AZ Coues deer-6.5 Creedmore and Hammers

CONatureBoy said:
I'm responding to the word 'blistering'. In no sense is a 6.5 Creed blistering. Certainly it's enough gun for a deer.

Please folks read my comments carefully. I'm not trying to get anybody's goat. I'm an engineer by training and a professional data scientist, a very data-driven guy. If my post gives you the impression I'm trying to inflame someone, I'm perhaps not communicating effectively. My goal is always to determine fact in the most systematic practical way.

My comment about the Creed is about folks having an almost religious devotion to the caliber, to the point that they begin to think of it as a "blistering" fast caliber. There's no basis in engineering fact for that word choice. It can only reflect a triumph of rifle marketers who lately have latched on to a certain caliber's recent ascendency in 1,000-yard competition and turned it into an empirically unrealistic idea that there's something magic about this caliber. Once upon a time folks spoke in similarly hushed tones about the 7mm Rem. Mag. and Weatherbys.

In my professional world, we deal with the "AI effect." That means when new AI is invented, the general public says, "Ooh, ahh, artificial intelligence!" Once the same AI is a few years old, folks say, "Oh, that's just software." Those of us in the AI trade realize: it's all just software. Many Creed owners say things online that sound like, "Ooh, aah, artificial intelligence!" A few years from now they'll wake up one day and realize yeah, it's just another gun.

Guns are tools, and the folks who use them most effectively become as objective as possible about the nature of their tools. If you want to get reasonably excited about a 6.5 for its muzzle velocity, get a 26 Nosler. If you want to celebrate the Creed, fine, but get excited about its real virtues. Don't let the gun companies pull one over on you.

Are we good?
Click to expand...
I didn't see the post that said the 6.5 creedmoor is a blistering fast cartridge.
 
vancewalker007 said:
I'm glad you found him. That small hole in small hole out is not the type of bullet performance one needs on a Coues deer. Penciling through equals exactly what you experienced. Hope it doesn't happen on an elk, you'll never find it. All I can say is I've been hunting Coues deer for 30 years, seen a couple of dozen shot or so and shot a bunch myself. The only time I lost one was using a hard bullet. Barnes TTSX that hit low in and forward in the chest. That cured me of using hard bullets on these deer. I can also say we have never lost one to a hit from a Berger, ouch ;-). Every one I have shot or have seen shot with a Berger never goes more then about 20 yards. Including the one my daughter shot last year which liquefied the deer's liver. These deer are soft like antelope and softer bullets work better, its not an elk or a zebra. Which by the way, a 156gr Berger from my 6.5 PRC put a DRT moment on a 500lb Zebra back in August at 240 yards, just saying.

The other thing that's always been a rule in rough country for us is use way more gun than needed. Back in the day it was 300 Win mags and 7mm STW, 300 Weatherby, and 30-378 Weatherby. Of course those older cartridges still work fine today as well we just have better bullets and range finder gear.
Click to expand...
I agree and my experience has shown small hole in and same size out usually means multiple shots, long death time, and even lost animals normally found dead within a short distance. I could not help but notice you mentioned 7mm STW....yes the original 28 Nosler. My personal experience with three bull elk was my first education on what I call bullet failure. This was late 90's and I was shooting Moly coated (I coated them) 160 Speer Grand Slam @ 3300FPS. I had never shot them into an animal before but this was the only bullet that was as accurate as I wanted in this rifle ( .5"/5 shot at 100yds.) Plus, according to the media world they were a premium never fail hunting bullet.

Out of state hunt. Bull #1 small (300" 6x6 standing full broadside @150yds) and I put it right in the crease. At the shot it did not flinch, and just turned quickly and went out of view. My life long hunting partner was spotting next to me and instantly said "GD it you FN missed that easy of a shot, now it will be way down in that hell hole if we ever see it again". Needless to say a very obnoxious argument ensued and scared elk for miles. So we hustle hard to the top to get a view and I luckily saw antlers move about 100yds away when we got to where it had been. I killed it with a neck shot (bedded head up perfectly alert and it turned its head to look at us when we hit the top as it had no idea what even happened to itself) Full autopsy and it penciled through both lungs with a rib bone in and out.

In state same year. Bull #2 (rag horn 3x4 slight quarter facing me at 200yds) and again right in the crease. Bull acts as if its not hit, spins, and runs across a small flat towards the cliffs. There are small narrow chutes they will climb up or run down to escape but normally avoid. It slows at the edge and stops head up and is turning back and forth trying to find a chute now close to 300yds. I get another full broadside shot and put #2 in the crease but this was going the opposite direction as the first. This shot stops him and he is locked up but his head up. I emptied the gun (2 more) into the exact same location as quickly as I could get on target and he is obviously sick on the 3rd one. Full autopsy and all four pencil through were in a group of about 8-10 inches. Three dble lung and the first was a single lung with some ribs in and out. Yes, my partner shows up and immediately chews butt. Tells me I should "throw that *** of a rifle off the cliff and use a rock from now on".

Following year in state. Bull #3 (Spike quartering away 150yds) and put in mid rib cage and out the off side crease. This time he instantly shows he is hit and just slowly moves around and then locks up standing. His head slowly lowers but he does not fall down and after a minute or so I shoot him in the neck. Yep, another pencil hole on the first shot. So, for me I will shoot any other bullet if I can at animals regardless of caliber/bullet weight.

Later, My kid shot his first bull with the same rifle but used a Barnes 160XLC for a neck shot and that was the last animal bigger than a coyote the rifle has killed. I turned it into a varmint gun shooting 120 Ballistic Tips at 3600fps and it shoots .5" today!!
 
I thought I was through with this thread, but then I went back and read the remaining posts. It sort of made me smile. The "tastes great" vs. "less filling" beer commercial from many years ago came to mind. All the old guys will remember that one - as both camps were right.

Like others, I have spent my entire life in AZ chasing coues. As a young boy, I remember a friendly, on-going debate between Elmer Keith and Jack O'Conner. Both were famous hunters and outdoor writers. Elmer Keith ws a huge proponent of big bore, heavy bullets. He felt these were the best option as things sometimes go wrong and the heavy bullets allowed for a certain margin of error - and still worked well. Jack O'Conner was all about shot placement. He felt big heavy bullets were not necessary if the shooter was carefull with his shot placement. There really wasn't much debate about light, high-velocity speed impacts or premium bullets. Those options simply were not prominent back then. Typical magnums usually only provided another couple hundred fps over standard cartridges (300 WM vs. 30-06). The super-magnums (Weatherby rifles) were just starting to be made (mid 1950's) and were more of a novelty until they started to gain a following in the 1960's. There were no premium bullets for hunting - with the possible exception of the nosler partition (1950 or so). And that took a while to catch on.

So there we were....Elmer entertaining us on the written page extoling the virtues of heavy bullets. Jack also contributing his stories in magazines about his belief in precision shooting via shot placement. Jack was a huge proponent of the 270 Win. I still have a rifle he helped design for my grandpa in my safe. To help make his point, Jack took his 270 over to Africa and killed just about anything that walked on that continent (I can't be sure, but I think it included elephant). That's a pretty good exclamation point to his statements as well.

Both made excellent points worthy of our consideration. And now some 50-60 years later we can add premium bullets, ballistics with super magnums and rangefinding capabilities to the mix. Is this a great country, or what? For me personally, I ended up in Jack O'Conner's camp. Not because he was any more right than Elmer, but because he had Arizona roots and my grandpa had met him a time or two.

Best of hunting to everyone this season.
 
CONatureBoy said:
It doesn't sound like your difficulty was around accuracy, or the caliber of your rifle per se (or for that matter your evident tracking skill). You bullets just weren't hitting hard enough to bring the animal down where it stood, in spite of your admirable shooting.

As I remarked previously, I started out hunting mule deer in the 90s with a 243 Win, shooting 80-90 grain Nosler Ballistic Tip bullets. Even perfect shots at modest range (200 yards) sometimes resulted in the deer running 50 yards into the pinon-juniper forest, where it would take time to find it. My experience led me to heavier bullets (which at the time, for that rifle, meant getting a 270 that shot 130-150 grain bullets). Perhaps you'll reach a similar conclusion, but maybe in your case hunting a heavier bullet with your 6.5 Creed. You had a great hunt, and probably the only way you could have improved on it would have been to bring the animal down where it stood with your first shot.

Please understand, by discussing "ethical" shooting I don't mean to attack your character or judgment. In this context, "ethical shot" is just hunter jargon for a shot that one can reasonably expect to harvest quickly and humanely. I'm sure you want that as much as any hunter. A lot of variables go into the decision whether a shot was ethical. You had a guide, and in my opinion part of a guide's job is to assess whether to let or encourage their client to take a shot, relying on the client's reports about their shooting abilities. If your guide said shoot, you must have felt you were on solid ground. I'd bet my bottom dollar (I'm ashamed to say) I've lost more animals than you to bad shooting or bad luck. I would wish for you that you learn from my experience, rather than repeating it. As I said, it feels terrible to lose a wounded game animal.
Click to expand...
Rule #1
  1. We do not discuss ethics. To do so will result in the post or posts being edited or deleted.
 
CONatureBoy said:
I'm responding to the word 'blistering'. In no sense is a 6.5 Creed blistering. Certainly it's enough gun for a deer.

Please folks read my comments carefully. I'm not trying to get anybody's goat. I'm an engineer by training and a professional data scientist, a very data-driven guy. If my post gives you the impression I'm trying to inflame someone, I'm perhaps not communicating effectively. My goal is always to determine fact in the most systematic practical way.

My comment about the Creed is about folks having an almost religious devotion to the caliber, to the point that they begin to think of it as a "blistering" fast caliber. There's no basis in engineering fact for that word choice. It can only reflect a triumph of rifle marketers who lately have latched on to a certain caliber's recent ascendency in 1,000-yard competition and turned it into an empirically unrealistic idea that there's something magic about this caliber. Once upon a time folks spoke in similarly hushed tones about the 7mm Rem. Mag. and Weatherbys.

In my professional world, we deal with the "AI effect." That means when new AI is invented, the general public says, "Ooh, ahh, artificial intelligence!" Once the same AI is a few years old, folks say, "Oh, that's just software." Those of us in the AI trade realize: it's all just software. Many Creed owners say things online that sound like, "Ooh, aah, artificial intelligence!" A few years from now they'll wake up one day and realize yeah, it's just another gun.

Guns are tools, and the folks who use them most effectively become as objective as possible about the nature of their tools. If you want to get reasonably excited about a 6.5 for its muzzle velocity, get a 26 Nosler. If you want to celebrate the Creed, fine, but get excited about its real virtues. Don't let the gun companies pull one over on you.

Are we good?
Click to expand...
I work with 16 engineers that sound just like you, you can call it what ever you want but an 85 grain pill@ 3400fps in a Needmoor is blistering
 
Creedmoor shooter said:
I didn't see the post that said the 6.5 creedmoor is a blistering fast cartridge.
Click to expand...
1635970918310.png


Original post.
 
ButterBean said:
Rule #1
  1. We do not discuss ethics. To do so will result in the post or posts being edited or deleted.
Click to expand...
Ah! Perhaps you all would be kind enough to substitute 'killing quickly' or 'harvesting quickly' for 'ethical', when you read my previous posts. Meanwhile, I'll edit away the word (but not the idea).

Hey, I thought it was the gun-fearing liberals who were afraid to speak openly about ideas?
 

Similar threads

J
coues deer
Replies
2
Views
2K
jthunt
J
K
Boone and Crockett Coues deer!!!!!
Replies
4
Views
4K
Bill
B
R
coues deer gun
2
Replies
15
Views
11K
racin7783
R
jdmecomber
Coues Deer Brief Fight
2
Replies
20
Views
2K
jdmecomber
jdmecomber
2
TESSA'S first coues deer
Replies
4
Views
1K
Unofficial Gun Addict (UGA)
U

Recent Posts

Top