6.5 creed vs 30-06

[fwafwow]

This thread may have run its course. At least on analogies. If a point has been made once, or twice, or more, and there really is no intent to convince someone or prove anything, it may not need to be restated.

I own a 30-06 but not a 6.5. I’m still in transition and know 6.5 isn’t a minimum caliber. If someone thinks otherwise, that’s cool.

 

[bmart2622]

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

I didnt assume anything, I use what works for me

 

[bmart2622]

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 quoted 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. 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.

Im not saying anything is the bare minimum and Im not saying a 223 and 6.5cm dont kill elk because they do. Im saying I dont use them myself and Im not saying anyone else shouldn't use them...I dont. A lot of people strugge when people like to use something different, different isn't wrong, different is just different

 

[Lawnboi]

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.

I couldn’t disagree more. Spotting your shot even at close range is a big deal. Knowing what happened, how the animal reacted, and where it went can make a huge difference.

Be happy using whatever you want but having used both I can say my experience is the opposite.

 

[Macintosh]

Heres my point which seems to have been lost on some people. I like to plan for more than the bare minimum needed... …Same goes for cartridges, I feel more comfortable than using the bare minimum. Its what I do, people can agree with it or not.

Funny way of “not saying it’s the bare minimum”.

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.

I havent seen where anyone has suggested you should change what you are doing.

 

[atmat]

Im not saying anything is the bare minimum and Im not saying a 223 and 6.5cm dont kill elk because they do. Im saying I dont use them myself and Im not saying anyone else shouldn't use them...I dont. A lot of people strugge when people like to use something different, different isn't wrong, different is just different

You have literally referred to it the bare minimum in tons of comments here.

 

[Formidilosus]

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.

That’s the point the multiple are trying to get across to you- 6.5cm with good bullets is so far past the bare minimum it’s not funny. “We” believe that the bare minimum is this arbitrary thing that gun writers have been repeating ad nauseam for nearly a hundred years. Those writers and “experts” continue to say things with absolutely no experience whatsoever in what they write. In order to find the bare minimum you have to continually use and kill “x” animal across a variety of situations, and then keep going down the caliber and “power” scale until you actually find where things start getting sketchy. I have yet to meet a single person saying “x” cartridge/caliber is marginal, that has actually used that cartridge/caliber with a variety of bullets on dozens to hundreds of animal themselves, and also understands terminal ballistics. Because when people do kill that many animals and pay attention, they realize that using good bullets- they’re all a lot more alike than different.

The reason why the 223/77gr TMK combo was brought up is because the objective reality is that the 77gr TMK creates massive wounds by almost anyones standards, and it is not the bare minimum- if a .224 77gr bullet is significantly and obviously more than enough- than any caliber and bullet that does more damage is even more than enough. We know that the 223 with good bullets is “more” then enough because “we” have killed several hundred game animals from antelope to Moose, without ever passing a shot due to worry over shot angle or presentation. Range has been a limiting factor simply because of reluctance to see where the limit is. We had killed a few animals around the 600 yard mark, but no elk that far and not in general. Well @Ryan Avery challenged me on what the limit was this past year- not in trying something stupid, but in finding out where it is. So, this year we killed multiple elk past 500 yards with it, including ones at 555 yards, 633 yards, and 803 yards. They all died without issue and quickly. Wound channels and bullet performance were beyond acceptable.

The limiting issue isn’t caliber or cartridge “power”. It’s incorrect and bad information being given about how bullets kill, and the necessary requirements for it to do so reliably. “Small” calibers get their marginal labels because of general ignorance, and bad information. Using deep penetrating, narrow wound causing projectiles is the main issue.

Regardless of caliber, get a bullet that consistently penetrates 12-18 inches in tissue, and that maximizes the wound channel along that path; then put it in the front half. That’s it.

 

[bmart2622]

That’s the point the multiple are trying to get across to you- 6.5cm with good bullets is so far past the bare minimum it’s not funny. “We” believe that the bare minimum is this arbitrary thing that gun writers have been repeating ad nauseam for nearly a hundred years. Those writers and “experts” continue to say things with absolutely no experience whatsoever in what they write. In order to find the bare minimum you have to continually use and kill “x” animal across a variety of situations, and then keep going down the caliber and “power” scale until you actually find where things start getting sketchy. I have yet to meet a single person saying “x” cartridge/caliber is marginal, that has actually used that cartridge/caliber with a variety of bullets on dozens to hundreds of animal themselves, and also understands terminal ballistics. Because when people do kill that many animals and pay attention, they realize that using good bullets- they’re all a lot more alike than different.

The reason why the 223/77gr TMK combo was brought up is because the objective reality is that the 77gr TMK creates massive wounds by almost anyones standards, and it is not the bare minimum- if a .224 77gr bullet is significantly and obviously more than enough- than any caliber and bullet that does more damage is even more than enough. We know that the 223 with good bullets is “more” then enough because “we” have killed several hundred game animals from antelope to Moose, without ever passing a shot due to worry over shot angle or presentation. Range has been a limiting factor simply because of reluctance to see where the limit is. We had killed a few animals around the 600 yard mark, but no elk that far and not in general. Well @Ryan Avery challenged me on what the limit was this past year- not in trying something stupid, but in finding out where it is. So, this year we killed multiple elk past 500 yards with it, including ones at 555 yards, 633 yards, and 803 yards. They all died without issue and quickly. Wound channels and bullet performance were beyond acceptable.

The limiting issue isn’t caliber or cartridge “power”. It’s incorrect and bad information being given about how bullets kill, and the necessary requirements for it to do so reliably. “Small” calibers get their marginal labels because of general ignorance, and bad information. Using deep penetrating, narrow wound causing projectiles is the main issue.

Regardless of caliber, get a bullet that consistently penetrates 12-18 inches in tissue, and that maximizes the wound channel along that path; then put it in the front half. That’s it.

I have never said that the 6.5cm is the bare minimum. Someone else stated a"5" was the bare minimum and I agreed with him that if a 5 is bare minimum then I like a 7. So you would have to ask that gentleman what he had in mind as a "5"

 

[bmart2622]

You have literally referred to it the bare minimum in tons of comments here.

Show me

 

[Formidilosus]

I have never said that the 6.5cm is the bare minimum. Someone else stated a"5" was the bare minimum and I agreed with him that if a 5 is bare minimum then I like a 7. So you would have to ask that gentleman what he had in mind as a "5"

 

[bmart2622]

Funny way of not calling it the bare minimum.


I havent seen where anyone has suggested you should change what you are doing.

Whatever is deemed the bare minimum I am going with more than that. I never associated any cartridge to being the bare minimum

 

[bmart2622]

Funny way of “not saying it’s the bare minimum”.


I havent seen where anyone has suggested you should change what you are doing.

I dont see where I listed a cartridge or caliber there

 

[atmat]

Show me

You keep saying you’d go with bigger because you want more than the bare minimum. The implication there is that the calibers in question are the bare minimum. It’s why everyone is calling you out.

 

[bmart2622]

Whatever the bare minimum is, Im going with more. Show me where I stated that a 6.5cm or 223 was the bare minimum...Ill wait

 

[mt100gr.]

Well now I am curious about the bear minimum?? Spring is in the air today in NW MT!!

 

[atmat]

Whatever the bare minimum is, Im going with more. Show me where I stated that a 6.5cm or 223 was the bare minimum...Ill wait

Hiding behind explicit language and implied language is childish.

Edit: I’ll stop engaging.

 

[bmart2622]

Facts are facts, putting words in someone's mouth is childish....still waiting

 

[Macintosh]

bmart, I have to agree with atmat, you did not explicitly associate a cartridge with those comments, but given the posts you were quoting and responding to, even re-reading it still appears to me thats what the suggestion was. I’ll chalk it up to miscommunication, and if that wasnt your intention then I certainly apologize if you took my comments personally. If that was your intention then I think the previous comments make sense.

 

[bmart2622]

I dont take much personally, I agreed with several of your points and I believe it was actually your post that stated a "5" was minimum. I never stated or implied what a minimum is as I dont think anyone can actually do that being elk have been killed with nearly every caliber. If people were unclear in what I was saying they should have asked rather than assume. Ill restate my stance for the last time and if its still unlcear to folks then I guess its on them. People kill elk with a 6.5cm and a 223, I dont think nor did I say that either cartridge is the bare minimum, nor did I say that they suck or are inferior or that they shouldn't be used. I just personally dont use them. Im also not advocting that the biggest caliber is the best, Im simply stating that whatever all the Rokslide experts deem the bare minimum cartridge for killing a specific species is, Im going to go a notch or 2 more. So...everyone hit the mountains with whatever cartridge you choose and fill tags and freezers and make memories.

 

[Macintosh]

Copy that. And we can agree on all that!

So until Im finished with my tax prep, can we argue over whether a 7 is better than a 9 when a lowly little 5 is all thats required? If a 7 is better, is a 9 betterer?
I kinda like this random arbitrary numbers thing.