.25-06 v 6.5 Swede

MachIVshooter said:

I've hit animals in the wrong place and got lucky, too. Your implication in this context, however, seems to be that there's some magic with the Swede which makes it more lethal with a bad hit.

Click to expand...

I never made any such implication that 'unethical' shots should be taken, and from my experience there is something about the Swede which doesn't happen with other rounds, penetration being one of them, and the results I mentioned.

There isn't. Luck is luck, and unethical shots are unethical shots, whether you're using just enough gun or massive overkill.

Click to expand...

You weren't there, so knock off the unethical garbage. NO hunter puts every round in the kill zone, even the guys on TV. I witnessed two hunters just last month at a ranch in NM I was at muff shots and lose elk that weren't found until the next day. The first instance I mentioned with the Barbary Sheep was in a 40 MPH crosswind, the second with a Pronghorn was an animal already wounded. Both were recovered same day in good shape.

Mr. Zorg said:

If the landowner / guide service has a specific set of requirements and someone chooses to use that service that's simple business.

Click to expand...

Those requirements aren't arbitrary, they are based on bad results with undergunned hunters, most of which I'm sure thought they were such hellacious shots they could get away with it.

.22 LR has killed brown bear, elk, moose, and elephants, so what?

Paul7 said:

I never made any such implication that 'unethical' shots should be taken, and from my experience there is something about the Swede which doesn't happen with other rounds, penetration being one of them, and the results I mentioned.

Click to expand...

Ridiculous attribution based on unqualified anecdotes.

Paul7 said:

You weren't there, so knock off the unethical garbage. NO hunter puts every round in the kill zone, even the guys on TV. I witnessed two hunters just last month at a ranch in NM I was at muff shots and lose elk that weren't found until the next day. The first instance I mentioned with the Barbary Sheep was in a 40 MPH crosswind, the second with a Pronghorn was an animal already wounded. Both were recovered same day in good shape.

Click to expand...

Taking a shot under conditions which you cannot be reasonably confident of a proper hit is reckless, ergo unethical, whether it's due to crosswind, extended ranges, your adrenaline, whatever. Once more, unethical shots are unethical shots. You took a shot you shouldn't have, missed the mark, got lucky, and are mistakenly attributing that luck to some intangible, mystical, unquantifiable characteristic of your pet cartridge.

And with that, we're done here. I'll waste no more time debating the likes of you.

Not sure when this went off course?
I thought we were comparing 25-06 & 6.5 X 55.
I will take 2 of each

MachIVshooter said:

Ridiculous attribution based on unqualified anecdotes.

Click to expand...

LOL, what makes it unqualified? The guides, who hunt for a living unlike you, had never seen it happen Sherlock.

Taking a shot under conditions which you cannot be reasonably confident of a proper hit is reckless, ergo unethical, whether it's due to crosswind, extended ranges, your adrenaline, whatever. Once more, unethical shots are unethical shots. You took a shot you shouldn't have, missed the mark, got lucky, and are mistakenly attributing that luck to some intangible, mystical, unquantifiable characteristic of your pet cartridge.

Click to expand...

BS, you weren't there, don't know the range, admit you have missed shots and invent a crackpot line that I shot because I think my round was special. They say it's a form of insanity to claim to know what others are thinking.

And with that, we're done here. I'll waste no more time debating the likes of you.

Click to expand...

Likewise. Read your sigline.

i know i shot a nice buck years ago at about 120 yards standing with a 30-06 with 165gr nosler BT,s at 2700 fps and with a good rest and failed to see a small branch and wouldn,t you know it, i hit it just about dead center, with the shot the deer turned and ran down hill very fast into a large gulley. after about half a hour trailing small droplets of blood i found it and the bullet had blow apart with only part of the jacket and heel of lead in the jacket staying together and hitting it high in the chest and hitting the right lung with the pieces sticking in the inside of the left chest wall. would that be called a unethical shot.

Paul7 said:

Those requirements aren't arbitrary, they are based on bad results with undergunned hunters, most of which I'm sure thought they were such hellacious shots they could get away with it.

.22 LR has killed brown bear, elk, moose, and elephants, so what?

Click to expand...

Sticks and strings have too. So your so what comment is dead on.

eastbank said:

i know i shot a nice buck years ago at about 120 yards standing with a 30-06 with 165gr nosler BT,s at 2700 fps and with a good rest and failed to see a small branch and wouldn,t you know it, i hit it just about dead center, with the shot the deer turned and ran down hill very fast into a large gulley. after about half a hour trailing small droplets of blood i found it and the bullet had blow apart with only part of the jacket and heel of lead in the jacket staying together and hitting it high in the chest and hitting the right lung with the pieces sticking in the inside of the left chest wall. would that be called a unethical shot.

Click to expand...

No. Just bad luck.

eastbank said:

with a good rest and failed to see a small branch........... would that be called a unethical shot.

Click to expand...

What do you think?

At no time have I said a hunter must be 100% positive of every possible variable and guarantee a perfect shot. That would be ridiculous and practically impossible. What I said was taking a shot under conditions which you cannot be reasonably confident of a proper hit is reckless. Now, if you had shot at an animal with all kinds of underbrush where there was a very high probability of a bullet striking a branch and deflecting, that would be a different story.

Citing an instance in which an unforeseen variable caused a problem and alluding that this unique case discredits a statement of absolutes that was never made is intellectually dishonest. If you want to question my statements, question the ones I actually made, don't create straw men.

eastbank said:

i know i shot a nice buck years ago at about 120 yards standing with a 30-06 with 165gr nosler BT,s at 2700 fps and with a good rest and failed to see a small branch and wouldn,t you know it, i hit it just about dead center, with the shot the deer turned and ran down hill very fast into a large gulley. after about half a hour trailing small droplets of blood i found it and the bullet had blow apart with only part of the jacket and heel of lead in the jacket staying together and hitting it high in the chest and hitting the right lung with the pieces sticking in the inside of the left chest wall. would that be called a unethical shot.

Click to expand...

According to the shot police here, who weren't there but somehow have 20/20 hindsight. The 'rules' apparently include don't hunt on windy days or shoot at wounded animals on the run.

i know sh*t happens and i,ll live with it. and be on the look out for straw men when hunting.

eastbank said:

i know sh*t happens and i,ll live with it. and be on the look out for straw men when hunting.

Click to expand...

I think we've been visited by Dick from the Internet.

https://me.me/i/dilbert-by-scott-adams-im-dick-from-the-internet-im-fe2043f406f14442b390d9a610674dda

ExAgoradzo said:

Bullet technology will favor the 6.5 because of the Creedmore.

Click to expand...

*Hunting* bullet selection for the 6.5 is rather sparse, though there have been some new bullets since the 6.5s are seeing an upswing in popularity.

The .25 doesn't have a tremendous selection either, but what's available has been refined by nearly a century of fanatical .25-caliber hunters; there have been no military .25s I can think of offhand. For anything that's reasonable to shoot with a .25, the bulletmakers can fix you up with something that has decades of proven effectiveness on that particular game.

The 6.5 caliber exists in a ballistic sweet spot; it carries a lot of energy downrange. If you're shooting out at those ranges, or at large enough game where the bullet weight might be an issue, you might want a 6.5. Otherwise, the .25 has less recoil, so why not?

Pick the bullet, note the velocity required to make it effective for your use, and then you can pick the cartridge. The bullet doesn't care what the cartridge is called.

TRX said:

*Hunting* bullet selection for the 6.5 is rather sparse, though there have been some new bullets since the 6.5s are seeing an upswing in popularity.

The .25 doesn't have a tremendous selection either, but what's available has been refined by nearly a century of fanatical .25-caliber hunters; there have been no military .25s I can think of offhand. For anything that's reasonable to shoot with a .25, the bulletmakers can fix you up with something that has decades of proven effectiveness on that particular game.

The 6.5 caliber exists in a ballistic sweet spot; it carries a lot of energy downrange. If you're shooting out at those ranges, or at large enough game where the bullet weight might be an issue, you might want a 6.5. Otherwise, the .25 has less recoil, so why not?

Pick the bullet, note the velocity required to make it effective for your use, and then you can pick the cartridge. The bullet doesn't care what the cartridge is called.

Click to expand...

I've found no issue finding hunting bullets from 100-160 in .264, from nosler alone there are 11 selections from 100-142. Not necessarily arguing the point, just curious, what is your definition of sparse? Eta roughly 2/3(give or take a couple) of midway's 6.5 selection (104) is a hunting designated bullet. There seems to be a hunting design/weight for every conceivable task the swede can tackle. .25's are (as noted) less popular and still have a weight/design for everything the quarter-06 can tackle. I used to be a .30 guy with a LOT of reason going into how many bullets were available, then I realized that really the excess is unnecessary, and many bullets available from .30-30 to .300wm because they have different parameters, followed by old technology trying to compensate for construction with sheer weight, any bonded/a-frame/mono will compensate nicely for a lack of weight if applied within proper velocity windows. Is there a specific design or s.d. you're unable to find in 6.5 that causes the term sparse to jump to mind?

TRX said:

Otherwise, the .25 has less recoil, so why not?

Click to expand...

Recoil tables have them about the same, maybe an edge to the Swede.