Elk Rifle Suggestions

[slm9s]

One other way to look at it, is can you shoot a somewhat larger cartridge just as well? If you can shoot a 280ai (or similar) just as accurately as your 6.5cm then I see little downside to using it when hunting elk. (assuming you handload so $ should be close, and you practice enough to be proficient with either one)
Or listen to some and take a 223.

 

[apieceofwork]

What shot angle would that be?

In other words, inside of the bullet’s performance window (going at least 1800 FPS), where do I have to hit the animal such that a 7 PRC will kill it, but a 6.5 CM will not kill it?

Comparing two popular rounds (6.5CM in 143 grain eldx and 7 PRC in 170 grain terminal ascent) and assuming a 500-yard shot, the 7 PRC delivers almost 50% more energy. Are you suggesting this increase in energy provides no benefit if a mature bull is hit in the shoulder bone? Or put differently, you're suggesting that the energy the 6.5CM delivers - 1302 ft lbs - has the same probability of getting the job done as the 7 PRC's 1932 ft lbs.

That's quite the claim.

Good lord, how is large vs small cartridge for elk still a debate on Rokslide of all places in 2026. There’s literally thousands of big game animals from antelope to coastal brown bears, with necropsy pictures of the wound channels, on the 223 thread.

I can even understand being skeptical because I went into the thread thinking those guys were all crazy and it was unethical, and came out of that with a Tikka 223.

Anyone open to actually learning, using facts and data driven evidence provided instead of relying on emotional attachment to cartridges we grew up being told were what was needed will have their minds changed.

You can’t see picture after picture after picture of the wound channels and call it marginal. The shots have been taken from every angle too. Broadside, quartering away, quartering too, etc, and it just works. Put the bullet in the front half of the elk and it’s going to die.

Like damn, they should make a flip chart side by side and have people guess which was made with the 223 and which was made with a 300 WM, or 7 PRC, or whatever other big magnum you guys want to use for comparison.

Generally the only reason to go to a bigger cartridge is to be able to take a longer shot, or if you are using a monolithic bullet. That 223 is going to give you 400-450 yards of performance, farther than most hunters are capable of shooting. If you want/need more than that, go with a 22 CM or 6 UM.

If I can paraphrase Ryan Avery, “it doesn’t matter how badass you think you are, there’s not a human on planet earth that is going to shoot better getting punched in the shoulder and having a loud boom go off in your face.”

"I went into a thread dedicated to large animals killed with a .223 and discovered large animals killed with a .223, therefore a .223 must be a great round for hunting big game."

 

[Q_Sertorius]

Comparing two popular rounds (6.5CM in 143 grain eldx and 7 PRC in 170 grain terminal ascent) and assuming a 500-yard shot, the 7 PRC delivers almost 50% more energy. Are you suggesting this increase in energy provides no benefit if a mature bull is hit in the shoulder bone? Or put differently, you're suggesting that the energy the 6.5CM delivers - 1302 ft lbs - has the same probability of getting the job done as the 7 PRC's 1932 ft lbs.

That's quite the claim.
."

The 6.5 CM will go through the shoulder bone too.

 

[RancherJohn]

Comparing two popular rounds (6.5CM in 143 grain eldx and 7 PRC in 170 grain terminal ascent) and assuming a 500-yard shot, the 7 PRC delivers almost 50% more energy. Are you suggesting this increase in energy provides no benefit if a mature bull is hit in the shoulder bone? Or put differently, you're suggesting that the energy the 6.5CM delivers - 1302 ft lbs - has the same probability of getting the job done as the 7 PRC's 1932 ft lbs.

That's quite the claim.




"I went into a thread dedicated to large animals killed with a .223 and discovered large animals killed with a .223, therefore a .223 must be a great round for hunting big game."

Energy is a useless metric to judge terminal performance of a bullet or caliber.

To give you an idea of why, a 105 Berger HT from a 6cm (~2750 fps) has less than 1800 ft-lbs of energy at the muzzle. Are you implying that a point-bank shot from said 6cm wouldn't penetrate the shoulder due to lack of energy? Or that it would fail to achieve adequate penetration into the vitals through the shoulder at 330 yds where it drops below 1300 ft-lbs? How does energy account for differences in how different types of bullets behave in tissue? A bullet that fragments heavily in tissue and does not exit does transmit all of it's energy to the animal, while a bullet that penetrates fully and exits of the off-side cavity is transmitting the majority of it's energy into the ground on the other side of the animal.

And to answer your question, a good bullet in the 6.5 cm at 500 yards (provided it's above the bottom velocity threshold of the bullet) will absolutely go through an elk shoulder and into the vitals, just the same as it would from a 7PRC.

 

[mwoolsey5]

"I went into a thread dedicated to large animals killed with a .223 and discovered large animals killed with a .223, therefore a .223 must be a great round for hunting big game."

I mean...yes? I went into that thread thinking all those guys were nuts, took the time to actually read through every post over the course of about a month, reviewed the photographic evidence of wound channels and terminal performance, tried to find some reason to justify why it was marginal or ineffective or would not be as effective as big magnums on big game. I think it would be fair to say I was seeking reasons it would fail and be inadequate, and now I own a couple 223's for hunting because I could not find any downside and is what I plan on having my boys shoot when they are old enough to hunt.

There's no rose tinted glasses. It's an open forum where anyone can post about their personal experience using the 223 to hunt big game with 77 TMK and it just works. I know it works because it was so thoroughly vetted by so many users, with photographs and documented narratives of their own kills and experience, that backup what is being claimed.

If you want to use 7 PRC, by all means go ahead. I don't hate large magnums, but I can say going to a smaller cartridge was the right choice for me and there's a lot of benefits to be had.

Here's a picture of an elk shoulder for you to consider:

View attachment 469510View attachment 469511

 

[BuckSmasher]

"I went into a thread dedicated to large animals killed with a .223 and discovered large animals killed with a .223, therefore a .223 must be a great round for hunting big game."

Best description I have seen of the 223 mania on this site.

 

[apieceofwork]

Energy is a useless metric to judge terminal performance of a bullet or caliber.

To give you an idea of why, a 105 Berger HT from a 6cm (~2750 fps) has less than 1800 ft-lbs of energy at the muzzle. Are you implying that a point-bank shot from said 6cm wouldn't penetrate the shoulder due to lack of energy? Or that it would fail to achieve adequate penetration into the vitals through the shoulder at 330 yds where it drops below 1300 ft-lbs? How does energy account for differences in how different types of bullets behave in tissue? A bullet that fragments heavily in tissue and does not exit does transmit all of it's energy to the animal, while a bullet that penetrates fully and exits of the off-side cavity is transmitting the majority of it's energy into the ground on the other side of the animal.

And to answer your question, a good bullet in the 6.5 cm at 500 yards (provided it's above the bottom velocity threshold of the bullet) will absolutely go through an elk shoulder and into the vitals, just the same as it would from a 7PRC.

We've gone from "energy is not the be all and end all" to "energy is useless." The latter is dogmatic. The energy I referenced in my previous post was 1302, not 1800.

"Just the same as it would from a 7 PRC"

^My point is that there is speculation in this claim, whether people will admit it is another matter. Can you tell me the smallest cartridge that will blast through an elk shoulder in every possible scenario? Because if you can identify that cartridge with absolute mathematical certainty, then no one should ever hunt with anything larger within say 600 yards (whether anyone should be shooting at an elk at 800 yards is another question altogether).

My point is that I don't believe that question can be easily answered with a level of certainty that negates the potential benefits of larger cartridges. This is why people use them, or at least it's the best reason for using them.

I mean...yes? I went into that thread thinking all those guys were nuts, took the time to actually read through every post over the course of about a month, reviewed the photographic evidence of wound channels and terminal performance, tried to find some reason to justify why it was marginal or ineffective or would not be as effective as big magnums on big game. I think it would be fair to say I was seeking reasons it would fail and be inadequate, and now I own a couple 223's for hunting because I could not find any downside and is what I plan on having my boys shoot when they are old enough to hunt.

There's no rose tinted glasses. It's an open forum where anyone can post about their personal experience using the 223 to hunt big game with 77 TMK and it just works. I know it works because it was so thoroughly vetted by so many users, with photographs and documented narratives of their own kills and experience, that backup what is being claimed.

If you want to use 7 PRC, by all means go ahead. I don't hate large magnums, but I can say going to a smaller cartridge was the right choice for me and there's a lot of benefits to be had.

Here's a picture of an elk shoulder for you to consider:

I was just pointing out that your sample was biased. I don't doubt that large animals have been killed with a 223.

 

[RancherJohn]

We've gone from "energy is not the be all and end all" to "energy is useless." The latter is dogmatic. The energy I referenced in my previous post was 1302, not 1800.

"Just the same as it would from a 7 PRC"

^My point is that there is speculation in this claim, whether people will admit it is another matter. Can you tell me the smallest cartridge that will blast through an elk shoulder in every possible scenario? Because if you can identify that cartridge with absolute mathematical certainty, then no one should ever hunt with anything larger within say 600 yards (whether anyone should be shooting at an elk at 800 yards is another question altogether).

My point is that I don't believe that question can be easily answered with a level of certainty that negates the potential benefits of larger cartridges. This is why people use them, or at least it's the best reason for using them.

Reread what I wrote. I did not say energy is useless, I said it was a useless metric by which to judge a bullet's terminal performance. I know you referenced 1302 ft-lbs, that is the 105 HT at 330 yards. Are you saying that bullet will not penetrate a shoulder at that distance? I gave you 1800 ft-lbs and referenced that being at the muzzle to compare to your 7PRC example at 500 yards, again are you saying that the 170 gr TA will penetrate and expand at distance but a 6cm/105 HT won't at point blank? Bullets are built differently from line to line and caliber to caliber, to perform within a velocity window. Calculated KE is a byproduct of mass and velocity, in and of itself it will tell you absolutely nothing about the terminal performance on game.

The smallest cartridge to blast through an elk shoulder in any scenario? No, I cannot. However I can tell you that a proper bullet, from a centerfire .22 cal rifle or larger will complete the task as long as it impacts within it's velocity window. Elk shoulders are not magic, they are not AR500 steel, they are not level 4 ceramic plates. To use energy as a metric, guys are sticking broadheads through elk shoulders into the vitals every fall with under 100 ft-lbs of energy. Any bullet that will kill a cow elk will kill a bull elk just the same, there is not as much of a difference between the two as some would like to believe. A cow moose in many regards is larger than a bull elk.

You should take a tape measure to an elk the next time you're around one. They are not as big in the areas that we want to shoot them as some would like to believe. If you listen to certain podcasters, a rutted up bull elk is basically bulletproof and so smart that the only shot he is going to give you is quartered away and you'll need 4 feet of penetration through the ball of the femur, pelvic girdle, every single rib, then have it take out both lungs and the heart. That is not reality, that is, as they say, showbiz. An elk shoulder is, at most, about 5" thick. Then you are in the cavity, and it is all soft tissue with a max width of around 10-12" from rib to rib between the shoulders. Any quartering-to angle will yield being in the vitals at the same distance. The ribs will be ~16-18" apart behind the shoulder where the lungs sit. The rearmost portion of the rib cage will be in the neighborhood of 22". A quartering-away shot placed behind the ribs and running to the front of the chest cavity on the opposite side will be in the range of 16-20". Use a bullet that creates the would profile you like, and keep it above 1800 fps impact veloctiy and you will have no issues. No need to calculate energy to compare calibers.

Anything at much more of an angle than that and you will be in the hips and into the stomach, which you have no guarantee of penetrating with any bullet, let alone penetrating and trusting the bullet to still have the velocity on the other side to do it's job. You can shoot them in the ass, obtain a CNS or femoral hit, and down the animal to be able to finish it off, but caliber will not matter there and I like to eat what I kill, so that shot is off the table before the hunt starts.

I'm not telling you what cartridge to hunt with, I am telling you that the dogma of "You need X caliber or X ft-lbs energy" is wrong. And yeah, for most people a 6.5cm is actually all they need to shoot anything in North America from 600 yds and in. You are free to hunt with whatever you'd like to, but it will help your hunting to at least be knowledgable about the subject at hand rather than repeat what you've been told your whole life without testing anything on your own.

 

[dchum]

Reread what I wrote. I did not say energy is useless, I said it was a useless metric by which to judge a bullet's terminal performance. I know you referenced 1302 ft-lbs, that is the 105 HT at 330 yards. Are you saying that bullet will not penetrate a shoulder at that distance? I gave you 1800 ft-lbs and referenced that being at the muzzle to compare to your 7PRC example at 500 yards, again are you saying that the 170 gr TA will penetrate and expand at distance but a 6cm/105 HT won't at point blank? Bullets are built differently from line to line and caliber to caliber, to perform within a velocity window. Calculated KE is a byproduct of mass and velocity, in and of itself it will tell you absolutely nothing about the terminal performance on game.

The smallest cartridge to blast through an elk shoulder in any scenario? No, I cannot. However I can tell you that a proper bullet, from a centerfire .22 cal rifle or larger will complete the task as long as it impacts within it's velocity window. Elk shoulders are not magic, they are not AR500 steel, they are not level 4 ceramic plates. To use energy as a metric, guys are sticking broadheads through elk shoulders into the vitals every fall with under 100 ft-lbs of energy. Any bullet that will kill a cow elk will kill a bull elk just the same, there is not as much of a difference between the two as some would like to believe. A cow moose in many regards is larger than a bull elk.

You should take a tape measure to an elk the next time you're around one. They are not as big in the areas that we want to shoot them as some would like to believe. If you listen to certain podcasters, a rutted up bull elk is basically bulletproof and so smart that the only shot he is going to give you is quartered away and you'll need 4 feet of penetration through the ball of the femur, pelvic girdle, every single rib, then have it take out both lungs and the heart. That is not reality, that is, as they say, showbiz. An elk shoulder is, at most, about 5" thick. Then you are in the cavity, and it is all soft tissue with a max width of around 10-12" from rib to rib between the shoulders. Any quartering-to angle will yield being in the vitals at the same distance. The ribs will be ~16-18" apart behind the shoulder where the lungs sit. The rearmost portion of the rib cage will be in the neighborhood of 22". A quartering-away shot placed behind the ribs and running to the front of the chest cavity on the opposite side will be in the range of 16-20". Use a bullet that creates the would profile you like, and keep it above 1800 fps impact veloctiy and you will have no issues. No need to calculate energy to compare calibers.

Anything at much more of an angle than that and you will be in the hips and into the stomach, which you have no guarantee of penetrating with any bullet, let alone penetrating and trusting the bullet to still have the velocity on the other side to do it's job. You can shoot them in the ass, obtain a CNS or femoral hit, and down the animal to be able to finish it off, but caliber will not matter there and I like to eat what I kill, so that shot is off the table before the hunt starts.

I'm not telling you what cartridge to hunt with, I am telling you that the dogma of "You need X caliber or X ft-lbs energy" is wrong. And yeah, for most people a 6.5cm is actually all they need to shoot anything in North America from 600 yds and in. You are free to hunt with whatever you'd like to, but it will help your hunting to at least be knowledgable about the subject at hand rather than repeat what you've been told your whole life without testing anything on your own.

Mic drop

 

[Cherokeeguide]

Disclaimer: I've never shot an elk, or any other living thing, with a 6.5 Creedmoor.

I have, however, tagged 20 elk. I shot the last one through the heart with a 160 grain Hornady FTX bullet at 178 yards. As you might imagine, it didn't do anything but die . That was the 9th elk I tagged with the .30-30. The other 8 all dropped dead via the 170 grain Speer Hot Core.

I tagged one elk with a Super 14 Contender in 7-30 Waters. I tagged one with a .495" patched round ball from a caplock .50 caliber Lyman Great Plains rifle. I tagged one with a 100 grain Nosler Partition from a Ruger M77RL Ultralight in .250 Savage. The rest that weren't tagged with my .30-30 were tagged with a .270 Winchester from a Ruger No. 1 B or a Whitworh Mauser.

All of that to say this: If I had a rifle in 6.5 CM that I shot well, and that was the only rifle I had, "a huntin' I would go."

My experience with elk has been that anything that will turn the lights out on a perfectly broadside mule deer will turn the lights out on a perfectly broadside elk, too.

I'll answer the "why in the hell would anyone use a .30-30 as an elk rifle" question now. I used the "saddle gun" because I had a saddle and a horse to go with it. Riding a horse through game country is ALMOST like cheating. I could and did ride right up to and beyond bedded elk that stayed bedded long enough for me to dismount and wait for them to morph into a real0life Hartford Insurance logo. 8 of the elk I tagged with the .30-30 were thus shot while I was using a horse, and at well under 100 yards.

Finally, the ballistics of the 6.5 x 55 aren't different enough from a 6.5 CM to matter. Scandinavians have a long history of rendering moose into meat with that round.

If I had a 6.5 CM, I'd confidently hunt elk with it.