6.5 creed vs 30-06

[Bubbadoyle]

i talk bullets and impact velocity - because those things actually matter.

It’s amazing how many comments I read before. seeing this. Bullet construction and impact velocity are so much more important than bullet diameter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Bubbadoyle]

Please explain how the 30/06 is better at killing than the 300 win mag.

It has to be bullet choice in his situation. A 300 win mag will have the same velocity as a 30-06 and 308 and some range just as the 30-06 will have the same velocity as the 308 at some range. If they all shoot the same bullet and animals are taken at various ranges then a long range 300 win mag will be similar impact velocity to a short range 308. With an identical bullet and similar impact velocities there should be no difference in performance on game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[ResearchinStuff]

now let your friend copy your homework and we'll be all done here.

 

[oldskool67]

It lost its champion status in Korea and got put to pasture during Vietnam.

You proved my point…the last two wars we won

 

[fwafwow]

You proved my point…the last two wars we won

So to do the best by Ukraine, we should ship them 30-06 rifles.

 

[AZ_Hunter_2000]

You proved my point…the last two wars we won

Sure.

It "won" WW1 and WW2 for us but then "lost" Korea and Vietnam for us. I guess in the Common Core math world that being 2-2 means undefeated champion.

---
On a more serious note, the 30-06 is a solid choice for an all around cartridge. But it is not a fair statement that it (or any other cartridge) is the best ever as there are so many use cases that no cartridge rocks in all of them.

 

[Ucsdryder]

@Laramie and @Formidilosus, very nice back and forth. I enjoyed reading along. Here’s where im confused. The argument seems to go to bullet over cartridge which I completely agree with. But what if the argument is tweaked slightly.

For the 223 and 6mm guys talking about bullet over cartridge, would you still argue that this doesn’t matter? Or maybe a better way to put it, you wouldn’t be able to “tell” or “see” a difference on elk to 1000 yards?

300prc - 225eldm at 2850
6.5cm - 147eldm at 2650

I picked these 2 because the bullets are apples to apples and I shoot both! These are hand loads maximized for speed and accuracy out of short barrels in my rifles.

I personally can’t get past the physics of, “they’re the same” and When I say “they’re the same” I’m referring to the posts saying you can’t tell what cartridge it is based on the wound channel. With more speed, more mass, and more frontal diameter it’s not possible for them to be the same. Maybe our eye can’t see it due to soft tissue damage, but the 2 bullets aren’t doing the same damage to that tissue on impact at 10 feet or 1000 yards.

 

[Bluefish]

Its not that they are the same, but that both are enough. The conclusion I have come to is that if you can deliver the right bullet at enough speed it will harvest an animal. For a factory load 77tmk with a floor of 1900 fps, that’s about 400 yards.
bigger bores can reach further as bc is higher. The 6.5’s with a heavy bullet can get close or even beat the range of light for caliber bullets in 30 cal. The 30 cal bc becomes limited by the recoil as a heavy for caliber bullet at high velocity have more recoil than most can stand. Same goes for 35 cal Or larger. There simply are no heavy for cal bullets or cartridges that exist. Imagine a 300g 35 cal at 3000fps. Ouch.
the 7mm seems to be about maximum recoil and bc For most people.
why you probably won’t ever see 223 as a legal big game round in states like co is that it only works for specific bullets. Hard to write that into regulations. Yet a 300wm with almost any bullet other than a fmj will get the job done under 300yards. Easy to explain to a typical uneducated hunter (Non rokslide) And write into a regulation.

 

[robtattoo]

@Laramie and @Formidilosus, very nice back and forth. I enjoyed reading along. Here’s where im confused. The argument seems to go to bullet over cartridge which I completely agree with. But what if the argument is tweaked slightly.

For the 223 and 6mm guys talking about bullet over cartridge, would you still argue that this doesn’t matter? Or maybe a better way to put it, you wouldn’t be able to “tell” or “see” a difference on elk to 1000 yards?

300prc - 225eldm at 2850
6.5cm - 147eldm at 2650

I picked these 2 because the bullets are apples to apples and I shoot both! These are hand loads maximized for speed and accuracy out of short barrels in my rifles.

I personally can’t get past the physics of, “they’re the same” and When I say “they’re the same” I’m referring to the posts saying you can’t tell what cartridge it is based on the wound channel. With more speed, more mass, and more frontal diameter it’s not possible for them to be the same. Maybe our eye can’t see it due to soft tissue damage, but the 2 bullets aren’t doing the same damage to that tissue on impact at 10 feet or 1000 yards.

I'm going to take an uneducated 2 cents please.

I think that both of those bullets, impacting at optimal upset velocities (let's say 2300fps each) are going to create a temporary wound cavity that is longer than the animal is wide. Bearing in mind that there's really only a 0.044" difference in frontal diameter, i wouldn't imagine there a huge amount of measurable difference in the overall width of the stretch/temporary cavity. The main difference is going to be in the penetration depth of each projectile & therefore the length of the permanent wound channel. This would be noticeable in a front on, or Texas heart shot, not on a broadside, as the temporary cavity is already spanning the entire animal. With an end on shot, both bullets are penetrating deeply enough to leave a permanent channel through vital organs. I'd guess that there's maybe more likelihood of having an end on exit with the heavier bullet, but once it's permanently disrupted the vitals, that really doesn't make death any quicker, it just leaves a handy, extra trail to follow.
Thing is, at those velocities, the operating window of the 225gr is going to be far longer than the 147 (i don't know the BC or SD of either, but I'd guess they're pretty similar)
I haven't run the math, but I would imagine that the 147 has an operating window of 0 to 700yds (w.a.g.) where the 225 is 0 to maybe 1000+, heavier objects retaining velocity better & all that.

Tldr: There's is a difference, but animals aren't big enough for us to see it. If deer were the size of elephant, but still built like deer, it'd probably be more important. Right now, most of the bullet is going to be in the dirt before it has chance to go through all its terminal grooviness.

 

[Ucsdryder]

I'm going to take an uneducated 2 cents please.

I think that both of those bullets, impacting at optimal upset velocities (let's say 2300fps each) are going to create a temporary wound cavity that is longer than the animal is wide. Bearing in mind that there's really only a 0.044" difference in frontal diameter, i wouldn't imagine there a huge amount of measurable difference in the overall width of the stretch/temporary cavity. The main difference is going to be in the penetration depth of each projectile & therefore the length of the permanent wound channel. This would be noticeable in a front on, or Texas heart shot, not on a broadside, as the temporary cavity is already spanning the entire animal. With an end on shot, both bullets are penetrating deeply enough to leave a permanent channel through vital organs. I'd guess that there's maybe more likelihood of having an end on exit with the heavier bullet, but once it's permanently disrupted the vitals, that really doesn't make death any quicker, it just leaves a handy, extra trail to follow.
Thing is, at those velocities, the operating window of the 225gr is going to be far longer than the 147 (i don't know the BC or SD of either, but I'd guess they're pretty similar)
I haven't run the math, but I would imagine that the 147 has an operating window of 0 to 700yds (w.a.g.) where the 225 is 0 to maybe 1000+, heavier objects retaining velocity better & all that.

Assuming these are hollow points that will mushroom, which they are, it’s not the initial diameter, it’s the mushroomed diameter which is quite a bit larger than the initial diameter.

Your point about it being “good enough” might be the key. Maybe the argument isn’t that they’re the same, but instead, that the .223 and 6mm are good enough to get through an animal and the extra energy that the larger cartridge offers isn’t necessary. If that’s the case, it’s hard to disagree, but then you’d have to caveat that shot angle matters, especially on larger animals and I haven’t seen that stated.

If the stance is that the 223 works if you take into consideration shot angle, situation, and shot distance vs larger cartridges then it would be easier to wrap my head around, but that hasn’t been the message which is why it’s hard for me to get it through my thick skull.


Here are the charts.

 

[robtattoo]

Looking at the charts, your PRC is giving you an extra 200yds on the CM, if you take 2000fps as the operating minimum (which it might not be, but is generally the consensus)

700 for the 300
500 for the 6.5

Inside that range, there may be a difference in temporary wound cavity, but that isn't just a product of the expansion size of the bullet, which I would imagine over the width of a chest cavity, is very similar.

Think like this (maybe, i dunno, I'm a dog groomer!) It's going to take longer for the 225 to reach its maximum expanded diameter than it is the 147, as in; it needs to traverse more tissue & penetrate farther before it stops expanding. This, i believe, is where the temporary stretch cavity transitions into the permanent wound channel. Which is probably 6-18" past the point of exit. Being that the 147 ALSO exits before reaching is full diameter (assuming the ol' advertising mushroom for both) but being a more lightly constructed bullet it's expanding quicker in the space it has, i would postulate that if you could take a photograph of both bullets at the exact same point, mid- animal & were able to measure the semi expanded diameter of both, I'd be very surprised if there's a measurable difference.

Like i say though, I'm not a physicist or ballistic expert. Hell, I'm not even that good a shot, I'm just typing what is going through my brain & I'll freely admit, I'm probably a mile off. I'm just making logical bits fit together.

 

[Stickmark]

Please forgive me a word spelling moment, regarding the 3006. Gen. Macarthur was Chief of Staff during Garand's development of the M-1 rifle. Garand designed the Garand around a .276 cartridge, and a .30. The great book American Rifle discussed the process in detail. However, after WW1, the US had millions of 3006 rounds, so Macarthur pushed for the new semi-auto to be in 3006.

Like the Japanese 6.5, the .276 would have had advantages. Military cartridge development can not be disentangled from the political. What would we shooting if the sporting arms were completely separated from the military-political process?

 

[Bluefish]

Your point about it being “good enough” might be the key. Maybe the argument isn’t that they’re the same, but instead, that the .223 and 6mm are good enough to get through an animal and the extra energy that the larger cartridge offers isn’t necessary. If that’s the case, it’s hard to disagree, but then you’d have to caveat that shot angle matters, especially on larger animals and I haven’t seen that stated.

I think that’s the key take away. Once you get enough damage to the lungs/heart that the blood pressure drops quickly, more doesn’t make it quicker. I am pretty sure you don’t even need the bullet to exit to cause enough damage.

higher BC bullets and more powder just let you do enough damage further away. The price for that is recoil. If you want really high bc, bigger and heavier will give you that. example, 750g amax is just over 1 For a bc.

 

[eoperator]

Your point about it being “good enough” might be the key. Maybe the argument isn’t that they’re the same, but instead, that the .223 and 6mm are good enough to get through an animal and the extra energy that the larger cartridge offers isn’t necessary. If that’s the case, it’s hard to disagree, but then you’d have to caveat that shot angle matters, especially on larger animals and I haven’t seen that stated.

My take on the subject,
1 First off you need to hit the target.
2 At the same velocity the 225eldm will do more damage than the 147eldm PERIOD.
3 The higher velocity, higher bc and higher sd of the 225eldm stacks the odds heavily to the .30cal. Can you hit intended target at distance reliably with it?

This reminds me of an argument I had with my brother in law of why I need a 3/4 ton diesel truck to pull my boat when his chevy colorado manages to get the job done at a much lower cost. He is right that his truck got the job done but any headwind or incline and his transmission was shifting, engine red lined and not able to keep pace with traffic. Momentum was the only way he got it pulled up the steep slippery boat ramp we frequent. Towing the boat behind my truck is barely noticeable, it also pulls it up the boat ramp effortlessly. There are + & - to both you have to decide whichever one fits you best.

 

[id_jon]

Please forgive me a word spelling moment, regarding the 3006. Gen. Macarthur was Chief of Staff during Garand's development of the M-1 rifle. Garand designed the Garand around a .276 cartridge, and a .30. The great book American Rifle discussed the process in detail. However, after WW1, the US had millions of 3006 rounds, so Macarthur pushed for the new semi-auto to be in 3006.

Like the Japanese 6.5, the .276 would have had advantages. Military cartridge development can not be disentangled from the political. What would we shooting if the sporting arms were completely separated from the military-political process?

I don't recall the source, but at one point I read (or saw in a video maybe?) that the .30 carbine had the highest hit rate of any US weapon in ww2, almost certainly due to the lower recoil.

 

[robtattoo]

I don't recall the source, but at one point I read (or saw in a video maybe?) that the .30 carbine had the highest hit rate of any US weapon in ww2, almost certainly due to the lower recoil.

It's also reported, allegedly, that most of the people hit with it would've been reeeally angry about it, if they'd found out.

 

[eoperator]

Think like this (maybe, i dunno, I'm a dog groomer!) It's going to take longer for the 225 to reach its maximum expanded diameter than it is the 147, as in; it needs to traverse more tissue & penetrate farther before it stops expanding.

 

[robtattoo]

View attachment 531621

View attachment 531622

Do you have the same test with the 147?
I'm not leading this into an argument, by the way, I'd really like to see the difference.

I spent my entire life believing that bigger animals needed bigger cartridges, until I saw that, up to a point, they very likely don't and I'm still trying to understand why.

 

[id_jon]

It's also reported, allegedly, that most of the people hit with it would've been reeeally angry about it, if they'd found out.

But its a 30 cal!

 

[eoperator]

Do you have the same test with the 147?

I do not but I would be willing to bet a significant amount of money the 225 will do more damage than the 147.