6.5 creed vs 30-06

[Formidilosus]

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

How so? All bullets have failure rate- all of them. But how is it that the one bullet from a 6.5mm that is reliably in thousands of shots in a certain wound depth, size, and shape- will be effected; but a 30cal of the same won’t be?

 

[Formidilosus]

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.

How so? A 4” wide wound that penetrates 16-18 inches isn’t “minimum” to consistently and reliably kill elk (77gr TMK)- they’re piled up with pointed sticks.

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?

It isn’t whether tone person can spot shots with a larger recoiling rifle than another can with a less recoiling rifle- it’s whether one can shoot a larger recoiling rifle as well and spot as many shots as well, as that same person can a less recoiling rifle. And the answer is no. There is magic that makes someone shoot a 7mm mag better than a 6 CM. It’s not happening. There are a dozen plus people from this board that have watched me spot my own shots from 7-8lb 30cal mags from 200 yards to last 1,100 yards. I can spot my own shot from most large rifles better than the vast majority can with a 243win. That doesn’t matter- I can’t spot my shots with a 7PRC and 180’s like I can from a 6 CM and 108’s. It’s not even close.

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.

The only issue with this analogy is that is it strength only that is the dominate factor between a 50lb and 80lb bow. That’s not the case at all with firearms.

 

[Ucsdryder]

I

How so? A 4” wide wound that penetrates 16-18 inches isn’t “minimum” to consistently and reliably kill elk (77gr TMK)- they’re piled up with pointed sticks.





It isn’t whether tone person can spot shots with a larger recoiling rifle than another can with a less recoiling rifle- it’s whether one can shoot a larger recoiling rifle as well and spot as many shots as well, as that same person can a less recoiling rifle. And the answer is no. There is magic that makes someone shoot a 7mm mag better than a 6 CM. It’s not happening. There are a dozen plus people from this board that have watched me spot my own shots from 7-8lb 30cal mags from 200 yards to last 1,100 yards. I can spot my own shot from most large rifles better than the vast majority can with a 243win. That doesn’t matter- I can’t spot my shots with a 7PRC and 180’s like I can from a 6 CM and 108’s. It’s not even close.






The only issue with this analogy is that is it strength only that is the dominate factor between a 50lb and 80lb bow. That’s not the case at all with firearms.

I’m fully on board with the eldm bullet. 147/180/225. I’m sold on them for hunting. I know we’ve all seen the posts about target bullets blowing up on shoulders at high velocity. I personally haven’t seen it, but I don’t think people are making it up either. Thoughts?

 

[Ryan Avery]

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.

We have talked about this before, but for the sake of info, can you tell us how a 285 ELDM and 300 OTM would compare to the 225 ELDM?

 

[Formidilosus]

I


I’m fully on board with the eldm bullet. 147/180/225. I’m sold on them for hunting. I know we’ve all seen the posts about target bullets blowing up on shoulders at high velocity. I personally haven’t seen it, but I don’t think people are making it up either. Thoughts?

This is where it gets sticky. I can’t or won’t say that people are lying about it. However in several thousand game animals that I’ve seen killed and taken apart, including hundreds upon hundreds of them with shoulder shots- with bullets that “blow up” on shoulders, I haven’t seen it. Scapulas are thin really thin. How someone can hold a “shoulder” up and say that a bullet isn’t going through that is baffling to me.
There have been several times that people swore the bullet blew up and failed to penetrate because the animal was knocked down and then got back up and ran off. However, each time that we eventually recovered the animal, we found that the shot was high going over the spine and into the spinal process. A couple of times people swore that the bullet blew up on the shoulder, and we ended up killing those animals later. Examination showed that the bullet glanced off of the bone from a quartering shot. Interestingly, none of those were with fragmenting bullets, but instead controlled expansion ones.

The issue is even on a bull elk, there is less than 3 inches of tissue before the scapula bone- that’s skin and muscle on top of the scapula. So in order for a bullet to “blow up” on a shoulder, we have to say that that bullet wouldn’t have went through a Prairie dog and then a piece of cardboard on the backside.


Barring an absolute, extremely rare case of total failure in metallurgy…. I don’t see how it’s a concern.

 

[Formidilosus]

We have talked about this before, but for the sake of info, can you tell us how a 285 ELDM and 300 OTM would compare to the 225 ELDM?

Oof. You would. grin.


The 285gr ELD-M and 300gr OTM are starting to make a difference in elk sized animals. Both give more penetration compared to the smaller calibers, almost always exiting a broadside elk. The 285gr ELD-M creates a 9” plus inch TC at higher impact velocities, and the TC length is longer. The 300gr OTM really comes into its own when impact velocities start being on the low end where the bullet yaws (tumbles) inside the animal. Very large exits can result.

 

[Ucsdryder]

This is where it gets sticky. I can’t or won’t say that people are lying about it. However in several thousand game animals that I’ve seen killed and taken apart, including hundreds upon hundreds of them with shoulder shots- with bullets that “blow up” on shoulders, I haven’t seen it. Scapulas are thin really thin. How someone can hold a “shoulder” up and say that a bullet isn’t going through that is baffling to me.
There have been several times that people swore the bullet blew up and failed to penetrate because the animal was knocked down and then got back up and ran off. However, each time that we eventually recovered the animal, we found that the shot was high going over the spine and into the spinal process. A couple of times people swore that the bullet blew up on the shoulder, and we ended up killing those animals later. Examination showed that the bullet glanced off of the bone from a quartering shot. Interestingly, none of those were with fragmenting bullets, but instead controlled expansion ones.

The issue is even on a bull elk, there is less than 3 inches of tissue before the scapula bone- that’s skin and muscle on top of the scapula. So in order for a bullet to “blow up” on a shoulder, we have to say that that bullet wouldn’t have went through a Prairie dog and then a piece of cardboard on the backside.


Barring an absolute, extremely rare case of total failure in metallurgy…. I don’t see how it’s a concern.

I put a mechanical through the thick part of a bull elk shoulder blade 2 years ago, and the tip curled significantly. Still penetrated enough that the bull went 10 steps and died. I agree with you, shoulder blades aren’t that thick so the thought of a bullet exploding on one confuses me. I’m not calling anybody a liar either and I hope I don’t find out first hand.

 

[Ryan Avery]

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

What about when the little 115 6mm bullet tumbles? Volume Dis

 

[35WhelenAI]

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

The math is accurate which affirms the numerical case for volume of a temporary cavity being much larger with larger caliber bullets. I am not sure volume is the main factor based on what I am reading, albeit the math is correct.

The outward extension (width) of said TC is what disrupts the CNS, therefore the length of the cavity isn't playing into that as a major factor, IMO. It comes down to the diameter, which I think should be talked about as a radius. I.E. a 1.5" larger diameter channel "extends" .75" upward and .75" downward if you will. The difference in what could affect the CNS between a .223 and .308 would be 1.5" using the example.

A bang-flop is from CNS disruption, and if the extra 1.5" radius gets it done, it's a success. If it doesn't get that job done, more than enough vital tissue has been disrupted to kill the animal and at that point it doesn't matter if it's a .223 or a .308. It appears at that point what we're talking about is more meat loss, more recoil, more whatever you want to call it when maximizing larger calibers, not general lethality.

This post isn't to say I'm gonna use a .223 on big game because in Colorado I won't, it's not legal. 35 Whelen AI with a big expanded frontal diameter does just fine. But the logic and evidence is there to show smaller calibers have merit in the cases that have been presented in their favor.

 

[Ryan Avery]

The math is accurate which affirms the numerical case for volume of a temporary cavity being much larger with larger caliber bullets. I am not sure volume is the main factor based on what I am reading, albeit the math is correct.

The outward extension (width) of said TC is what disrupts the CNS, therefore the length of the cavity isn't playing into that as a major factor. It comes down to the diameter, which I think should be talked about as a radius. I.E. a 1.5" larger diameter channel "extends" .75" upward and .75" downward if you will. The difference in what could affect the CNS between a .223 and .308 would be 1.5" using the example.

A bang-flop is from CNS disruption, and if the extra 1.5" radius gets it done, it's a success. If it doesn't get that job done, more than enough vital tissue has been disrupted to kill the animal and at that point it doesn't matter if it's a .223 or a .308. It appears at that point what we're talking about is more meat loss, more recoil, more whatever you want to call it when maximizing larger calibers, not general lethality.

This post isn't to say I'm gonna use a .223 on big game because in Colorado I won't, it's not legal. 35 Whelen AI with a big expanded frontal diameter does just fine. But the logic and evidence is there to show smaller calibers have merit in the cases that have been presented in their favor.

Is that volume best case(fragmenting bullet)? @eoperator

 

[35WhelenAI]

I simply quoted a previous post, affirmed that the math was correct, and offered an opinion. @Ryan Avery, was it an oversight my post is quoted and the post I quoted is the one you referenced?

 

[oldskool67]

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.

I guess it’s Common Core reading comprehension as well. I said undefeated World War Champion, so 2-0 in “ world wars. “

And for the record I always troll the cartridge posts just to trigger responses like this.

 

[bmart2622]

How so? All bullets have failure rate- all of them. But how is it that the one bullet from a 6.5mm that is reliably in thousands of shots in a certain wound depth, size, and shape- will be effected; but a 30cal of the same won’t be?

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

 

[Ryan Avery]

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

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

 

[Formidilosus]

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

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.

 

[eoperator]

Is that volume best case(fragmenting bullet)?

The point I was getting at is changing the volume of a cylinder (stretch cavity or permanent) by a seemingly small amount has a huge impact on the cubic inch volume of said cylinder.

I am moving away from magnum cartridges myself but I have not yet decided what middle ground cartridges to invest in.

What velocity was that 115dtac?

 

[Macintosh]

Re: TC being larger.
If my understanding is correct, these fragmenting bullets create a wound channel differently than a bonded bullet, so Form or someone else please confirm or correct me.

Bonded/mono creates a wound channel due to the “wake” created by the expanded bullet, more or less like a boat creates a wake. A sleek boat (un-expanded bullet) creates a small wake, while a big boat with lots of hull in the water (expanded bullet) creates a bigger wake. As that “wake” stretches the tissue (temporary cavity), at some point SOME tissues stretch past their elastic threshold and tear, creating a permanent cavity somewhat bigger than bullet diameter.

The fragmenting version of this is that at the moment the temporary stretch cavity is under the most tension, a number of tiny bullet fragments join the party, and cut many of the tissue fibers around the periphery of the temporary cavity while they are stretched ALMOST to their limit (ie they would not have torn otherwise), causing the permanent cavity to be amplified well beyond what it would have been had it been created by a non-fragmenting bullet. Ie there is a secondary wounding mechanism that is not present in a traditional bullet of any size, resulting in a wound channel that punches outside its weight class.

Is this correct?

Edit: if Im correct you can see similar effects in other places. Take a piece of nylon kernmantle rope and cut it. Even with a sharp knife it takes some doing to cut it. Now hang 50lb on it and cut, and its exponentially easier to cut. But, if you hang 2000lb on it as you would get at the peak impact of a dynamic load, if you merely touch a knife to it and pop a few fibers, the cut will literally propagate across the entire diameter as that tiny “pop” concentrates the load on nearby remaining fibers and puts them over their elastic threshold in a cascading effect.

 

[Macintosh]

The point I was getting at is changing the volume of a cylinder (stretch cavity or permanent) by a seemingly small amount has a huge impact on the cubic inch volume of said cylinder.

If Im correct (?) my thought is that volume would have relevance in killing the animal quickly, but not in disrupting cns for a bang/flop or in making up for a poor shot. Volume of tissue damage will bleed faster. But cns would be disrupted at a point, not across the whole area of the cavity. Similarly, if you rely on the extra inch (or whatever) of stretch cavity to make up for poor shot placement, its only the inch where it intersects vitals that counts, not the whole wound volume.

 

[robtattoo]

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

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

 

[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.