6.5 creed vs 30-06

[robtattoo]

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

Again, not leading into an argument (hopefully) but, why?
All my thoughts so far have been theoretical & I have no imperial proof of anything, but to my mind, they make sense.

I'd really appreciate hearing your views.

I know I'm fighting against a hundred years of conventional wisdom, but having been involved in the .223 thread since practically day 1 & having seen first hand the difference between deer & pigs hit with the 77tmk, 129gn Spire point in my Swede & 165gn Partition from my .30-06, the wounds i witnessed with the tmk were vastly greater. Like, not even comparable. If I'd walked up to somebody else & seen the wound, I would've assumed it was shot with a fat magnum. And at the distance used (everything under 100yds), i would say that the .30-06 actually had the highest velocity.
I know that bullet wise, it's apples to oranges, but that's the only first hand data I have to work with.

 

[robtattoo]

I did find this. Not sure if it's comparable with distance or gel but.....

 

[eoperator]

Again, not leading into an argument (hopefully) but, why?
All my thoughts so far have been theoretical & I have no imperial proof of anything, but to my mind, they make

Again first off you have to be able to hit your target.

It irks me to see comments like 77tmk does damage equal to a 300 magnum. Anyone that says such things has never killed anything with a large caliber fast bullet such as an eldm-tmk-etc. For instance shooting a whitetail doe in the shoulder at 100yrds with a 300wm & 178eldm will ruin the meat on nearly all the front half of the deer.

Same bullet construction same velocity the bigger bullets will create incrementally larger wound size as you go up.

Bigger is not always better, how much damage is wanted is up to you. Similar to my post above do you drive a compact truck, 1500, 2500, 3500 dually? They can all go to the store and get groceries right? Each one has + & - .

 

[robtattoo]

Again first off you have to be able to hit your target.

It irks me to see comments like 77tmk does damage equal to a 300 magnum. Anyone that says such things has never killed anything with a large caliber fast bullet such as an eldm-tmk-etc.

I didn't actually say it looked like it'd been shot with a magnum, what i said was, I would've  guessed it'd been shot with a magnum. Comparing it to wounds I've seen from .270s, .30-06 & other larger, non-magnum cartridges.
And again, not with similarly constructed bullets.

 

[eoperator]

I didn't actually say it looked like it'd been shot with a magnum, what i said was, I would've  guessed it'd been shot with a magnum.

Sorry I did not mean to direct that at you, I was venting about many posts I have read in the past.

 

[robtattoo]

Sorry I did not mean to direct that at you, I was venting about many posts I have read in the past.

No problem!

 

[Macintosh]

…For instance shooting a whitetail doe in the shoulder at 100yrds with a 300wm & 178eldm will ruin the meat on nearly all the front half of the deer.

Same bullet construction same velocity the bigger bullets will create incrementally larger wound size as you go up.

Bigger is not always better, how much damage is wanted is up to you.

This^^.
At some point it’s enough damage (ie wound channel) to reliably accomplish what you want (kill critter quickly enough to reliably recover). Everything above that point, the additional damage has no BENEFIT, and may even come at a cost.
I’ve been reading this thread for months now, and it’s ironic to me that nobody has flipped the question around. Once I have objectively decided how much damage I want to inflict (ie enough to accomplish my goal reliably), and knowing that more damage necessarily costs me in recoil and meat, why would I not always choose the smallest tool that will reliably deliver that amount of damage?

 

[eoperator]

why would I not always choose the smallest tool that will reliably deliver that amount of damage?

My right shoulder has been giving me problems heavy recoiling rifles/shotguns cause a dull nagging pain that keeps me up at night. I have been on the hunt for the bullet and velocity that will cause as much damage as possible at low velocity, without excessive meat loss at high velocity, but also not hurting my shoulder.

 

[bmart2622]

This^^.
At some point it’s enough damage (ie wound channel) to reliably accomplish what you want (kill critter quickly enough to reliably recover). Everything above that point, the additional damage has no BENEFIT, and may even come at a cost.
I’ve been reading this thread for months now, and it’s ironic to me that nobody has flipped the question around. Once I have objectively decided how much damage I want to inflict (ie enough to accomplish my goal reliably), and knowing that more damage necessarily costs me in recoil and meat, why would I not always choose the smallest tool that will reliably deliver that amount of damage?

If you could always guarantee a certain level of damge that may be true but with all the variables of hunting you just cant guarntee that every time

 

[Yukon Cornelius]

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.

Do you even know what common core math is? It’s math. So shhhhh…you don’t know what you are saying

 

[Ryan Avery]

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

I agree, but the wound channels isn’t 35%ish bigger like people seem to think. It’s marginally bigger.

There is a thread on here where we shot two cow elk in the guts. The cow shot with the 225 ELD-M could not physically leave the cow shot with 147s had to be tracked down and shot a mile plus away from where we originally shot them.

I see both sides of this. But I am starting to lean heavy to the 6.5 or 6mm side for my hunting needs.

Except the 6.5 CM that shit is .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[bmart2622]

Hey Ryan, for a 284 bullet do you like the 175 Eldx or 175 Berger?

 

[Ucsdryder]

This^^.
At some point it’s enough damage (ie wound channel) to reliably accomplish what you want (kill critter quickly enough to reliably recover). Everything above that point, the additional damage has no BENEFIT, and may even come at a cost.
I’ve been reading this thread for months now, and it’s ironic to me that nobody has flipped the question around. Once I have objectively decided how much damage I want to inflict (ie enough to accomplish my goal reliably), and knowing that more damage necessarily costs me in recoil and meat, why would I not always choose the smallest tool that will reliably deliver that amount of damage?

I think that’s an excellent way of thinking about it. There are a lot of variables that come into play of course which makes the “minimum” a little more sketchy. What about “what’s the largest tool I can reliably handle”? This is different for everyone of course, but say someone can shoot a suppressed 7mm mag shooting 180 eldms and can spot shots and shoot as well with it as someone else shooting a 6mm with 108s, are there advantages to the 7mm mag shooting 180s?

In a similar way to archery… A 50lb bow will kill an elk and an 80lb bow will kill an elk. Does the 80lb bow offer advantages over the 50? Or are any advantages minuscule enough that the squeeze isn’t worth the juice? Just thinking out loud.

 

[Ryan Avery]

Hey Ryan, for a 284 bullet do you like the 175 Eldx or 175 Berger?

I haven't shot either of those bullets. I would choose the Berger out of those two.

My choice would be the 180 ELD-M.

 

[Ucsdryder]

Hey Ryan, for a 284 bullet do you like the 175 Eldx or 175 Berger?

In my 3 years of shooting 180s with a 2780MV it will leave a golf ball to baseball size exit pretty dang reliably.

 

[Formidilosus]

@robtattoo, @eoperator, and @Ucsdryder

There’s a bit to unpack with what y’all wrote/asked, so bare with me.

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?

1,000 yards is a far cry from what nearly any conversation has been about. Quite frankly I have seen about three people total that can reliably and consistently make 1,000 yard shots on elk in broken, mountainous terrain… AND that have done it repeatedly with a high success rate. 900 and 1,000 yard shots sound great on the internet, but it is specialized thing that it needs it’s own discussion.

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.

The 225 ELD-M at that MV will have a longer terminal range than the 147gr at that MV. The penetration depth is within a couple inches, with 225gr ELD-M at like impact velocities creating about a 2 inch wider wound.

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.

We’ll you can’t tell generally. These two elk were killed within a couple days of each other, at vastly different ends of the caliber and range spectrum, Both were quartering shots that hit multiple ribs lengthwise along their path. The total penetration depth was within 2” of each other, and the width was within 1”.

#1


#1 exit side pointing to bullet.




#2






This one was also shot the same day as one of the first two, with a 6.5 at the same range +/- of one of those-







None of those three are cherry picked, they are the three that were shot closest to each other, with similar hits, from the smallest caliber we use to the largest we generally use. All with the same type of bullet.

With more speed, more mass, and more frontal diameter it’s not possible for them to be the same.

Fragmenting bullets don’t have “frontal diameter” in the way that bonded or monos that retain nearly 100% weight do. Frontal diameter for an ELD-M/X, TMK, or Beger has no bearing. The wound width created by those bullets are due to fragments cutting the tissue during the temporary stretch cavity.

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.

No, they aren’t going to be the same size wound. It’s that the diffeerince isn’t great enough between them in something as large as an elk to functionally matter.
People believe that caliber size matters more the larger the animal- that is the bigger caliber will show a larger difference in “killing” in bigger animals than a smaller caliber will. That is not correct. The 225gr ELD-M at like impact speeds creates about a 1.5-2” larger Temporary Cavity than the 147gr ELD-M. The 225gr creates between a 5-7” permanent crush cavity with high velocity impact on average, the 147gr a 4-6”. The max TC for the 225gr is around 8-9”. The 147” around 7”. In a deer whose chest is cavity is 12” inches deep, the TC from the 225gr will effect the spinal cord more often than the 147gr- which will tend to result in more deer dropping at the shot. In an elk, whose chest 20-24” deep- an extra inch of TC, doesn’t really show much.

 

[Formidilosus]

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 TC from the 225gr ELD-M at similar impact verity is 1.5-2” wider than the 147gr.

The main difference is going to be in the penetration depth of each projectile & therefore the length of the permanent wound channel.

There’s actually not that much difference in total penetration depth between those two bullets- again, and inch or two at most normal impact speeds.

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.

Neither bullet with reliably reach vital going through the ham/spine/stomach. Both create large enough wounds to effect the spine and stop the animal for a follow up shot.

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.

As I said in my last post- it’s the exact opposite. The smaller an animal is, the larger the difference in destruction of tissue by percentage of that animal. The difference for an elephant between a 3 inch wound and a 4 inch wound isn’t enough to matter.
For an analogy- the difference in the “damage” created to human body by say a 27 gauge needle versus a 14 gauge isn’t noticeable. You get your veins popped with either= whatever. In a mouse= massive difference.

 

[eoperator]

I agree, but the wound channels isn’t 35%ish bigger like people seem to think. It’s marginally bigger.

Something to grind your gears on. Please don't crucify me on technicalities these are hypothetical estimates.

Let's say a .22cal bullet creates a temporary stretch cavity 6" diameter 7" long cylinder shape. The volume of that cylinder would be;
198cubic inches

Next the 6.5 bullet creates a cavity 1.5" wider and 1.5" longer that cavity volume would be;
375ci

Next the .30cal is 1.5" wider and 1.5" longer than the 6.5 bullet.
636ci

 

[Formidilosus]

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.

They’re both fragmenting bullets. Which means that frontal diameter is most view (expanded diameter at rest) isn’t a contributing factor. Or, it’s not a greatly contributing factor.


From the three elk I showed in my last post to you-

#1


#1



#2



#3





The expanded largest portion diameter is within a few hundredths of an inch and does not correspond to caliber.

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.

Ft-lbs of Energy isn’t a wound mechanism. That needs to be bleached out of peoples minds. It tells you nothing about what a bullet will do in tissue in any way, shape, or form.

The difference between optimized bullets in .224, 6mm, 6.5m, and 30cal is a couple of inches in penetration, and a couple of inches in wound width. Yes, larger diameter and weight bullets impacting at like speeds can create larger wounds. However, it’s not nearly the difference that people believe. In a deer no on wants the wounds and resulting meat damage that results from a 30cal maximized. In elk, there not enough difference to matter.

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.

Because the message is the same for all calibers with like bullets. What you are probably having a hard time with is the myth and bullshit that the gun world has perpetuated for the last 100+ years once smokeless and jacketed bullets were invented. It isn’t that you have to be “more selective of shot angles” with the smaller guns at all. 1” of penetration, and 1” of wound width once sufficient has been achieved, isn’t making a functional difference. In one off scenarios it’s possible, but not when taking letage enough data sets to matter. The amount of gut shots for instance, that are juuust outside the edge of the diaphragm, so that the 1” large wound channel of the 225gr ELD-M will effect it, but the 147gr won’t…. It isn’t that many. Then really has to set in, that everyone shoots more recoil and muzzle blast worse than less.

This is not a manliness test- it is reality. The more recoil the gun has, the more the gun moves before the bullet leaves the barrel. The more muzzle blast the rifle has, the more conscious and subconscious reactions happen to that blast, before and after the shot. Quite simply- bad shots happen kore often the more the gun recoils.

There is no shot with a 300PRC and 225gr ELD-M that I wouldn’t take with a 6.5cm and 147gr ELD-M within both of their terminal windows.

Here are the charts.

That’s the difference- 675’ish yards of terminal range with the 6.5 and your load with 147’s and 910’ish with the 300 PRC and you load with 225’s.

 

[Formidilosus]

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

Nope. Their neck length (depth to upset) and depth to max TC are so similar between them there is no way to tell the difference in animals. The max tc length is a bit longer on the 225gr than the 147gr due to more mass that can be shed. But again, isn’t massively so in something as large as an elk. In a deer, it shows.

, as in; it needs to traverse more tissue & penetrate farther before it stops expanding.

Both are fragmenting/shedding bullet material, not “expanding” as per common.

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)

Nope. The max expanded diameter for both will be at the front half of the TC- well inside an animal.

but being a more lightly constructed bullet it's expanding quicker in the space it has,

The 147gr ELD-M is not more lightly constructed than the 225gr ELD-M. Actually just the opposite. The jacket thickness of the 147gr is more per percentage of bullet mass than the 225gr ELD-M.

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.

That is correct. There is not much difference in that vein.