Pick a 6.5 Creedmoor Bullet for Elk

[mcseal2]

I would definitely keep shots inside 400 with the Creedmoor. At 400 yards energy is already down to the 1200-1300 pound level. For bullets I usually would recommend the accubond and still feel its a pretty good choice. It keeps such a large mushroom as it penetrates that maybe a monometal bullet or partition would be better here. It might penetrate better due to a smaller frontal area. Shot placement is still most important. The Creedmoor is a great round but not one I would use for a lot of shot angles on an unwounded elk. Broadside or close to it for me.

 

[Rich M]

Folks shoot elk at 600-800 with the 243 - see it on youtube all the time, 6.5 should be fine. Poke the hole where it needs to go.

I've not heard good things about the ELD X on game.
Yet you automatically said it was cause those folks must have made bad shots. Maybe it isn't a heavy duty bullet - the long range stuff is designed for performance at lower velocities, and more like a basic cup & core bullet.

Partition
Accubond
Barnes
Scirocco

 

[deerhunter628]

Arent people using the Bergers in the 6.5 cm? Seems like it is a popular bullet in other calibers.

 

[MT257]

Folks shoot elk at 600-800 with the 243 - see it on youtube all the time, 6.5 should be fine. Poke the hole where it needs to go.

I've not heard good things about the ELD X on game.
Yet you automatically said it was cause those folks must have made bad shots. Maybe it isn't a heavy duty bullet - the long range stuff is designed for performance at lower velocities, and more like a basic cup & core bullet.

Partition
Accubond
Barnes
Scirocco

The shots I saw them take were from 200-600 yards. Maybe it was thier lack of shooting ability or poor performance. But what I saw was enough not to drink the ELD-X koolaide, I had loaded some up at that time for my 7mm and got home that night and pulled every ELD-X I had loaded. I would agree with the list of 4 bullets you listed.

 

[Dusty2426]

Arent people using the Bergers in the 6.5 cm? Seems like it is a popular bullet in other calibers.

I had issues with Berger early on in 7stw. Had a guide friend tell me a statement I use to his day “never use a target bullet to shoot animals”. Simple fact Berger was a target bullet manufacture that discovered their bullets kill pretty good. I’ll stick with a hunting designed bullet and give up 1/2 Moa. After all I have a 8-10 inch target (kill zone) to hit.

 

[Dusty2426]

It looks like no clear winner here. I’ve always gone speed over weight but I cut my teeth before today’s long, sleek, versatile bullets were born. I’ve killed about 70 or so game animals with everything from the .25-06 through .340 Wby Mag, with most taken with a 6.5x.284, .270 Win., .270 Wby Mag, .284 Win and 7mm-08. About 40% of these were elk. The only animal that I ever feared losing during these nearly 40 years was a bull elk hit solidly in both shoulders with a 250gr Nosler Partition fired from a .338 Win Mag. This means my personal experience leads me to believe that the .25-06 is a better elk killer than the .338 Win Mag. BTW, I did recover the bull but it took four of the most stressful hours of my life to do so.

I like the heavy, sleek bullets. I also love the penetration of Barnes bullets but in my experience they are less likely to provide a spectacular DRT kill than lead bullets.

I think I’ll load up some 140 AccuBond, 142 ABLR, 143 ELD-X, 127 LRX and maybe even some 120 TTSX/GMX and see how they shoot.

My personal longest shot on game came on the largest animal I’ve ever taken, a huge 6pt bull elk taken at 435 yards. At impact, he hit the ground so hard dust flew up and he never even twitched. This was a non-CNS hit and I’m convinced he was dead before he hit the ground. The death ray was a 125gr Nosler Partition fired from a custom M700 in 6.5x284.

My second longest kill was 401 yards with the same rifle and a 120gr Nosler Ballistic Tip. Bang flop.

I’m not concerned about her marksmanship skills. She’ll hit what she points at to all reasonable ranges. I just want to make sure we have a reliable bullet that does any elk she might shoot at the justice it deserves.

I appreciate the input very much and am open to more feedback if anyone wishes to chime in.

With the wide spread use of accurate range finders and ballistics charts. Weight energy beats speed energy as you know the trajectory. Weight energy translates to penetration and that’s what you need for elk

 

[30338]

I have used the 140 vld at modest Creedmoor type velocities to kill dozens of animals. None went more than 10 yards, and most dropped in their tracks. May try a 147 ELD one of these days. Assuming the Winchester magazine allows you to seat long, the 156 EOL with RL26 would also rate a thunk. At slower speeds a lot of these will work very well.

Daughter's creedmoor load carries 2200 fps and 1500 foot pounds to 500 though I don't put much weight on foot pounds lol. Guess we'll see if it works.

 

[EmperorMA]

With the wide spread use of accurate range finders and ballistics charts. Weight energy beats speed energy as you know the trajectory. Weight energy translates to penetration and that’s what you need for elk

Yes, I’ll certainly be using 140-class lead bullets if one of those gets the nod. I’d also have no qualms about using Barnes bullets ... either the 120 TTSX or 127 LRX, I just know animals might travel a bit farther (not always, of course) if hit with these projectiles at the Creedmoor’s modest velocities. I have every confidence they’d pass through, though, since they always have for me.

 

[EmperorMA]

Daughter's creedmoor load carries 2200 fps and 1500 foot pounds to 500 though I don't put much weight on foot pounds lol. Guess we'll see if it works.

I’m the same way. In fact, I usually don’t even look at energy numbers. I’m far more concerned with impact velocity, bullet construction and SD for elk.

I must admit to being quite intrigued by newer “energy dump” bullets that are designed for less penetration via either fragmentation or rapid, violent expansion. I think Berger didn’t really design their bullets that way but found that as target shooters used their rifles and pet loads for hunting, their bullets fragmented and killed things right smartly. And newer hunting bullets designed for rapid expansion do a good job turning deer-sized game’s vitals into mush. I’ve always thought the excellent results put up by both types of bullets has more to do with a wider would channel with “shrapnel” cutting additional channels of destruction being the true killer, rather than “leaving all the energy inside the animal.” I just wouldn’t trust either to anchor a big bull with a less-than-perfect shot angle where I might need to break a shoulder or hip to plow through to the vitals.

 

[EmperorMA]

You're definitely on the right track. My point about limiting range had nothing to do with her marksmanship- 500 is quite a bit further than 400 ballistically and a 6.5 CM is slower than a 25-06. It's a small bullet, small frontal surface area, smaller perminant wound cavity. Personally I wouldn't shoot an elk past 400 with a 6.5 or past 600 with a .284. My personal experience and preference is to use a bullet with a bigger frontal surface area and not rely on getting a CNS kill.

The 127 grain LRX will penetrate better than the 147 ELD-X, the construction is more important than the weight. I always worry about quartering shots on elk so I like knowing I can shoot through a hip or a shoulder. I wouldn't try that with any cup and core bullet. ELD-X, SST, BT's will create super dramatic temporary wound cavities but they rarely exit. I like putting two holes in the animal. They might not go down in 10 steps, but they will go down if the shot placement is on.

Hope that helps explain my thinking a little better.

You’re all good, man. We think quite a bit alike.

I’d only let her shoot past 400 if the setup was perfect. Broadside, undisturbed animal, wide open country so it could be seen for a long time if it didn’t go straight down, minimal wind, perfect rest and binoculars or spotter to see impact. Without that I doubt I’d even let her shoot much past 300.

 

[adamantine]

Hear you re: GMX/TTSX on the "kills aren't as emphatic as the lead bullets", and I do agree from my experience that that is true, not as many bang-flops.

However, I would counter that 100% of the animals I've hit with a GMX/TTSX go down within 100 yards (even bad direct bone hits or guts). So what more do you want? Lead might kill more emphatically 60% of the time, but losing the animal or a long track job the other 40% of the time is not an option in my book.

I also hate grinding up lead fragments in my burger.

What people fail to realize is a 120gr copper bullet and 160 gr lead bullet 6.5mm are about the same physical size. Copper is less dense, so it occupies more space. A lead bullet dumps ~30% of it's weight on impact in fragments (accubond) so 70% X 160 = 112gr. A copper retains 99% (pretty much just loses the tip). Anyway, I digress, but people fail to realize you've got a 118gr copper bullet zipping all the way through an animal and a 112gr lead one trying to follow even though it started at 160gr

 

[fez]

I thought there might be more love for the vld’s. That’s what’s in the tube when my wife is packing her creed.

 

[PathFinder]

I'll wade through the bs and poorly informed, non-scientific info currently polluting this thread.
#1. The only thing that matters is what type of wound channel the bullet makes. This consists length, width, and tissue that is permanently destroyed. To assume that what is printed on the box is the most important thing, is to assume that one does not have the cognitive ability to test and assess actual terminal performance. Basing opinion based on words on a box VS field results is a classic armchair quarterback tactic.
#2. Long, heavy for caliber fragmenting bullets make long, wide, messy wound channels. They both penetrate extremely well, and make huge permanent wound channels. Controlled expansion bullets make long narrow wound channels. This type of performance definitely kills stuff, but in a far less "spectacular" fashion.
#3. Long, heavy for caliber fragmenting bullets are extremely consistent from near muzzle velocities down to as little as 1500 fps, depending on the bullet. They do very similar things through that range. Controlled expansion bullets performance varies greatly depending on impact velocity.
#4. Most bad experiences with "match" style bullets come from shooting light for caliber bullets. Shooting light for caliber bullets is dumb unless the target is a varmint.
Speaking just of the 6.5 Creedmoor, I/my rifle has 7 kills with the 140 ELD M. The one that wasn't my animal was a bull elk at 300. One shot went all the way through and exited, the second broke the onside shoulder and was under the skin on the opposite side. The others were deer and one bear from 250-755 yards. All shots exhibited the exact same performance and wound channel. Large wounds with fragments in as large as a 5" diameter area. All bullets either exited or were just under the skin on the off side.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[brsnow]

I understand, for me I want to avoid feeding my kids lead. So if there is a nice bullet from a 6.5 CM that people have used successfully on elk that is lead free I certainly wouldn’t mind hearing about it.

 

[EmperorMA]

Hear you re: GMX/TTSX on the "kills aren't as emphatic as the lead bullets", and I do agree from my experience that that is true, not as many bang-flops.

However, I would counter that 100% of the animals I've hit with a GMX/TTSX go down within 100 yards (even bad direct bone hits or guts). So what more do you want? Lead might kill more emphatically 60% of the time, but losing the animal or a long track job the other 40% of the time is not an option in my book.

I also hate grinding up lead fragments in my burger.

What people fail to realize is a 120gr copper bullet and 160 gr lead bullet 6.5mm are about the same physical size. Copper is less dense, so it occupies more space. A lead bullet dumps ~30% of it's weight on impact in fragments (accubond) so 70% X 160 = 112gr. A copper retains 99% (pretty much just loses the tip). Anyway, I digress, but people fail to realize you've got a 118gr copper bullet zipping all the way through an animal and a 112gr lead one trying to follow even though it started at 160gr

I’m with you. I’ve killed over a dozen animals with Barnes TTSX, even two bulls with the 120 TTSX from a 7-08. Stuff simply doesn’t live when hit well with a mono metal.

 

[EmperorMA]

I understand, for me I want to avoid feeding my kids lead. So if there is a nice bullet from a 6.5 CM that people have used successfully on elk that is lead free I certainly wouldn’t mind hearing about it.

127 LRX

 

[EmperorMA]

I'll wade through the bs and poorly informed, non-scientific info currently polluting this thread.
#1. The only thing that matters is what type of wound channel the bullet makes. This consists length, width, and tissue that is permanently destroyed. To assume that what is printed on the box is the most important thing, is to assume that one does not have the cognitive ability to test and assess actual terminal performance. Basing opinion based on words on a box VS field results is a classic armchair quarterback tactic.
#2. Long, heavy for caliber fragmenting bullets make long, wide, messy wound channels. They both penetrate extremely well, and make huge permanent wound channels. Controlled expansion bullets make long narrow wound channels. This type of performance definitely kills stuff, but in a far less "spectacular" fashion.
#3. Long, heavy for caliber fragmenting bullets are extremely consistent from near muzzle velocities down to as little as 1500 fps, depending on the bullet. They do very similar things through that range. Controlled expansion bullets performance varies greatly depending on impact velocity.
#4. Most bad experiences with "match" style bullets come from shooting light for caliber bullets. Shooting light for caliber bullets is dumb unless the target is a varmint.
Speaking just of the 6.5 Creedmoor, I/my rifle has 7 kills with the 140 ELD M. The one that wasn't my animal was a bull elk at 300. One shot went all the way through and exited, the second broke the onside shoulder and was under the skin on the opposite side. The others were deer and one bear from 250-755 yards. All shots exhibited the exact same performance and wound channel. Large wounds with fragments in as large as a 5" diameter area. All bullets either exited or were just under the skin on the off side.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

The kid’s rifle LOVES the 140 ELD-M. My Creedmoor prefers the 142 ABLR, 143 ELD-X and 147 ELD-M.

Any experience with the 143 ELD-X on game? My cheap-ass 6.5 Creedmoor shoots them into ridiculously tiny little groups. I’d pop a deer or antelope with them in a heartbeat.

On a side note, I’ve killed some stuff with both the Winchester Deer Season XP 125 and the Browning BXR 129 rapid-expanding bullets (both made by Winchester). Impressive AF. I’d whack a cow or meat bull through the ribs at <400 yards with that 129 BXR without hesitation.

 

[Formidilosus]

I'll wade through the bs and poorly informed, non-scientific info currently polluting this thread.
#1. The only thing that matters is what type of wound channel the bullet makes. This consists length, width, and tissue that is permanently destroyed. To assume that what is printed on the box is the most important thing, is to assume that one does not have the cognitive ability to test and assess actual terminal performance. Basing opinion based on words on a box VS field results is a classic armchair quarterback tactic.
#2. Long, heavy for caliber fragmenting bullets make long, wide, messy wound channels. They both penetrate extremely well, and make huge permanent wound channels. Controlled expansion bullets make long narrow wound channels. This type of performance definitely kills stuff, but in a far less "spectacular" fashion.
#3. Long, heavy for caliber fragmenting bullets are extremely consistent from near muzzle velocities down to as little as 1500 fps, depending on the bullet. They do very similar things through that range. Controlled expansion bullets performance varies greatly depending on impact velocity.
#4. Most bad experiences with "match" style bullets come from shooting light for caliber bullets. Shooting light for caliber bullets is dumb unless the target is a varmint.
Speaking just of the 6.5 Creedmoor, I/my rifle has 7 kills with the 140 ELD M. The one that wasn't my animal was a bull elk at 300. One shot went all the way through and exited, the second broke the onside shoulder and was under the skin on the opposite side. The others were deer and one bear from 250-755 yards. All shots exhibited the exact same performance and wound channel. Large wounds with fragments in as large as a 5" diameter area. All bullets either exited or were just under the skin on the off side.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

You saved me from typing. Thank you.

 

[Formidilosus]

The kid’s rifle LOVES the 140 ELD-M. My Creedmoor prefers both the 143 ELD-X and 147 ELD-M.

Any experience with the 143 ELD-X on game?

ELD-X is fine. I prefer the 147gr ELD-M’s of the two, but either will kill.

Have killed, and seen killed quite a few with 6.5 Creedmoors to way beyond 400 yards. Normal Accubonds, monos, Partitions, as well as Bergers, ELD-M and X, Scenars, SMK’s, etc.

What PF wrote above is terminal ballistic reality. “Ft-lbs energy” is not a wounding mechanism and has no bearing on how well a bullet/cartridge kills.

Tissue destruction is what you’re after. The more tissue destroyed, the faster things die. The slowest killers in all animals, including elk are deep penetrating, minimal expanding bullets such as monos. They are the bullets that give cartridges such as the Creedmoor it’s “marginal” label. Old thinking dies hard, and when most were raised on magnums it only seems to makes sense that penetration is what you give up by going smaller. It’s not. Until you get to extremes (22cals for elk for instance) penetration is not really the problem. The real problem with smaller rounds/bullets is reduced wound size and tissue destruction. Small, narrow wound channels are exactly opposite of what you want terminally- especially so with smaller cartridges. What people think is the right answer is the exact thing causing them to think of cartridges as minimal.

The smaller a round, the more important it is to pick a bullet that has sufficient penetration, yet creates as wide a wound as possible.


My choices would be Berger VLD’s 130+ grains, Hornady 147gr ELD-M or 143gr ELD-X, or Heavy Lapua Scenars. If it just had to be “hunting” bullets then- Federal Edge TLR would be tops, with Partition, Accubonds, etc after.

 

[EmperorMA]

I'll wade through the bs and poorly informed, non-scientific info currently polluting this thread.
#1. The only thing that matters is what type of wound channel the bullet makes. This consists length, width, and tissue that is permanently destroyed. To assume that what is printed on the box is the most important thing, is to assume that one does not have the cognitive ability to test and assess actual terminal performance. Basing opinion based on words on a box VS field results is a classic armchair quarterback tactic.
#2. Long, heavy for caliber fragmenting bullets make long, wide, messy wound channels. They both penetrate extremely well, and make huge permanent wound channels. Controlled expansion bullets make long narrow wound channels. This type of performance definitely kills stuff, but in a far less "spectacular" fashion.
#3. Long, heavy for caliber fragmenting bullets are extremely consistent from near muzzle velocities down to as little as 1500 fps, depending on the bullet. They do very similar things through that range. Controlled expansion bullets performance varies greatly depending on impact velocity.
#4. Most bad experiences with "match" style bullets come from shooting light for caliber bullets. Shooting light for caliber bullets is dumb unless the target is a varmint.
Speaking just of the 6.5 Creedmoor, I/my rifle has 7 kills with the 140 ELD M. The one that wasn't my animal was a bull elk at 300. One shot went all the way through and exited, the second broke the onside shoulder and was under the skin on the opposite side. The others were deer and one bear from 250-755 yards. All shots exhibited the exact same performance and wound channel. Large wounds with fragments in as large as a 5" diameter area. All bullets either exited or were just under the skin on the off side.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

You saved me from typing. Thank you.

Since this is a thread about hunting trophy bull elk, I’m just wondering, since I do not have experience with these fragmenting target bullets, if either of you have ever punched through the ham and the hip bones of a quartering away 800 lb bull at around 350 yards as he was feeding just outside the timberline with one of those target bullets? If so, was there a large wound channel all the way through the vitals?

Not being argumentative at all, just trying to gather information from others who have experience where I do not. I do know from my own experience that a Barnes TTSX will certainly do it.