Great video never did jump on the 6.5 bandwagon myself.

[cuttingedge]

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.

Why would you hear fans say bad stuff about what they are fans of?

Not in this case. I shot it. I shot them. It makes no difference what the bullet does at 400 or more yards when it won't shoot well at 100.

It is just another selection in a lot of viable options. Most decent rifle calibers will shoot well beyond ethical hunting distances.

And I don't hate the cartridge, I do hate wasting money trying to find a decent result.

On paper it looked great. Over an inch at 100 is not amusing at all.

 

[BjornF16]

Not really, but I see what you’re trying to get at. I also did not say that a uniform KE is what anyone should use.


No, it’s not. Each individual bullet has its own “minimum impact velocity”. Since you’re an engineer, you should be able to run the back-of-the-envelope calcs pretty quick and see for yourself. I have, and it’s pretty obvious to see the differences across a bullet line.


Huh? This is a silly strawman argument, and isn’t tied at all to anything I’ve said.

Not trying to infer that you said KE is what anyone should use...I should've been more specific. I was just amused at the level of detail and length you had in that post and it prompted my response.

Are you suggesting that every singe individual bullet within a particular line (e.g. 77 TMK) has its own "minimum impact velocity"? Or against a line of bullets with different weights/caliber (i.e. 77 TMK vs 130 TMK)? I'm hoping you meant the latter.

Strawman argument? No, not at all. Again, didn't mean to attribute this to your post. There are folks who advocate minimum "energy" without respect to bullet construction. For example, I used to always hear: "you need a minimum of 1800 fps AND 1500 ft-lbs at impact to be ethical".

 

[204guy]

 

[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

Better stated, the “work” on an animal is the difference between impact KE minus exit KE (if the bullet exits).

But that still doesn’t explain how energy kills. It just indicates that some energy was “transferred” into the animal.

But how much of that energy was expended in a vital area?

What if all the energy was “dumped” (bullet comes to a stop within animal without any bullet mass exiting) with only one lung penetrated or disrupted to the point of becoming inoperative?

I still maintain that velocity drives the performance of a particular bullet. It may or may not apply across that complete line of bullets. If you want to apply an equation to determine what the impact energy state of that particular bullet is, that’s cool. But there isn’t a universal energy state that is the determining factor of whether a bullet will kill or not. Bullets kill by mechanical disruption of vitals. The size of permanent and temporary wound cavity isn’t driven by energy state alone; there are several factors that will drive these sizes to include shape of leading edge of deformed bullet and amount of fragmentation and its path.

As @PNWGATOR stated in his .223 on big game thread, bullet construction (and appropriate bullet impact velocity for that bullet) has more to do with killing than headstamp (or energy).

 

[Antares]

I like to say I’m shooting a “.260 Rem variant.” That really confuses the sh** out of 6.5CM haters. They don’t know how to feel about that.

 

[Buzby]

Why would you hear fans say bad stuff about what they are fans of?

Not in this case. I shot it. I shot them. It makes no difference what the bullet does at 400 or more yards when it won't shoot well at 100.

It is just another selection in a lot of viable options. Most decent rifle calibers will shoot well beyond ethical hunting distances.

And I don't hate the cartridge, I do hate wasting money trying to find a decent result.

On paper it looked great. Over an inch at 100 is not amusing at all.

Im saying no one is claiming 6.5cm is “blood sugar voodoo black magic,” or there’s some special qualities that only it has. I’m always hearing people claim that some one said shooting 6.5cm “turned them into a sniper,” or some other BS. Personally I’ve never heard anyone say something along those lines.

I think people are over hyping the hype

 

[ElPollo]

I like to say I’m shooting a “.260 Rem variant.” That really confuses the sh** out of 6.5CM haters. They don’t know how to feel about that.

I am partial to the term .264 Pseudo Swede.

 

[KenLee]

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.

The people you know must be smarter than my locals. I've ended up with some perfectly good rifles after folks bought their first 6.5 Creedmoor and "didn't need that junk rifle anymore".

 

[RyanT26]

A fudd puts up a fuddy Clickbait video and we’re back to arguing about will a 6.5 CM kill.
If only there were several threads on this site of people killing shit with a 6.5, that might help clear this up.

 

[Harvey_NW]

Im saying no one is claiming 6.5cm is “blood sugar voodoo black magic,” or there’s some special qualities that only it has. I’m always hearing people claim that some one said shooting 6.5cm “turned them into a sniper,” or some other BS. Personally I’ve never heard anyone say something along those lines.

I think people are over hyping the hype

I'm not sure how much social media you're exposed to, but I think that's what those quotes are in regards to. A lot of the "influencers" are just as bad about "anyone can do this OTC hunt" as they are about "anyone can shoot that far, all you need is a 6.5CM and some Hornady match grade ammo, and a Vortex optic". If you need proof just watch a Fierce Firearms or Muley Freak production. They're cringeworthy.

 

[ARK_Ginger]

No, it’s not. Each individual bullet has its own “minimum impact velocity”. Since you’re an engineer, you should be able to run the back-of-the-envelope calcs pretty quick and see for yourself. I have, and it’s pretty obvious to see the differences across a bullet line.

Are you implying that each caliber in a bullet line such as the ELD-X will have a different minimum impact velocity?

 

[Ryan Avery]

"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 ,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?

Serious questions. Do you ever go out and kill animals?

 

[KenLee]

Serious questions. Do you ever go out and kill animals?

Made my head hurt. I just sling splatter bullets. Hand new hunters rifles loaded with somewhat harder bullets to make sure there's an exit in case the deer get out of sight. That's how limited my thought process is these days.

 

[jonpall]

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.

I thought you were more of a small caliber guy. But I guess this thread is from March..

 

[wind gypsy]

I thought you were more of a small caliber guy. But I guess this thread is from March..

I’ve definitely moved more that direction since March. I’ve been a “you don’t need a big gun” guy for a while but still almost solely owned magnum hunting rifles.. the more i shoot suppressed smaller cartridges the less I want to shoot my magnums. Also, next year will likely be the third in a row that I don’t hunt elk with a rifle. Been just archery hunting elk lately.

 

[MattB]

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.

The bolded is a fallacy and where your argument falls apart. You can have a well-designed .224 cal 77 gr. bullet and a well-designed .308 cal 180 gr. bullet at the same velocity that may kill equally as well, but the .224 call will have less than 1/2 the energy. In this case, velocity will correlate highly with bullet performance but energy will not.

 

[Mule3006Elk]

The bolded is a fallacy and where your argument falls apart. You can have a well-designed .224 cal 77 gr. bullet and a well-designed .308 cal 180 gr. bullet at the same velocity that may kill equally as well, but the .224 call will have less than 1/2 the energy. In this case, velocity will correlate highly with bullet performance but energy will not.

To be clear, I understand your lens but I understand what I mean by KE. I do not have a physics degree so I'm probably not using the correct term? In the ballistics world I have learned you can't use the term KE w/o people losing their mind. LOL

FWIW I don't focus on KE to determine my max shot on any game. I do believe every bullet has a minimal (not always what the manufacturer states) velocity to perform as expected. Wether that is called KE, energy, work, or just simply velocity, I don't know. Please feel free to kindly educate me.

 

[BjornF16]

To be clear, I understand your lens but I understand what I mean by KE. I do not have a physics degree so I'm probably not using the correct term? In the ballistics world have learned you can't use the term KE w/o people losing their mind. LOL

FWIW I don't focus on KE to determine my max shot on any game. I do believe every bullet has a minimal (not always what the manufacturer states) velocity to perform as expected. Wether that is called KE, energy, work, or just simply velocity, I don't know. Please feel free to kindly educate me.

If we find (through “experimentation”) that a particular bullet exhibits effective terminal performance at a particular minimum impact velocity, why go through all the mental (calculator) gymnastics to determine that KE?

Wouldn’t it be simpler just to discuss the relevant factor (impact velocity)?

 

[Mule3006Elk]

If we find (through “experimentation”) that a particular bullet exhibits effective terminal performance at a particular minimum impact velocity, why go through all the mental (calculator) gymnastics to determine that KE?

Wouldn’t it be simpler just to discuss the relevant factor (impact velocity)?

I agree. I focus on velocity. I figured higher velocity more KE but again I'm not likely using the term correctly.

 

[Tmac]

So if I bought a Swedish Mauser Model 38 in 6.5x55 around 25-30 years ago, and a stainless Ruger in 260 Rem with the gorgeous boat paddle stock about 20 years ago, am I on the 6.5 bandwagon?

Don’t own a 6.5 CM yet, do I need to get one to join the club?