6.5 creed vs 30-06

LongWayAround

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Aug 10, 2015
Messages
1,563
I don't have much to contribute here, but...

Yesterday, I shot a 1" steel plate at 600yd with 6.5CM and 147 ELD-M. The impacts on that plate were about 3/8ths of an inch deep.

I could take a swing at a bone-in shoulder with a hammer and do a lot more damage than I could on a steel plate.
 

Laramie

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Apr 17, 2020
Messages
2,078
I’m asking for reality, not feelings. How many deer and elk have you killed with 6.5’s and 30/06’s?

I can tell you to the inch the average wound depth and width for most 6.5 and 30cal bullets at most impact velocities.

Name one publication that you are referencing that has a clue about terminal ballistics?

It won’t make a difference for either animal with either bullet. Do you think 99% of people have any clue about bullets, killing, or ballistics?

I have personally killed well over 100 big game animals with everything from an arrow to a 300 mag. I have been hunting since the mid 80s in Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, and the Mid West. I also outfitted and guided in all of those same states in the 90s and 2000s. I have seen the good bad and ugly from hundreds of kills. I have personally seen 7 elk shot with 6.5s, 6 of which were with a PRC. One of those elk was shot by the 6.5 and then shot with a 30-06. The lightest calibers I have personally harvested elk with were with 2 different varieties of 7mm.

I believe you can but do ballistic tests in controlled environments equate to field performance? Do you have a side by side test of a 180 grain bullet hitting with the same lbs of energy as a 143? I am aware of quite a few with pistol rounds that showed the heavier bullet out penetrating but I am not aware of any rifle tests that showed 2 different weighted bullets hitting at equal energy levels.

Virtually every publication acknowledges that the 30-06 delvers more energy than the 6.5 CM. Find one that doesn't. Again, you are trying to blur the lines. I stated the 30-06 delivers more energy. It does without a doubt.

I disagree regarding making a difference. Regarding the 99%... As a moderator, I find it surprising you would make a statement like that. So you feel that 99% of the people, including the ones on this forum that you oversee, have no clue regarding bullets, killing, or ballistics?
 

ResearchinStuff

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Jan 26, 2017
Messages
719
Location
PA
but did you explain how that energy difference correlates to different levels of tissue damage, or lethality at various ranges? it seems that's always the missine piece with the more energy = more deader arguments.
 

Laramie

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Apr 17, 2020
Messages
2,078
but did you explain how that energy difference correlates to different levels of tissue damage, or lethality at various ranges? it seems that's always the missine piece with the more energy = more deader arguments.
That's the thing, I never made that claim. Others have tried to steer the conversation there really hard though. I personally believe that energy is one component but by means the only one to consider.

However, in the simplest form, energy is transferred from the moving bullet to the tissue it encounters, creating damage. A bullet can only transfer as much energy as it posses at the time of impact. Where that energy transfer takes place has a lot to do with bullet construction, SD, and the resistance of the tissue encountered at impact and during penetration.
 

ResearchinStuff

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Jan 26, 2017
Messages
719
Location
PA
However, in the simplest form, energy is transferred from the moving bullet to the tissue it encounters, creating damage. A bullet can only transfer as much energy as it posses at the time of impact. Where that energy transfer takes place has a lot to do with bullet construction, SD, and the resistance of the tissue encountered at impact and during penetration.

yep, exactly.
 

Seamaster

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Dec 11, 2020
Messages
107
Nobody will ever convince the true believers that their favorite cartridge is not the best ever.

There is a difference between shooting at game standing in the open, and shooting at game in other situations. The long range 'snipers" have a different view of the world than the timber hunters.

Deer are fairly easy to kill so it probably does not matter. For a more "all around" cartridge I would choose a 30-06 unless I was afraid of the extra recoil.
 

Formidilosus

Super Moderator
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
4,138
I have personally killed well over 100 big game animals with everything from an arrow to a 300 mag. I have been hunting since the mid 80s in Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, and the Mid West. I also outfitted and guided in all of those same states in the 90s and 2000s. I have seen the good bad and ugly from hundreds of kills. I have personally seen 7 elk shot with 6.5s, 6 of which were with a PRC. One of those elk was shot by the 6.5 and then shot with a 30-06. The lightest calibers I have personally harvested elk with were with 2 different varieties of 7mm.


Thank you. Last year I killed and watched 14 elk killed with the largest cartridge being used a 300 PRC. Everything else was 6.5, 6mm, and 223 from 60’ish yards to 970y. The only rodeo, and BS was with the 300 PRC.


I believe you can but do ballistic tests in controlled environments equate to field performance? Do you have a side by side test of a 180 grain bullet hitting with the same lbs of energy as a 143? I am aware of quite a few with pistol rounds that showed the heavier bullet out penetrating but I am not aware of any rifle tests that showed 2 different weighted bullets hitting at equal energy levels.


Energy is a useless metric. There is no legitimate terminal ballistics testing facility that looks at or cares what energy a bullet produces. The only thing that matters is the wound that is produced- which 100% has no bearing whatsoever on what the energy is. The bullet has a certain amount of energy, but that tells you absolutely nothing about what the bullet will do in tissue.


Virtually every publication acknowledges that the 30-06 delvers more energy than the 6.5 CM. Find one that doesn't. Again, you are trying to blur the lines. I stated the 30-06 delivers more energy. It does without a doubt.

Again- tell me how much energy it takes to create what damage?


I disagree regarding making a difference. Regarding the 99%... As a moderator, I find it surprising you would make a statement like that. So you feel that 99% of the people, including the ones on this forum that you oversee, have no clue regarding bullets, killing, or ballistics?

I am not a moderator. I have moderator abilities due to the scope evaluations. That’s it. And yes, very, very few people know terminal ballistics facts. They, like you are still stuck in formulas and myths. Saying that most people are ignorant of a subject, is not saying that they are stupid or in any way demeaning. The reality is that the vast majority of hunters are in fact ignorant of terminal ballistics.

Here’s fact- killing is about disrupting or destroying vital organs. Tissue disruption is determined by the depth, width, and shape of the wound left caused by the passage of a bullet. The only way to know what wounds a bullet will make in tissue is to shoot it into tissue or properly calibrated tissue simulate and then physically measure the wound created. All else equal larger wounds, more vital tissue destroyed= faster death.

Saying a 30/06 is more powerful is nebulous at best, and an outright misrepresentation for most. One, while an “optimized” bullet from a 30cal can create a larger wound than the same from a 6.5, almost no one uses those bullets.

Two, even when you do, it is not like a bullet that creates a 6” temporary cavity has a measurable effect on incapacitation (“killing”) over one that creates a 5” temp cavity- once “enough” damage has been achieved “more” isn’t really noticeable in effect on animals.

Three, even if “more” damage had some noticeable effect, it totally overlooks hit rates and rates of failure. In that, the 6.5 increases hit rates for the exact same shooters over a 30/06 to a measurable extent.
 

svivian

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
1,650
Location
Colorado
@Formidilosus Just to be clear you are stating you can disregard bullet weight as long as it is a bullet with proper construction and impact speeds? Regardless if its a 70gr bullet or a 250gr bullet.
 

Macintosh

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Feb 17, 2018
Messages
469
Glad we could agree

Now that everyone is on the same page, can we discuss where is the point where that provides an additional benefit, all other things being equal? Without an additional benefit (i.e. an easier recovery or a recovered vs lost animal), we are right back at "more dead". This is a pass/fail test, it's not scored--energy, wound channel, etc are irrelevant if there is no additional benefit to those things. If we can't identify somewhere there is an additional benefit, I would suggest it’s not possible to claim one cartridge is any more effective than the other.
 
Last edited:

Formidilosus

Super Moderator
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
4,138
@Formidilosus Just to be clear you are stating you can disregard bullet weight as long as it is a bullet with proper construction and impact speeds? Regardless if its a 70gr bullet or a 250gr bullet.

If you mean when looking at the actual wound created by a bullet- yes. Bullet construction, weight, impact velocity, and what a bullet hits all contribute to the wounding potential. There is no metric, no number that will tell you what any bullet will do in tissue. You must shoot it in tissue or proper simulate and then measure the results. It is possible for a 70gr bullet to create tremendous wounds.
 

Formidilosus

Super Moderator
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
4,138
@Formidilosus

You have to shoot an elk with a 3006 at say 600 yards. What bullet/bullets are you choosing?

175gr or 190gr Sierra TMK would be the first choices. 178gr ELD-M for maximum tissue damage, . 178gr ELD-X is good. 185gr Berger Juggernaut is very solid in both penetration and tissue damage.
 

Monty3006

Junior Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2016
Messages
47
175gr or 190gr Sierra TMK would be the first choices. 178gr ELD-M for maximum tissue damage, . 178gr ELD-X is good. 185gr Berger Juggernaut is very solid in both penetration and tissue damage.
What’s your thoughts on the 168gr ELD-M?
 

Wrongside

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Jun 3, 2012
Messages
569
Location
AB
The 3o-o6 did most of my killing for well over 10 years. Multiple Mule Deer, Whitetail, Elk, Black Bear, etc.

I've been using a 6.5 for the last 5 years. Same cross section of critters, with a bull moose added. It has worked just as well. As mentioned, it's pretty much impossible to tell the difference, given similar impacts.

The only rodeo we've had on an elk in the last decade, was a bull elk, hit poorly with a 338WM. IMO, shot placement trumps all the ballistic/energy/power nonsense, by far.

Pick the rifle you shoot well and fill the freezer. I'll likely continue shooting the 6.5s for everything, even here in grizzly country...
 

3325

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Oct 10, 2021
Messages
209
I don't own a 6.5 Creedmoor, so the answer is '06, because I have one in the cabinet. But it usually stays in the cabinet while the .270 Winchester goes hunting.

With an '06 and a .270, I can't think of a reason I'd want to buy a 6.5 Creedmoor. I'm sure it's fine, but I don't want or need anything else to tinker with.

And why are we shooting at 600? Just because we can?
 
Last edited:

thinhorn_AK

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
Jul 2, 2016
Messages
7,938
Location
Alaska
I don't own a 6.5 Creedmoor, so the answer is '06, because I have one in the cabinet. But it usually stays in the cabinet while the .270 Winchester goes hunting.

With an '06 and a .270, I can't think of a reason I'd want to buy a 6.5 Creedmoor. I'm sure it's fine, but I don't want or need anything else to tinker with.

And why are we shooting at 600? Just because we can?

I imagined that in a womens voice.
 
Top