6.5 creed vs 30-06

[svivian]

These threads never fail to entertain thats for sure

 

[Laramie]

Simply saying "more energy" when both options have plenty of energy seems pretty irrelevant to me.

"Plenty" is a debatable term. Hard facts are not. The 30-06 delivers more energy.

I don't care what a guy chooses to use. I just answered the simple question posted in the thread asking what the 30-06 does better.

Why is it that you choose to argue with facts in about every thread you post on?

 

[vic821]

I would go with the 6.5 as well. The 30.06 is still a great cartridge, but why beat yourself up, if your only going after deer.

 

[Baddog]

Everyone should have a 30-06.

 

[Tahoe1305]

I love taking the counter argument!

So my experience and mine only.

But I hunt safely and more than comfortably with a tikka loaded with 143eldx at 24” and 2900fps. It’s a handload but not hot or unreasonable.

The hottest 30-06 (double tap) factory ammo with 180g AB I could find leaves a 24” barrel at 2800 fps (maybe some load it hotter).

Nonetheless. The -06 has an energy advantage to about 350 yds then the 6.5 crushes it out to 1k (not many hunt this far so maybe irrelevant). All that said the 6.5 delivers 20% less energy into the shoulder.

Pick your poison I guess. I like a 6.5C tikka spitting heavy for class pills that speed. I wouldn’t shoot a grizz with it and expect happy results. But everything short of that with good placement I feel pretty good.

 

[thinhorn_AK]

I like both but if I was just in the lower 48 I could probably just sell everything and keep a 6.5 and a ton of reloading components and be happy. I could probably be happy doing the same thing with a 30-06 though too.

 

[CoStick]

For factory ammo, the 6.5 has far available these days.

 

[redneckbmxer24]

It’s pretty funny those debating the extra energy of the 30-06 being an advantage for deer when a literal shit ton of deer have been killed with a 22LR. I swear people think white tails are invincible.

Shot placement not being as critical with 06 is also BS. I know dozens of incidents where people have made shitty shots with 300 and 338 magnums and hunted the wounded deer all day or never recovered it. You have to hit vitals with either for a kill.

Bottom line is either will work but 6.5 will do it with less recoil which will equal better shot placement and more tendency to practice at the range. There’s nothing in the lower 48 that a 6.5 with the right bullet won’t put down to at least 600 yards. Either are overkill for GA deer, a .22 cal or 6mm would kill them dead AF.

 

[Laramie]

It’s pretty funny those debating the extra energy of the 30-06 being an advantage for deer when a literal shit ton of deer have been killed with a 22LR. I swear people think white tails are invincible.

Shot placement not being as critical with 06 is also BS. I know dozens of incidents where people have made shitty shots with 300 and 338 magnums and hunted the wounded deer all day or never recovered it. You have to hit vitals with either for a kill.

Bottom line is either will work but 6.5 will do it with less recoil which will equal better shot placement and more tendency to practice at the range. There’s nothing in the lower 48 that a 6.5 with the right bullet won’t put down to at least 600 yards. Either are overkill for GA deer, a .22 cal or 6mm would kill them dead AF.

Nobody has debated that. I think some of you need reading comprehension classes or the ability to follow the thread.

The question was simply what does the 30-06 do better then the 6.5CM. That question was answered with the simple obvious response of what it does better. Then all the 6.5CM people's feeling got hurt for no reason because they took the fact statement out of context. smh

 

[CoStick]

Velocity and bullet construction options are probably similar between the two at normal hunting ranges.

 

[Laramie]

Nonetheless. The -06 has an energy advantage to about 350 yds then the 6.5 crushes it out to 1k (not many hunt this far so maybe irrelevant). All that said the 6.5 delivers 20% less energy into the shoulder.

It really depends on what loads are being shot but your statement, in general, is false.

If you compare Hornady precision ammo in each, the 30-06 continues to deliver more energy even out at 1000 yards. Now if you hot load the CM to 200 FPS over what the factory ammo is, and compare to the factory 30-06 ammo, the CM pulls ahead at 650 yards. In that situation it is still within 50lbs of energy at 1000.

The 6.5 is a great round. No reason to embellish anything. It is a low recoil round that really competes with the bigger guns at long ranges.

 

[Laramie]

Velocity and bullet construction options are probably similar between the two at normal hunting ranges.

 

[CoStick]

View attachment 456838

Yes

 

[Laramie]

Yes

SMH... The 30-06 has bullets ranging from 55 grains to 220 grains in every imaginable bullet construction option. The 6.5 has nowhere near that range of bullet options or bullet construction options.

 

[CoStick]

SMH... The 30-06 has bullets ranging from 55 grains to 220 grains in every imaginable bullet construction option. The 6.5 has nowhere near that range of bullet options or bullet construction options.

Pointing out that with similar velocitie and avail bullets, you won’t see any difference in performance on game regardless of energy.

 

[Laramie]

Pointing out that with similar velocitie and avail bullets, you won’t see any difference in performance on game regardless of energy.

I follow you now. I don't agree, but I understand.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

I love taking the counter argument!

So my experience and mine only.

But I hunt safely and more than comfortably with a tikka loaded with 143eldx at 24” and 2900fps. It’s a handload but not hot or unreasonable.

The hottest 30-06 (double tap) factory ammo with 180g AB I could find leaves a 24” barrel at 2800 fps (maybe some load it hotter).

Nonetheless. The -06 has an energy advantage to about 350 yds then the 6.5 crushes it out to 1k (not many hunt this far so maybe irrelevant). All that said the 6.5 delivers 20% less energy into the shoulder.

Pick your poison I guess. I like a 6.5C tikka spitting heavy for class pills that speed. I wouldn’t shoot a grizz with it and expect happy results. But everything short of that with good placement I feel pretty good.

Put a 190-200 grain bullet in an ‘06, hand load it, and the 6.5 doesn’t crush it.

 

[Macintosh]

Is energy what kills deer? If so, how much energy does it take to kill a deer? And, after you reach that point, what is the additional benefit of having more energy?

(and regardless of the above, hasn't it been irrefutably proven by now that a 6.5MB is perfectly capable of reliably killing deer at 600 yards? If that is true, what is the benefit of the bigger cartridge toward the goal of killing that deer? If the exact same shot placement with a 30-06 inside 600 yards will result in recovering a deer that would be lost with a 6.5MB I want to hear that--THAT is the only thing that's relevant to the original question as far as I can see)

Personally, I have always been drawn toward the approach of using just barely enough of a tool to confidently and reliably accomplish my task. The "sledgehammer to drive a finishing nail" approach was never my style, and I am fortunate enough to own multiple rifles to suit a range of shooting requirements. I own a 6.5mb, but its a range rifle for the most part, its my 7mm08 that I reach for most times instead of my 30-06, for the same reason--the smaller gun is plenty, and I'd rather minimize meat damage and carry the gun that's more pleasant to tote and shoot. This conversation just gets kind of comical going around in circles. It seems until there is a strong argument for the smaller caliber NOT being sufficient, that there is realistically no universal definition of "better".

 

[Laramie]

Is energy what kills deer? If so, how much energy does it take to kill a deer? And, after you reach that point, what is the additional benefit of having more energy?

(and regardless of the above, hasn't it been irrefutably proven by now that a 6.5MB is perfectly capable of reliably killing deer at 600 yards? If that is true, what is the benefit of the bigger cartridge toward the goal of killing that deer? If the exact same shot placement with a 30-06 inside 600 yards will result in recovering a deer that would be lost with a 6.5MB I want to hear that--THAT is the only thing that's relevant to the original question as far as I can see)

Personally, I have always been drawn toward the approach of using just barely enough of a tool to confidently and reliably accomplish my task. The "sledgehammer to drive a finishing nail" approach was never my style, and I am fortunate enough to own multiple rifles to suit a range of shooting requirements. I own a 6.5mb, but its a range rifle for the most part, its my 7mm08 that I reach for most times instead of my 30-06, for the same reason--the smaller gun is plenty, and I'd rather minimize meat damage and carry the gun that's more pleasant to tote and shoot. This conversation just gets kind of comical going around in circles. It seems until there is a strong argument for the smaller caliber NOT being sufficient, that there is realistically no universal definition of "better".

For starters, this thread went in a different direction when CoStick and others derailed it by claiming the 6.5 was equal to the 30-06. Regarding the OPs question, I think the 6.5 is an excellent choice for deer out to 600+.

That said, in response to yours and other questions and thoughts, I believe the article below would be a good read for most. I have taken well over 100 big game animals throughout my hunting career. I have also guided another 100 or so successful hunts. None of that makes me an expert in the slightest. As this article states, we all develop person biases. The author below does his best to offer an objective opinion to killing power.

Hunting Rifle Killing Power

"Energy, the ability to do work (or damage in the case of a bullet fired from a rifle) is an important component of killing power. It should be obvious to practically anyone that a bullet carrying more energy when it hits the target has the potential to do more damage than a bullet carrying less energy. Energy is what powers such important functions as penetration, bullet expansion, and tissue destruction. In the U.S. it is measured in foot pounds (ft. lbs.)."

 

[Macintosh]

I've read the article. I haven't seen where anyone has contradicted it though. Maybe I misunderstood, but I had taken most of the people touting equivalency to be saying the two cartridges were equivalent FOR THAT SPECIFIC PURPOSE (deer inside 600yds, the original question), i.e. if both cartridges result in a reliably dead deer, then to me that IS equivalent, even if one cartridge has an advantage in other circumstances. That's exactly the root of my question, and I believe others as well, i.e. if it takes X amount of energy (since energy is the measure you are raising even though others will debate its importance) to reliably kill a deer, what is the benefit of having 1.5x or 2X energy? More energy itself is not a benefit if it doesn't provide anything of functional value. It seems to me that until you start adding in other factors beyond the original question (recoil, versatility for other purposes, meat damage, having your manhood questioned, etc), if the deer is reliably dead in both cases then the two cartridges are effectively equivalent for that purpose. Until you reach a situation where the exact same hit on the exact same animal will result in a dead critter with one cartridge and a difficult recovery or loss with the other, I don't think it's possible to say they are anything except effectively equal--after all, there is no such thing as "deader". Which is why I said what I did earlier: "in this case, for the stated purpose of deer hunting inside 600 yards, I really dont think there's a deer in north america that will notice the difference between dead and 39% more dead--just pick something based on your other priorities and what else is in the safe, it's pretty well proven at this point that both will do the job reliably and well."

Now, if we want to continue providing such great entertainment for everyone, which I would heartily encourage, we could have an evidence-based conversation about the critters and ranges where each cartridge STOPS being "reliably enough", and then compare them...to me that might show a relevant functional difference between the 2 cartridges. Until that point though, I think it's pretty easy to argue functional equivalency for a specific purpose where everyone in the room agrees that both options are good.

Do you disagree?