just out of curiosity, how many elk have you seen shot with 6.5 creeds and like?Unless you make a perfect shot on an elk, a 6.5 creedmore and alike are to light. Better to go with a 3006 and up with 180 grain and up nosler accubond or partition bullets. Perfect shots hunting in the mountains are really not that common. You are most likely tired and winded. The wind in blowing, it might be snowing or raining, the shot is at an angle, it might under poor light conditions, maybe a cross canyon shot (please keep your shots under 400 or 500 yards). Yes, a 6.5 creedmore will kill an elk but it is not really a good idea to use it. Like an engineer designing a bridge, always make it stronger than it needs to be, it just works out better that way.
First I'm glad you're adding critical thought to the conversation which is refreshing.I'm curious to hear if you have thoughts on something an outfitter could do/use as a baseline besides ft. lbs. if you're not a fan of that metric? I like it because it combines quite a few things and makes an easy button solution for an outfitter. To make it clear, I'm using Ft. Lbs minimums as something that could be used instead of an entire caliber restriction for an outfitter. I absolutely understand many things go into the ability to kill an animal beyond how much energy it has. I don't think however, that any other metric takes into account velocity and mass (ft lb metric), and sectional density, and ballistic coefficient (to get your velocity metric to apply to ft lbs). I look at it like pulling a Density Altitude reading vs pulling station pressure AND elevation.
In my eyes, the benefit of ft. lbs. over a velocity window as you mentioned is the velocity is already taken into account along with bullet efficiency with the solution for ft. lbs. I understand and acknowledge manufactures test at velocities to provide maximum and minimums for proper bullet expansion as they design and test it. But those velocity ranges transfer easily to ft. lbs. A manufacturer says 1600 fps minimum for bullet x, well it's extremely likely a ft. lb. minimum ensures the client is above that velocity as long as they choose the right energy minimum (1500 in this case). I’m sure I could find an example that doesn’t fit, but the majority of bullet minimum velocities are in that 1500 ft. Lbs. range. It also takes into account the bullet efficiency/density and weight obviously. The less efficient a bullet, the less ft. lbs. it will have the further out it goes because it bleeds off velocity faster due to the inefficient design. My issue with a velocity minimum is a person could load up a light bullet in a large caliber and send it screaming. It may be a fantastic choice for lots of hunts and it may not be for some hunts. Again, those light bullets bleed off energy fast. If an outfitter wanted to utilize velocity to weed out what they determine not enough power for the game being chased, are they going to look at each bullet manufacturer and make a list of minimum velocity numbers? That seems like a lot of work. Ft. Lbs. seems like the easy button to me to take into consideration their bullet efficiency getting to that yardage and how much velocity it's already shed, and energy at the time of impact in at said yardage with that current velocity. While a ft. lb. minimum wouldn't fit within a manufacturers velocity window 100% of the time, it would say 95% of the time. What it doesn’t take into account is the type of bullet as mentioned earlier, so whether the design is to pedal, mushroom, fragment, etc...
I think there needs to be a solution rather than to just restrict an entire caliber. Maybe it’s as simple as restrict specific cartridges instead. I'm happy to hear any. But, as I said in the first sentence, a business owner can and should have the ability to set up his business anyway they wish so I guess this is really a moot point and scotchy scotch scotch.
Pretty much sums it up. Every bullet runs out of energy at some point. Lighter bullets don’t retain energy as long. Period. So just like with any cartridge... or bow, know your limitations.Is the 6.5 an accurate gun for long range “shooting”? Yes
Is the 6.5 a good caliber for elk hunting: yes
if the 6.5 a good caliber for long range elk hunting: NO
A good shot? You are simply talking about bullet placement. A “good shot” means enough energy! A good shot with an undersized underweight bullet isn’t a killing one. 40 grains by the way is nearly a 1/3 increase in weight. If the motor in your truck was 1/3 bigger I guarantee you’d notice it!Also, muledeerchaser in the above situation(s) you’re recommending something that weighs 40grs more than the typical 6.5 bullet (140gr) and is exactly .044 of an inch larger in diameter. A bad shot is a bad shot and a good shot is a good shot.
Edit to add: as far as your bridge analogy, a 6.5CM partition is made of the same metals and is not inherently weaker or stronger than a 30-06 Sp partition.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So with your logic, a shot in the ass with a 180 gr .308 is "good" but a shot in the lungs with a 143 gr .264 is "bad".A good shot? You are simply talking about bullet placement. A “good shot” means enough energy! A good shot with an undersized underweight bullet isn’t a killing one. 40 grains by the way is nearly a 1/3 increase in weight. If the motor in your truck was 1/3 bigger I guarantee you’d notice it!
The pea shooter guys always use extreme examples. LolSo with your logic, a shot in the ass with a 180 gr .308 is "good" but a shot in the lungs with a 143 gr .264 is "bad".
The old adage "no replacement for displacement" is no longer a truism. Here is some info since you mentioned engines. Yes, I would notice the larger engine not being as powerful.
* Ford 3.5Liter Engine: 430 horsepower & 570 ft-lbs of torque
* Ford 5.0 Liter Engine: 400 horsepower & 410 ft-lbs of torque
I am sure an elk would notice being hitA good shot? You are simply talking about bullet placement. A “good shot” means enough energy! A good shot with an undersized underweight bullet isn’t a killing one. 40 grains by the way is nearly a 1/3 increase in weight. If the motor in your truck was 1/3 bigger I guarantee you’d notice it!
PRCDid I miss Hornady designing the 6.5CM with turbochargers?
There is a whole 28 page thread about guys using a 77tmk 5.56 to kill everything from whitetail does to moose. Like mentioned above by others, ft-lbs of energy doesn’t replace using a well constructed bullet that is matched to the cartridge.No! I’m saying that if two bullets hit the exact same spot the one with 1800 lbs of energy will kill elk every time but the one with under 1000 lbs will not. Simple. This conversation isn’t about 300 yard shots. It’s about being prepared to kill elk at any range you can shoot at. Which in elk country can be far. Like my above post said... they all have their limits and lighter means not as far.
Where did the 1500-1600ftlbs of energy for an elk come from? And why do we quote that as gospel truth? Could it be that 800ftlbs is enough?There is a whole 28 page thread about guys using a 77tmk 5.56 to kill everything from whitetail does to moose. Like mentioned above by others, ft-lbs of energy doesn’t replace using a well constructed bullet that is matched to the cartridge.
Take a look and it may change your opinion, I know it did for me.