6.5 CM for Elk

[Formidilosus]

For the guys saying 400, where are you getting that? Just pulling it out from Never-never land?



The 6.5 Creed with the 147gr ELD-M started at a lowly 2,540fos arrives at 500 yards with more impact velocity and less wind drift than a 300WM with 180gr Partitions at 3,000fps. And wound channels at that range are similar. I do not have any issue with a 6.5 Creed and the right bullet at 600+ yards on an elk.


Are there advantages in bigger rounds? Sure. Are there heavy costs for those advantages? Absolutely. Max range for a round is when impact velocity drops below what is required for consistent upset/expansion/fragmentation of the bullet. With the 143gr ELD-X 1,900fps or so is about right. The 147gr ELD-M has shown decent upset at 1,800fps.

 

[ckleeves]

For the guys saying 400, where are you getting that? Just pulling it out from Never-never land?



The 6.5 Creed with the 147gr ELD-M started at a lowly 2,540fos arrives at 500 yards with more impact velocity and less wind drift than a 300WM with 180gr Partitions at 3,000fps. And wound channels at that range are similar. I do not have any issue with a 6.5 Creed and the right bullet at 600+ yards on an elk.


Are there advantages in bigger rounds? Sure. Are there heavy costs for those advantages? Absolutely. Max range for a round is when impact velocity drops below what is required for consistent upset/expansion/fragmentation of the bullet. With the 143gr ELD-X 1,900fps or so is about right. The 147gr ELD-M has shown decent upset at 1,800fps.

Past 400 I’ll reach for the 300 wm with 215’s. I like a little wiggle room when long range hunting for when things don’t go exactly perfect. There’s no doubt in my mind a guy could kill an elk at 600+ with a creed. Could a guy kill 20 elk at 600+ without a single wounding loss? Elk are tough. Timber and oakbrush are thick. Pushing min velocity limits on bullet expansion usually doesn’t result in much blood on the ground ime. A elk doesn’t have to go very far to be really hard to recover in that stuff.

A 22-250ai with a 80 grain a-max maintains +2000 FPS at 750 yards. Good elk round? Gotta draw a line somewhere imo.

The elk I have seen shot inside of 400 with a creed haven’t been super confidence inspiring on shooting one at 600 imo.

 

[Fatcamp]

For the guys saying 400, where are you getting that? Just pulling it out from Never-never land?



The 6.5 Creed with the 147gr ELD-M started at a lowly 2,540fos arrives at 500 yards with more impact velocity and less wind drift than a 300WM with 180gr Partitions at 3,000fps. And wound channels at that range are similar. I do not have any issue with a 6.5 Creed and the right bullet at 600+ yards on an elk.


Are there advantages in bigger rounds? Sure. Are there heavy costs for those advantages? Absolutely. Max range for a round is when impact velocity drops below what is required for consistent upset/expansion/fragmentation of the bullet. With the 143gr ELD-X 1,900fps or so is about right. The 147gr ELD-M has shown decent upset at 1,800fps.

Where are you getting your numbers from? Comparing the ELD-M in both calibers on Hornandy's site the 6.5 is not only slower at 500 when starting significantly faster than what you quote, but has about 500 less ft. lbs. of energy.

I know it's popular to disregard energy in these debates, but Hornandy seems to think it's significant.

 

[elkguide]

When I was guiding elk hunters the rifle that I hated to see come into camp was the brand new, shiny one that had been bought on the trip cross country, bore sighted and told that they were good to go. The worst case I ever saw was a great big burly guy from Georgia that had stopped at Cabelas and bought a Remington 700 in .300 RUM. At the range, he couldn't get more than one shot on paper so the rifle obviously wasn't sighted in well the hunter said. The boss looked at me and said, "You're a good shot. See what you can do." Well all 160 pounds of me did not like all of the .300 RUM but I did determine that the hunter was right, in that the gun wasn't sighted in properly.... it was 2" high and an inch to the right BUT all 3 bullets were touching when I shot it.

My favorite rifle coming in to camp was one that had lots of well earned battle/hunting trip scars on it. That usually meant that the hunter knew that when he pointed at something, the bullet was going to hit where he/she wanted it to.

As to caliber..... I've seen elk shot with everything from a .357 mag handgun to a .30-.30 Winchester to a .25-06 to a .375 H&H and a .45-70. Elk died in front of all of them. Elk are tough animals and can take a lot of punishment. I would use the largest caliber that you are comfortable with. For me, I like .30 caliber magnums and I use a .300 Win Mag for all of my hunting, from coyote to deer to elk. Yes the .300 is terrible on a coyote hide but deer and elk seem to fall over when I hit them with it too. If an elk were always going to stop and stand broadside, I'd probably use an old favorite rifle in .250-3000 but since the elk I hunt aren't very co-operative and don't pose well, I'm sticking with my .300 Win Mag.

 

[MT_Wyatt]

For the guys saying 400, where are you getting that? Just pulling it out from Never-never land?



The 6.5 Creed with the 147gr ELD-M started at a lowly 2,540fos arrives at 500 yards with more impact velocity and less wind drift than a 300WM with 180gr Partitions at 3,000fps. And wound channels at that range are similar. I do not have any issue with a 6.5 Creed and the right bullet at 600+ yards on an elk.


Are there advantages in bigger rounds? Sure. Are there heavy costs for those advantages? Absolutely. Max range for a round is when impact velocity drops below what is required for consistent upset/expansion/fragmentation of the bullet. With the 143gr ELD-X 1,900fps or so is about right. The 147gr ELD-M has shown decent upset at 1,800fps.

I think 400 yards comes from looking at the available energy numbers - if you are trying to stay at 1500 ft-lbs or more for an elk that’s about where you drop below it on the 143 gain eldx load. At least I think that’s the reasoning you often read, I know I saw it pop up a lot when deciding what caliber my line hunting rifle would be.

You bring up a really interesting point - if the bullet is designed to open up and a lower velocity, that magic energy number starts to mean a lot less. I think a lot of people who have written about the caliber haven’t conveyed that idea that energy is only part of the equation and bullet construction really matters.

 

[Formidilosus]

Where are you getting your numbers from? Comparing the ELD-M in both calibers on Hornandy's site the 6.5 is not only slower at 500 when starting significantly faster than what you quote, but has about 500 less ft. lbs. of energy.

I know it's popular to disregard energy in these debates, but Hornandy seems to think it's significant.

Ft-lbs energy is not a wounding mechanism. It tells you nothing of how deep and how wide a wound a bullet will create. There is not a single legitimate institution that deals with terminal ballistics that even measures “ft-lbs energy”. It’s meaningless as far as knowing what a bullet will do in tissue.

As as for the numbers- I said 180gr Partition from a 300WM. There isn’t a person that thinks a 180gr Partition from a 300WM isn’t solid at 500 yards on an elk. And since the wound channels from both the 147gr ELD-M at 2,540fps MV and the 180gr Partition at 3,000fps MV is nearly identical at 500 yards with the 180 PT having just a bit more penetration (but both more than enough) .... then they are both fine.

I think 400 yards comes from looking at the available energy numbers - if you are trying to stay at 1500 ft-lbs or more for an elk that’s about where you drop below it on the 143 gain eldx load. At least I think that’s the reasoning you often read, I know I saw it pop up a lot when deciding what caliber my line hunting rifle would be.

You bring up a really interesting point - if the bullet is designed to open up and a lower velocity, that magic energy number starts to mean a lot less. I think a lot of people who have written about the caliber haven’t conveyed that idea that energy is only part of the equation and bullet construction really matters.

See above. Energy isn’t a factor that is useful. If you want to know what a bullet will do in tissue and hence how it kills, you have to shoot it in tissue or tissue simulate (calibrated 10% ballistic gelatin) and measure the wound channel.

 

[Kramer588]

So how much of an advantage would a guy gain by having a 7mm-08 vs the 6.5CM? The increased bullet diameter allows for larger grain bullets, but the casing doesn't allow for much more powder to be used. So does a faster bullet with a higher SD work better than a heavier slower bullet?

 

[amassi]

Like most interweb musings this gets beat to death, I killed my first cow elk with a 240 weatherby and 100gr partition.(285 yards,under gunned?) Everyone in camp gave me a ration of crap, until that cow folded like god flicked her switch off. I however, do enjoy big magnums I practice with them and shoot them well

If you enjoy#s here's some

First pic
147 6.5 eld- m @ 2600
2nd pic
178 30 cal eld m @ 3000
3rd pic 30 cal 208 eldm @ 2800
Noteworthy: a 208 gr 30 cal eld has the same kinetic energy at 400 yards as a creedmoor does at the muzzle
4th pic(for the energy fans) 338-378 weatherby, 265 lrab
Creedmoor muzzle energy at 1000 yards...

Energy absolutely can be a factor, because not every shot is perfect. Elk/deer whatever move, winds shift and swirl shit happens sometimes it's nice to hit shit with the Buick.

It's not a fair comparison of eld-m v partition for flight characteristics, as one is akin to a rocket and the other the aforementioned Buick
Likewise, the eld m wouldn't be expected to perform like a partition @ 50 yards

All 3 of these would make living elk into dead elk as would a host of other rounds from 250 savage through 460 weatherby.

Last of my rambling- elk are where you find them, If the blaze orange army pushed them into the thick stuff all the high bc bullets and $400 bipods wont count for a hill of beans

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[elkduds]

We aren't hunting cubes of ballistic gelatin. Elk are large, tough and they don't stand still. They have complicated anatomy, including big bones in inconvenient places. They deserve to be killed fast and humanely, like all game.

Ballistic gelatin is one reference standard. I give more creedence to years of real world experience, seeing many elk killed or not. See elkguide's comments above.

It is hunting, not target shooting, so get closer. 6.5 and 7-08 are great for broadside shots on elk. Get closer than 400 to be sure.

 

[Formidilosus]

So how much of an advantage would a guy gain by having a 7mm-08 vs the 6.5CM? The increased bullet diameter allows for larger grain bullets, but the casing doesn't allow for much more powder to be used. So does a faster bullet with a higher SD work better than a heavier slower bullet?

Given same impact velocity-either a slightly wider wound channel at the same penetration depth, or the same width wound with more penetration depending upon which bullets are used.

Energy absolutely can be a factor, because not every shot is perfect. Elk/deer whatever move, winds shift and swirl shit happens sometimes it's nice to hit shit with the Buick.
Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

Except that’s not how terminal ballistics work. “Energy” tells you absolutely nothing about tissue destruction. You want a bullet that’ll help when you miss vitals? Then you either need one that penetrates deeper, one that creates a wider wound channel, or both. The difference between 1,200 ft-“bs and 1,500 ft-lbs is meaningless. .

We aren't hunting cubes of ballistic gelatin. Elk are large, tough and they don't stand still. They have complicated anatomy, including big bones in inconvenient places. They deserve to be killed fast and humanely, like all game.

Ballistic gelatin is one reference standard. I give more creedence to years of real world experience, seeing many elk killed or not. See elkguide's comments above.

It is hunting, not target shooting, so get closer. 6.5 and 7-08 are great for broadside shots on elk. Get closer than 400 to be sure.

There is is nothing complicated about an elks anatomy. There anatomy is like every other member of the deer family, just a bit bigger.

So are you saying that wound channels in properly calibrated gelatin with barriers does not correlate to wound channels in tissue? Specifically- hide, bone and muscle? With that, are you saying there is some other magical property besides what tissue is destroyed that kills an animal?

 

[amassi]

Energy can be used to extrapolate, it's a fairly good predictor of results
Plus- it's pretty simple and you don't need a spare hide, ballistics gelatin, sawhorse, beef ribs etc.
Load ammo
Shoot elk
Rinse and repeat

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[Formidilosus]

Energy can be used to extrapolate, it's a fairly good predictor of results

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

Actually, it’s not a predictor of anything. Since ft-lbs energy does not make a bullet expand, nor does it tell you how deep a bullet will penetrate, how do you extrapolate anything off of it?



Again, no legitimate institution uses ft-lbs for anything. The company that made your bullets.... they didn’t design them to work at a certain “energy”, they designed them to penetrate a certain distance, and create a certain wound channel with a minimum impact velocity. Early good bullets were tested and refined on animals. Any good bullet since the mid 2,000’s was tested and designed in calibrated gelatin, then checked by shooting some animals.




Ft-lbs of energy became a thing like all the other formulas when hunters and writers didn’t know how or why bullets killed. They wanted something, anything to predict performance. However, it isn’t the 1980’s anymore. How bullets behave in tissue and the mechanism that they kill by are known entities. Due to myths, old legends, and “because daddy said” the hunting community is still largely stuck in the dark ages, refusing to understand that there is science and data about how bullets destroy tissue and therefore kill animals.

 

[Fatcamp]

Actually, it’s not a predictor of anything. Since ft-lbs energy does not make a bullet expand, nor does it tell you how deep a bullet will penetrate, how do you extrapolate anything off of it?



Again, no legitimate institution uses ft-lbs for anything. The company that made your bullets.... they didn’t design them to work at a certain “energy”, they designed them to penetrate a certain distance, and create a certain wound channel with a minimum impact velocity. Early good bullets were tested and refined on animals. Any good bullet since the mid 2,000’s was tested and designed in calibrated gelatin, then checked by shooting some animals.




Ft-lbs of energy became a thing like all the other formulas when hunters and writers didn’t know how or why bullets killed. They wanted something, anything to predict performance. However, it isn’t the 1980’s anymore. How bullets behave in tissue and the mechanism that they kill by are known entities. Due to myths, old legends, and “because daddy said” the hunting community is still largely stuck in the dark ages, refusing to understand that there is science and data about how bullets destroy tissue and therefore kill animals.

I guess Hornandy is just stuck in the past.

Care to cite where you are getting this information?

 

[backcountry_hunter]

Actually, it’s not a predictor of anything. Since ft-lbs energy does not make a bullet expand, nor does it tell you how deep a bullet will penetrate, how do you extrapolate anything off of it?



Again, no legitimate institution uses ft-lbs for anything. The company that made your bullets.... they didn’t design them to work at a certain “energy”, they designed them to penetrate a certain distance, and create a certain wound channel with a minimum impact velocity. Early good bullets were tested and refined on animals. Any good bullet since the mid 2,000’s was tested and designed in calibrated gelatin, then checked by shooting some animals.




Ft-lbs of energy became a thing like all the other formulas when hunters and writers didn’t know how or why bullets killed. They wanted something, anything to predict performance. However, it isn’t the 1980’s anymore. How bullets behave in tissue and the mechanism that they kill by are known entities. Due to myths, old legends, and “because daddy said” the hunting community is still largely stuck in the dark ages, refusing to understand that there is science and data about how bullets destroy tissue and therefore kill animals.

I do believe you're misunderstanding most other's points here. I don't know that anyone is arguing that bullet manufacturers are setting out and designing rounds for a set ft/lbs goal. If they are I've never heard of it... Energy is just simply a measurable byproduct of putting a projectile into motion at a determined velocity. It's something hunters look at to roughly determine whether or not they're bringing enough gun to a gunfight. Or to simply set perameters (i.e. at XYZ distance I'm losing too much velocity for bullet expansion or too many ft/lbs to penetrate deep enough). Using just velocity and/or projectile expansion isn't enough. Much like archers not using a 250gr finished weight arrow to hunt bison with. At some point energy AND velocity numbers are going to dip low enough with any projectile (from .177 all the way up to .50cal) rendering them ineffective for the intended target. The bigger and faster the projectile, the further away that'll be as a general rule of thumb.

While I tend to agree with you on why/how bullets are designed, a wound channel won't do anyone a lick of good if it isn't carrying enough energy to get to it's intended vitals. The relationship between penetration and energy is entirely symbiotic.

 

[amassi]

Ding ding ding^^^
Winner winner backstrap Dinner

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[mtmuley]

Next to wolf and bullet threads, ones about the 6.5 Creedmoor are my favorite. mtmuley

 

[ckleeves]

How about shooting wolves with a 6.5 Creed scoped with a Leupold or vortex while wearing Kuiu gear and riding an ATV?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mtmuley]

How about shooting wolves with a 6.5 Creed scoped with a Leupold or vortex while wearing Kuiu gear and riding an ATV?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Awesome. Only variable is the Creed. Probly a good wolf cartridge though. mtmuley

 

[Wapiti1]

I capped the 6.5 at 400 yards not because of ballistics, but because I have zero experience with the OP's shooting. He could be a splendid shot, or not. Most guys can shoot 400 well enough. The number of people that can shoot past that with confidence drops off fast. We're not debating ballistics, we are trying to help a person be successful.

I'd state the same distance for all three cartridges I mentioned. Ballistics say they can all kill elk farther. Once a human is involved that may or may not stay true. A 500 yard miss is a miss and a wounding, when you should know better, is unethical. I'm not saying wounding is in and of itself unethical (though it is unfortunate), but rather, if you could have avoided it and didn't, that choice is unethical.

That said, I would have more confidence in a 175-200gr bullet breaking the shoulder and getting to the lungs if the shot is off a little, than a 140gr bullet. Inertia, bullet construction and sectional density are more important than many of the other ballistic concepts including energy (Inertia is somewhat a proxy for energy, though). These come into play when the animal is hit. Ballistic coefficient is pretty meaningless once the bullet makes contact.

Just some pre-July 4 musings.

To the OP. Enjoy your hunt.

Jeremy

 

[thinhorn_AK]

How about shooting wolves with a 6.5 Creed scoped with a Leupold or vortex while wearing Kuiu gear and riding an ATV?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No the creed dosent have enough energy or something, the vortex will 100% have to go back for warranty and the leupold...well we all know 100% of them have tracking issues and the erector will break. Kuiu....don’t get me started bro.