Struggling to see the point of 6.5's

[antlerz]

A study on lead dispersion looked at a 7 RM at higher velocity impact. More than a 2" dispersion in that case. Terminal effects of the HornadyAmax has been associated with extensive fragmentation (Nathan Foster Ballistic Sudies). Enough for me to go to copper for anything under 350yds. 308 comfortably sends TTSX 130s over 3000fps and nice to shoot with less recoil.
Higher BC bullets with lead for LR and you can trim a bit more away from the wound channel.

 

[Rick M.]

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."

It's certainly alarming. And these metals build up in the system over time, so for those of us eating venison and game birds for a decent portion of the year (if not throughout the entire year), there could be certainly be cause for concern and the need for further research. I also understand that some of these studies are sponsored by avian groups, but for me that's not enough to automatically dismiss the results and their possible implications. I'm glad that someone at least visited the links.

 

[Rick M.]

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.)

Regarding that last question, I have yet to find such a study, which is why I still err on the side of caution.

Apologies for derailing the thread a bit. I'll keep it on topic moving forward. PreadatorSlayer's comment irked me enough to respond, and I should've known better.

Between this thread and the "223" one, I've sort of discovered several other possibilities for my next purchase. The 6mm CM is interesting, and now I've just read about the 6mm ARC. I love talking ballistics and calibers. It keeps things interesting.

 

[z987k]

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

This is completely false. Not only does the human body treat all isotopes of lead exactly the same, it treats all isotopes of all elements exactly the same as the other isotopes. As does every chemical reaction process in the universe.

I can only guess you're going for a different word there by how fundamentally wrong that statement is. Not only that, but I'd imagine no one even knows the isotopes in the lead of bullets because it's irrelevant.

 

[HandgunHTR]

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.

The big thing to keep in mind is this: not all lead is the same. There is organic lead compounds (like the ones found in lead paint, leaded gasoline, etc) and inorganic lead (the metal stuff that is in bullets).

Organic lead is very easily absorbed into the bloodstream, either through ingestion or through skin contact. Lead acetate is a classic example of this. The Romans used to use it as a sweetener. Nowadays people who use the "dip" method to clean their rimfire suppressors are creating it. It is very easily absorbed through the skin and can be very harmful.

Inorganic lead, on the other hand, is not easily absorbed. That is why many have issues with the studies that are published. They don't ever say exactly what types of lead they are exposing their test subjects to, or what types of lead their subjects are subjected to on a normal basis.
In every link you posted, the discussion was around bullet fragments in meat. Every one of them points to studies that were conducted regarding the lead levels in people that came from other sources of exposure (such as lead paint). There has not, to my knowledge, been a definitive study on hunters over the course of their lives in regards to how the lead levels in their bloodstream increase over time as they eat game killed with lead bullets.

One of the best studies I have found, where they actually published their methods and findings is this one: https://soarraptors.org/wp-content/uploads/NorthDakotaCDCreport.pdf
Of course, even when searching for it, and on the ND DNR website, the item that is noted most is: "The study shows a link between eating wild game shot with lead bullets and higher blood lead levels." While factually true, it is a bit misleading. What the study found (if you don't want to read the whole thing) is that people who ate wild game meat had a mean lead level of 1.27 μg/dL (microgram per deciliter). Those who did not eat wild game meat had a level of 0.84 μg/dL.

That sounds significant, right? It does until you read this statement from the study: "and none exceeded the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s level of concern of 10 ug/dl." Just for comparison, the current blood lead reference level recognized by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is 3.5 micrograms per deciliter (μg/dL).

So, those people studied in ND had lead levels less than half of the reference level of the CDC.

In regards to the primer question, the lead compound used in primers is of the organic kind. When you fire, it becomes vaporized and can be breathed in. That is where the danger lies. That is also one of the biggest factors when shooting in indoor ranges. So, if you are not using lead projectiles but still shooting in indoor ranges, you are actually at greater risk for harmful lead exposure. It is also one of my peeves with these studies. I have yet to find one where one of the survey questions is "how much, on average do you shoot, and is it indoors or outdoors". Without that data, we cannot rule out that the increased in lead concentration in the blood is from just shooting a lot rather than eating meat with lead fragments in it.

And before anyone asks or implies, I spent quite a bit of time in my organic and inorganic chemistry classes in school learning the difference between the two types of compounds. They are not the same.

 

[z987k]

The big thing to keep in mind is this: not all lead is the same. There is organic lead compounds (like the ones found in lead paint, leaded gasoline, etc) and inorganic lead (the metal stuff that is in bullets).

Organic lead is very easily absorbed into the bloodstream, either through ingestion or through skin contact. Lead acetate is a classic example of this. The Romans used to use it as a sweetener. Nowadays people who use the "dip" method to clean their rimfire suppressors are creating it. It is very easily absorbed through the skin and can be very harmful.

Inorganic lead, on the other hand, is not easily absorbed. That is why many have issues with the studies that are published. They don't ever say exactly what types of lead they are exposing their test subjects to, or what types of lead their subjects are subjected to on a normal basis.
In every link you posted, the discussion was around bullet fragments in meat. Every one of them points to studies that were conducted regarding the lead levels in people that came from other sources of exposure (such as lead paint). There has not, to my knowledge, been a definitive study on hunters over the course of their lives in regards to how the lead levels in their bloodstream increase over time as they eat game killed with lead bullets.

One of the best studies I have found, where they actually published their methods and findings is this one: https://soarraptors.org/wp-content/uploads/NorthDakotaCDCreport.pdf
Of course, even when searching for it, and on the ND DNR website, the item that is noted most is: "The study shows a link between eating wild game shot with lead bullets and higher blood lead levels." While factually true, it is a bit misleading. What the study found (if you don't want to read the whole thing) is that people who ate wild game meat had a mean lead level of 1.27 μg/dL (microgram per deciliter). Those who did not eat wild game meat had a level of 0.84 μg/dL.

That sounds significant, right? It does until you read this statement from the study: "and none exceeded the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s level of concern of 10 ug/dl." Just for comparison, the current blood lead reference level recognized by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is 3.5 micrograms per deciliter (μg/dL).

So, those people studied in ND had lead levels less than half of the reference level of the CDC.

In regards to the primer question, the lead compound used in primers is of the organic kind. When you fire, it becomes vaporized and can be breathed in. That is where the danger lies. That is also one of the biggest factors when shooting in indoor ranges. So, if you are not using lead projectiles but still shooting in indoor ranges, you are actually at greater risk for harmful lead exposure. It is also one of my peeves with these studies. I have yet to find one where one of the survey questions is "how much, on average do you shoot, and is it indoors or outdoors". Without that data, we cannot rule out that the increased in lead concentration in the blood is from just shooting a lot rather than eating meat with lead fragments in it.

And before anyone asks or implies, I spent quite a bit of time in my organic and inorganic chemistry classes in school learning the difference between the two types of compounds. They are not the same.

I would imagine the process has the lead reacting with the HCl in the stomach and very slowly forming a PbCl2 coating on the outside of any lead particle, resulting in some PbCl2 in the body, but mostly protecting the remainder of the lead from any kind of further reaction?

I think in all those studies, the biggest issue is ground meat where the lead is spread through most of it as microscopic particles. There would be no lead at all in a tenderloin if the animal was shot in the lungs.

 

[JGRaider]

I eat a crapload of game meat throughout the year. Wondering if I'm going to die or get sick by lead ingestion from game meat is way, way, way down the list of things I worry about on a daily basis. .

 

[PredatorSlayer]

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.

Steve is a tool. I have had several interactions with that asshat. I’ll 100% stand by that statement.

 

[Formidilosus]

This is completely false. Not only does the human body treat all isotopes of lead exactly the same, it treats all isotopes of all elements exactly the same as the other isotopes. As does every chemical reaction process in the universe.

I can only guess you're going for a different word there by how fundamentally wrong that statement is. Not only that, but I'd imagine no one even knows the isotopes in the lead of bullets because it's irrelevant.

Entirely possible as I am not a chemical engineer. What @HandgunHTR wrote is what I was getting at. I have sat in quite a few briefings, some of them studies cited here, and have heard that the isotopes were different, but it probably was as he stated.



@Newtosavage

My apologies for diverting and responding to the lead/non lead thing.

@Rich M

I will respond to the PM and contour there is you want to.

 

[Rick M.]

Organic lead is very easily absorbed into the bloodstream, either through ingestion or through skin contact. Lead acetate is a classic example of this. The Romans used to use it as a sweetener. Nowadays people who use the "dip" method to clean their rimfire suppressors are creating it. It is very easily absorbed through the skin and can be very harmful.

Inorganic lead, on the other hand, is not easily absorbed. That is why many have issues with the studies that are published. They don't ever say exactly what types of lead they are exposing their test subjects to, or what types of lead their subjects are subjected to on a normal basis.
In every link you posted, the discussion was around bullet fragments in meat. Every one of them points to studies that were conducted regarding the lead levels in people that came from other sources of exposure (such as lead paint). There has not, to my knowledge, been a definitive study on hunters over the course of their lives in regards to how the lead levels in their bloodstream increase over time as they eat game killed with lead bullets.

I think you may be slightly off here. From what I’ve read, organic lead is much more easily absorbed through the skin (via touch), and inorganic less so (which is not to say that’s inorganic lead is not absorbable at all).

“Organic forms of lead are extremely dangerous, as they are absorbed through the skin and are highly toxic to the brain and central nervous system, much more so than inorganic lead.”

And

“The body absorbs organic lead (as was used in leaded gasoline for “on-road” vehicles in the past in the United States, and is used in some occupational settings today) faster than inorganic lead. And, unlike inorganic lead compounds, organic lead can be readily absorbed through the skin.”

Source: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/leadtoxicity/what_lead.html

To my knowledge, there is no form of lead or lead isotope that’s safe to ingest.

 

[z987k]

Entirely possible as I am not a chemical engineer. What @HandgunHTR wrote is what I was getting at. I have sat in quite a few briefings, some of them studies cited here, and have heard that the isotopes were different, but it probably was as he stated.



@Newtosavage

My apologies for diverting and responding to the lead/non lead thing.

@Rich M

I will respond to the PM and contour there is you want to.

Isotopes of elements have different neutrons and has nothing to do with chemical interactions between elements. Isotopes is not the word you're looking for. Anyone with some high school chemistry is going to raise an eyebrow.

What we'd be interested here is the lead in any form(organic, inorganic, as a compound, elemental) and it's bio-availability.

The big thing to keep in mind is this: not all lead is the same. There is organic lead compounds (like the ones found in lead paint, leaded gasoline, etc) and inorganic lead (the metal stuff that is in bullets).

Organic lead is very easily absorbed into the bloodstream, either through ingestion or through skin contact. Lead acetate is a classic example of this. The Romans used to use it as a sweetener. Nowadays people who use the "dip" method to clean their rimfire suppressors are creating it. It is very easily absorbed through the skin and can be very harmful.

Inorganic lead, on the other hand, is not easily absorbed. That is why many have issues with the studies that are published. They don't ever say exactly what types of lead they are exposing their test subjects to, or what types of lead their subjects are subjected to on a normal basis.
In every link you posted, the discussion was around bullet fragments in meat. Every one of them points to studies that were conducted regarding the lead levels in people that came from other sources of exposure (such as lead paint). There has not, to my knowledge, been a definitive study on hunters over the course of their lives in regards to how the lead levels in their bloodstream increase over time as they eat game killed with lead bullets.

One of the best studies I have found, where they actually published their methods and findings is this one: https://soarraptors.org/wp-content/uploads/NorthDakotaCDCreport.pdf
Of course, even when searching for it, and on the ND DNR website, the item that is noted most is: "The study shows a link between eating wild game shot with lead bullets and higher blood lead levels." While factually true, it is a bit misleading. What the study found (if you don't want to read the whole thing) is that people who ate wild game meat had a mean lead level of 1.27 μg/dL (microgram per deciliter). Those who did not eat wild game meat had a level of 0.84 μg/dL.

That sounds significant, right? It does until you read this statement from the study: "and none exceeded the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s level of concern of 10 ug/dl." Just for comparison, the current blood lead reference level recognized by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is 3.5 micrograms per deciliter (μg/dL).

So, those people studied in ND had lead levels less than half of the reference level of the CDC.

In regards to the primer question, the lead compound used in primers is of the organic kind. When you fire, it becomes vaporized and can be breathed in. That is where the danger lies. That is also one of the biggest factors when shooting in indoor ranges. So, if you are not using lead projectiles but still shooting in indoor ranges, you are actually at greater risk for harmful lead exposure. It is also one of my peeves with these studies. I have yet to find one where one of the survey questions is "how much, on average do you shoot, and is it indoors or outdoors". Without that data, we cannot rule out that the increased in lead concentration in the blood is from just shooting a lot rather than eating meat with lead fragments in it.

And before anyone asks or implies, I spent quite a bit of time in my organic and inorganic chemistry classes in school learning the difference between the two types of compounds. They are not the same.

I don't think anyone thinks they are the same, but we have a good amount of data with regards to the damage leaded gasoline did to people, and while the tetra ethyl lead is organic and crazy toxic, most people's exposure were from the combustion products of TEL, lead oxide and lead bromide(ethylene dibromide is used as a lead scavenging agent).

 

[z987k]

I think you may be slightly off here. From what I’ve read, organic lead is much more easily absorbed through the skin (via touch), and inorganic less so (which is not to say that’s inorganic lead is not absorbable at all).

“Organic forms of lead are extremely dangerous, as they are absorbed through the skin and are highly toxic to the brain and central nervous system, much more so than inorganic lead.”

And

“The body absorbs organic lead (as was used in leaded gasoline for “on-road” vehicles in the past in the United States, and is used in some occupational settings today) faster than inorganic lead. And, unlike inorganic lead compounds, organic lead can be readily absorbed through the skin.”

Source: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/leadtoxicity/what_lead.html

I think that's exactly what he is saying.

To my knowledge, there is no form of lead or lead isotope that’s safe to ingest.

While your statement is factually correct, it has nothing to do with what's being discussed.

That word was misused by form and it appears a few people have no idea what an isotope is.

Isotope - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[sndmn11]

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.

We accomplish those parameters with TTSX or LRX with 30-06 in 130, 168, and 180(factory). 7-08 in 145. 6.5creed in 127.

We don't get there with factory 120ttsx in 7-08 but their factory load is 100fps slower than the 145 hand load.

 

[Billinsd]

What am I missing?

6.5 bullets are really pointy is the point. Pun intended!! Many hunters are happy to buy the latest and greatest. Most buy what is marketed the most successfully. 6.5s have their place for sure.

 

[Billinsd]

I think the better question might be - what are you looking for?

Attention!!!

 

[Maverick1]

Attention!!!

Got 15 pages of it.

 

[Newtosavage]

My apologies for diverting and responding to the lead/non lead thing.

Well it's really my fault for openly admitting I use monos. I forgot the don't ask don't tell policy on monos was still in effect here. I'll do my best to remember next time.

 

[Rick M.]

While your statement is factually correct, it has nothing to do with what's being discussed.

Eh... I've been discussing the possible implications of ingesting lead via game meat the entire time. Not sure what you mean by this. Whether or not the lead ingested is inorganic or organic is simply a nuance of the conversation.

I think that's exactly what he is saying.

It has been mentioned in such a way that promotes the idea that the type of lead found in hunting ammunition is inorganic, and thus not harmful / able to be absorbed into the bloodstream. It's still harmful, just not as immediately or severely as with organic lead. It's still insidious, in the same way that mercury is.

I think in all those studies, the biggest issue is ground meat where the lead is spread through most of it as microscopic particles. There would be no lead at all in a tenderloin if the animal was shot in the lungs.

The research contradicts your last sentence. Macroscopic and microscopic lead fragments are found, on average, a maximum distance of eleven inches from the original wound cavity. This is stated directly in the recent Minnesota game meat study that I previously linked. The tenderloins are on the underside of the animals spine, and would be an easy candidate for led fragmentation to be present. Unless you meant the back straps?

From the study:

• We skinned and gutted each carcass and inserted a carbon fiber tube through the wound channel prior to taking a radiograph on the exit wound side. We also rinsed carcasses of sheep shot with both types of rapid expansion bullets and took a second radiograph to determine the effect washing had on fragment distribution.
• A veterinarian counted the number of fragments and measured the maximum distances the fragments traveled.
• The extent of lead contamination in muscle tissue was determined using techniques similar to other studies published in scientific literature. We collected muscle tissue samples at 2, 10 and 18 inches from the exit wounds. We also measured the diameter of the entry/exit holes and the wound channel length.

Additionally:

• Ballistic tip (rapid expansion): These bullets had the highest fragmentation rate, with an average of 141 fragments per carcass and an average maximum distance of 11 inches from the wound channel. In one carcass, a fragment was found 14 inches from the exit wound.
• Soft point (rapid expansion): These bullets left an average of 86 fragments at an average maximum distance of 11 inches from the wound channel. In this research, bonded lead-core bullets (controlled expansion, exposed lead core) performed almost identically to the soft-core bullets and left an average of 82 fragments with an average maximum distance of nine inches from the wound.

This is what I mean about just making statements that sound logical, but have no real supporting data. We have to tread carefully with such statements.

 

[Newtosavage]

Eh... I've been discussing the possible implications of ingesting lead via game meat the entire time. Not sure what you mean by this. Whether or not the lead ingested is inorganic or organic is simply a nuance of the conversation.


It has been mentioned in such a way that promotes the idea that the type of lead found in hunting ammunition is inorganic, and thus not harmful / able to be absorbed into the bloodstream. It's still harmful, just not as immediately or severely as with organic lead. It's still insidious, in the same way that mercury is.


The research contradicts your last sentence. Macroscopic and macroscopic lead fragments are found, on average, a maximum distance of eleven inches from the original wound cavity. This is stated directly in the recent Minnesota game meat study that I recently linked. The tenderloins are on the underside of the animals spine, and would be an easy candidate for led fragmentation to be present. Unless you meant the back straps?

From the study:

• We skinned and gutted each carcass and inserted a carbon fiber tube through the wound channel prior to taking a radiograph on the exit wound side. We also rinsed carcasses of sheep shot with both types of rapid expansion bullets and took a second radiograph to determine the effect washing had on fragment distribution.
• A veterinarian counted the number of fragments and measured the maximum distances the fragments traveled.
• The extent of lead contamination in muscle tissue was determined using techniques similar to other studies published in scientific literature. We collected muscle tissue samples at 2, 10 and 18 inches from the exit wounds. We also measured the diameter of the entry/exit holes and the wound channel length.

Additionally:

• Ballistic tip (rapid expansion): These bullets had the highest fragmentation rate, with an average of 141 fragments per carcass and an average maximum distance of 11 inches from the wound channel. In one carcass, a fragment was found 14 inches from the exit wound.
• Soft point (rapid expansion): These bullets left an average of 86 fragments at an average maximum distance of 11 inches from the wound channel. In this research, bonded lead-core bullets (controlled expansion, exposed lead core) performed almost identically to the soft-core bullets and left an average of 82 fragments with an average maximum distance of nine inches from the wound.

This is what I mean about just making statements that sound logical, but have no real supporting data. We have to tread carefully with such statements.

I couldn't find the bullet's BC in any of that though...

And we all agreed before that BC matters!

 

[Rick M.]

Well it's really my fault for openly admitting I use monos. I forgot the don't ask don't tell policy on monos was still in effect here. I'll do my best to remember next time.

Yeah... the fact that it's a stigma here is unfortunate. You and I both use copper monos, so I think that changes the game for us with respect to getting all of the benefits from the 6.5 cartridges. From what I've read, need cartridges that start fast and stay fast, guaranteeing the best possible expansion. The great thing about monos is the penetration, even with lighter bullets. Form has me looking really hard at the 6mm CM, and I just read about the 6mm ARC today, which I had no idea even existed. The 6CM starts fast and holds it's velocity really well up to about 450 yards.