What caused the Rokslide shift to smallest caliber and cartridges?

[ChrisAU]

I’d just like to say that if you bring a .223 to a mid to long range comp, RO’s hate you. Spotting .223 hits at long distance on steel that’s been battered all day by 6mm, 6.5mm, and .30 all day long and doesn’t react at all to a .223 impact and also provides minimal splash on a miss is…not fun.

 

[mt terry d]

Sorry for that snarky post. Uncalled for.

Lou

No problem, Lou. I've a strong streak of snark myself.
What would a controversialist do without other controversialists?

Cheers

 

[Antares]

I simply don’t understand this situation. If I miss it is not because I don’t know where I expect the bullet to go. It is because I missed. What am I correcting? If the bullet goes somewhere I am not expecting then I would be shooting beyond my ability, which I know well before going hunting

Shooting and missing so bad you need to change something is busch league as you are flailing at best. Hitting something because you intentionally took a shot you are incapable of without somebody guiding you in is irresponsible. I am talking shots on game not steel or targets where spotting is a tool.

Lou

Do you shoot in the wind much, Lou?

 

[Lou270]

Do you shoot in the wind much, Lou?

I live in TX. It is never not windy and not uncommon gusty 20+ mph. There are windmills all around my ranch.

Lou

 

[Antares]

I live in TX. It is never not windy and not uncommon gusty 20+ mph. There are windmills all around my ranch.

Lou

Great! Hopefully this will make sense then.

You’re shooting a 10” plate at 400 yards. Wind is right to left. You make your wind call and take your shot. It hits the left 1/4 of the plate.

Do you hold more wind or keep shooting the left side of the plate for subsequent shots?

That’s what people are talking about.

 

[wyosam]

How would you know where your shot landed if you cant see where it lands?


View attachment 746723

I am saying that for 99% of hunting shots, I don’t care precisely where the first one landed IN THE CONTEXT OF ADJUSTING FOR THE SECOND SHOT. That is, the vast majority of my hunting shots are inside 300 yards, most less than half that. If the shot didn’t land where I intended, it was shot execution, not something to adjust the second one for. If I don’t see the impact, I have a very good idea if/how something changed in the moment between my decision to break the shot, and the pin hitting the primer. For shots beyond that range, I’m not shooting without building a very solid position, which means from about 300 and beyond (where those adjustments might come in to play), spotting impacts with a moderate recoiling rifle is not difficult.

If you are making ranging errors/wind calls bad enough to need to correct for a second shot inside 300 yards, or your dope isn’t good enough that your going to have to adjust for the follow up at that range, you have larger problems than spotting shots.

 

[Ozarkansas]

I’m kind of with @wyosam on this one- I’m not comfortable taking shots at ranges where shifts in wind can cause me to completely miss the vitals, so spotting a shot isn’t all that useful. If I missed due the wind, that tells me the shot was beyond my ability. But keeping the animal in the scope to watch where it runs, and for fast follow-ups, is a benefit to me.

 

[5811]

I feel like it makes a bigger difference to shoot light recoil the less supported you are.

Off-hand standing, sitting, kneeling, using a tree, whatever, it's much easier to shoot lower recoil. If you're only shooting prone or off a bi/tripod, it might not matter as much.

I have no data to back it up, just subjective interpretation of my experience. I know shooting off a bench or prone, I can shoot magnums just as well or better at distances where wind matters. If that's most of what you do, I can see where a guy would think there's no benefit to shooting lighter. But standing off-hand, it's a significant difference for me.

 

[Dave_S]

I'm not sure how some of you can even bring yourselves to engage at this point. I get the sense that some of these folks come in here and refuse to listen and refuse to learn, and don't understand enough to understand the rationale....I don't know if it's intentional trolling or deliberate ignorance, but I don't even want to respond to them.

 

[Lou270]

Great! Hopefully this will make sense then.

You’re shooting a 10” plate at 400 yards. Wind is right to left. You make your wind call and take your shot. It hits the left 1/4 of the plate.

Do you hold more wind or keep shooting the left side of the plate for subsequent shots?

That’s what people are talking about.

I get it on a plate. I just don’t get why one would think an animal will stand still and let you shoot it again. A hit in the vitals is soup whether little off from aim or not (ie stays in vitals). A hit around the edges is wounded game fleeing whether it comes from an experienced shooter assuming they can walk in a shot because of wind or guy who buys a big Magnum he can’t shoot well.

Lou

 

[Axlrod]

I'm not sure how some of you can even bring yourselves to engage at this point. I get the sense that some of these folks come in here and refuse to listen and refuse to learn, and don't understand enough to understand the rationale....I don't know if it's intentional trolling or deliberate ignorance, but I don't even want to respond to them.

They are just engaging to enjoy the heat from a dumpster fire.
The "expert" on here in post #1411 said " I shoot pigs year round with all manner of cartridges big to small and I can always tell if I hit them. That is at close range with a scope most of the time."

So as I have zero experience shooting invasive pests at point blank range. I wonder if when you shoot them standing in the corn pile, the blood scares the next hoard of pests away?

 

[Lou270]

They are just engaging to enjoy the heat from a dumpster fire.
The "expert" on here in post #1411 said " I shoot pigs year round with all manner of cartridges big to small and I can always tell if I hit them. That is at close range with a scope most of the time."

So as I have zero experience shooting invasive pests at point blank range. I wonder if when you shoot them standing in the corn pile, the blood scares the next hoard of pests away?

Experience shooting animals is experience shooting animals. No amount of gun games replaces field experience. For ex, if you are having trouble with getting back on target quickly with fleeing animals, there is probably not a better real practice than year round pig hunting other than maybe jackrabbit hunting

Lou

 

[Antares]

I just don’t get why one would think an animal will stand still and let you shoot it again.

Sounds like we've had different experiences.

A hit in the vitals is soup whether little off from aim or not (ie stays in vitals).

How do you know if it's a hit in the vitals?

1) You saw the impact.

2) You're a certified dirt nap dealer and every shot you take is perfect.


We can do this all day, Lou. Sounds like you've got your system and it works well for you. I'm not here to change your mind. Carry on.

 

[turbo406]

For me it all started when I realized I suck at shooting... That caused me to practice significantly more and started reloading, I put 90 rounds through an unsupressed 300 win mag that the scope turret smacked the brim of your hat every shot. Which in turn cost me an elk because I developed a flinch because I "had to shoot enough gun". It was a learning experience that I am taking as such.

 

[Macintosh]

…For those "converts" who have seen the smaller cartridge light - can you please expain to me what/why?

The original question from the OP^^^

Has this not already been answered 100-fold?
Isnt it enough to say the trend is a result of people seeing enough hard evidence the small cartridges reliably produce plenty-sufficient wounds and ethical kills, while also recoiling less, which combo is beneficial for reasons ranging from cost of shooting, more fun to shoot without recoil, easier/faster follow up shots when needed, and shot-spotting when needed?

Re: recoil resulting in better hit rates. I am certain I have read at least 1 scientific study on this which pretty definitively said lower recoil results in higher hit rates among military recruits or something like that. But I dont have that link. If someone does, maybe it would help with the constant “yes it does”…“No it doesnt”…“Yes it does”…“No it doesnt”…

Failing that, wouldnt it be fun to actually test? Ie do the hunting rifle drill with a 223 and then do it with a similar “big gun”. If a bunch of people do it we could probably come up with a pretty definitive answer.

 

[KenLee]

For me it all started when I realized I suck at shooting... That caused me to practice significantly more and started reloading, I put 90 rounds through an unsupressed 300 win mag that the scope turret smacked the brim of your hat every shot. Which in turn cost me an elk because I developed a flinch because I "had to shoot enough gun". It was a learning experience that I am taking as such.

Practice can ruin ya!

 

[Thegman]

The original question from the OP^^^

Has this not already been answered 100-fold?
Isnt it enough to say the trend is a result of people seeing enough hard evidence the small cartridges reliably produce plenty-sufficient wounds and ethical kills, while also recoiling less, which combo is beneficial for reasons ranging from cost of shooting, more fun to shoot without recoil, easier/faster follow up shots when needed, and shot-spotting when needed?

Re: recoil resulting in better hit rates. I am certain I have read at least 1 scientific study on this which pretty definitively said lower recoil results in higher hit rates among military recruits or something like that. But I dont have that link. If someone does, maybe it would help with the constant “yes it does”…“No it doesnt”…“Yes it does”…“No it doesnt”…

Failing that, wouldnt it be fun to actually test? Ie do the hunting rifle drill with a 223 and then do it with a similar “big gun”. If a bunch of people do it we could probably come up with a pretty definitive answer.

And this puts a nice wrapping on this thread of people talking past each other...

The above is a good summary of why most that moved to smaller cartridges/calibers did so, although I'm sure it's a little different for every individual (I went to progressively smaller cartridges because a. They still killed very well. b. The smaller they were, the lighter the platform could be).

None of this is saying larger cartridges/calibers don't work; they work very well. That wasn’t the question and shouldn't be the argument though. The question was why the shift to smaller cartridges...that's been answered x1,000

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

Failing that, wouldnt it be fun to actually test? Ie do the hunting rifle drill with a 223 and then do it with a similar “big gun”. If a bunch of people do it we could probably come up with a pretty definitive answer.

It is very fun! We’ve tested this to the tune of 100s of shooters and thousands of rounds, shooters of all skill ranges. From PRS, IBS, NBRSA, and NRL competitors to my wife’s friends who hadn’t shot a rifle until that day. All for fun and to gather data for ourselves, and of course the random competition/bbq for those interested.

The most accurately shot gun on average by every single shooter was a custom semi auto 10-22 clone chambered in 17 Mach 2 with a fixed power scope. This is various hunting shot positions shooting at 100 yards target with time limits to get a full magazine shot (10 rounds).

As you move up in “recoil” the average group accuracy goes down exponentially. That does not mean that somebody cannot shoot heavier recoiling rifles accurately/consistently. It simply means that 100% of tested shooters shoot the 17 Mach 2 more accurately for 10 shot groups at 100 yards when timed and shooting from a real field shot.

Great/Good shooters will see minimal loss in group accuracy moving to standard calibers under 6mm. Once we move to 6.5mm and above all bets are off. The data sets show a sharp fall in general on demand accuracy using the same guns and same scopes, simply just moving up in chambering.

 

[eric1115]

It is very fun! We’ve tested this to the tune of 100s of shooters and thousands of rounds, shooters of all skill ranges. From PRS, IBS, NBRSA, and NRL competitors to my wife’s friends who hadn’t shot a rifle until that day. All for fun and to gather data for ourselves, and of course the random competition/bbq for those interested.

The most accurately shot gun on average by every single shooter was a custom semi auto 10-22 clone chambered in 17 Mach 2 with a fixed power scope. This is various hunting shot positions shooting at 100 yards target with time limits to get a full magazine shot (10 rounds).

As you move up in “recoil” the average group accuracy goes down exponentially. That does not mean that somebody cannot shoot heavier recoiling rifles accurately/consistently. It simply means that 100% of tested shooters shoot the 17 Mach 2 more accurately for 10 shot groups at 100 yards when timed and shooting from a real field shot.

Great/Good shooters will see minimal loss in group accuracy moving to standard calibers under 6mm. Once we move to 6.5mm and above all bets are off. The data sets show a sharp fall in general on demand accuracy using the same guns and same scopes, simply just moving up in chambering.

How do you know that you just haven't gotten one of those guys that recoil "doesn't bother"? Maybe that guy who shoots his .300WM just as well as his .223 for 3 shots , and that's 2 more than he'll ever need hunting is out there and you just haven't found him yet. Did you ever think of that? Didja?

 

[KenLee]

How do you know that you just haven't gotten one of those guys that recoil "doesn't bother"? Maybe that guy who shoots his .300WM just as well as his .223 for 3 shots , and that's 2 more than he'll ever need hunting is out there and you just haven't found him yet. Did you ever think of that? Didja?

Yep it's a significantly skewed test for hunting purposes. I'd argue 2 shots should be the standard.
Extra ammo cuts into my liquor $