What caused the Rokslide shift to smallest caliber and cartridges?

[JackButler]

My goodness. No, I’m not going to go back and read 98 pages of previous posts. I’ll read the first page where the thread started and skim the rest.

Over the course of both my professional career (law enforcement, including SRT and firearms/tactical instructor) and a lifetime of hunting, I have shot hundreds of thousands of rounds and watched both handgun and long gun ballistics evolve. Thirty years ago, the terminal performance of 9mm defensive bullets was decidedly “meh,” but the .357 and .45 bullets shined. So I carried a .45 for years. But as ballistic technology evolved, the terminal performance of the 9mm greatly improved; enough so that I eventually, and quite readily, shelved my .45 and began carrying a 9mm. When I made that switch, 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).

Similar trends have impacted hunting bullet terminal performance. Thirty years ago, some smaller, faster bullets had decidedly “meh” terminal performance, so in my “earlier” years, I carried .30 caliber hunting rifles, sometimes in magnum calibers, to make sure I had “enough gun.” But looking back, I now understand it wasn’t making sure I had “enough gun,” but consistent, reliable terminal ballistics, which seemed to be consistently in the .277, 7mm, and .308 rounds.

But again, over time, ballistic technology evolved, and I gradually eased away from the .30 magnums and 7mm magnums because for most realistic hunting scenarios, I could do what I needed to do ethically with something like a 270 WSM or 6.5 PRC knowing the bullet would perform effectively every time (assuming I placed it properly). Thus, I have been one of those guys who’s transitioned to smaller, faster calibers.

That being said, common sense still has to prevail. I would never, ever willingly take a .32 ACP to a gunfight no matter how great bullet technology is today. That’s just dumb. 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.

The 223 is not inferior, especially for deer. That's just factually incorrect. If you want to use a 6.5prc for deer, by all means do so. It most certainly works. But at normal hunting ranges under 300 yards, the 223 kills them just as dead and just as quick. The 77TMK is devastating, a lot of people complain it does too much damage on deer. I killed hundreds of deer with a 223/match bullets even before the far superior 77TMK came out. With depredation permits I killed 100 in about 2 months with 69SMK's. Ranges from 10-200 yards and the furthest one ran about 50 yards, most died under 10 yards. and that was with the 69 non-tipped, which is nowhere near as good as the 77TMK(and probably the ELD-M's, but I haven't tested those).

So the point is that evolving technology allows us to use smaller calibers that recoil less and are more pleasant to shoot, and generally still have very effective terminal performance. But as ethical hunters, it’s incumbent upon all of us to exercise sound judgment when heading into the field about what is really “enough gun” and the right bullet.

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.

Sure, some people overestimate their abilities, but the point is there is plenty of empirical evidence here and elsewhere that the 223 is devastating on deer. I've personally shot hundreds of deer with a 223 and ethically killed every single one. I'm not a Navy Seal, or an LE officer, or anything else special. I'm an IT guy that likes hunting, and through my own experience on some farmland I have access to, have verified with 100% certainty that deer are very easy to kill with a 223. and not one off luck. Hundred of personal data points with 100% success.

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.

As far as "targeting advice to the average hunter", I'd say that if we are talking about normal hunting ranges, which in reality is under 200 yards, the average schmo that shoots a box of ammo a year would be much better served by a 223/77TMK rig over a 300win mag.

 

[Chris in TN]

I started hunting with a 6.8spc in 2006, I think. It took a few years for it to sink in that smaller calibers kill well and that had nothing to do with caliber magic and everything to do with putting bullets where they belong in terms of both anatomy and impact velocity relative to their construction. I still prefer 2000' impact velocity for modern bottlenecks with bullets of 100 to 180 grains as my personal ideal but I have no problems with dropping down to a 77TMK and have seen much smaller things work effectively.

As far as "targeting advice to the average hunter", I'd say that if we are talking about normal hunting ranges, which in reality is under 200 yards, the average schmo that shoots a box of ammo a year would be much better served by a 223/77TMK rig over a 300win mag.

Say it again and louder for the guys in back. And keep repeating it.

 

[Harvey_NW]

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.

Anecdotal evidence is more along the lines of testimony, "I did it and it worked for me".

591 pages of evidence documented in a specific format with analysis photos, is definitively, empirical.

 

[JackButler]

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.

I'm not trying to be condescending, but it's you that doesn't understand the difference. Thousands of deer documented with pictures is not anecdotal. And even me personally, 200+ deer harvested with the 223. That's about as empirical as you will get in real hunting. If you expect a peer reviewed study by 50 PhD's with millions of data points under lab conditions, that's not realistic for something like this. And by your logic, nothing would pass your test anyway, since nobody has done an empirical study to your standards with ANY round, so the 300winmag is no more effective than the 17 remington as far as scientific studies go.

 

[JackButler]

…



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?

That was my thought as well lol. 200+lb psycho with a gun ready to shoot you, M4 is the best tool for the job. 150lb deer that poses no threat, 223 is too small. Logic not working for me.

 

[General RE LEE]

Slight digression but is there any advantage to the .223 over the 6 ARC? Question being I already have a 6 ARC bolt action in the stable and curious if I even need a .223. Barrel life on 6 ARC is probably going to be around 5000 rounds and recoil is similar.

 

[Spoonbill]

Slight digression but is there any advantage to the .223 over the 6 ARC? Question being I already have a 6 ARC bolt action in the stable and curious if I even need a .223. Barrel life on 6 ARC is probably going to be around 5000 rounds and recoil is similar.

Ammo is cheaper with the 223. You can use cheap ammo for practice/shooting predators. I don’t have a 6arc so I don’t know the difference in hunting ammo costs but the 223 may be a little cheaper.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

Slight digression but is there any advantage to the .223 over the 6 ARC? Question being I already have a 6 ARC bolt action in the stable and curious if I even need a .223. Barrel life on 6 ARC is probably going to be around 5000 rounds and recoil is similar.

For hunting, there’s no practical difference apart from ammo costs and legality.

For practice, the slightly lower recoil and ammo costs is helpful. Form strongly recommended that I get a .223 instead of relying on my 6.5mm Grendel for the S2H course.

 

[General RE LEE]

Ammo is cheaper with the 223. You can use cheap ammo for practice/shooting predators. I don’t have a 6arc so I don’t know the difference in hunting ammo costs but the 223 may be a little cheaper.

That makes sense although I reload for 6 ARC.

 

[JackButler]

Slight digression but is there any advantage to the .223 over the 6 ARC? Question being I already have a 6 ARC bolt action in the stable and curious if I even need a .223. Barrel life on 6 ARC is probably going to be around 5000 rounds and recoil is similar.

Better ammo availability at the average store, and likely cheaper as @Spoonbill said. Realistically though if you already have a 6 ARC, probably not a massive need for you to get a 223. But hey who am I to suggest a guy should have LESS guns?

 

[atmat]

Slight digression but is there any advantage to the .223 over the 6 ARC? Question being I already have a 6 ARC bolt action in the stable and curious if I even need a .223. Barrel life on 6 ARC is probably going to be around 5000 rounds and recoil is similar.

Barrel life on a 223 can be >10k rounds, so relatively significant for a high volume shooter. I assume components are also cheaper.

The recoil difference isn’t huge. It woildnt be the determining factor for me.

 

[Bluefish]

Slight digression but is there any advantage to the .223 over the 6 ARC? Question being I already have a 6 ARC bolt action in the stable and curious if I even need a .223. Barrel life on 6 ARC is probably going to be around 5000 rounds and recoil is similar.

6 arc is legal in Colorado for big game while 223 is not. I think there are some other states with similar laws.

On the practical side, 6 arc will have more recoil, more powder and heavier bullets. Imho it’s still a great choice. Might even have a little more range than the 223

 

[mt terry d]

But again, over time, ballistic technology evolved,

That being said, common sense still has to prevail. 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.

When new information is available "common sense" needs to evolve too.

223 77TMK at 260 yards

This is not an infrequent event.
My personal experience is 5 elk from 120 to 370 yards.
And two nice bucks
One wounded and lost cow elk at 420 as I shot a tad low and broke the off
side front leg. I had plenty of opportunity to finish her off but focused on
my son's bull to be sure he was done. Regrettable mistake on my part
that's full disclosure.
Absolute perfect bullet/cartridge performance in every case.

 

[StupidLightweight]

That was my thought as well lol. 200+lb psycho with a gun ready to shoot you, M4 is the best tool for the job. 150lb deer that poses no threat, 223 is too small. Logic not working for me.

This is a solid point and shows the fallacy of their argument. Amazingly, I've heard knowledgable, experienced hunters argue that an arrow with the best broadhead is more lethal than a .223 with the best bullet. It still blows my mind.

 

[Schmo]

This is a solid point and shows the fallacy of their argument. Amazingly, I've heard knowledgable, experienced hunters argue that an arrow with the best broadhead is more lethal than a .223 with the best bullet. It still blows my mind.

I’m sure the argument would be made that it typically requires more than one shot in an LE/military situation. However, very very few would be using a 77 TMK. A single 77 TMK to high center chest, and it’s over NOW!

 

[Rich M]

This is a solid point and shows the fallacy of their argument. Amazingly, I've heard knowledgable, experienced hunters argue that an arrow with the best broadhead is more lethal than a .223 with the best bullet. It still blows my mind.

imo, pigs die faster to a broadhead than a bullet. Just my experience with 12-20 pigs as the sample size. Furthest one went 40-50 yards. Shoot a pig with 30-06 at 200 yards dbl lung and it is still alive when you get to it - weird but my experience.

I'll take a gun over a bow any day of the week for ease of use and additional range.

 

[Choupique]

I’m sure the argument would be made that it typically requires more than one shot in an LE/military situation. However, very very few would be using a 77 TMK.

I think we can all unanimously agree that a .223 with the wrong bullet is an abysmal choice for big game hunting.

 

[Schmo]

I think we can all unanimously agree that a .223 with the wrong bullet is an abysmal choice for big game hunting.

Absolutely

 

[omicron1792]

imo, pigs die faster to a broadhead than a bullet. Just my experience with 12-20 pigs as the sample size. Furthest one went 40-50 yards. Shoot a pig with 30-06 at 200 yards dbl lung and it is still alive when you get to it - weird but my experience.

I'll take a gun over a bow any day of the week for ease of use and additional range.

You’re shooting them in the wrong spot!

 

[Rich M]

You’re shooting them in the wrong spot!

Yeah…. Am programed to shoot behind shoulder. Behind ear would be a lot faster!