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

[BigCountry49]

How do you measure the exit energy?

Would be tricky in real life. I assumed this was just a made up scenario.

 

[Dan Carey]

With a chronograph and this formula. KE = M x V x VKinetic energy equals mass times velocity squared

 

[BigCountry49]

With a chronograph and this formula. KE = M x V x VKinetic energy equals mass times velocity squared

It’s actually mass times velocity squared divided by two. I figured it would be tricky to get a chronograph behind an animal to measure bullet speed leaving the animal.

 

[Dan Carey]

Maybe today, however we now have radar chronographs and in the future we may be able to get that figure.
This is mostly an exercise into Hydraulic shock (bullet expansion) vs penetration (bullet hole) to vent blood out of the body. They both will kill the animal.

 

[BCDJR]

I get a kick out of the love of heavy for caliber bullets and focus on speed on Rokslide, but god forbid someone uses a measure that includes speed twice along with bullet weight! Bigger bullets going faster can do more - it’s a silly argument to argue against basic physics. *chuckle*

There was always a group that used small lightly constructed bullets, so Rokslide is nothing new, many of us just like bigger things.

Use something that barely works at a minimal level if you want to. I get groceries with a one ton pickup and never once thought twice at what the dude with a Smart Car is thinking or that he is right. Minimalists seem to cry the loudest that anything more than needed is a waste. I don’t doubt the Smart Car dude is have his morning coffee as we speak talking crap about my 1985 Ford. I prefer an over powered gas lawn mower, while our electric Makita mower cuts well enough to get the job done with the elegance of a cordless drill.

That being said shooters should progress from smaller rifles to larger ones only if they shoot well and want to. If someone shoots so little they barely function with a small rifle that makes the decision an easy one. Also this strange trend to only have a single rifle almost requires the shooter to have something better suited to practice than one rifle for practice and another good pure hunting rifle.

Make fun of fudds all you like, we were killing things just fine back then and my 1960 Remington with wood stock still shoots better than the vast majority of junk that Tacticool dudes are shooting at the range. Needed or not, our old energy rules of thumb worked well. We didn’t have to have hundreds of posts convincing each other with autopsy photos - we knew what worked because we killed stuff. Take your Smart Car off my lawn!

Yes…and maybe we can all agree that perfect shot placement helps. In the real world of hunting in various countries, various terrains , elevations and elements you will find you rarely have a perfect shot. Been there and done that. I was in very thick cover once 60 yards from a Cape buffalo in brush and timber. Had a .375 with 300 grain expansion and solids alternating. I never felt so under gunned in my life.

 

[eoperator]

With a chronograph and this formula. KE = M x V x VKinetic energy equals mass times velocity squared

You forgot to subtract W² (whallup squared).

 

[Dan Carey]

I can't remember all I once knew.

 

[Packmansion]

We could get all emotional and defensive or we could just look at the evidence. I guess thats a personal choice.

 

[Packmansion]

Yes…and maybe we can all agree that perfect shot placement helps. In the real world of hunting in various countries, various terrains , elevations and elements you will find you rarely have a perfect shot. Been there and done that. I was in very thick cover once 60 yards from a Cape buffalo in brush and timber. Had a .375 with 300 grain expansion and solids alternating. I never felt so under gunned in my life.

Shot placement and bullet selection is everything. We cant all agree. Your perception is based on how you feel. You base so much on feelings im surprised you're not some left wing hippie. I would never buy a 300 prc because some ted nugent impersator went hunting with the price of whales and the prince was a fighter jet pilot. Not everyone is like you. Please continue to use caveman reasoning all you'd like but you won't get any agreement.

Conclusion: 6.5 PRC is more than enough, its effective out to ranges unethical for 99% of hunters. 6.5 PRC is no less effective than any 7mm, 30 caliber magnum catridge. A 6.5 creedmoor is more than enough but there are no cave paintings for this cartridge since it was invented after written language. Caveman logic says 270 winchester good because many cave paintings with 270. And a 6.5 prc exceeds all caveman defined metrics found on cave wall paintings, caveman stories and interpretive dances commonly shared regarding the subject of the 270 win. So whether you know how to read or you're a full blown homoerectus the 6.5 prc is good to go.

 

[HandgunHTR]

I get a kick out of the love of heavy for caliber bullets and focus on speed on Rokslide, but god forbid someone uses a measure that includes speed twice along with bullet weight! Bigger bullets going faster can do more - it’s a silly argument to argue against basic physics. *chuckle*

If you actually understood physics, you would understand why it is a silly measurement of killing potential to begin with. But people like to think they are smart and the firearms industry gave them something to feel smart about and now it is zeitgeist. Bigger bullets going faster have the potential to do more. That is all. What they actually do is dependent on a whole bunch of other factors that matter way more than the energy that they have.

There was always a group that used small lightly constructed bullets, so Rokslide is nothing new, many of us just like bigger things.

And now we begin with the misrepresentations. What that admittedly small group of people are proponents of are smaller diameter, heavy for caliber bullets. They may be "lightly constructed" in relation to monos or bonded bullets, but they are no more lightly constructed than the SuperX or Coreloct bullets of yore that were used during the years that you so long to be back in. Heavy for caliber bullets with large SDs have been killing large animals here and abroad for a very long time. The only reason they didn't become more popular in the US sooner is that the firearms companies were being run by what I can only assume was a bunch of guys who spent time with Uncle Sam oversees and didn't want any of that European BS here in the States.

Use something that barely works at a minimal level if you want to. I get groceries with a one ton pickup and never once thought twice at what the dude with a Smart Car is thinking or that he is right. Minimalists seem to cry the loudest that anything more than needed is a waste. I don’t doubt the Smart Car dude is have his morning coffee as we speak talking crap about my 1985 Ford. I prefer an over powered gas lawn mower, while our electric Makita mower cuts well enough to get the job done with the elegance of a cordless drill.

So begins the outright falsehoods and subtle belittling. You use words like "barely works at a minimum level", yet the experience of the proponents shows something completely different. And in most cases, those people are bringing the receipts. I am sure, like in other threads and on other forums, you will dismiss that evidence as false or say something to effect of "Yeah, but, what about all the wounded animals that you didn't post about?", in essence calling all those folks liars. My question there would be why would they? Do you think they sit around their houses and rub their hands together getting all hot and bothered about more guys going into the field to wound animals like a bunch of psychopaths? Also, if using smaller diameter, heavy for caliber bullets was so ineffective, why have so many people started doing it? I have no doubt that if it were as minimally effective as you claim that every other thread in this forum would be someone screaming about how it failed for them.
As for the car comments, this is a strawman that you are using to call those proponents of what you don't like weak or somehow less of a man than you. In my experience the people who resort to this type of comparisons only do so because the only way that they can feel better about themselves is to make others "less than" in their own eyes.

That being said shooters should progress from smaller rifles to larger ones only if they shoot well and want to.

Why? If they are proficient with a "small" rifle and it does everything they need it to do, why would they go bigger other than to stroke their own ego?

Make fun of fudds all you like, we were killing things just fine back then and my 1960 Remington with wood stock still shoots better than the vast majority of junk that Tacticool dudes are shooting at the range. Needed or not, our old energy rules of thumb worked well. We didn’t have to have hundreds of posts convincing each other with autopsy photos - we knew what worked because we killed stuff. Take your Smart Car off my lawn!

Based on that logic, you should toss your phone and computer into the trash. We were communicating just fine with land-lines and pen and paper.
As for the "energy rules of thumb" what they did was drive shooter to believe that bigger is better and therefore in to the false sense of comfort that drove them away from basic shooting fundamentals and practice.
And, I will also argue that I too have been killing stuff, and have been for many years, however I grew out of my ignorance of belief that I needed a big bullet going fast once I applied my actual knowledge of physics to my hobby and thought about it critically. I then made incremental changes and studied the results. I now use what I know to be true, not what I believe to be true.

 

[BCDJR]

Shot placement and bullet selection is everything. We cant all agree. Your perception is based on how you feel. You base so much on feelings im surprised you're not some left wing hippie. I would never buy a 300 prc because some ted nugent impersator went hunting with the price of whales and the prince was a fighter jet pilot. Not everyone is like you. Please continue to use caveman reasoning all you'd like but you won't get any agreement.

Conclusion: 6.5 PRC is more than enough, its effective out to ranges unethical for 99% of hunters. 6.5 PRC is no less effective than any 7mm, 30 caliber magnum catridge. A 6.5 creedmoor is more than enough but there are no cave paintings for this cartridge since it was invented after written language. Caveman logic says 270 winchester good because many cave paintings with 270. And a 6.5 prc exceeds all caveman defined metrics found on cave wall paintings, caveman stories and interpretive dances commonly shared regarding the subject of the 270 win. So whether you know how to read or you're a full blown homoerectus the 6.5 prc is good to go.

Keep drinking the cool aid……it’s good for you

 

[Q_Sertorius]

Keep drinking the cool aid……it’s good for you

You continue to attack the man, not his argument. Until you can explain how a 7 PRC makes the animal “deader” than a 6.5 PRC, you aren’t making any points.


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

 

[TaperPin]

If you actually understood physics, you would understand why it is a silly measurement of killing potential to begin with. But people like to think they are smart and the firearms industry gave them something to feel smart about and now it is zeitgeist. Bigger bullets going faster have the potential to do more. That is all. What they actually do is dependent on a whole bunch of other factors that matter way more than the energy that they have.

I have enough physics classes under my belt to understand work requires energy. You agree with me it’s the measure of potential. That makes us both smart. I have never argued against different bullets requiring different amounts of energy to kill things in different situations. I simply claim that energy has been a reliable measure with commonly used bullets to compare different cartridges - it simply works. You want to nit pick energy figures apart, but like it or not they work - I have a 6br and 6-06 - grade school kids can tell the one with more energy kills better. As a high school kid shooting 130 gr ballistic tips from a 270 it was obvious my older mentor with 140 gr ballistic tips from a 7 mag kills better.

It’s a fallacy that old school fudds have never shot anything or seen anything shot with smaller cartridges. I own a 22 creed, a number of 6mms, 25-06, even a 6.5 man bun.

If something is true in firearms it’s quite easy to see on target. There’s no mystery.

I can only assume was a bunch of guys who spent time with Uncle Sam oversees and didn't want any of that European BS here in the States.

Rather than a conspiracy of the entire us gun industry, heavy for caliber bullets just aren’t needed for most American hunting. The success of the 130 gr 270 the last 100 years shows that. You can believe in conspiracies I think it’s simply obvious our fast stepping high energy cartridges work well.

So begins the outright falsehoods and subtle belittling. You use words like "barely works at a minimum level", yet the experience of the proponents shows something completely different. And in most cases, those people are bringing the receipts.

Have you read the 223 post? The entire body of evidence is pushing the limits to where it barely works and the loudest voices equate it to the effectiveness of broadheads out around 450 yards. You should reread it. Barely works at a minimal level describes it well at that distance. Every other small cartridge post is focused on the outermost possible distance where the bullet will still expand, being the point of minimal effectiveness to still kill things. That’s pretty obvious.

. . . in essence calling all those folks liars. My question there would be why would they? Do you think they sit around their houses and rub their hands together getting all hot and bothered about more guys going into the field to wound animals like a bunch of psychopaths? Also, if using smaller diameter, heavy for caliber bullets was so ineffective, why have so many people started doing it?

I’ve never said small diameter fragmenting bullets don’t kill things when used within their constraints. My pops and his friends killed moose, caribou and brown bear with their 17 Remingtons. My junior high school friends killed all sorts of things with lightly constructed bullets - it wasn’t a mystery back then small bullets can work. However, since junior high there have been multiple situations where a small bullet fell flat on its face when used at more of an angle than it should have. Even to kids that was obvious. Myself and others would rather use a deeper penetrating bullet to not have those same constraints. To us it seems an obvious choice.

As for the car comments, this is a strawman that you are using to call those proponents of what you don't like weak or somehow less of a man than you.

I enjoy pointing out the absurdity of arguing efficency in a discussion of effectiveness. Driving a truck to the grocery store doesn’t make me manly, it means I don’t care if I’m getting 4 mpg in a one ton to pick up 15 lbs of groceries. The truck is plenty effective. I can also drop by Home Depot for 3,500 lbs of tile, so there are fewer limitations with my choice.

Arguments for a 6mm having less recoil than a 25 cal, or the shoulder angle of a creedmoor making it more efficient make my eyes roll. Call it what you want - I will always find those arguments silly at best.

If they are proficient with a "small" rifle and it does everything they need it to do, why would they go bigger other than to stroke their own ego?

If someone is content with the limitations of a small rifle I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. The argument that all cartridges have the same limitations is what makes no sense. It’s obvious to anyone I’ve hunted with a 6mm and a big 30 cal have different abilities to anchor an animal going away. I do like the optimism tiny cartridge guys have that they are happy just waiting for better angles, but isn’t that admitting their cartridge choice has more limitations?

As for the "energy rules of thumb" what they did was drive shooter to believe that bigger is better and therefore in to the false sense of comfort that drove them away from basic shooting fundamentals and practice.

Bigger is better. I have no false sense of comfort. To the contrary I use as large a cartridge as can be shot accurately because hunting isnt cut and dried. Shots aren’t perfect. Animal angle isn’t perfect. With my choice of vehicle I might start off prepared for a loaf of bread but I’m prepared for whatever comes a long.

I constantly preach against this fad of spotting shots, as if the first shot can be a gut shot and that’s ok as long as the second shot at a moving animal anchors them. I argue guys need to spend less time being Tacticool and get quick at making solid shots. Quit dilly dallying around and get the shot off. Stop dialing at short range and learn your trajectory. Stop buying stocks you can’t stand to hold in your hands. Stop believing the smallest is somehow the most effective.

What’s obvious to me and to you are obviously different. That’s human nature. My choices have worked well since Jimmy Carter was wearing sweaters in the whitehouse. I find that good enough.

 

[BCDJR]

You continue to attack the man, not his argument. Until you can explain how a 7 PRC makes the animal “deader” than a 6.5 PRC, you aren’t making any points.


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

You continue to attack the man, not his argument. Until you can explain how a 7 PRC makes the animal “deader” than a 6.5 PRC, you aren’t making any points.


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

excuse me sir……where

The guy called me a left wing hippie….then the other day a jackass. Typical behavior from immature teenagers and internet trolls. I don’t need any “ points “

 

[MT_Wyatt]

The guy called me a left wing hippie….then the other day a jackass. Typical behavior from immature teenagers and internet trolls. I don’t need any “ points “

Hey just a PSA - have seen nothing but negative posts and cartridge/caliber debates from you. Nothing but picking a fight on the internet. You want to talk about maturity - maybe take up contributing in a positive manner, and let this fight go. Continuing this crap is just useless.

Or keep it up, it’s always entertaining seeing people just self-implode and get banned. I think you’re trying to bring a different perspective and that’s great - it’s 100% HOW you do it that doesn’t work.

 

[BCDJR]

Hey just a PSA - have seen nothing but negative posts and cartridge/caliber debates from you. Nothing but picking a fight on the internet. You want to talk about maturity - maybe take up contributing in a positive manner, and let this fight go. Continuing this crap is just useless.

Or keep it up, it’s always entertaining seeing people just self-implode and get banned. I think you’re trying to bring a different perspective and that’s great - it’s 100% HOW you do it that doesn’t work.

 

[BCDJR]

You are incorrect. I have never called anyone a name, I have never dismissed person’s opinion, I have expressed my opinions and global experiences over decades of big game hunting. I have used this site to gain information about the 6.5 PRC and barrel lengths. I then purchased one from one of the sponsors of this site. My opinions have been attacked by a small group of folks who believe that certain small calibers can be used for elk, moose and big bears. I simply do not agree. A few of these folks start calling me and others “ Fudds”. Do you see any of us calling them “ snot nosed “…..no.

 

[The Guide]

@BCDJR Since you put your reply inside someone else's quote that you quoted twice, I'll tag you.

The original premise of this post was is the 6.5 PRC not enough cartridge and would the OP be better off with a gun firing the 7mm bullet. While the OP doesn't specifically state the 7mm PRC it is inferred in the original post. So, to get the post back on track it was asked is the 7mm PRC fundamental so much more superior to the 6.5 PRC that the OP should dump his fine shooting current rifle for a new rifle that shoots a bullet not that much bigger than his current one.

The answer is no. You will not get more functional performance from a 7mm PRC over a 6.5 PRC at normal hunting distances until you exceed distances over 1/2 mile. Most people shouldn't be shooting at game that far away due to their skill and experience. As you get neared than 1/4 mile (440 yards) the difference between the performance of a 6.5 PRC/7mm PRC/and your beloved 300 PRC become even shallower and more alike than different. You then have to assess the performance based upon shootability. A hunting weight 6.5 PRC is easier to shoot than a hunting weight 7mm PRC and both are large margins easier to shoot than a hunting weight 300 PRC. Can I (me personally) shoot all 3 cartridges in a rifle with the same length barrel and the same profile from the same action equally well? Yes, yes I can. The issue is that with the 7mm PRC and the 300 PRC I must use more mental and physical process and procedures to make the shots remain as accurate as the 6.5 PRC. The 6.5 (147 ELDM) has 46" of drop at 500. The 7mm (180 ELDM) has 44" of drop. The 300 (225 ELDM) has 41" of drop. That's not much difference between the 3 cartridges. Even the wind call is only 2" different at 500 between all 3 of them. Why use a cartridge with minimal gains in elevation and wind drift with multiple times the felt recoil impulse? What do you gain? Shooting is one sport where more pain does not get you more gain.

Jay

 

[Castle Rock]

You are incorrect. I have never called anyone a name, I have never dismissed person’s opinion, I have expressed my opinions and global experiences over decades of big game hunting. I have used this site to gain information about the 6.5 PRC and barrel lengths. I then purchased one from one of the sponsors of this site. My opinions have been attacked by a small group of folks who believe that certain small calibers can be used for elk, moose and big bears. I simply do not agree. A few of these folks start calling me and others “ Fudds”. Do you see any of us calling them “ snot nosed “…..no.

Hey I think we should respect this lady’s opinion

 

[BCDJR]

@BCDJR Since you put your reply inside someone else's quote that you quoted twice, I'll tag you.

The original premise of this post was is the 6.5 PRC not enough cartridge and would the OP be better off with a gun firing the 7mm bullet. While the OP doesn't specifically state the 7mm PRC it is inferred in the original post. So, to get the post back on track it was asked is the 7mm PRC fundamental so much more superior to the 6.5 PRC that the OP should dump his fine shooting current rifle for a new rifle that shoots a bullet not that much bigger than his current one.

The answer is no. You will not get more functional performance from a 7mm PRC over a 6.5 PRC at normal hunting distances until you exceed distances over 1/2 mile. Most people shouldn't be shooting at game that far away due to their skill and experience. As you get neared than 1/4 mile (440 yards) the difference between the performance of a 6.5 PRC/7mm PRC/and your beloved 300 PRC become even shallower and more alike than different. You then have to assess the performance based upon shootability. A hunting weight 6.5 PRC is easier to shoot than a hunting weight 7mm PRC and both are large margins easier to shoot than a hunting weight 300 PRC. Can I (me personally) shoot all 3 cartridges in a rifle with the same length barrel and the same profile from the same action equally well? Yes, yes I can. The issue is that with the 7mm PRC and the 300 PRC I must use more mental and physical process and procedures to make the shots remain as accurate as the 6.5 PRC. The 6.5 (147 ELDM) has 46" of drop at 500. The 7mm (180 ELDM) has 44" of drop. The 300 (225 ELDM) has 41" of drop. That's not much difference between the 3 cartridges. Even the wind call is only 2" different at 500 between all 3 of them. Why use a cartridge with minimal gains in elevation and wind drift with multiple times the felt recoil impulse? What do you gain? Shooting is one sport where more pain does not get you more gain.

Jay