6.5 140 Partition on Griz.

[xsn10s]

Grizzly Hunting with a 6.5 Creedmoor

Many of the people who poke fun at the 6.5 Creedmoor don't have a clue. It's perfectly capable of killing even big Alaskan grizzlies.

www.outdoorlife.com

 

[Calvin45]

Grizzly Hunting with a 6.5 Creedmoor

Many of the people who poke fun at the 6.5 Creedmoor don't have a clue. It's perfectly capable of killing even big Alaskan grizzlies.

www.outdoorlife.com

"Capable" and "an intelligent choice" are not the same thing. One of the biggest griz ever taken was with a single shot .22lr in self defence by a lady picking berries. But The 22 is not a grizzly gun just because you could kill a grizzly with one.

No doubt smaller cartridges than the creed have taken bigger critters than this even. But I still think it's a frankly stupid choice when in this day and age there's no reason you couldn't bring something more authoritative.

 

[xsn10s]

 

[FEENIX]

Dang!

 

[Calvin45]

the choice of projectile certainly seems sensible I'll give ya that.

 

[xsn10s]

6.5 Creedmoor is considerable larger than a 22 Long Rifle.

the choice of projectile certainly seems sensible I'll give ya that.

Did you read the article? He makes points that I think you'd agree with.

 

[xsn10s]

the choice of projectile certainly seems sensible I'll give ya that.

That's the main reason why I posted the article. The Partition's performance has been the standard for decades. I get why you were harsh on the cartridge choice. When I went to Alsaka I packed a 45-70 for large bear protection lol.

 

[Muddyboots]

Nope, not my choice for "dangerous game". Can the 6.5CM kill the grizz, of course. So can a .260 Rem, 6.5/284, etc. all with partitions. Still one of the best bullets.

6.5 Creedmoor is considerable larger than a 22 Long Rifle.

Did you read the article? He makes points that I think you'd agree with.

However, his statement that a 30-06 with 180 is really no better is absurd.

"Many people will thumb their nose at the Creed for being too little, but opt for the classic .30/06 with 180-grain bullets. Hell of a cartridge, no? Indeed. Two world wars. But do you really believe that .914 millimeters difference in diameter and 40 additional grains of mass is going to make a huge difference in how quickly you can kill a deer, elk, or moose? Larger, more powerful cartridges can deliver more damage and devastation—and they are generally more forgiving when it comes to impact with heavy bone and less-than-perfect shot angles. How much more? That's debatable. As a baseline, if you're choosing and taking ethical, careful shots, a good 140- or 143-grain 6.5mm bullet will kill stuff just as dead—often just as quickly as bullets that are a little bit larger, fired at similar velocities."

No its not debatable IMO for DANGEROUS GAME. But that's JMO.

 

[Calvin45]

6.5 Creedmoor is considerable larger than a 22 Long Rifle.

Did you read the article? He makes points that I think you'd agree with.

Oh yeah I agree but it was just the principle of the thing: regardless of the cartridge, the fact that an animal can be killed with it doesn't automatically get it as an ideal choice. And I have no beef with the 6.5 creed, I think hating that cartridge is more hyped and "trendy" than the cartridge itself at this point. It's a very sensible round for many purposes, and a more versatile and capable low recoil hunting round for women, kids, the recoil averse (no judgment either), and new shooters than ANY 6mm.

I still wouldn't take it after big bears the same way I wouldn't take my .243, .257 weatherby, or even 270 win after them: I know jack O'Connor killed grizzly with a .270 very easily, and many have been taken with .30-30s and such, they're not nearly as massive as people think. But if it were me or someone I cared about going hunting after a big Alaskan type bear, the .30 caliber magnums (and I'd throw the .30-06 and, if loaded to full power, the 8x57 to that list) are where I subjectively think the line is between "capable/adequate" and "sensible/ideal". If I ever get to do something like this I'd opt for the most authoritative thumper I had, which at present is a .358 Norma magnum (280 grain a-frames at 2800 FPS inspire confidence that a 6.5 pill that weighs exactly half that much, regardless of velocity, never will for me)

Add to the fact that such a hunt would be a once in a lifetime opportunity, and marginal cartridges do in fact give you less options and ability, I just have to wonder why a person would so limit themselves?

 

[Calvin45]

Nope, not my choice for "dangerous game". Can the 6.5CM kill the grizz, of course. So can a .260 Rem, 6.5/284, etc. all with partitions. Still one of the best bullets.

However, his statement that a 30-06 with 180 is really no better is absurd.

"Many people will thumb their nose at the Creed for being too little, but opt for the classic .30/06 with 180-grain bullets. Hell of a cartridge, no? Indeed. Two world wars. But do you really believe that .914 millimeters difference in diameter and 40 additional grains of mass is going to make a huge difference in how quickly you can kill a deer, elk, or moose? Larger, more powerful cartridges can deliver more damage and devastation—and they are generally more forgiving when it comes to impact with heavy bone and less-than-perfect shot angles. How much more? That's debatable. As a baseline, if you're choosing and taking ethical, careful shots, a good 140- or 143-grain 6.5mm bullet will kill stuff just as dead—often just as quickly as bullets that are a little bit larger, fired at similar velocities."

No its not debatable IMO for DANGEROUS GAME. But that's JMO.

Agree. Foot pounds don't tell the whole story either as we all know but instead of framing the .30-06 as little better, just a little wider and heavier, it sounds different to say that from an energy perspective if loaded to full potential it's 30 percent harder hitting with a more massive projectile of equivalent sd to smash bones…

Semantics is everything. By the authors logic there's not that big a difference then in terms of appropriate application between a 6.5 creed and a .22-250, or a .338 win mag and a .308 Winchester, or a .270 vs a .243….

 

[xsn10s]

The cartridges I carried the two times I went to Alaska in the late 90's. 45-70, 30-06 and 44 mag. But I never killed a griz. I did track a possible wounded, not by me, black bear in to a berry patch. Even with my 45-70 I was none too pleased.

 

[xsn10s]

I'll take the 6.5 CM with 140 PT over this lol. https://www.outdoorlife.com/story/h...he-old-fashioned-way-longbow-stone-arrowhead/

 

[xsn10s]

Here's what he wrote near the end of the article.

"Larger calibers can certainly offer more forgiveness and do more damage—the Creedmoor is far from my first choice for backing up a brown bear hunter or tracking poorly-hit bears into the alders. If your use of the rifle is likely to be at very close range and defensive in nature, sure, go big. But within a couple hundred yards, with good shot selection, even the soy espresso mocha latte of the cartridge world is perfectly capable of killing the biggest bears quickly. I'd wager that it killed this bear just as quickly as my .375 Ruger would have in the same scenario—though I'm not equating the two."

 

[Muddyboots]

I'd wager that it killed this bear just as quickly as my .375 Ruger would have in the same scenario

I will take that wager. The massive energy dump and tissue damage from .375 Ruger will be significantly greater. Bear might have done nose dive on first shot. Look, if you want to say the 6.5CM will kill, I have zero problem with that opinion. Say larger cartridges cannot do it better is ludicrous. And this is the continuation of 6.5CM lunacy.