What caused the Rokslide shift to smallest caliber and cartridges?

[Schmo]

The extensive terminal ballistics testing done by facilities like the FBI’s Ballistic Research Facility and extensive testing done by the military that, wait for it, is transitioning away from the .223 to other, bigger rounds. Like the 6.5s. Oh wait. We seemed to have all missed that. Oh well.

Oh, like this comparison from the FBI comparing a 175 TMK from a 20” 308 to a 77 TMK out of a 14.5” 5.56?

 

[Schmo]

So you took a nice, clean broadside shot. Would you take the same shot hard quartering?

Absolutely I would. What about a broadside shot discounts it against being quarter? The bullet went through both shoulder blades, and almost exited the far shoulder? That’s not any less tough than being quartered, because in a quartering scenario, you only have one shoulder to penetrate.


440 yards with an impact velocity of 1950-ish

 

[RockAndSage]

Absolutely I would. What about a broadside shot discounts it against being quarter? The bullet went through both shoulder blades, and almost exited the far shoulder? That’s not any less tough than being quartered, because in a quartering scenario, you only have one shoulder to penetrate.


440 yards with an impact velocity of 1950-ish
View attachment 958159

We need to come up with FNG Small Caliber Bingo...

1) NOT EMPIRICAL!
2) NO MARGIN FOR ERROR!
3) NOT DATA!

What else...?

 

[Q_Sertorius]

Sure. Let’s see what happens when a poor to average shooter takes a poor shot, e.g., hard quartering away, with that caliber, and gets minimal to no penetration and no blood trail.

Like everything else, bad outcomes are rarely the result of a single bad choice. It’s almost always a compilation of bad choices.

How far does the bullet need to penetrate to reach the vitals on this hypothetical quartering away shot?

How much animal does a bullet propelled by an “adequate cartridge” penetrate?

How big is the wound channel from a bullet propelled by an “adequate cartridge?”

Is the same bullet more deadly going 2400 FPS at impact than one going 2300 FPS?

Under what circumstances will an 80-grain .257 or .243 ELDM be more deadly than an 80-grain .224 ELDM? Assume at least 1800 FPS impact velocity for each bullet.

Why is it that little kids and women can kill deer with .223s and .243s, but men need magnum rifles?

The first bad choice most hunters make is not being able to answer any of the questions above. The second is not shooting enough from field positions. The third is wasting time arguing with people about the above.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

The extensive terminal ballistics testing done by facilities like the FBI’s Ballistic Research Facility and extensive testing done by the military that, wait for it, is transitioning away from the .223 to other, bigger rounds. Like the 6.5s. Oh wait. We seemed to have all missed that. Oh well.

When did deer start wearing body armor?

 

[Schmo]

We need to come up with FNG Small Caliber Bingo...

1) NOT EMPIRICAL!
2) NO MARGIN FOR ERROR!
3) NOT DATA!

What else...?

Luck?

 

[NMTGrad]

That's right. We're all just delusional, opinionated internet neckbeards. Carry on, super trooper. Nothing to learn here.

That's right. We're all just delusional, opinionated internet neckbeards. Carry on, super trooper. Nothing to learn here.

At no point did I devolve into name calling as several people did here and did so quickly, which is why I rarely post. For some reason, hunters and gun owners are quick to take an academic discussion to insults and name calling when someone disagrees. Off handed pejoratives like “FNG” and “super trooper” demonstrate immaturity and lack of emotional intelligence. Sadly, this afflicts pretty much every open firearms and hunting forum in existence, and it’s indicative of why we struggle as a community to gain and maintain broad public acceptance.

So signing off until folks can maybe again demonstrate civility and refrain from insults and random assignment of pejoratives. Feel free to exchange or post additional insults, call me thin skinned or any other assortment of things that will likely follow publicly and privately, because it will only prove the point.

 

[RockAndSage]

Luck?

You know, the funny thing about his "luck skill" point, which is a form of survivor's bias...he's right, it's a real thing. But he's misapplying it so severely here it's closing off his learning. It's like watching each generation's top "gun instructors" get passed by, clutching to their old truths and being unable to accept what the succeeding generations develop.

 

[Schmo]

At no point did I devolve into name calling as several people did here and did so quickly, which is why I rarely post. For some reason, hunters and gun owners are quick to take an academic discussion to insults and name calling when someone disagrees. Off handed pejoratives like “FNG” and “super trooper” demonstrate immaturity and lack of emotional intelligence. Sadly, this afflicts pretty much every open firearms and hunting forum in existence, and it’s indicative of why we struggle as a community to gain and maintain broad public acceptance.

So signing off until folks can maybe again demonstrate civility and refrain from insults and random assignment of pejoratives. Feel free to exchange or post additional insults, call me thin skinned or any other assortment of things that will likely follow publicly and privately, because it will only prove the point.

Just wanted to say that I’m not one that did any name calling. Any posts I’ve made about you or to you were meant open, honest, and good natured.

 

[nm.otter]

<grabs popcorn>

 

[Q_Sertorius]

At no point did I devolve into name calling as several people did here and did so quickly, which is why I rarely post. For some reason, hunters and gun owners are quick to take an academic discussion to insults and name calling when someone disagrees. Off handed pejoratives like “FNG” and “super trooper” demonstrate immaturity and lack of emotional intelligence. Sadly, this afflicts pretty much every open firearms and hunting forum in existence, and it’s indicative of why we struggle as a community to gain and maintain broad public acceptance.

So signing off until folks can maybe again demonstrate civility and refrain from insults and random assignment of pejoratives. Feel free to exchange or post additional insults, call me thin skinned or any other assortment of things that will likely follow publicly and privately, because it will only prove the point.

FNG is not an insult. It’s a RokSlide rank. It’s right there by your name.

 

[Schmo]

At no point did I devolve into name calling as several people did here and did so quickly, which is why I rarely post. For some reason, hunters and gun owners are quick to take an academic discussion to insults and name calling when someone disagrees.

I’m not condoning name calling, but we do get annoyed when a new member tells us how wrong we are for doing something that has been proven highly effective for hundreds/thousands of times.

 

[NMTGrad]

I’m not condoning name calling, but we do get annoyed when a new member tells us how wrong we are for doing something that has been proven highly effective for hundreds/thousands of times.

I’m not condoning name calling, but we do get annoyed when a new member tells us how wrong we are for doing something that has been proven highly effective for hundreds/thousands of times.

FNG is a status assigned based on the number of posts made as opposed to time on the website or experience in the field. I retain FNG status because I rarely post because of the nonsense that so often ensues when opinions differ. The FNG moniker applied by another user was clearly done so as an insult, and subsequent attempts to justify immature behavior as “well it’s in your username” falls quite flat. To those users who expressed valid, differing viewpoints. Bravo. Academic debate is useful and educational. To those who chose to resort to ad hominem attacks, well, I challenge you to ask yourself how that kind of conduct is working out for us as a community and as a country. Last I looked around, the normalization of bad public conduct has done little for any of us.

 

[Antares]

This is awesome!

 

[eric1115]

Put the empirical data, not the anecdotal data on the table, and we will talk. The majority of the “data” posted here and elsewhere is anecdotal, not empirical. Just because I have great results with blank round and blank bullet by no means makes that data empirical.

Again, I’m amazed when it comes to firearms the lack of understanding about the difference between empirically supported research and anecdotal evidence.

Do you have either empirical data or anecdotal evidence that the specific .223 bullets being recommended are not sufficient? FBI terminal performance data sure seems to jive with the hundreds (thousands?) of documented kills in the thread we keep referencing. And VERY few if any poor outcomes that can be attrited to cartridge/bullet.

You don't really believe that empirical data is all that matters though, right? You wouldn't take the F150 over the Jeep for towing because of an empirically supported scientific study, rather because of the mountain of anecdotal evidence that a heavier long wheelbase vehicle with stiffer suspension is a better tow vehicle.

One thing you may not realize if you haven't looked at that thread, is that the love for .223 here is not a blanket recommendation for any/all .223 loadings being great hunting choices. Most of us would strongly steer people toward 77TMK and heavy for caliber ELDX/M projectiles for best terminal performance (especially as range increases). If we were recommending 55gr FMJ's as general hunting bullets, I would be with you saying that's asking for trouble. We don't recommend those (or 77SMK's generally, or a lot of other bullets that are commonly loaded in .223) because they have been shown to not reliably produce the wounds we want to see.

Dont bow out, but also take a bit of time to find out why we hold the position we do. The pushback you're getting is because as hard-won as your knowledge is, you should understand that we have some equally hard-won knowledge from actually doing the thing and compiling our experiences together.

 

[cal30_sniper]

I always felt as if I had “enough handgun” for any unexpected gunfight (a handgun is a weapon of convenience, so if I really anticipated a potential gunfight, I carried an M-4; and I brought 8-10 of my closest friends who also had M-4s).

…

Similarly, I would never, ever willingly use something like a .223 to hunt deer, no matter how great the bullet is supposed to be. Doing so is just tempting fate and asking for a poor outcome.

Hold up, willing to shoot people (who might be shooting back and/or wearing plates) with a .223, but not willing to shoot a deer with one?

 

[rifletuner]

I hunt everything with 77gn TMKs in a 223 Rem just to make JVB cry

 

[5811]

Thirty years ago, the terminal performance of 9mm defensive bullets was decidedly “meh,” but the .357 and .45 bullets shined. So I carried a .45 for years. But as ballistic technology evolved, the terminal performance of the 9mm greatly improved; enough so that I eventually, and quite readily, shelved my .45 and began carrying a 9mm. When I made that switch, I always felt as if I had “enough handgun” for any unexpected gunfight

You get it. The 9mm in your analogy is the .223 as we discuss it. This is spot on.

That being said, common sense still has to prevail. I would never, ever willingly take a .32 ACP to a gunfight no matter how great bullet technology is today. That’s just dumb. Similarly, I would never, ever willingly use something like a .223 to hunt deer, no matter how great the bullet is supposed to be. Doing so is just tempting fate and asking for a poor outcome.

Daggumit.

So the point is that evolving technology allows us to use smaller calibers that recoil less and are more pleasant to shoot, and generally still have very effective terminal performance.

Yeah, here we go. Back on track.

See the previous statements “don’t willingly take a .32 ACP to a gunfight” and “don’t willingly take just a handgun to a gunfight” either.

Dang it. So now we need two guns?

I think you get it, or at least you are capable of getting it, but your posts read like you are more concerned with the display of your background as defense of your argument than you are interested in honest consideration of the effectiveness of the 223 on big game.

At no point did I devolve into name calling as several people did here and did so quickly, which is why I rarely post. For some reason, hunters and gun owners are quick to take an academic discussion to insults and name calling when someone disagrees. Off handed pejoratives like “FNG” and “super trooper” demonstrate immaturity and lack of emotional intelligence. Sadly, this afflicts pretty much every open firearms and hunting forum in existence, and it’s indicative of why we struggle as a community to gain and maintain broad public acceptance.

So signing off until folks can maybe again demonstrate civility and refrain from insults and random assignment of pejoratives. Feel free to exchange or post additional insults, call me thin skinned or any other assortment of things that will likely follow publicly and privately, because it will only prove the point.

As quoted from your original post, you called using a 32 ACP dumb, and equated it to using 223. Most people picked up on you calling them dumb for using 223, so I'd suggest that your initial offering lacked the academic objectivity you desire.

 

[MT_Wyatt]

FNG is a status assigned based on the number of posts made as opposed to time on the website or experience in the field. I retain FNG status because I rarely post because of the nonsense that so often ensues when opinions differ. The FNG moniker applied by another user was clearly done so as an insult, and subsequent attempts to justify immature behavior as “well it’s in your username” falls quite flat. To those users who expressed valid, differing viewpoints. Bravo. Academic debate is useful and educational. To those who chose to resort to ad hominem attacks, well, I challenge you to ask yourself how that kind of conduct is working out for us as a community and as a country. Last I looked around, the normalization of bad public conduct has done little for any of us.

Hey, I started this thread. To understand. You don’t need all 98 pages or whatever to understand.

Pro Tip: you don’t have time to read, but you’re willing to start by calling folks out. Bad decision making in the field? Your post has some anecdotes and other often repeated arguments that people actually put to the test, in the field. It’s disrespectful to just come in hit blasting everyone. Hard to understand why you’d expect people not to call you out?

Couple takeaways I’d suggest digging into.
- accuracy and impacts of recoil. Hit rate based on bullet bc, speed, and skill.
- ability to put shots down range, accurately, quickly, and from awkward positions.
- wound channel differences between different bullet types and maximizing “killing” over “weight retention.”
- the quartering thing. Always a go to - there’s nothing wrong with understanding limitations and applying them where prudent.
- I don’t care how big the bullet is, or margin for error, or how “tough” it is. You have to hit vitals or bleed something out to kill it. You have to hit it to do that. Maximizing that is worthwhile over raw “power” or energy.

If you’ve been on here a while you’d know that field experience > feelings. I’d also say that limited field experience with what you know well doesn’t invalidate people that have tried these more effective “killing” bullets. Just because you’ve been doing something a long time doesn’t mean you can’t learn.

I’ve seen kills making me think “why do you need more” for cartridge and bullet, and I’ve seen rodeos with big old cartridges. I suggest people consider smaller ones where it works for them. Where rokslide can get a tad too “strong” or focused at times is immediately telling everyone they are crazy for not doing it that way - but honestly that’s really tailed off. It’s another reason I started this thread. You should really look at the “why” rather than waste time arguing.

 

[JackButler]

My goodness. No, I’m not going to go back and read 98 pages of previous posts. I’ll read the first page where the thread started and skim the rest.

Over the course of both my professional career (law enforcement, including SRT and firearms/tactical instructor) and a lifetime of hunting, I have shot hundreds of thousands of rounds and watched both handgun and long gun ballistics evolve. Thirty years ago, the terminal performance of 9mm defensive bullets was decidedly “meh,” but the .357 and .45 bullets shined. So I carried a .45 for years. But as ballistic technology evolved, the terminal performance of the 9mm greatly improved; enough so that I eventually, and quite readily, shelved my .45 and began carrying a 9mm. When I made that switch, I always felt as if I had “enough handgun” for any unexpected gunfight (a handgun is a weapon of convenience, so if I really anticipated a potential gunfight, I carried an M-4; and I brought 8-10 of my closest friends who also had M-4s).

Similar trends have impacted hunting bullet terminal performance. Thirty years ago, some smaller, faster bullets had decidedly “meh” terminal performance, so in my “earlier” years, I carried .30 caliber hunting rifles, sometimes in magnum calibers, to make sure I had “enough gun.” But looking back, I now understand it wasn’t making sure I had “enough gun,” but consistent, reliable terminal ballistics, which seemed to be consistently in the .277, 7mm, and .308 rounds.

But again, over time, ballistic technology evolved, and I gradually eased away from the .30 magnums and 7mm magnums because for most realistic hunting scenarios, I could do what I needed to do ethically with something like a 270 WSM or 6.5 PRC knowing the bullet would perform effectively every time (assuming I placed it properly). Thus, I have been one of those guys who’s transitioned to smaller, faster calibers.

That being said, common sense still has to prevail. I would never, ever willingly take a .32 ACP to a gunfight no matter how great bullet technology is today. That’s just dumb. Similarly, I would never, ever willingly use something like a .223 to hunt deer, no matter how great the bullet is supposed to be. Doing so is just tempting fate and asking for a poor outcome.

The 223 is not inferior, especially for deer. That's just factually incorrect. If you want to use a 6.5prc for deer, by all means do so. It most certainly works. But at normal hunting ranges under 300 yards, the 223 kills them just as dead and just as quick. The 77TMK is devastating, a lot of people complain it does too much damage on deer. I killed hundreds of deer with a 223/match bullets even before the far superior 77TMK came out. With depredation permits I killed 100 in about 2 months with 69SMK's. Ranges from 10-200 yards and the furthest one ran about 50 yards, most died under 10 yards. and that was with the 69 non-tipped, which is nowhere near as good as the 77TMK(and probably the ELD-M's, but I haven't tested those).

So the point is that evolving technology allows us to use smaller calibers that recoil less and are more pleasant to shoot, and generally still have very effective terminal performance. But as ethical hunters, it’s incumbent upon all of us to exercise sound judgment when heading into the field about what is really “enough gun” and the right bullet.

Luck. Skill. Building. ‘Nuff said.

And there are a lot of highly skilled operators who use nothing but a .22 Hornet to ethically take game all the time. They are the exception to the rule, not the rule. The majority of people vastly overestimate their shooting/fighting/driving/home carpentry skills and then make poor decisions. More often than not, it results it little more than inconvenience. But when it goes wrong, it goes way wrong.

Sure, some people overestimate their abilities, but the point is there is plenty of empirical evidence here and elsewhere that the 223 is devastating on deer. I've personally shot hundreds of deer with a 223 and ethically killed every single one. I'm not a Navy Seal, or an LE officer, or anything else special. I'm an IT guy that likes hunting, and through my own experience on some farmland I have access to, have verified with 100% certainty that deer are very easy to kill with a 223. and not one off luck. Hundred of personal data points with 100% success.

Lots of people with limited skillsets cruise this website looking for advice. That advice needs to be tailored to the average hunter, not the highly skilled, former ODA guy who can hit a moving target at 700 yards.

As far as "targeting advice to the average hunter", I'd say that if we are talking about normal hunting ranges, which in reality is under 200 yards, the average schmo that shoots a box of ammo a year would be much better served by a 223/77TMK rig over a 300win mag.