Great discussion.

[Shane Lindsey]

Ahh you mean like when our troops discovered the 556 sucked at range in Afghanistan and had to pull M14s out of moth balls?

That's funny. Bearded ninja dudes were all about the 30 cal until they had to hump the mountains, then they wanted the 5.56.

 

[southpa]

No I'm not biased. I don't even hunt with a 6mm, how would I be biased?

I agree with everything you stated here as well.

Lemme be clear, I don't mean anything directed at you or anyone else specifically buddy. I know youre simply adding perspective and i appreciate perspective. This is a discussion and im just simply participating in the "great discussion."

 

[Huntnful]

Lemme be clear, I don't mean anything directed at you or anyone else specifically buddy. I know youre simply adding perspective and i appreciate perspective. This is a discussion and im just simply participating in the "great discussion."

Oh okay. Totally understandable. Obviously things get misunderstood on internet communication haha. My apologies!

 

[FireFlyFishing]

That's funny. Bearded ninja dudes were all about the 30 cal until they had to hump the mountains, then they wanted the 5.56.

I have one in a Sage chassis. I can confirm. It's heavy.

 

[marksman1941]

I think a point that still isn't getting brought up, that was very clear in the info, is that recoil vs. shootability was the driving factor of the whole conversation. And smaller bullets and they're capable sized wound channels fit into that well in regards to recoil. But recoil is the catalyst to, being able to physically shoot the rifle better. So if you bring the recoil down, with rifle weights and muzzle devices, you just bring up the caliber/cartridge and bullet weight if you want to.

He said, and I can't prove this, but above 14 ft lbs of felt recoil if where shooters start to measurably drop off in accuracy, in compromised field shooting positions. AKA, not prone off a bipod and rear rest. I believe it based off shooting my own systems though

I have a 9lb 22CM with no muzzle device. It's shooting 80 ELDM's at 3300fps. It has 9 ft lbs of recoil. It actually has legitimate felt recoil.

I have a 10lb 6PRC. Currently shooting 109 ELDM's at 3170fps. It should have 14 ft lbs of recoil, but it has a muzzle brake, so it's probably closer to 7 ft lbs. It definitely has less felt recoil than the 22CM.

I have a 10lb 7-300NMI shooting 180 ELDM's at 3160. It should have 34 ft lbs of felt recoil. But again, it has a muzzle brake so it should be around 17 ft lbs of felt recoil. I feel like this is super manageable recoil, as seen in that aoudad video. But I doubt I would shoot it as good as the 22 CM in a bunch of random field positions at say, 600 yards if I shot them side by side from many different positions. But I also doubt I would miss any vital sized targets with it, that I wouldn't miss with the 22CM

I think this is what folks are forgetting. No one in the podcast is arguing that bigger bullets don't make bigger holes. Theyre arguing that smaller calibers create better shooters, and better accuracy with smaller calibers is more lethal than poor accuracy with larger calibers. Given the same accuracy and shootability from all positions, bigger will win out. But a .338 RUM with a 5 port brake shooting angles off a backpack on a rock face is inherently more difficult to shoot than a .223 in the same position. It takes a better shooter to properly deliver the shot with the bigger rifle. So for your average shooter, a smaller caliber rifle will be a more lethal choice cause he may actually hit the target

 

[southpa]

I think this is what folks are forgetting. No one in the podcast is arguing that bigger bullets don't make bigger holes. Theyre arguing that smaller calibers create better shooters, and better accuracy with smaller calibers is more lethal than poor accuracy with larger calibers. Given the same accuracy and shootability from all positions, bigger will win out. But a .338 RUM with a 5 port brake shooting angles off a backpack on a rock face is inherently more difficult to shoot than a .223 in the same position. It takes a better shooter to properly deliver the shot with the bigger rifle. So for your average shooter, a smaller caliber rifle will be a more lethal choice cause he may actually hit the target

The problem I see with this is that we are always continually moving the goal post with hypotheticals that favor smaller calibers. We can dream up hypotheticals all day about shootability making you more accurate. You are 100% correct but If I can shoot my short barrel 300wm in the .3s at 925 yards than I can shoot my short barrel 300wm at 925 yards in the .3s hahah. Is the smaller, less lethal caliber at 925 yards really going to benefit me? No, I'd argue it's going to severely handicap me ballistically and terminally.

I think that generally what's going on is the IDEA that the 22cal or 6mm is going to be more shootable than a properly braked large caliber. When in reality, for many of us it's just simply not the case. Otherwise this topic would be dead.

 

[marksman1941]

The problem I see with this is that we are always continually moving the goal post with hypotheticals that favor smaller calibers. We can dream up hypotheticals all day about shootability making you more accurate. You are 100% correct but If I can shoot my short barrel 300wm in the .3s at 925 yards than I can shoot my short barrel 300wm at 925 yards in the .3s hahah. Is the smaller, less lethal caliber at 925 yards really going to benefit me? No, I'd argue it's going to severely handicap me ballistically and terminally.

I think that generally what's going on is the IDEA that the 22cal or 6mm is going to be more shootable than a properly braked large caliber. When in reality, for many of us it's just simply not the case. Otherwise this topic would be dead.

I would argue that point though. There's an upper limit that varies from person to person and is influenced by a variety of things. I hunted with a 30/06 most of my life, and have played with 223 through 300 win for various uses. Then I bought a 338 RUM. It didn't kick, much, but it was an 11 pound rifle that had so much concussive force I was exhausted after 5 shots. I sold it within 3 months. I guarantee that in my hands, at 300 yards, my 243 is deadlier on a blacktail than that 338 was because I couldn't (and didn't want to) shoot the 338.

Now I'm not for pushing outer boundaries of anything. I do not support attempting an 800 yard shot on a deer with a 223, or 1000 yard with a 6mm on a critter. If a person is capable of making a 1000 yard shot on an animal (and those folks are few and far between, despite what this forum likes to believe) then they need to use a caliber capable of delivering a round accurately to the target while still traveling within the proper velocity window for correct terminal performance of the bullet. However, that whole argument is based on the premise someone can reasonably shoot a large rifle that well, which is a problem for many folks. We've all seen how flinchy new shooters get when they're handed too much gun, and what it takes to work through that flinch.

I still think that *within reasonable range* a smaller caliber will be more effective than a larger caliber due to the shootability of the smaller caliber. That doesn't mean try to take an elk at 850 with a 6.5cm. But at 300 yards, most dudes will hit the vitals more often with a 6.5cm than a 300win

 

[Huntnful]

For fun, I just put in the ballistics of what my "hunting" load in my 6PRC would be. 109 ELDM at 3350fps with N570. It has better ballistics (wind drift, drop, and impact velocity) out to 1000 yards, than a 215 Berger at 2900fps.

That's on the high end of 6mm performance, but not a sub par load for the 215 either (300 win mag speeds).

Thought that was interesting for sure.

I only have backcountry deer hunts this year, and they can offer some long shots and wild conditions, so I'm not sure I could convince myself to hunt with the 6 PRC for gathering more data. But it's nice to compare things. It's not quite as comparable to my 7-300 as it is to a 300 win though.

 

[FireFlyFishing]

Ugh, the small caliber cult is mind numbing.

Just admit you can't handle recoil just like you can't handle stick shifts in a vehicle or working in a hard labor job. This is a trend with the younger generation. We want it easy and we want it for free. What a bunch of candy a**es.

If you want to shoot a 223 for deer, go for it. But, don't tell me and many others we can't hit anything with magnum rifles. My freezer certainly would win arguments with you every year on what I can or cannot hit with magnums.

 

[marksman1941]

Ugh, the small caliber cult is mind numbing.

Just admit you can't handle recoil just like you can't handle stick shifts in a vehicle or working in a hard labor job. This is a trend with the younger generation. We want it easy and we want it for free. What a bunch of candy a**es.

If you want to shoot a 223 for deer, go for it. But, don't tell me and many others we can't hit anything with magnum rifles. My freezer certainly would win arguments with you every year on what I can or cannot hit with magnums.

That's quite the takeaway from the conversation. No one said you cant use a magnum. Words like "average" and "typical" clearly don't apply to a god like yourself, so try not to get so offended when we talk about the "typical" shooter. I get it, you like magnums and can slay deer at ridiculous distances with them. You're still missing the basic point of the whole conversation. The "average" shooter can't shoot a magnum well, and using too much gun is a poor choice. So take the gun that you shoot well (even if it's from the "small caliber cult") and keep the range decent, and life is better for everyone. That's literally all that's being said. Dont take offense where there isn't any being given.

 

[Rflshootr]

Just admit you can't handle recoil just like you can't handle stick shifts in a vehicle or working in a hard labor job. This is a trend with the younger generation. We want it easy and we want it for free. What a bunch of candy a**es.

If you were looking for a more politically correct term, "Pansies" come to mind.

 

[Huntnful]

Ugh, the small caliber cult is mind numbing.

Just admit you can't handle recoil just like you can't handle stick shifts in a vehicle or working in a hard labor job. This is a trend with the younger generation. We want it easy and we want it for free. What a bunch of candy a**es.

If you want to shoot a 223 for deer, go for it. But, don't tell me and many others we can't hit anything with magnum rifles. My freezer certainly would win arguments with you every year on what I can or cannot hit with magnums.

Considering that whole state just came from a fly fisherman… I'm double insulted lol

 

[FireFlyFishing]

That's quite the takeaway from the conversation. No one said you cant use a magnum. Words like "average" and "typical" clearly don't apply to a god like yourself, so try not to get so offended when we talk about the "typical" shooter. I get it, you like magnums and can slay deer at ridiculous distances with them. You're still missing the basic point of the whole conversation. The "average" shooter can't shoot a magnum well, and using too much gun is a poor choice. So take the gun that you shoot well (even if it's from the "small caliber cult") and keep the range decent, and life is better for everyone. That's literally all that's being said. Dont take offense where there isn't any being given.

Oh but the small caliber cult does want you to join the club. "Fudds and boomers use magnums." They tout a lot of "fuddlore" over there on the Long Range Hunting Forum…

What's funny, I don't mind folks using a smaller caliber. I can't stand the elitist message that comes with it. It's America after all, you can choose what you wish as long as you're following the law.

 

[jamie eaton]

This back and forth is" like playing cards with my brothers kids" . Look up what that quotes from . Shoot what ever you want , I will shoot what my heart desires . Heck is that not why we all have more than one gun .