What caused the Rokslide shift to smallest caliber and cartridges?

[Southernfried]

Actual footage of NMTgrads bear tracking Mad bear I am kidding...

 

[BLJ]

I think I'd rather have a gasser with a mag full of 77TMKs e.g., over a shotgun with slugs.

No experience but I always thought this would be a great spot for 75 Gold Dots.

 

[Bowfinn]

Honest question.

Would a larger caliber shot in same spot through the shoulders (not where a bears vitals are) have gotten to the vitals? Or caused a different outcome?

Here is a good picture of bear vitals with the shoulder. Bears need to be shot pretty far back.

 

[omicron1792]

Here is a good picture of bear vitals with the shoulder. Bears need to be shot pretty far back.

Yeah. I killed my first bear this year. Shot it in the middle of the middle.

If you shoot the shoulder and don’t hit spine they just run off

 

[FredH]

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.

It really isn't going to make much difference on deer as they are easily penetrated by a lot of cartridges. I have noticed a distinct difference in blood trails, how fast feral hogs go down say when comparing my 308, 35 Whelen to a 223 or a 243 for that matter. Especially when hunting at night. You want a very good blood trail to follow when looking for a hog in the dark, you also want that hog dead. Unless one has used a 358 or 35 Whelen and seen just how effective they are on game, the short distances animals travel after solid hits you will never understand. For night hunting I put my 7-08 as a minimum if hunting thick stuff where I can't always make a CNS shot.

 

[FredH]

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.

Funny post. I have never had to look for the entrance hole my 308 or 30-06 made but I have searched for entrance holes various 22 caliber bullets made.

 

[FredH]

O'Connor talking about fragmenting bullets on deer sized animals back in 1961 on bullets he used before WWII:

"With lighter big-game animals, the biggest problem is quick expansion instead of deep penetration. The right medicine is the bullet that expands rapidly and even disintegrates. I have gotten more instantaneous kills on Arizona whitetail deer, which dress out on the average from 90 to 110 pounds, with the Barnes pre-World War II 120-grain .270 bullet than with any other. It had a thin jacket and a soft lead core. When driven at about 3,250 at the muzzle, it was a bomb. I found that a hit anywhere near the heart would almost always rupture the heart with fragments. I never had one of those bullets pass through even a light deer or antelope with a chest shot, and I cannot remember anything but one-shot, instantaneous kills. In fact, I have even seen that bullet stay in the body of a coyote, and I cannot remember hitting a single coyote without killing it instantly."

No one is saying that a bullet weighing 120-130 grains that expands violently won't kill deer. In fact one could easily argue that the 270 is bigger than most of the Rokslide preferred cartridges which as far as I can tell are .224-.243 and burn less than 45 grains of powder on average.

 

[FredH]

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.

The requirement for fast shooting makes a difference, And no the vast majority of 6mm bullets launched at the speeds a 243 is capable of won't give corner to corner penetration in a 150 to 200 pound deer. A lot of shooting is offhand with maybe 20 seconds at most to make the shot. It isn't like waiting over a bait pile.

 

[FredH]

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

The FBI was talking about effectiveness with solid chest hits in humans.

 

[FredH]

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?

A shoulder blade is a thin piece of bone. I often wonder why it is mentioned when touting penetration.

 

[cal30_sniper]

The FBI was talking about effectiveness with solid chest hits in humans.

Pretty sure they weren’t shooting humans in that test. Looked kind of like ballistics gel to me.

 

[FredH]

Pretty sure they weren’t shooting humans in that test. Looked kind of like ballistics gel to me.

Very astute. Now what parameters do you think the FBI set's it's gel up to simulate?

 

[stromwrecker]

the more time I have spent on this thread, the more I’m pushed away from the conventional wisdom. My lifelong preferred whitetail caliber has always been 30-06 with a bonded bullet. I’ve killed deer with .243 and various .22 calibers but always leaned towards “use enough gun.” My goal whenever I open these forums is learning. A 6mm of 6.5mm is probably my next choice. Thank you to all who’ve opined and shared here.

 

[Southern Lights]

No one is saying that a bullet weighing 120-130 grains that expands violently won't kill deer. In fact one could easily argue that the 270 is bigger than most of the Rokslide preferred cartridges which as far as I can tell are .224-.243 and burn less than 45 grains of powder on average.

I've killed deer with a 55gr. VMax 223 which fragments very violently. Hit it at about 100m and she just walked a couple steps, lied down, and died quietly. There was no blood from the entry, no exit wound, but when I rolled her over it sounded like a barrel of water inside. The bullet wrecked most of the lungs and caused massive internal bleeding. Shot through front shoulder easily.

The bullet worked well enough and I just heard from one NZ culler said they saw great performance with them also in gel and on deer.

But here's the rub: They sprayed the insides with heaps of fine lead particles. Now of course some people think eating lead is a small risk, but I'm not one of them. On this deer I shot I had half the backsteaks bloodshot and front shoulder completely wrecked. I threw out half the animal and will never use that bullet again on deer due to the waste.

I fully admit fragmenting bullets work great and this has been known for ages, but there is a downside if you don't want to waste a lot of meat. If you use fragmenting bullets you are likely going to be throwing out a lot of the animal around the wound channel in my experience as well as others I know. Hunters need to decide what they're willing to accept here.

 

[CJ_BG]

The requirement for fast shooting makes a difference, And no the vast majority of 6mm bullets launched at the speeds a 243 is capable of won't give corner to corner penetration in a 150 to 200 pound deer. A lot of shooting is offhand with maybe 20 seconds at most to make the shot. It isn't like waiting over a bait pile.

90gr ballistic tips on a 275yd shot (a quick offhand one might I add) in a 19" 243, impact something around 2300fps. 170lb dress buck shot quartered away just in front of the nearside hip, bullet recovered under the hide of the opposite shoulder. 50yd death run into a small cherry tree.

90gr accubond, 2700fps impact on a 160lb dressed buck. Impact through the humerus quartered to. Bullet was stopped somewhere inside the stomach, didn't feel like digging too hard for it.

100gr partition, unknown impact but assumed to be between 2700 and 2800fps. Shot through the shoulders of a mature doe and then complete pass through the fawn standing behind her. Combined distance traveled less than 100yds

95 sst on a 3.5 year old buck, didn't weigh it but in our area that's usually a 165-180lb deer on the hoof. Impact around 2800fps frontal shot, bullet was somewhere behind the diaphragm but again didn't look hard for it.

Pretty sure other than one shot with an 85gr sierra game king and two with 105 a max every other deer we've shot with the 243/6mm rem/6mm creed has had an exit. That's something like 65 or 70 deer using bullets that vary in weight and construction from 80gr ttsx and 85gr speer/sierra to 115 rdf and the 105 a max. Fast shots usually under 100yds, 5 or 6 were running shots during driven hunts. Our longest shot was 350yds

 

[twil]

very good points!

 

[AZ_Hunter]

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.

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.

FWIW, my go-to medium game gun is a 6.5 PRC with Norma BondStrike bullets because it gives me the range I know I’m comfortable shooting with effective bullet performance, and my go-to big critter gun is a 270 WSM with 130 gr E-Tips. And while I’m comfortable with either of these for black bears, well, that’s still a .300 Win Mag with 165 gr Sierra Gameking HPBT bullets. Why? See the previous statements “don’t willingly take a .32 ACP to a gunfight” and “don’t willingly take just a handgun to a gunfight” either.

No 223 against a deer but you would take the m4 against a 200+ lb ape with a gun and an intent to kill you?

That is cognitive dissonance.

Your logic is sound right up to that point.

 

[ShadowAviator]

No 223 against a deer but you would take the m4 against a 200+ lb ape with a gun and an intent to kill you?

That is cognitive dissonance.

Your logic is sound right up to that point.

I just want to address this specific point.

To compare his choice of deer rifle with his choice for a combat weapon is a very poor argument.

For deer, we want a quick clean kill with the least shots possible. We can often take our time with the shot. Shots maybe long distance.

For combat, a quick rifle with a high magazine capacity is better. Shots are closer and you have to be quick, because the bad guy is shooting back.

The point is the two situations are very different. I think he was saying that he has adjusted his thinking over time to what works best for each area.

Again, I just wanted to address this specific comparison.

 

[nephewjephew]

They’re both 200lb mammals.

 

[ShadowAviator]

They’re both 200lb mammals.

And a 223 in the vitals kills either.

However, the needs of each situation is different.

You missed my point. It's just a bad comparison.

It's like comparing apples and oranges. Yes, they are both fruit and make a delicious juice, but I'm not sure sure they could replace one another in a recipe.