6.5mm copper monos for Elk - LRX vs CX vs E-tip vs CEB vs Hammer vs Lehigh

[western living]

I want to pick a 6.5mm copper mono for elk and I'd like to stay under 1.42" length for 1.5 Sg in 1:9 twist in 264 Win Mag at high-altitude (6000 to 9000 feet). So that is the pre-determined criteria: .264", 1:9 twist, copper mono. I'm not considering anything outside those parameters.

There appears to be two designs: copper expanding bullets (TTSX, LRX, CX, e-Tip) and copper fragmenting bullets (Controlled Chaos, CEB, Hammer).

Because 6.5mm is regarded as marginal on elk and I'm necessarily choosing lighter bullets due to my twist rate's length limitations, I'm inclined toward the expanding bullets that retain the weight. Perhaps the shank of the fragmenting bullets maintains a sectional density equivalent to the heavier but expanded projectile. I don't know how that translates to actual results.

I see that Hammer claims on their website that their bullets need 1.5 Sg calculated at sea-level for effective terminal performance even if they're used at higher altitude. So, without more spin, does the bullet yaw and fail to open or the shank yaw and fail to exit? It looks like their adamant their bullets won't perform in my twist rate, so I'm disinclined towards the fragmenting type.

I'm inclined toward the Barnes 127 grain LRX because it has a shorter length (1.402") that will comfortably meet Miller-formula Sg of 1.5 at my altitude (I live at 5000' but the game is even higher), even in sub-zero temps, and because it's a proven-performer on elk. I already have them on back-order, but could cancel.

 

[FEENIX]

I want to pick a 6.5mm copper mono for elk and I'd like to stay under 1.42" length for 1.5 Sg in 1:9 twist in 264 Win Mag at high-altitude (6000 to 9000 feet). So that is the pre-determined criteria: .264", 1:9 twist, copper mono. I'm not considering anything outside those parameters.

There appears to be two designs: copper expanding bullets (TTSX, LRX, CX, e-Tip) and copper fragmenting bullets (Controlled Chaos, CEB, Hammer).

Because 6.5mm is regarded as marginal on elk and I'm necessarily choosing lighter bullets due to my twist rate's length limitations, I'm inclined toward the expanding bullets that retain the weight. Perhaps the shank of the fragmenting bullets maintains a sectional density equivalent to the heavier but expanded projectile. I don't know how that translates to actual results.

I see that Hammer claims on their website that their bullets need 1.5 Sg calculated at sea-level for effective terminal performance even if they're used at higher altitude. So, without more spin, does the bullet yaw and fail to open or the shank yaw and fail to exit? It looks like their adamant their bullets won't perform in my twist rate, so I'm disinclined towards the fragmenting type.

I'm inclined toward the Barnes 127 grain LRX because it has a shorter length (1.402") that will comfortably meet Miller-formula Sg of 1.5 at my altitude (I live at 5000' but the game is even higher), even in sub-zero temps, and because it's a proven-performer on elk. I already have them on back-order, but could cancel.

I am surprised you have not been inundated with recommendations yet. Yes, the 1:9" twist rate is a big limitation in your .264 WM. I built mine with 1:7" to accommodate the longer and higher BC bullets. Are you being forced to use lead-free bullets? If not, consider the 6.5 mm 130 Grain AR Hybrid OTM Tactical Rifle Bullet https://bergerbullets.com/product/6-5-mm-130-grain-ar-hybrid-otm-tactical/

Good luck on your bullet choice.

 

[JAYgs8163]

I want to pick a 6.5mm copper mono for elk and I'd like to stay under 1.42" length for 1.5 Sg in 1:9 twist in 264 Win Mag at high-altitude (6000 to 9000 feet). So that is the pre-determined criteria: .264", 1:9 twist, copper mono. I'm not considering anything outside those parameters.

There appears to be two designs: copper expanding bullets (TTSX, LRX, CX, e-Tip) and copper fragmenting bullets (Controlled Chaos, CEB, Hammer).

Because 6.5mm is regarded as marginal on elk and I'm necessarily choosing lighter bullets due to my twist rate's length limitations, I'm inclined toward the expanding bullets that retain the weight. Perhaps the shank of the fragmenting bullets maintains a sectional density equivalent to the heavier but expanded projectile. I don't know how that translates to actual results.

I see that Hammer claims on their website that their bullets need 1.5 Sg calculated at sea-level for effective terminal performance even if they're used at higher altitude. So, without more spin, does the bullet yaw and fail to open or the shank yaw and fail to exit? It looks like their adamant their bullets won't perform in my twist rate, so I'm disinclined towards the fragmenting type.

I'm inclined toward the Barnes 127 grain LRX because it has a shorter length (1.402") that will comfortably meet Miller-formula Sg of 1.5 at my altitude (I live at 5000' but the game is even higher), even in sub-zero temps, and because it's a proven-performer on elk. I already have them on back-order, but could cancel.

Edit- Due to your twist rate I tend to agree with your thinking on the Barnes but with the TSX. Barnes states will work in 8.5 twist although I've never used that 65 bullet personally. I have however witnessed the performance of the 130, 30 Cal TTSX Barnes on Elk and it performed perfectly. MV was around 3080 FPS from a 308. Shot was 325 yards on mature cow elk. DRT

 

[Bang4theBuck]

Certainly everyone is entitled to have their own opinions and can choose to hang up on theoretical facts and figures, if they want to. What should be paid the most attention are the real facts and figures and real world testing of said products.
I'm sure all manufacturers test their products, but I can tell you from talking a lot to the Hammer guys, they are serious about terminal performance and heavily resisted market trends that had any potential to reduce terminal performance. If Steve recommends a certain bullet at a certain velocity, you can take it to the bank as far as the terminal performance goes. I doubt you could ever even get the other guys to take your call..... I know I'm off topic a little bit, but had to weigh in given my experiences. And I'm no keyboard ninja. I spend 50 plus days a year at the range, and have harvested all kinds of North American species.

 

[hydehunter]

give Steve a call and he will give you the straight scoop on what you should use, they have a ton of info on the 6.5 bullet and he won't B/S you

 

[Barbourcreek]

Try the CX out to 700 they have performed well.

 

[WV Hitman]

I have a 6.5/.284 XP-100 handgun. I've killed 2 800# kudus in Africa at 201 & 365 with a 130 Nos. AB & 125 Nos. PT. Both had complete penetration & both elk dropped.
That saying, I also like monometals. I was a bullet tester for Lehigh for years. Their Chaos bullets work great. I've used them on deer & Bear (201 yds., .375/.284 XP 250 gr. Chaos. The base went thru both shoulders, the pedals in lung,liver,spine, back strap). Also taken deer out to 400 yds. with .30 cal. Chaos.
As far as Etips, I've used a bunch in my .325 WSM XP. Taken deer out to 300 yds. & a 12 ft. croc in Africa at 80 yds. Excellent performance on all of these.
All of the above bullets should do fine on elk. The 2 elk I've killed were a bull at 352 with a .338 JDJ Conder & a original 200 gr. Nos. BT and a bull at 180 with a .330-06 JDJ Encore & a 185 X. Both of these dropped the elk ( to my guide's surprise).
Elk are tough, but not bullet proof. Any of the "tougher" bullets will work. My preference is the 130 AB.

 

[grouse]

Try the CX out to 700 they have performed well.

Love your videos. I saw the cx video. Surprising performance

 

[Ltbullken]

I'm shooting a 65/284 and have taken elk with a 260 before using a 130gr TSX. I am partial to the 127LRX but have yet to use it on game. Other experiences with Barnes, though, have all been positive and they've have done the job I've needed them to do. I have no hesitation recommending a Barnes bullet. However, given your concerns about twist rate, I believe the 127LRX also suggests a minimum twist of 1:8. Sometimes a bullet will shoot regardless and if the formula suggests it will work, it's worth a try. If it doesn't work, I'm sure you'll have ready buyers to take them off your hands! If you're not limited to lead-free, a bonded bullet might be worth a try, like a 130gr Accubond. My buddy's brother dumps elk out to 400yds with that bullet using his 6.5-06AI. I've seen the pics and the resultant damage! It's impressive. Good luck.

 

[Quintus]

I have used the 121 Hammer in the 260 and 6.5 PRC and it has performed very well. One of my 260s is a 9 twist which is what steered me to the 121. I have also used the 127LRX and 120 TSX. They all performed very similarly on game and have been easy to work with from a load development standpoint. The caveat for me is that I have only run the 127LRX from an 8 twist so I don't know how it will differ from the 9.

 

[FEENIX]

I'm inclined toward the Barnes 127 grain LRX because it has a shorter length (1.402") that will comfortably meet Miller-formula Sg of 1.5 at my altitude (I live at 5000' but the game is even higher), even in sub-zero temps, and because it's a proven-performer on elk. I already have them on back-order, but could cancel.

My buddy is very pleased with them on his 6.5 CM and has harvested MT/ID bull/cow elk, black bear, deer, and antelope. But his has rifle has 1:8."

I ran the numbers using Berger's SG calculator at 5000,', and you must propel the 127 LRX at 3600 FPS for an SG of 1.5 with your barrel twist. IIRC, Bryan Litz. a renowned and respected ballistician, recommended and SG of 2.

Good luck!

 

[Hydra6]

I used the 127LRX in a 26 Nosler to harvest a mule deer in Wyoming. Projectile not recovered as it entered one side and exited the other side - traditional broadside engagement. 300ish yards. DRT and the exiting projectile took an amazing amount of blood and internal stuff out the exit hole. This is certainly an example of "speed kills". Will have to check notes but believe it was 3300+ fps at muzzle.

I suggest key to 127 LRX performance is ensuring impact velocity exceeds the suggested minimum to insure expansion. I tried the 127 LRX in 65CM and the performance was adequate but not nearly as impressive as in 26 Nosler (obvious but bears repeating).

 

[Ronald W Schaefer]

I want to pick a 6.5mm copper mono for elk and I'd like to stay under 1.42" length for 1.5 Sg in 1:9 twist in 264 Win Mag at high-altitude (6000 to 9000 feet). So that is the pre-determined criteria: .264", 1:9 twist, copper mono. I'm not considering anything outside those parameters.

There appears to be two designs: copper expanding bullets (TTSX, LRX, CX, e-Tip) and copper fragmenting bullets (Controlled Chaos, CEB, Hammer).

Because 6.5mm is regarded as marginal on elk and I'm necessarily choosing lighter bullets due to my twist rate's length limitations, I'm inclined toward the expanding bullets that retain the weight. Perhaps the shank of the fragmenting bullets maintains a sectional density equivalent to the heavier but expanded projectile. I don't know how that translates to actual results.

I see that Hammer claims on their website that their bullets need 1.5 Sg calculated at sea-level for effective terminal performance even if they're used at higher altitude. So, without more spin, does the bullet yaw and fail to open or the shank yaw and fail to exit? It looks like their adamant their bullets won't perform in my twist rate, so I'm disinclined towards the fragmenting type.

I'm inclined toward the Barnes 127 grain LRX because it has a shorter length (1.402") that will comfortably meet Miller-formula Sg of 1.5 at my altitude (I live at 5000' but the game is even higher), even in sub-zero temps, and because it's a proven-performer on elk. I already have them on back-order, but could cancel.

Well, the twist rate may be a limiting factor for this experiment. I've had very good luck on plains game in Africa and Elk, Mule deer etc. with a Barnes 145 TTSX in 7mm-08 so terminal effects of the mono bullet have been good. If it were me, I'd opt for a heavier expanding bullet that my rifle would stabilize over short monos, but that's just me. Any particular reason you want to go mono? Just a thought.

 

[FEENIX]

Any particular reason you want to go mono? Just a thought.

I wonder about that, too.

Are you being forced to use lead-free bullets?