What caused the Rokslide shift to smallest caliber and cartridges?

[roosiebull]

I’d take kill pics with a giant grain of bias as they inherently come from animals that were :


1. Hit.

2. Hit in a vital spot.

3. The bullet performed.

4. The hunter recovered the animal.


That sample is going to exclude hunters or bullets that failed in any of those.

Is that said for all cartridges or are you saying it’s more so with smaller cartridges? I would expect most folks here to be honest about things like that, or what’s the point?

I guess you can hold onto whatever you want to convince yourself that your feelings>mass data, but why would anyone lie about that?

Why would anyone want someone else to shoot the same cartridge as them? Some narcissistic validation or something?

People are simply finding out that smaller cartridges with the right projectile is highly effective, and easier/more enjoyable to shoot, why is that so hard for some to comprehend, even with a bunch of empirical data.

Nobody is saying bigger cartridges don’t work, but I also think most jacked up pickups are unnecessary for the people driving them, go as big as you please, nobody cares, but it seems like many get offended when they show proof that smaller cartridges kill just as dead.

if I have an experience that makes me think whatever rifle I’m using isn’t enough, I will go a different route, but I have never witnessed that with any animal or cartridge

I seriously don’t think there is a bunch of bad experiences with small cartridges covered up for the sake of promoting smaller cartridges… I would guess (and bet money) that the opposite is more true, but we’ll never know and is pointless to discuss things like that because of it.

But honestly, why would people leave out the bad experiences? What would the motivation be?

 

[Mike Islander]

How do you prove a negative?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Easy. Reform your statement into an assertion. Then provide evidence for your assertion.

 

[roosiebull]

The “misses” are the ones that bother me. Not really the topic though, because it’s not really cartridge specific, maybe bullet specific if anything. It’s always bothered me when it’s always great shot placement, except occasionally it’s a clean miss. No one on the internet ever seems to gut shoot anything (or anything else that doesn’t lend to an easy to follow blood trail). If it doesn’t die, it’s either a clean miss, or a bullet failure, or a cartridge that was too small or too big. No one ever misses by a little. I’ve honestly only casually scrolled the various threads so maybe I’ve missed them, but I suspect those events are very underrepresented on social media.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I just check if there’s blood on the bullet after a miss, then there’s no question

 

[Mike D Texas]

Mike, from your posts you have some different requirements, and while I love little calibers I would shoot my “big” 7mm in your situations.

Two things come of this. One is rule that the .223 works and is easier to shoot. Not everyone believes it.

The other is the exception. Not every situation calls for a .223 and not every shooter is incompetent with a big caliber.

If you fall into the exception, you will always end up arguing it against the rule. Many people believe they are the “exception” but really aren’t.

Either way, there will be disagreements. I have mine with the smaller is better extreme. I just don’t argue that nuance without understanding what is happening.

Agree. Each should hunt how they see fit legally and use whatever weapon they are comfortable with. I’m not anti small caliber, I already said my primary rifles are smaller calibers/cartridges.

I also just realized my post that got everyone riled up is blended into this thread when it should have been in the riflescope testing thread.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[ElPollo]

How do you prove a negative?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Weight of the evidence. Evidence is data. You might not like what Form is saying, but he presented data and his opinions based on that data. Others have gone out and tested those things themselves and presented their results. If you disagree, go try what they are suggesting, collect data, evaluate the results and present them.

 

[ElPollo]

I’d take kill pics with a giant grain of bias as they inherently come from animals that were :


1. Hit.

2. Hit in a vital spot.

3. The bullet performed.

4. The hunter recovered the animal.


That sample is going to exclude hunters or bullets that failed in any of those.

So let’s evaluate that. The 223 thread currently has 5,431 replies. There are hundreds of responses in that thread that meet all four conditions you present above for deer, elk, and bears. Conditions 1 and 2 are pretty unlikely to be violated given that we are talking about a match bullet in a caliber that has less recoil and is more likely to be shot accurately than larger calibers. Condition 3 and 4 are what is being evaluated, and condition 4 is unlikely if condition 3 isn’t met. So it’s ultimately a binary result, success or failure. What is the probability that given a sample of hundreds of positive results, that an equal or greater number of people experience and lie about or fail to report negative results? If you really think all those people are lying, why not try it and report your results?

 

[Anschutz]

I’ve taken AR in a couple calibers (.223 Rem, 6.8 SPC) into the woods. They are without peer when you get into a sounder - they’re also great when you need to make follow-ups on running game. I ran mine with an Accupoint, but a RDS would work just as well. In the woods, especially, magnification isnt required and can be more hindrance than it’s worth.

I have a dot on my 375 Win mounted in place of the rear sight. I haven't shot it yet, but it's pretty slick. A lever is second to only a semi in follow-ups, I find them easier to hand carry through the woods, and I like the nostalgia of them. I started reading the .223 thread around the time it started. I was looking at using the 75gr AMAX for a new state I lived in for 1 season. I was convinced and then learned the state didn't allow less than .23 (why not just say .243). I found a good deal on a .270 M70 before moving to Alaska and haven't looked back. I wasn't specifically looking for a .270, but like the cartridge.

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

 

[QuackAttack]

So let’s evaluate that. The 223 thread currently has 5,431 replies. There are hundreds of responses in that thread that meet all four conditions you present above for deer, elk, and bears. Conditions 1 and 2 are pretty unlikely to be violated given that we are talking about a match bullet in a caliber that has less recoil and is more likely to be shot accurately than larger calibers. Condition 3 and 4 are what is being evaluated, and condition 4 is unlikely if condition 3 isn’t met. So it’s ultimately a binary result, success or failure. What is the probability that given a sample of hundreds of positive results, that an equal or greater number of people experience and lie about or fail to report negative results? If you really think all those people are lying, why not try it and report your results?

I deal with terminal ballistics for a living, both on the performance and countermeasure ends.

A number of anecdotal experience is not a scientifically valid test, nor has a quantifiable performance criteria been established to test against?

How many inches of bone blind performance is acceptable?

How many inches of penetration in calibrated medium?

Retained weight?

Velocity window for optimal performance and thresholds for failure?

External ballistic goals…aerodynamics, internal ballistics-sensitivity to distance off the lands, etc?


The thing is this- A small, but vocal, group seems to think that any of this is new information. It’s not. You can read books from Ruark to Boddington with everyone in between and get thousands of anecdotes on bullet performance, both good and bad. Weatherby wrote and promoted a very similar idea- velocity + fragmentation = shock/death. It worked very well…but not all that consistently on difficult targets.

It’s not that you are wrong…a 223 is lethal on many animals under optimal conditions. The problem is that a lot of field shooting involves sub optimal conditions. That doesn’t mean the 223 is wrong…just that it has performance limitations.

There is a long history, with literally millions of rounds fired, that created modern bullets and their respective performance objectives. If you want to research, go study on what events lead to the Nosler Partition…The Bear Claw…The X bullet…The now defunct Bitterroot Bullet Company who pioneered bonding technology. There is a “why” to those items. That why has not changed.

If you truly want to dig into 223 projectiles, you might be able to google some of the publications that Crane released during the Greatest War on Terror. They did a ton of testing on 855, MK 318/ SOST, Brown Tip (a 70 gr X bullet), and 855 A1. They usually contrasted 77gt SMKs in most tests as it’s the standard projectile in MK 262. You can see all of these in gel if you dig around.

Here’s some dated, but good, baseline. https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2008/Intl/Roberts.pdf

 

[Formidilosus]

I deal with terminal ballistics for a living, both on the performance and countermeasure ends.

A number of anecdotal experience is not a scientifically valid test, nor has a quantifiable performance criteria been established to test against?

What are you taking about? No one is talking about an agency test for ammunition procurement.
The question here is “does x bullet at y impact velocities kill deer, elk, bear, moose consistently?”

What number does it take to stop being “anecdotal”, and start being “viable” to make logical, predictive assumptions on?

How many inches of bone blind performance is acceptable?

Again, what are you talking about? By that I mean- how does what you are asking relate to the subject? Are you asking what should be the required minimum penetration depth after a bone barrier be NA game animals? Or, what is the penetration depth of the 77gr TMK after penetrating a bone?

How many inches of penetration in calibrated medium?

Again- what are you asking? The calibrated ballistic gel performance of the of the 77gr TMK to FBI Protocol is known.

Retained weight?

Tell me how retained weight in a rifle projectile determines wound channel? Remember- you are already measuring the penetration depth.

Velocity window for optimal performance and thresholds for failure?

Again- what are you asking? There are 30 test shots in the FBI Protocol per standard. Sometimes at distance. Are you asking for what it does in that, or what it does in reality?

Because reality is represented a lot more than 30 times in the 223 thread.

External ballistic goals…aerodynamics, internal ballistics-sensitivity to distance off the lands, etc?

Again- what are you asking?

The thing is this- A small, but vocal, group seems to think that any of this is new information. It’s not.

Who thinks that? Please quote and link the “small, but vocal minority” that thinks “any of this is new information”? And, if they did- there are most of the relevant terminal ballistic papers linked in the 223 thread. In any case, what does that have to do with anything?

You can read books from Ruark to Boddington with everyone in between and get thousands of anecdotes on bullet performance, both good and bad. Weatherby wrote and promoted a very similar idea- velocity + fragmentation = shock/death. It worked very well…but not all that consistently on difficult targets.

Rural and Boddington wrote about heavy for caliber, tipped match bullets? Or heavy for caliber, non bonded tipped bullets at all?

What does “consistently” mean to you? 95%? 90%? What exactly does that mean?

And- what is a “difficult” target?

It’s not that you are wrong…a 223 is lethal on many animals under optimal conditions. The problem is that a lot of field shooting involves sub optimal conditions. That doesn’t mean the 223 is wrong…just that it has performance limitations.

Using the main bullet that is the subject of the massive thread- what are “sub optimal conditions”, and what are its “performance limitations” in those conditions? Please be specific based on your experience on deer, bear, elk, and moose with the 77gr TMK from 223’s/5.56mm.

There is a long history, with literally millions of rounds fired, that created modern bullets and their respective performance objectives. If you want to research, go study on what events lead to the Nosler Partition…The Bear Claw…The X bullet…The now defunct Bitterroot Bullet Company who pioneered bonding technology. There is a “why” to those items. That why has not changed.

Why where they created, and does whatever the issue that caused them to be created, plaque the 77gr TMK? Can you be specific on those issues- animals, shot placement, etc.

If you truly want to dig into 223 projectiles, you might be able to google some of the publications that Crane released during the Greatest War on Terror. They did a ton of testing on 855, MK 318/ SOST, Brown Tip (a 70 gr X bullet), and 855 A1. They usually contrasted 77gt SMKs in most tests as it’s the standard projectile in MK 262. You can see all of these in gel if you dig around.

Here’s some dated, but good, baseline. https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2008/Intl/Roberts.pdf

After the largest Joint wound ballistics project, what was the projectile that was selected, and what are its characteristics in tissue (gel)?

 

[Marbles]

I deal with terminal ballistics for a living, both on the performance and countermeasure ends.

A number of anecdotal experience is not a scientifically valid test, nor has a quantifiable performance criteria been established to test against?

How many inches of bone blind performance is acceptable?

How many inches of penetration in calibrated medium?

Retained weight?

Velocity window for optimal performance and thresholds for failure?

External ballistic goals…aerodynamics, internal ballistics-sensitivity to distance off the lands, etc?


The thing is this- A small, but vocal, group seems to think that any of this is new information. It’s not. You can read books from Ruark to Boddington with everyone in between and get thousands of anecdotes on bullet performance, both good and bad. Weatherby wrote and promoted a very similar idea- velocity + fragmentation = shock/death. It worked very well…but not all that consistently on difficult targets.

It’s not that you are wrong…a 223 is lethal on many animals under optimal conditions. The problem is that a lot of field shooting involves sub optimal conditions. That doesn’t mean the 223 is wrong…just that it has performance limitations.

There is a long history, with literally millions of rounds fired, that created modern bullets and their respective performance objectives. If you want to research, go study on what events lead to the Nosler Partition…The Bear Claw…The X bullet…The now defunct Bitterroot Bullet Company who pioneered bonding technology. There is a “why” to those items. That why has not changed.

If you truly want to dig into 223 projectiles, you might be able to google some of the publications that Crane released during the Greatest War on Terror. They did a ton of testing on 855, MK 318/ SOST, Brown Tip (a 70 gr X bullet), and 855 A1. They usually contrasted 77gt SMKs in most tests as it’s the standard projectile in MK 262. You can see all of these in gel if you dig around.

Here’s some dated, but good, baseline. https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2008/Intl/Roberts.pdf

As you deal with it professionally, and therefore have a better understanding of how to find data:

How many inches of "bone blind" penetration does a 77 gr TMK give at impact velocities between 2,000 to 2,500 fps?

How many inches in calibrated medium? How much penetration after passing through glass? Size of permanent cavity?

What performance limitations are you referring to, based on data? This is your profession, you should be able to answer much easier than I can, so I will take a failure to provide date as evidence that it is not present.

To be clear, I am not asking about SMKs, FMJs, green tips, or other ammunition selected in part to comply with the Hague Convention. Speaking of that however, as this is again, your profession and you are likely intimately familiar with the details, how does a 0.223 77 gr TMK compare to a 0.308 143 gr FMJ? What shot would be acceptable with a well designed 0.308 bullet that is not acceptable with a well designed 0.223 bullet provided both are on target with adequate velocity to upset?

Your link clearly discusses how bullet design, not headstamp or diameter, matters. It even states that new ammunition is needed for the 7.62x51 as current loadings produce unacceptable results. Again, bullet design maters more than bullet diameter.

 

[LJT88]

Can we get some specific examples of cartridge and bullet combos people are using that are included in this “going light” trend.

I’m aware of the 223 thread. That seems to be primarily around the 77 smk and tmk bullets.

What are the other common “light” combos people are using?

Thank you

 

[Castle Rock]

Can we get some specific examples of cartridge and bullet combos people are using that are included in this “going light” trend.

I’m aware of the 223 thread. That seems to be primarily around the 77 smk and tmk bullets.

What are the other common “light” combos people are using?

Thank you

For the 223 you can add 75, 80, 88 ELDM
Similar bullets in the 22/250 - 22 Creedmoor
243 - 6 mm Creedmoor 95 BT, Berger, TMK, 105 -108 ELDM, Berger are all very effective and pleasant to use

 

[Point Man]

Wow! 651 posts. My head hursts. All you need is a 30-06 or a 308 and it will do it all. Take up handloading and they will even do more.

 

[Castle Rock]

Quack, Quack
This is the time to show us the light, give us the real deal

 

[ElPollo]

I deal with terminal ballistics for a living, both on the performance and countermeasure ends.

If you do this for a living, you have the skills to actually add new data and rigor to the conversation.

 

[QuackAttack]

What are you taking about? No one is talking about an agency test for ammunition procurement.
The question here is “does x bullet at y impact velocities kill deer, elk, bear, moose consistently?”

What number does it take to stop being “anecdotal”, and start being “viable” to make logical, predictive assumptions on?




Again, what are you talking about? By that I mean- how does what you are asking relate to the subject? Are you asking what should be the required minimum penetration depth after a bone barrier be NA game animals? Or, what is the penetration depth of the 77gr TMK after penetrating a bone?






Again- what are you asking? The calibrated ballistic gel performance of the of the 77gr TMK to FBI Protocol is known.






Tell me how retained weight in a rifle projectile determines wound channel? Remember- you are already measuring the penetration depth.




Again- what are you asking? There are 30 test shots in the FBI Protocol per standard. Sometimes at distance. Are you asking for what it does in that, or what it does in reality?

Because reality is represented a lot more than 30 times in the 223 thread.





Again- what are you asking?





Who thinks that? Please quote and link the “small, but vocal minority” that thinks “any of this is new information”? And, if they did- there are most of the relevant terminal ballistic papers linked in the 223 thread. In any case, what does that have to do with anything?




Rural and Boddington wrote about heavy for caliber, tipped match bullets? Or heavy for caliber, non bonded tipped bullets at all?

What does “consistently” mean to you? 95%? 90%? What exactly does that mean?

And- what is a “difficult” target?




Using the main bullet that is the subject of the massive thread- what are “sub optimal conditions”, and what are its “performance limitations” in those conditions? Please be specific based on your experience on deer, bear, elk, and moose with the 77gr TMK from 223’s/5.56mm.






Why where they created, and does whatever the issue that caused them to be created, plaque the 77gr TMK? Can you be specific on those issues- animals, shot placement, etc.






After the largest Joint wound ballistics project, what was the projectile that was selected, and what are its characteristics in tissue (gel)?

I articulated it clearly-

Set a defined threshold for performance. The ones I listed are generally considered a baseline. If there is going to be a claim of good or bad performance, there has to be a standard that can be measured and repeated.

The SMK has a ton of data on it, in gel and on barriers. It’s not anything special…non bonded cup and core tech with an inconsistent open tip that occasionally folds over rather than opening, causing the bullet to turn in whatever direction rather than fragment. Its barrier performance is terrible and basic barriers like glass will totally alter its trajectory by breaking it apart.

Every ballistic research facility in the western world studies this. They all reach the same conclusion. For 5.56 on a large mammal, you need barrier blind, rapid but controlled expansion, rapid early upset (short neck length in the wound channel), 12-18 inches of straight line penetration, and retained weight around 80% to retain sufficient energy so that it penetrates.

In layman’s terms, those factors are what created modern 5.56 duty loads. The Brown Tip load made by Black Hills that domed Osama is a 70g X bullet with an improved velocity window. FBI T3 is a Bear Claw with a few tweaks and bonded. The Marine Corps came up with MK 318 SOST (Special Operations Science and Technology) and it’s basically a Bear Claw that has a boat tail and was made lead free via a dead soft copper core up front.

There are more, but each of those rounds came from programs that were specifically tasked to make 5.56 as lethal as possible. Every one of those groups already had MK262 5.56 on hand and found the 77grSMK to be problematic.

That said, it likely doesn’t matter on a broadside lung shot on most animals as almost any modern bullet will work.

 

[Bubbadoyle]

I think it's largely due to rangefinders (and to a lesser extent scopes that dial correctly-ish).

Before precise range measurement, the limiting factor on most guys' range was guessing too close or too far and missing high or low. So the magnums and super magnums (weatherby philosophy) running light-ish for caliber bullets like 165 .30 cal, 140 7mm, etc were the way to minimize that error by creating the flattest possible trajectory.

As muzzle velocity approaches speed of light, very tough bullet construction is needed to help stuff hold together, especially on very close shots. Especially especially since we are talking about light for caliber bullets. Very tough, small diameter, light for caliber bullets will produce wound channels that are not spectacular, especially at longer ranges as velocity decays.

Now the laser range finder enters the scene. If we can say, that target is at 460 yd and compensate fairly precisely for that distance, we don't need the flattest shooting trajectory possible anymore.

We can now do two things that we couldn't before. We can run high bc heavy for caliber bullets since muzzle velocity is no longer the primary way to extend effective range. Because we are no longer chasing speed of light muzzle velocity, we can start using softer bullets again. These heavy for caliber, high BC, soft "match" bullets deliver devastating terminal performance at moderate velocity, even in smaller diameter projectiles since they upset so violently. They retain that velocity very well at distance even if they are not launched at blistering speeds due to their aerodynamic efficiency.

Fact is, there was to some extent valid reasoning for big cartridges pushing tough bullets very fast. The problem is the extent to which people don't think about the "why" for conventional wisdom and whether it still applies.

I completely agree with everything you said. It still doesn’t mean the fast and flat cartridges are not a good choice. I’d argue they still are a good choice as the vast majority of shooters will not put in the time and effort required to fully utilize the high bc bullets and cartridges that fire them. The fact we have options on both ends of the spectrum is great though. You can now get into a factory firearm that is capable of light and fast or heavy high bc bullets.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[mt100gr.]

I articulated it clearly-

Set a defined threshold for performance. The ones I listed are generally considered a baseline. If there is going to be a claim of good or bad performance, there has to be a standard that can be measured and repeated.

The SMK has a ton of data on it, in gel and on barriers. It’s not anything special…non bonded cup and core tech with an inconsistent open tip that occasionally folds over rather than opening, causing the bullet to turn in whatever direction rather than fragment. Its barrier performance is terrible and basic barriers like glass will totally alter its trajectory by breaking it apart.

Every ballistic research facility in the western world studies this. They all reach the same conclusion. For 5.56 on a large mammal, you need barrier blind, rapid but controlled expansion, rapid early upset (short neck length in the wound channel), 12-18 inches of straight line penetration, and retained weight around 80% to retain sufficient energy so that it penetrates.

In layman’s terms, those factors are what created modern 5.56 duty loads. The Brown Tip load made by Black Hills that domed Osama is a 70g X bullet with an improved velocity window. FBI T3 is a Bear Claw with a few tweaks and bonded. The Marine Corps came up with MK 318 SOST (Special Operations Science and Technology) and it’s basically a Bear Claw that has a boat tail and was made lead free via a dead soft copper core up front.

There are more, but each of those rounds came from programs that were specifically tasked to make 5.56 as lethal as possible. Every one of those groups already had MK262 5.56 on hand and found the 77grSMK to be problematic.

That said, it likely doesn’t matter on a broadside lung shot on most animals as almost any modern bullet will work.

Why do you keep mentioning the SMK?

 

[Drenalin]

I don't think the SMK is in question, as it isn't being touted as a good hunting/killing bullet. The smaller caliber thing is about bullets specifically - TMKs in particular, ELD-Ms, and some Fusions/Gold Dots.

 

[BjornF16]

Why do you keep mentioning the SMK?

Because he doesn't have any data on the TMK...and Sierra makes both.

Because of his post, I'm now worried about all the game that are hiding behind brick walls, or auto glass, or other ungulate made barriers