What caused the Rokslide shift to smallest caliber and cartridges?

[Formidilosus]

That is a false equivalence. It is like saying because rattle snakes are venomous and a concern, king snakes should be a concern too because they are a snake. Even when one considers that tetanus can be gotten from a king snake bite, the two warrant vastly different levels of concern.

Do what? What happens when you ingest tungsten?

 

[Elite]

I am curious if anyone has some links to some research or proof on how these smaller calibers do on a bad shot? Say a moose front shoulder? Curious if this is were the larger calibers shine?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[roosiebull]

I am curious if anyone has some links to some research or proof on how these smaller calibers do on a bad shot? Say a moose front shoulder? Curious if this is were the larger calibers shine?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is a moose shoulder in the 223 thread (well, it used to be a moose shoulder)

 

[jimh406]

There is a moose shoulder in the 223 thread (well, it used to be a moose shoulder)

Obviously it was recovered. Do you remember if there was a second shot?

 

[roosiebull]

Obviously it was recovered. Do you remember if there was a second shot?

I’ll try to find it, because I can’t recall if it was shot more than once

 

[Formidilosus]

I am curious if anyone has some links to some research or proof on how these smaller calibers do on a bad shot? Say a moose front shoulder? Curious if this is were the larger calibers shine?

Gotta watch those dreaded “shoulders”…












But wait, what happens if you hit the thickest bone in the front half….






If only there was a nearly 300 page thread that had hundreds of pictures of wounds in animals from antelope to moose that have been killed with a .224 caliber cartridge.

 

[Formidilosus]

Obviously it was recovered. Do you remember if there was a second shot?

If you would read the thread in its entirety, all of these questions would be answered.

 

[jimh406]

If you would read the thread in its entirety, all of these questions would be answered.

It's an ever increasing thread that repeats. I don't feel like I had to read every post to get the points. . Reading every post would get the specifics ... or maybe I should just see how good google search is.

 

[Formidilosus]

It's an ever increasing thread that repeats. I don't feel like I had to read every post to get the points. . Reading every post would get the specifics ... or maybe I should just see how good google search is.

There is more information about how bullets actually damage and destroy tissue with photographic examples, than any other single resource on the internet.
I have yet to meet or talk to a single person that has read the 223 thread in its entirety, that hasn’t come back and said “my belief about how this works was completely wrong”. Every question and point you and others have brought up in this thread are discussed- with empirical evidence and legit terminal ballistics research papers, at length in that thread.

 

[roosiebull]

Obviously it was recovered. Do you remember if there was a second shot?

Page 26 of the 223 thread if you want more context, I believe it starts at post #506. Pretty impressive on a bull moose

 

[jimh406]

Page 26 of the 223 thread if you want more context, I believe it starts at post #506. Pretty impressive on a bull moose

Thanks.

 

[fwafwow]

If only there was a nearly 300 page thread that had hundreds of pictures of wounds in animals from antelope to moose that have been killed with a .224 caliber cartridge.

And if only there was a search function on this site that could be limited to such a 300 page thread

 

[jimh406]

Here's the link. https://rokslide.com/forums/threads/223-for-bear-deer-elk-and-moose.130488/post-1885909

There was no mention if there was a follow up shot or not. I'm assuming not. Below the photo is "77 TMK 168yds". I'm assuming that was what was used at 168 yds.

 

[Elite]

Here's the link. https://rokslide.com/forums/threads/223-for-bear-deer-elk-and-moose.130488/post-1885909

There was no mention if there was a follow up shot or not. I'm assuming not. Below the photo is "77 TMK 168yds". I'm assuming that was what was used at 168 yds.

Thanks for link


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

You’d gain more support for the ideas if the threads weren‘t such echo chambers with guys repeating half ass arguments against proven game getting combinations.

I don’t think any of the folks detailing the mountains of evidence that support shooting 223, 243, 6mm, .257, or .264 have ever claimed the larger stuff doesn’t work. We are advocating the smaller stuff because the mountains of paper, studies, ballistics charts, detailed necropsies, and amateur photos prove without a doubt that they do.

It’s the hard headed guys like yourself, that have zero substantive arguments against shooting the small stuff, that are coming off as half-assed.

EDIT: If you can provide any reasonable bit of technical evidence that supports not shooting the aforementioned calibers, then maybe more folks would listen and be persuaded. Pick whatever metric you like and we will all listen and try to learn something.

 

[Marbles]

Do what? What happens when you ingest tungsten?

You pee and poop most of it out. If it is metal, you poop all of it out. (Edit, regarding tungsten, this does not apply to lead).

Lead is considered unsafe in drinking water at levels of 15 ppb (parts per billion), toxicity in blood starts above 0.35 mg/L (depending on what you want to consider toxic effects and the age of the person being measured,). In adults blood lead levels above 0.7 mg/L can cause acute toxicity and the potential effects include encephalopathy, coma, and death. An adult has about 5L of blood, if we call it 6L for a large adult and go for a the typical range were the worst symptoms start of 0.8 mg/L, that is 0.074 grains of lead in the blood is enough to potential kill a large adult. Consumed lead metal is bioavailable in humans, though surface area will play more into this than the mass ingested.

Soluble tungsten (such as WO4) is likely safe at levels below 2.28 mg/L in drinking water, soluble tungsten can cause nephrotoxicity at exposure levels of 125 mg/kg/d (a 220 lb man would have to consume 4.4 ounces of soluble tungsten per day). However, non-soluble tungsten (tungsten metal) is not bioavailable and not toxic based on current evidence as it is eliminated in the stool. Prolonged exposure to soluble tungsten may increase risk of heart attacks and strokes, but beyond potential nephrotoxicity there are not acute syndromes associated with it. No toxic effects have been observed from tungsten metal and it does not appear to be bioavailable.

The two are not comparable beyond the fact that they are both metals.

 

[TaperPin]

I don’t think any of the folks detailing the mountains of evidence that support shooting 223, 243, 6mm, .257, or .264 have ever claimed the larger stuff doesn’t work. We are advocating the smaller stuff because the mountains of paper, studies, ballistics charts, detailed necropsies, and amateur photos prove without a doubt that they do.

It’s the hard headed guys like yourself, that have zero substantive arguments against shooting the small stuff, that are coming off as half-assed.

You must not be paying attention if you don’t hear the constant steam of guys trying to say a larger caliber isn’t as lethal because nobody can hit anything with it. Lol
Obviously we’ve been killing things just fine.

I enjoy being the devils advocate at times, because it’s easy to pick holes in some of the arguments. I could care less what other people shoot - not once have I ever wondered what other people are shooting when I’m offline.

 

[wyosam]

While they are recognized around the world for record-setting accuracy, MatchKing and Tipped MatchKing bullets are not recommended for most hunting applications. Although MatchKing and Tipped MatchKing bullets are commonly used for varmint hunting, their design will not provide the same reliable explosive expansion at equivalent velocities in varmints compared to their lightly jacketed Hornet, Blitz or Varminter counterparts.

if you read between the lines they say the tmk doesn’t expand on Varmits. That’s a 3” wide animal, probably too thick a jacket. Doesn’t mean they won’t expand on a deer which is a 12-18” across. I don’t think anyone is saying to use a light for caliber varmit bullet.

this is also why it’s going to be a long process to change minds and regulations. Colorado for one, doesn’t allow 223 for elk. If the law is changed it needs to be specific enough to say what to use as not every 223 bullet will do the job.

I’d be pretty shocked to see them change the rule if they feel they have to be that specific, other than maybe “at least x grains”. Are wardens going to carry a bullet puller and scale?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Fartrell Cluggins]

There is more information about how bullets actually damage and destroy tissue with photographic examples, than any other single resource on the internet.
I have yet to meet or talk to a single person that has read the 223 thread in its entirety, that hasn’t come back and said “my belief about how this works was completely wrong”. Every question and point you and others have brought up in this thread are discussed- with empirical evidence and legit terminal ballistics research papers, at length in that thread.

To be fair, I have read it and even reread parts of it, but I can't remember all of the details. That's what happens when threads get too big. A person cannot read it and walk away doubting the efficacy of a 223 though.

 

[Reburn]

Here's the link. https://rokslide.com/forums/threads/223-for-bear-deer-elk-and-moose.130488/post-1885909

There was no mention if there was a follow up shot or not. I'm assuming not. Below the photo is "77 TMK 168yds". I'm assuming that was what was used at 168 yds.

What is the point of how many shots it took?