What caused the Rokslide shift to smallest caliber and cartridges?

[FredH]

Ops original topic has merit. Low Testosterone?

 

[HandgunHTR]

Ops original topic has merit. Low Testosterone?

Why is it that as soon as the discussion comes up about shifting to lower recoiling firearms someone always chimes in with the, "You must be a sissy", or "low testosterone", or "get a man-bun." or some other derogatory remark?

At the end of the day, if you are hunting an animal, you owe it to the animal to make the most precise shot that you can. As has been proven over and over and over, with factual data, not opinions or anecdotes, a lower recoiling rifle increases hit rates. Period.

If you are that insecure that you can't stand facts getting in the way of your preconceived notions, then maybe the people with a testosterone problem aren't on this side of the fence, because that sure sounds like emotions overruling logic, which is a predominately female attribute.

 

[FredH]

Why is it that as soon as the discussion comes up about shifting to lower recoiling firearms someone always chimes in with the, "You must be a sissy", or "low testosterone", or "get a man-bun." or some other derogatory remark?

At the end of the day, if you are hunting an animal, you owe it to the animal to make the most precise shot that you can. As has been proven over and over and over, with factual data, not opinions or anecdotes, a lower recoiling rifle increases hit rates. Period.

If you are that insecure that you can't stand facts getting in the way of your preconceived notions, then maybe the people with a testosterone problem aren't on this side of the fence, because that sure sounds like emotions overruling logic, which is a predominately female attribute.

Oh the horror! No one is giving up precision by using a 7MM RM or 300 Win Mag. In no way does a 6.5 increase hit rates. What increases hit rates is taking shots within your level of competency and the cartridges capability. However bullet mass and energy have their place.

 

[JGRaider]

Ops original topic has merit. Low Testosterone?

Why is it that as soon as the discussion comes up about shifting to lower recoiling firearms someone always chimes in with the, "You must be a sissy", or "low testosterone", or "get a man-bun." or some other derogatory remark?

It's a ridiculous response from those with little experience, lower than normal IQ, or likely both.

 

[FredH]

It's a ridiculous response from those with little experience, lower than normal IQ, or likely both.

Or has no issues shooting a 7-08 instead of a 223 on deer and hogs or using a 30-06 on an elk hunt. The low testosterone comment was mostly to draw out the sensitive types. A more appropriate answer would be than most shoot paper or do very little shooting. Yes if you don't shoot much a soft recoiling rifle is going to be easier for you to shoot. The smaller cartridges work fine in open country or over feeders. A public land elk hunt in Western Washington is not the place for a 243 running a fancy match bullet. It can be done but why? I consider it more likely that those who espouse cartridges like the 223 or 243 for all hunting as probably having little experience, lower than normal IQ or both. I have used both cartridges but for varmints and deer where appropriate. Just because I prefer a 7-08 does not mean I am dumb or inexperienced.

 

[eric1115]

Oh the horror! No one is giving up precision by using a 7MM RM or 300 Win Mag. In no way does a 6.5 increase hit rates. What increases hit rates is taking shots within your level of competency and the cartridges capability. However bullet mass and energy have their place.

Do you think recoil has no effect on performance/precision?

Can you provide a 10-20 shot group from your .300WM?

I've noticed substantial difference in group size between high and low recoiling rifles, especially in non-ideal, field type shooting positions.

 

[Marbles]

Who you gonna believe then, random wannabe's on the internet? LMAO......... I suggest emaling Phil Shoemaker and listen to what he says.

You mean the guy who carries a 9 mm for bear protection and killed a brown with it?

 

[atmat]

Y

Or has no issues shooting a 7-08 instead of a 223 on deer and hogs or using a 30-06 on an elk hunt. The low testosterone comment was mostly to draw out the sensitive types. A more appropriate answer would be than most shoot paper or do very little shooting. Yes if you don't shoot much a soft recoiling rifle is going to be easier for you to shoot. The smaller cartridges work fine in open country or over feeders. A public land elk hunt in Western Washington is not the place for a 243 running a fancy match bullet. It can be done but why? I consider it more likely that those who espouse cartridges like the 223 or 243 for all hunting as probably having little experience, lower than normal IQ or both. I have used both cartridges but for varmints and deer where appropriate. Just because I prefer a 7-08 does not mean I am dumb or inexperienced.

Honest questions for you to answer:

1) How many rounds do fire per year?
2) What % of the time can you spot your impacts with the .30-06?
3) How fast can you shoot two shots in a row on target?

 

[JGRaider]

You mean the guy who carries a 9 mm for bear protection and killed a brown with it?

No, "carries" is not accurate, that would be "carried", once. If you had bothered to read Phil's article, you would know that that was a one time deal and that he emphasized that he normally carries a 45 every day. Good try though.

 

[fwafwow]

I consider it more likely that those who espouse cartridges like the 223 or 243 for all hunting as probably having little experience, lower than normal IQ or both.

RS gold

 

[JGRaider]

Or has no issues shooting a 7-08 instead of a 223 on deer and hogs or using a 30-06 on an elk hunt. The low testosterone comment was mostly to draw out the sensitive types. A more appropriate answer would be than most shoot paper or do very little shooting. Yes if you don't shoot much a soft recoiling rifle is going to be easier for you to shoot. The smaller cartridges work fine in open country or over feeders. A public land elk hunt in Western Washington is not the place for a 243 running a fancy match bullet. It can be done but why? I consider it more likely that those who espouse cartridges like the 223 or 243 for all hunting as probably having little experience, lower than normal IQ or both. I have used both cartridges but for varmints and deer where appropriate. Just because I prefer a 7-08 does not mean I am dumb or inexperienced.

I couldn't care less what cartridge you shoot. I was taking issue with your ignorant "testosterone" comment regarding light recoiling rifles/cartridges. It's a ridiculous position to take.

 

[IDVortex]

I couldn't care less what cartridge you shoot. I was taking issue with your ignorant "testosterone" comment regarding light recoiling rifles/cartridges. It's a ridiculous position to take.

Well, it's a perfect example as to why hunters never unite. Always have a group who thinks their way is God's way, and will belittle anyone else, but then complains why hunting is always attacked loosing privileges.

 

[atmat]

I couldn't care less what cartridge you shoot. I was taking issue with your ignorant "testosterone" comment regarding light recoiling rifles/cartridges. It's a ridiculous position to take.

You and I rarely agree, but we 100% align here and that feels nice.

 

[HandgunHTR]

Oh the horror! No one is giving up precision by using a 7MM RM or 300 Win Mag. In no way does a 6.5 increase hit rates. What increases hit rates is taking shots within your level of competency and the cartridges capability. However bullet mass and energy have their place.

So, explain to me why so many benchrest shooters don't shoot large 30 caliber magnums? They buck the wind much better than the small caliber stuff those guys usually shoot.

Also, please educate me as to where energy has it's place since I obviously have a low IQ and very little experience.

 

[KenLee]

This isn’t super relevant other than it’s further proof that energy isn't a good metric and wound characteristics matter, but y’all should hang out with guys who cast their own bullets to hunt with sometime. Those dudes are getting reliable kills with obsolete rounds that don’t even generate .223 energy levels, using wide meplat bullets that bore a hole through the animal like a wadcutter.
These guys have a completely different mindset about terminal ballistics than most, they expect the deer to run a little ways but know it won’t go far and that they can blood trail it easily, so in that regard it’s a lot like bow hunting. They’re the first group of people I ever saw effectively dismantle the “1,000 ft lbs minimum for big game” argument.

My group of poor kids did pretty well with 119 ft pounds of energy at 50 yards. I think around 80 at 100 yards. CCI Singers 22lr. Nine of my first dozen whitetail kills were with Stingers.
I was a better shot when I was a kid.

 

[mtnwrunner]

Oh the horror! No one is giving up precision by using a 7MM RM or 300 Win Mag. In no way does a 6.5 increase hit rates. What increases hit rates is taking shots within your level of competency and the cartridges capability. However bullet mass and energy have their place.

??

 

[Big_wals]

No, "carries" is not accurate, that would be "carried", once. If you had bothered to read Phil's article, you would know that that was a one time deal and that he emphasized that he normally carries a 45 every day. Good try though.

I have read lots of Phils articles in Fur Fish Game over the years, love his writing. Yes, he normally doesn’t carry a 9mm. That doesn’t change the fact that he DID carry a 9 at least once. If he actually did not believe it would put down a bear I doubt he would’ve carried it. And the fact remains that it DID kill a bear just as dead as anything else.

 

[Marbles]

No, "carries" is not accurate, that would be "carried", once. If you had bothered to read Phil's article, you would know that that was a one time deal and that he emphasized that he normally carries a 45 every day. Good try though.

No, if you bothered to read what he still writes on the Fire you would know that. Of course, that stuff you posted from 18 years ago that he wrote supports your opinion better than the stuff he wrote in the last 10 years.

But, yes he prefers a 357 M65 over the 9mm these days. He still says a 9mm is better than a hand cannon (uncomfortably that goes against my long standing opinion and arguments I have made on this site in the past, but I am considering moving away from the 44 Mt Gun and 454 to a 357 as I have simply stopped carrying them due to weight).

 

[FredH]

Do you think recoil has no effect on performance/precision?

Can you provide a 10-20 shot group from your .300WM?

I've noticed substantial difference in group size between high and low recoiling rifles, especially in non-ideal, field type shooting positions.

Well it depends on how long between shots for those 20 shot groups. Are you saying a 7MM remington magnum or a 30-06 are heavy recoiling rifles? I don't shoot groups when hunting and don't take shots in non ideal positions if there is any distance involved. I do shoot a lot from "field type positions".

 

[HingleMcCringleberry]

Ops original topic has merit. Low Testosterone?

Do you believe the cartridge you use is a reflection of your "manliness"?