Struggling to see the point of 6.5's

[Newtosavage]

You must be hunting at much higer elevation than me, if I take my 7-08 ttsx load that I shot for years, even if I plug in 3150fps (I shoot factory and am not even getting 3000fps) my strelok app says I’m barely getting 400 yards before running out of velocity. I think you have a “souped up” 7-08 given your velocity—so you need to compare to a “souped up” version of every other catridge to get a balanced comparison.
Regardless, you hit on the same thing I recently did—if you already have a 7-08, 6.5 may have some advantages even for copper but not enough to call them significantly different. However, if one were to start from scratch looking for “the” one cartridge to fill that niche—ie you dont already have a 7-08 or similar—6.5 might make more sense. I recently did exactly this—i needed to rebarrel my 7-08. 6.5 was an option and it probably has among the best ammo availability but looked anemic for copper, 7-08 was an option but has reduced range with factory ammo and is hard to find at times. I like the 6.5prc on paper but I shoot factory ammo, had a std bolt face and wanted better than average availability. I ended up going with a 270 specifically to get a bit more velocity and for ammo availability. Rangewise Sounds like it will perform with your hot-rodded 7-08.

I'm using 8k feet (although I routinely hunt higher) and 40 deg. w/ 40% RH and 24 Mg pressure for my calculations.

Also, my hot-rodded 7mm-08 is producing 3150 at 0.6 grains below max according to Hodgdon. Weird I know.

 

[Newtosavage]

Something has to be off on the PRC. I run a straight from Barnes load 7/08 with the 120 at 3150. The PRC has to be doing a couple hundo faster with a 127.

One would think, but that's what the Barnes load data shows. The Nosler load data is a little faster with their 129/130's but not that much. Hodgdon load data for 6.5 PRC is close to the Barnes.

I thought the same thing as you. Hence my question to the forum.

 

[Rick M.]

Thank you. I have read the same. People who buy into this narrative that lead based bullets are going to poison themselves and their family are the same ones who ran out to get the jab without doing research. Mono manufacturers like that tool at hammer bullets is pushing this false narrative because its good for business.

This is such a weird take. The anti-science movement has really become insufferable, especially when its proponents are so cocksure of themselves.

As far as lead is concerned, it's been known for years that it's harmful when ingested, and the lead fragments in bullets are bio-available, meaning they can be readily absorbed into our bloodstream. Eat all the lead you want, but if you're going to make such bold, belligerent statements, you outta link some research to back it up.

Here's and article from Scientific American from 2009 that cites several studies across multiple universities:

Wild Meat Raises Lead Exposure

Tests by the CDC show that eating venison and other game can raise the amounts of lead in human bodies by 50 percent

www.scientificamerican.com

Michigan DNR: https://www.michigan.gov/dnr/managing-resources/wildlife/deer/precaution-about-lead-in-venison

Michigan DNR: https://www.michigan.gov/-/media/Pr...lies.pdf?rev=66a1fb2c45b3456bb73aecb00e60ed04

Minnesota DNR bullet fragmentation study: https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/hunting/ammo/lead-short-summary.html

Connecticut: https://portal.ct.gov/DEEP/Hunting/Lead-Bullet-Fragments-in-Wild-Game

American Journal of Medicine: https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(16)30021-3/pdf

German study: https://www.bfr.bund.de/en/press_in..._risk_for_certain_consumer_groups-127610.html

NZ: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/country/...-could-make-you-sick-researcher-warns-hunters

American Journal of Public Health: https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2022.307069

I'm sure it's all just a big conspiracy though... because all of these institutions have so much to gain from us not ingesting lead fragments...

You can play the tough guy gimmick with your family, I'll defer to the science when it comes to mine.

Edit: I also wanted to add that calling Steve a "tool" is completely uncalled for. He's a lifelong hunter and an innovator, doing his best to improve upon copper bullet technology. This isn't the forum for shitting on our own.

 

[JGRaider]

Thank you. I have read the same. People who buy into this narrative that lead based bullets are going to poison themselves and their family are the same ones who ran out to get the jab without doing research. Mono manufacturers like that tool at hammer bullets is pushing this false narrative because its good for business.

Science.....the same clowns that brought us man made global warming, big bang theory, covid, boosters, etc.

 

[nobody]

Ron Spomer?

This is one of the greatest internet compliments anybody has ever paid me. Unless Ron Spomer is a late 20's/early 30's guy living in Central Utah, and unless I've got multiple personalities and don't know about it, that's not me

 

[amassi]

This is such a weird take. The anti-science movement has really become insufferable, especially when its proponents are so cocksure of themselves.

As far as lead is concerned, it's been known for years that it's harmful when ingested, and the lead fragments in bullets are bio-available, meaning they can be readily absorbed into our bloodstream. Eat all the lead you want, but if you're going to make such bold, belligerent statements, you outta link some research to back it up.

Here's and article from Scientific American from 2009 that cites several studies across multiple universities:

Wild Meat Raises Lead Exposure

Tests by the CDC show that eating venison and other game can raise the amounts of lead in human bodies by 50 percent

www.scientificamerican.com

Michigan DNR: https://www.michigan.gov/dnr/managing-resources/wildlife/deer/precaution-about-lead-in-venison

Michigan DNR: https://www.michigan.gov/-/media/Pr...lies.pdf?rev=66a1fb2c45b3456bb73aecb00e60ed04

Minnesota DNR bullet fragmentation study: https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/hunting/ammo/lead-short-summary.html

Connecticut: https://portal.ct.gov/DEEP/Hunting/Lead-Bullet-Fragments-in-Wild-Game

American Journal of Medicine: https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(16)30021-3/pdf

German study: https://www.bfr.bund.de/en/press_in..._risk_for_certain_consumer_groups-127610.html

I'm sure it's all just a big conspiracy though... because all of these institutions have so much to gain from us not ingesting lead fragments...

You can play the tough guy gimmick with your family, I'll defer to the science when it comes to mine.

They stand to gain funding from bird groups especially raptors.

None of those opinions are studies using the scientific method.

No controlled groups, monitoring for other lead sources and excluding environmental exposure et el.

So before you go attaching a bunch of informal opinions do the base research and see if humans can absorb the lead found in bullets when ingested into their stomach.

 

[Rick M.]

They stand to gain funding from bird groups especially raptors.

None of those opinions are studies using the scientific method.

No controlled groups, monitoring for other lead sources and excluding environmental exposure et el.

So before you go attaching a bunch of informal opinions do the base research and see if humans can absorb the lead found in bullets when ingested into their stomach.

Tell me more about the billion dollar “bird group” cartel.

My links cite peer-reviewed research across many universities and institutions. If that doesn’t satisfy your scientific standards, I’d love to read the research you’ve conducted.

 

[amassi]

Tell me more about the billion dollar “bird group” cartel.

My links cite peer-reviewed research across many universities and institutions. If that doesn’t satisfy your scientific standards, I’d love to read the research you’ve conducted.

If you don't think bird groups are powerful lobbying agencies then there's nothing more to do for you. This has been going on for 25 years in California, is expanding to Oregon, Utah, Washington, Arizona.
Bha and meat eater also schill for lead free. They arentn doing that for free. Cui Bono
I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.

 

[Desk Jockey]

Another angle I consider is having too much gun for an animal’s size. 6.5 seems to put deer down without a lot of chaos and meat loss. I tagged a medium sized whitetail with a 300WM that I put together for a recent elk hunt. BRoadside shot. A couple of inches above the heart. Both lungs were soup. Quick kill. bullet hit a rib going in and a rib and the scapula on the far side. And fragmented pretty badly. Basically lost 2/3 of the far side shoulder.

I can’t say for sure that a 6.5 creed would have done less damage, but my gut tells me it might have While still putting the animal down fast. I will be hunting my 6.5 for deer going forward.

 

[nobody]

I would agree. The copper monos seem to call for light-for-caiber at higher velocities, whereas traditional bullets seem to work best with heavy-for-caliber bullets at lower or normal velocities. I've always gravitated towards copper due to fears of lead contamination, especially with respect to my kids eating the meat that I procure. If not for that I'd likely try the TMK route.

All emotion and "science" from all parties involved aside, I think the big push behind non-lead projectiles has more to do with something Form says all the time. Lead core bullets, when constructed properly, are vastly superior KILLING bullets. They make a mess of a chest cavity and lead to large amounts of hemorrhagic bleeding and large entry and exit wounds, and animals typically don't go far. Monolithic projectiles do expand "prettier" and more concentrically, no doubt about that, but they don't have the devastating effects that a lead cored projectile does. No, monos won't drop an animal in its tracks any more readily than a lead core will, that's a shot placement thing. They don't hit harder, they don't do more damage, they just work differently. And in the experience of many hunters, they don't work as well as their lead cored counterparts. Monos also lessen your margin of error, due to the higher impact velocities required to get them to upset properly. It minimizes your opportunities by handicapping your maximum distances and typically also is a ballistically (read aerodynamically slippery) inferior design.

Having said all that, if you need/want to use monos to hunt, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. If I was to ever start hunting with monos , I would be using an LRX due the lower velocity threshold required to expand (relative to other monos on the market). But somebody who uses monos needs to understand their inherent drawbacks, and as long as they're ok with operating within those parameters, I say have at it.

 

[Rick M.]

Getting back on topic, I spent several hours last night reading the "223" thread. It was pretty enlightening, and much of the conventional wisdom regarding caliber and energy required seems to have been proven wrong.

If I were to go back to using lead core bullets, I'd be grabbing a T3X in 223 and looking to source some 77g TMKs. Seems like an absolutely lethal combination, with essentially zero recoil. Cheap to shoot, easy to reload for, and wildly effective on game.

However, for me personally, I'm sticking with the copper monos. So I'm looking for a fast, non-magnum caliber to shoot light-for-caliber copper projectiles, while maintaining 2300+fps velocity at 400 yards. I think the 280 AI fits the bill, and can send 120g copper bullets well over 3200fps MV. But now, after reading that 223 thread, I'm wondering if the 6 CM will fit the bill.

I almost wish we had a similar thread to the 223 thread, but geared towards performance of copper monos on game across different caliber ranges and velocities. That would be interesting.

 

[JakeSCH]

Yes. People should understand two things about “expansion”. First, Barnes and most manufacturers consider caliber size expansion “expansion”. That literally means the nose barely opened to .284 from a .284 bullet. Second, when you pull a picture perfect mushroomed bullet out of an animal, that is the maximum size that bullet achieved, and only did so because it met enough resistance to open and stop it- they don’t look like that going through a chest cavity.

What that mean sis that for what almost anyone would consider “acceptable expansion” keep the monos well above 2,000fps impact, and more like 2,200fps plus. The more I see of them at low velocity, they higher that number is going for me- I want 2,400fps impact to feel comfortable with a mono such as Barnes, E-Tip, etc.

Exactly. I typically set distance limitations based on a 2400 fps as well and would prefer 2700 fps impacts using monos.

 

[Formidilosus]

I almost wish we had a similar thread to the 223 thread, but geared towards performance of copper monos on game across different caliber ranges and velocities. That would be interesting.

There isn’t really a measurable difference- monos create narrow, deep wounds. The difference between monos is the difference in the max expanded diameter.



For everyone, I don’t care what you shoot, I care about facts-

1). The lead isotopes that are in bullets are not absorbed by the human body.

2). I have been tangentially involved with the lead feee issue since it’s inception- it is very politically motivated.

3). Unlike the nonsense that is touted, lead particles do not travel widely throughout the animals body. Small particles do not go more than 1-2 inches from the center of the wound channel.

But for those that believe otherwise- what are you doing about the lead styphnate primers and the gas they produce?

 

[MTNHUNTER76]

There are no new calibers that are leaps and bounds better than the cartridges of old. Updated case designs and lots of marketing hype. I built a 6.5prc for for more efficiency/cheaper to shoot round. My primary hunting rifle was a 300 norma mag.

The 6.5 with 156 berger has killed a few truck loads of critters. No reason to build one over something similiar but a good round overall.

 

[grfox92]

There isn’t really a measurable difference- monos create narrow, deep wounds. The difference between monos is the difference in the max expanded diameter.



For everyone, I don’t care what you shoot, I care about facts-

1). The lead isotopes that are in bullets are not absorbed by the human body.

I was going to post this but am not very knowledgeable on the topic.

However remember very specifically on a podcast where someone was advocating for all copper bullets. That person for the sake of honesty and integrity explained in detail how the type of lead used in bullets is not absorbed into the human system. I believe he threw out number like you would have to consume several pounds of lead bullets at one time to have any absorption at all.


Sent from my SM-G990U using Tapatalk

 

[JFK]

Exactly. I typically set distance limitations based on a 2400 fps as well and would prefer 2700 fps impacts using monos.

Based on your distance limitations above nearly every cartridge would run out of steam around 300-350 yards with monos. If that was the case, people wouldn’t be using them. Failures would be the norm versus the exception.

 

[Rick M.]

1). The lead isotopes that are in bullets are not absorbed by the human body.

I have read several posts making this claim now, but none yet have provided a source. I'd really like something more concrete than "I heard it on a podcast" (not that you said this, but others have). Are you able to cite a source for this? I'm being sincere. Someone mentioned having to eat a pound of lead in order to be poisoned, which is just silly, as we aren't talking about instantaneous death by lead poisoning here, we're talking heavy metal buildup in the body over time and its pernicious effects on neurological and organ function.

2). I have been tangentially involved with the lead feee issue since it’s inception- it is very politically motivated.

I'm sure this is the case in some circumstances, but to disregard the entire current body of research surrounding the subject of consuming lead fragments (even microscopic) in game meat would be disingenuous. Many of the studies I've read are simply from analyzing game meat donated to food banks, and several others are from outside of the United States (I linked one from Germany and another from New Zealand).

3). Unlike the nonsense that is touted, lead particles do not travel widely throughout the animals body. Small particles do not go more than 1-2 inches from the center of the wound channel.

Again, a source or citation would be extremely helpful here. One of the most recent studies, conducted in my neck of the woods, shows direct evidence to the contrary, with a "maximum average distance of 11 inches from the wound channel":
Overview: https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/hunting/ammo/lead-short-summary.html
Research Summary: https://files.dnr.state.mn.us/wildlife/lead/lead-study-summary.pdf

Several of the other studies that I've read and previously linked also show hard evidence of widespread macroscopic and microscopic fragmentation found far from the original wound cavity.

But for those that believe otherwise- what are you doing about the lead styphnate primers and the gas they produce?

I can only speak for myself, but I don't tend to eat my primers or feed them to my family. We consume game meat throughout the year, and my goal is mitigation, not complete and total avoidance. It's the same reason I don't eat tuna every day - I want to limit mercury consumption, although I know it can't be avoided altogether.

 

[MattB]

I have read several posts making this claim now, but none yet have provided a source. I'd really like something more concrete than "I heard it on a podcast" (not that you said this, but others have). Are you able to cite a source for this?

It was interesting that the Scientific American article cited a study on pigs where lead levels increased substantially 2 days after consumption of lead-laced meat. I haven't looked at the study to see if there are any glaring issues with its methods, but pigs do have a monogastric digestive system that is pretty similar ours.

"Researchers at Washington State University and Boise State University fed lead-tainted venison to four pigs and lead-free venison to a separate control group of pigs. The pigs that ate the venison containing lead fragments reached a lead level of 3.8 micrograms per deciliter after only two days—more than three times higher than the highest level in the control group of pigs, according to the study, which was sponsored by The Peregrine Fund, a group that advocates for the removal of lead shot to protect condors."

 

[JakeSCH]

Based on your distance limitations above nearly every cartridge would run out of steam around 300-350 yards with monos. If that was the case, people wouldn’t be using them. Failures would be the norm versus the exception.

Not quite. At sea level most of my rifles are closer to 450y to hit the 2400 fps mark. I also never said they required that speed to kill, but based on my experiences I personally prefer those minimum speeds for the terminal ballistics that I want...

Even that limit still gets me near 600y where I typically hunt elk. If I really plan on shooting further than that I am loading up high BC bullets to significantly improve my hit percentage.

 

[fwafwow]

It was interesting that the Scientific American article cited a study on pigs where lead levels increased substantially 2 days after consumption of lead-laced meat. I haven't looked at the study to see if there are any glaring issues with its methods, but pigs do have a monogastric digestive system that is pretty similar ours.

"Researchers at Washington State University and Boise State University fed lead-tainted venison to four pigs and lead-free venison to a separate control group of pigs. The pigs that ate the venison containing lead fragments reached a lead level of 3.8 micrograms per deciliter after only two days—more than three times higher than the highest level in the control group of pigs, according to the study, which was sponsored by The Peregrine Fund, a group that advocates for the removal of lead shot to protect condors."

I appreciate the discourse on this topic. Like Form says in so many contexts, let’s let the data speak for itself.

Should we move this tangent to another thread? I don’t want to mess up my 300 prediction, and a separate thread may get more feedback (although that may be either good or bad).

I think it is appropriate to point out biases in the source of articles and/or research. But I personally don’t think that the funding source alone means that a study is fatal, but it should be taken into a consideration. (If you disagree on this point, I get it. But that means that almost any study, on this or other topics - especially in medicine and drugs - could or should be ignored.) If ammunition manufacturers sponsored a study that demonstrated or supported (as an example) Form’s point #1 (in post 273), would we also dismiss it? I would not, but I would want to know more.

(BTW, is anyone aware of any studies saying lead is OK for humans but sponsored by groups that are either independent, or even by those that stand to benefit from lead in projectiles not being harmful? Sincere question - I’m not saying the absence of those studies means lead is bad.)