Great video never did jump on the 6.5 bandwagon myself.

[dsotm]

Spomer is as fudd as it gets. Nothing he says should be taken seriously.

 

[Steve O]

Fascinating reading these threads without a dog in the fight. Great entertainment too.

 

[BjornF16]

Out of curiosity, why do you think energy matters?

Energy always matters. You can't harvest w/o energy. No way around it.
Modern projectiles ft/lbs is not the end all be all as it once was. But it does provide a unit of measure to which one can compare/contrast similar projectiles. No different than velocity, drop, wind drift, diameter, frontal surface, etc. I look at it but I collect/evaluate all available metrics.

Bullet impact energy is meaningless and is not what kills.

What matters is specific bullet construction and it’s behavior in “fluid” in regards to impact velocity.

 

[Fatcamp]

I think its pretty unlikely one would look at a wound from a 140 eld and say they wish they had more damage. I'd be surprised if a 30 cal barnes resulted in as much damage.

Lots of people aren't "recoil sensitive" but that doesn't mean they manage recoil well and/or wouldn't shoot more accurately with less recoil. There is much more to recoil than just being able to resist flinching.

I'm not recoil sensitive, I just don't see the use of suffering heavy recoil.

My wife will throw on a heavy coat and burn through a box of .300WM. Makes everyone at the range look, that's for sure.

 

[Mule3006Elk]

Bullet impact energy is meaningless and is not what kills.

What matters is specific bullet construction and it’s behavior in “fluid” in regards to impact velocity.

Yes but KE is tied to velocity. Without KE you can't do work. Velocity enables the bullet to perform as designed. So if we agree velocity is important then we must agree energy is important. Different lens but I understand your thought.

Bullet impact energy, simply another variable one can use when comparing projectiles, for a said game animal, using same or different calibers.

The 6.5 CM is intriguing I will say that.

 

[FLATHEAD]

I'll keep my 25-06.

 

[Buzby]

I am saying that it isn't blood sugar voodoo black magic

Oddly I’ve never heard people who are 6.5cm fans says anything like that, or make any other wild claims. It’s always the people who don’t shoot it saying what it’s not.

 

[wind gypsy]

AND you seem very familiar with the 6.5 CM and projectiles. Do you like ELD-M or ELD-X for deer and weight? Same for Elk? Or is there another projectile you prefer for the above? Thanks

I tend to geek out over cartridges and projectiles more than necessary. Never shot a deer with a hornady 6.5 bullet but I've shot a handful of critters with 7mm and 30 cal eldx so feel like i've got a fair picture of how they work. Plenty of others on this sight that have shot plenty with both eldm and eldx, i wouldn't be afraid of using either. For deer i would be happy to use any of the following:
Berger 130 H-VLD, 135 Classic Hunter, 140 elite hunter, 130, 140, 147 ELDm, 143 ELDx, or sierra 130 TMK. The 135 classic hunter is a neat bullet and the only of these ive shot a deer with.

I'd not be afraid to shoot an elk with a 6.5 but I'm still carrying 7 SAUM, 300 WSM, or 300 WM for elk.

 

[BjornF16]

Yes but KE is tied to velocity. Without KE you can't do work. Velocity enables the bullet to perform as designed. So if we agree velocity is important then we must agree energy is important. Different lens but I understand your thought.

Bullet impact energy, simply another variable one can use when comparing projectiles, for a said game animal, using same or different calibers.

The 6.5 CM is intriguing I will say that.

Please explain how “work” or KE kills, in detail.

 

[wind gypsy]

Spomer is as fudd as it gets. Nothing he says should be taken seriously.

I think his article and what ive seen on this video was a pretty fair representation regardless of where his bias may lay. Seems like a good one to really get those with their feels tied to a cartridge to click and watch for sure.

 

[nobody]

I also prefer the fit and form of xbolts in stock form over tikkas. Stock shape is better imo probably even with a vertical grip tikka. Recoil pad is the best I’ve ever had. Mag is actually perfectly flush which is nice for carrying. I can shoot my factory 300 wsm stainless stalker tighter than any factory tikka I’ve tried.

The trigger kind of sucks though and the aftermarket support really sucks. And that’s primarily why I have 4 tikkas and 1 xbolt.

I tend to agree with this. The X Bolt is ergonomically a great rifle, and there's a lot to like about what Browning offers with them. But between the low aftermarket support and the issues/weaknesses Form pointed out a few posts before this one, plus the low tolerance for action screw torque and the crappy trigger, I found myself always wondering in the back of my head if the last bump had moved something, or what I was gonna do when the barrel was shot out or the trigger went down. It's why I ultimately ended up trading the X Bolt in for a Tikka. It hurt a bit considering the X Bolt was the most accurate rifle I had ever owned, and I still haven't fired the Tikka to find out how it shoots. But the peace of mind is worth a lot.

 

[KenLee]

If I was going to shoot monos I would not want a CM. I'd go up in case capacity for more speed. The CM stands out with 130-140 softer bullets.

True. CM is on the slow end of slinging monos

 

[Buzby]

Yes but KE is tied to velocity. Without KE you can't do work. Velocity enables the bullet to perform as designed. So if we agree velocity is important then we must agree energy is important. Different lens but I understand your thought.

Bullet impact energy, simply another variable one can use when comparing projectiles, for a said game animal, using same or different calibers.

The 6.5 CM is intriguing I will say that.

Yes, energy is required for work. How much energy does it take to make a lethal hole in an animal? Not much. My recurve bow makes about 50ft-lbs of KE. Just about any centerfire cartridge produces enough energy with proper bullet construction.

 

[bmart2622]

With a razor sharp broadhead on the front of it

 

[prm]

I’ll go with a min KE of 1028ft/lbs for a 143 ELD-X

 

[gerry35]

I don't doubt at all that the smaller 6.5's will kill moose (no elk here) well and would have no issues carrying my 260 Rem.

Here's the problem I see, grizzlies are plentiful and aggressive especially in our better goat areas so I prefer to carry something bigger that will make a bigger hole. I know a couple of guys who have had to shoot bears up in the goat areas that came in fast looking for trouble. Twice when I have been out we almost had to shoot but the bear backed off eventually but it was super close to having to shoot.

Having seen the wound channels of lots of bullets from 6.5 all the way to 375 the bigger bores do open up bigger holes on average. I'll carry my 260 for black bear this spring and feel totally confident but for goat I prefer to pack my 35 Whelen.

 

[AZ_Hunter_2000]

i can understand being annoyed by hype and fanboys of things, but to make a personal purchase decision based on other people annoying you instead of the needs you personally have is wild.

If a creedmoor fits your use case why the hell would what someone else acts like even factor into your decision? Just wild to me.

Because some folks do want to avoid being bullied by some anonymous "in crowd" on Rokslide and other places on the Internet or they are wanting to fit in with the same.

Look at this site. Often if an individual says anything positive about the 6.5 CM their perceived appearance and/or clothing choice gets mocked ("flat brim") not to mention their perceived sexuality ("gender bender").

End of the day, folks should use what makes the most sense for them and not what some anonymous individuals on a web site thinks.

 

[Mountainrancher]

The only reason to own a 6.5 creed is because tikka doesn’t factory chamber 6mm creed

 

[BjornF16]

"Initial" Kinetic Energy = Work + "Final" Kinetic Energy
Work = Force x Distance (think of the bullet moving through the animal)
Pressure = Force/Area
Stress is basically the objects resistance to the pressure that it experiences

Materials deform based on the stresses they experience along with the object's geometry, modulus of elasticity, yield strength, ultimate strength, etc. Even though bullet mfg marketing departments refer to "minimum impact velocity", materials do not actually deform based on velocity (the earth spins pretty fast....).

Since velocity is part of kinetic energy, you could somewhat simplify to "minimum impact velocity" IF you were speaking about a single bullet (single caliber, geometry, material composition, etc). The main reason the distinction matters is because marketing refers to a whole bullet line. Would you think it'd be okay if a single BC was given for an entire bullet line? What about a single MV for an entire line of ammo?

You don't even have to run through a complete finite element analysis to see that there will be a standout in any bullet line as well as a poor performer (particularly when you are designing a bullet to perform well in terms of interior, exterior, and terminal ballistics). The differences can get into the double digit percentages. So a bullet that is marketed with a "minimum impact velocity" of 1,600 fps (for example) for the entire bullet line could actually be +/- 1,800 fps (for example) for your caliber/weight of bullet in that line (a difference of about a couple hundred yards). But if you use the standout bullet in that line, you could get all the way down to 1,600 fps.

I get the old fudd adage about minimum energy needed to kill, and I get that those statements hit some people in the feels. That's not what I'm talking about at all. I'm speaking to the fundamental facts surrounding the mechanics that describe how, and to what extent, objects deform (bullets expanding in this case).

To go on a tangent, look at those minimum energy 'requirements', correlate them to a typical 30-06 load back in the 60's, and what ranges that would result in. Whether people knew it or not, I think they were applying the wrong term (energy) to what they experienced in the field, which was past _____ yards, it was pretty tough to consistently drop animals with the ammo/rifles/scopes and skill level of the average shooter during that time. And whether people understand it or not now, they are using the wrong term (impact velocity) to describe what's required to cause a bullet to expand......maybe they are just contemporary fudds?

Lol…I’m an engineer.

Every bullet would have a different “minimum” KE to upset…why? Because they are constructed differently or, within same construction , weigh different.

Which is one reason why velocity is the dominant factor.

Say a 77gr FMJ and a 77gr TMK both impact a critter at same velocity: they both have the same KE and momentum. The direct path they follow misses both the heart, lungs and CNS (but barely miss the lungs).

If you’re analyzing by “energy“, you’ll have equal results.

But we know that simply isn’t the case, don’t we?

 

[DangerRanger]

Because some folks do want to avoid being bullied by some anonymous "in crowd" on Rokslide and other places on the Internet or they are wanting to fit in with the same.

Look at this site. Often if an individual says anything positive about the 6.5 CM their perceived appearance and/or clothing choice gets mocked ("flat brim") not to mention their perceived sexuality ("gender bender").

End of the day, folks should use what makes the most sense for them and not what some anonymous individuals on a web site thinks.

People need to get over what anonymous people online think. Nothing here matters, and neither do the opinions of people that think anything about you based on the cartridge you use. 7th grade stuff.