What caused the Rokslide shift to smallest caliber and cartridges?

[mt100gr.]

How many times can we keep circling???

 

[wyosam]

How many times can we keep circling???

The standard vs magnum cartridge battles have been going on… well sense whenever the first magnum became available. I’d expect this one to calm down once we start arguing over which of the first two Star Trek like hand weapons to come available is more effective on cous deer and water buffalo.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bluefish]

How many times can we keep circling???

Enough to make it to 50 pages?

 

[ORJoe]

3) Nobody is going to come on this forum and say I shot a [game animal] with an inadequate cartridge and it ran off wounded to die a slow, agonizing death. Every post on the various caliber threads will be a success story.

I've seen this argument or something like it many times and don't buy it.
-People post stories about shooting animals with "normal, adequate" calibers and having getaways. Why would people who shoot one caliber report failures but not people who fail with other calibers?
-If someone tries the 223 meme and has a failure caused by being a 223, this person would become not a 223 fan, and would want to steer others away from it
-The guy with the lion's share of data (Form) reports problems with big rifles and less or no problems with the little rifles. What would be his motivation to hide little rifle problems while being open about big rifle problems?

 

[Thegman]

Not trolling, but I think there is a lot of knee jerk group think going on.

1) Just like there was big magnum mania where everyone thought they needed a 300 WM to shoot a deer at 75 yard, I suspect the opposite has now occured. People are now striving to use as little a cartridge as they can get away with even if it is a bad idea.

2) While it is true that just about every 223 caliber cartridge has been used to kill a deer, an Elk, or a Grizzly, it doesn't mean they are the best choice for medium to large game.

3) Nobody is going to come on this forum and say I shot a [game animal] with an inadequate cartridge and it ran off wounded to die a slow, agonizing death. Every post on the various caliber threads will be a success story.

4) IMO - the right answer is probably somewhere in the 6mm Range for deer and the 277-284 range for large game. I love my 6ARC and 6.5CM, but they are almost certainly sub optimal for Elk+sized game. No matter how well I shoot them, they are giving up mass and/or speed to 277-284s

5) if you give up power (say a 6.5Cm), you have to give up distance vs a more powerful cartridge.

Bottom Line:
1) if someone is so recoil sensitive they cannot fire a 243 accurately, a 223 isn't the solution for their deer hunting escapades. I someone can fire a 243 accurately, using a 223 to prove a point is poor decision making.
2) if someone is so recoil sensitive that they cannot fire a non magnum 270/284 accurately, they need to get closer to the target to guarantee a clean shot.

Actually, the bottom line is that you apparently haven't actually tried it, you're speculating. Only way to know if you're still questioning wounded/lost animals is to try it yourself. Until then, as I said, you're speculating on what "should" be "best".

 

[jimh406]

I believe there are definitely people trying to shoot magnums that shouldn't be. That's why we've heard the stories about guides who'd rather you use something you can shoot effectively.

But, I believe there are probably plenty of people doing the same thing with every option out there including low kicking rounds. There isn't "one" answer to this problem.

There is always a tradeoff.

 

[fwafwow]

Not trolling, but I think there is a lot of knee jerk group think going on.

1) Just like there was big magnum mania where everyone thought they needed a 300 WM to shoot a deer at 75 yard, I suspect the opposite has now occured. People are now striving to use as little a cartridge as they can get away with even if it is a bad idea.

I know you are only expressing your opinion, but the last sentence implies (or I’m inferring) that you think doing so is a bad idea. If so, why - and does that view turn only on the cartridge, or does the bullet matter in the analysis?

2) While it is true that just about every 223 caliber cartridge has been used to kill a deer, an Elk, or a Grizzly, it doesn't mean they are the best choice for medium to large game.

Agreed as stated. Killing an animal with one method doesn’t mean it’s ideal even for that type of animal, much less others. This is similar to the point others have made that a 22 LR has killed lots of game, and even big game, but no one is arguing it’s sufficient in the relevant threads. In contrast, the relevant threads are saying why the particular suggestions can be the best choices - with limitations (distance, wind and state laws, as examples).

3) Nobody is going to come on this forum and say I shot a [game animal] with an inadequate cartridge and it ran off wounded to die a slow, agonizing death. Every post on the various caliber threads will be a success story.

Maybe. But someone who doesn’t believe or want to take a shot will not post anything either way. And there have been people, even recently, who have shot 77gr TMKs and expressed dissatisfaction, I believe due to a lack of a pass through.

4) IMO - the right answer is probably somewhere in the 6mm Range for deer and the 277-284 range for large game. I love my 6ARC and 6.5CM, but they are almost certainly sub optimal for Elk+sized game. No matter how well I shoot them, they are giving up mass and/or speed to 277-284s

Lots of opinion here - which is of course fine. But if you have read the threads, do you have an opinion on how a 7mm with one type of bullet may create less damage than a 6mm (or smaller) with a different type?

5) if you give up power (say a 6.5Cm), you have to give up distance vs a more powerful cartridge.

I guess there may be some truth here if “more powerful” is the same as faster and why some are shooting the 6UM at distances beyond other choices.

Bottom Line:
1) if someone is so recoil sensitive they cannot fire a 243 accurately, a 223 isn't the solution for their deer hunting escapades. I someone can fire a 243 accurately, using a 223 to prove a point is poor decision making.
2) if someone is so recoil sensitive that they cannot fire a non magnum 270/284 accurately, they need to get closer to the target to guarantee a clean shot.

Not sure how to reply to the above without sounding overly argumentative (I’m trying to be less so) or repeating what has been said many times before when people have commented upon one’s “inability” to handle recoil.

 

[Unckebob]

I've seen this argument or something like it many times and don't buy it.
-People post stories about shooting animals with "normal, adequate" calibers and having getaways. Why would people who shoot one caliber report failures but not people who fail with other calibers?
-If someone tries the 223 meme and has a failure caused by being a 223, this person would become not a 223 fan, and would want to steer others away from it
-The guy with the lion's share of data (Form) reports problems with big rifles and less or no problems with the little rifles. What would be his motivation to hide little rifle problems while being open about big rifle problems?

My post was targeted at people who try to go to the extremes (1) trying to use too much gun (cannot shoot accurately due to recoil) or (3) trying to use the least powerful cartridge they can to do a job.

I am suggesting option (2), make sure to use at least enough cartridge to get the job done 100% of the time, is where people should land. For most medium game, that will be somethung around a 243 to 308.

BTW- I don't own any "magnum" rifles (unless you count my new 6.5 PRC) because I hate unnecessary recoil and know they are not needed for what I shoot at.

 

[id_jon]

A good portion of people who post about their 223 success are open about being skeptics previously, so if there were as many animals lost to wounding as people speculate about, I am sure that we would have more stories from people who tried it out seeking to prove that it wouldn't work and found that they were correct.

 

[Unckebob]

I know you are only expressing your opinion, but the last sentence implies (or I’m inferring) that you think doing so is a bad idea. If so, why - and does that view turn only on the cartridge, or does the bullet matter in the analysis?

I do agree that shooting an animal with the intention of using the least powerful cartridge possible is a bad idea.

1) I get that not everyone cannot buy the "perfect" rifle for everything they may want to hunt. If someone only has a 223 available and can shoot it well, I am not going to get bent out of shape over it. Sometimes, you have to shoot what you have.

2) My critique was really pointed at a few people who seem to think everyone should sell their 243, 6.5CM, 308s in favor of a 223 because smaller is always a better. They are not really different from the people who say a 300PRC is always better than a 270.

I don't know enough about the 6UM to have much say about it.

 

[mt100gr.]

My post was targeted at people who try to go to the extremes (1) trying to use too much gun (cannot shoot accurately due to recoil) or (3) trying to use the least powerful cartridge they can to do a job.

I am suggesting option (2), make sure to use at least enough cartridge to get the job done 100% of the time, is where people should land. For most medium game, that will be somethung around a 243 to 308.

BTW- I don't own any "magnum" rifles (unless you count my new 6.5 PRC) because I hate unnecessary recoil and know they are not needed for what I shoot at.

One of these 2 holes is from a larger cartridge than you consider minimally appropriate. One is from a .223 with a 77TMK.

One buck ran about 65 yards. The other took about 6.5 steps.

Both were 100% effective. And since I have owned them, both rifles have been 100% "enough", 100% of the time. In fact, to date one rifle has 1 shot kills at 75yds, 120yds and 225yds. The other has 1 shot kills at 285yds, 225 yds, 175yds, 130 yds and 330yds. (Small sample size, yes.)

Can you tell me which is which from the pictures?

Neutering a larger cartridge vs optimizing a smaller one is the bottom line of this discussion....CENTERFIRE RIFLES ARE MORE ALIKE THAN DIFFERENT. ITS THE BULLET THAT MATTERS. And who doesn't want to shoot the rifle they hunt with more and more comfortably?

 

[slamdmini]

im not gonna read all 44 pages, but to answer the op, i shoot "smaller" caliber rifles because i am recoil sensitive. i know, im probably a big pussy to some guys, but i will flinch like crazy if i shoot a "big" cartridge. i shoot a 243 at deer sized game and 308 at anything bigger. my 308 with a muzzle brake is about all the recoil i can manage

 

[Sled]

I don’t think that’s what he said. I think he said that toxic masculinity (a term often used to describe the peer pressure men put on other men, including kids, to do stupid shit) is less accepted than it has been in the past. Men can cry now, we can say a puppy is cute, and we can shoot a smaller cartridge based on objective evidence now instead of the pervasive belief from the past that equated head stamps with the size of your dong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He clearly meant the drop in fertility and lower testosterone levels have left us with one androgenous population that can't even agree on a damn pronoun. Is that why I shoot a creedmoor?

 

[fwafwow]

I do agree that shooting an animal with the intention of using the least powerful cartridge possible is a bad idea.

Maybe splitting hairs to some, but I’m intentionally using the least powerful cartridge that is sufficient. For my hunting that will probably be 223 unless and until I hunt somewhere larger is required by law (more likely) or I get to be proficient enough to want to shoot at longer distances.

1) I get that not everyone cannot buy the "perfect" rifle for everything they may want to hunt. If someone only has a 223 available and can shoot it well, I am not going to get bent out of shape over it. Sometimes, you have to shoot what you have

As of now and subject to the above, 223 with 77gr TMKs or 73 ELD-Ms seems to be the perfect rifle for me.

2) My critique was really pointed at a few people who seem to think everyone should sell their 243, 6.5CM, 308s in favor of a 223 because smaller is always a better. They are not really different from the people who say a 300PRC is always better than a 270.

I haven’t seen much or any of such strong suggestions, but perhaps I’ve been overlooking them.

I don't know enough about the 6UM to have much say about it.

 

[PNWGATOR]

How many times can we keep circling???

Depends on the fudds.

 

[PNWGATOR]

My post was targeted at people who try to go to the extremes (1) trying to use too much gun (cannot shoot accurately due to recoil) or (3) trying to use the least powerful cartridge they can to do a job.

I am suggesting option (2), make sure to use at least enough cartridge to get the job done 100% of the time, is where people should land. For most medium game, that will be somethung around a 243 to 308.

BTW- I don't own any "magnum" rifles (unless you count my new 6.5 PRC) because I hate unnecessary recoil and know they are not needed for what I shoot at.

Can you tell us all the difference of the wound channel from a .243, 308 vs the .223 with the 77 TMK?

What bullets are you referencing in each and at what impact velocities?

I‘m here to learn. Have an open mind.

Please tell us and post pictures of your experience with the least powerful cartridge ie .223 stuffed with a 77 TMK?

 

[DJL2]

Did we have someone explain how bow hunting is totally good to go, but using a .224/.243 with a VASTLY more violent wound is marginal at best? That's my favorite intellectual cheetah flip in the whole discussion. ;-)

Full disclosure: I'm not even a .223 Rem hunter (save a couple times on hogs). I'm completely fine with people selecting any of numerous potential hunting options that are out there for what they do.

 

[Anschutz]

Did we have someone explain how bow hunting is totally good to go, but using a .224/.243 with a VASTLY more violent wound is marginal at best? That's my favorite intellectual cheetah flip in the whole discussion. ;-)

Full disclosure: I'm not even a .223 Rem hunter (save a couple times on hogs). I'm completely fine with people selecting any of numerous potential hunting options that are out there for what they do.

The mechanism of injury between a broadhead and a bullet is different. Broadheads cut a wound, and the damage to tissue is limited to what the blades cut. Bullets to very little cutting comparatively, yet the damage to tissue extends far beyond what the bullet touches.

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

 

[fwafwow]

I think his point was that no one (or at least very few) complain archers are under equipped for elk (as an example) but many seem to think a 223 isn’t “enough”. Those views don’t square.

 

[jimh406]

I have to wonder about people who are taking pictures of many wound channels and entrance/exit of many animals. It's almost like they are surprised or have something to prove. I bet you are in the minority if you've ever taken a picture of an entrance and exit wound.

Even more strange is asking someone to try to prove what's better by similar pictures. The truth is we aren't the animal in the picture and don't know what is better from the animal perspective. There is really no way to know, but video up close would be better if not even more graphic.