6.5 CM, 6.5 PRC Enough/Effective for Elk?

[buzby]

Like your post, the real question would you carry the 6.5 Creedmoor in brown bear country? I have 6.5 CM, 6.5 RPM and 340 bee, and bet you can guess the one I'll carry.

That may or may not be the "real question"
But it is not the OPs question.

But, I'll take a 6.5cm rifle over any large caliber revolver that are often toted in bear country.
I also think indian>arrow in bear country. I'd rather be with someone who can keep their cool and get rounds on target with a CM, vs someone who ran half a box of magnums through their rifle and their follow up shots miss by feet.

 

[buzby]

With a bow yes. You can punch through shoulders. Your interpretation is incorrect with a rifle. You drew inference yourself. The statement says my opinion as I've maintained, bigger boom more energy. Simple as that. It cannot be argued

I read "weapon systems" to include rifles, sorry I don't realize you were talking archery only.

Would you rather have a 338 fmj with 2500lbs of energy make a .338 size hole, and put 2300lbs of energy in the ground or,
A 6.5 Berger with 1200lbs making a fist size permanent wound cavity, and delivering 1200lbs of energy into the animal.

Bullet performance > Energy
Energy ≠ Bullet performance

 

[southpa]

As

I read "weapon systems" to include rifles, sorry I don't realize you were talking archery only.

Would you rather have a 338 fmj with 2500lbs of energy make a .338 size hole, and put 2300lbs of energy in the ground or,
A 6.5 Berger with 1200lbs making a fist size permanent wound cavity, and delivering 1200lbs of energy into the animal.

Bullet performance > Energy
Energy ≠ Bullet performance

It really doesn't matter how it's explained or asked. If given the choice between two similarly designed bullets at similar muzzle velocities, I'm going to choose one that can and will impose more Ft pounds of ENERGY on, into or through an elk. That means I won't ever be reaching for a CM because it doesn't produce the energy I'd like to anchor elk at long range. Relax guys, use your CMs. We can still get along even though I think your rifles are wimpy
Disclaimer I don't think that a CM is wimpy. It has its applications and to each his own for deciding which application it works for

 

[bobinpa]

I read "weapon systems" to include rifles, sorry I don't realize you were talking archery only.

Would you rather have a 338 fmj with 2500lbs of energy make a .338 size hole, and put 2300lbs of energy in the ground or,
A 6.5 Berger with 1200lbs making a fist size permanent wound cavity, and delivering 1200lbs of energy into the animal.

Bullet performance > Energy
Energy ≠ Bullet performance

Who said anything about a .338 FMJ?? That wasn't part of the discussion or even realistic?

 

[buzby]

Who said anything about a .338 FMJ?? That wasn't part of the discussion or even realistic?

It shows that energy doesn't mean anything. Bullet construction trumps energy.

Someone choosing a "140gr partition" in a 6.5 isn't realistic either.

 

[southpa]

this guys literally ignoring every point that's being made about like bullets and like velocities just different weights hahah

143 eldx vs 212 eldx....
Both going 2900fps.....
Both real world numbers and projectiles.....

212 trumps your 143...because it IN FACT CARRIES MORE ENERGY. I just don't know how you don't understand that. This is the point being made. All other thing equal the bigger bullet giveth more energy.

Small bullet less energy, big bullet mo energy. It's a simple point that some people prefer.

 

[bobinpa]

It shows that energy doesn't mean anything. Bullet construction trumps energy.

Someone choosing a "140gr partition" in a 6.5 isn't realistic either.

I'll just assume that you are joking or being sarcastic when you say that energy doesn't mean anything.....
Let me try and reduce this to a VERY basic level...
ALL bullets create energy. Good hunting bullets retain their weight and mushroom well. If a bullet mushrooms well it creates a wound channel. Bigger bullets that mushroom well create a bigger wound channel than smaller bullets that mushroom well. That's just common sense or at least I thought it was and it has been proven by shooting into ballistic gel. There are numerous tests and videos of tests on the internet for hunters to watch. When you watch the videos and see a .308 caliber bullet shot into gel and it creates a 3" wide wound channel, it did that with energy. It takes energy to displace the gel or muscle tissue.... All that bullet construction does is makes sure the bullet mushrooms well and retains it's weight so it can penetrate further and create a deeper wound channel with ENERGY.

Then there is this thing called Hydrostatic shock. The more energy a bullet creates the more hydrostatic shock is created and hydrostatic shock is some nifty stuff. It can create damage in parts of a body that weren't even touched by a bullet. It creates this damage by displacing the fluid in a body and causing shock waves. The more energy, the more shock. You should look into it...

 

[340 in Va]

That may or may not be the "real question"
But it is not the OPs question.

But, I'll take a 6.5cm rifle over any large caliber revolver that are often toted in bear country.
I also think indian>arrow in bear country. I'd rather be with someone who can keep their cool and get rounds on target with a CM, vs someone who ran half a box of magnums through their rifle and their follow up shots miss by feet.

Pistol is a last resort. I'll take most any rifle over a pistol. I shoot the 340 just as well as the CM or RPM. CM is fun to shoot and cost a lot less(340 is a custom 7 1/2 lb. with scope and good brake. To answer the op's question, the 6.5 PRC should work fine, practice and getting in shape is the key.

 

[whirlwindjml]

Barnes Lehigh defense Hornady..... Nobody is telling people how much energy they're supposed to have to make a good kill. They're advertising their bullet performance at certain speeds. Everybody shooting elk with the creedmoor or a PRC or whatever believes they have enough energy to do the job exactly. exactly enough energy to do what they need to do.

So no matter how many times it said and how many condescending comments come out it doesn't matter you're not convincing anybody.

The 45 ACP with the Hornady xtp makes a 3-in wound channel easily through a deer. With a lot less energy than a 308. If That makes a person feel more comfortable and by all means go for it having more energy.

 

[BigNate]

This thread proves there is a lack of understanding of external ballistics.
Screaming about energy equaling effectiveness proves it.

Energy is a calculation of velocity and mass. Nothing else.

Permanent wound cavity is how to compare performance. A bigger diameter bullet that weighs more driven at lower velocity may have big energy numbers at the muzzle, but quickly lose velocity, drift more, and bleed energy quickly because of it. Where a smaller diameter bullet, that is a higher BC, driven at the same or higher velocity, will drift less, and while it may not have the higher energy, if it arrives at a velocity it is designed to optimize, it will have a better wound cavity.

Barnes bullets are a good example. They recommend dropping in weight so you could drive them faster, in order to get them to expand. Now they have tips and a bigger cavity behind them to promote expansion, still recommended to go lighter to achieve higher velocity. The higher velocity but lighter bullet seem to get great energy numbers at the muzzle, but quickly lose it as they rapidly slow down.
Meanwhile, using a Sierra Tipped matchking, of heavier weight, and less velocity will not drift as much, will not slow down as fast, and still expand at a lower velocity, allowing for a bigger wound channel.

Picking the right bullet for the job at hand is more important. Simple proof is to look at pistol ammo. Bear defense is mentioned frequently but most never are faced with a charging grizzly. Yet it's widely accepted that you are better off getting deep penatration on a bear than wide and shallow. Bear defense is measured in feet.

Picking for a rifle is entirely different. The bullets that work best up close may pencil through at greater distance, while the energy numbers for both are identical.

 

[southpa]

Yall should turn in you 6.5s and start shooting 22 creeds for long range elk. Since energy don't matter.

22 creed, the new Buffalo round....?

Energy is irrelevant

 

[bobinpa]

The 45 ACP with the Hornady xtp makes a 3-in wound channel easily through a deer. With a lot less energy than a 308.

Ok, I'll play along.... Based on this comment alone, in your own words, the bullet uses energy to make a wound channel. So I would think having more energy for a big animal like an elk is a good thing. One would think that based on your comment, more energy would equal a bigger wound channel. Maybe I just don't understand your logic.

 

[buzby]

I'll just assume that you are joking or being sarcastic when you say that energy doesn't mean anything.....
Let me try and reduce this to a VERY basic level...
ALL bullets create energy. Good hunting bullets retain their weight and mushroom well. If a bullet mushrooms well it creates a wound channel. Bigger bullets that mushroom well create a bigger wound channel than smaller bullets that mushroom well. That's just common sense or at least I thought it was and it has been proven by shooting into ballistic gel. There are numerous tests and videos of tests on the internet for hunters to watch. When you watch the videos and see a .308 caliber bullet shot into gel and it creates a 3" wide wound channel, it did that with energy. It takes energy to displace the gel or muscle tissue.... All that bullet construction does is makes sure the bullet mushrooms well and retains it's weight so it can penetrate further and create a deeper wound channel with ENERGY.

Then there is this thing called Hydrostatic shock. The more energy a bullet creates the more hydrostatic shock is created and hydrostatic shock is some nifty stuff. It can create damage in parts of a body that weren't even touched by a bullet. It creates this damage by displacing the fluid in a body and causing shock waves. The more energy, the more shock. You should look into it...

How much energy is required to kill an animal?

How much energy is in a 30lb recurve bow? With no hydrostatic shock even.

Sure, you need some energy. No work gets done without energy. But an efficient bullet can do it with less than what people traditionally think.

 

[buzby]

Yall should turn in you 6.5s and start shooting 22 creeds for long range elk. Since energy don't matter.

22 creed, the new Buffalo round....?

Energy is irrelevant

I'll do you one better. 223! With even less energy than 22cm.

.223 for bear, deer, elk and moose.

DON'T HAVE TIME TO READ 176 PAGES? HERE'S THE CHEAT SHEET. “Bullets matter more than headstamps.” “Spent primers offer the supreme tutorial”. I’ve read it here and elsewhere online. It got my attention. I started digging and asking questions and listened. The 77gr TMK delivered by a .223...

rokslide.com

Seriously, read some of the discussion, with an open mind and see what people are doing with very low energy cartridges. Plenty of data points