6.5 for elk

[ElDudarino]

I have watched 5 bull elk die where they stood from 143 ELDx between 200-550 yards.

My wife killed a bull at 500 on the nose with one in Colorado this year.

I also think I have seen exit wounds 100% of the time. Animals don’t go far with holes in both lungs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dom186]

Energy is a non factor its impact velocity that will matter and determine if the bullet performs as needed

So are you arguing mass of the bullet doesn’t matter? I don’t understand your point. You’re arguing a 55 grain 223 bullet will take out a bull elk as long as it’s going fast enough? I’m assuming you know how to calculate kinetic energy using and mass and velocity.

 

[Stache Attack]

So are you arguing mass of the bullet doesn’t matter? I don’t understand your point. You’re arguing a 55 grain 223 bullet will take out a bull elk as long as it’s going fast enough? I’m assuming you know how to calculate kinetic energy using and mass and velocity.

Read 223 and 6mm thread before arguing these points

500 easy energy on 6 creed shorty here

 

[TimberHunter]

I’ve never shot an elk with 6.5 but from what I understand, yes, but respect the round and its limitations for an ethical kill. I wouldn’t be doing any ELR with 6.5 creed. Within 300 yards is good, but some can go up 500+ yards and still maintain 1500ft*lbs energy especially at elevation such as in Colorado.

So 300 yards is good but 301 yards is bad?

I’d offer for you to talk to the last few elk I’ve shot at longer distances with a 6.5cm but they’re dead…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dom186]

So 300 yards is good but 301 yards is bad?

I’d offer for you to talk to the last few elk I’ve shot at longer distances with a 6.5cm but they’re dead…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

False dichotomy and strawman argument you created there bud. I also said you can ethically kill over elk 500 yards with 6.5 so not sure where you’re getting that from.

 

[Dom186]

Read 223 and 6mm thread before arguing these points

500 easy energy on 6 creed shorty here

Reposting to fix spelling errors



Sure well the point I was trying to make is that kinetic energy and velocity or inextricably linked. More velocity means more energy, and velocity has much greater influence on kinetic energy than mass since its mass * velocity ^ 2, or mass times velocity squared. So I think we are oversimplifying the problem and creating a false dichotomy by saying it has to be one or the other, when there’s a causal relationship between the two that doesn’t make sense. Anyways I’m not convinced we should be throwing out energy from the analysis here, they’re two different ways of looking at the same thing. Does this make sense?



To exaggerate my point even either, if velocity is the only thing that mattered, you’d see people taking down bull elk with .17 HMR all day. Mass and consequently energy do play a role. Again this is just my opinion, if have not actually looked to see if there is a .17 HMR thread of people taking down bull elk.



Now let’s look at the opposite end of the spectrum. Something very heavy and relatively slow, like a 12 guage slug. I think we can both agree a well placed slug will take down a bull. But it’s slow compared to 6.5 creed, or 223, even 17 hmr, so how is it able to kill the bull if only velocity matters? Again this makes me think energy does have influence, not just velocity IMO.



So to sum it up, velocity and energy are inextricably linked. You raise velocity you get more energy. Also very light and fast rounds can kill elk, so can slow and heavy rounds. What do both of those have in common? Lots of kinetic energy.

Terminal ballistics is a complicated, nuanced subject though and I wouldn’t use energy or velocity as the end-all-be-all way to determine if a round is good enough to kill an elk. It’s just one data point of many to help decide the optimal load.

 

[Chris_in_Idaho]

The velocity needs to be enough to deform/upset the bullet enough for a large wound channel. For the TMKs, ELDXs, ELDMs and similar bullets people are having so much success with, a safe minimum is 1800fps. It makes little difference if it's a 77 grain .224" or a 180 grain .284".

Think of it as a collision between the animal and the bullet. Better yet, imagine the bullet is stationary and the Elk is flying through the air at the bullet. Is the Elk going to hit the bullet with enough velocity to smash it into a big mushroom or sharp fragments? At 1800fps or more, likely yes. At under 1800fps, maybe not.

The mass, and therefore energy, of the bullet isn't really relevant.

 

[HairyScandinavian]

Better yet, imagine the bullet is stationary and the Elk is flying through the air at the bullet. Is the Elk going to hit the bullet with enough velocity to smash it into a big mushroom or sharp fragments? At 1800fps or more, likely yes. At under 1800fps, maybe not.

I imagined it, man that was weird.

 

[The Guide]

I imagined it, man that was weird.

It is almost like the guy on the 6mm ARC for elk thread has a doppelganger...

Jay

 

[Stache Attack]

I’m still here waiting for you to fix my spelling errors. You must be a high school English teacher. I do also know the kinetic energy equation.

Do you have any data on your claims presented?

I have shot elk with a 22wm and 17hmr. They have died(would I recommend not unless close). 223 for me personally is too light, but on deer I have had good success. 6mm seems to be the sweet spot in my book for antelope, deer, and elk in my comfortable range.

 

[KurtR]

So are you arguing mass of the bullet doesn’t matter? I don’t understand your point. You’re arguing a 55 grain 223 bullet will take out a bull elk as long as it’s going fast enough? I’m assuming you know how to calculate kinetic energy using and mass and velocity.

Yep as long as it hits at a velocity with a properly constructed bullet to perform. I would personally go with the 77tmk vs any 55 right now as performance has been proven time and time again.