6.5 Banned on Elk by Outfitters?

[unclericco]

Here we go again.

I can see why outfitters want larger cartridges. I have a bunch of big game rifles but I'll never hunt elk with anything smaller than a .284

 

[muledeerchaser]

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.

 

[roosiebull]

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.

just out of curiosity, how many elk have you seen shot with 6.5 creeds and like?

 

[slick]

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

 

[Spoonbill]

A littke off topic, but I thought this meme was fitting for this thread

 

[ARK_Ginger]

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.

First I'm glad you're adding critical thought to the conversation which is refreshing.

My Opinion:
Restricting calibers entirely or restricting by ft lbs is a lazy way to operate. Every bullet should stand on its own merit based on empirical data, which I realize is much harder to do. Different bullet designs will perform differently at the same ft lbs of energy. For example I think it's safe to say a 6.5 creed 143gr ELD-X will have a wider wound channel at 500 yards ( 2030 ft/s 1308 ft lb per hornady) than a 30-06 Barnes 180 gr TTSX BT at 500 yards (1894 ft/s 1434 ft lb per Barnes). The Hornady bullet is within it's velocity window but under the 1500 ft lbs and the Barnes is at the edge of or outside of it but much closer to the 1500 ft lbs. Also the bullet designs themselves lead to very different wound channels.

A more discerning outfitter would have the client shoot a few times in various positions and distances to determine how far they can actually hunt. Because as we all know a small bullet in the vitals is better than a big bullet in the gut.

 

[Indian Summer]

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

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.

 

[Indian Summer]

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

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!

 

[AZ_Hunter_2000]

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!

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".

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

 

[Indian Summer]

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".

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

The pea shooter guys always use extreme examples. Lol

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.

 

[wannakillabigbull]

* Ford 3.5Liter Engine: 430 horsepower & 570 ft-lbs of torque
* Ford 5.0 Liter Engine: 400 horsepower & 410 ft-lbs of torque

Did I miss Hornady designing the 6.5CM with turbochargers?

 

[brsnow]

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!

I am sure an elk would notice being hit

Did I miss Hornady designing the 6.5CM with turbochargers?

PRC

 

[Bubblehide]

Did I miss Hornady designing the 6.5CM with turbochargers?

No, they now have an option of adding an afterburner.

 

[Spoonbill]

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.

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.

 

[AaronMColeman]

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.

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?

 

[SirChooCH]

How is this any different than an outfitter saying you can/can't use expandable broadheads? It's private businesses and they get to set their rules. If they are having issues with clients they set new standards.

 

[chasewild]

The guides must be tired of getting hit on.

This is one of the best responses on here in a long time.

 

[Rick M.]

The 6.5 is totally fine for elk. The '30 cal or go home' crowd for big game is a symptom of the American big truck, small dick dichotomy (tends to be the same crowd of boomers that have a pocket full of 6.5 jokes). You don't need a howitzer to kill a game animal. Grizzly bears have been killed (efficiently, mind you) with a 9mm pocket pistol.

As always, weapon proficiency and shot placement matters more than caliber. And no, I don't buy the argument that a 300 win mag is more forgiving. A bad shot is a bad shot.

 

[Stalker69]

I’ve seen elk shot with all kinds of guns, rifle, black powder , pistols, and bows. I have seen many killed with a 454 casual, 50 cal lead balls, 54 cal conical and balls, 30-30, 300 savage, 243 and several with a 22-250 as well as 300 wm, 300wsm, 7mm mag, , 270s, 6.5 creedmoors, 300 win ultra mag and many many more. I have also seen just as many ( actually more) not recovered from the higher powered weapons as I have with the lower powered ones, including bows. It comes down to shot placement, and how well the shooter is at putting that projectile in that spot. A bad shot is a bad shot. I have seen elk ( deer , antelope, and coyotes) not recovered with legs blown off by magnum and small calibers as well as paunch shot animals. Proper shot placement plays a huge roll in the recovery of an animal. A lot of people buy the big caliber guns and don’t shoot them well enough, and feel the size will make up for a “ slightly “ misplaced shot. As well as the impression that the bigger calibers also instantly means they are long range shooters now. We see it every year. It’s just not the case the majority of the time.

 

[Indian Summer]

So guys with bigger cartridges can’t shoot so those magnums are useless? Lol Grasping at straws....