most that use Doppler radar know about it.

It was an inline improvement with an explanation of why- not some ridiculous conspiracy that you say it is.

No, I'm not trolling. It just seems that some have anxiety issues when a guy disagrees with "popular" opinion.

I'll take your word for it on the Amax, but it's still very odd to me that people will still clamor for 162 Amax bullets for example, because they work so well. It's hard to imagine such good results from bullets with "melting tips". Why would anyone want any today if they suck so bad?

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

No, I'm not trolling. It just seems that some have anxiety issues when a guy disagrees with "popular" opinion.

Technically you have the “popular” opinion by an immeasurable margin. Even on this forum alone. Plenty of places you can go to have your opinions validated since that’s what you seem to crave.

 

[Formidilosus]

No, I'm not trolling. It just seems that some have anxiety issues when a guy disagrees with "popular" opinion.

No- they have a problem with people that aren’t having a good faith discussion. You are consistently having bad faith interactions here.

I'll take your word for it on the Amax, but it's still very odd to me that people will still clamor for 162 Amax bullets for example, because they work so well. It's hard to imagine such good results from bullets with "melting tips".

Why is it odd? If BC was the only thing that mattered, everyone would be shooting lathe turned solids. A 30-40 point BC difference that shows up passed 600’ish yards does not effect most people’s shooting. Even still, if you can change a tip material and make a bullet better- why wouldn’t you?

Why would anyone want any today if they suck so bad?

This is exactly what I said about about a bad faith discussion. The vast majority of your responses are based on fallacies- generally appeals to authority and red herrings (as above).

Show one person that has said “Amax’s suck”. You are the only one that makes that nonsensical statement.

 

[JGRaider]

Technically you have the “popular” opinion by an immeasurable margin. Even on this forum alone. Plenty of places you can go to have your opinions validated since that’s what you seem to crave.

Couldn't care less about any validation here or anywhere else. It is interesting how some get so upset so easily though at a differing opinion.

 

[JGRaider]

No- they have a problem with people that aren’t having a good faith discussion. You are consistently having bad faith interactions here.





Why is it odd? If BC was the only thing that mattered, everyone would be shooting lathe turned solids. A 30-40 point BC difference that shows up passed 600’ish yards does not effect most people’s shooting. Even still, if you can change a tip material and make a bullet better- why wouldn’t you?

This is exactly what I said about about a bad faith discussion. The vast majority of your responses are based on fallacies- generally appeals to authority and red herrings (as above).

Show one person that has said “Amax’s suck”. You are the only one that makes that nonsensical statement.

Nope, not bad faith at all, but I'm not a "yes man" either. If you tested them so thoroughly why didn't you come out with the "performance" problem of the Amax prior to Hornady's announcement? I find your take on "fallacies" laughable quite frankly. Just because I don't necessarily agree with 100% of what you say doesn't make them a fallacy. Pretty sure that's why you left 24HCF because so many people disagreed with you.

Hornady did come out and for all practical purposes say the Amax was seriously flawed and changed it. nobody ever said a negative word prior to that.

 

[Formidilosus]

Couldn't care less about any validation here or anywhere else. It is interesting how some get so upset so easily though at a differing opinion.

Opinions are subjective, objective reality isn’t.

People argue with you here when you believe that your (often fallacious) opinion, carries the same weight as demonstrable reality.
Then being that you don’t engage in good faith discourse, it’s a constant revolving text stream that is filled with nonsense, incoherent blustering, trolling, moving goal posts, changing subjects; and almost always without ever acknowledging someone’s correct, and/or refuted point.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

Couldn't care less about any validation here or anywhere else. It is interesting how some get so upset so easily though at a differing opinion.

So that’s why you’re in everyone of these threads then? You seem, by far, the most upset.

 

[JGRaider]

Random people on the internet I'll never meet never, ever get me upset I'll assure you. You're in every discussion as well, BTW.

 

[JGRaider]

Opinions are subjective, objective reality isn’t.

People argue with you here when you believe that your (often fallacious) opinion, carries the same weight as demonstrable reality.
Then being that you don’t engage in good faith discourse, it’s a constant revolving text stream that is filled with nonsense, incoherent blustering, trolling, moving goal posts, changing subjects; and almost always without ever acknowledging someone’s correct, and/or refuted point.

My opinions, when proven they work, do not constitute fallacy any more than your methods that work. Just because you don't believe it doesn't make it wrong, or "fallacious" in your own words. Your ego won't let you admit it.

 

[Formidilosus]

My opinions, when proven they work, do not constitute fallacy any more than your methods that work. Just because you don't believe it doesn't make it wrong, or "fallacious" in your own words. Your ego won't let you admit it.

What are you talking about? What have I stated in this thread that is egotistical or not factual?

 

[HandgunHTR]

I'll take your word for it on the Amax, but it's still very odd to me that people will still clamor for 162 Amax bullets for example, because they work so well. It's hard to imagine such good results from bullets with "melting tips". Why would anyone want any today if they suck so bad?

Because a lot of people are like my uncle who believes that the Nosler Partition is the pinnacle of bullet construction and that Roy Weatherby is the best thing that happened to firearms since John Browning.

He is happy in his ignorance and hasn't had that combination fail him when shooting whitetails, mule deer, black bears, and elk at less than 300 yards.

 

[pathnz]

No, I'm not trolling. It just seems that some have anxiety issues when a guy disagrees with "popular" opinion.

I'll take your word for it on the Amax, but it's still very odd to me that people will still clamor for 162 Amax bullets for example, because they work so well. It's hard to imagine such good results from bullets with "melting tips". Why would anyone want any today if they suck so bad?

The competence and quality of process of most shooters, including those trying to hit things at long range, is so low they could not identify the issue. Particularly going back to when the Amax was available.

 

[JGRaider]

Hard to argue with your uncle regarding the partition. It's been kicking asss for over 60 years.

Because a lot of people are like my uncle who believes that the Nosler Partition is the pinnacle of bullet construction and that Roy Weatherby is the best thing that happened to firearms since John Browning.

He is happy in his ignorance and hasn't had that combination fail him when shooting whitetails, mule deer, black bears, and elk at less than 300 yards.

 

[Bluefish]

Because a lot of people are like my uncle who believes that the Nosler Partition is the pinnacle of bullet construction and that Roy Weatherby is the best thing that happened to firearms since John Browning.

He is happy in his ignorance and hasn't had that combination fail him when shooting whitetails, mule deer, black bears, and elk at less than 300 yards.

My take away on the whole subject is that the old tried and true big gun with a less fragmenting bullet will work and work well enough if that’s all you know. But the concept of using a smaller caliber with heavy for caliber match bullet will give equal performance on the animal, yet have less recoil so you can practice more and have better hit percentages.

As I have got older, I find I really don’t like recoil. I am going to be selling off a 7prc barrel that has less than 10 rounds as it’s not as pleasant to shoot as the 25-06 I built. If the 25-06 can get the job done, why put up with the recoil? Yes the 7 prc has an advantage, but it’s well over 1000 yards out before it really matters. I don’t compete and my skills are not good enough that I would take a shot on an animal that far out.

 

[pilgrim7]

Hard to argue with your uncle regarding the partition. It's been kicking asss for over 60 years.

The argument isn't that it won't work, it's that it's not the pinnacle.

Round balls have been killing for centuries. Shall we argue that they are the pinnacle?