6.5 Creedmore for elk?

Llama Bob said:

If push comes to shove the .270 is slightly LESS capable on elk than the CM. My 1885 in 6.5CM gives me 2775 ft/s for the accuracy load for a 160gr Weldcore protected point. That's a far better bullet with a higher BC, higher SD, and higher weight retention than the .270 partition. It's a flat out better elk load and remains within Woodleigh's recommended impact velocity window (>2000 ft/s) out to over 500 yards at elk elevations. I would have no concerns about taking that shot from an appropriate firing position.

Heavier, higher BC, higher SD, better bullets, less windage. The 6.5CM just wins that comparison. Now, if you don't care about the details you could say they are both minimum rifles for elk at western distances, but the 6.5CM is a hair less minimum

Click to expand...

And a 28" Bbl...?

Ha!

Imagine what a .270 Win would do out of a pipe like that.

The 6.5 CM - is simply the ballistic little sister of the 6.5 Swede... that can do a magic trick at very long range.




GR

My normal loads superformance, RL-17 push 140class bullets at 2780-2820 (chronographed 3 different guns) from a 22" barrel.

I could break 2800 with all of them before any pressure signs show up, but some of my buddies use my ammo, so I keep it lower.....besides I have a 24" 6.5-284 if I want to hotrod

LoonWulf said:

My normal loads superformance, RL-17 push 140class bullets at 2780-2820 (chronographed 3 different guns) from a 22" barrel.

I could break 2800 with all of them before any pressure signs show up, but some of my buddies use my ammo, so I keep it lower.....besides I have a 24" 6.5-284 if I want to hotrod

Click to expand...

Thermonuclear Handloads?

.270 Win./150 gr. NP at 3,000 fps from a 22" Bbl.

But factory ammo gives you a 6.5 CM that is just the ballistic little sister of the 6.5 Swede... that can do a magic trick at very long range.




GR

Garandimal said:

Thermonuclear Handloads?

.270 Win./150 gr. NP at 3,000 fps from a 22" Bbl.

But factory ammo gives you a 6.5 CM that is just the ballistic little sister of the 6.5 Swede... that can do a magic trick at very long range.




GR

Click to expand...

Well I handload for 4 different 270's. Perhaps I'm not using the optimal powder for velocity but I have never gotten 3000 with a 150 from a 270 before getting pressure signs. And actually if you want to talk factory loads to factory loads, the 6.5 is the ballistic big brother to the 6.5 swede.

Garandimal said:

The 6.5 CM - is simply the ballistic little sister of the 6.5 Swede... that can do a magic trick at very long range.

Click to expand...

You keep saying this, and you keep being wrong.

The 6.5CM consistently outperforms the 6.5x55. When you understand why, you'll understand why you're wrong.

Garandimal said:

Thermonuclear Handloads?

.270 Win./150 gr. NP at 3,000 fps from a 22" Bbl.

But factory ammo gives you a 6.5 CM that is just the ballistic little sister of the 6.5 Swede... that can do a magic trick at very long range.



GR

Click to expand...

46.5-47gr Superformance, and 42.5 of rl-17

I've done nuke class loads, these have none of the signs of even being "crispy".


I'd forgotten, but my buddy shoots 150ablrs over a truly crispy charge of imr4350, and he's well shy of 3k. Not like it's necessary, they do just fine at the 28-900 that's fairly easily attainable.

There's nothing wrong with the .270, and if that's what you wanna shoot go for it, but the 6.5s will do everything the .270 will, for all practical purposes, and kick you less.

I was in the process of planning on building a .270wby magnum with a fast twist. My buddy tho is now contemplating switching to the .264WM

LoonWulf said:

they do just fine at the 28-900 that's fairly easily attainable.

Click to expand...

Thats where it has always landed for me with the 270, about 2800-2900 at best.

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...

well I see a problem right here he said he shot it center mass with a 243 but had he shot for the neck up I bet it wouldn't went anywhere when its hit in the spine!!

also I use a 30-30 with 170gr bullets and for years I heard that elk couldn't be taken down with a 30-30 but strangely I met a old man and he has killed elk for years with a 30-30 I've seen his gun and pictures to prove it! so here in Oklahoma I still use my 30-30 on deer up to 200yrds and the deer drop DRT!!

someguy2800 said:

And actually if you want to talk factory loads to factory loads, the 6.5 is the ballistic big brother to the 6.5 swede.

Click to expand...

True, hand loading is a different story but 6.5 Creedmoor bests the Swede in factory ammunition.

Of course ANY round in the right spot will kill any animal. That's not why you bring a bigger gun. You go larger to increase the chances that a less than perfect, or even bad shot will slow down or kill the animal and not just put a hole in it. It can make the difference between a "flesh wound"(in my best Black Knight voice) and an anchoring hit.

One of my student pilots went to Colorado for his "dream" elk hunt a few years ago. I actually talked him OUT of buying another rifle(a Gander Mountain employee tried to convince him his 30-06 wasn't "powerful" enough to elk hunt with and needed a *new* .300WM) and simply helped him work some accurate 180gr loads for what he already had. Anyhoo...I guess the weather was just bad all week and on the last day he got a shot. It was a marginal poke for him as I felt his personal max was out about 300yds...he was an average shot but wasn't a "shooter". He pretty much agreed that he'd pass on anything past that which I said probably wouldn't be an issue since you can almost always get to that range on elk where he was going. The shot he didn't really want to take but ended up taking was 375 or so but he took it and put the first in the boiler room. He said it just looked at him and laughed(well...maybe not actual laughter but it didn't seem to bother him) so he sent another one which shattered his scapula and sent him stammering into a thicket where he dropped and was dead by the time they got to him. He had little doubt the fatal shot was the first one, however the fact that the heavier bullet was able to really do some significant damage and limit his travel really helped especially considering it took them 30 min to reach the 5x5 bull as it was across a draw and had he needed to track it, it would have been quite a journey.

I've seen my share of lighter bullets fail or perform less than adequately on game. I've seen very poor retention weights, jacket separation and fragmentation from the sub 150gr bullets when having struck heavy bone. Conversely, there's a marked improvement in all areas from 160gr and larger almost regardless of design. I've seen slow, heavy bullets deliver punishing hits at moderate ranges and have seen fast lighter ones do little more than punch small holes at longer ones.

IRT the .270; My Dad has hunted elk for 5 decades using his 1962 Win mod 70 he bought new in college. He shoots the identical powder/charge I do out of my .280Rem(53.5gr IMR-4350) but where I shoot a 160gr bullet, he shoots the same Nosler Partition in 150gr. We have almost identical, chrono'd velocity right around 2900fps as well as ballistic performance. No pressure signs and both are adequately accurate for hunting(roughly MOA@100yds).

IRT the 30WCF; I have my GGrandfathers Win94. He bought it in 1939. During WWII he took German POW work crews out of Camp Bowie in Brownwood Tx to work all around the area. Often they'd be out of town and he'd carry his rifle to shoot deer in order to help feed "war widow" families and others around the Mills/Brown County area. He'd shoot a deer then he and the local sheriff would dress and distribute it. I actually used it to shoot a blacktailed deer out in Washington State at 75yds many years ago. I carried it for a number of years if I were venturing in to think foliage/woods where I may need a quick "jump" shot and knew open sights would be much faster...as well as the carbine being easier to just carry with one hand while moving branches, leaves etc...I carried it in the same capacity elk hunting but never had to use it. In that instance, I know I'd never shoot an elk beyond 100yds but wouldn't hesitate if under.

Just my opinion/experience, I'm not trying to sway or change minds here as all that usually ends up in is the "no it's not/didn't/can't" and "prove it"...and then you get the numbers purists ruffled up as well.

At the end of the day, hunters are going to hunt with what they like, what they're attached to and what's worked. I believe part of hunting is not only the process of killing an animal, but for me I can still go back to places I remember has a kid 45 years ago. I still use some of the same equipment as well. We ALL become attached to some of our firearms and that leads to us becoming quite defensive when other besmirch their(in our eyes) fine name. Whether it's a rifle which was handed down or thoughtfully researched and built with our own hands...they just sometimes do become more than "Lock, Stock and Barrel"...

Llama Bob said:

You keep saying this, and you keep being wrong.

The 6.5CM consistently outperforms the 6.5x55. When you understand why, you'll understand why you're wrong.

Click to expand...

As a hunting round, at hunting ranges? It is a 6.5 Swede in short pants.




GR

LoonWulf said:

46.5-47gr Superformance, and 42.5 of rl-17

I've done nuke class loads, these have none of the signs of even being "crispy".


I'd forgotten, but my buddy shoots 150ablrs over a truly crispy charge of imr4350, and he's well shy of 3k. Not like it's necessary, they do just fine at the 28-900 that's fairly easily attainable.

There's nothing wrong with the .270, and if that's what you wanna shoot go for it, but the 6.5s will do everything the .270 will, for all practical purposes, and kick you less.

I was in the process of planning on building a .270wby magnum with a fast twist. My buddy tho is now contemplating switching to the .264WM

Click to expand...

Don't hunt with thermonuclear handloads - unsafe and don't need to - the factory NP loads do fine for most applications, and are easier to shoot, while a stout charge of IMR 4831 will produce a handload that fills out the 300-400 yard range with better velocity and accuracy.

There is no cheating physics - If you push a 140 gr. 6.5mm bullet to 140 gr. .270 velocities, in a similar wt rifle - they will kick the same. A little less if you match a 150 gr. velocity. But you will be hard pressed to stay w/in 200 fps of the .270 Win.

The 6.5 CM's trick is Very Long Range velocity/energy due to higher BC's and twist rates - starting from a substantially lower MV/ME.

This trick does not work at std hunting ranges - because you are stuck in the low MV/ME corner of the envelop. Basically a 6.5 Swede.


If consistently shooting 300+ yards at larger game? The .270 WSM would look pretty interesting.

But for me, those are the rare shots, so the ole .270 Win. has been perfectly acceptable low these many decades. And, while maybe a little heavy for some and a little light for others, the 150 gr. Speer HC and Nosler Partition take them all, and shoot the same.




GR

FWIW...if it's not ever been posted, a good fairly accurate formula to calculate felt recoil of any caliber is...

R=[(b+p)xp]÷(fx80)

R= Recoil in lbs
b= Bullet weight in grains
p= Powder weight in grains
f= Total firearm weight in pounds

Now, as felt recoil is subjective this just assigns a number so you can compare loads relative to others.

Garandimal said:

As a hunting round, at hunting ranges? It is a 6.5 Swede in short pants.

Click to expand...

Nope, incorrect again. It easily matches the 6.5x55s performance. Actually, exceeds it. At hunting ranges. At target ranges. At every single possible range from the muzzle to as far out as you want to shoot.

You simply don't understand the ballistics.

Llama Bob said:

Nope, incorrect again. It easily matches the 6.5x55s performance. Actually, exceeds it. At hunting ranges. At target ranges. At every single possible range from the muzzle to as far out as you want to shoot.

You simply don't understand the ballistics.

Click to expand...

I understand that out to 300 yards, the 140 gr. 6.5 Swede and 6.5 CM are both holding hands, 2-300 fps behind the 150 gr. .270 Win.

...and that your ballistic academia is merely a trivial pursuit in the game fields.

The 6.5 CM is simply a 6.5 Swede - with a very long range magic trick for paper targets.

At hunting ranges, and loaded with heavy bullets for larger game, they are equivalent - short range woods rounds.




GR

I was looking at hodgdons site again as a friend of mine just dropped of some .270 brass and bullets for me to load.
Comparing 140gr bullets, the .270 holds a 200-250fps advantage when using the top data listed. With 150s it's only 100-150fps at best.

This is obviously just one data base, and others will of course different.

My thoughts on the matter are that while 200fps with the same bullet weight isn't a small difference, that also isn't a huge difference. Especially considering the aerodynamic difference between a 140 6.5 and a 140 .277.

Again if I'm comfortable shooting it with the .270 I'm comfortable shooting it with a decent bullet and the 6.5CM, or large 6.5.

My 6.5-284 will deliver 2950 with 140s, and the one elk size critter I shot was with a 143eldx at 50yds, tho the load was only about 2880. Bad range for the bullet, but it performed just fine. A 6.5cm or similar would probably have gotten more penetration.

I just looked at alliants site. They have top loads all over 2800 for the cm and top loads for the .270 of 3k with 150s.

If it were me I would prefer the 6.5 Swedish for moose and Elk especially since the swedes and Norwegians have been knocking moose down with the 6.5 Swedish for 100+ years ...

LoonWulf said:

I just looked at alliants site. They have top loads all over 2800 for the cm and top loads for the .270 of 3k with 150s.

Click to expand...

Apples-to-Apples in the game fields:

Nosler Trophy Grade Ammunition - AccuBond/ MV( fps)/ ME(lb-ft):
6.5x55 Swede 140 Grain - 2650/ 2180
6.5 Creedmoor 140 Grain - 2650/ 2180
270 Winchester 150 Grain - 2850/ 2700

And the 6.5mm's will suffer more from a 22" Bbl than the .270 Win.

gsbuickman said:

If it were me I would prefer the 6.5 Swedish for moose and Elk especially since the swedes and Norwegians have been knocking moose down with the 6.5 Swedish for 100+ years ...

Click to expand...

Yep, great deep penetrating woods round that is easy to shoot well.




GR.

Garandimal said:

Apples-to-Apples in the game fields:

Nosler Trophy Grade Ammunition - AccuBond/ MV( fps)/ ME(lb-ft):
6.5x55 Swede 140 Grain - 2650/ 2180
6.5 Creedmoor 140 Grain - 2650/ 2180
270 Winchester 150 Grain - 2850/ 2700

And the 6.5mm's will suffer more from a 22" Bbl than the .270 Win.



Yep, great deep penetrating woods round that is easy to shoot well.




GR.

Click to expand...

I can quote plenty of ammo specs that list 140s at or over 2700, just as I can list published load data at or over 2800, for the Creedmoor. Just as you can find and quote plenty of listings for the 270 with 150s at 2800-2900, and handloads data at 3k.

The difference is pretty much 200fps any way you cut it.
I'm not arguing the specifics, only that I feel that there isn't anything I can do with a .270 that I couldn't do just as well with a 6.5CM.

There also isn't anything I could do with a .270 and a 150, that I can't do just as well with my .375 and a 270.

Shoot what you like, and like what you shoot.....or switch.
I'll keep shooting my 6.5s at 2800-2950 respectively, and my buddy that likes his .270 will keep shooting his 150ablrs at 2900ish.

The only issue I take with your statement is that the CM suffers more from a shortened barrel.
I've never seen a smaller more efficient cartridge loose velocity faster than a larger more over bore cartridge. BUT you maybe right, I've never looked in to it.

Here's some data from my RA 22" 6.5CM
3 rnds of rem 140 green box
3 rounds of 140eldms 46.5gr of Superformance
1 round of 42.5gr rl-17

I'd actually forgotten I had my Chrono in my truck till after I shot most of my ammo which is why there's only a few of each.
Factory spec on the rem is 2700fps.


As a note magspeed v3s do fine on muzzle brake guns.

Garandimal said:

Apples-to-Apples in the game fields:

Nosler Trophy Grade Ammunition - AccuBond/ MV( fps)/ ME(lb-ft):
6.5x55 Swede 140 Grain - 2650/ 2180
6.5 Creedmoor 140 Grain - 2650/ 2180
270 Winchester 150 Grain - 2850/ 2700

And the 6.5mm's will suffer more from a 22" Bbl than the .270 Win.



Yep, great deep penetrating woods round that is easy to shoot well.




GR.

Click to expand...

Federal Premium Nosler Accubond

6.5 Creedmoor 140gr - 2,725 fps
.270 Winchester 140gr - 2,950 fps

So what? I've personally used the same bullets to 2,920 fps in a .270 Win and 2,760 fps in 6.5 Creed. They both performed similarly and they both performed well. I could have loaded both higher, but even at those levels, neither is a "short range woods cartridge that pulls off long range magic" or whatever nonsense you keep spouting.

It's obvious that you don't have any experience with the topic at hand, but are bound and determined to shout down a bunch of folks who do, why is that? Willful ignorance isn't a good look.

Why is this even a question? Supposedly anything with "Creedmoor" in the title should take down anything from chipmonk to elephant.

Gtscotty said:

So what? I've personally used the same bullets to 2,920 fps in a .270 Win and 2,760 fps in 6.5 Creed. They both performed similarly and they both performed well. I could have loaded both higher, but even at those levels, neither is a "short range woods cartridge that pulls off long range magic" or whatever nonsense you keep spouting.

It's obvious that you don't have any experience with the topic at hand, but are bound and determined to shout down a bunch of folks who do, why is that? Willful ignorance isn't a good look.

Click to expand...

This has been pointed out repeatedly but he just keeps posting the same nonsense wile totally failing to address the facts. I think he may be a bot.

Jessesky said:

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.

Click to expand...

Not quite the same, I'm not sure those European moose are the same as our bigger Alaskan ones, and in Scandinavia most of their shots are in the woods about 100 yards or less. I would not hunt moose or bull elk with the 6.5x55, at least not with factory loads (I don't reload), but have taken three cow elk with that caliber. You can see the entrance hold in the shoulder, the insides were mush.