What caused the Rokslide shift to smallest caliber and cartridges?

[ElPollo]

Any specific detailed experience to share? In the past Ive seen you call them “promising”, but thats about as detailed as Ive seen. There is more or less zero info out there or in their website except that its supposed to be a frangible non-lead bullet with a “powdered
metal web” core. The website is severely lacking in info or specifics though. Not even any listed BC’s. Do they actually exist? Do they actually function, and if so what is the result? Maybe we need a separate thread.

6.5 Creedmoor/260 for Deer, Elk, and whatever else.....

Are any of the cup and core traditional deer factory ammo worth a dang in 6.5 cm? Look to set up a new rifle, something 0-300 that's a little bit more cost effective than eldm. The one deer I shoot with bondstrikes barely left any blood. American whitetail? Fusion? I suppose if I've had success...

rokslide.com

 

[Choupique]

kills DRT and doesn’t have any meat damage

Based on my 338 experience, you can definitely achieve some extreme meat damage if you try.

My meat kills usually look like this though. Really big holes, very little or no jello, and you can usually see smoke coming out the exit hole!

 

[mt terry d]

I will admit, as long as you don’t mind overkill up close, the 223 does appear to be a good match with that 77gr.

I will admit, as long as you don’t mind overkill up close, the 223 does appear to be a good match with that 77gr.

One fellow said if I wanted to stuff a big bullet in the Hornet case, the 270 Ren has been around for quite a while. I’m imagining the 77 gr 22 bullets will fit ok.
View attachment 634129

Just today I deleted some pics from my phone, one being necropsy of a mule deer buck ( 150# dressed) that was shot broadside, high lungs, at 25 yards max ( didn't stop to range it ) with a 223 77TMK 2774 MV. Bang flop. About a 2" entrance hole, typical TMK soup inside, bullet did not exit hide on off side. Only lost a little rib meat (which I never take anyway).

The damage was practically identical to a (large) cow elk taken a few days later, one shot kill from 180 yards with the identical load.

Why? I don't know . It defies everything I thought I knew. But damn, that combo is impressing the hell out of me.

 

[Formidilosus]

Any specific detailed experience to share? In the past Ive seen you call them “promising”, but thats about as detailed as Ive seen. There is more or less zero info out there or in their website except that its supposed to be a frangible non-lead bullet with a “powdered
metal web” core. The website is severely lacking in info or specifics though. Not even any listed BC’s. Do they actually exist? Do they actually function, and if so what is the result? Maybe we need a separate thread.

Just some in gel testing. What I have seen, they are without question what I will choose if required to use lead free. They are available. .224 79gr seems to be a legit option. The 95gr .243 is a bit low in BC, but certainly better terminally than standard monos.

 

[KenLee]

Great thread! Something I have always found humorous is that even many Fudds who use 338 super mags will tell you to buy a .243, 25-06 etc. for a young hunter, but "once they get old enough they can buy a big gun". Always seemed to me that if a .243 is adequate for a 10 yo, it should work even better in the hands of someone with more years of experience and a better knowledge of a critters anatomy

Us Fudds don't want those lil rascals shooting up our bullets too.

 

[willtim]

I have done just the opposite. I'm now shooting a 338 WM. Just bought my second one.

 

[4cMuley]

Just some in gel testing. What I have seen, they are without question what I will choose if required to use lead free. They are available. .224 79gr seems to be a legit option. The 95gr .243 is a bit low in BC, but certainly better terminally than standard monos.

Done any gel testing of badlands bullets in small caliber by chance? They check the BC box

 

[Formidilosus]

Done any gel testing of badlands bullets in small caliber by chance? They check the BC box

Relatively narrow wounds.

 

[DJL2]

There's a lot of very experienced, very well-intentioned woodsmen and hunters that have contributed to our collective lore over the years. However, there wasn't a lot of rigor applied to the lore or the observations that formed it. Like any other human endeavor, people generalized from very small sample sizes (in some cases, singular) and the anecdotes of others. If we're being honest, more than one "the bullet didn't perform like it should have" story is actually a "I made a bad shot, but don't want to take the blame" story. More than one bad shot has come down to equipment that didn't perform (e.g. a scope that didn't hold its zero) or a shooter that couldn't perform with the equipment (that lightweight ultra-mag).

The end result of all that has been some very interesting trends. The American hunter, since I was growing up in the 80s and 90s and started paying attention, has been absolutely obsessed with weight retention and, along with that, penetration. This was interesting alongside a not insignificant amount of material then and since that highlighted that fragmentation and/or fragmentary projectiles were far more effective at creating wide, emphatic wounds - that shedding weight enhanced wounding. We ended up in a sort of weird limbo where people wanted lots of mass, lots of velocity... but a bullet that wouldn't either of those effectively to actually do work. Perhaps it even makes sense for shooters that hit the woods a few days a year and consider the "Texas heart shot" appropriate.

I think the BIG driver of change is the increased interest in both long-range hunting and precision shooting. A good hunting bullet is certainly precise... but many aren't particularly good and aren't very aerodynamic when they are. I remember John Lazzeroni (who made RUM level cartridges before it was cool) stating "where you hit is the most important thing, match bullets allow me to do that best, so that's what I use" (words to that effect) when asked about why he hunted with/loaded match bullets for his cartridges. I think a lot of people picked up on that, and a lot of hunters who knew shot placement was THE most important thing started using match bullets. Along the way, they realized that a well-designed, thin jacketed match bullet was capable of dramatic, emphatic wounding... wounding FAR better than monolithic, core-bonded, tough bullets.

Over time, the folks using match bullets and other projectiles that effectively shed weight to enhance wounding realized that you don't need nearly as much "gun" (i.e. mass, velocity, powder, etc.) if you don't select bullets that work about as well as broadhead and instead choose something suited to the task at hand. It's just starting to become more mainstream now.

 

[Big_wals]

There's a lot of very experienced, very well-intentioned woodsmen and hunters that have contributed to our collective lore over the years. However, there wasn't a lot of rigor applied to the lore or the observations that formed it. Like any other human endeavor, people generalized from very small sample sizes (in some cases, singular) and the anecdotes of others. If we're being honest, more than one "the bullet didn't perform like it should have" story is actually a "I made a bad shot, but don't want to take the blame" story. More than one bad shot has come down to equipment that didn't perform (e.g. a scope that didn't hold its zero) or a shooter that couldn't perform with the equipment (that lightweight ultra-mag).

The end result of all that has been some very interesting trends. The American hunter, since I was growing up in the 80s and 90s and started paying attention, has been absolutely obsessed with weight retention and, along with that, penetration. This was interesting alongside a not insignificant amount of material then and since that highlighted that fragmentation and/or fragmentary projectiles were far more effective at creating wide, emphatic wounds - that shedding weight enhanced wounding. We ended up in a sort of weird limbo where people wanted lots of mass, lots of velocity... but a bullet that wouldn't either of those effectively to actually do work. Perhaps it even makes sense for shooters that hit the woods a few days a year and consider the "Texas heart shot" appropriate.

I think the BIG driver of change is the increased interest in both long-range hunting and precision shooting. A good hunting bullet is certainly precise... but many aren't particularly good and aren't very aerodynamic when they are. I remember John Lazzeroni (who made RUM level cartridges before it was cool) stating "where you hit is the most important thing, match bullets allow me to do that best, so that's what I use" (words to that effect) when asked about why he hunted with/loaded match bullets for his cartridges. I think a lot of people picked up on that, and a lot of hunters who knew shot placement was THE most important thing started using match bullets. Along the way, they realized that a well-designed, thin jacketed match bullet was capable of dramatic, emphatic wounding... wounding FAR better than monolithic, core-bonded, tough bullets.

Over time, the folks using match bullets and other projectiles that effectively shed weight to enhance wounding realized that you don't need nearly as much "gun" (i.e. mass, velocity, powder, etc.) if you don't select bullets that work about as well as broadhead and instead choose something suited to the task at hand. It's just starting to become more mainstream now.

Well said

 

[The Guide]

In my opinion, the change has come (not just on rokslide but industry wide) due to the increased consistency from lot to lot on factory loads and the increase of heavy for caliber bullet weights in smaller caliber diameters. These heavy for caliber bullets allow small caliber cartridges to shoot above their weight class like what were were used to seeing from larger caliber cup and core bullets. A heavy 6mm bullet will react like a mid range 140 to 160 grain 7mm from 30 years ago and a heavy 6.5mm can act like a 150 to 180 grain 308 caliber bullet. The lower cost and increased availability of these smaller caliber rounds has driven people to buy them over the larger and often harder to find cartridges. This cost difference plus the increased performance has allowed people to shoot more and be more confident with their weapons system.

Also with technology improvements in range finders and the ability to use a ballistics calculator to find your actual drops and drifts, having that super flat shooting super magnum cartridge is not the necessity it was once thought to be.

Who wouldn't want to shoot more with an accurate cartridge with less recoil and similar ballistics to what we were shooting 20 to 30 years ago?

Jay

 

[Hoove]

Just today I deleted some pics from my phone, one being necropsy of a mule deer buck ( 150# dressed) that was shot broadside, high lungs, at 25 yards max ( didn't stop to range it ) with a 223 77TMK 2774 MV. Bang flop. About a 2" entrance hole, typical TMK soup inside, bullet did not exit hide on off side. Only lost a little rib meat (which I never take anyway).

The damage was practically identical to a (large) cow elk taken a few days later, one shot kill from 180 yards with the identical load.

Why? I don't know . It defies everything I thought I knew. But damn, that combo is impressing the hell out of me.

Those were two good hunts Terry. When are they on the table!?!? Lol

 

[jimh406]

There's a lot of very experienced, very well-intentioned woodsmen and hunters that have contributed to our collective lore over the years. However, there wasn't a lot of rigor applied to the lore or the observations that formed it. Like any other human endeavor, people generalized from very small sample sizes (in some cases, singular) and the anecdotes of others.

Of course, this applies to the small caliber group as well. It's pretty clear that you can find examples of almost any type of bullet/caliber failing or succeeding.

Obviously, it's better to hit the target than inaccurately shoot a 300 magnum or higher. There is no bullet type that performs better simply by being a smaller diameter. If the goal is to blow up bullets, that can be done with almost any cartridge of any diameter. Likewise, you can choose small caliber bullets that won't expand very much.

That being said, hunting is always going to be a small sample size in varying conditions. That's fine, but don't pretend there is only one possibility. We can't control all of the variables.

 

[Tmac]

Just some in gel testing. What I have seen, they are without question what I will choose if required to use lead free. They are available. .224 79gr seems to be a legit option. The 95gr .243 is a bit low in BC, but certainly better terminally than standard monos.

I’ve looked at those. What I wonder is does that metal powder end up all over? I’d think one could cut away any blood shot meat and avoid it, but it would be something to consider I believe.

 

[Formidilosus]

I’ve looked at those. What I wonder is does that metal powder end up all over? I’d think one could cut away any blood shot meat and avoid it, but it would be something to consider I believe.

It absolutely is something to consider. Heavy metals are metals.

 

[Formidilosus]

Of course, this applies to the small caliber group as well. It's pretty clear that you can find examples of almost any type of bullet/caliber failing or succeeding.

Obviously, it's better to hit the target than inaccurately shoot a 300 magnum or higher. There is no bullet type that performs better simply by being a smaller diameter. If the goal is to blow up bullets, that can be done with almost any cartridge of any diameter. Likewise, you can choose small caliber bullets that won't expand very much.

That being said, hunting is always going to be a small sample size in varying conditions. That's fine, but don't pretend there is only one possibility. We can't control all of the variables.

What do you believe the core of the discussion or trend is?

 

[wyosam]

Form actually just posted a top-down comparison of an elk vs a deer this week. In cross section, elk are not tremendously deeper side to side than a deer. I think the difference was a couple inches.

Elk are longer and taller for sure, and I’m sure the same holds true for moose. MUCH taller and longer, but not tremendously deeper across the ribs.

Actually, AK moose are considerably wider. 30”+ on a mature animal. Go look at some frontal pictures meant to teach you to judge antler width. Measuring the width of an animals chest laying on its side with no air in its lungs isn’t a particularly useful metric. I’ve never taken a tape measure to mule deer or elk laying that way, but I’ve taken dozens of both apart, and I’m not buying the idea that a couple inconsequential inches is accurate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DJL2]

That being said, hunting is always going to be a small sample size in varying conditions. That's fine, but don't pretend there is only one possibility. We can't control all of the variables.

I was simply answering the question posed by the OP - that's my assessment, no pretending required.

If the goal is to blow up bullets, that can be done with almost any cartridge of any diameter.

That's the point, isn't it? If you can get violent, emphatic wounding from a .224" or .243" bullet with a mass of 75-115 grains, why would you opt for the weight/cost/recoil of using a 190-225 grain bullet?

There is no bullet type that performs better simply by being a smaller diameter.

I understand what you're trying to say here, I think... but I'm going to nitpick you anyway ;-).

1. If by smaller diameter you mean lighter weight, lower cost, with less recoil, than they do in fact perform "better" in both those areas (recoil and cost) - which can facilitate more and better training.

2. If by smaller diameter you mean bullets of the same design (e.g. Hornady ELD-M, ELD-X, Sierra TMK), the smaller diameter bullet can offer a higher BC and greater sectional density for the same mass.

 

[Castle Rock]

Those small calibers are usually used to cull in Africa and almost always headshots. Most people don't want to be walking around the African bush where there's nasty pissed off Cape Buffalo with a 223 in their hand. Not a whole lot different than I don't want to Caribou hunt with a 223 either.

I didn’t realise that there were nasty pissed off buff’s behind every tree

 

[Macintosh]

I am reminded of someone I love to quote, the great Nigel Tufnel, when asked why his dial went to 11 instead of ten. If it’s the same amount of “loud”, what difference does it make? “But, this one goes to 11”.
For some people bigger will always equate to better, regardless of the fact that “more dead” isnt a benefit.