User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/23/2023 7:49:29 PM EST
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sometimes it's the only shot you are going to get. Or the animal moves. Or you miss for any of 87 other reasons. Shoulder shot is an excellent option on Elk. Well not with some anemic round, but a bonded .300Win mag works fine. They don't run so good with a fucked shoulder and three working legs. And with a proper gun and ammo, it will continue on to penetrate into the vital area. That's always one of the dead giveaways that the people advocating for not enough gun, don't really hunt much. To them, perfect shot placement is a given, and animals just fall straight down dead after. People who actually hunt, know that's usually not the case. You might only get one opportunity at an imperfect shot, and if you pass it up, no meat for you. They have huge lungs, so if you're going for a lung shot, whatever you hit it with better do a lot of damage. If not, the animal might just decide to run a mile through the woods.  Attached FileI’ll bet most of the folks arguing that “77gr 223 is plenty for elk” have never fired a shot at one. Elk can soak up some lead… Even if they “drop” they have a tendency to get back up and run to the next mountain range once the adrenaline hits. Never underestimate an animal that can run up the side of a mountain with the same amount of effort I run up a single flight of stairs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2023 8:19:58 PM EST
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/The_Rock_Applause-169.gif I’ll bet most of the folks arguing that “77gr 223 is plenty for elk” have never fired a shot at one. Elk can soak up some lead… Even if they “drop” they have a tendency to get back up and run to the next mountain range once the adrenaline hits. Never underestimate an animal that can run up the side of a mountain with the same amount of effort I run up a single flight of stairs. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Sometimes it's the only shot you are going to get. Or the animal moves. Or you miss for any of 87 other reasons. Shoulder shot is an excellent option on Elk. Well not with some anemic round, but a bonded .300Win mag works fine. They don't run so good with a fucked shoulder and three working legs. And with a proper gun and ammo, it will continue on to penetrate into the vital area. That's always one of the dead giveaways that the people advocating for not enough gun, don't really hunt much. To them, perfect shot placement is a given, and animals just fall straight down dead after. People who actually hunt, know that's usually not the case. You might only get one opportunity at an imperfect shot, and if you pass it up, no meat for you. They have huge lungs, so if you're going for a lung shot, whatever you hit it with better do a lot of damage. If not, the animal might just decide to run a mile through the woods. /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/The_Rock_Applause-169.gif I’ll bet most of the folks arguing that “77gr 223 is plenty for elk” have never fired a shot at one. Elk can soak up some lead… Even if they “drop” they have a tendency to get back up and run to the next mountain range once the adrenaline hits. Never underestimate an animal that can run up the side of a mountain with the same amount of effort I run up a single flight of stairs. IIRC Mark LaRoo smoked a Mighty Elk at 405 yards with a puny 130gr 6.5 Grendel with one shot. If he can do it Shirley Barfcom can measure up   
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2023 8:32:54 PM EST
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/The_Rock_Applause-169.gif I’ll bet most of the folks arguing that “77gr 223 is plenty for elk” have never fired a shot at one. Elk can soak up some lead… Even if they “drop” they have a tendency to get back up and run to the next mountain range once the adrenaline hits. Never underestimate an animal that can run up the side of a mountain with the same amount of effort I run up a single flight of stairs. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Sometimes it's the only shot you are going to get. Or the animal moves. Or you miss for any of 87 other reasons. Shoulder shot is an excellent option on Elk. Well not with some anemic round, but a bonded .300Win mag works fine. They don't run so good with a fucked shoulder and three working legs. And with a proper gun and ammo, it will continue on to penetrate into the vital area. That's always one of the dead giveaways that the people advocating for not enough gun, don't really hunt much. To them, perfect shot placement is a given, and animals just fall straight down dead after. People who actually hunt, know that's usually not the case. You might only get one opportunity at an imperfect shot, and if you pass it up, no meat for you. They have huge lungs, so if you're going for a lung shot, whatever you hit it with better do a lot of damage. If not, the animal might just decide to run a mile through the woods. /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/The_Rock_Applause-169.gif I’ll bet most of the folks arguing that “77gr 223 is plenty for elk” have never fired a shot at one. Elk can soak up some lead… Even if they “drop” they have a tendency to get back up and run to the next mountain range once the adrenaline hits. Never underestimate an animal that can run up the side of a mountain with the same amount of effort I run up a single flight of stairs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2023 8:33:11 PM EST
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/33970/IMG_2451_jpeg-2896057.JPG Wild animal in the burbs.. 55 grain?? 77 grain?? 308??? 556??? Glock 26?? Oh shit maybe I need an RDS?? Oh hell…, What to do!!!! You do need an RDS, but not for some random Song Dog. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2023 8:39:57 PM EST
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: IIRC Mark LaRoo smoked a Mighty Elk at 405 yards with a puny 130gr 6.5 Grendel with one shot. If he can do it Shirley Barfcom can measure up https://static.larue.com/oldsite/media/img/Ellk_Hunt/HPIM0481.jpg https://static.larue.com/oldsite/media/img/Ellk_Hunt/HPIM0461.jpg https://static.larue.com/oldsite/media/img/Ellk_Hunt/HPIM0457.jpg Nobody here has said it can’t be done, but rather it leaves very little margin for error. Given hunting is a highly dynamic activity where Murphy abounds, that is a reasonable take on the subject. There is of course a cohesive and well reasoned argument about shoot ability on the other end on the spectrum. Regardless, an argument for either extreme is equally unwise advice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2023 8:41:13 PM EST
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I’ve squadded with the AMU guys several times throughout the years and have witnessed Horner and crew break out boxes of Mk262, just to shred paper at 10 yards. Thank you taxpayers! Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I used to do that, but now I just shoot the same load the whole match. Just know your drops and you’ll be fine. I’ve squadded with the AMU guys several times throughout the years and have witnessed Horner and crew break out boxes of Mk262, just to shred paper at 10 yards. Thank you taxpayers! Ha! #Iseenit I was at a match once with a bunch of mil guys doing the same & when I looked into their ammo cans it was all mk262. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2023 8:41:56 PM EST
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I bought a lever in 357mag just because I found the Ballistics to be amazing. There's better hunting rifles, but it's neat as fuck what that cartridge can do and I like neat things Fantastic home defense rifle if you live in a funky law city. Jeff Cooper or one of his gang recommended one a long time ago. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2023 8:45:13 PM EST
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: IIRC Mark LaRoo smoked a Mighty Elk at 405 yards with a puny 130gr 6.5 Grendel with one shot. If he can do it Shirley Barfcom can measure up https://static.larue.com/oldsite/media/img/Ellk_Hunt/HPIM0481.jpg https://static.larue.com/oldsite/media/img/Ellk_Hunt/HPIM0461.jpg https://static.larue.com/oldsite/media/img/Ellk_Hunt/HPIM0457.jpg I always hate these responses. Theyre usually made by somebody arguing just to argue and willing to grasp at the flimsy straws just to push a contradictory opinion. To point, the guy you're responding to never, at any point, said it couldnt be done. Its like responding to a bear topic by being the first person to shout you can take bear with a .22lr. "Its been done!". First, good for you, and second, good luck while the rest of use choose a more suitable caliber for the job. Bro even made considerations for shot placement and we're still seeing this response.  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2023 8:46:49 PM EST
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And how many elk have you taken home? 2 personally, and assisted with a 3rd out of 3 seasons. Not bad for a flat lander without a guide… I’ve watched them get up and run off into never-land with a solid shot. (6.5 CM ELD-X, never again) |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2023 8:47:02 PM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Elk and moose. Seriously? here ya go 77gr knowledge You should read up on ethical hunting... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2023 8:49:25 PM EST
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The light, thin jacketed 77gr hits the front shoulder bone. Instead of punching through with a bonded or copper solid 180gr 300 WM bullet and taking out both lungs, the 77gr bullet deflects forward into the brisket and or disintegrates, only causes damage to one lung. The critter dies a slow painful dealth, and due to the likely lack of exit wound and tiny entrance wound, tracking is difficult if not downright impossible. I know a 77gr OTM bullet will penetrate far enough against humans to be very effective for self defense. Certainty they can penetrate plenty on an elk to kill it as dead as a 375 H&H. But it doesn’t guarantee adequate straight line penetration if large bone mass is hit. Just because a handful of people on the internet post a bunch of pictures and say small caliber OTM bullets can kill large game, doesn’t make it a good idea. I’d be willing to bet a paycheck that there were a more than a few “misses” that were really wounded elk that some of those posters will never admit to in the thread linked above. Maybe they really believed they missed. Of course they won’t admit to any of that on the internet… Want to get dog piled on the internet? Admit you shot something and couldn’t recover it. Either way on the animals that died the 223 “worked.” Confirmation bias achieved. Suddenly “everybody was wrong for the last 100 years, 223 is a great elk cartridge.” Rokslide is full of people who are downright willfully ignorant about terminal ballistics and firearms in general. As someone else said, if I had 6 weeks to hunt elk every year and a $20 general tag in my pocket every year I might fuck around with small calibers on elk and really, really pick my shots. As for now, given I get about 5 days and spend about $1500 a year on tags and points, something with a bit more margin for error is probably prudent, and that’s probably true for most people. This is a fantasy. The thread on rokslide has proved it numerous times. 77TMK kills normal elks just fine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2023 8:54:28 PM EST
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This is a fantasy. The thread on rokslide has proved it numerous times. 77TMK kills normal elks just fine. You know in WWII they kept analyzing where they needed to reinforce the planes with armor by where the damage was when they landed back at base. It wasn’t until later they realized they had it all wrong… The planes they were analyzing all survived. The rokslide thread is sorta like that, but in reverse. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2023 9:04:47 PM EST
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You should read up on ethical hunting... Now for trying to insinuate I'm unethical in my hunting, which is more ethical? A low recoiling super affordable round able to be practiced with a ton and put precisely where needed without fear of recoil and the ability to make a fast follow up shot because you never lost the animal in the recoil? Or a big heavy recoiling expensive round that you maybe shoot half a box a year out of because of it's price and it's just not all that fun to shoot and has given you a built in flinch as well as a much slower follow up shot because you lost the animal in the scope from recoil and no clue where you hit? if you don't want to read the linked post I don't care but to try and insult me for being unethical is a pretty piss poor performance on your part. The only big game me or my wife and daughters have taken with a 223 is a few good size whitetail I'm not 100% sold enough to say I'd pack a 223 into the elk woods myself but having the knowledge that if I use the correct bullet in it's correct ballistic parameters is just another tool in the tool chest if I choose to. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2023 9:13:36 PM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This is a fantasy. The thread on rokslide has proved it numerous times. 77TMK kills normal elks just fine. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The light, thin jacketed 77gr hits the front shoulder bone. Instead of punching through with a bonded or copper solid 180gr 300 WM bullet and taking out both lungs, the 77gr bullet deflects forward into the brisket and or disintegrates, only causes damage to one lung. The critter dies a slow painful dealth, and due to the likely lack of exit wound and tiny entrance wound, tracking is difficult if not downright impossible. I know a 77gr OTM bullet will penetrate far enough against humans to be very effective for self defense. Certainty they can penetrate plenty on an elk to kill it as dead as a 375 H&H. But it doesn’t guarantee adequate straight line penetration if large bone mass is hit. Just because a handful of people on the internet post a bunch of pictures and say small caliber OTM bullets can kill large game, doesn’t make it a good idea. I’d be willing to bet a paycheck that there were a more than a few “misses” that were really wounded elk that some of those posters will never admit to in the thread linked above. Maybe they really believed they missed. Of course they won’t admit to any of that on the internet… Want to get dog piled on the internet? Admit you shot something and couldn’t recover it. Either way on the animals that died the 223 “worked.” Confirmation bias achieved. Suddenly “everybody was wrong for the last 100 years, 223 is a great elk cartridge.” Rokslide is full of people who are downright willfully ignorant about terminal ballistics and firearms in general. As someone else said, if I had 6 weeks to hunt elk every year and a $20 general tag in my pocket every year I might fuck around with small calibers on elk and really, really pick my shots. As for now, given I get about 5 days and spend about $1500 a year on tags and points, something with a bit more margin for error is probably prudent, and that’s probably true for most people. This is a fantasy. The thread on rokslide has proved it numerous times. 77TMK kills normal elks just fine. Rokslide is more qualified to discuss man buns than terminal ballistics. Anytime Rokslide discusses firearms, it’s safe to assume they are target rifle correct and hunting rifle wrong. This is most true in terminal ballistics. They are where Roy Weatherby was from about 1960-1985…all internal and external ballistics with a love of speed and hydrostatic shock that magically kills like a lightning bolt when it works but fails badly on anything but a perfect shot. It’s Weatherby 2.0 as if even Weatherby didn’t figure out that they needed Nosler Partitions and X bullets. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2023 9:16:15 PM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You know in WWII they kept analyzing where they needed to reinforce the planes with armor by where the damage was when they landed back at base. It wasn’t until later they realized they had it all wrong… The planes they were analyzing all survived. The rokslide thread is sorta like that, but in reverse. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: This is a fantasy. The thread on rokslide has proved it numerous times. 77TMK kills normal elks just fine. You know in WWII they kept analyzing where they needed to reinforce the planes with armor by where the damage was when they landed back at base. It wasn’t until later they realized they had it all wrong… The planes they were analyzing all survived. The rokslide thread is sorta like that, but in reverse. Ehh. I’ll call BS on that. Everyone who hunts knows someone who only makes sure their hunting rifle is sighted in the weekend before season. Point being, hunters are much less skilled than what they believe and poor shots are taken at all game animals with all calibers. Properly vetted bullets perform very consistently across the board, as in if there’s many examples of 77gr TMK bullets perpetrating the ‘toughest’ parts of elk and moose and still making it to the vitals, the likelihood is very high this will stay consistent. To reiterate, there is no shot you could take with a 300 win mag that would cleanly kill and animal where a 77gr TMK couldn’t. If we look at it a different way, a similarly constructed 195gr TMK out of your 300 win mag would cause too much meat loss, so you size down the caliber until you get to a perfect balance of shootability and terminal performance (which is exactly what modern .224 & 6mm bullets are). |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2023 9:18:08 PM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Rokslide is more qualified to discuss man buns than terminal ballistics. Anytime Rokslide discusses firearms, it’s safe to assume they are target rifle correct and hunting rifle wrong. This is most true in terminal ballistics. They are where Roy Weatherby was from about 1960-1985…all internal and external ballistics with a love of speed and hydrostatic shock that magically kills like a lightning bolt when it works but fails badly on anything but a perfect shot. It’s Weatherby 2.0 as if even Weatherby didn’t figure out that they needed Nosler Partitions and X bullets. I respect you and your opinion, but you are wrong on this one. Especially if you took the time to read the 223 thread there. There’s none of the fudd BS that you’re referencing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2023 9:19:46 PM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 77gr is the way. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 77gr is best grain. 77gr is the way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2023 9:21:02 PM EST
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/The_Rock_Applause-169.gif I’ll bet most of the folks arguing that “77gr 223 is plenty for elk” have never fired a shot at one. Elk can soak up some lead… Even if they “drop” they have a tendency to get back up and run to the next mountain range once the adrenaline hits. Never underestimate an animal that can run up the side of a mountain with the same amount of effort I run up a single flight of stairs. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Sometimes it's the only shot you are going to get. Or the animal moves. Or you miss for any of 87 other reasons. Shoulder shot is an excellent option on Elk. Well not with some anemic round, but a bonded .300Win mag works fine. They don't run so good with a fucked shoulder and three working legs. And with a proper gun and ammo, it will continue on to penetrate into the vital area. That's always one of the dead giveaways that the people advocating for not enough gun, don't really hunt much. To them, perfect shot placement is a given, and animals just fall straight down dead after. People who actually hunt, know that's usually not the case. You might only get one opportunity at an imperfect shot, and if you pass it up, no meat for you. They have huge lungs, so if you're going for a lung shot, whatever you hit it with better do a lot of damage. If not, the animal might just decide to run a mile through the woods. /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/The_Rock_Applause-169.gif I’ll bet most of the folks arguing that “77gr 223 is plenty for elk” have never fired a shot at one. Elk can soak up some lead… Even if they “drop” they have a tendency to get back up and run to the next mountain range once the adrenaline hits. Never underestimate an animal that can run up the side of a mountain with the same amount of effort I run up a single flight of stairs. Plenty of men have been hit center torso with .30 Cal and lived. Dudes in Afghanistan have crawled away from having their limbs blown off by Hellfires. And yes plenty of dudes lived getting torso shot with 5.56. Animals are typically a lot tougher than people. And they are certainly orders of magnitude larger, with thicker skin, bones... Arguing this, is like arguing with the feminists who want to believe a 100lbs chick could beat up 2-3 220lbs dudes. Weight classes matter. Physics matter. Anatomy matters. I've seen Elk run away, to never be found, after getting hit in the vitals with .300 Win Mag, using quality hunting ammo, that a lot of people swear by. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2023 9:25:00 PM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: IIRC Mark LaRoo smoked a Mighty Elk at 405 yards with a puny 130gr 6.5 Grendel with one shot. If he can do it Shirley Barfcom can measure up https://static.larue.com/oldsite/media/img/Ellk_Hunt/HPIM0481.jpg https://static.larue.com/oldsite/media/img/Ellk_Hunt/HPIM0461.jpg https://static.larue.com/oldsite/media/img/Ellk_Hunt/HPIM0457.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Sometimes it's the only shot you are going to get. Or the animal moves. Or you miss for any of 87 other reasons. Shoulder shot is an excellent option on Elk. Well not with some anemic round, but a bonded .300Win mag works fine. They don't run so good with a fucked shoulder and three working legs. And with a proper gun and ammo, it will continue on to penetrate into the vital area. That's always one of the dead giveaways that the people advocating for not enough gun, don't really hunt much. To them, perfect shot placement is a given, and animals just fall straight down dead after. People who actually hunt, know that's usually not the case. You might only get one opportunity at an imperfect shot, and if you pass it up, no meat for you. They have huge lungs, so if you're going for a lung shot, whatever you hit it with better do a lot of damage. If not, the animal might just decide to run a mile through the woods. /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/The_Rock_Applause-169.gif I’ll bet most of the folks arguing that “77gr 223 is plenty for elk” have never fired a shot at one. Elk can soak up some lead… Even if they “drop” they have a tendency to get back up and run to the next mountain range once the adrenaline hits. Never underestimate an animal that can run up the side of a mountain with the same amount of effort I run up a single flight of stairs. IIRC Mark LaRoo smoked a Mighty Elk at 405 yards with a puny 130gr 6.5 Grendel with one shot. If he can do it Shirley Barfcom can measure up https://static.larue.com/oldsite/media/img/Ellk_Hunt/HPIM0481.jpg https://static.larue.com/oldsite/media/img/Ellk_Hunt/HPIM0461.jpg https://static.larue.com/oldsite/media/img/Ellk_Hunt/HPIM0457.jpg Aspen groves like that typically do not permit a 405 yard line of sight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2023 9:30:35 PM EST
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: To reiterate, there is no shot you could take with a 300 win mag that would cleanly kill and animal where a 77gr TMK couldn’t. This has already been addressed and it is wrong. Shoulder in most cases and regular lung shot in some cases. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2023 9:34:16 PM EST
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ehh. I’ll call BS on that. Everyone who hunts knows someone who only makes sure their hunting rifle is sighted in the weekend before season. Point being, hunters are much less skilled than what they believe and poor shots are taken at all game animals with all calibers. Properly vetted bullets perform very consistently across the board, as in if there’s many examples of 77gr TMK bullets perpetrating the ‘toughest’ parts of elk and moose and still making it to the vitals, the likelihood is very high this will stay consistent. To reiterate, there is no shot you could take with a 300 win mag that would cleanly kill and animal where a 77gr TMK couldn’t. If we look at it a different way, a similarly constructed 195gr TMK out of your 300 win mag would cause too much meat loss, so you size down the caliber until you get to a perfect balance of shootability and terminal performance (which is exactly what modern .224 & 6mm bullets are). Having looked at a lot of survivable GSW’s in addition to the un survivable ones (unlike rokslide, who is only getting a chance to look at the unsurvivable ones) The only thing I can promise you is that bullets, especially rifle bullets, tend to do some real funky unexpected things when they impact flesh. This is especially true with the lightweight, thin jacketed bullets that roksliders have a love affair with. Regardless I tend to prefer to gather my opinions based off the numerous studies on terminal performance rather than people who spout stuff like this…  Attached FileFedDC nailed it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2023 9:35:27 PM EST
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This has already been addressed and it is wrong. Shoulder in most cases and regular lung shot in some cases. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: To reiterate, there is no shot you could take with a 300 win mag that would cleanly kill and animal where a 77gr TMK couldn’t. This has already been addressed and it is wrong. Shoulder in most cases and regular lung shot in some cases. You can claim that it is ‘wrong’ but if you cared to actually look at the evidence of people doing it on rokslide with an objectively you could come to a different conclusion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2023 9:39:14 PM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You can claim that it is ‘wrong’ but if you cared to actually look at the evidence of people doing it on rokslide with an objectively you could come to a different conclusion. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: To reiterate, there is no shot you could take with a 300 win mag that would cleanly kill and animal where a 77gr TMK couldn’t. This has already been addressed and it is wrong. Shoulder in most cases and regular lung shot in some cases. You can claim that it is ‘wrong’ but if you cared to actually look at the evidence of people doing it on rokslide with an objectively you could come to a different conclusion. As others have pointed out, no one is saying it's impossible. Only that the cases where it didn't work, are not known or reported. Call me crazy, but I tend to trust my own data and experiences over internet hunting and fishing stories. "There I was squirrel hunting with my .22lr and happened across an 850lbs Bull Elk and took him down at 400 yards." Yeah sure thing guy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2023 9:40:16 PM EST
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Having looked at a lot of survivable GSW’s in addition to the un survivable ones (unlike rokslide, who is only getting a chance to look at the unsurvivable ones) The only thing I can promise you is that bullets, especially rifle bullets, tend to do some real funky unexpected things when they impact flesh. This is especially true with the lightweight, thin jacketed bullets that roksliders have a love affair with. Regardless I tend to prefer to gather my opinions based off the numerous studies on terminal performance rather than people who spout stuff like this… https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/68059/IMG_0911_jpeg-2896140.JPG FedDC nailed it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Ehh. I’ll call BS on that. Everyone who hunts knows someone who only makes sure their hunting rifle is sighted in the weekend before season. Point being, hunters are much less skilled than what they believe and poor shots are taken at all game animals with all calibers. Properly vetted bullets perform very consistently across the board, as in if there’s many examples of 77gr TMK bullets perpetrating the ‘toughest’ parts of elk and moose and still making it to the vitals, the likelihood is very high this will stay consistent. To reiterate, there is no shot you could take with a 300 win mag that would cleanly kill and animal where a 77gr TMK couldn’t. If we look at it a different way, a similarly constructed 195gr TMK out of your 300 win mag would cause too much meat loss, so you size down the caliber until you get to a perfect balance of shootability and terminal performance (which is exactly what modern .224 & 6mm bullets are). Having looked at a lot of survivable GSW’s in addition to the un survivable ones (unlike rokslide, who is only getting a chance to look at the unsurvivable ones) The only thing I can promise you is that bullets, especially rifle bullets, tend to do some real funky unexpected things when they impact flesh. This is especially true with the lightweight, thin jacketed bullets that roksliders have a love affair with. Regardless I tend to prefer to gather my opinions based off the numerous studies on terminal performance rather than people who spout stuff like this… https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/68059/IMG_0911_jpeg-2896140.JPG FedDC nailed it. Bullets do crazy unexpected things when they impact flesh. Most older bullet designs tend to have a higher failure rate than most would believe. Thin lightweight bullets tend to penetrate to the vitals and give quick kills. What’s not to love? The person you’re quoting is a poor representation of rokslide. Especially the thread that keeps getting referenced. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2023 9:43:43 PM EST
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: As others have pointed out, no one is saying it's impossible. Only that the cases where it didn't work, are not known or reported. The problem is that you’re using this argument to single out a single caliber. Bullet failures can happen in any caliber. Early copper monos where quite infamous for it in all calibers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2023 9:47:02 PM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I respect you and your opinion, but you are wrong on this one. Especially if you took the time to read the 223 thread there. There’s none of the fudd BS that you’re referencing. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Rokslide is more qualified to discuss man buns than terminal ballistics. Anytime Rokslide discusses firearms, it’s safe to assume they are target rifle correct and hunting rifle wrong. This is most true in terminal ballistics. They are where Roy Weatherby was from about 1960-1985…all internal and external ballistics with a love of speed and hydrostatic shock that magically kills like a lightning bolt when it works but fails badly on anything but a perfect shot. It’s Weatherby 2.0 as if even Weatherby didn’t figure out that they needed Nosler Partitions and X bullets. I respect you and your opinion, but you are wrong on this one. Especially if you took the time to read the 223 thread there. There’s none of the fudd BS that you’re referencing. I’ve read it. It’s wrong. If you research the history of the SMK, it’s militarily applications, and the millions spent on the various “match” grade rounds, you will see that the projectile has a history of poor overall terminal ballistics outside very specific circumstances. If you research the basic FBI standards for 5.56 duty ammo, it includes things like intermediate barrier penetration with straight line penetration to a given depth with a specific % of weight retention. Ask yourself why? Why didn’t the FBI simply go with MK262 if it’s so good? Because it only performs in open air with no intermediate barriers while fragmenting inconsistently, penetrating off axis, and occasionally failing to expand at all when the hollow point folds over. The SMK is a target bullet and a good one. Sometimes, target bullets do great things…sometimes they fail. Bullets for use on meat should never be a “sometimes” performer. Of note, the FBI selected a version of the Trophy Bonded Bearclaw and a similar projectile from Winchester. The Marine Corps did similar with their optimized 5.56 in MK311 (it’s a ballistically improved lead free TBBC). Millions spent on researching the perfect 5.56 load for targets that fight back…from multiple agencies. Both reached the same conclusion- match bullets suck and the TBBC is the best projectile under wide ranging conditions. Side note- SOCOM did similar, with an emphasis on short barrels and selected the Barnes x bullet in a modified version…and they had unlimited access to 262 with 77gr SMKs. Osama got a Barnes x to the face. If you understand why…you will understand why Rokslide is wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2023 9:50:24 PM EST
[#27]
What range of barrel twist will stabilize the 77g projectiles?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2023 9:52:01 PM EST
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I’ve read it. It’s wrong. If you research the history of the SMK, it’s militarily applications, and the millions spent on the various “match” grade rounds, you will see that the projectile has a history of poor overall terminal ballistics outside very specific circumstances. If you research the basic FBI standards for 5.56 duty ammo, it includes things like intermediate barrier penetration with straight line penetration to a given depth with a specific % of weight retention. Ask yourself why? Why didn’t the FBI simply go with MK262 if it’s so good? Because it only performs in open air with no intermediate barriers while fragmenting inconsistently, penetrating off axis, and occasionally failing to expand at all when the hollow point folds over. The SMK is a target bullet and a good one. Sometimes, target bullets do great things…sometimes they fail. Bullets for use on meat should never be a “sometimes” performer. Of note, the FBI selected a version of the Trophy Bonded Bearclaw and a similar projectile from Winchester. The Marine Corps did similar with their optimized 5.56 in MK311 (it’s a ballistically improved lead free TBBC). Millions spent on researching the perfect 5.56 load for targets that fight back…from multiple agencies. Both reached the same conclusion- match bullets suck and the TBBC is the best projectile under wide ranging conditions. Side note- SOCOM did similar, with an emphasis on short barrels and selected the Barnes x bullet in a modified version…and they had unlimited access to 262 with 77gr SMKs. Osama got a Barnes x to the face. If you understand why…you will understand why Rokslide is wrong. Rokslide agrees will all of that. TMKs are a different animal to the SMK. If I were the FBI or any other federal agency I would likely choose a barrier blind load as well, since auto glass sucks to shoot though. But for raw terminal performer, the TMK beats the barrier blind loadings out there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2023 9:52:42 PM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What range of barrel twist will stabilize the 77g projectiles? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2023 9:55:37 PM EST
[#30]
For those looking for evidence, this page post 3217 has links at all the bigger kills in the thread. You can jump straight to pictures of moose shoulder being defeated by 77gr TMK or pics of lost elk shot by 30cal SMK.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2023 10:00:50 PM EST
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Bullets do crazy unexpected things when they impact flesh. Most older bullet designs tend to have a higher failure rate than most would believe. Thin lightweight bullets tend to penetrate to the vitals and give quick kills. What’s not to love? The person you’re quoting is a poor representation of rokslide. Especially the thread that keeps getting referenced. Thin light jacketed bullets (Bergers, TMK, etc) tend to be much more unpredictable in their wound track and penetration than more “traditional” rifle bullets. When I say “traditional” I don’t mean grand-pappy’s core-lokt. I mean bullets designed with reliable expansion and weight retention in mind. Bonded bullets like Accubonds, terminal ascents, Barnes and other copper solids, etc. Again if you go back to my first post in this thread, bullets ultimately kill one of two ways, incapacitation via CNS disruption or massive hemorrhaging. Can OTM/Berger/TMK bullets cause that? Absofuckinglutely. But they also tend to do some weird shit and under penetrate, curve off track, pencil in rather than expand/fragment based off numerous unpredictable variables. You aren’t going to see much of that in pictures of dead elk on an Internet forum though. Those elk are rotting and getting eaten by predators. I prefer massive hemorrhage done via straight line penetration and reliable controlled expansion. Hopefully hemorrhaging out of two holes, namely the bigger one on the back side. Because even if he does run, I want the best chance possible of finding him. As per FedDC’s excellent post above, as do numerous agencies who have studied the issue in depth. Or trust some BHA yuppies on rokslide. YMMV. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2023 10:01:47 PM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I always hate these responses. Theyre usually made by somebody arguing just to argue and willing to grasp at the flimsy straws just to push a contradictory opinion. To point, the guy you're responding to never, at any point, said it couldnt be done. Its like responding to a bear topic by being the first person to shout you can take bear with a .22lr. "Its been done!". First, good for you, and second, good luck while the rest of use choose a more suitable caliber for the job. Bro even made considerations for shot placement and we're still seeing this response. /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/temp-95.gif Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: IIRC Mark LaRoo smoked a Mighty Elk at 405 yards with a puny 130gr 6.5 Grendel with one shot. If he can do it Shirley Barfcom can measure up https://static.larue.com/oldsite/media/img/Ellk_Hunt/HPIM0481.jpg https://static.larue.com/oldsite/media/img/Ellk_Hunt/HPIM0461.jpg https://static.larue.com/oldsite/media/img/Ellk_Hunt/HPIM0457.jpg I always hate these responses. Theyre usually made by somebody arguing just to argue and willing to grasp at the flimsy straws just to push a contradictory opinion. To point, the guy you're responding to never, at any point, said it couldnt be done. Its like responding to a bear topic by being the first person to shout you can take bear with a .22lr. "Its been done!". First, good for you, and second, good luck while the rest of use choose a more suitable caliber for the job. Bro even made considerations for shot placement and we're still seeing this response. /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/temp-95.gif The entire argument is not that 5.56 should it's whether it can. I keep getting quoted by dudes in the L48 wanting to swing purses like I'm arguing in favor of it which I'm not. I'm simply pointing out that if it didn't work Alaskan Natives wouldn't use it. Uncorking your inner Sarah McLoughlan over what Alaskan Natives get to use isn't going to alter physics. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2023 10:03:46 PM EST
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Aspen groves like that typically do not permit a 405 yard line of sight. I wouldn't mention Mark LaRoo unless it was part of a joke 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2023 10:17:13 PM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Rokslide agrees will all of that. TMKs are a different animal to the SMK. If I were the FBI or any other federal agency I would likely choose a barrier blind load as well, since auto glass sucks to shoot though. But for raw terminal performer, the TMK beats the barrier blind loadings out there.  Can More Be Less? CORBON .223 77gr MPR (TMK) 20" Barrel Gel Test Here ya go… Only 9.5” of penetrating in 10% ballistics gel out of a 20” AR with the 77gr TMK. That’s unacceptable performance for human self defense, and completely laughable for elk. It’s further proof that the BHA brigade at rokslide doesn’t know what the fuck they are talking about. ETA here is the SMK, actually better penetration, but he had trouble keeping it in the block (there is that wound track problem we talked about.)  AAC 5.56 With 77gr Sierra MatchKing HPBT: Better Than The Military's MK262? Finally if I had to shoot an elk with a 223. (Not that I endorse it.)  Failed To Load Title |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2023 10:21:48 PM EST
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Rokslide agrees will all of that. TMKs are a different animal to the SMK. If I were the FBI or any other federal agency I would likely choose a barrier blind load as well, since auto glass sucks to shoot though. But for raw terminal performer, the TMK beats the barrier blind loadings out there. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I’ve read it. It’s wrong. If you research the history of the SMK, it’s militarily applications, and the millions spent on the various “match” grade rounds, you will see that the projectile has a history of poor overall terminal ballistics outside very specific circumstances. If you research the basic FBI standards for 5.56 duty ammo, it includes things like intermediate barrier penetration with straight line penetration to a given depth with a specific % of weight retention. Ask yourself why? Why didn’t the FBI simply go with MK262 if it’s so good? Because it only performs in open air with no intermediate barriers while fragmenting inconsistently, penetrating off axis, and occasionally failing to expand at all when the hollow point folds over. The SMK is a target bullet and a good one. Sometimes, target bullets do great things…sometimes they fail. Bullets for use on meat should never be a “sometimes” performer. Of note, the FBI selected a version of the Trophy Bonded Bearclaw and a similar projectile from Winchester. The Marine Corps did similar with their optimized 5.56 in MK311 (it’s a ballistically improved lead free TBBC). Millions spent on researching the perfect 5.56 load for targets that fight back…from multiple agencies. Both reached the same conclusion- match bullets suck and the TBBC is the best projectile under wide ranging conditions. Side note- SOCOM did similar, with an emphasis on short barrels and selected the Barnes x bullet in a modified version…and they had unlimited access to 262 with 77gr SMKs. Osama got a Barnes x to the face. If you understand why…you will understand why Rokslide is wrong. Rokslide agrees will all of that. TMKs are a different animal to the SMK. If I were the FBI or any other federal agency I would likely choose a barrier blind load as well, since auto glass sucks to shoot though. But for raw terminal performer, the TMK beats the barrier blind loadings out there. The TMK isn’t substantially different. Terminally, they are still a non bonded thin copper jacketed match bullet. Look at the penetration depth required for a raking shot on an elk…upwards of 12 inches of paunch, intestine, and rib before you get to lungs. That’s your intermediate barrier… Look at a quartering to shot that has 10+ inches of shoulder and bone before you get to lungs. Again, that’s your intermediate barrier. That’s why barrier loads work best. You need a projectile that stays together and penetrates in a straight line to a specific depth while being blind to bone. Again, why bone? Because the FBI shootout in Miami waaaaay back in the day had an Agent shoot the suspect with his 9mm pistol. He hit the suspect through the forearm (bone). That bullet deviated from trajectory and came apart. It hit the chest but failed to reach the heart. That suspect killed Agents and continued fighting after that hit. Thus, you now see the straight line barrier blind and deep penetration requirement that gives you predictable trajectories via bonded bullets. The SMK or TMK does not do that. This has all been done before. As above, Roy Weatherby preached it decades ago. He believed that velocity, hydrostatic shock, and rapid expansion were king…animals would die right there. It worked great…until it didn’t. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2023 10:28:17 PM EST
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Thin light jacketed bullets (Bergers, TMK, etc) tend to be much more unpredictable in their wound track and penetration than more “traditional” rifle bullets. When I say “traditional” I don’t mean grand-pappy’s core-lokt. I mean bullets designed with reliable expansion and weight retention in mind. Bonded bullets like Accubonds, terminal ascents, Barnes and other copper solids, etc. Again if you go back to my first post in this thread, bullets ultimately kill one of two ways, incapacitation via CNS disruption or massive hemorrhaging. Can OTM/Berger/TMK bullets cause that? Absofuckinglutely. But they also tend to do some weird shit and under penetrate, curve off track, pencil in rather than expand/fragment based off numerous unpredictable variables. You aren’t going to see much of that in pictures of dead elk on an Internet forum though. Those elk are rotting and getting eaten by predators. I prefer massive hemorrhage done via straight line penetration and reliable controlled expansion. Hopefully hemorrhaging out of two holes, namely the bigger one on the back side. Because even if he does run, I want the best chance possible of finding him. As per FedDC’s excellent post above, as do numerous agencies who have studied the issue in depth. Or trust some BHA yuppies on rokslide. YMMV. Federal agencies need bullets to penetrate barriers that aren’t a consideration when hunting. A bone isn’t equivalent to auto glass or similar. Because of this, your conclusion that a TMK is more likely to deflect compared to say a bonded bullet in a game animal is flawed. There are just as many anecdotal accounts of large caliber traditional bullets failing as there are Berger’s failing. TMKs tend to be more consistent terminally than the Berger’s for the record. I prefer massive hemorrhage done via straight line penetration and reliable violent expansion. The TMK and ELD deliver that in spades. I care about destroyed vitals much more than an exit hole, because on average, an animal with destroyed vitals doesn’t make it far at all. For the record federal also offers the 77gr TMK in a duty load as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2023 10:31:11 PM EST
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmciv3gtj8MHere ya go… Only 9.5” of penetrating in 10% ballistics gel out of a 20” AR with the 77gr TMK. That’s unacceptable performance for human self defense, and completely laughable for elk. It’s further proof that the BHA brigade at rokslide doesn’t know what the fuck they are talking about. ETA here is the SMK, actually better penetration, but he had trouble keeping it in the block (there is that wound track problem we talked about.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mD6E6vmlwIAFinally if I had to shoot an elk with a 223. (Not that I endorse it.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y88vaxo3mqUQuote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Rokslide agrees will all of that. TMKs are a different animal to the SMK. If I were the FBI or any other federal agency I would likely choose a barrier blind load as well, since auto glass sucks to shoot though. But for raw terminal performer, the TMK beats the barrier blind loadings out there. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmciv3gtj8MHere ya go… Only 9.5” of penetrating in 10% ballistics gel out of a 20” AR with the 77gr TMK. That’s unacceptable performance for human self defense, and completely laughable for elk. It’s further proof that the BHA brigade at rokslide doesn’t know what the fuck they are talking about. ETA here is the SMK, actually better penetration, but he had trouble keeping it in the block (there is that wound track problem we talked about.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mD6E6vmlwIAFinally if I had to shoot an elk with a 223. (Not that I endorse it.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y88vaxo3mqUSorry, I’ll trust BHA & Federal’s ballistics gel testing before put any faith in that. Properly calibrated ballistics gel tests are most people make it out to be. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2023 10:33:36 PM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Federal agencies need bullets to penetrate barriers that aren’t a consideration when hunting. A bone isn’t equivalent to auto glass or similar. Because of this, your conclusion that a TMK is more likely to deflect compared to say a bonded bullet in a game animal is flawed. There are just as many anecdotal accounts of large caliber traditional bullets failing as there are Berger’s failing. TMKs tend to be more consistent terminally than the Berger’s for the record. I prefer massive hemorrhage done via straight line penetration and reliable violent expansion. The TMK and ELD deliver that in spades. I care about destroyed vitals much more than an exit hole, because on average, an animal with destroyed vitals doesn’t make it far at all. For the record federal also offers the 77gr TMK in a duty load as well. That’s a great plan, until it isn’t. ETA your first paragraph makes you sound like the people who believed the 223 was designed to tumble as soon as it left the barrel. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2023 10:33:43 PM EST
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 77g TMKs will fuck everything up. From paper targets at 600 yards to elk/moose. All you need in my opinion. Fling 77g SMKs for practice or even the upper range ELDMs.  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2023 10:37:21 PM EST
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/The_Rock_Applause-169.gif I’ll bet most of the folks arguing that “77gr 223 is plenty for elk” have never fired a shot at one. Elk can soak up some lead… Even if they “drop” they have a tendency to get back up and run to the next mountain range once the adrenaline hits. Never underestimate an animal that can run up the side of a mountain with the same amount of effort I run up a single flight of stairs. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Sometimes it's the only shot you are going to get. Or the animal moves. Or you miss for any of 87 other reasons. Shoulder shot is an excellent option on Elk. Well not with some anemic round, but a bonded .300Win mag works fine. They don't run so good with a fucked shoulder and three working legs. And with a proper gun and ammo, it will continue on to penetrate into the vital area. That's always one of the dead giveaways that the people advocating for not enough gun, don't really hunt much. To them, perfect shot placement is a given, and animals just fall straight down dead after. People who actually hunt, know that's usually not the case. You might only get one opportunity at an imperfect shot, and if you pass it up, no meat for you. They have huge lungs, so if you're going for a lung shot, whatever you hit it with better do a lot of damage. If not, the animal might just decide to run a mile through the woods. /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/The_Rock_Applause-169.gif I’ll bet most of the folks arguing that “77gr 223 is plenty for elk” have never fired a shot at one. Elk can soak up some lead… Even if they “drop” they have a tendency to get back up and run to the next mountain range once the adrenaline hits. Never underestimate an animal that can run up the side of a mountain with the same amount of effort I run up a single flight of stairs. Elk are some hard to kill sumbitches. .338 RUM for me thanks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2023 10:39:45 PM EST
[#41]
Quote HistorySome guy on an Internet forum posted pictures of dead elk and moose killed with 77gr TMK’s… Didn’t you hear? Everything we learned from the FBI shootout, the GWOT, and countless controlled studies on bullet performance is wrong now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2023 10:39:48 PM EST
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The TMK isn’t substantially different. Terminally, they are still a non bonded thin copper jacketed match bullet. Look at the penetration depth required for a raking shot on an elk…upwards of 12 inches of paunch, intestine, and rib before you get to lungs. That’s your intermediate barrier… Look at a quartering to shot that has 10+ inches of shoulder and bone before you get to lungs. Again, that’s your intermediate barrier. That’s why barrier loads work best. You need a projectile that stays together and penetrates in a straight line to a specific depth while being blind to bone. Again, why bone? Because the FBI shootout in Miami waaaaay back in the day had an Agent shoot the suspect with his 9mm pistol. He hit the suspect through the forearm (bone). That bullet deviated from trajectory and came apart. It hit the chest but failed to reach the heart. That suspect killed Agents and continued fighting after that hit. Thus, you now see the straight line barrier blind and deep penetration requirement that gives you predictable trajectories via bonded bullets. The SMK or TMK does not do that. This has all been done before. As above, Roy Weatherby preached it decades ago. He believed that velocity, hydrostatic shock, and rapid expansion were king…animals would die right there. It worked great…until it didn’t. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I’ve read it. It’s wrong. If you research the history of the SMK, it’s militarily applications, and the millions spent on the various “match” grade rounds, you will see that the projectile has a history of poor overall terminal ballistics outside very specific circumstances. If you research the basic FBI standards for 5.56 duty ammo, it includes things like intermediate barrier penetration with straight line penetration to a given depth with a specific % of weight retention. Ask yourself why? Why didn’t the FBI simply go with MK262 if it’s so good? Because it only performs in open air with no intermediate barriers while fragmenting inconsistently, penetrating off axis, and occasionally failing to expand at all when the hollow point folds over. The SMK is a target bullet and a good one. Sometimes, target bullets do great things…sometimes they fail. Bullets for use on meat should never be a “sometimes” performer. Of note, the FBI selected a version of the Trophy Bonded Bearclaw and a similar projectile from Winchester. The Marine Corps did similar with their optimized 5.56 in MK311 (it’s a ballistically improved lead free TBBC). Millions spent on researching the perfect 5.56 load for targets that fight back…from multiple agencies. Both reached the same conclusion- match bullets suck and the TBBC is the best projectile under wide ranging conditions. Side note- SOCOM did similar, with an emphasis on short barrels and selected the Barnes x bullet in a modified version…and they had unlimited access to 262 with 77gr SMKs. Osama got a Barnes x to the face. If you understand why…you will understand why Rokslide is wrong. Rokslide agrees will all of that. TMKs are a different animal to the SMK. If I were the FBI or any other federal agency I would likely choose a barrier blind load as well, since auto glass sucks to shoot though. But for raw terminal performer, the TMK beats the barrier blind loadings out there. The TMK isn’t substantially different. Terminally, they are still a non bonded thin copper jacketed match bullet. Look at the penetration depth required for a raking shot on an elk…upwards of 12 inches of paunch, intestine, and rib before you get to lungs. That’s your intermediate barrier… Look at a quartering to shot that has 10+ inches of shoulder and bone before you get to lungs. Again, that’s your intermediate barrier. That’s why barrier loads work best. You need a projectile that stays together and penetrates in a straight line to a specific depth while being blind to bone. Again, why bone? Because the FBI shootout in Miami waaaaay back in the day had an Agent shoot the suspect with his 9mm pistol. He hit the suspect through the forearm (bone). That bullet deviated from trajectory and came apart. It hit the chest but failed to reach the heart. That suspect killed Agents and continued fighting after that hit. Thus, you now see the straight line barrier blind and deep penetration requirement that gives you predictable trajectories via bonded bullets. The SMK or TMK does not do that. This has all been done before. As above, Roy Weatherby preached it decades ago. He believed that velocity, hydrostatic shock, and rapid expansion were king…animals would die right there. It worked great…until it didn’t. You claim you read the thread but you seemed to miss the multiple instances where the TMK penetrated all of the shoulder and bone you claim to be an issue. The main contributor to that thread generally provides autopsies for these kills. The TMK is different because it gives consistency in penetration before fragmentation unlike the SMK. Bonded bullets are great, but you’re leaving some permanent wound cavity on the table from the lack of frag. Depending on you’re use case that’s acceptable. Large game animals aren’t so thick (on entry) to need the additional penetration. In some cases the really hard bonded bullets and monos are going to create narrow wound channels and lead to slower incapacitation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2023 10:41:49 PM EST
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Aspen groves like that typically do not permit a 405 yard line of sight. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Sometimes it's the only shot you are going to get. Or the animal moves. Or you miss for any of 87 other reasons. Shoulder shot is an excellent option on Elk. Well not with some anemic round, but a bonded .300Win mag works fine. They don't run so good with a fucked shoulder and three working legs. And with a proper gun and ammo, it will continue on to penetrate into the vital area. That's always one of the dead giveaways that the people advocating for not enough gun, don't really hunt much. To them, perfect shot placement is a given, and animals just fall straight down dead after. People who actually hunt, know that's usually not the case. You might only get one opportunity at an imperfect shot, and if you pass it up, no meat for you. They have huge lungs, so if you're going for a lung shot, whatever you hit it with better do a lot of damage. If not, the animal might just decide to run a mile through the woods. /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/The_Rock_Applause-169.gif I’ll bet most of the folks arguing that “77gr 223 is plenty for elk” have never fired a shot at one. Elk can soak up some lead… Even if they “drop” they have a tendency to get back up and run to the next mountain range once the adrenaline hits. Never underestimate an animal that can run up the side of a mountain with the same amount of effort I run up a single flight of stairs. IIRC Mark LaRoo smoked a Mighty Elk at 405 yards with a puny 130gr 6.5 Grendel with one shot. If he can do it Shirley Barfcom can measure up https://static.larue.com/oldsite/media/img/Ellk_Hunt/HPIM0481.jpg https://static.larue.com/oldsite/media/img/Ellk_Hunt/HPIM0461.jpg https://static.larue.com/oldsite/media/img/Ellk_Hunt/HPIM0457.jpg Aspen groves like that typically do not permit a 405 yard line of sight. Probably ran into the thicket. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2023 10:43:12 PM EST
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What range of barrel twist will stabilize the 77g projectiles? 1/8-1/7 |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2023 10:43:20 PM EST
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You claim you read the thread but you seemed to miss the multiple instances where the TMK penetrated all of the shoulder and bone you claim to be an issue. The main contributor to that thread generally provides autopsies for these kills. The TMK is different because it gives consistency in penetration before fragmentation unlike the SMK. Bonded bullets are great, but you’re leaving some permanent wound cavity on the table from the lack of frag. Depending on you’re use case that’s acceptable. Large game animals aren’t so thick (on entry) to need the additional penetration. In some cases the really hard bonded bullets and monos are going to create narrow wound channels and lead to slower incapacitation. You claim some guy posting on an Internet forum trumps everything we’ve learned about terminal ballistics over the last century. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2023 10:43:56 PM EST
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Rokslide agrees will all of that. TMKs are a different animal to the SMK. If I were the FBI or any other federal agency I would likely choose a barrier blind load as well, since auto glass sucks to shoot though. But for raw terminal performer, the TMK beats the barrier blind loadings out there. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I’ve read it. It’s wrong. If you research the history of the SMK, it’s militarily applications, and the millions spent on the various “match” grade rounds, you will see that the projectile has a history of poor overall terminal ballistics outside very specific circumstances. If you research the basic FBI standards for 5.56 duty ammo, it includes things like intermediate barrier penetration with straight line penetration to a given depth with a specific % of weight retention. Ask yourself why? Why didn’t the FBI simply go with MK262 if it’s so good? Because it only performs in open air with no intermediate barriers while fragmenting inconsistently, penetrating off axis, and occasionally failing to expand at all when the hollow point folds over. The SMK is a target bullet and a good one. Sometimes, target bullets do great things…sometimes they fail. Bullets for use on meat should never be a “sometimes” performer. Of note, the FBI selected a version of the Trophy Bonded Bearclaw and a similar projectile from Winchester. The Marine Corps did similar with their optimized 5.56 in MK311 (it’s a ballistically improved lead free TBBC). Millions spent on researching the perfect 5.56 load for targets that fight back…from multiple agencies. Both reached the same conclusion- match bullets suck and the TBBC is the best projectile under wide ranging conditions. Side note- SOCOM did similar, with an emphasis on short barrels and selected the Barnes x bullet in a modified version…and they had unlimited access to 262 with 77gr SMKs. Osama got a Barnes x to the face. If you understand why…you will understand why Rokslide is wrong. Rokslide agrees will all of that. TMKs are a different animal to the SMK. If I were the FBI or any other federal agency I would likely choose a barrier blind load as well, since auto glass sucks to shoot though. But for raw terminal performer, the TMK beats the barrier blind loadings out there. Auto glass and bone are very similar in terms of how bullets perform through them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2023 10:44:58 PM EST
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That’s a great plan, until it isn’t. ETA your first paragraph makes you sound like the people who believed the 223 was designed to tumble as soon as it left the barrel. Nope I’m far too young to believe that myth. I did hear it from my grandpa though who also believed 40 s&w was a superior caliber to all others. Ultimately bullets matter more than headstamps, and we’re unlikely to sway each others opinion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2023 10:47:41 PM EST
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Nope I’m far too young to believe that myth. I did hear it from my grandpa though who also believed 40 s&w was a superior caliber to all others. Ultimately bullets matter more than headstamps, and we’re unlikely to sway each others opinion. I would agree with that, within reason. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2023 10:47:44 PM EST
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Thin light jacketed bullets (Bergers, TMK, etc) tend to be much more unpredictable in their wound track and penetration than more “traditional” rifle bullets. When I say “traditional” I don’t mean grand-pappy’s core-lokt. I mean bullets designed with reliable expansion and weight retention in mind. Bonded bullets like Accubonds, terminal ascents, Barnes and other copper solids, etc. Again if you go back to my first post in this thread, bullets ultimately kill one of two ways, incapacitation via CNS disruption or massive hemorrhaging. Can OTM/Berger/TMK bullets cause that? Absofuckinglutely. But they also tend to do some weird shit and under penetrate, curve off track, pencil in rather than expand/fragment based off numerous unpredictable variables. You aren’t going to see much of that in pictures of dead elk on an Internet forum though. Those elk are rotting and getting eaten by predators. I prefer massive hemorrhage done via straight line penetration and reliable controlled expansion. Hopefully hemorrhaging out of two holes, namely the bigger one on the back side. Because even if he does run, I want the best chance possible of finding him. As per FedDC’s excellent post above, as do numerous agencies who have studied the issue in depth. Or trust some BHA yuppies on rokslide. YMMV. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Bullets do crazy unexpected things when they impact flesh. Most older bullet designs tend to have a higher failure rate than most would believe. Thin lightweight bullets tend to penetrate to the vitals and give quick kills. What’s not to love? The person you’re quoting is a poor representation of rokslide. Especially the thread that keeps getting referenced. Thin light jacketed bullets (Bergers, TMK, etc) tend to be much more unpredictable in their wound track and penetration than more “traditional” rifle bullets. When I say “traditional” I don’t mean grand-pappy’s core-lokt. I mean bullets designed with reliable expansion and weight retention in mind. Bonded bullets like Accubonds, terminal ascents, Barnes and other copper solids, etc. Again if you go back to my first post in this thread, bullets ultimately kill one of two ways, incapacitation via CNS disruption or massive hemorrhaging. Can OTM/Berger/TMK bullets cause that? Absofuckinglutely. But they also tend to do some weird shit and under penetrate, curve off track, pencil in rather than expand/fragment based off numerous unpredictable variables. You aren’t going to see much of that in pictures of dead elk on an Internet forum though. Those elk are rotting and getting eaten by predators. I prefer massive hemorrhage done via straight line penetration and reliable controlled expansion. Hopefully hemorrhaging out of two holes, namely the bigger one on the back side. Because even if he does run, I want the best chance possible of finding him. As per FedDC’s excellent post above, as do numerous agencies who have studied the issue in depth. Or trust some BHA yuppies on rokslide. YMMV. I've actually killed more deer with 556 vs .30-30 but the 6-10 deer I've killed with 170 grain core-lokts all had exit wounds, ran less, and died quicker than the ones with 556. I'll take a traditional cup and core bullet over any 556 loading for deer on up. As long as it's from a normal speed cartridge. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2023 10:48:01 PM EST
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Auto glass and bone are very similar in terms of how bullets perform through them. Which bones and at what angles are we talking about? The shoulder certainly doesn’t cause bullets as much distress as auto glass. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
