6.5 creed vs 30-06

[Macintosh]

Pretty simple really...you cant guarntee shot distance or angle that will be presented which will both effect the velocity/energy needed. Also shot placement is not a guarntee. When there is doubt I will always pick more than to have just enough because you never know what just enough will be

The assertion is that “enough bullet” already includes a good margin for error, so calling the case in point “minimal” would in fact be a mischaracterization—it is already “more than enough”…you are simply advocating for “MORE than more than enough”. On a scale of 1-10, if a 5 is required, and a 7 gives you a good margin for error, what is the incremental benefit of choosing an 8 or 9, versus the cost in recoil and meat loss? If you can make an evidence-based case for it in fact being insufficient (a 4 on our hypothetical scale when a 5 is required) a meaningful portion of the time, or only sufficient in a small subset of cases (a 5 with no margin for error), I’d agree wholeheartedly. But absent evidence to say it is insufficient or on the ragged edge of sufficient—which I think has been pretty well objectively demonstrated via the hundreds of post-shot photos across several threads on 223 and 6/6.5—I question what the benefit is of using something that has been shown to be literally more than is required to reliably achieve desired result including a margin for error? Again, not saying its a bad choice, only asking what the objective benefit is? (As opposed to subjective benefit such as versatility, availability, already own, comfort, tradition, etc)

As it looks to me, there are only 2 avenues to take on this.
1) take the photos and evidence at face value that if you choose one of these bullets, pipsqueak cartridges may in fact be plenty of gun to ethically and effectively take large critters, and given the effect of recoil could in fact be an objectively better choice than a larger cartridge all other things being equal.
2) present your own necropsy evidence in some volume that these cartridges using the bullets in question are either insufficient or at the ragged edge of being sufficient.

 

[General RE LEE]

What might be more than necessary at 50 yards, might be just right at 500 yards.

It’s like a set of golf clubs. Most of the scoring shots are with the wedge and the putter, but if I’m 190 yards out, I like to have a 4 iron.

I like a balance of shootability, barrel life, and velocity/energy at 500 yards when choosing a cartridge.

The 6.5 Creedmoor checks those 3 boxes nicely, the 30-06 is a tad much in recoil for long shooting sessions and the .223 is not enough at 500 yards.

 

[35WhelenAI]

If this is your stance, why not a big 338?

I don't see that anyone in the spirit of the discussion has advocated directly or otherwise for a big cased medium bore. Only generalizations that "more" to an extent is not a bad thing. Maybe that gentleman would use a big .338 but it doesn't take this discussion further to my mind. Just have to accept the different results on-game that have been discussed if maximizing with similar bullets in the larger calibers.

They're the shots you don't take. If you can't guarantee the distance or angle, either wait until you can, or pass.

Not directed at robtattoo, but the collective in general. Can someone shooting the smaller calibers (.223, 6mm come to mind) share a situation they have passed on a shot because of angle or distance and the animal never re-presented for a shot to be taken? I've seen heard some great success stories. I rarely have heard of passing on a shot. For example, a big game animal never gave an acceptable angle for a .223 or it was so far distant the range couldn't be closed/the animal didn't work its way closer.

 

[PNWGATOR]

There has never been an animal that I passed with a .223 due to shot angle where I would have taken the shot with a heavier projectile at a higher velocity. It’s simply not relevant within the terminal performance window. That said, I often choose a different bullet at a different velocity due to country I’m hunting and probable shot distances for killing game.

 

[robtattoo]

There has ever been an animal that I passed with a .223 due to shot angle where I would have taken the shot with a heavier projectile at a higher velocity. It’s simply not relevant within the terminal performance window. That said, I often choose a different bullet at a different velocity due to country I’m hunting and probable shot distances for killing game.

Dangit.....I was just trying to find your post early in the .223 thread

 

[bmart2622]

If this is your stance, why not a big 338?

I have a 300 Ultra

 

[bmart2622]

The assertion is that “enough bullet” already includes a good margin for error, so calling the case in point “minimal” would in fact be a mischaracterization—it is already “more than enough”…you are simply advocating for “MORE than more than enough”. On a scale of 1-10, if a 5 is required, and a 7 gives you a good margin for error, what is the incremental benefit of choosing an 8 or 9, versus the cost in recoil and meat loss? If you can make an evidence-based case for it in fact being insufficient (a 4 on our hypothetical scale when a 5 is required) a meaningful portion of the time, or only sufficient in a small subset of cases (a 5 with no margin for error), I’d agree wholeheartedly. But absent evidence to say it is insufficient or on the ragged edge of sufficient—which I think has been pretty well objectively demonstrated via the hundreds of post-shot photos across several threads on 223 and 6/6.5—I question what the benefit is of using something that has been shown to be literally more than is required to reliably achieve desired result including a margin for error? Again, not saying its a bad choice, only asking what the objective benefit is? (As opposed to subjective benefit such as versatility, availability, already own, comfort, tradition, etc)

As it looks to me, there are only 2 avenues to take on this.
1) take the photos and evidence at face value that if you choose one of these bullets, pipsqueak cartridges may in fact be plenty of gun to ethically and effectively take large critters, and given the effect of recoil could in fact be an objectively better choice than a larger cartridge all other things being equal.
2) present your own necropsy evidence in some volume that these cartridges using the bullets in question are either insufficient or at the ragged edge of being sufficient.

Im good with shooting a 7 when a 5 is required. I dont have photos of the dozens and dozens of animals taken with bonded bullets and even if I did Im not trying to sway anyone or prove anything to anyone. Ive seen what I use work for nearly 30 years, never let me down

 

[bmart2622]

I

Do what? Your literally shooting a cartridge/caliber/bullet that has a shorter terminal range, creates smaller wound channels, and has more wind drift than the referenced 6.5cm with 147gr ELD-M. Everything you wrote, if you actually beloved those things, would push you to shoot the 6.5 over the 06.

I don’t “like” anything. I sometimes hunt with a Pre64 M70 270win because I want to, not because I delude myself that it somehow is better at anything other than panache.

Im not sure what cartridge you are referring to but I can assure you it does not get outperformed by a 6.5cm. If you're assuming I'm shooting a 3006 that would be another poor assumption on your part.

 

[bmart2622]

They're the shots you don't take. If you can't guarantee the distance or angle, either wait until you can, or pass.

Or have equipment that can can make the shot

 

[robtattoo]

Or have equipment that can can make the shot

I have no polite response to that.

 

[bmart2622]

I have no polite response to that.

Ok. I do agree with you though, if you are not certain that your equipment the proper performance, penetration, expansion....then you shouldn't shoot

 

[Macintosh]

I
Im not sure what cartridge you are referring to but I can assure you it does not get outperformed by a 6.5cm. If you're assuming I'm shooting a 3006 that would be another poor assumption on your part.

You’ll have to forgive folks for assuming that the 30-06 was the “other option” in a thread called “6.5creed vs 30-06”.

 

[bmart2622]

You’ll have to forgive folks for assuming that the 30-06 was the “other option” in a thread called “6.5creed vs 30-06”.

Yeah and if you go back Im far from the first one who referenced other calibers, including the guy questioning me who brought up several including posting pictures from a 223. Also in a conversation with that same member I stated I dont shoot a 3006, so its a very poor assumption. You know what they say about assuming!!!

 

[Formidilosus]

I
Im not sure what cartridge you are referring to but I can assure you it does not get outperformed by a 6.5cm. If you're assuming I'm shooting a 3006 that would be another poor assumption on your part.

Ok. Ignoring the thread title what do you use- cartridge, bullet, scope, or have used for backcountry deer (and elk, as apparently we strayed from the original question)?

 

[bmart2622]

Heres my point which seems to have been lost on some people. I like to plan for more than the bare minimum needed. If you built a house a needed "X" number of 2x4s would you buy only that many or would you buy some extra to account for loss, warpage, splitting, miscuts? I know what I would do.
When I buy hay for my horses I know how many tons I need to get thru the year, but I buy extra to account for harsh winters when I have to feed heavier or in case I pick up another horse. Same goes for cartridges, I feel more comfortable than using the bare minimum. Its what I do, people can agree with it or not. Im not asking anyone to agree with me or change what works for them and Im not changing what has worked for me for decades.

 

[Formidilosus]

Bonded/mono creates a wound channel due to the “wake” created by the expanded bullet, more or less like a boat creates a wake.

The TC is created primarily by velocity, secondarily by frontal diameter and fragments. Generally only when the velocity drops below 2,100’ish FPS at impact or inside the tissue does the TC go away and the primary wounding is the main projectile. Then frontal diameter comes into play.
That’s primarily why TC is relatively the same with different bullet types when viewed in gel by the same caliber and at similar impact speeds. The total max TC is similar between say a 30cal 168gr Barnes TSX and a Hornady 168gr ELD-M, however the permanent wound left behind is vastly different.

 

[NateTP38]

Heres my point which seems to have been lost on some people. I like to plan for more than the bare minimum needed. If you built a house a needed "X" number of 2x4s would you buy only that many or would you buy some extra to account for loss, warpage, splitting, miscuts? I know what I would do.
When I buy hay for my horses I know how many tons I need to get thru the year, but I buy extra to account for harsh winters when I have to feed heavier or in case I pick up another horse. Same goes for cartridges, I feel more comfortable than using the bare minimum. Its what I do, people can agree with it or not. Im not asking anyone to agree with me or change what works for them and Im not changing what has worked for me for decades.

You are making a poor assumption that a 6.5 (or even .223) is "the bare minimum". You know what they say about assuming....

 

[35WhelenAI]

Im good with shooting a 7 when a 5 is required. I dont have photos of the dozens and dozens of animals taken with bonded bullets and even if I did Im not trying to sway anyone or prove anything to anyone. Ive seen what I use work for nearly 30 years, never let me down

It's not wrong in the least, that many in the newer generation (and some converts) are going with a different mindset and different set of chamberings than us guys that got in the game more years ago than some of the new generation has been alive. As you said, it's not gonna change what I do either.

Thinking on this, I would add that confidence and one's ability with the rifle they have chosen regardless of chambering, bumps that up closer to a 10. I visualize based on my aim the bullet entering the vitals on its path that I will put it on. That focus helps to see through the shot, and I shoot with both eyes open. With the animals I've taken apart shot with mono's, it's not difficult to visualize what the heart and lungs are gonna look like in just a moment when the trigger breaks.

The rounds based on a standard 30-06 case I have taken game with over 30 years include the .270 Win, .280 Rem, 30-06, 35 Whelen AI. With a 300 Win Mag thrown in there for good measure in my early years before I realized the '06 case left nothing to be desired.

When the shot is taken correctly, spotting is nice but not as necessary, IMO, as I see it being portrayed. This one point can make someone who doesn't have a lot of field experience fear if they can't see their shot in the scope then something's wrong. I disagree with that. The caveat here would be if one is shooting at extended range and realistically couldn't see the animal with anything other than an optical aid.

Long live all of us that take to the hunting field and forest every year, with any legal caliber and bullet that we have confidence to do the job.

 

[Macintosh]

Im good with shooting a 7 when a 5 is required.

I think we’re in agreement then? Where it seems the disagreement is, is that I also see the evidence suggests a 6.5cm with one of the fragmenting bullets being discussed, within its terminal velocity window, IS a 7…and your 300 ultra (rum?) is the proverbial 8 or 9. The problem, and the reason I see myself and others have continued to quote your posts, is that you insist on characterizing the smaller cartridges as “the bare minimum” despite the hundred+ pages of necropsy photos in several threads here. Thats not what people are saying—everything I have seen here is people saying it is not only potent, but that given the right bullet it also has enough margin for error as well, comparable to many other cartridges that dont get minimized. If you see it differently what is the objective basis for that? I’m not talking about your 300elkwhomper having worked for 30 years, no one is refuting that—Im talking about what your basis is for saying a 6.5 with one of the more destructive fragmenting bullets is “marginal” or “bare minimum”. If you have an objective basis for it theres at least one person here (me) interested to hear it.

Also, just b/c a couple have played the “age and experience along with flat-brimmed hats”card, I’m old enough that AARP has become a significant source of junk mail. This isnt a generational thing.

 

[Lawnboi]

For whoever asked.

There is no shot under 400 yards, on a deer, that I would pass on with my 223/77tmk that I would take with something bigger.

Just because I shot deer for years with 3006 and 300wsm does not mean it’s the best tool for the job.

For me spotting my shot is completely necessary. I can spot with my 3006 as well just not as easily.