What caused the Rokslide shift to smallest caliber and cartridges?

[RockAndSage]

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.

That's right. We're all just delusional, opinionated internet neckbeards. Carry on, super trooper. Nothing to learn here.

 

[Schmo]

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.

Oh, like this comparison from the FBI comparing a 175 TMK from a 20” 308 to a 77 TMK out of a 14.5” 5.56?

 

[Schmo]

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

Absolutely I would. What about a broadside shot discounts it against being quarter? The bullet went through both shoulder blades, and almost exited the far shoulder? That’s not any less tough than being quartered, because in a quartering scenario, you only have one shoulder to penetrate.


440 yards with an impact velocity of 1950-ish

 

[RockAndSage]

Absolutely I would. What about a broadside shot discounts it against being quarter? The bullet went through both shoulder blades, and almost exited the far shoulder? That’s not any less tough than being quartered, because in a quartering scenario, you only have one shoulder to penetrate.


440 yards with an impact velocity of 1950-ish
View attachment 958159

We need to come up with FNG Small Caliber Bingo...

1) NOT EMPIRICAL!
2) NO MARGIN FOR ERROR!
3) NOT DATA!

What else...?

 

[Q_Sertorius]

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.

How far does the bullet need to penetrate to reach the vitals on this hypothetical quartering away shot?

How much animal does a bullet propelled by an “adequate cartridge” penetrate?

How big is the wound channel from a bullet propelled by an “adequate cartridge?”

Is the same bullet more deadly going 2400 FPS at impact than one going 2300 FPS?

Under what circumstances will an 80-grain .257 or .243 ELDM be more deadly than an 80-grain .224 ELDM? Assume at least 1800 FPS impact velocity for each bullet.

Why is it that little kids and women can kill deer with .223s and .243s, but men need magnum rifles?

The first bad choice most hunters make is not being able to answer any of the questions above. The second is not shooting enough from field positions. The third is wasting time arguing with people about the above.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

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.

When did deer start wearing body armor?

 

[Schmo]

We need to come up with FNG Small Caliber Bingo...

1) NOT EMPIRICAL!
2) NO MARGIN FOR ERROR!
3) NOT DATA!

What else...?

Luck?

 

[NMTGrad]

That's right. We're all just delusional, opinionated internet neckbeards. Carry on, super trooper. Nothing to learn here.

That's right. We're all just delusional, opinionated internet neckbeards. Carry on, super trooper. Nothing to learn here.

At no point did I devolve into name calling as several people did here and did so quickly, which is why I rarely post. For some reason, hunters and gun owners are quick to take an academic discussion to insults and name calling when someone disagrees. Off handed pejoratives like “FNG” and “super trooper” demonstrate immaturity and lack of emotional intelligence. Sadly, this afflicts pretty much every open firearms and hunting forum in existence, and it’s indicative of why we struggle as a community to gain and maintain broad public acceptance.

So signing off until folks can maybe again demonstrate civility and refrain from insults and random assignment of pejoratives. Feel free to exchange or post additional insults, call me thin skinned or any other assortment of things that will likely follow publicly and privately, because it will only prove the point.

 

[RockAndSage]

Luck?

You know, the funny thing about his "luck skill" point, which is a form of survivor's bias...he's right, it's a real thing. But he's misapplying it so severely here it's closing off his learning. It's like watching each generation's top "gun instructors" get passed by, clutching to their old truths and being unable to accept what the succeeding generations develop.

 

[Schmo]

At no point did I devolve into name calling as several people did here and did so quickly, which is why I rarely post. For some reason, hunters and gun owners are quick to take an academic discussion to insults and name calling when someone disagrees. Off handed pejoratives like “FNG” and “super trooper” demonstrate immaturity and lack of emotional intelligence. Sadly, this afflicts pretty much every open firearms and hunting forum in existence, and it’s indicative of why we struggle as a community to gain and maintain broad public acceptance.

So signing off until folks can maybe again demonstrate civility and refrain from insults and random assignment of pejoratives. Feel free to exchange or post additional insults, call me thin skinned or any other assortment of things that will likely follow publicly and privately, because it will only prove the point.

Just wanted to say that I’m not one that did any name calling. Any posts I’ve made about you or to you were meant open, honest, and good natured.

 

[nm.otter]

<grabs popcorn>

 

[Q_Sertorius]

At no point did I devolve into name calling as several people did here and did so quickly, which is why I rarely post. For some reason, hunters and gun owners are quick to take an academic discussion to insults and name calling when someone disagrees. Off handed pejoratives like “FNG” and “super trooper” demonstrate immaturity and lack of emotional intelligence. Sadly, this afflicts pretty much every open firearms and hunting forum in existence, and it’s indicative of why we struggle as a community to gain and maintain broad public acceptance.

So signing off until folks can maybe again demonstrate civility and refrain from insults and random assignment of pejoratives. Feel free to exchange or post additional insults, call me thin skinned or any other assortment of things that will likely follow publicly and privately, because it will only prove the point.

FNG is not an insult. It’s a RokSlide rank. It’s right there by your name.

 

[Schmo]

At no point did I devolve into name calling as several people did here and did so quickly, which is why I rarely post. For some reason, hunters and gun owners are quick to take an academic discussion to insults and name calling when someone disagrees.

I’m not condoning name calling, but we do get annoyed when a new member tells us how wrong we are for doing something that has been proven highly effective for hundreds/thousands of times.

 

[NMTGrad]

I’m not condoning name calling, but we do get annoyed when a new member tells us how wrong we are for doing something that has been proven highly effective for hundreds/thousands of times.

I’m not condoning name calling, but we do get annoyed when a new member tells us how wrong we are for doing something that has been proven highly effective for hundreds/thousands of times.

FNG is a status assigned based on the number of posts made as opposed to time on the website or experience in the field. I retain FNG status because I rarely post because of the nonsense that so often ensues when opinions differ. The FNG moniker applied by another user was clearly done so as an insult, and subsequent attempts to justify immature behavior as “well it’s in your username” falls quite flat. To those users who expressed valid, differing viewpoints. Bravo. Academic debate is useful and educational. To those who chose to resort to ad hominem attacks, well, I challenge you to ask yourself how that kind of conduct is working out for us as a community and as a country. Last I looked around, the normalization of bad public conduct has done little for any of us.

 

[Antares]

This is awesome!

 

[eric1115]

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.

Do you have either empirical data or anecdotal evidence that the specific .223 bullets being recommended are not sufficient? FBI terminal performance data sure seems to jive with the hundreds (thousands?) of documented kills in the thread we keep referencing. And VERY few if any poor outcomes that can be attrited to cartridge/bullet.

You don't really believe that empirical data is all that matters though, right? You wouldn't take the F150 over the Jeep for towing because of an empirically supported scientific study, rather because of the mountain of anecdotal evidence that a heavier long wheelbase vehicle with stiffer suspension is a better tow vehicle.

One thing you may not realize if you haven't looked at that thread, is that the love for .223 here is not a blanket recommendation for any/all .223 loadings being great hunting choices. Most of us would strongly steer people toward 77TMK and heavy for caliber ELDX/M projectiles for best terminal performance (especially as range increases). If we were recommending 55gr FMJ's as general hunting bullets, I would be with you saying that's asking for trouble. We don't recommend those (or 77SMK's generally, or a lot of other bullets that are commonly loaded in .223) because they have been shown to not reliably produce the wounds we want to see.

Dont bow out, but also take a bit of time to find out why we hold the position we do. The pushback you're getting is because as hard-won as your knowledge is, you should understand that we have some equally hard-won knowledge from actually doing the thing and compiling our experiences together.

 

[cal30_sniper]

I always felt as if I had “enough handgun” for any unexpected gunfight (a handgun is a weapon of convenience, so if I really anticipated a potential gunfight, I carried an M-4; and I brought 8-10 of my closest friends who also had M-4s).

…

Similarly, I would never, ever willingly use something like a .223 to hunt deer, no matter how great the bullet is supposed to be. Doing so is just tempting fate and asking for a poor outcome.

Hold up, willing to shoot people (who might be shooting back and/or wearing plates) with a .223, but not willing to shoot a deer with one?

 

[rifletuner]

I hunt everything with 77gn TMKs in a 223 Rem just to make JVB cry