6mm Creedmoor first elk hunt

[bultinkle]

The gun you shoot better with will kill better

 

[stazmania]

View attachment 626584
How much energy caused this damage?

depends on the projectile, and energy remaining on impact, also was it forward into the neck or rearward into bone and shoulder, was the elks hide wet or dry? was the animal moving or standing still? was the animal well hydrated and rested? did the animal have high blood pressure? Had the animal previously had an understanding of physics and hydraulics?

 

[fseaman]

The .224 Sierra TMK from my 22 Creedmoor creates a 2-liter bottle-sized would channel 12" long in elk at 500 yards at 413 ft/lbs of energy. Bullet construction kills animals, not ft/lbs of energy.

Yup, if every shot were perfect this would be perfect. If you hit a rib or nick the shoulder blade or leg bone, what happens?

"rule of thumb" is not intended for "perfect shots.
MFG minimum velocities are not intended for "perfect shots".

BTW: for you children. "rule of thumb" and MFG minimums AND YOUR 22 ManBun is valid.

but y'all seem to be absolutists or trolls

 

[fseaman]

The gun you shoot better with will kill better

No truer words.

 

[bultinkle]

I hate recoil and love my smaller guns just as much as the next guy but have some respect for the animals your hunting. It really hits a nerve with me seeing all these people using creeds to hunt elk and moose. Yeah it can do it when hit in the right spot but it's still not a quick humane kill like a larger caliber. I hate to say it but I hope game and fish start putting a minimum caliber restriction of 270 for elk and larger game. I've shot close to 30 elk and a 6mm/6.5 don't belong on an elk hunt.

I don't like that you guys are doing it different than me so I want the GOVERNMENT to step in and make more laws and ban it

Just what we freaking need.

 

[Fenix Outdoors]

In case 1, all the energy was transferred to the target.
In case 2, none of the energy was transferred to the target and insufficient interruption of blood flow.

So yes, terminal ballistics is very very important.

- Wrong, it was function of the bullet construction.
- Wrong, it was a function of the bullet construction.
- Who said terminal ballistics wasn't?

Antagonizing people makes them not want to engage, trust, or take you seriously.

Calling competent and intelligent adult men "children" is childish and stupid.

 

[fseaman]

... im so use to and confident in the 6 mm. Your thoughts

The gun you shoot the best is the one you will kill with the best.

 

[fseaman]

- Wrong, it was function of the bullet construction.
- Wrong, it was a function of the bullet construction.
- Who said terminal ballistics wasn't?

Antagonizing people makes them not want to engage, trust, or take you seriously.

Calling competent and intelligent adult men "children" is childish and stupid.

You are funny.

I admitted I was gaming all of you. Did you miss that.

BTW: the best bullet construction going 2fps with 1 PFE isn't going to do chit.

All of it is a system. Construction, actual terminal ballistics, KE transferred, blood vessels damages, organs damaged, CNS impacts. You telling "wrong" excludes all other parameters. You can do that. It's poor logic but OK.

 

[Jon Bischof]

Is this thread really 30 pages of discussion about using 6mm Creedmoor for elk? You can use what you want if it is legal. But don't we have better things to discuss?

 

[fseaman]

These caliber, velocity, chambering type threads always turn into a storm because most look at too few variables including the human variable.

None of us are perfect except me. I'm perfect so everything I say must be obeyed even if I can't see you and I can see you even in your bathroom.

 

[fseaman]

Is this thread really 30 pages of discussion about using 6mm Creedmoor for elk? You can use what you want if it is legal. But don't we have better things to discuss?

That is why I got all silly on those being to serious.

But it always happens dunnit.

 

[quandary]

Energy is not a wounding mechanism, period, and this has been proven in every wound ballistics lab in actual tissue since the 90's. Ft/lbs of energy tells us nothing about how a bullet damages tissue, it has nothing to do with the shape of the wound, it won't tell you how deep a bullet will penetrate, etc.
Two .338 300 grain bullets, both impacts at 3700 ft/lbs of energy. One travels 4" and makes a 13" wound channel 3" in diameter. The second one penetrates 36" and makes a pencil sized wound channel. Bullet construction kills animals, not ft/lbs of energy.
The .224 Sierra TMK from my 22 Creedmoor creates a 2-liter bottle-sized would channel 12" long in elk at 500 yards at 413 ft/lbs of energy. Bullet construction kills animals, not ft/lbs of energy.

You are willingly refusing to understand what several posters are saying about energy measures at impact. They are not saying that just because 3,500 ft/lbs of energy hits an animal it will die. The point is energy measures represent the "potential" destructive impact a bullet can transmit into the thorax cavity of an animal.

All of it is a system. Construction, actual terminal ballistics, KE transferred, blood vessels damages, organs damaged, CNS impacts.

The above statement is the point. In order to be effective and humane everything has to work together. Let's call it "killing energy". Given similar bullet construction and shot placement a bigger bullet (more energy), will kill better than a smaller bullet (less energy). Energy measured in ft/lbs is simply the indicative measure of potential. As an example take a Berger 215 hybrid versus a Berger 108 Elite Hunter. At 700 yards the 215 has 1802ft/lbs of energy the 108 has 830ft/lbs. Do you honestly believe the "killing energy" of the 108 is equal to the 215?

 

[Fenix Outdoors]

You are willingly refusing to understand what several posters are saying about energy measures at impact. They are not saying that just because 3,500 ft/lbs of energy hits an animal it will die. The point is energy measures represent the "potential" destructive impact a bullet can transmit into the thorax cavity of an animal.

Do you honestly believe the "killing energy" of the 108 is equal to the 215?

No, I'm not, so stop saying I am, and I don't care what other posters are saying about energy, they're wrong. I'm simply saying there's no magical energy metric or energy threshold, or minimum ft/lbs of energy "standard" that contributes to the wounding mechanism that matters as much as as him and others have incorrectly blathered on about. No one cares, shoot what you want, I'll do the same.

 

[eric1115]

You are willingly refusing to understand what several posters are saying about energy measures at impact. They are not saying that just because 3,500 ft/lbs of energy hits an animal it will die. The point is energy measures represent the "potential" destructive impact a bullet can transmit into the thorax cavity of an animal.



The above statement is the point. In order to be effective and humane everything has to work together. Let's call it "killing energy". Given similar bullet construction and shot placement a bigger bullet (more energy), will kill better than a smaller bullet (less energy). Energy measured in ft/lbs is simply the indicative measure of potential. As an example take a Berger 215 hybrid versus a Berger 108 Elite Hunter. At 700 yards the 215 has 1802ft/lbs of energy the 108 has 830ft/lbs. Do you honestly believe the "killing energy" of the 108 is equal to the 215?

I think the message of the "energy is a useless metric" crowd is, the energy number doesn't really correlate with wound channel characteristics or killing capability. You can have low KE options like a 77TMK or 108 ELDM that consistently produce wide, deep permanent wound channels. You can have high KE options like a 225 CX or 210 TTSX (or FMJ) at low-ish velocity that will poke a very narrow hole pretty deep, resulting in a long time to incapacitation.

108 Berger and 215 Berger will produce wound channels that are more alike than different if both are at same velocity (call it 2400 fps, right in the sweet spot for both). The 215 will be a bit deeper and a bit wider, probably 5" wide vs 6-7" wide, and 18-20 vs 24ish deep but broadly speaking that same football shaped cavity of shredded tissue. It might be double the cubic inches of shredded tissue, but both are more than adequate to quickly kill an elk and you're only gaining a little bit of lateral margin for error (like you can be an inch and a half further off and still have the edge of the cavity reach the same place).

They will be very different if they are at the same energy. At 1000 ft-lb, the 215 is around 1400 fps, well below the point where upset gets unreliable. Very good chance that we have a .308ish diameter column of destroyed tissue. The 108 is doing 2050ish, and will upset reliably, producing a football shaped cavity of shredded tissue.

Even given like bullet construction, energy doesn't correlate with wound characteristics nearly as well as impact velocity.

So if same energy doesn't correlate with like bullet weights but different construction (FMJ unacceptable wound channel, mono/hard bonded is narrow but deep, Berger/ELD type very wide but maybe not as deep), doesn't correlate with like construction but different weight, what is it actually correlated with?

If you have the pieces of information that let you say something meaningful about how the energy gets applied, you already have way more specific information than what the energy number might convey.

Without knowing construction and impact velocity, energy is a useless metric. Without knowing energy value, construction and impact velocity can tell you a lot about the characteristics of the wound.