Somebody give me the skinny on 6.5 Creedmoor

Walkalong said:

Probably leftover from the days when target bullets were just that, and not well suited to shooting game.

Bullets have come a very long way in the last 30/40 years.

Click to expand...

I’m not sure on this - since some bullets which are now listed as exclusively for “targets” used to be listed for both hunting AND target, and of course, 30-40 years is plenty of time that new shooters in that time wouldn’t have learned bad outdated info, and certainly plenty of time for folks which were hunting before that to have learned by now.

C-grunt said:

If you are wanting to shoot a very accurate bullet have you thought about the ELD-X line from Hornady? I know a buddy who actually uses the ELD-X in competition as his rifle shoots it so well. He also hunts with it and it has performed well for him.

Click to expand...

I used the 178 grain ELD-X in my AR-10 with great results.Only thing I've found with either the ELD-X and the ELD-M is that they are harder to get the best accuracy.I've almost always had to load them very close or into the lands to get them to shoot well.In my 6.5,I load one in the chamber touching the lands and 4 others in the magazine seat to fit in it.Both lines of bullets do well,but I've always had the best results with Berger Classic Hunters in 30 and 7MM calibers.I didn't have any of those on hand when I got my 6.5.

The OP is getting a good Skinny on the 6.5 CM...and that's a good thang.

Varminterror said:

This is also from Berger…

View attachment 1130716 View attachment 1130717

105 Berger Hybrids…

View attachment 1130720 View attachment 1130721 View attachment 1130722

Click to expand...

dranrab said:

What are the construction differences between the ELDM and ELDX, and how does that translate to a narrow wound channel on the M?

Click to expand...

The M is a standard cup and core bullet and has a conventional taper to the jacket. The X has Hornady's interlock technology to keep from core separation and uses a kind of reverse taper jacket to control expansion over a wider velocity band.

WVRJ said:

.The 6.5 hasn't been used enough to prove itself yet..

Click to expand...

Huh! Just how long does it take to prove itself?
It's been doing the job for 15+ years.

WVRJ said:

Only thing I've found with either the ELD-X and the ELD-M is that they are harder to get the best accuracy.I've almost always had to load them very close or into the lands to get them to shoot well.

Click to expand...

This hasn’t been my experience with ELD-x’s or ELD-m’s. Not with 140 or 147 ELD-m’s or 143 ELD-x’s in 6.5 creed, the 123 ELDm’s in 6.5 Grendel, nor 108 or 109 ELD-m’s in 6mm, nor 73 ELD-m’s in 22cal, 162 X’s and M’s and 175 ELDm’s in 7mm, 200 & 220 ELDx’s and 168 & 208 ELDm’s in 30cal. I’ve jumped these from 5 thou to 75 thou, the 6mm’s as far as 140thou.

And yeah… the 6.5 creed is old enough to drive in most states, and is replicating performance older than any of our great grandpas… anyone saying it isn’t proven is ignoring mountains of data and dead game just to hold onto an irrational bias.

It baffles me that the 6.5CM would have to prove anything to anyone in the game fields. It's just a new launching pad a 130yr old idea......but better.

Generally speaking, any rifle projectile contacting critical flesh at +2,000 FPS has a high likelihood of being mortal to the recipient.

This is true wether it’s .308” diameter or .264” diameter, marketed as a hunting projectile or target round.

I think we largely debate these nuances because it’s fun.

I enjoy the debate!

Varminterror said:

This hasn’t been my experience with ELD-x’s or ELD-m’s. Not with 140 or 147 ELD-m’s or 143 ELD-x’s in 6.5 creed, the 123 ELDm’s in 6.5 Grendel, nor 108 or 109 ELD-m’s in 6mm, nor 73 ELD-m’s in 22cal, 162 X’s and M’s and 175 ELDm’s in 7mm, 200 & 220 ELDx’s and 168 & 208 ELDm’s in 30cal. I’ve jumped these from 5 thou to 75 thou, the 6mm’s as far as 140thou.

And yeah… the 6.5 creed is old enough to drive in most states, and is replicating performance older than any of our great grandpas… anyone saying it isn’t proven is ignoring mountains of data and dead game just to hold onto an irrational bias.

Click to expand...

I've had the same experience with ELD-M and ELD-X as you. They shoot well. My 6.5 CM has been the easiest rifle to load for.

Varminterror said:

This hasn’t been my experience with ELD-x’s or ELD-m’s. Not with 140 or 147 ELD-m’s or 143 ELD-x’s in 6.5 creed, the 123 ELDm’s in 6.5 Grendel, nor 108 or 109 ELD-m’s in 6mm, nor 73 ELD-m’s in 22cal, 162 X’s and M’s and 175 ELDm’s in 7mm, 200 & 220 ELDx’s and 168 & 208 ELDm’s in 30cal. I’ve jumped these from 5 thou to 75 thou, the 6mm’s as far as 140thou.

And yeah… the 6.5 creed is old enough to drive in most states, and is replicating performance older than any of our great grandpas… anyone saying it isn’t proven is ignoring mountains of data and dead game just to hold onto an irrational bias.

Click to expand...

Maybe I should have worded it another way when I said it hasn't proven itself.It hasn't proven itself to me.I like data,and anyone with more sense than an expended primer will know it's a capable round,especially for hunting and for long range target shooting.But I like to experience what it can and will do myself.I want to see it kill deer and make targets swing.When I speak about anything on here,I try to only speak about my experience,what I've done and what I've seen.I graciously accept the fact that you and many others here are far more knowledgeable and experienced that I could ever hope to be,and you certainly have my respect.

6.5 Creed...supposed to be the best ever...superior ballistics way out and beyond...well folks, not one shooter in a hundred can judge wind out at 400+, truth be told...and that's the secret to hitting. And that's just for target shooting where it really doesn't matter...paper punching is one thing, but most of these "hunters" have no business taking shots at game beyond 200 yds, while conveniently forgetting the ethics involved in wounding...but I've beat this drum before and have no faith in changing that crowd. YMMv, Rod

Rodfac said:

6.5 Creed...supposed to be the best ever...superior ballistics way out and beyond...well folks, not one shooter in a hundred can judge wind out at 400+, truth be told...and that's the secret to hitting. And that's just for target shooting where it really doesn't matter...paper punching is one thing, but most of these "hunters" have no business taking shots at game beyond 200 yds, while conveniently forgetting the ethics involved in wounding...but I've beat this drum before and have no faith in changing that crowd. YMMv, Rod

Click to expand...

Pretty sorry strawman, as this has absolutely nothing to do with 6.5 creed itself.

Or maybe, unfortunately for your argument, it DOES have something to do with 6.5 creed… because given either a 6.5 creed or a 308 win, with the SAME ability to read wind for either cartridge, the potential hit percentage for the 6.5 creed is improved by over 40% even at just 700yrds. In a manner of speaking, this means ballistically superior cartridges make targets effectively closer than the same shot with a less aerodynamic round (or make the target effectively larger).



So if a shooter were capable of delivering shots on deer at 400 with a ballistically inferior cartridge, ONLY changing cartridge, with no other change in skill or ability, would effectively make them capable of the same shot on deer past 500yrds.

And yeah, I can think of at least a half dozen of us regular posters here which are quite capable of judging winds at 400+. It’s not an unattainable skill, and pretending this mythos exists just because most gun owners have never taken time to develop ANY marksmanship skill is just gatekeeping for the sake of personal bias.

Rodfac said:

paper punching is one thing, but most of these "hunters" have no business taking shots at game beyond 200 yds,

Click to expand...

Dunno. We were getting consistent first round hits on prairie dogs at 300+ and they’re about the size of your foot. If you only shoot a handful of rounds a couple days before the season, then yeah.

Just like at the nursing home, there’s a lot of “depends”

Varminterror said:

with the SAME ability to read wind for either cartridge, the potential hit percentage for the 6.5 creed is improved by over 40% even at just 700yrds.

Click to expand...

Here's the WEZ chart for 300gr .338Lapua at 1300 meters. It doesn't make a slightest difference with my average deer shot distance of ~80 yards either, but posting it gives me at least an inch and a half more length and almost an inch more girth over 6.5CM on discussion forums. And a shinier barrel too.

Rodfac said:

6.5 Creed...supposed to be the best ever.

Click to expand...

Who said it is the best ever? It's very accurate in a good gun, easy to reload for and has a low recoil. But best ever? I don't think there is any such thing. It's whatever works best for you that counts.

redneck2 said:

Dunno. We were getting consistent first round hits on prairie dogs at 300+ and they’re about the size of your foot. If you only shoot a handful of rounds a couple days before the season, then yeah.

Click to expand...

Yup, skill sets of the shooter aren’t nearly as assured, dependable and sustained as mechanical accuracy of a firearm and it’s sighting system.

redneck2 said:

Just like at the nursing home, there’s a lot of “depends”

Click to expand...

dranrab said:

What are the construction differences between the ELDM and ELDX, and how does that translate to a narrow wound channel on the M?

Click to expand...

mavracer said:

The M is a standard cup and core bullet and has a conventional taper to the jacket. The X has Hornady's interlock technology to keep from core separation and uses a kind of reverse taper jacket to control expansion over a wider velocity band.

Click to expand...

Interesting. So when we control expansion and keep the bullet intact, that results in a wider wound channel?

JEBruns said:

Who said it is the best ever? It's very accurate in a good gun, easy to reload for and has a low recoil. But best ever? I don't think there is any such thing. It's whatever works best for you that counts.

Click to expand...

Well said.

dranrab said:

Interesting. So when we control expansion and keep the bullet intact, that results in a wider wound channel?

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. When you control expansion you get a consistent wound channel over a wider velocity envelope. When you don't control it what happens will depend on which side of the envelope you're on. Most match bullets are rather lightly constructed and have similar expansion to varmint bullets, but some aren't.
With good placement most any bullet from frangible to solid propelled by 40 to 45gr of smokeless powder will kill a deer they aren't armored.

dranrab said:

So when we control expansion and keep the bullet intact, that results in a wider wound channel?

Click to expand...

mavracer said:

Not necessarily.

Click to expand...

Not even typically, let alone “necessarily.”

Wide wound channels are indicative of a lot of transfer happening QUICKLY. The tissue is being stressed faster than it can move out of the way, so the energy radiates outward from the primary wound tract. When that radiating force is sufficient to overcome the integrity of the tissue, we get permanent cavity damage. THAT is how I get a heart blown nearly in half and entire lobes of lungs liquefied with itty bitty 6mm bullets.

If we “control expansion” too much, then we get narrow wound channels, like what we see on the tail end of any Partition, Interlock, A-Frame, or mono-metal impacting with high enough velocity to shed its nose, leaving an FMJ-like core to follow on deeper. Contrast that with the more tapering wound channel we see from bonded bullets, which penetrate deeply but retain their ability to continuously push mass into mass and sustain that radiating force away from centerline of travel (which also is the goal of monometals at their impact velocities which do NOT shed petals). Kind of like comparing a wound tract shaped like an open umbrella on its side to one shaped more like a football… and the more we “control expansion,” that football looks more and more like a bulged pipe rather than a football. Take a look at big hard cast and “safari solids,” these guys are using frontal profile to drive that radial transfer rather than expansion - but we’ve seen the difference in wounding potential between sharp spitzers which don’t expand and blunt bullets - bulged pipes vs. footballs, respectively.

Unfortunately, most old school “controlled expansion” bullets will behave a lot more like a bulged pipe than a football or umbrella, which is why we so often see guys talking about getting more DRT’s and two-step staggers out of 243win than 30-06. Tougher bullets with more “controlled expansion” shrink our wound tracts. If I want to ruin a bunch of shoulder meat or need to penetrate deep, sure, give me a hard built bullet - but more often than not, we just don’t need to kill game in that way.

Varminterror said:

Not even typically, let alone “necessarily.”

Click to expand...

Did you even bother to read the rest of my response.
MOST MATCH BULLETS ACT LIKE VARMINT BULLETS. SOME DON'T BECAUSE SOME ACT LIKE FMJ.
Controlled expansion doesn't automatically mean heavier construction. Case in point the ELD X

mavracer said:

Controlled expansion doesn't automatically mean heavier construction. Case in point the ELD X

Click to expand...

I was largely expanding upon your point to agree with it, but since we’re here…

Unfortunately, most typically, “Controlled expansion” doesn’t automatically mean diddly piss. Case in point, the ELD-X.

It’s a knife edge “interlock ring” in an AMP jacket, otherwise, it’s an ELD-m.

Varminterror said:

I was largely expanding upon your point to agree with it, but since we’re here…

Unfortunately, most typically, “Controlled expansion” doesn’t automatically mean diddly piss. Case in point, the ELD-X.

It’s a knife edge “interlock ring” in an AMP jacket, otherwise, it’s an ELD-m.

Click to expand...

Again read reread.
With good placement most any bullet from frangible to solid propelled by 40 to 45gr of smokeless powder will kill a deer they aren't armored.
So really most of the time bullet construction means diddly piss and correlation does not imply causation.
Yes other than having a thicker jacket for the base to limit over expansion and a interlocking ring to retain the core to insure penetration. I find two things really interesting you're worried about a monolithic bullet shearing petals but not about spitting the whole jacket off and you'll spend a grand on a bipod but act like this about spending a few pennies more on a bullet designed for hunting.