What caused the Rokslide shift to smallest caliber and cartridges?

[Harvey_NW]

You’re probably right - one well placed shot is a goofy way to hunt.

I was referencing hunting elk with an egotistical and borderline unethical mindset that "I'll only need to shoot it once". I don't care who you are, or what you're shooting, if you are proficient at getting shot opportunities at elk and you hunt with that mindset, you will absolutely end up with a wounded and most likely unrecovered animal.

I'm all about one well placed shot, but I've seen too many times where it looks "well placed", but didn't land exactly where it appeared, and the elk gets up and runs off when there was ample time to rack another round and shoot again. You do you.

 

[MT_Wyatt]

You, atmat, and a couple others with the perpetual redasss need to lighten up and learn how to take a light hearted, tongue in cheek post not so seriously.

Cool. Honestly, based on some other posts, actually thought you were serious, because I typically see you rallying against the discussion topic. I don't have a problem calling out people who just create fires and conflict. Glad to be wrong. But will continue the call outs.

Was not tracking tire irons caused Rokslide's apparant shift to smaller cartridges, ha.

I actually started this thread because I only caught most of these discussions on the periphery; I wanted it squarely somewhere, where "why" was defined. It was a bit silly to think there wouldn't be a lot of discourse, as evidenced by 67 pages of "discussion." I'm happy to see some avoidance to group think - but I'm also seeing a lot of people going smaller and quite literally showing some proof of effectiveness. Since you are engaged, go ahead and hit me with why you personally think there was this shift?

 

[TaperPin]

I was referencing hunting elk with an egotistical and borderline unethical mindset that "I'll only need to shoot it once". I don't care who you are, or what you're shooting, if you are proficient at getting shot opportunities at elk and you hunt with that mindset, you will absolutely end up with a wounded and most likely unrecovered animal.

I'm all about one well placed shot, but I've seen too many times where it looks "well placed", but didn't land exactly where it appeared, and the elk gets up and runs off when there was ample time to rack another round and shoot again. You do you.

It’s worked quite well for me over the decades. The one shot mindset isn’t followed by hardly anyone anymore - many here talk of walking in their shots and big capacity magazines.

If someone doesn’t now their head from ass and can’t judge when a shot should be taken, then your best advice is to fill it full of holes and have an extra clip ready to go?

 

[pilgrim7]

It’s worked quite well for me over the decades. The one shot mindset isn’t followed by hardly anyone anymore - many here talks of walking in their shots and big capacity magazines.

If someone doesn’t now their head from ass and can’t judge when a shot should be taken, then your best advice is to fill it full of holes and have an extra clip ready to go?

I certainly haven't seen anyone on the 223 thread advocating for walking in their shots or the need for more magazine capacity. I doubt that many on here aren't hoping for a one shot kill, but it's strange to not want to be ready for a fast follow up.

 

[Harvey_NW]

It’s worked quite well for me over the decades. The one shot mindset isn’t followed by hardly anyone anymore - many here talks of walking in their shots and big capacity magazines.

I firmly disagree. The topic of this thread is shifting to smaller calibers, the general idea is to take advantage of modern advancements, use a high bc bullet that's known to deliver an effective wound channel, and be able to shoot it more accurately and comfortably with less recoil to stay on target and deliver another well placed follow up shot, because animals like elk are extremely tough. I have not seen any support of "walking shots in", or advocating for "big capacity magazines".

If someone doesn’t now their head from ass and can’t judge when a shot should be taken, then your best advice is to fill it full of holes and have an extra clip ready to go?

Apparently you're immune to things like adrenaline or "buck fever", elements like unobservable wind, animal taking a step at the break of the shot, etc. The ultimate goal is a clean, ethical kill. In many situations things don't go perfect, and that takes more than 1 shot.

 

[TaperPin]

I firmly disagree. The topic of this thread is shifting to smaller calibers, the general idea is to take advantage of modern advancements, use a high bc bullet that's known to deliver an effective wound channel, and be able to shoot it more accurately and comfortably with less recoil to stay on target and deliver another well placed follow up shot, because animals like elk are extremely tough. I have not seen any support of "walking shots in", or advocating for "big capacity magazines".


Apparently you're immune to things like adrenaline or "buck fever", elements like unobservable wind, animal taking a step at the break of the shot, etc. The ultimate goal is a clean, ethical kill. In many situations things don't go perfect, and that takes more than 1 shot.

The whole idea of having a spotter, or needing to accurately spot your shot is based on the underlying assumption that the odds of a quality first shot are low. Follow up shots adjusting after the first bad shot are the very definition of walking it in.

I do agree things can get really exciting when years of hard work come down to a single animal in range, but that doesn’t change how a shooter has to know what a doable shot is under those conditions and be able to pass on a questionable shot. If under the best conditions with the most time, the first shot missed, odds of follow up shots on a moving animal are low - very low. I’ve broke the trigger on an easy 200 yard shot and it was clearly a mis over the back and the animal went back to what it was doing - there was definitely something wrong and I didn’t shoot again.

 

[TaperPin]

I certainly haven't seen anyone on the 223 thread advocating for walking in their shots or the need for more magazine capacity. I doubt that many on here aren't hoping for a one shot kill, but it's strange to not want to be ready for a fast follow up.

I have nothing against preparing for a fast follow up - but if the first shot is good I don’t feel the need to keep putting holes in it.

 

[fwafwow]

I firmly disagree. The topic of this thread is shifting to smaller calibers, the general idea is to take advantage of modern advancements, use a high bc bullet that's known to deliver an effective wound channel, and be able to shoot it more accurately and comfortably with less recoil to stay on target and deliver another well placed follow up shot, because animals like elk are extremely tough. I have not seen any support of "walking shots in", or advocating for "big capacity magazines".


Apparently you're immune to things like adrenaline or "buck fever", elements like unobservable wind, animal taking a step at the break of the shot, etc. The ultimate goal is a clean, ethical kill. In many situations things don't go perfect, and that takes more than 1 shot.

I've not seen anyone either that talks about "walking in" shots or relying on "big capacity" magazines (and certainly not "clips"). The use of a spotter or spotting shots is, imho, the concept of planning for a fallback. Relying solely on one's ability to shoot perfectly the first time seems like hubris. And a miss over the back at 200 yards could just as easily been a miss to the guts, in which case a spotter or spotting one's own shots could have come in handy.

 

[B_Reynolds_AK]

Are you bragging about a gut shot? Bullets are expensive but practice is cheap insurance.

Edit: I know you can shoot. Just busting your balls a little.

It was quartered to me at 414 yards. Placement was good, but the exit went out through the guts.

on practice & training. I’ve got about 700 rounds down range in field conditions this year.

By the way.. my post was tongue in cheek.. my “insurance” is a 6 CM shooting 112 Match Burners.

 

[The Guide]

Maybe this entire thread can be answered by this one statement...

The cause of the Rokslide shift to smallest caliber and cartridges has been brought about by bullet manufacturers building high performance bullets that allow for smaller caliber bullets to give wound channels equivalent to larger caliber bullets. These bullets allow you to use a lower recoiling rifle in a smaller cartridge to take game as effectively as hunters who use larger caliber bullet in cartridges with higher recoil. This change to smaller calibers and cartridges allows the shooter to stay in the scope longer with a clear sight picture which allows for more shots spotted by the shooter. Staying in the scope after the shot allows for the shooter to watch the animal's reaction to the shot and a faster follow up shots if needed. These smaller calibers and cartridges allow people who use them to be more efficient and effective on game when used with bullets optimized to provide wound channels equivalent to larger calibers and cartridges.

Pretty sure this fully answers the question.

Jay

 

[Harvey_NW]

Maybe this entire thread can be answered by this one statement...

The cause of the Rokslide shift to smallest caliber and cartridges has been brought about by bullet manufacturers building high performance bullets that allow for smaller caliber bullets to give wound channels equivalent to larger caliber bullets. These bullets allow you to use a lower recoiling rifle in a smaller cartridge to take game as effectively as hunters who use larger caliber bullet in cartridges with higher recoil. This change to smaller calibers and cartridges allows the shooter to stay in the scope longer with a clear sight picture which allows for more shots spotted by the shooter. Staying in the scope after the shot allows for the shooter to watch the animal's reaction to the shot and a faster follow up shots if needed. These smaller calibers and cartridges allow people who use them to be more efficient and effective on game when used with bullets optimized to provide wound channels equivalent to larger calibers and cartridges.

Pretty sure this fully answers the question.

Jay

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

Are you bragging about a gut shot? Bullets are expensive but practice is cheap insurance.

Edit: I know you can shoot. Just busting your balls a little.

You know what's interesting... When an animal isn't perfectly broadside, bullets tend to exit in this general area no matter the "caliber".

 

[pilgrim7]

Maybe this entire thread can be answered by this one statement...

The cause of the Rokslide shift to smallest caliber and cartridges has been brought about by bullet manufacturers building high performance bullets that allow for smaller caliber bullets to give wound channels equivalent to larger caliber bullets. These bullets allow you to use a lower recoiling rifle in a smaller cartridge to take game as effectively as hunters who use larger caliber bullet in cartridges with higher recoil. This change to smaller calibers and cartridges allows the shooter to stay in the scope longer with a clear sight picture which allows for more shots spotted by the shooter. Staying in the scope after the shot allows for the shooter to watch the animal's reaction to the shot and a faster follow up shots if needed. These smaller calibers and cartridges allow people who use them to be more efficient and effective on game when used with bullets optimized to provide wound channels equivalent to larger calibers and cartridges.

Pretty sure this fully answers the question.

Jay

Well put

 

[Big_wals]

If someone doesn’t now their head from ass and can’t judge when a shot should be taken, then your best advice is to fill it full of holes and have an extra clip ready to go?

There is probably about 14 people on Rokslide that hunt with rifles using “clips”. And none of them are posting about their small calibers.

 

[Big_wals]

ummmmmmmmmm no.

What do you mean no? Granted, there is probably more that 14 guys on here that hunt with an m1 garand. I was just making a point that there is very few.

 

[BjornF16]

Almost all my clients show up with guns with clips. Almost all my rifles have clips also, 22-250 up to 338. Very uncommon in my experience to see rifles without such in the last 10 years.

I think you mean magazines, not clips

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

Almost all my clients show up with guns with clips. Almost all my rifles have clips also, 22-250 up to 338. Very uncommon in my experience to see rifles without such in the last 10 years.

Most people know what you mean when you say "clip" but it's still incorrect firearm terminology, derived mainly from Hollywood I would imagine. "Magazine" is what you're after.

 

[BjornF16]

Same same. And no it would be “detachable magazine”

Not necessarily

 

[LimeSpoon]

Same same. And no it would be “detachable magazine”

And the m1 has the same as above, the term detachable magazine was not used yet and who would ever say “hand me another detachable magazine”

Keep reaching…

The M1 Garand does not use a detachable magazine, at least not according to the conventional view. It has an internal fixed magazine fed by en bloc clips.

At the time of the Garand's introduction the 1911, BAR, and Thompson SMG had all come into existence already, with the M1 Carbine following shortly thereafter. I doubt that "magazine" was not considered a proper and common term used to refer to the metal box holding the ammunition in those guns.

You can argue this is all pedantic, but in my experience, I have met a grand total of zero (0) people calling magazines "clips" who had any overabundance of firearm knowledge. It seems perhaps they are more inclined to make obnoxious comments on internet forums instead.

 

[fwafwow]

It seems perhaps they are more inclined to make obnoxious comments on internet forums instead.

Or hold an elected office….