What caused the Rokslide shift to smallest caliber and cartridges?

[RockAndSage]

So, there's some clarification points that should be made here...the biggest is that there are many reasons lighter-recoiling helps produce better shooters in field realities:

The small caliber evangelists are advocating for minimizing recoil to aid in spotting shots not because of physical discomfort.

This is part of the equation, but a secondary one - the bigger part resides in making the absolute best first shot possible, no matter the situation at hand.

man what a bunch of pussies

This psychological reaction has got to be hardwired into the Y-chromosome. Bigger weapon = bigger man. Smaller weapon = p*ssy who can't handle manhood. Along with, "I am man, I am tool master."

The absence of this is also why women learn to shoot better, faster, all else being equal.

I don't miss with this thing and it's basically a giant death ray

Have you tried this basic measurement of field-shooting competence with the .338 yet?

The thought process is that the physics involved dictate that all other things equal, the lighter recoiling rifle will be more consistent. Nothing to do with pain tolerance or anything like that, it's just physics. The muzzle is going to wiggle around less before the bullet leaves

This is actually a pretty big miss, my friend. There's also some commonly held Fudd-lore in this take on things. The reality is that any accuracy difference between large vs small cartridges from "muzzle wiggle" as the bullet leaves would be so tiny that it would be hard to measure from a fixed bench-mounted shooting fixture. It has zero bearing on human capabilities with that gun.

The reality is that the far larger part of "lighter recoiling = better shooting" is that it's psychological.

The easiest way to test this, is to fire 10 rounds out of your .338 from any position not prone, at a target 100yds out. Even better if you do it within that test I linked above.

Then do it again, but mix in a couple of snap-caps/dummy rounds, in a way where you have zero idea where they are.

Your flinch will be revealed on the snap-cap shot, and will be utterly embarrassing.

That flinch isn't coming from anticipated pain - most of it is coming from a combination of overall anticipated sensory load and mindshare of operations. It's the combo of performance-demand in the mental-physical mechanics of executing the fundamentals of a shot, anticipating the moment of trigger-press, recovering from the shot, getting back on target, assessing the shot, tension about what that shot means, and taking next steps. Every bit of this sensory and mental loading is magnified as recoil goes up, along with varying microseconds of mental-load shock with a violent strike to your body.

The more sensory load you can remove, the less mindshare will be occupied on it, and the more you can focus on excellence in your fundamentals and cycling through it.

All shooting is 95% mental. The more sensory-mental load you can remove, the better.


EDIT: I personally have a round-count of somewhere around low/mid 6-figures of pistol ammo I've fired over the last 40 years. This is a photo of part of my normal routine - IIRC, on this day it was about 50 snap caps randomly mixed in over the course of about 300rds of fire. To this day, I can count on 1 hand the number of times I've made it through 50 snap-caps without flinching at least once. This is just 9mm. Flinching's not about pain, it's what happens with an imbalance between sensory load and mental focus.

 

[KHntr]

…

 

[Choupique]

Have you tried this basic measurement of field-shooting competence with the .338 yet?

No, but I'll try to do it next chance I get. I do my best to stay away from the bench when I do get a chance to shoot.

There's also some commonly held Fudd-lore in this take on things. The reality is that any accuracy difference between large vs small cartridges from "muzzle wiggle" as the bullet leaves would be so tiny that it would be hard to measure from a fixed bench-mounted shooting fixture. It has zero bearing on human capabilities with that gun.

I've always assumed that the difficulty in making hits from weird positions was from the rifle moving inconsistently under recoil. It seems the flinch would be a consistently inconsistent error driver?

 

[RockAndSage]

I've always assumed that the difficulty in making hits from weird positions was from the rifle moving inconsistently under recoil.

It's more about the rifle moving because of the inconsistency of the body, in a given position, especially when you don't have extensive reps in that exact body posture, at that angle, with the wind blowing, etc. This is why, within limits, people also tend to shoot better with heavier guns, rather than really light ones. The heft absorbs a bit of the micro-movement mistakes your body is trying to make. Plus, weight absorbs a little recoil too, reducing some of that sensory loading.

It seems the flinch would be a consistently inconsistent error driver?

Absolutely. It's extremely hard to remove, because human. But it almost always comes down to that imbalance between sensory load and mental focus.

 

[khuber84]

Actually, I have some places that I could shoot over a mile. It's narrow and straight right of ways which in places pass through the nasty stuff. The longest straight piece of clearing I have that is entirely on my property is ~ 2,200 yards.

That said, due to the width of the right of way and how much time a buck will spend on it, I've never shot one past 400 yards.

2200y of uninterrupted sight line for a shot opportunity sounds like a fantastic place for a private range!

 

[Choupique]

I know. I need to rig one up. My furthest target at the normal shooting spot is 600 yards. Its a bit of a chore to get to. Requires a boat.

 

[JackButler]

Am I the only one that never has the perfect shot? I do a lot of still hunting in tall grass and swamps. Have tried the 6mms but without snow whitetail are extremely hard to find. Love the 35 cals or leverguns for this job. I think the trend is so called experts on youtube are brainwashing everyone into this fad of small caliber and long range shots. If that tickles your fancy have at it. I like aiming for my exit from almost any angle.

This seems like relatively short range hunting you describe. If you are having trouble killing deer quickly with a 6mm there is some other issue causing that. A 6mm is more than enough for any deer at any angle at moderate ranges. If you like large caliber lever guns, that’s cool and obviously will work.

 

[Sizzler]

This seems like relatively short range hunting you describe. If you are having trouble killing deer quickly with a 6mm there is some other issue causing that. A 6mm is more than enough for any deer at any angle at moderate ranges. If you like large caliber lever guns, that’s cool and obviously will work.

Absolutely. I usually shoot 3-5 deer a year at 5-50 yards and 5-10 deer at ranges of 50-600. Those little match grade bullets have given me terrible blood trails. Definitely kills the deer and they usually go 50-100 yards. Im working on a 6mm creedmoor currently and im going to try the 108 eld-m on a few this year in the open field. Picked up some 77 gr tmks also to work a load up to try on a few does.


P.s. I love my lever guns. Especially my 450 marlin guide gun.

 

[mt terry d]

- This guy we're referring to, Form...I once asked him directly, what the largest cartridge is that he personally would say fits this optimal envelope, for him, before recoil issues start making the concentration demands and positional options more limiting. This is a guy who shoots upwards of 6000 magnum cartridge rounds per year. His answer was ".22 Creedmoor - maybe 6mm Creedmoor." I think this says volumes, and needs to be taken into account, for anyone who wants to optimize their actual real-world hunting capability.

You do realize he wears fishnets, right?

 

[RockAndSage]

You do realize he wears fishnets, right?

Roksocks??

 

[atmat]

You do realize he wears fishnets, right?

They’re not fishnets. They’re high-performance lace underwear. Geez get it right.

 

[nm.otter]

 

[43.6N]

I’ve finally read through all 1932 posts on this thread, and it’s given me a good bit of time to think about @MT_Wyatt original question.

For me personally, I grew up hunting Idaho with my father. He was A, the most killing-est man in his group of hunters. So his word and opinions carried a lot of weight.
B, very much a fan of small nimble rifles that he could shoot well.
C, very much a part of the “professional” shooting culture, where the job of “the mission” dictated the tools and weapons brought along. Mobility, agility, tenacity and personal proficiency were the hallmarks of his group. They made a point to be deadly and professional with whatever tool they had available. And very much lived by a motto of “it’s the Indian not the arrow. This ethos made its way into how he raised his sons.

His gun was an 18” 7-08 that he hand loaded 140gr ballistic tips. Consequently that was the gun I grew up shooting.

I never grew up with the deer camp or elk camp chatter about “bringing enough gun” probably because my dad had the “smallest” gun in the bunch. What I did grow up with however, was going to the range and mountain with him and his buddies as they poured hours into perfecting their shooting, scouting, and woodsmanship.

When I made my way to rokslide, the statements about hunting with non magnum, sub 30 cal bullets certainly was not foreign or offensive.

What convinced me the most was the vast number of wound pictures and associated impact velocities.

The only thing I’ll add to the discussion is this:
-Ethical hunting is a statement about the individual hunter as a whole, not any specific weapon system.
-to say it a different way, that internal drive to ethically harvest and recover an animal can be done with any tool or weapon. Understanding your system, and what it takes to be successful is absolutely a hallmark of anyone perfecting their craft and trying to be better.
- the threshold for ethical killing is certainly condition dependent. But a 77gr TMK hitting the heart and lungs at over 1800fps is well above any hypothetical minimum wounding threshold.
-and finally, practice makes the professional. It is an outward reflection of someone’s internal motivations. If I am committed to ethical killing I need to explore the limits of my system. For rifle hunting, this means thousands of shots in as many variable positions as possible. Just as it would for the archery hunter. AND if I have a system that I am intimately familiar with from training, why would I not simply take that system hunting?
-The benefits of portability, ergonomics, durability, recoil mitigation, and spotting ones trace cannot be understated.

 

[Thegman]

I don’t shoot any of my rifles a few thousand times per year, and I probably put more rounds through my 308 than any of my rifles. It just fits me perfect, feels great, and I love the accuracy I get with my hand loads. When I’m in my tree stand, I have absolute confidence that if I can see a deer, I can hit it with that rifle. So why would I change that?

As I stated earlier if I get one early and have the chance at more, I’ll try another rifle out if I can find one in time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

FWIW, I hear what you're saying. "If it ain't broke..."

If in your situation, you're not missing shots, you're not loosing animals, a rifle that might be even easier to shoot may not be able to make much difference because there's not much difference to be made.

Just my opinion, but I think sometimes people envision their hunting situation as the same for others, and that's where things go off the rails.

I know there are people that only hunt in places where shots beyond 100 yards rarely ever happen. Different parameters for them than guys, e.g., who hunt in places where they may be regularly shooting beyond, say, 400 yards.