General Purpose Cartridge for Coyotes up to Elk

Guys have been slucing moose in Scandinavia for 125+ years with the 6.5x55… so I'm sure it's way too small for elk.
I went in 1997 to Sweden for moose with my buddy, using a 300WM, 180g Speer Grand Slams and a 338WM with Speer 225g Grand Slams for my buddy to use. The hunter proficiency test was a great thing, have to hit a 8" (?) heart target on a sliding moose cutout target. We watched waiting our turn and those Swedes are very proficient, found out they hunt hogs to keep their skills up.
We both passed the test quite easily, but there were 3 guys from Germany that didn't get their licenses, you have 3 goes each day, never heard if they passed or not. They were very poor shooters on moving game.

Cheers.
 
This guy messed up my whitetail hunt last January.
Unzipped his sport coat at 340 with 168ABLR IN 280 AI.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_4668.jpeg
    IMG_4668.jpeg
    448.1 KB · Views: 34
Guys have been slucing moose in Scandinavia for 125+ years with the 6.5x55… so I'm sure it's way too small for elk.
I read a European hunting article a few years ago, and it says it is because they shoot moose quite close, use heavy-for-caliber rounds, and have had no affordable chambering choices for the average hunter for many years. It is similar to the claim that our venerable .30-30 on deer. I have an 1894 Carl Gustaf carbine in 6.5x55 Swedish Mauser carbine. While there is something nostalgic about this chambering, I have other chamberings in my inventory that are better suited for moose.
 
Hmmmm… so those moose aren't dead enough? If you think about your statement regarding the old 6.5x55, and apply it to modern 6.5s like the PRC, then you'd see that what suffices for killing larger animals than elk at medium to short ranges is the same as that being applied to elk at double the distance via more efficient projectiles and faster launch speeds. Especially if you also apply the concepts of good shooting practices and proper projectile placement.

I believe John Barness published an article years ago discussing the average distance traveled by moose in Scandinavia after they were shot. This was based on a study by the Swedish govt. spanning nearly a decade and encompassing many hundreds of moose. To my recollection there was no statistical difference between those shot with the antiquated 6.5x55, and those shot with more modern and proficient rounds like the '06, 7 Mag(s), .300 Win, etc.
 
Hmmmm… so those moose aren't dead enough? If you think about your statement regarding the old 6.5x55, and apply it to modern 6.5s like the PRC, then you'd see that what suffices for killing larger animals than elk at medium to short ranges is the same as that being applied to elk at double the distance via more efficient projectiles and faster launch speeds. Especially if you also apply the concepts of good shooting practices and proper projectile placement.

I believe John Barness published an article years ago discussing the average distance traveled by moose in Scandinavia after they were shot. This was based on a study by the Swedish govt. spanning nearly a decade and encompassing many hundreds of moose. To my recollection there was no statistical difference between those shot with the antiquated 6.5x55, and those shot with more modern and proficient rounds like the '06, 7 Mag(s), .300 Win, etc.
That is not what I said. If you want to use a 6.5x55 for moose, go for it. It is not my personal preference, regardless of statistics or article/author esp, in LRH.
 
That is not what I said. If you want to use a 6.5x55 for moose, go for it. It is not my personal preference, regardless of statistics or article/author esp, in LRH.
What I saw with my own eyes fascinated me in Sweden, most common cartridges we saw were 6.5x55 and 7x57 with a few 7x64 Brenneke in Shultz & Larsen rifles. There was also another rifle I couldn't identify that we saw quite a few times, it was a straight pull, unsure of the manufacturer or cartridge. Stock looked very similar to a hogsback Brno/CZ style piece. Those Swedes used heavy for cal bullets, like 160's in the Swede and 175's in the 7's.

Cheers.
 
What I saw with my own eyes fascinated me in Sweden, most common cartridges we saw were 6.5x55 and 7x57 with a few 7x64 Brenneke in Shultz & Larsen rifles. There was also another rifle I couldn't identify that we saw quite a few times, it was a straight pull, unsure of the manufacturer or cartridge. Stock looked very similar to a hogsback Brno/CZ style piece. Those Swedes used heavy for cal bullets, like 160's in the Swede and 175's in the 7's.

Cheers.
The straight pull with the hogs back stock is likely a Blaser, though there are other high end makers like Merkle, Steyr, Heym and the like that produce them as well. Blaser however is the most common one you see out hunting.
 
My understanding of hunting scandinavian moose with the old 6.5 Sweede is they used old 160gr soft point round nose bullets at a fairly slow velocity. Something like 2450 fps off the top of my head. From what I recollect hit soft tissue like double lung at medium to short distances dead moose. Hit heavy bone and you could be in some trouble. Those 160gr long heavy for caliber bullets had a high sectional density so they penetrated deep and straight. Different technology and design from modern bullets.
 
I built my 260 AI for hunting coyotes to elk. After researching it a bit more I decided on sticking to my 30-06 for elk before using the 260 AI. And recently I purchased a 7mm RM for long range elk hunting, and 7-08 for medium range elk hunting.
 
Those Swedes used heavy for cal bullets, like 160's in the Swede
My understanding of hunting scandinavian moose with the old 6.5 Sweede is they used old 160gr soft point round nose bullets at a fairly slow velocity. Something like 2450 fps off the top of my head. From what I recollect hit soft tissue like double lung at medium to short distances dead moose. Hit heavy bone and you could be in some trouble. Those 160gr long heavy for caliber bullets had a high sectional density so they penetrated deep and straight. Different technology and design from modern bullets.
Yep, as noted in #88. Somewhere in my reloading pile, I have some 160 factory ammo RN SP; I do not recall the manufacturer.
 
Yep, as noted in #88. Somewhere in my reloading pile, I have some 160 factory ammo RN SP; I do not recall the manufacturer.
Most likely the old Hornady 160gr soft point round nose. And I think that bullet has been discontinued.
 
I built my 260 AI for hunting coyotes to elk. After researching it a bit more I decided on sticking to my 30-06 for elk before using the 260 AI. And recently I purchased a 7mm RM for long range elk hunting, and 7-08 for medium range elk hunting.
That's the beauty of having better choices. If I had to choose a .26 cal, I would choose my .264 WM over my 6.5x55 and 6.5 CM. But I have other chamberings better suited for the game and environment.
 
That's the beauty of having better choices. If I had to choose a .26 cal, I would choose my .264 WM over my 6.5x55 and 6.5 CM. But I have other chamberings better suited for the game and environment.
Yup I agree. And what I would use might not be what others would use. I have two buddies in Bend that both have hunted the area for decades using a 7mm RM. That's their elk rifle and they've taken numerous elk with it. Another buddy that has passed used his 308 win for eastern Oregon elk up in Sumpter. He had many magnums to choose from but took his 308 win for elk out to 300 yards. I would of stuck with my 7mm RM or even my 30-06. But a recent shoulder injury had me purchase a Howa Superlite in 7-08.
 

Recent Posts

Top