Anyone using 6.5 Creedmore for Elk?

[teamvit]

The argument is that a crap shot with a 6.5 Creedmoor could be a killing shot with a 300 WSM. Take a quartering away shot that gets a little far back. Is the 6.5 Creedmoor going to have enough penetration to get to the lungs? Probably not. Is the 300 Win Mag going to have enough penetration to get to the lungs. Probably so. That's the difference between a wounded animal and a dead animal. Yes, shot placement is key which is an obvious statement, but to the average Joe hunter, there is no guarantee that they are always going to make a well placed shot with a 0% chance of screwing it up. In that case a bigger caliber will result in a greater chance of death. It is simple physics.

The simple physics you mention fails to bring up a very important variable, the bullet. Sectional density is a huge player when it comes to penetration. Finding the appropriate bullet for what you are pursing in whatever caliber you own is the best answer versus just buying a magnum because the internet and TV said so

 

[ericF]

Yes, bullet selection matters, but all things being equal, Velocity matters more. For example, I shoot the 127 gr Barnes LRX out of my 6.5 Creedmoor. It has a Sectional Density of .257. In my 300 WSM, I shoot a 168 gr TTSX which has a sectional density of .253. Barnes are widely regarded as having some of the best penetration on the market which I have seen in real life. In this scenario there is no real difference between the sectional densities, so the extra penetration will come from the additional velocity of the larger cartridge.

 

[Shooter19802003]

The argument is that a crap shot with a 6.5 Creedmoor could be a killing shot with a 300 WSM. Take a quartering away shot that gets a little far back. Is the 6.5 Creedmoor going to have enough penetration to get to the lungs? Probably not. Is the 300 Win Mag going to have enough penetration to get to the lungs. Probably so. That's the difference between a wounded animal and a dead animal. Yes, shot placement is key which is an obvious statement, but to the average Joe hunter, there is no guarantee that they are always going to make a well placed shot with a 0% chance of screwing it up. In that case a bigger caliber will result in a greater chance of death. It is simple physics.

Again, I don't get your argument. If you know in advance that you don't have enough gun to take the shot, then don't take the shot. That is not on the cartridge, but the hunter for doing something he knows can't be done. That's just dumb. Btw

Btw ericf...you don't by any chance live in Nc do you?

 

[204guy]

Yes, bullet selection matters, but all things being equal, Velocity matters more. For example, I shoot the 127 gr Barnes LRX out of my 6.5 Creedmoor. It has a Sectional Density of .257. In my 300 WSM, I shoot a 168 gr TTSX which has a sectional density of .253. Barnes are widely regarded as having some of the best penetration on the market which I have seen in real life. In this scenario there is no real difference between the sectional densities, so the extra penetration will come from the additional velocity of the larger cartridge.

Have you tested the difference in penetration? I bet there's very, very little difference. You are missing all the key variables and focusing on the wrong things. Velocity is not even close to being the biggest difference maker in penetration. In fact a very good case can be made that excess velocity is a detriment to penetration, whether due to fragmenting a cup and core bullet or the increased frontal area created by the velocity. The biggest things that increase penetration are heavy for caliber, smaller frontal areas and retained weight. There are trade offs though. Again bullets matter, and while there are some really good ones that do a lot of things well, they haven't made one yet that does all things best.

 

[orelkaddict]

I always enjoy reading these type of threads. always people on both sides of the fence per say about what calibers will or won't kill a bull. As others have said shot placement is a key factor. And as others have tried to explain that sometimes while you are pulling the trigger on a perfect shot that a bull might start to whirl or take another step and totally screw that "perfect" shot before your brain can tell your finger to stop, seen it. Then there's the preach about range and ethical shots, usually different for each person. Some people swear by big magnum calibers only, I agree that has been good advertising. But after killing everything for nearly 2 decades with an arrow tipped by a broadhead that is only 100 grains going less than 300 fps with a total arrow weight of around 400 grains, how is that nearly all of these calibers could not kill a bull?? Just something to consider when you guys are arguing about what will and what won't kill.
Carry on

 

[orionthehunter1]

Bingo, we have a winner

 

[Shooter19802003]

I always enjoy reading these type of threads. always people on both sides of the fence per say about what calibers will or won't kill a bull. As others have said shot placement is a key factor. And as others have tried to explain that sometimes while you are pulling the trigger on a perfect shot that a bull might start to whirl or take another step and totally screw that "perfect" shot before your brain can tell your finger to stop, seen it. Then there's the preach about range and ethical shots, usually different for each person. Some people swear by big magnum calibers only, I agree that has been good advertising. But after killing everything for nearly 2 decades with an arrow tipped by a broadhead that is only 100 grains going less than 300 fps with a total arrow weight of around 400 grains, how is that nearly all of these calibers could not kill a bull?? Just something to consider when you guys are arguing about what will and what won't kill.
Carry on

Whoa there sparky. We will not have that kinda talk whilst trying to argue on the internet. Gees.....some people.

 

[MikeHoncho]

Yes, these caliber discussions are very frustrating (9mm vs .45 anyone?). Let me preface my opinion with the facts that hunt elk with .300wsm and deer with a .270 win. Both are greater than commonly required minnimums for each species, by my choice, for greater lethality. The 6.5 Creedmoor is certainly capable of taking an elk, and as mentioned, so are other "smaller" calibers. BUT, I feel there is an unfair amount of love lavished on the 6.5 by its admirers. To pretend the magical ballistic coefficient of the 6.5 affords it more lethality than a larger caliber traveling faster is ludicrous (optimal bullet weight/construction and shot placement being equal). If your response is "prove it," back at you.

There is an over/under argument to be made. Do you need a .50 bmg to drop an elk in its tracks? NO. Will aforementioned .22-250 dispatch an elk HUMANELY? I contest not.

My opinions, and others are based on experiences and biases. Mine is seeing the aftermath of a pair of my hunting partners hit a 6x6 Roosevelt bull 10 times, 4 of which were in the lungs, with a .270 and a .308 from a range of 200-300 yards. Then the bull got up and ran 200 yards further up the hill and was shot in the neck at 50 yards by another hunter (the bull was all but dead on it's feet). Fortunately, the other hunter let my buddies have the bull once he saw the 4 lung hits (albeit, after a bit of yelling).

Much of this is subjective. If I were in the back-country with little concern of a wounded elk being dispatched by another hunter, I would feel better hunting elk with a .270 or 6.5.

I have nothing against the 6.5 Creedmoor, by all accounts it is a fantastic cartridge with a huge upside. I don't think it's the optimal caliber for elk (if there is such a thing). I will buy a 6.5 Creedmoor in a tikka t3x lite stainless once it is available.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[ericF]

Again, I don't get your argument. If you know in advance that you don't have enough gun to take the shot, then don't take the shot. That is not on the cartridge, but the hunter for doing something he knows can't be done. That's just dumb. Btw

Btw ericf...you don't by any chance live in Nc do you?

I'm not arguing that you should take the shot if it is marginal. The argument is that for Joe Blow Hunter that is taking a shot and has a high risk of flubbing the shot, then a 300 WSM has a higher chance of killing an elk than a 6.5 Creedmoor when he takes a marginal shot. In Colorado we have so many out of state hunters and new hunters every year that take many shots that they shouldn't. No, they probably shouldn't be taking many of the shots that they do, but that is unfortunately the world we live in.

And yes, I am in NoCO up in Fort Collins.

 

[ericF]

Have you tested the difference in penetration? I bet there's very, very little difference. You are missing all the key variables and focusing on the wrong things. Velocity is not even close to being the biggest difference maker in penetration. In fact a very good case can be made that excess velocity is a detriment to penetration, whether due to fragmenting a cup and core bullet or the increased frontal area created by the velocity. The biggest things that increase penetration are heavy for caliber, smaller frontal areas and retained weight. There are trade offs though. Again bullets matter, and while there are some really good ones that do a lot of things well, they haven't made one yet that does all things best.

No I haven't tested the difference in penetration, and unfortunately I couldn't find any specific data online. You say I am missing the key variables, but that is why I am comparing two like bullets. The Barnes Tipped TSX 127gr LRX and 168gr TTSX are the same monolithic design and nearly same sectional density. Yes, if you use two different bullets then you are going to get completely different penetration numbers. Using the same bullet design negates some of those key variables you are talking about. Both of these bullets will retain near 100% of their weight based on what I have recovered. Granted, I haven't recovered many Barnes because they usually penetrate so well. Yes, bullet selection matters, but when comparing the same design, speed matters more. Taking a purely engineering approach, Force=m*v squared. In this equation, if you change the velocity, you have a multiplicative effect. Like I said, my argument is based purely on comparing the same monolithic design across the two calibers and I have no experience with other bullet designs because I centered on the Barnes.

 

[Shooter19802003]

Sorry thought you were somebody else. Guy I know from a different forum is in north carolina.

 

[dacd4134]

I always enjoy reading these type of threads. always people on both sides of the fence per say about what calibers will or won't kill a bull. As others have said shot placement is a key factor. And as others have tried to explain that sometimes while you are pulling the trigger on a perfect shot that a bull might start to whirl or take another step and totally screw that "perfect" shot before your brain can tell your finger to stop, seen it. Then there's the preach about range and ethical shots, usually different for each person. Some people swear by big magnum calibers only, I agree that has been good advertising. But after killing everything for nearly 2 decades with an arrow tipped by a broadhead that is only 100 grains going less than 300 fps with a total arrow weight of around 400 grains, how is that nearly all of these calibers could not kill a bull?? Just something to consider when you guys are arguing about what will and what won't kill.
Carry on

This was going to be my point. Well put.

 

[castleschloss]

Last year I shot a large cow at 290 yards in Colorado. 6.5 Creedmoor, 130 g Nosler accubond chronographed at 2,960 fps. The cow dropped immediately. Used the same load to take several mule deer, four whitetail, and two pronghorn. Pretty satisfied.