6.5 Creedmore for elk?

Given a proper bullet, yes, with aplomb.

Ive never hunted elk, but would have no issue using a 6.5CM to do so at any reasonable distance, using the correct bullet and shot placement.

I took my 6.5-284 on our last feral cattle hunt, and shot a 500-600lb bull at about 50yds with a 143eld-x.
Not the bullet for short range application, but it worked plenty well enough to have the bull down in 50yds or so.

Should I hunt game larger than deer with a 6.5 again, I'll use a tougher bullet.

Yes. The 6.5 CM offers should be a good option for elk, provided an appropriate bullet is chosen.

Lower recoil and flat trajectory should offer the opportunity of good shot placement. 6.5 mm bullets offer excellent SD and penetration. The key to success with the relatively lower weight, smaller diameter bullet is ensuring a bullet choice matched to expected terminal ballistics. One wants a bullet with reliable controlled expansion and good penetration at the likely terminal velocity. Nosler Partitions have done that well for decades and may be a good choice. There are many good choices these days. Something in the 140 - 145 grs area would be good.

What are the conditions they will be hunting in? Likely ranges? They key is a bullet that will expand and penetrate at the distances she will be shooting.

I am old school: 180 grs 30-06 at 250 yards max. But just because I am set in my ways doesn’t mean I am opposed to a younger generation trying new things!

The 6.5 shoots bullet weights similar to 270 (6.8mm) about 200 fps slower at the muzzle. But because the 6.5's have better sectional density they will out penetrate 270 with similar bullet weights. And because they have better Ballistic Coefficients they will catch up in speed at about 200-250 yards. A 270 will always shoot a little flatter, but with modern optics it isn't hard to compensate for a little more bullet drop. In a nutshell the 6.5 will perform on game exactly like a 270. But with about 1/3 less recoil. Jack O'Connor was taking elk at 500 yards 80 years ago with a 270.

I have never hunted elk. I would tend to want to err on the side of overkill but your question interested me and I found this info online.
I googled “killing elk with a 140 grain bullet”

https://www.google.com/search?q=killing elk with a 140 grain bullet

I find it interesting that many gun writers that 20-30 years ago would have turned their noses up at using anything like the 6.5 Creedmore on elk are now all Lady Gaga over it. I distinctly recall people’s serious doubts about the .260 Remington on elk and the ethics of using it 20 years ago.

Interesting reading here:
https://www.google.com/search?q=.260 remington on elk

And here: https://www.chuckhawks.com/case_capacity_matters.html

I posted this as info only out of curiosity regarding your question. Me, personally, I would probably go with something with a bit more power on elk. But, that’s just me and having never shot an elk definitely doesn’t make me an expert.

Pat Riot said:

I find it interesting that many gun writers that 20-30 years ago would have turned their noses up at using anything like the 6.5 Creedmore on elk are now all Lady Gaga over it. I distinctly recall people’s serious doubts about the .260 Remington on elk and the ethics of using it 20 years ago.

Click to expand...

But it gets more interesting still, because if you go back even further, you'll see writers in the old magazines advocating, or recounting, all sorts of stuff... .22 Hi-Power, .44-40 and even .32-20 as fine deer rifles, 6.5 Mannlicher carbines for big bears and moose, .25-caliber '94s doing a fine job on brown bear, etc. Anything smokeless was pretty new at the time. Standards change as the "standard" becomes more powerful. Or less. But still as now, arguments over what was too small. Eg:

Those who I know who hunt elk report excellent results. When it comes to questions like this, especially on something I have little or no experience with, I ask a professional- as in a guide, preferably a guide from the area where the hunt is going to occur. They do this more frequently than anyone else, and they get paid to know these things.

It's lighter than ideal, imo, but it will certainly work with proper shot placement. I have a 7mm-08 and I think that runs just a little stouter than the 6.5 CM and I've never carried it elk hunting, opting instead for my 30-06 or 300 Wby Mag. My theory is that things aren't always ideal in hunting so I prefer a little more margin for error, and I don't care about recoil in a hunting rifle application - I've never noticed any recoil when I've shot at game no matter what gun I'm using. Elk are considerably stouter and larger animals than deer.

I have a family member that has taken an Elk every year for many years using a .243. He told me he has never had a problem. Yes, he is experienced and patient and knows where to place the bullet. The bullet type is what matters. This year a cousin hunting white tail shot one in the shoulder with her .243. However, the bullet she was using was designed for varmint hunting. She hit the shoulder bone and the bullet went no further. Her father shot it and brought it down, I think he said with his .30-06. They opened the deer up and the bullet had done very little damage.

So, get the right bullet and a 6.5 should do just fine.
What is the right bullet?

This article suggests some rounds:

http://thebiggamehuntingblog.com/best-65-creedmoor-ammo-for-hunting/

If I had a 6.5 Creedmoor and a .300 WinMag, both sub-moa rifles, and because of recoil I could shoot groups three times as small at 300 yards with the Creedmoor, that’s what I’d take elk hunting.

Considering the Swedes use a 6.5 x 55 on their elk (which we call moose_ with great success, there shouldn't be an issue as long as bullet type, placement and distance are factored correctly.

I took my cow with a 6.5 Creedmoor and 140gr Accubonds last year, a .270 and 140gr Accubonds the year before, and a .30-06 with 180gr Accubonds this year. Didn't notice much difference in reaction or terminal effect.

Here is the entrance and exit with the front quarters removed on last year's cow, she went probably 20 yds after the shot and was dead by the time I got to her:



She died laying on the entrance side, hence the pooled blood.

IdaD said:

I've never noticed any recoil when I've shot at game no matter what gun I'm using.

Click to expand...

It's not the recoil when you're shooting at game that's the issue, it's the recoil during all the practice we should all be doing prior to the season that causes problems and flinches. I'm sure there are folks out there that shoot well with heavy hitters, I'm not one of them, but I have put almost 900 painless rounds through my 6.5 Kimber in the last 2 years and am quite comfortable with it. I'm betting the OPs wife could benefit from an easy recoiling rifle that still delivers plenty of damage and deep penetration (with good bullets), the 6.5 CM is a good candidate for that job.

Pat Riot said:

I have never hunted elk. I would tend to want to err on the side of overkill but your question interested me and I found this info online.
I googled “killing elk with a 140 grain bullet”

https://www.google.com/search?q=killing elk with a 140 grain bullet

I find it interesting that many gun writers that 20-30 years ago would have turned their noses up at using anything like the 6.5 Creedmore on elk are now all Lady Gaga over it. I distinctly recall people’s serious doubts about the .260 Remington on elk and the ethics of using it 20 years ago.

Interesting reading here:
https://www.google.com/search?q=.260 remington on elk

And here: https://www.chuckhawks.com/case_capacity_matters.html

I posted this as info only out of curiosity regarding your question. Me, personally, I would probably go with something with a bit more power on elk. But, that’s just me and having never shot an elk definitely doesn’t make me an expert.

Click to expand...

Interesting. 6.5x55 has been doing it for a long time.

Varminterror said:

Given a proper bullet, yes, with aplomb.

Click to expand...

I thought aplomb bullets were illegal in most states.

With it being the ballistic twin (essentially) of the 6.5x55, it should be fine.

Matt

ETA: Or what Danger Mouse said while I was typing.

Robert said:

She needs a 338 Ultra Mag, at the very least!!!!!!!!1!1!1! At least that's what the internet says...

Seriously though, pick a good bullet, learn the rifle and she should be fine.

Click to expand...

Exactly! Real hunters enjoy recoil induced nose bleeds.

Choctaw said:

Exactly! Real hunters enjoy recoil induced nose bleeds.

Click to expand...

Not to mention detached retinas and rotator cuff damage.

morcey2 said:

Not to mention detached retinas and rotator cuff damage.

Click to expand...

Well, I didn't want to sound like a complete sissy. lol

I know the 6.5x55 (Swedish) is popular for moose across the pond. The 6.5 Creedmoor should perform the same. It’s all about bullet construction.

I do like the 6.5 CM, it is great cartridge but a great Elk cartridge it is not IMHO. Others will say it's enough with the right bullet placed in the right spot, but then; so is a 223 with the same criteria.. It doesn't make it a good choice. My little brother shot a cow elk with a 243 a number of years ago. Placement was good center mass chest cavity shot, we weren't able to find it till the next morning, already eaten partially by either wolves or coyotes. It was a total loss meat wise, and we found it quite a distance away. Did it kill it? Yeah. Would I recomend it? Heck no. The Point is I error on the side of caution. I would rather go on the large side than pushing the limit of how small I can go. I dropped this guy at 509 yards with my 338 win mag 4 weeks ago.

I recovered from the recoil quick enough to see his legs go in the air through my rifle scope. He dropped right there. Would that have happened if I was using my 6.5 CM? I dont know. I suspect not.

captain awesome said:

I do like the 6.5 CM, it is great cartridge but a great Elk cartridge it is not IMHO. Others will say it's enough with the right bullet placed in the right spot, but then; so is a 223 with the same criteria.. It doesn't make it a good choice. My little brother shot a cow elk with a 243 a number of years ago. Placement was good center mass chest cavity shot, we weren't able to find it till the next morning, already eaten partially by either wolves or coyotes. It was a total loss meat wise, and we found it quite a distance away. Did it kill it? Yeah. Would I recomend it? Heck no. The Point is I error on the side of caution. I would rather go on the large side than pushing the limit of how small I can go. I dropped this guy at 509 yards with my 338 win mag 4 weeks ago.
View attachment 818339
I recovered from the recoil quick enough to see his legs go in the air through my rifle scope. He dropped right there. Would that have happened if I was using my 6.5 CM? I dont know. I suspect not.

Click to expand...

Agree 100%.

Hard to answer because of all the variables in question like that. Nine out of 10 times it would be fine. It also depends on the kind shots you take. If you always wait for the perfect shot you can shoot elk with the 223. Do you ever shoot through branches or brush? Do you shoot animals on the move? How about animals moving through timber?
For me, and to cover all the bases 10 times out of 10, an Ideal elk round is in the neighborhood of 180 grain bullet and a muzzle velocity as close to 3000 ft./s as possible.
I have been hunting with 308, 150 grain Barnes load for the last few years, so I'm not taking my own advice. LOL

It doesn't make sense to conflate the 6.5s with the 6mms or .224s for larger game. What sets the 6.5s apart from the other two is the high SD hunting bullets available that enable deep penetration. In order to equal a standard 140gr 6.5mm Accubond for SD, you'd have to find good tough hunting bullets weighing 101gr in .224", and 119gr in 6mm.... Bullets that are in the same ballpark as run of the mill 6.5 offerings simply don't exist in the other two chamberings.

It makes far more sense to compare the penetration potential of the 140gr 6.5s to chamberings with similar SD bullets, like 150gr .277", or 160gr 7mm. Would anyone argue that 150gr bullets out of a .270, or 160gr bullets out of a .280 aren't adequate for elk? How different do folks expect a 140gr 6.5mm bullet with similar SD, similar bullet construction and similar launch velocities to behave? Nothing lives long when you poke an expanding bullet all the way through the vitals and out the other side, or at least that's been my experience.