What caused the Rokslide shift to smallest caliber and cartridges?

62% increase in something small is still small.

It’s all in what the bullet does on impact that makes the difference.
We agree on principal on most of the stuff. However we're not talking about what it does on impact, we're talking about penetrating from hard angles. Penetration is everything that occurs after impact and some bullets do not penetrate as well as others. It's not a secret heavier caliber bullets of the same construction penetrate better than lighter bullets of the same construction.

Weight is a constant, the more of it you have, the more you have to work with.

Broadside or nearly broadside shots with smaller calibers are deadly. Put money on a hard quartering shot at longer range from a small caliber on a heavier animal, and choose that or a heavier caliber shooting a bullet the same speed. Which bullet has the best opportunity of having the wound channel coincide with the vitals? Which is your money on?
 
Looks like the debate is alive and well. I don't know how else he can say a smaller diameter 6mm didn't do what he wanted.

Unless he's a bad shot with a 6 mm and a crack shot with a 35, he's basing it on experience of one doing a better job than the other for the performance he prefers. Personally I don't need to try a 6 mm on a hard quartering shot on an elk, and I don't need 10 shot or more statistically relevant groups to know what's worked for 30 years out to 350 to 400 yards on big game with a mid bore on deer and Elk sized game.

Congrats to your daughter and wife, by chance what cartridge/caliber do you shoot?
That’s the problem. All we are saying is that high quality bullets in their effective velocity range will kill an animal. 223 rem or .35, put the right bullet north of the diaphragm and the animal will die quickly.

What about my buddy with 6.5 PRC that lost two whitetails in one season? Finally he got one on the ground and I asked him what it looked like when he gutted and he said it was guts soup. Turns out someone told him to shoot away from the crease to avoid meat damage. He was just gut shooting animals and couldn’t find them. The “off the crease” stuff needs to die. Straight up the front leg, middle middle elevation and you’ll get heart and lungs and it’ll die. He literally did not understand basic anatomy, perfusion, or mechanisms of death. What if he came on here and argued against 6.5’s not being enough gun? Should we listen to him? I bet a bunch of people with bias toward big guns would surely listen and quote him. Luckily I talked him out of a multi thousand dollar 300 PRC after showing him a handful of .223 kills.

Tell ya what, I’ll just use your argument back on you.

I don’t need to try a 35 bore because for 20 years of hunting deer with soft shooting, accurate 223 and 6mm guns, I haven’t had a single problem. So why would I beat my shoulder up and give my kids a fear of shooting with “big” guns?

Or I could explain, somewhat scientifically, what I have seen from personal experience. That my “small” guns cause enough tissue damage in the vital cavity to stop perfusion in the brain almost instantly. AKA, they don’t run far. It also happens they’re cheap to shoot, anccurate and gently recoil. AKA I know my limits well, and inside of my limits, I’m extremely lethal with my guns. Seems like a win win win for me.

I’d just love someone from the big bore crowd to explain, scientifically, how the extra millimeter of bullet diameter kills better. Genuine question.

You hang on to anecdotes that make you feel good and ignore everything else.

I have literally only killed deer in the last 5 years with .233 and 6ARC. Last one before those was a bad shot with a 308 and she ran 100 yards and expired, as expected. Luckily I got some lung or she would have gone much further, with probably any cartridge. Still made for a smelly gut job.

6 ARC kills are a big doe, see gaping hole above. Shot at 250
Next is wife’s doe at 200ish
IMG_5222.jpeg
Big buck just shy of 200, can’t remember exactly.
IMG_2476.jpeg

.223 kills, 77TMK, 75 SABRE’s, and 77SMK’s all went down in sight in thick east texas
40 yards
IMG_9411.jpeg
190-200 yards
IMG_0648.jpeg
100 yards
IMG_5125.jpegIMG_5107.jpeg


Put a high quality bullet at a proper velocity right here on an ungulate and it will F**KING DIE.
IMG_5109.jpeg


Just last year I killed 5 deer, nothing but 6 arc and 223.

I am hunting elk this year, and bumped from an ARC to a 6 creed bolt gun. I’ll report back if I’m lucky enough to punch a tag. Hell I’ll report back if it works like shit, but I doubt it. I know my limits because I shoot the absolute piss out of that gun (getting used to the added recoil😉.) Here is my brass stack (at least what I picked up) from my training since I got the gun done in June. I feel confident that I’ll do my part and out the bullet on the money, and I feel confident that that 108 will do what it has always done, which is liquify all the goods inside the thoracic cavity.

IMG_8250.jpeg

I think we are dealing with 100 years of people shooting like shit and blaming the cartridge or chambering. Just silly and egotistical.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_5127.jpeg
    IMG_5127.jpeg
    512.7 KB · Views: 28
We agree on principal on most of the stuff. However we're not talking about what it does on impact, we're talking about penetrating from hard angles. Penetration is everything that occurs after impact and some bullets do not penetrate as well as others. It's not a secret heavier caliber bullets of the same construction penetrate better than lighter bullets of the same construction.

Weight is a constant, the more of it you have, the more you have to work with.

Broadside or nearly broadside shots with smaller calibers are deadly. Put money on a hard quartering shot at longer range from a small caliber on a heavier animal, and choose that or a heavier caliber shooting a bullet the same speed. Which bullet has the best opportunity of having the wound channel coincide with the vitals? Which is your money on?
So if I find you anecdotes of small calibers working on hard quartering shots, you’ll change your mind? Or you just want to believe what you want? Do you want to clutch to the quartering shot as the sole reason to shoot 30-50ft/lbs of recoil? The entire thing about the small cartridge movement is people have changed their beliefs based on real world, undeniable evidence. Not trying to be a dick. I’m bored and want to hear the argument played out, and seems like you’re willing to play ball.
 
Fortunately, and based on reality, I believe what I know, not what I want. I have 30 seasons shooting the larger bores/cartridges, and almost 30 years worth of tags filled, the years without filled tags didn't have an opportunity. You have experienced the other way, let's hang out and hunting camp and drink a beer after we both fill our elk tags. I'm leaving Friday after spending many rounds and range sessions with the 35 Whelen AI getting some trigger time to hunt second season. Shoulder is no worse for the wear, I'm good out to 400 yards with my load, all is good. Good luck to you!
 
That’s the problem. All we are saying is that high quality bullets in their effective velocity range will kill an animal. 223 rem or .35, put the right bullet north of the diaphragm and the animal will die quickly.

What about my buddy with 6.5 PRC that lost two whitetails in one season? Finally he got one on the ground and I asked him what it looked like when he gutted and he said it was guts soup. Turns out someone told him to shoot away from the crease to avoid meat damage. He was just gut shooting animals and couldn’t find them. The “off the crease” stuff needs to die. Straight up the front leg, middle middle elevation and you’ll get heart and lungs and it’ll die. He literally did not understand basic anatomy, perfusion, or mechanisms of death. What if he came on here and argued against 6.5’s not being enough gun? Should we listen to him? I bet a bunch of people with bias toward big guns would surely listen and quote him. Luckily I talked him out of a multi thousand dollar 300 PRC after showing him a handful of .223 kills.

Tell ya what, I’ll just use your argument back on you.

I don’t need to try a 35 bore because for 20 years of hunting deer with soft shooting, accurate 223 and 6mm guns, I haven’t had a single problem. So why would I beat my shoulder up and give my kids a fear of shooting with “big” guns?

Or I could explain, somewhat scientifically, what I have seen from personal experience. That my “small” guns cause enough tissue damage in the vital cavity to stop perfusion in the brain almost instantly. AKA, they don’t run far. It also happens they’re cheap to shoot, anccurate and gently recoil. AKA I know my limits well, and inside of my limits, I’m extremely lethal with my guns. Seems like a win win win for me.

I’d just love someone from the big bore crowd to explain, scientifically, how the extra millimeter of bullet diameter kills better. Genuine question.

You hang on to anecdotes that make you feel good and ignore everything else.

I have literally only killed deer in the last 5 years with .233 and 6ARC. Last one before those was a bad shot with a 308 and she ran 100 yards and expired, as expected. Luckily I got some lung or she would have gone much further, with probably any cartridge. Still made for a smelly gut job.

6 ARC kills are a big doe, see gaping hole above. Shot at 250
Next is wife’s doe at 200ish
View attachment 952710
Big buck just shy of 200, can’t remember exactly.
View attachment 952711

.223 kills, 77TMK, 75 SABRE’s, and 77SMK’s all went down in sight in thick east texas
40 yards
View attachment 952702
190-200 yards
View attachment 952703
100 yards
View attachment 952705View attachment 952707


Put a high quality bullet at a proper velocity right here on an ungulate and it will F**KING DIE.
View attachment 952708


Just last year I killed 5 deer, nothing but 6 arc and 223.

I am hunting elk this year, and bumped from an ARC to a 6 creed bolt gun. I’ll report back if I’m lucky enough to punch a tag. Hell I’ll report back if it works like shit, but I doubt it. I know my limits because I shoot the absolute piss out of that gun (getting used to the added recoil😉.) Here is my brass stack (at least what I picked up) from my training since I got the gun done in June. I feel confident that I’ll do my part and out the bullet on the money, and I feel confident that that 108 will do what it has always done, which is liquify all the goods inside the thoracic cavity.

View attachment 952709

I think we are dealing with 100 years of people shooting like shit and blaming the cartridge or chambering. Just silly and egotistical.
No doubt that any bullet no matter the size thru the lungs will kill the critters. Good luck on the elk hunting. Leave sat for a bear hunt in Maine then the following week headed to Colorado. Here's my bull from last year.
 

Attachments

  • 20241102_123356.jpg
    20241102_123356.jpg
    573 KB · Views: 50
  • 20241102_085257.jpg
    20241102_085257.jpg
    638 KB · Views: 49
  • 20241102_123920.jpg
    20241102_123920.jpg
    767.3 KB · Views: 47
  • 20241102_123221.jpg
    20241102_123221.jpg
    656.7 KB · Views: 49
@Sizzler @35WhelenAI
Thanks for the well wishes on my hunt. Same to you guys.

My best friend and hunting my partner shot a 300 PRC for a number of years. He laughed in disbelief when I shot animals and it worked. and I laughed every time I shot that gun said “yeah you can keep that sh*t” and walked away. I literally hated that gun.

I’d encourage both of you to approach this argument with humility and an open mind. No one cares that you shoot a big cannon. Just don’t tell me mine doesn’t work and that I got my opinions from YouTube, and people won’t “come at you”.

Keep launching those big pills if it makes you happy, friend. I wish you nothing but success.
 
@Sizzler @35WhelenAI
Thanks for the well wishes on my hunt. Same to you guys.

My best friend and hunting my partner shot a 300 PRC for a number of years. He laughed in disbelief when I shot animals and it worked. and I laughed every time I shot that gun said “yeah you can keep that sh*t” and walked away. I literally hated that gun.

I’d encourage both of you to approach this argument with humility and an open mind. No one cares that you shoot a big cannon. Just don’t tell me mine doesn’t work and that I got my opinions from YouTube, and people won’t “come at you”.

Keep launching those big pills if it makes you happy, friend. I wish you nothing but success.
Same to you.
 
I've been reading the "Handbook for Shooters and Reloaders" by P.O. Ackley. There's some interesting information in there regarding "Killing Power". All of these "New" ideas that have come out regarding velocity and bullet construction while pushing energy metrics to the back aren't new at all. There are pages dedicated to accounts of western guides in this book in the late 1950s stating that the best bullet performance you can get is it stopping on the off-side hide and not into the berm behind the animal.

There's even accounts of conversations with a specific state wildlife agency around the .220 Swift stating that it might be one of the best deer cartridges of that era when the state was wanting to ban them. The point is that it all comes back to bullet construction.

Best of all, there are multiple segments in there speaking about how these "new magnum" cartridges of the time were going to fare much better with inexperienced shooters because of the decreased recoil of that compared to the big bores that were prevalent at the time and how shooters of all levels can shoot a low recoiling rifle better.
 
The negative experiences of Baby Boomer soldiers with the original M16 and the worship of the M1 Garand by the Greatest Generation’s soldiers did more to ossify thinking about ballistics and terminal performance than most people can comprehend.

As a boy, I hunted with WW II and Korea veterans who worshipped .30 caliber firearms, even to the point of running down near equivalents such as the .270 or 8x57 Mauser. And their Vietnam War sons, with whom I also hunted, often soaked up their fathers’ absurd, sentimental love for the .30 caliber rifles because anything had to be better than a plastic M16 with the wrong powder, no cleaning kit, and a 55-grain FMJ.

GWOT veterans, and their wannabe worshippers, learned what the 5.56 can do with proper rifles, bullets, and training. To me, that’s the real reason for the shift.
 
The negative experiences of Baby Boomer soldiers with the original M16 and the worship of the M1 Garand by the Greatest Generation’s soldiers did more to ossify thinking about ballistics and terminal performance than most people can comprehend.

As a boy, I hunted with WW II and Korea veterans who worshipped .30 caliber firearms, even to the point of running down near equivalents such as the .270 or 8x57 Mauser. And their Vietnam War sons, with whom I also hunted, often soaked up their fathers’ absurd, sentimental love for the .30 caliber rifles because anything had to be better than a plastic M16 with the wrong powder, no cleaning kit, and a 55-grain FMJ.

GWOT veterans, and their wannabe worshippers, learned what the 5.56 can do with proper rifles, bullets, and training. To me, that’s the real reason for the shift.
The military did testing between WW1 and WW2 and determined soldiers had better hit rates with smaller cartridges. They were testing new firearm designs to be used in combat but their budget ran out and they had so much 30-06 ammo left over they stuck with it.
 
The negative experiences of Baby Boomer soldiers with the original M16 and the worship of the M1 Garand by the Greatest Generation’s soldiers did more to ossify thinking about ballistics and terminal performance than most people can comprehend.

As a boy, I hunted with WW II and Korea veterans who worshipped .30 caliber firearms, even to the point of running down near equivalents such as the .270 or 8x57 Mauser. And their Vietnam War sons, with whom I also hunted, often soaked up their fathers’ absurd, sentimental love for the .30 caliber rifles because anything had to be better than a plastic M16 with the wrong powder, no cleaning kit, and a 55-grain FMJ.

GWOT veterans, and their wannabe worshippers, learned what the 5.56 can do with proper rifles, bullets, and training. To me, that’s the real reason for the shift.

The negative experiences of Baby Boomer soldiers with the original M16 and the worship of the M1 Garand by the Greatest Generation’s soldiers did more to ossify thinking about ballistics and terminal performance than most people can comprehend.

As a boy, I hunted with WW II and Korea veterans who worshipped .30 caliber firearms, even to the point of running down near equivalents such as the .270 or 8x57 Mauser. And their Vietnam War sons, with whom I also hunted, often soaked up their fathers’ absurd, sentimental love for the .30 caliber rifles because anything had to be better than a plastic M16 with the wrong powder, no cleaning kit, and a 55-grain FMJ.

GWOT veterans, and their wannabe worshippers, learned what the 5.56 can do with proper rifles, bullets, and training. To me, that’s the real reason for the shift.
I’ve wondered if there was some subconscious sentiment attached to the ole M1 I mean I helped our boys win a WW2… stalemate in Korea, what went down in Vietnam would leave a bad taste in anyone’s mouth and an easy target is a new weapon system. As gwot vet, army/ infantry i remember as a young lt thinking that the mighty .308 should be our standard rifle but after a few years i came to love and appreciate our 5.56, i was bummed to hear that they were thinking of going away from it; but sounds like the .277 thing was an absolute cluster
 
The military did testing between WW1 and WW2 and determined soldiers had better hit rates with smaller cartridges. They were testing new firearm designs to be used in combat but their budget ran out and they had so much 30-06 ammo left over they stuck with it.

Yes, there’s been a lot of ink spilled about what would have been if we had started WW II with the .276 Pedersen, gone to .277 after the war, and never wasted time and money on the M14. Makes me laugh about the attempts to switch to 6.8 now. The one constant is that those that write the requirements, design the equipment, and have to use it are not always in synch.
 
I've been reading the "Handbook for Shooters and Reloaders" by P.O. Ackley. There's some interesting information in there regarding "Killing Power". All of these "New" ideas that have come out regarding velocity and bullet construction while pushing energy metrics to the back aren't new at all. There are pages dedicated to accounts of western guides in this book in the late 1950s stating that the best bullet performance you can get is it stopping on the off-side hide and not into the berm behind the animal.

There's even accounts of conversations with a specific state wildlife agency around the .220 Swift stating that it might be one of the best deer cartridges of that era when the state was wanting to ban them. The point is that it all comes back to bullet construction.

Best of all, there are multiple segments in there speaking about how these "new magnum" cartridges of the time were going to fare much better with inexperienced shooters because of the decreased recoil of that compared to the big bores that were prevalent at the time and how shooters of all levels can shoot a low recoiling rifle better.
If you ever get the chance to read this book about the .220 swift, do it. I highly recommend it to anyone especially those who doubt the effectiveness of a properly set up, high stepping 22 cal on game.
His gun shop is local to me and I’ve seen his .220 swift trophy room and it’s quite impressive.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_3251.jpeg
    IMG_3251.jpeg
    27.9 KB · Views: 19
A few observations after 38 seasons of hunting in the southeastern US….

- started with a 30-30, deer fell down
- used a 25-06 next, like a lightning bolt
- moved to a 270 as my first “real rifle” deer fell down fine but had some growing pangs up close with high velocity lighter bullets. Still have soft spot for 270
- had to change to 30-06 because it’s totally necessary for deer. No flies at all on it but it came at a cost in recoil
*Note* recoil went up exponentially each step
- became a father so had to get a “light recoiling rifle” for the kids (you know, light recoiling only works for women and kids, right?) so bought a Handirifle in 223 and shot Barnes 55gr bullets. Deer fell down, somewhat questionable blood trails with not perfect shots but that’s not caliber specific
- bought a 243 for kiddos cause we needed something bigger but low recoil. Deer still died
- kinda settled on 7-08/308 and pretty well stopped here for 15 years. Very tolerable recoil and excellent killers
- bought a 7.62x39 RAR for cheap practice ammo. Kills deer just fine

I said all of that, taking the long way around, because reading this thread got me to thinking… most of the “failures” I’ve had or experienced were directly related to two things: poor bullet selection or crap shoots in poor locations. No doubt that a good bullet in the right spot most definitely kills anything alive. That is not debatable. The correct bullet construction makes all the difference.

Personally, I have a secret love affair with the 25-06 for all of its attributes but mainly it kills like lightning and has very low recoil. I am waiting to see what happens on a 25 creed because that’s where I really want to be. If not, I’m thinking 6ARC is probably my next rifle. I’m just like everyone else, I shoot much better with low recoil, shoot more often, and being able to see stuff through the scope as it happens is pretty awesome.

Carry on. Just an observation
 
Oh, and I am planning to mostly hunt the 7.62x39 Howa Mini/RAR his year but am also testing some heavies for a 223 Howa Mini that’s going to be in the rotation too. Can’t wait to see what happens!
 
Suppressed 20" 6.5 Creedmoor doesn't wear me out, but staying in the scope with a sub-8# rifle is challenging.

6mm GT (or perhaps .22 GT) are calling...
 
Back
Top