Is a 6.5 PRC enough? Do I need a 7mm?

[LongWayAround]

6.8 is another great recommendation. Less of a barrel burner than the 27 Nosler and fits in a short action. I chose the latter for its marginally flatter trajectory and better energy on target.

Yea. Both wonderful options if you don't want to be able to buy a box of factory ammo.

Just looking at Midway, one option for 27 Nosler at $86/box.

Two options for 6.8W, $63/box for jacketed soft point or $74/box for Bergers.

 

[Dan Carey]

I've been to the range, I've seen people shoot. If I were a guide and didn't know the client I would insist on a 375 H&H for jack rabbits.

 

[HandgunHTR]

6.5 prc is fine for elk, but you clearly need another rifle. I recommend a 6.8 Western

Bullet construction is more important than caliber. Folks on this site are obsessed with BC and easy accuracy of match bullets and think “crowd sourcing” data is science. The Earth would still be flat if that was the case.

Looking at actual evidence and then forming conclusions based on that evidence is actually how experiments work. The fact that the evidence is "crowd sourced" has nothing to do with it. Based on your logic game management agencies should just give up on game checks and surveys as a means to collect data.

And by the way, the reason the earth isn't flat anymore is because people went out and actually did things that proved it wasn't. Kinda like people using match bullets to kill things.

Finally, your "properly constructed" bullets don't do a lick of good when they don't hit the vitals, so putting a bullet where it is aimed is the number one variable when it comes to killing stuff.

And to the OP, yes, the 6.5 PRC is more than enough.

 

[ChromeHound]

Yea. Both wonderful options if you don't want to be able to buy a box of factory ammo.

Just looking at Midway, one option for 27 Nosler at $86/box.

Two options for 6.8W, $63/box for jacketed soft point or $74/box for Bergers.

Yeah, it's not cheap for sure. 6.5PRC isn't exactly cheap or universally available either. If cost/availability is the primary consideration, 7mm rem mag or 300 win mag are kings of that hill.

 

[HandgunHTR]

I've been to the range, I've seen people shoot. If I were a guide and didn't know the client I would insist on a 375 H&H for jack rabbits.

I too have been to multiple ranges and seen people shoot like crap. Amazingly, when you let those same people shoot a rifle that is properly set up, that shoots a cartridge that isn't going to beat the snot out of them, and it has a suppressor on it, those same people start to hit what they are aiming at.
9 out 10 times the reason they can't shoot is that they are shooting something that is causing poor mechanics (i.e. a flinch or poor follow-through) or something is wrong with their set up (improper torques, loose screws, etc).

 

[Hnthrdr]

Yeah, it's not cheap for sure. 6.5PRC isn't exactly cheap or universally available either. If cost/availability is the primary consideration, 7mm rem mag or 300 win mag are kings of that hill.

If it’s cost and availability are a thing then look no further than .308 or 6.5cm…. They will kill everything just as dead at reasonable hunting distance at any “magnum”

 

[khuber84]

Wait.......earth ain't flat, and we don't live under the firmament?! I had better go rethink my life.

 

[Lou270]

Looking at actual evidence and then forming conclusions based on that evidence is actually how experiments work. The fact that the evidence is "crowd sourced" has nothing to do with it. Based on your logic game management agencies should just give up on game checks and surveys as a means to collect data.

And by the way, the reason the earth isn't flat anymore is because people went out and actually did things that proved it wasn't. Kinda like people using match bullets to kill things.

Finally, your "properly constructed" bullets don't do a lick of good when they don't hit the vitals, so putting a bullet where it is aimed is the number one variable when it comes to killing stuff.

And to the OP, yes, the 6.5 PRC

You will have no problem putting a properly constructed bullet in the right spot assuming you have no problem putting a match bullet in the right spot

Lou

 

[khuber84]

You will have no problem putting a properly constructed bullet in the right spot.

Lou

Your idea of proper construction differs from other people's ideas, that's fine! Shoot what you want. Your opinion on bullet performance differs from manys' here. That's not a problem. But don't be frustrated when your mindset is challenged by the contrary when it's been proven to be successful.

 

[ChromeHound]

If it’s cost and availability are a thing then look no further than .308 or 6.5cm…. They will kill everything just as dead at reasonable hunting distance at any “magnum”

Also great recommendations. The good ol' 30-06 would fit that category too. Now that we have come full circle on cartridges and I have managed to get us way off topic...... My answer is yes the 6.5 PRC will take elk. I, personally am more comfortable with a heavier bullet moving faster for animals that can push toward 1000 pounds. Especially if I screw up and put the bullet through heavy bone. Ultimately, shot placement is the MOST important thing. If a magnum causes you to flinch, you are better off with the softer recoiling option.

 

[Lou270]

You will have no problem putting a properly constructed bullet in the right spot assuming you have no problem putting a match bullet in the right spot

Lou

Your idea of proper construction differs from other people's ideas, that's fine! Shoot what you want. Your opinion on bullet performance differs from manys' here. That's not a problem. But don't be frustrated when your mindset is challenged by the contrary when it's been proven to be successful.

100% agree but match bullets are not designed for hunting, particularly eldm. They of course may work, but hunting bullets are designed and tested to deform within a certain performance window. A bunch of guys saying they get good results does not change that especially when when consider that any bad results somebody posts get dismissed (ie the guide is a fudd). That is downside of crowd surfing information and reason early scientists were often persecuted as heretics

Watch about 43:40 in if you want to hear some details about why eldm may not work, particularly at the extreme range where the slight BC increase would actually matter vs say an eldx or other hunting bullet

 

[LongWayAround]

Too bad this one wasn't properly constructed.

Everyone knows you can tell a "properly constructed" bullet because it has a deer on the box.

 

[khuber84]

100% agree but match bullets are not designed for hunting, particularly eldm. They of course may work, but hunting bullets are designed and tested to deform within a certain performance window. A bunch of guys saying they get good results does not change that especially when when consider that any bad results somebody posts get dismissed (ie the guide is a fudd). That is downside of crowd surfing information and reason early scientists were often persecuted as heretics

Watch about 43:40 in if you want to hear some details about why eldm may not work, particularly at the extreme range where the slight BC increase would actually matter vs say an eldx or other hunting bullet

Barnes are touted as excellent proper constructed bullets, and they are horrible at killing. In my family and immediate hunting circle we fill 40+ tags a year, 90% of us use match bullets. 100s of animals taken successfully, minimal rodeo BS. I take my experiences as data for what I use. I've tried solids one season, never again unless it's a requirement of the unit.

 

[Lou270]

Barnes are touted as excellent proper constructed bullets, and they are horrible at killing. In my family and immediate hunting circle we fill 40+ tags a year, 90% of us use match bullets. 100s of animals taken successfully, minimal rodeo BS. I take my experiences as data for what I use. I've tried solids one season, never again unless it's a requirement of the unit.

I always hear how barnes and accubonds are horrible at killing on this site. I don’t use any bullet or bullet type exclusively but they have always killed fine when I used them. As noted they also have a very good reputation for killing everywhere but the few people on this site. Got a bit of an echo chamber going on maybe?

Lou

 

[Lou270]

View attachment 905873

Too bad this one wasn't properly constructed.

Everyone knows you can tell a "properly constructed" bullet because it has a deer on the box.

I always hear how barnes and accubonds are horrible at killing on this site. I don’t use any bullet or bullet type exclusively but they have always killed fine when I used them. As noted they also have a very good reputation for killing everywhere but the few people on this site. Got a bit of an echo chamber going on maybe?

Lou

You assume not properly constructed means that a bullet won’t look like a “hunting bullet” sometimes. Some varmint bullets are designed to fragment within a performance window. Some hunting bullets are designed to expand to 2x and maintain 100% of weight. A lighter partition for ex may expand to slightly less than 2x and maintain 60-70%. A berger will penetrate a few in and come apart. There are features in all of these bullets to ensure this repeatedly happens within the performance window. It does not mean they are always the fastest killers but the performance is repeatable

An eldm for ex, has no design feature to intiate expansion at a certain lower velocity limit nor hold together at a certain upper velocity limit. It may or may not happen depending on impact velocity, what part of animal is hit, etc…. No amount of this happened once for me or my family or internet expert Fred gives a reliable performance window since the mystery misses never count as anything but misses (after all the experts never miss even at 6-800 yards where lower thesholds matter and a wounded animal couldn’t possibly escape) . Hunting bullets are tested with ordinance gel to work a certain way in a certain window and continually tested as there are changes in a controlled environment. If there are fails they are understood and something is adjusted. This is backed up with field tests

Lou

 

[Q_Sertorius]

The only reason they are called “match” bullets is because mothers of America, human rights groups, and Pentagon lawyers would freak out if they were called “murder death bullets.” I used to laugh giving the LOAC briefs about how the “match bullets” we used were only hollow-pointed for superior ballistic performance, not terminal performance. And that made them kosher for military use. But anyone who saw the wounds knew better.

The performance of these bullets is as consistent - within the design parameters - as any partition or other “hunting bullets.” When bullets “fail”, they fail because they don’t upset properly. Not because they upset too easily. A “tougher bullet” is harder to upset. So, the tougher your bullet, the more likely it is that you will get a pencil-through. A match bullet isn’t going to break up and fail to penetrate an elk shoulder any more than it will fail to pass through both your shoulders.

If you don’t want to use them, then don’t. But don’t talk nonsense about their performance.


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

 

[Lou270]

You assume not properly constructed means that a bullet won’t look like a “hunting bullet” sometimes. Some varmint bullets are designed to fragment within a performance window. Some hunting bullets are designed to expand to 2x and maintain 100% of weight. A lighter partition for ex may expand to slightly less than 2x and maintain 60-70%. A berger will penetrate a few in and come apart. There are features in all of these bullets to ensure this repeatedly happens within the performance window. It does not mean they are always the fastest killers but the performance is repeatable

An eldm for ex, has no design feature to intiate expansion at a certain lower velocity limit nor hold together at a certain upper velocity limit. It may or may not happen depending on impact velocity, what part of animal is hit, etc…. No amount of this happened once for me or my family or internet expert Fred gives a reliable performance window since the mystery misses never count as anything but misses (after all the experts never miss even at 6-800 yards where lower thesholds matter and a wounded animal couldn’t possibly escape) . Hunting bullets are tested with ordinance gel to work a certain way in a certain window and continually tested as there are changes in a controlled environment. If there are fails they are understood and something is adjusted. This is backed up with field tests

Lou

The only reason they are called “match” bullets is because mothers of America, human rights groups, and Pentagon lawyers would freak out if they were called “murder death bullets.” I used to laugh giving the LOAC briefs about how the “match bullets” we used were only hollow-pointed for superior ballistic performance, not terminal performance. And that made them kosher for military use. But anyone who saw the wounds knew better.

This is half truth and often misused to rationalize match bullets for hunting. For military purposes the Hague Convention comes into play and using the word “match” in the name does not reduce scrutiny. A history is here:

Open Tip Match: When a “Hollow Point” is Not a Hollow Point – Small Arms Defense Journal

sadefensejournal.com

A bullet “which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which do not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions [skiving].” Are rejected even if they are “match type”

As for regular law enforcement there is no such restrictions. How many law enforcement agencies issue “match ammo” for their duty pistols. The fact something like a edlm lends itself to law enforcement is because over penetration is a concern and hunting bullets with features to enhance penetration like thicker jackets, bonding, etc would grossly over penetrate at the high velocities/energy of rifle cartridges except where high barrier penetration is needed

The performance of these bullets is as consistent - within the design parameters - as any partition or other “hunting bullets.” When bullets “fail”, they fail because they don’t upset properly. Not because they upset too easily. A “tougher bullet” is harder to upset. So, the tougher your bullet, the more likely it is that you will get a pencil-through. A match bullet isn’t going to break up and fail to penetrate an elk shoulder any more than it will fail to pass through both your shoulders.

If you don’t want to use them, then don’t. But don’t talk nonsense about their performance.


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

As for design parameters, again you are using half truths/rationalizing. An eldm does not have a “design window”. Look at the video I sent earlier. Hornady team is very adament on this. Eldm (according to hornady and can easily be seen with sectioning) have a uniform jacket and lead all the way to the tip. This maximizes concentricity and BC but not designed to start expanding or hold together at a certain velocity window. It is also not tested according to Hornady so if something changes - say a lot of copper etc. the characteristics may change. They don’t care. Period. Any case, the jacket thickness and design of the tip is what initiates expansion and a hunting bullet like the eldx and ablr for ex have tips that are designed to expand at low impact velocity. They are tougher towards the base (ie thicker) because they are designed to retain weight but that does not mean the “tip” is tougher. The ablr has a tip so soft it will deform under seating if use the wrong seating stem or have high neck tension (reason people think they are finicky I expect). A partition also has a very soft tip that expands easily despite having a partition to halt expansion. Just does not have a high BC to push range out

Agree, use what you want. However, at least understand what you are using and recommending to others without the rationalizing

Lou

 

[HandgunHTR]

You assume not properly constructed means that a bullet won’t look like a “hunting bullet” sometimes. Some varmint bullets are designed to fragment within a performance window. Some hunting bullets are designed to expand to 2x and maintain 100% of weight. A lighter partition for ex may expand to slightly less than 2x and maintain 60-70%. A berger will penetrate a few in and come apart. There are features in all of these bullets to ensure this repeatedly happens within the performance window. It does not mean they are always the fastest killers but the performance is repeatable

An eldm for ex, has no design feature to intiate expansion at a certain lower velocity limit nor hold together at a certain upper velocity limit. It may or may not happen depending on impact velocity, what part of animal is hit, etc…. No amount of this happened once for me or my family or internet expert Fred gives a reliable performance window since the mystery misses never count as anything but misses (after all the experts never miss even at 6-800 yards where lower thesholds matter and a wounded animal couldn’t possibly escape) . Hunting bullets are tested with ordinance gel to work a certain way in a certain window and continually tested as there are changes in a controlled environment. If there are fails they are understood and something is adjusted. This is backed up with field tests

Lou

Just out of curiosity, how much experience do you have shooting animals with match bullets? Or are you just "crowd sourcing" your information on their performance on animals?

 

[Bluefish]

From what I think I have heard on the Hornady podcast, the eld-m was designed off the eld-x, but for higher accuracy. Hence the X that’s slightly lighter than its corresponding M, due to jacket thickness differences. Jacket is thinner on the M as it has less effect on accuracy that way.

Pretty sure Hornady doesn’t test production M’s in gel, so in theory they could vary in on animal performance. It probably doesn’t matter as the thinner jacket should upset more. For an M the failure could be too much upset and not enough penetration.

 

[Dan Carey]

Its apparent from reading these posts, the factory guys don't know anything about the bullets they make.