What caused the Rokslide shift to smallest caliber and cartridges?

[iwearshorts]

So what is everyone’s plan for all the other calibers they own? It seems like the .223 77 tmk is as good as it gets. Are people going to start dumping their larger caliber rifles? Just let them sit in the safe? Seems like the only issue with the .223 setup would be minimum caliber restrictions in some states. If the future is small caliber and maximum efficiency bullets, will there be any reason to keep using large caliber rifles and traditional hunting ammo?

 

[OutdoorAg]

So what is everyone’s plan for all the other calibers they own? It seems like the .223 77 tmk is as good as it gets. Are people going to start dumping their larger caliber rifles? Just let them sit in the safe? Seems like the only issue with the .223 setup would be minimum caliber restrictions in some states. If the future is small caliber and maximum efficiency bullets, will there be any reason to keep using large caliber rifles and traditional hunting ammo?

I for one have a bevy of parts that were being collected for a magnum build (a big 7 of some kind...PRC, SAUM, etc)

At this point, with a stupid accurate 6.5 in the safe, and a 22 CM being pieced together...I will likely be selling off all those magnum build parts. I'll lose some money, but in the long run, it'll save me from building/loading/shooting a gun that I never needed.

 

[jimh406]

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

That wasn't my point.

I was responding to a post that implied to me that the only way to get rapid expansion was to go small and fast. But, that's just one way. You can also go large diameter and fast to get the same result.

As you know, it's bullet design and speed that makes the difference in how the bullet performs. Well, the size of the damage would obviously be exponentially larger after expanding if the bullet was larger to start with.

Also as you know, there is a significant difference in recoil using lighter vs heavier bullets. Going from even a 308 with 180 gr to 130 gr is significant with respect to recoil. One approach instead of going small diameter is simply go to a lighter weight bullet in the same gun. I know that isn't the trend. But, it's a possibility, nevertheless.

The "trend" though also seems to be including suppressors. It seems many people who were opposed to brakes due to the noise are embracing suppressors that also reduce recoil. I'm one of those. This means that you can have almost 6.5 Creedmoor recoil in 300 magnum. Sure, there will be small caliber suppressed shooters as well for those that want to push recoil even lower.

Furthermore, you can have small caliber fast expansion level damage with a larger fast bullet like a Nosler Partition. The difference is the larger bullet expanded still has the core left for penetration. People can argue whether that might or might not be helpful, but it will have penetration nevertheless that the smaller fast expansion bullet can't since it's lost all of its energy already.

 

[jimh406]

So what is everyone’s plan for all the other calibers they own?

I'm moving to using suppressors and threading existing rifles, but I don't have many to thread. I don't have a timeline since I can only hunt with one gun at a time.

I personally was in the fast and lots of damage category already. A suppressor reduces that recoil significantly. The only difference in method that I have versus the small diameter fast expansion camp is that my bullets in some are simply larger diameter and maybe slightly slower expansion.

 

[atmat]

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

Can you elaborate on this? I thought elsewhere you had stated that concern over heavy metals from bullets both in the environment and via ingestion was overblown — though I may be wrong and don’t want to misattribute or misspeak.

 

[mtnwrunner]

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.

That is a classic!

Randy

 

[BuckRut]

I would say the why for the smaller calibers is the same as it is for mechanical broadheads. While the performance of the larger calibers is indeed greater than that of the smaller calibers it does provide some added challenges to the shooter. If the performance of the larger caliber is more than the shooter needs and he/she can make a better shot with the smaller caliber the benefits of the smaller outweigh what you are giving up from the larger. The only misconception that seems prevalent is that people seem to talk like these smaller calibers perform at the same level as the larger ones and that is not true.

 

[Shō[t]gun]

Are people going to start dumping their larger caliber rifles? Just let them sit in the safe? Seems like the only issue with the .223 setup would be minimum caliber restrictions in some states. If the future is small caliber and maximum efficiency bullets, will there be any reason to keep using large caliber rifles and traditional hunting ammo?

Aside from a very select few people, I doubt any will commit to exclusively 223 as their do-everything rifle for the remainder of their hunting days. What the thread has shown in an extreme way is that bullet construction and velocity matters more than power factor alone. 223 isn't necessarily the answer for everyone, but I bet there are a lot of people who are now choosing a 7-08 over a Rem Mag, or a 6.5CM over a 30-06, etc. because you can increase "shootability" without compromising on wound channel by picking the correct bullet.

 

[Bluefish]

That wasn't my point.

I was responding to a post that implied to me that the only way to get rapid expansion was to go small and fast. But, that's just one way. You can also go large diameter and fast to get the same result.

It will, but large and fast is quickly more recoil than people can handle. Having come at this in a state that I can’t deer hunt with less than 35 cal, it’s been an interesting path. as ranges are low I am going slower and bigger to cut recoil and noise. Down side is it’s a 100 yard max rifle. In the end it’s all about delivering the bullet at the right speed to function at the distance needed.

As you know, it's bullet design and speed that makes the difference in how the bullet performs. Well, the size of the damage would obviously be exponentially larger after expanding if the bullet was larger to start with.

the diameter change isn’t all that much for the bullet itself. A 7mm is only 1/16” larger than a .223. Not much. Hardly exponential.

Also as you know, there is a significant difference in recoil using lighter vs heavier bullets. Going from even a 308 with 180 gr to 130 gr is significant with respect to recoil. One approach instead of going small diameter is simply go to a lighter weight bullet in the same gun. I know that isn't the trend. But, it's a possibility, nevertheless.

the problem with just dropping weight is that BC gets worse. So your effective range is reduced. If you go heavy for caliber and smaller diameter, then BC goes up and range is increased. Also recoil is momentum ie mass x velocity, while energy is 1/2 mass x velocity ^2. Means you can increase energy faster than recoil by going faster.

 

[ORJoe]

So what is everyone’s plan for all the other calibers they own?

Trash talk the .223 just long enough to get my other rifles sold

 

[Kurts86]

I think the smaller caliber shift has to do with a few things:

There is a lot more long range shooting knowledge/experience now than ever. This even extends to access to long range shooting clubs. I’ve been a member at 3 shooting clubs in 3 states in the last 6 years and non of those ranges existed 15 years ago. I’m don’t think there was a facility near me longer than 200 yards before that.

PRS/NRL hunter have taken off and even a decade ago .308 was the default cartridge which was replaced with 6.5’s and then 6mm’s. Never under estimate the working knowledge guys gain shooting thousands of rounds a year compared to hunter shooting less than a box a year.

Faster twist rates have become factory rifle and cartridge offerings and that didn’t exist 15 years ago. Faster twist rates, high BC’s and high sectional density are core pillars of being able to do a lot of this work. I ran .243 for a long time and it would take 3 years after a company introduced a new bullet after they followed the sequences of releasing the 30 cal, 7mm and 6.5mm bullets first. Looking today these problems have since been solved.

Rangefinders, ballistic apps and exposed turrets are a big contributor as well. These were rare in the hunting world 15 years ago and are now the default.

It’s really nice to shoot the same bullet for targets and animals. For years I would shoot Amax for targets and switch to TTSX’s for hunting. That was an unnecessary bit of adjusting zero and dope that was precious range time wasted that could have been spent working on positional shooting.

The .223/6mm/6.5mm threads provide statistically significant amounts of wound data that a hunter couldn’t gain in multiple lifetimes. Hunters and shooters in general are REALLY BAD about making conclusions from a few data points and the nature of shooting living things under field conditions doesn’t lend itself to experimental control.

I’ve been really happy with 6.5 creedmoor because its purpose built to shoot long high BC bullets in a very forgiving fashion with mild recoil. It means I can spot my own impacts while hunting/shooting solo from field positions. Shooting a 7mm mag off a tripod is a one shot affair for me with no idea where the impact went. I’ve seen the same effect with multiple new hunters/shooters where I can train them up to be proficient with a forgiving, mild recoiling cartridge very quickly and easily.

I don’t think this is limited to the rifle world either. The shotgun world has shifted massively towards 20,28 and 410’s in recent years. I know tons of people hunting turkeys now with 410’s and that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. The same thing is happening with 28 gauges and waterfowl. The ammo is better, the guns and chokes are better and guns realize even the smaller guns are ballistically capable to 30-40 yards where 90% of their kill shots are occurring. That said I saw the opposite of these things growing up and all my dad’s friends ran out to buy 10 gauges and 3.5” 12 gauges because of nontoxic shot in the 90’s but after a while I noticed some really skilled wing shooters hunting with 20 gauges. It took a while for it to all sink in but you start to figure out that skill is more important than caliber size.

A year ago I was pondering a 300 PRC build and now instead I’m trying to decide between 6mm creedmoor and a fast twist .223 for my next rifle. It’s been a process, maybe it’s that I value efficiency but I’m also always looking for the best tool for the job too.

 

[Formidilosus]

Can you elaborate on this? I thought elsewhere you had stated that concern over heavy metals from bullets both in the environment and via ingestion was overblown — though I may be wrong and don’t want to misattribute or misspeak.

It absolutely is overblown. What I was trying to get at, is that this isn’t- “lead is the devil, copper/tungsten is jesus”. If lead is a concern then so is every other metal.

 

[MT_Wyatt]

I feel like it is a good time to chime in with "thank you" for everyone who has shared. While there are a lot of different reasons and explanations for the trend I noted, it is apprant there are some overarching principles that apply across those vast (3) threads I referenced. I sincerely appreciate everyone who has taken the time to distill a little bit of that reasoning into this dedicated "why" thread.

I do have to say I'm shocked there hasn't been more challenge to the idea. Perhaps that's already been done enough there's no one left to "bring on board" to this approach. @100 others has a pretty good summary in my book, as do many others who have posted overall conclusions.

I'll say that my experience with 6.5CM has varied - I've had some really good results with ELDX, and some puzzling ones with the smaller GMXs. A lot of that makes more sense to me now. As I go back through some of the .223/6/6.5mm threads, this has given me a little better understanding. Instead of casually reading and dropping in on those and seeing another wound channel, I'm getting a lot more from them. And the next time I read "....suggest you read XYZ thread and consider a smaller cartridge" I know where it is coming from. Thanks everyone.

 

[jimh406]

the diameter change isn’t all that much for the bullet itself. A 7mm is only 1/16” larger than a .223. Not much. Hardly exponential.
...
the problem with just dropping weight is that BC gets worse. So your effective range is reduced. If you go heavy for caliber and smaller diameter, then BC goes up and range is increased.

The .223 bullet is usually .224 while the 7mm is .284. That's significantly larger already approximate 20%, but also, expansion is greater as well is a factor of starting diameter. The starting diameter isn't exponential, but the increase in expansion will be.

BC isn't a factor for most hunting ranges, but even still, drop decreases with increased speed. Therefore, if you went from 180 to 130 gr, the starting velocity is much more so the drop isn't a factor until you get to very significant distances. Also, velocity is important compared to diameter, so even though it's a short fast bullet, it's still not that effected by wind either.

 

[Formidilosus]

The .223 bullet is usually .224 while the 7mm is .284. That's significantly larger already approximate 20%, but also, expansion is greater as well is a factor of starting diameter. The starting diameter isn't exponential,
but the increase in expansion will be.

No it isn’t. The .224 77gr TMK has a max temporary stretch of approximately 4.5 to 5 inches at 2,500fps impact velocity. The 7mm 162gr ELD-M has a max TC of approximately 6 to 7 inches at 2,500fps impact velocity. It’s not exponential. You do not see a very large difference in wound channel size until very large, very frangible 30 and 338cal impacting at high speeds. From 22-28 cal wounds are very similar given like bullets.

Also, velocity is important compared to diameter, so even though it's a short fast bullet, it's still not that effected by wind either.

That is factually false. The primary driver for wind drift is BC, not velocity. In any given chambering the higher BC bullet will drift less than the lower BC bullet when loaded to the same pressures.

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

So what is everyone’s plan for all the other calibers they own? It seems like the .223 77 tmk is as good as it gets. Are people going to start dumping their larger caliber rifles? Just let them sit in the safe? Seems like the only issue with the .223 setup would be minimum caliber restrictions in some states. If the future is small caliber and maximum efficiency bullets, will there be any reason to keep using large caliber rifles and traditional hunting ammo?

In Iowa you can only use .35 cal or bigger bottleneck cartridges during gun season with the exception of the special doe seasons in the bottom 2 tiers of counties. As a result, since I hunt north of I-80, I keep my .35 Whelen as it's purpose-built for big game hunting and isn't a slug or straight wall compromise.

 

[Squincher]

I think the shift is somewhat attributable to every generation thinking it has a better idea, combined with Gen Z wanting to go to the opposite extreme of boomers on every issue. The fact is 130-180 grain bullets driven at standard velocities have always been suitable for everything in North America. But since the boomers went with big magnums as their "better idea," Gen Z has to go with sub-100 grain bullets as their protest. Some future generation will eschew the practice of using the lightest bullets for purposes for which they were not intended, and shooting at ranges that require the hope your quarry won't turn or step between the time your brain can't stop the trigger pull and your bullet reaches the target, or that a slight gust of wind a quarter mile away won't turn your shot into a marginal or bad hit. Through all the trials and tribulations, though, 130-180 grain bullets driven at standard velocities will still be the sweet spot.

 

[jimh406]

No it isn’t. The .224 77gr TMK has a max temporary stretch of approximately 4.5 to 5 inches at 2,500fps impact velocity. The 7mm 162gr ELD-M has a max TC of approximately 6 to 7 inches at 2,500fps impact velocity. It’s not exponential. You do not see a very large difference in wound channel size until very large, very frangible 30 and 338cal impacting at high speeds. From 22-28 cal wounds are very similar given like bullets.




That is factually false. The primary driver for wind drift is BC, not velocity. In any given chambering the higher BC bullet will drift less than the lower BC bullet when loaded to the same pressures.

Sorry that I wasn't clear, I was talking about diameter expansion.

From the definition of BC, sure. However, the effective drop/wind drift is impacted significantly by velocity. The definition of BC only matters with respect to how it impacts drop and wind drift.

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

I think the shift is somewhat attributable to every generation thinking it has a better idea, combined with Gen Z wanting to go to the opposite extreme of boomers on every issue. The fact is 130-180 grain bullets driven at standard velocities have always been suitable for everything in North America. But since the boomers went with big magnums as their "better idea," Gen Z has to go with sub-100 grain bullets as their protest. Some future generation will eschew the practice of using the lightest bullets for purposes for which they were not intended, and shooting at ranges that require the hope your quarry won't turn or step between the time your brain can't stop the trigger pull and your bullet reaches the target, or that a slight gust of wind a quarter mile away won't turn your shot into a marginal or bad hit. Through all the trials and tribulations, though, 130-180 grain bullets driven at standard velocities will still be the sweet spot.

• Sub-100 grain goes for the .223
• 108-115 are absolute hammers for .243 and 6mm (some guys have great results with 90-100 as well)
• 100-135 are absolute hammers for .25 (some guys have great results with 90-100 as well)
• 120-156 are absolute hammers for 6.5

There is a huge difference between "suitable, decent, satisfactory" and "ideal". The point and the "why" is to shoot a cartridge/bullet that provides the best combination of wound channel, trajectory, recoil, and overall cost (components, rifles, etc...). All of the calibers above perform at least as-good and most often better in these areas as anything larger. This isn't a generational debate at all. I'm 48 (Gen-X) and after swallowing my pride and reading the data and looking at the field results was eager to get on the train.

 

[Formidilosus]

Sorry that I wasn't clear, I was talking about diameter expansion.

Fragmenting bullets don’t have a real frontal diameter while penetrating as is commonly thought of. The moment you move away from weight retention belief, frontal diameter plays almost no part in wound creation.

If you are saying that using the same design parameters one can get a larger bullet to make a bigger wound- sure. But to what purpose? Sub 100gr bullets are already creating too much tissue damage- that is they kill too well.

So you got to a larger diameter bullet and design the projectile to kill the best. Ok, is this what you want-

From the definition of BC, sure. However, the effective drop/wind drift is impacted significantly by velocity. The definition of BC only matters with respect to how it impacts drop and wind drift.

I am confused of what you are trying to say? Wind drift in any given chambering is determined by BC- full stop. A lower BC bullet will drift more in the exact same rifle and chambering, than a higher BC bullet.