What caused the Rokslide shift to smallest caliber and cartridges?

[RockAndSage]

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.

There's a lot of truth to this. I'd also add in that it pretty much set the bar for a "man's cartridge" - so anything less than .30cal is a clear admission to being a sissy...unless it's based around a 30-06 casing. Then it's okay. I guess.

Frankly though, it would be disingenuous to not point out that Form deserves a metric ton of credit for the "rokslide shift to smallest caliber and cartridges". After systematically documenting and experimenting and sharing all of his learnings over the course of years, starting with traditional big-game cartridges and varying bullets, and working his way down over those years to what seemed to provide the best performance overall. That happened to be tipped match bullets in low-recoiling, small-caliber loadings. I point that out because it's not obvious at first when you first encounter Rokslide and what has essentially become somewhat common knowledge here. It's also worth pointing out, because of the immense work involved in all of that learning and experimenting he did, documenting the data, and sharing it. And, because of the titanic levels of $h*t that have been thrown at him because of it, and his persistence in sharing those uncomfortable truths people don't like hearing.

 

[Sizzler]

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.

What rifle did you get into with the 6 creed? Was thinking of a light-weight chassis gun for thin skin critters to play with.

 

[sclb745]

I look at this debate much the same as I do the mechanical vs fixed broadhead debate in the bowhunting corner. Big cut and less penetration vs smaller cut and pass through? I keep both in my quiver because I can and I believe that each has their place at the table. Same thing with the cartridge debate, I have and hunt with both, just depends on the situation. But as hunters, we know that no two animals will always behave the same. I just personally like to be prepared and use whatever option gives me the best advantage in whatever situation I'll likely find myself in.

 

[Sizzler]

I look at this debate much the same as I do the mechanical vs fixed broadhead debate in the bowhunting corner. Big cut and less penetration vs smaller cut and pass through? I keep both in my quiver because I can and I believe that each has their place at the table. Same thing with the cartridge debate, I have and hunt with both, just depends on the situation. But as hunters, we know that no two animals will always behave the same. I just personally like to be prepared and use whatever option gives me the best advantage in whatever situation I'll likely find myself in.

Absolutely agree with this. I do the same thing.

 

[CTXhunter]

What rifle did you get into with the 6 creed? Was thinking of a light-weight chassis gun for thin skin critters to play with.

Let the temptation begin. XLR chassis, defiance classic action, NXS 2.5-10, 16’ barrel with a raptor 8 stack. I have found it difficult to miss out to 500

That big fat gun is also 6 creed but I don’t carry it far


(10 shots because I know you people will ask lol)

 

[CTXhunter]

Let the temptation begin. XLR chassis, defiance classic action, NXS 2.5-10, 16’ barrel with a raptor 8 stack. I have found it difficult to miss out to 500

That big fat gun is also 6 creed but I don’t carry it far
View attachment 952931View attachment 952932View attachment 952930

(10 shots because I know you people will ask lol)

@Sizzler just wanted to add, I’m a lefty so I went full custom. If I was a righty I’d almost certainly have a howa mini action in 6 ARC but I figured if I was going full custom I’d go ahead and do creed

 

[wapitispokes]

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.

I shoot with larger calibers and take sarcasm and direct innuendo as a compliment.

You jest at the difference in "an extra millimeter or so". The difference between a 35 caliber and a 6 mm, (.358" vs .243") in expanded diameter is 47% in favor of a .358 vs 6mm. The momentum of a .358 in a bullet of similar sectional density to a 6mm (.243) is vastly greater and the comparison on a hard quartering shot in my experience, there is no comparison.


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, what cartridge/caliber do you choose?

I'm a big hole and exit hole fan also, but I also see a place for smaller caliber high bc bullets. We probably all agree on this. It's just how much you tilt in either direction. It's a matter of degree. Not a fan of a small ight bullet for a an elk quartering shot, entering to the REAR of the back rib, at any range. I am much more of a fan of a small high BC bullet for a 300 + yard shot while engaged in spot and stalk mule deer hunting. My love of big holes and heavy bullets go back to my experiences with muzzle loaders....and my love of small light high BC bullets go back to my sore shoulder after shooting those one ounce bullets in my Muzzle Loader. haha.

 

[Sizzler]

@Sizzler just wanted to add, I’m a lefty so I went full custom. If I was a righty I’d almost certainly have a howa mini action in 6 ARC but I figured if I was going full custom I’d go ahead and do creed

Thats a sexxy rifle.

 

[atmat]

I'm a big hole… fan also

My love of big holes

People are acting like 30 calibers are “big entry holes” when 223 is a “small entry hole.”

You’re talking about an entry hole that is 2.06mm bigger. Hold your index finger and thumb 2mm apart. That’s not “big”. They’re both incredibly tiny holes in comparison to the animal’s size itself.

That’s what’s comical about this all.

 

[wapitispokes]

People are acting like 30 calibers are “big entry holes” when 223 is a “small entry hole.”

You’re talking about an entry hole that is 2.06mm bigger. Hold your index finger and thumb 2mm apart. That’s not “big”. They’re both incredibly tiny holes in comparison to the animal’s size itself.

That’s what’s comical about this all.

The last elk I shot with my muzzleloader, .54 caliber, one ounce flat nose bullet - literally looked like the wicked witch of the west shoved the blunt end of her broomstick through the elk.... flipped the elk over (bad idea) and I got a face full of splatter from the chest compression when it hit the ground. haha.

 

[atmat]

The last elk I shot with my muzzleloader, .54 caliber, one ounce flat nose bullet - literally looked like the wicked witch of the west shoved the blunt end of her broomstick through the elk.... flipped the elk over (bad idea) and I got a face full of splatter from the chest compression when it hit the ground. haha.

I’m sure it did great.

But again, even in comparison to a 223 you’re talking about a difference of less than 8.16mm. So, less than a centimeter. Less than 1/3 of an inch.

That’s not a “big hole” worth of difference. Especially on a large game animal. It’s an incredibly small proportion of their size.

Big calibers work. I still own and shoot some. But I acknowledge it’s for sentimental, “coolness,” or other illogical reasons — not because a 223 won’t kill the animal equally dead.

 

[JGRaider]

I'm much more interested in what happens after the "entry hole" than the entry hole itself. That's where the rubber meets the road.

 

[RockAndSage]

The last elk I shot with my muzzleloader, .54 caliber, one ounce flat nose bullet - literally looked like the wicked witch of the west shoved the blunt end of her broomstick through the elk.... flipped the elk over (bad idea) and I got a face full of splatter from the chest compression when it hit the ground. haha.

Something to be aware of and to keep in mind, is we're not talking about a .54 cal flat-nose hole cored through an animal, vs a .223 hole cored through one - because bullet construction is a huge part of the shared info within this discussion. The long, heavy-for-caliber bullets are a key part of the usability. There are plenty of photos in the enormous ".223 for big game" thread of the 75gr and 77gr bullets coring out a coke-can diameter hole through chest cavities, in ways that just aren't done with solids or even monometal bullets, or same design of lighter weight.

 

[ElPollo]

People are acting like 30 calibers are “big entry holes” when 223 is a “small entry hole.”

You’re talking about an entry hole that is 2.06mm bigger. Hold your index finger and thumb 2mm apart. That’s not “big”. They’re both incredibly tiny holes in comparison to the animal’s size itself.

That’s what’s comical about this all.

The part that I think is comical is the response of “big caliber” proponents when they see an animal killed with a .224 TMK. Most of the time it’s like “Jesus, what was that?” It’s amusing to me that people get so caught up in bore diameter when killing is all about bullet construction. You can find bullets in any diameter that will kill like a lightening and others that will sail right through and “save meat”. Unfortunately what you cannot generally do is trust the marketing by bullet manufacturers to tell you which is which.

 

[wapitispokes]

I’m sure it did great.

But again, even in comparison to a 223 you’re talking about a difference of less than 8.16mm. So, less than a centimeter. Less than 1/3 of an inch.

That’s not a “big hole” worth of difference. Especially on a large game animal. It’s an incredibly small proportion of their size.

Big calibers work. I still own and shoot some. But I acknowledge it’s for sentimental, “coolness,” or other illogical reasons — not because a 223 won’t kill the animal equally dead.

Not that it matters, but the area of a circle and the wound channel is a better reference than bullet diameter. Bullet diameter by itself and focusing on percentage differences between, .308 and .243 is not particularly useful. Trust me, a .54 caliber flat nose going through an elk is quite a bit more different than what the difference is in bullet diameter between small vs. bigger diameter. But I don't really care..all kinds of things change if someone wants to compare a small diameter high speed bullet to a very large, very heavy, relatively slow flat nose lead Muzzle loader bullet.

I never intended to argue for or against either concept. Like I said, they both have their place. They are both good for selected jobs. Also, obviously, folks don't shoot 6mm at an elk at 1,200 fps, they are impacting at velocities that impart massive internal damage in a different way.

It really doesn't matter. I'm now off on the tangent explaining that the math comparison of diameter differences isn't the best reference ..... which is non-responsive to the threads main question about the infatuation with small diameter bullets. WAY too far off track. I shouldn't have commented at all. LOL.

Like I said, they both work and some work better than others in different applications.

Have a great afternoon, shoot some guns, go hunting and have a glorious Fall!

 

[atmat]

Not that it matters, but the area of a circle

The area of the entry hole is irrelevant with standard centirefire cartridges.

The area of a 30 cal sized entry hole is 0.0745 sq-in.

The area of a 223 sized entry hole is 0.0377 sq-in.

There is a whopping 0.037 sq inch difference. Double, sure. But you’re taking about <0.04 sq in on a big game animal.

the wound channel is a better reference than bullet diameter.

Agree. And wound channels of optimized 223s and other small calibers are incredibly destructive. Nearly too destructive at times.

As are the optimized large calibers.

But the point remains that to say the 223 or others is too small is asinine.

 

[The Guide]

Points back to bullet construction matters more than cartridge.

Jay

 

[mt terry d]

I think what has made more difference for me is the ability to put the bullet where i want
This is absolutely due to lower recoil, cheaper ammo and being able to (and enjoying!)
practice shooting hundreds and thousands of rounds.
That never happened, and would never happen, if I still only shot my big magnums.

The practice has proven to me that even though I was relatively "successful" with my
magnums I was actually a really crummy shooter

I'm less crummy now.

 

[The Fish Box]

You guys sound like guys argue about how their three inch penis is big when compared to three inches of snow.

Can your micropenis get your old lady pregnant still?? Yes will her boyfriend’s big hog get her “more” pregnant? No. But will it hurt more in doing so most likely. The moral of this story is just shut up and shoot animals, if you want to use a 50 bmg go for it or don’t who gives a shit.

 

[35WhelenAI]

That's a new one to me, I don't know anyone that's argued about a dick being compared to snow.