Lapua 6.5x47 for Deer?


PDA






docsleepy
May 13, 2010, 12:03 AM
I'm somewhat recoil sensitive and just not willing to deal with 270's 30 06 etc...

Seems to me that I can push 100grains at 3000 fps with Lapua 6.5x47 and possibly also have a passable benchrest gun (different stock). (I like Savages, and can switch out bolts, barrels, stocks easily).


Is there anything I'm missing, that would prevent this from being an acceptable deer rifle? Short, fat barrel for better accuracy, two stocks, one for benchrest one for hunting (already have both), maybe a SSS trigger that can go from ounces to couple lbs, switch to lower powered, less expensive scope for deer, and only need one action/barrel. Missing anything?

Thanks for advice,

If you enjoyed reading about "Lapua 6.5x47 for Deer?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Zak Smith
May 13, 2010, 12:13 AM
6.5x47 Lapua is totally sufficient for deer. You don't necessarily need a fat, heavy barrel-- buying a premium match barrel from a top tier manufacturer and having it chambered true and straight is more important than barrel weight.

Make sure to use a good 6.5mm hunting bullet. From a 22" barrel, you should be able to shoot 140's at 2600-2650 fps or 120's at 2800 fps.

R.W.Dale
May 13, 2010, 12:24 AM
If you reload you're missing nothing.

If not you're missing the lack of factory loaded hunting suitable ammo. In which case may I suggest 250 savage.

sumpnz
May 13, 2010, 12:39 AM
Nothing at all wrong with a 6.5x47 for deer. I use a 6.5x55SE for my dedicated deer rifle. Great round.

No idea what x47 exterior ballistics look like, but a 140gr soft point that impacts at anything over 1800fps will be plenty to take down a deer.

If you want to use 100gr bullets make sure they're appropriate for deer. Most are either target or varmint bullets, neither of which are really suitable for deer. Looking at Midway it would appear that there's more options for 100gr hunting bullets that I'd have thought. Barnes, Hornady, and Nosler all have viable options. Personally I'd stick with 120+gr bullets for hunting, but that's me. YMMV.

docsleepy
May 13, 2010, 08:25 AM
THANKS guys. I do reload, and going up to a heavier bullet is not a problem. Especially the suggestions of what weight/fps you consider minimum -- very helpful. This may work out well. Thanks for all your advice.

MachIVshooter
May 13, 2010, 09:29 AM
Like Krochus said, if you handload, it's a very good choice. If not, something like the .243 or .260 Rem. would be a better option, as they are first and foremost hunting cartridges with available match ammunition.

Nothing at all wrong with a 6.5x47 for deer. I use a 6.5x55SE for my dedicated deer rifle. Great round.

No idea what x47 exterior ballistics look like

Do you routinely recommend cartridges that you know nothing about for a task that requires the user to be intimately familiar with the ballistics?

let me draw an analogy here:

"Nothing at all wrong with a (Ford) 6.5x47 (Ranger) for deer (Hauling that trailer). I use a (Ford) 6.5x55SE (F-250) for my dedicated deer rifle (Hauler). Great round (Truck).

No idea what x47 (Ranger) exterior ballistics (drivetrain and Suspension) look like (can handle)"

sumpnz
May 13, 2010, 09:32 AM
MachIV - Nice way to take a comment out of context, leaving out the following parts. You know, the part that was really relavent to the discussion.

MachIVshooter
May 13, 2010, 09:35 AM
MachIV - Nice way to take a comment out of context, leaving out the following parts. You know, the part was really relavent to the discussion.

What part? This?

but a 140gr soft point that impacts at anything over 1800fps will be plenty to take down a deer.

By your own admission, you have no idea if the 6.5x47 can do that. I just so happens that it can, but that doesn't change my point.

ETA-

I apologize if I've come off a bit terse or harsh. Just that here lately I've been noticing an upswing in the trend of posts that contribute nothing to a thread. Offering opinions that are unwanted and often unqualified, recommendations that are inappropriate or have nothing to do with the OP, and just general talking out of rectum. A couple examples that come to mind are one where a member stated that the use of anaerobic thread locking compound on gun screws was unacceptable and an indicator of poor quality, and another in which it was asserted that the minimum for hunting deer, as in the 150-300 lb four legged herbivores, was a S&W X-frame. Ridiculous.

I'm sorry, but there's just no good reason for this. On the misinformation, we're already sitting at our computers. If one wants to contribute to a thread, but doesn't know enough, open a new browser tab and google it. Or grab a book from the shelf. For me personally, if the knowledge is not in my head already, and I can't or don't want to take the time to research it a little, I simply abstain from posting.

Sometimes we misread or misunderstand what the OP or another poster is saying. I've certainly been guilty of this. And when this happens, it's usually understood by others and either politely corrected or perhaps used for a good natured poke. Totally different animal than what I'm talking about above.

We're here to talk about guns and help others whenever possibe in the capacity that we can with this forum. THR is regarded as one of the best message boards for this, so I (and some others) get a little cranky when we see posts that detract from that reputation.

Zak Smith
May 13, 2010, 12:44 PM
Putting my mod hat on, I think that's being a little harsh on sumpnz, though I do agree strongly with your general compaint MachIVshooter. Even if he doesn't know the exact fps a 6.5x47 can shoot a 140, it's not unreasonable to conclude impact velocities above 1800 are possible at typical deer hunting distance (ie under 300 yards) based on the rough case size alone.

Anyway, let's stick on-topic. Thanks.

docsleepy
May 13, 2010, 01:15 PM
hi guys, thanks for all the comments; I'm fairly familiar with the possible ballistics and drew advantage from the suggestion of an "acceptable amount" of energy in a certain mass projectile. What helped me was the suggestion to go up on the bullet mass. I'd like relatively little bullet drop, so I might split the difference and go for a 120- or so grain hunting bullet.

MachIVshooter
May 13, 2010, 03:29 PM
Doc-

If you want to spit out 120's at 2,800-2,900 FPS, the .257 Roberts would be a better choice. The big advantage of the .264" catridges is lost with bullets under 140 grains. The 117, 120 and 122 gr. .257" pills, OTOH, have fairly high ballistic coefficients.

R.W.Dale
May 13, 2010, 03:47 PM
Doc-

If you want to spit out 120's at 2,800-2,900 FPS, the .257 Roberts would be a better choice. The big advantage of the .264" catridges is lost with bullets under 140 grains. The 117, 120 and 122 gr. .257" pills, OTOH, have fairly high ballistic coefficients.
I disagree and don't see the advantage to the 257 roberts as it burns a good deal more powder to achieve the same ballistics and doesn't have the excellent cases available you get when buying 6.5x47 lapua brass. Plus .257 Bullet offerings are fairly stagnate compared to 6.5mm. Remember component quality will be paramount as the op wants a dual purpose target/deer setup

Zak Smith
May 13, 2010, 03:49 PM
For hunting, it's pretty much splitting hairs. Neither the shooter nor the deer will be able to tell the difference within 300 yards if it's a .257 or a .260-- my first deer rifle was a Ruger in .257 Roberts+P.

The .25 caliber has a pretty poor selection of high BC bullets. If we look at Berger's line-up as an example, the 115gr has a BC of 0.466 while the 120gr 6.5mm is 0.453: virtually identical. That's the low end of the BC range for 6.5mm bullets and about the top for the .25 caliber bullets.

From a 22" barrel, the .257 might give you 25-50 fps more than the 6.5x47 with a 115-123gr class bullet, but then you essentially have no choices for higher BC values since the .257 BC is maxed out and the 6.5 can ramp up to the 139-142. Plus the 6.5x47 fits in a proper short action (.308 size).

-z

MachIVshooter
May 13, 2010, 07:35 PM
I'm just going by the OP's statement of wanting to shoot 100 grainers, and later conceding to 120's. That's typically .257" cal. territory.

As far as case efficiency, yes, the Lapua is more efficient. But I don't know that I'd call 6-8 grains difference in the 40-50 grain range alot.

If you enjoyed reading about "Lapua 6.5x47 for Deer?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!