What caused the Rokslide shift to smallest caliber and cartridges?

[Formidilosus]

I'm aware of what has happened more than five years ago, and my metric is those cartridges kill everything without being on the fringe of bullet performance.

What fringe?

And, what is your experience with small- 223-243 bullets and game animals, medium 6.5-7mm bullets and game animals, and larger 30-338 cal bullets and game animals?
That is, what bullets, what impact velocities, what impact locations, how far did the animals travel after each shot, and what where the differences in wound channels?

 

[Formidilosus]

Exact same chambering meaning same MV.

No sir. Lower weight which in general means lower BC results in more MV; higher BC which in general means higher weight results in less MV.

The statement that is being made is that they believe for some reason that a lighter weight, lower BC bullet can drift less in wind due to increased MV, than higher BC bullet, lower MV bullet. Which of course, given like bullets and pressures- it does not.

 

[JakeSCH]

@Formidilosus does the hit percentage tool that you often use account for recoil? Wondering if there is an optimized solution that accounts for MV, BC, and recoil.

It seems that recoil affect is intuitive but do we have a way to quantify it in a monte carlo simulation like we do with wind, MV, and BC combinations.

**EDIT** to get real fancy it would be interesting to get recoil effects per field position...

 

[Squincher]

Nice try. Maybe use the full quote next time bud.


Exact same chambering meaning same MV.

I don't disagree with the premise, but I didn't take chambering to necessarily mean the same velocity. Two 140 grain bullets of the same chambering could certainly be loaded to different velocities.

 

[Formidilosus]

@Formidilosus does the hit percentage tool that you often use account for recoil? Wondering if there is an optimized solution that accounts for MV, BC, and recoil.

It seems that recoil affect is intuitive but do we have a way to quantify it in a monte carlo simulation like we do with wind, MV, and BC combinations.

Nothing public. There are some general guidelines that I and others have seen, aka a large body of anecdotal experience; but no in-depth study with hunting rifles and field hit rates. And it greatly changes with less than perfect positions and any stress whatsoever. In other words the rate of skill decay is exponential as you go up in recoil when stressed at all.


The simplest way I do it is to have someone with their zeroed rifle and a Kraft target-




Then they build a prone position and fire one shot. Then pick everything back up, rebuild the position, fire one shot. Etc, etc for a minimum of 20 shots, 30 is better. Whatever their worst shot, becomes their perfect condition baseline precision- they can do no better than that.
Then, repeat it and add a time component to it- say ten seconds to go from standing to prone and fire one round. Then pick everything back up, stand up, and ten seconds to go prone, build the position and fire one round. Repeat for 10-20 rounds. Whatever the worst shot becomes their realistic baseline precision from prone.

You can and should do this for all positions.


What I have seen consistently under any stressor whatsoever, is that going from 4-5lbs of recoil (223) to 15’ish lbs of recoil (6.5cm) almost doubles the group sizes. Going from 15’ish Ft-lbs of recoil (6.5cm) to 25ft-lbs of recoil (30/06/7 mag) almost doubles it again. Etc, etc.

 

[Happy Antelope]

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

If you are hunting anywhere Buff is around, ya few people killed every single year. There is a reason your PH also has a .375 with him almost always. Had many runs-ins with angry Buffs over the years. Almost any hunting in RSA, Mozambique, Zim, Zambia or Tanz involves keeping an eye out for Buffalo, Namibia is different. I know 6 or 7 people lucky to be alive.

If you get to Zim, Tanzania, Moz, Zambia , Caprivi you also have to worry about Lions, elephants, Hippos, Rhinos etc. Ya no one is carrying a 6.5. It's dangerous business, people don't die hunting deer, they die every year in Africa.

A Buff can swallow 6,7,8 rounds from a .375 or several from even 4 or more from a .577. I have had a stare down with one at 20 yards with a 7mm-08 in my hands, PH gun was in the truck 50 yards away. Was very aware I was in a bad position and close to some serious harm. My 7mm-08 was completely worthless. Never hunted anywhere down there that there were not Buffalo around.

 

[Mike Islander]

I'd just like to point out that some of us hunt where there are animals with teeth and claws. . You might feel comfortable with a .223 in that case, but others may not feel their magnum is "unnecessary".

Generalizing to the OP's question regarding boom in smaller "hunting" cartridges. If you are after elephants, you probably won't use a 223 either.

 

[wind gypsy]

My point is that BC is a factor used to calculate the relative wind drift and drop if the weight and velocity is the same. There are three inputs to wind drift and drop: weight, BC, and velocity. None are independent of the other.

Weight is not a factor in trajectory and deflection. Velocity and BC only. Calculators will tell you a 110 grain 6mm and a 250 grain 338 of the same BC and velocity will have the same wind deflection. I've heard folks say it doesn't pan out that way but never seen a clear test on it.

Weight impacts BC so it's not needed as a 3rd variable.

 

[Squincher]

What fringe?

And, what is your experience with small- 223-243 bullets and game animals, medium 6.5-7mm bullets and game animals, and larger 30-338 cal bullets and game animals?
That is, what bullets, what impact velocities, what impact locations, how far did the animals travel after each shot, and what where the differences in wound channels?

I've killed many deer with .243, .25-06, .270, and .30-06 all with Remington Core Lokts and Winchester Power Points, and a moose with .30-06 loaded with 180 grain partitions. Though I didn't keep detailed notes, all performed fine. The only real stand out was that each and every deer shot with 150 grain power points out of the .30-06 dropped dead immediately on the spot, and there was a much larger amount of meat loss than with anything else.

 

[Happy Antelope]

Weight is not a factor in trajectory and deflection. Velocity and BC only. Calculators will tell you a 110 grain 6mm and a 250 grain 338 of the same BC and velocity will have the same wind deflection. I've heard folks say it doesn't pan out that way but never seen a clear test on it.

Weight impacts BC so it's not needed as a 3rd variable.

Had no clue...interesting

 

[Formidilosus]

I've killed many deer with .243, .25-06, .270, and .30-06 all with Remington Core Lokts and Winchester Power Points, and a moose with .30-06 loaded with 180 grain partitions. Though I didn't keep detailed notes, all performed fine. The only real stand out was that each and every deer shot with 150 grain power points out of the .30-06 dropped dead immediately on the spot, and there was a much larger amount of meat loss than with anything else.

So no experience with any version of projectiles that are being discussed here?

The 77gr TMK at the same impact velocity creates a larger wound on average than that 30cal 150gr Power Point does. How that is that “fringe”?

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

No sir. Lower weight which in general means lower BC results in more MV; higher BC which in general means higher weight results in less MV.

The statement that is being made is that they believe for some reason that a lighter weight, lower BC bullet can drift less in wind due to increased MV, than higher BC bullet, lower MV bullet. Which of course, given like bullets and pressures- it does not.

Roger that and I was illustrating the point keeping MV constant. For the gallery, here is the same analysis (and drift conclusion) with the 155 VLD at 2850 MV and the 190 VLD consistent at 2650 MV. The 190's drift advantage begins at 300 yards and the gap widens as distance increases.

 

[wind gypsy]

Had no clue...interesting

Could have 2 bullets of the exact same physical dimensions with different material densities. The denser/heavier one is going to have a higher BC.

Think of shotguns - a steel pellet of same dimension is going to slow down a lot faster than one of lead and even more so than one of tungsten. I.E. Lead 4 shot has a "higher BC" than steel 4 shot

 

[Squincher]

So no experience with any version of projectiles that are being discussed here?

The 77gr TMK at the same impact velocity creates a larger wound on average than that 30cal 150gr Power Point does. How that is that “fringe”?

It's on the smallest edge of bullet weight and being used for a purpose for which it isn't intended, but I'm not mad if you want to use it just as I don't care if you are mad that I don't.

The point I made in my first post in this thread is at some time in the future another generation will come up with their "new idea" and you will be the Fudd. That's just the way things go.

 

[Bluefish]

Could have 2 bullets of the exact same physical dimensions with different material densities. The denser/heavier one is going to have a higher BC.

Think of shotguns - a steel pellet of same dimension is going to slow down a lot faster than one of lead and even more so than one of tungsten. I.E. Lead 4 shot has a "higher BC" than steel 4 shot

Also two bullets the same weight but different shapes. In 35 cal 200g I have bullet BC from .15 to .369. The .15 slows down like it has a parachute attached. At 200 yards the speed difference between the best and worst is 500+ fps. Wind drift and bullet performance will be very different.

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

Could have 2 bullets of the exact same physical dimensions with different material densities. The denser/heavier one is going to have a higher BC.

Think of shotguns - a steel pellet of same dimension is going to slow down a lot faster than one of lead and even more so than one of tungsten. I.E. Lead 4 shot has a "higher BC" than steel 4 shot

Agree and this is the dilemma with all-copper bullets. With same physical dimensions, the all-copper will always be lighter than a lead core bullet and thus lower BC.

 

[Macintosh]

Looking at all of the hundreds of photos of carnage caused by 22,s, 24's and 25's I think totally disproves the assertion that smaller calibers are "at the fringe of bullet performance". It is quite clear to me they are well within their comfort-zone at reliably killing critters. I'm not sure how anyone can take away a different conclusion than that. Combining "reliably enough bullet performance for very fast death" with "minimum recoil/maximum shootability/maximum practiceability" seems like an ideal combination that any hunter would embrace...unless they are mindlessly stuck to a case-stamp as the measure of "best". That seems like the answer to the question the OP posed--to me that is that a lot of people have seen the evidence and decided the definition of the "best cartridge" is "the one that results in dead-enough to be reliably dead very quickly, but not so much that would result in grossly large amount of meat loss/excessive damage (see forms post#220)--while minimizing recoil and maximizing shootability".

I've killed many deer with .243, .25-06, .270, and .30-06 all with Remington Core Lokts and Winchester Power Points, and a moose with .30-06 loaded with 180 grain partitions. Though I didn't keep detailed notes, all performed fine. The only real stand out was that each and every deer shot with 150 grain power points out of the .30-06 dropped dead immediately on the spot, and there was a much larger amount of meat loss than with anything else.

This is exactly the point people are making--not a single person is saying larger calibers DONT work. Of course they do, and of course given the same bullet construction they will do more damage. The point is that it only takes a certain amount of damage to drop a critter quickly...once you have achieved making a large-enough amount of damage to reliably drop the critter very quickly, everything beyond that point is not helping...but it IS increasing recoil, muzzle blast, cost, etc in a way that makes it harder to shoot as well. If you had your choice of 2 cartridges that both always resulted in a wound more than large-enough to quickly drop the animal, but one was inexpensive, lightweight ammo, with negligible recoil making followup shots and spotting hits easy...and the other had punishing recoil that made it noticeable harder to spot your hit and make a followup shot if warranted...why would anyone pick the larger cartridge?


And yes, it may (and probably will) change again. As materials and available bullets and powders etc change it would not at all surprise me that the answer to the "equation" of "enough damage for reliable quick kill with minimum recoil/max shootability" also changes. This seems not only natural, but beneficial. It does not mean the old way didnt work...it may just indicate that something new (technology, matieral, construction, research, etc) opened a door for anyone from any generation to learn and adapt. Also, there is nothing that says "buying into" this small caliber stuff means thats all you have to use. Of course I buy into it, I dont think its possible to see all those photos and not buy into it--but still own and use a 30-06 and 270, and I still use copper. So what? If I understand the nuance and I understand the pluses and minuses involved, then I can make my own informed choices--what's the big deal?

 

[Formidilosus]

It's on the smallest edge of bullet weight and being used for a purpose for which it isn't intended, but I'm not mad if you want to use it just as I don't care if you are mad that I don't.

Again- the wound is the only thing that kills- the animal has no idea what bullet shot it. If two bullets create identical wounds, they kill
Identically- regardless of caliber and cartridge. If one bullet creates a large wound than another, the bullet that creates a larger wound kills faster- even if it is a smaller bullet.

The point I made in my first post in this thread is at some time in the future another generation will come up with their "new idea" and you will be the Fudd. That's just the way things go.

No, I won’t. Because I use evidence and data to drive decisions, not “feelings” or “grand pappy said so”. What makes a “fudd” is someone with no evidence or experience proclaiming something, that evidence and experience has shown to be false.

 

[Reburn]

The point I made in my first post in this thread is at some time in the future another generation will come up with their "new idea" and you will be the Fudd. That's just the way things go.

Not subscribing to a new idea with no proof doesn't make you a fudd.
Not subscribing to a new idea with montains of proof does make you a fudd.

It has nothing to do with generations or age. Simply your ability to process new data.

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

It's on the smallest edge of bullet weight and being used for a purpose for which it isn't intended

Says whom? The .223/5.56 was designed/intended to kill humans with smaller bullets than the 77, and we vary greatly in size. How is a 150-300 pound human different/easier to kill than a similar sized non-human mammal?