What caused the Rokslide shift to smallest caliber and cartridges?

[Schmo]

And I would tell those folks the same thing I’d tell someone who willingly takes a .32 ACP to a gunfight. There is lots and lots and lots of empirical data about .32s killing people in gunfights. That still doesn’t make it a good decision to carry one into the breach. In the tactical world, it’s called luck skill building. Doing something wrong or unwise repeatedly but never having a poor outcome doesn’t mean you’re a skilled tactician. It just means you’ve been lucky. But lots and lots of teams do it. And I told them the same thing. Luck skill building gets people killed.

Before posting more about this, maybe go read some of that thread. Two of my own kills are in it. We’re not saying it’s the be-all, end-all cartridge. But paired with the right bullet, it offers some incredible terminal ballistics. So much so, that with certain bullets, some say it’s too much damage. It’s not “luck”, as you put it. It’s been replicated hundreds if not thousands of times by members here. It’s a known outcome. No one with an open mind or honesty can read that thread and walk away saying “it’s marginal”.

 

[Schmo]

Do you have any reasoned evidence that the specific .223 projectiles being discussed (77TMK, 73/80/88 ELDX/M) are tempting fate and asking for a poor outcome? Like have you used them or seen them used? Or are you assuming they are ineffective the way lots of guys assume 9mm is underpowered if .45 is an option?

To add to this, the FBI’s own ballistics testing shows it’s not far behind a 308 in terminal performance.

 

[atmat]

I’m not sure it’s worth reasoning with another FNG who doesn’t read the thread but feels the need to contribute an inexperienced opinion.

 

[RockAndSage]

And I would tell those folks the same thing I’d tell someone who willingly takes a .32 ACP to a gunfight. There is lots and lots and lots of empirical data about .32s killing people in gunfights. That still doesn’t make it a good decision to carry one into the breach. In the tactical world, it’s called luck skill building. Doing something wrong or unwise repeatedly but never having a poor outcome doesn’t mean you’re a skilled tactician. It just means you’ve been lucky. But lots and lots of teams do it. And I told them the same thing. Luck skill building gets people killed.

Hmmm...trying to figure out where to start here.

So, first - there's a handful of people on here who have a tactical background meeting or exceeding your own. Some are using .223 extensively in big game hunting. Those guys have a vastly greater acquaintance with the realities of .223 on living flesh than you do with 9mm, and wouldn't be continuing to make that decision if they were getting sub-par results. I'm saying this respectfully. I'm saying you're not the only one here with high standards of real-world performance - and the training and professional background to make solid decisions and dynamic, iterative, evidence-based evaluation.

What you do have, is limited knowledge, and by your own words, no experience with .223 on big game.

Before this turns into an interwebnets pissing match - please, spend the time reading through this thread, as well as the .223 for big game one I linked above. It's worth it, for a lot of reasons. There's a lot more to the discussion than caliber or cartridge, and the evidence is there for you.

Almost nobody came to this discussion starting with the idea that .223 is excellent for deer. Yet...here we are.

Because reasons.

 

[Schmo]

I’m not sure it’s worth reasoning with another FNG who doesn’t read the thread but feels the need to contribute an inexperienced opinion.

Maybe not, but he seemed open-minded, so I thought maybe some good would come of it.

 

[NMTGrad]

Your loss. Lots of us are killing lots of game with these inferior .223s you speak of.

But you keep using a 300wm for those big scary black bears.

Even after teaching tactics and firearms, I’m always amazed at people’s willingness to vociferously defend what is really poor decision making in the field, and I remain confused as to why it’s so prevalent regarding firearms and ballistics. Yes, small caliber, e.g., .223 rounds can be very effective, and have been proven so. But they’ve also had more than their fair share of failures, particularly in comparison to the competition. Have a lot of people died from a .32 caliber gunshot? Yes. Have a lot of people just walked themselves to the ER and gotten stapled up? Yep.

In the same vein, yes, by all means, you can tow that 6500 pound trailer with your short wheelbase SUV because it says that the vehicle is rated to tow that weight. But the short wheelbase remains an impediment. Just because you’ve never had a problem towing with it doesn’t make it the best tool or the best technique. A longer wheelbase vehicle, e.g., a truck, is still a safer option and less likely to get you into trouble. Do I need a 3/4 ton truck? No. Not at all. But give me a choice of a Jeep or an F-150 to tow with, I’ll take the truck for the increased margin of error.

And am I afraid of “the big, bad bear?” Nope. I just really don’t want to track them thru the nasty, thick, thorny stuff they tend to run into when wounded. And I really, really, really don’t want to track someone else’s bear that was wounded cause the hunter exercised poor judgment.

 

[KHntr]

Doing something wrong or unwise repeatedly but never having a poor outcome doesn’t mean you’re a skilled tactician. It just means you’ve been lucky.

Serious question. Where is the line that separates “luck” from expected results? If I shoot a moose with an 88 ELD m and it falls down dead, was it luck or was it the expected result? If I shoot the same moose from a different angle, and the same result occurs, was it luck? Meaning, if I purposely put one on the point of the shoulder and it breaks the humerus and crushes the lungs, was that luck? Or was it the expected result based on past experiences building up to that?

I can understand your point if I shoot at lungs with a 53 vmax and hit a branch on the way there and it goes in his earhole and stones him dead, THAT is unquestionably lucky. But only because the outcome relied on multiple things going right for it to work.

 

[Schmo]

I’m always amazed at people’s willingness to vociferously defend what is really poor decision making in the field, and I remain confused as to why it’s so prevalent regarding firearms and ballistics. Yes, small caliber, e.g., .223 rounds can be very effective, and have been proven so. But they’ve also had more than their fair share of failures, particularly in comparison to the competition.

Can you define “poor decision making” regarding the 223? Read the 223 thread, and tell me how it’s poor decision making? Again, don’t assume we’re saying it’s the only cartridge that should be hunted with, but we are saying it’s incredibly effective.

 

[NMTGrad]

Maybe not, but he seemed open-minded, so I thought maybe some good would come of it.

Luck. Skill. Building. ‘Nuff said.

And there are a lot of highly skilled operators who use nothing but a .22 Hornet to ethically take game all the time. They are the exception to the rule, not the rule. The majority of people vastly overestimate their shooting/fighting/driving/home carpentry skills and then make poor decisions. More often than not, it results it little more than inconvenience. But when it goes wrong, it goes way wrong.

Lots of people with limited skillsets cruise this website looking for advice. That advice needs to be tailored to the average hunter, not the highly skilled, former ODA guy who can hit a moving target at 700 yards.

 

[Schmo]

We’re talking about known outcomes, tested hundreds to thousands of times with certain bullets and velocity parameters, with incredible success.

 

[RockAndSage]

I’m always amazed at people’s willingness to vociferously defend what is really poor decision making in the field

And I'm always amazed at how vociferously people defend their incorrect or misapplied opinions in the face of actual, real-world, evidence.

 

[Schmo]

Lots of people with limited skillsets cruise this website looking for advice. That advice needs to be tailored to the average hunter, not the highly skilled, former ODA guy who can hit a moving target at 700 yards.

So can an average hunter shoot a 22 cal centerfire or 6mm better, or a 7RM?

Part of the beauty of the 223 is how easy it is to shoot really well with it. Hit rates are a lot higher than with a 6.5 PRC in an “average” hunters hands.

 

[NMTGrad]

Can you define “poor decision making” regarding the 223? Read the 223 thread, and tell me how it’s poor decision making? Again, don’t assume we’re saying it’s the only cartridge that should be hunted with, but we are saying it’s incredibly effective.

Sure. Let’s see what happens when a poor to average shooter takes a poor shot, e.g., hard quartering away, with that caliber, and gets minimal to no penetration and no blood trail.

Like everything else, bad outcomes are rarely the result of a single bad choice. It’s almost always a compilation of bad choices.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

Maybe not, but he seemed open-minded, so I thought maybe some good would come of it.

I agree. His post started off well. He does seem capable of learning. Give him time.

Two or three years ago, I was pretty narrow minded about .223 for deer and the use of match bullets in hunting. I got into a couple of arguments over on the Campfire. A little bit of time here, some time reading more about terminal ballistics, and some time spent discussing the matter with a few of my fellow Marines and I came around. I still get to argue with my dad when he insists that a .243 doesn’t provide enough margin for error for 150-pound whitetails. So, no need to argue with folks about it here too.

 

[NMTGrad]

And I'm always amazed at how vociferously people defend their incorrect or misapplied opinions in the face of actual, real-world, evidence.

Put the empirical data, not the anecdotal data on the table, and we will talk. The majority of the “data” posted here and elsewhere is anecdotal, not empirical. Just because I have great results with blank round and blank bullet by no means makes that data empirical.

Again, I’m amazed when it comes to firearms the lack of understanding about the difference between empirically supported research and anecdotal evidence.

 

[Schmo]

Sure. Let’s see what happens when a poor to average shooter takes a poor shot, e.g., hard quartering away, with that caliber, and gets minimal to no penetration and no blood trail.

Like everything else, bad outcomes are rarely the result of a single bad choice. It’s almost always a compilation of bad choices.

I say respectfully that you’re showing your ignorance. I shot a muley doe last year, and the 77TMK blew through both shoulder blades at distance. Tyler Freel took a moose with the 22 ARC and 88 ELD that had now problem going through the moose shoulder.

Many, many examples in the thread we’ve referred to multiple times about shoulders being penetrated without issue.

If a broadhead can go through a scapula, why can’t a bullet?

 

[NMTGrad]

I agree. His post started off well. He does seem capable of learning. Give him time.

Two or three years ago, I was pretty narrow minded about .223 for deer and the use of match bullets in hunting. I got into a couple of arguments over on the Campfire. A little bit of time here, some time reading more about terminal ballistics, and some time spent discussing the matter with a few of my fellow Marines and I came around. I still get to argue with my dad when he insists that a .243 doesn’t provide enough margin for error for 150-pound whitetails. So, no need to argue with folks about it here too.

No. I’ll fade away again like I’ve done for years because once again, the firearms debate devolves into anecdotes vs actually, scientifically validated data and research.

 

[Schmo]

No. I’ll fade away again like I’ve done for years because once again, the firearms debate devolves into anecdotes vs actually, scientifically validated data and research.

Besides testing on game, how can you come up with empirical data on cartridges?

 

[NMTGrad]

Besides testing on game, how can you come up with empirical data on cartridges?

The extensive terminal ballistics testing done by facilities like the FBI’s Ballistic Research Facility and extensive testing done by the military that, wait for it, is transitioning away from the .223 to other, bigger rounds. Like the 6.5s. Oh wait. We seemed to have all missed that. Oh well.

 

[NMTGrad]

I say respectfully that you’re showing your ignorance. I shot a muley doe last year, and the 77TMK blew through both shoulder blades at distance. Tyler Freel took a moose with the 22 ARC and 88 ELD that had now problem going through the moose shoulder.

Many, many examples in the thread we’ve referred to multiple times about shoulders being penetrated without issue.

If a broadhead can go through a scapula, why can’t a bullet?

So you took a nice, clean broadside shot. Would you take the same shot hard quartering?