What caused the Rokslide shift to smallest caliber and cartridges?

[JackButler]

No, by your own statements he has no evidence of what works below 30-06.

No, before the policy they witnessed people using smaller caliber rifles and did not like the results. Hence the policy.

 

[JackButler]

I think you should explain it to him.......

I’ll take the word of someone who actually made his living hunting big bears over a random person on the internet who may have never even been in the vicinity of a brown bear.

 

[fwafwow]

No, before the policy they witnessed people using smaller caliber rifles and did not like the results. Hence the policy.

Serious question - do you know whether they witnessed smaller caliber heavy for caliber bullets that have been discussed at length on RS?

 

[Formidilosus]

I’ll take the word of someone who actually made his living hunting big bears over a random person on the internet who may have never even been in the vicinity of a brown bear.

That’s an appeal to authority fallacy, not a discussion of objective reality.

What about the wound channel from a 77gr TMK, 75-88gr ELD-M, 75gr Speer Gold Dot, etc. is insufficient for rapidly incapacitating a bear?

 

[JackButler]

What objective large sample size evidence is there that those are good brown bear rounds?
I know a person can say anything if it’s on the internet and they don’t t have to follow though. But if you booked a $30k hunt for coastal brown bear and have a good chance of a 10 footer, would you honestly take a 223? That is of course of any outfitter would even allow it.

That’s an appeal to authority fallacy, not a discussion of objective reality.

What about the wound channel from a 77gr TMK, 75-88gr ELD-M, 75gr Speer Gold Dot, etc. is insufficient for rapidly incapacitating a bear?

 

[mt terry d]

Re: gen Z thinking they can

That conclusion is already incorrect, and bullet technology will only continue to improve.

and Im 68. Far from Gen Z. And I hate cell phones and am embarrassed for anyone over 50 who can text with two hands and still love the idea that there’s nothing like too much horsepower. But the 223 w/77TMKs has proven itself a superior killer in mortal hands to the big boomers many times over.

 

[JGRaider]

I’ll take the word of someone who actually made his living hunting big bears over a random person on the internet who may have never even been in the vicinity of a brown bear.

I agree with you 100%. It takes someone with an ego the size of Alaska to argue otherwise.

 

[RockChukkar]

Smaller calibers for hunting big game is not a new concept. P.O. Ackley stated in his writings that the .220 swift was the greatest killer of North American game animals that he had ever seen. Hydrostatic shock is a thing. He even tested the swift, 30-06 (black tip) and a few others against steel armor/plate. The swift beat them all. Wish I knew what bullet he was using all those years ago.

https://youtu.be/ESzAnKEUVRA?si=DwcaFnGKnLez3gHr

 

[RockChukkar]

Just to show that this debate has been going on a long time, with about the same arguments as now (Ackley's book was copyrighted in 1962, but describes a lot of shooting from the 1930s on). Excerpted (without permission) from: "Handbook for shooters and reloaders" Vol. 1 by P.O. Ackley "Killing power" Mr. Lester Womack, now a ranger at the Grand Canyon National Park, is an experienced hunter who has had wide hunting experience both as a big game hunter and in control work. He has used the .220 Swift almost since its introduction and he has had wide experience hunting in the company of hunters using much larger cartridges. He has had greater opportunity to observe the effectiveness of the Swift in comparison with other cartridges than almost anyone. Mr. Womack has the following to say about the .220 Swift: That great ivory hunter, the late W.D.M. Bell, killed more than eight hundred head of the biggest bull elephants in Africa. For this task did he use the .416 Rigby? The .450/500? The .600 Nitro Express? Certainly not. He used the 7mm Mauser. In those days, as now, in Africa as in America, the argument of the big bore versus the small bore raged. Mr. Bell found that the 7mm rifle killed elephants dead -- and nothing will kill deader than dead. He was an exceptionally cool shot and had an excellent knowledge of the anatomy of the elephant. Even the .600 Nitro will not kill elephants with poorly placed shots and there are many recorded instances where elephants simply vanished -- carrying with them a number of these massive 900 grain slugs! Now, in this land of ours, there are hunters who will tell you with a straight face that the 7mm Mauser cartridge is barely adequate for deer and should never be used on the elk or brown bear. The fine .270 Winchester, some will tell you, is a passable deer cartridge and that is about all. For any of the smaller calibers they have nothing but contempt. Just why these cannon worshipers should hold such animosity toward the small bore rifle is not too obvious. Perhaps it is just a hang-over from the big lead bullets of black powder days. Perhaps it is just because, in this country anyway, most people like everything big. Big houses, big autos, big hats, the bigger the better. Each year these big bore enthusiasts take to the field with their particular rifle, be it .35 Newton, .375 H&H, or .458 Winchester, and announce to the world that they have the only suitable rifle for taking the thin skinned game of America. They go to great lengths to extoll the virtues of the big, heavy, bullet. To the heavy bullet clan's way of thinking, the big bores kill like the wrath of God, and the little ones are mere toys. On the other hand, the small bore rifleman goes his way, gets his share of game, and it never enters his head to deride the big bore. If anything, he feels a bit sorry for the chap who must shoot a rifle with a punishing recoil and fearsome muzzle blast. [Paragraph on nutty caliber restrictions from Arizona Game and Fish deleted] From these "Weapons Regulations," it is more than noticeable that the Game and Fish Department has discriminated against the very small bore cartridges, i.e.: the .220 Swift, .22- 250, and .228 Ackley Magnum. Do they have valid reasons? Has the Department conducted exhaustive research and found that these cartridges do not produce clean kills? Has the department discovered some mysterious fact that the merest six thousandths of an inch will make one rifle suitable for taking big game and the other not? To the best of the author's knowledge, no game department in this country has made any effort whatsoever to conduct any serious studies on the comparative efficiency of various cartridges. For the past twenty years this writer has made an effort to find out why the small bore, ultra velocity rifle has been outlawed by the majority of the big game states. To this end I must confess utter failure. From the non-user the answers are always the same: "It's too small." "They won't penetrate." "They only wound and won't leave a blood trail," etc. [he goes on to relate his experience at shooting deer with the .220 Swift for the state of Arizona] I soon found that the Swift was the most efficient rifle I had ever used on deer. With any solid hit a deer went down and never got up. It was a very rare occasion when a second shot was required. Upon autopsy it was found that the bullet disintegrated in the body cavity. It was noted that the lung-liver area shot was extremely effective. (...) Even the "gut shot" put them down, but they didn't appear to die on their feet as with the liver shot. [more on end-to-end penetration on large mule deer with Ackley bullets (same design as Trophy Bonded) deleted] [paragraphs on one-shot kills of 600 pound feral burros at up to 600 yards deleted; hunting in company with .30-06, .30-40, 8mm Mauser] [If you can't take this, don't buy this book and read about burro shooting with .17 caliber

 

[JGRaider]

If you believe a 220 Swift is better than a 30-06 for all around big game hunting, then there's that ocean front property in AZ for sale.......

 

[The Guide]

Just to show that this debate has been going on a long time, with about the same arguments as now (Ackley's book was copyrighted in 1962, but describes a lot of shooting from the 1930s on). Excerpted (without permission) from: "Handbook for shooters and reloaders" Vol. 1 by P.O. Ackley "Killing power" Mr. Lester Womack, now a ranger at the Grand Canyon National Park, is an experienced hunter who has had wide hunting experience both as a big game hunter and in control work. He has used the .220 Swift almost since its introduction and he has had wide experience hunting in the company of hunters using much larger cartridges. He has had greater opportunity to observe the effectiveness of the Swift in comparison with other cartridges than almost anyone. Mr. Womack has the following to say about the .220 Swift: That great ivory hunter, the late W.D.M. Bell, killed more than eight hundred head of the biggest bull elephants in Africa. For this task did he use the .416 Rigby? The .450/500? The .600 Nitro Express? Certainly not. He used the 7mm Mauser. In those days, as now, in Africa as in America, the argument of the big bore versus the small bore raged. Mr. Bell found that the 7mm rifle killed elephants dead -- and nothing will kill deader than dead. He was an exceptionally cool shot and had an excellent knowledge of the anatomy of the elephant. Even the .600 Nitro will not kill elephants with poorly placed shots and there are many recorded instances where elephants simply vanished -- carrying with them a number of these massive 900 grain slugs! Now, in this land of ours, there are hunters who will tell you with a straight face that the 7mm Mauser cartridge is barely adequate for deer and should never be used on the elk or brown bear. The fine .270 Winchester, some will tell you, is a passable deer cartridge and that is about all. For any of the smaller calibers they have nothing but contempt. Just why these cannon worshipers should hold such animosity toward the small bore rifle is not too obvious. Perhaps it is just a hang-over from the big lead bullets of black powder days. Perhaps it is just because, in this country anyway, most people like everything big. Big houses, big autos, big hats, the bigger the better. Each year these big bore enthusiasts take to the field with their particular rifle, be it .35 Newton, .375 H&H, or .458 Winchester, and announce to the world that they have the only suitable rifle for taking the thin skinned game of America. They go to great lengths to extoll the virtues of the big, heavy, bullet. To the heavy bullet clan's way of thinking, the big bores kill like the wrath of God, and the little ones are mere toys. On the other hand, the small bore rifleman goes his way, gets his share of game, and it never enters his head to deride the big bore. If anything, he feels a bit sorry for the chap who must shoot a rifle with a punishing recoil and fearsome muzzle blast. [Paragraph on nutty caliber restrictions from Arizona Game and Fish deleted] From these "Weapons Regulations," it is more than noticeable that the Game and Fish Department has discriminated against the very small bore cartridges, i.e.: the .220 Swift, .22- 250, and .228 Ackley Magnum. Do they have valid reasons? Has the Department conducted exhaustive research and found that these cartridges do not produce clean kills? Has the department discovered some mysterious fact that the merest six thousandths of an inch will make one rifle suitable for taking big game and the other not? To the best of the author's knowledge, no game department in this country has made any effort whatsoever to conduct any serious studies on the comparative efficiency of various cartridges. For the past twenty years this writer has made an effort to find out why the small bore, ultra velocity rifle has been outlawed by the majority of the big game states. To this end I must confess utter failure. From the non-user the answers are always the same: "It's too small." "They won't penetrate." "They only wound and won't leave a blood trail," etc. [he goes on to relate his experience at shooting deer with the .220 Swift for the state of Arizona] I soon found that the Swift was the most efficient rifle I had ever used on deer. With any solid hit a deer went down and never got up. It was a very rare occasion when a second shot was required. Upon autopsy it was found that the bullet disintegrated in the body cavity. It was noted that the lung-liver area shot was extremely effective. (...) Even the "gut shot" put them down, but they didn't appear to die on their feet as with the liver shot. [more on end-to-end penetration on large mule deer with Ackley bullets (same design as Trophy Bonded) deleted] [paragraphs on one-shot kills of 600 pound feral burros at up to 600 yards deleted; hunting in company with .30-06, .30-40, 8mm Mauser] [If you can't take this, don't buy this book and read about burro shooting with .17 caliber

I can't even read what you wrote without going cross eyed because of the font color!

Jay

 

[RockChukkar]

I can't even read what you wrote without going cross eyed because of the font color!

Jay

It’s a link

 

[fwafwow]

It’s a link

You could put the link after the text for easier reading. Paragraphs would also help.

 

[RockChukkar]

You could put the link after the text for easier reading. Paragraphs would also help.

You’re welcome for the information. You can buy the book also. Ackley & Womack knew of these things back in the 60’s. Enjoy.

 

[The Guide]

It’s a link

You generally don't put the entire quote in the description of the url. Just a FYI.

Jay

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

If you believe a 220 Swift is better than a 30-06 for all around big game hunting, then there's that ocean front property in AZ for sale.......

I didn’t start hunting big game with 6.5mm and 6mm until 2014. I always grabbed my .308 and .30-06 because that’s what I was taught.

I went up to Alaska and witnessed the old school locals killing moose, caribou, and huge bears with .223s and .243s. The next season I left the .308 and .30-06 at home and brought my 6.5x55 and .260 and .243 out for all my hunts. The story for me has been the same ever since for reason.

I’ve personally had better overall kill results in the last 10 years of big game hunting than I did the 18 years before that.

 

[fwafwow]

You’re welcome for the information. You can buy the book also. Ackley & Womack knew of these things back in the 60’s. Enjoy.

Thanks for posting, but I too skipped over reading the entire post because of the format. If you don’t care to fix it, that’s fine. It wasn’t meant as a dig

 

[RockChukkar]

Thanks for posting, but I too skipped over reading the entire post because of the format. If you don’t care to fix it, that’s fine. It wasn’t meant as a dig

At least now you know the information is out there

 

[RockChukkar]

I didn’t start hunting big game with 6.5mm and 6mm until 2014. I always grabbed my .308 and .30-06 because that’s what I was taught.

I went up to Alaska and witnessed the old school locals killing moose, caribou, and huge bears with .223s and .243s. The next season I left the .308 and .30-06 at home and brought my 6.5x55 and .260 and .243 out for all my hunts. The story for me has been the same ever since for reason.

I’ve personally had better overall kill results in the last 10 years of big game hunting than I did the 18 years before that.

Same. I grew up listening to 300 mag this 30-06 that. I’ve now exclusively hunted with a 5.56, 22-250 & 220 swift for over two decades. I do own a 30-06 and 300 but they really only leave the safe to bang steel.

Russians in Siberia use ratted out x39 sks’s on bear..

 

[fwafwow]

At least now you know the information is out there

Thanks. But I don’t need persuading on small caliber results - with the right projectile - even if posted by someone “random” on the internet.