156 EOL/6.5 CM For Elk

Here's a video of the 6.5 in action on elk. Producer says the shot was less than 200. What little blood is shown indicates a good shot. Shot is 5:30 into the video. I'm not impressed.



Let me add there is a difference between ballistics and terminal ballistics.
 
Well, 1 video doesn't necessarily mean anything. Good example of a bad example, sure probably. Where was the impact? Don't know, it didn't show it. Seen this happen with much larger calibers guiding over the past 30 years.
 
Well, 1 video doesn't necessarily mean anything. Good example of a bad example, sure probably. Where was the impact? Don't know, it didn't show it. Seen this happen with much larger calibers guiding over the past 30 years.

It absolutely means something. It's a data point. Take many data points and you'll end up with reliable conclusions. It shouldn't be only point used for the decision.
You quickly dismissing it shows some bias.
I noticed a small amount of blood about 2/3 the way up tight to the shoulder/crease area in the recovery segment. Another observation was the lack of ripple when the bullet impacted the elk.
 
So you want me to go dig up all the video's I can to show the opposite affect? I have seen 100's of animals hit the dirt from 338 to 204, elk, moose, deer. I have seen heavy calibers do little to nothing to elk as far as visual affect and watched them run over the ridge. I have seen elk crushed to the ground with an arrow. (that was a weird one). I have a ton of real world experience to tell me what I need to know and 1 or 10 video's is not going to make a major impact on changing anything. Am I biased? Only in the sense that I am anti-biased to BS. In the past 2 years 16 elk in our camp have hit the dirt to a 143 in a creedmoor. Not a single loss, not a single track job, and most died in their tracks. No lingering deaths. If that was a 308 with a 165 nosler no one would care. They'd say it was anomaly, a bad hit, or some other rhetoric to dismiss the video. Simply because it was a creedmoor the biased crowd raises their flag and thinks they have evidence to say it is not valid cartridge. It's total BS, nothing more to it. Is the video valid? Yes, sure, it is example of a bad example as I had clearly stated.

Let's put this in perspective. A 143 traveling 2800 mv will impact the elk at 200 yards at 2577 fps. A 7mag with a 168 berger at 2860mv will impact the elk at 250 with 2571 fps. Energy, is 2065 vs 2466. The 7mm energy at 450 is identical to the 143 at 200. I am will to bet no one would bat an eye at a 450 yard shot with a 7mag and 168 berger but yet the data is identical to the 143 at 200. It doesn't take long to debunk a lot of opinions with data if a person wants to spend a little time with a ballistics calculator.
 
So you want me to go dig up all the video's I can to show the opposite affect? I have seen 100's of animals hit the dirt from 338 to 204, elk, moose, deer. I have seen heavy calibers do little to nothing to elk as far as visual affect and watched them run over the ridge. I have seen elk crushed to the ground with an arrow. (that was a weird one). I have a ton of real world experience to tell me what I need to know and 1 or 10 video's is not going to make a major impact on changing anything. Am I biased? Only in the sense that I am anti-biased to BS. In the past 2 years 16 elk in our camp have hit the dirt to a 143 in a creedmoor. Not a single loss, not a single track job, and most died in their tracks. No lingering deaths. If that was a 308 with a 165 nosler no one would care. They'd say it was anomaly, a bad hit, or some other rhetoric to dismiss the video. Simply because it was a creedmoor the biased crowd raises their flag and thinks they have evidence to say it is not valid cartridge. It's total BS, nothing more to it. Is the video valid? Yes, sure, it is example of a bad example as I had clearly stated.

Let's put this in perspective. A 143 traveling 2800 mv will impact the elk at 200 yards at 2577 fps. A 7mag with a 168 berger at 2860mv will impact the elk at 250 with 2571 fps. Energy, is 2065 vs 2466. The 7mm energy at 450 is identical to the 143 at 200. I am will to bet no one would bat an eye at a 450 yard shot with a 7mag and 168 berger but yet the data is identical to the 143 at 200. It doesn't take long to debunk a lot of opinions with data if a person wants to spend a little time with a ballistics calculator.

I'll add some perspective. Attached are screenshots from Hornady using their precision eldx line of ammo(6.5/147 first then 7mm mag/162). You'll find your figures are skewed-showing bias. If the energy figures are correct, the 6.5 is falling below 1500 fpe between 300-400 yards. The 7mm mag is still at 1774 fpe at 500. Honestly, there's no comparison. If the 6.5 is rocking for you, super great.
Screenshot_20191111-173816_DuckDuckGo.jpg
Screenshot_20191111-174115_DuckDuckGo.jpg
 
I'll add some perspective. Attached are screenshots from Hornady using their precision eldx line of ammo(6.5/147 first then 7mm mag/162). You'll find your figures are skewed-showing bias. If the energy figures are correct, the 6.5 is falling below 1500 fpe between 300-400 yards. The 7mm mag is still at 1774 fpe at 500. Honestly, there's no comparison. If the 6.5 is rocking for you, super great. View attachment 157521 View attachment 157522
He's saying the creed is the same at 200 as a 168berger from a rem mag at 450. So why is a 200 yd shot with a 6.5 not okay?
 
Actually those numbers came from my rifles. I don't actually hunt elk with a creedmoor. I use a bow 95% of the time. If I hunted elk with a rifle it'd be my 6.5-284 or 6.5 PRC. Either way, piles of dead elk trump opinion.
 
Funny how 15-20 yrs ago 270, 7 mags, 30-06 all considered plenty for elk with 150ish grain bullets. Now a 6.5 Creed, 260, with 7 gr less a bullet is not enough to hunt elk with????? Come on now!!

I can show a ton of pictures from lots of dead elk we have taken with 6.5 and less at 500+ yards, never lost an elk either.

The ft Lbs of energy isn't as meaningful statistic as everyone makes it out to be. The FPS in which the bullet will penetrate, and expand is more meaningful than FT LBS. using a video of a kid shooting an elk(congrats to her) as the "evidence" I couldn't tell where the elk was hit!!

There's not doubt you can anchor them faster with bigger cartridges but its not needed, and a Creedmore does just fine. I know a guy who killed over a 100 elk with a .243.
 
Funny how 15-20 yrs ago 270, 7 mags, 30-06 all considered plenty for elk with 150ish grain bullets. Now a 6.5 Creed, 260, with 7 gr less a bullet is not enough to hunt elk with????? Come on now!!

I can show a ton of pictures from lots of dead elk we have taken with 6.5 and less at 500+ yards, never lost an elk either.

The ft Lbs of energy isn't as meaningful statistic as everyone makes it out to be. The FPS in which the bullet will penetrate, and expand is more meaningful than FT LBS. using a video of a kid shooting an elk(congrats to her) as the "evidence" I couldn't tell where the elk was hit!!

There's not doubt you can anchor them faster with bigger cartridges but its not needed, and a Creedmore does just fine. I know a guy who killed over a 100 elk with a .243.
One of my clients killed a nice 330 class bull with a 140, factory ammo, 7 mag at 400. DRT. I used to be a big caliber and big power guy until I saw that. Made me rethink things a little. That was 20 years ago
 
Ive killed over 25 bulls with my 6.5's and I figure its good to 1000 yards with the right bullet so a Creed should be good to 600-700. We also killed a moose with one shot at 900+. Did they ALL go bang flop; no, but neither did they go far. Most that don't go straight down will just stand there for a few seconds and tip over.
 
I'll add some perspective. Attached are screenshots from Hornady using their precision eldx line of ammo(6.5/147 first then 7mm mag/162). You'll find your figures are skewed-showing bias. If the energy figures are correct, the 6.5 is falling below 1500 fpe between 300-400 yards. The 7mm mag is still at 1774 fpe at 500. Honestly, there's no comparison. If the 6.5 is rocking for you, super great. View attachment 157521 View attachment 157522
Didn't know rocky mountain elk hung out at sea level. Maybe adjust your baro settings.....
 
Warning! This thread is more than 5 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Recent Posts

Top