trying to decide on which 6.5 for hunting

[Aaron D.]

With the mid- high vel 6.5s from 6.5×47 Lapua up thru 6.5 STW . Killing a deer at 400 yards isn't the issue since they all will do it well.
IMO the important thing is to find the round that is right for you. !!! For my use the mid vel 6.5s are ideal. I understand the round and rifles limitations and benefits and work accordingly. . If, Where I hunted or shot was real windy I would probably go with a faster cart.

That's what I've been thinking. I may get one of the mid 6.5s (6.5 creedmoor) shoot the barrel out and consider the 6.5ss I can't decide though haha. Realistically the mid 6.5s will work for 95 percent of everything. The elk are what I'm worried about

 

[Cold Trigger Finger]

I watched a vid of Wayne VanZwol kill a 6 point bull elk at over 600 yards with a 6.5 Creedmoor. 1 shot kill. A guy on the 6.5 Creedmoor forum shot 2 one day at around 820. 1 was a 1 shot kill and 1 required a 2nd shot. I'm not at that level of precision. If I was going that far I would want a 338 or larger. But that's me.

 

[Aaron D.]

I watched a vid of Wayne VanZwol kill a 6 point bull elk at over 600 yards with a 6.5 Creedmoor. 1 shot kill. A guy on the 6.5 Creedmoor forum shot 2 one day at around 820. 1 was a 1 shot kill and 1 required a 2nd shot. I'm not at that level of precision. If I was going that far I would want a 338 or larger. But that's me.

I guess it's all about shot placement right. At this point I would not be comfortable at 800 yards on an elk haha. I would keep it under 400 for now

 

[BrentM]

So I am a little confused. Are you saying you would use a larger caliber to make up for poor or less than ideal shot placement?

A 6.5 in the kill zone will kill an elk just fine according the many kills acquired on this site alone. I know several guys who never post on here that do well with 6.5's. To me the question is if you can shoot effectively at 800 yards, lets say, then caliber consideration is purely for the effectiveness of the bullet based on mass and velocity. A heart shot elk with a 140 or a 250 gr bullet is just as dead, right.

Although I agree that larger bullets at greater speeds are more ideal for larger game I would not shoot at a range I am not comfortable with regardless. I would imagine most people would agree, they would do the same.

So it boils down to the age old idea that shot placement trumps everything within a certain amount of reason. American hunters have been set on the big 30's for so long that we tend to ignore the fact that a poorly placed bullet is just that, poor. In the event that occurs we tend to fall back on bigger is better, simply because more damage can occur, and therefore better chances of recovery results. What some people find is that "they" shoot the 6.5's better than they do the larger pills and wind up with better overall precision, plus they know the shot placement counts more and slop is not as acceptable.

I might be wrong, but this how I tend to think about the arguments. They will all do the job if the job is done right.

 

[Aaron D.]

So I am a little confused. Are you saying you would use a larger caliber to make up for poor or less than ideal shot placement?

A 6.5 in the kill zone will kill an elk just fine according the many kills acquired on this site alone. I know several guys who never post on here that do well with 6.5's. To me the question is if you can shoot effectively at 800 yards, lets say, then caliber consideration is purely for the effectiveness of the bullet based on mass and velocity. A heart shot elk with a 140 or a 250 gr bullet is just as dead, right.

Although I agree that larger bullets at greater speeds are more ideal for larger game I would not shoot at a range I am not comfortable with regardless. I would imagine most people would agree, they would do the same.

So it boils down to the age old idea that shot placement trumps everything within a certain amount of reason. American hunters have been set on the big 30's for so long that we tend to ignore the fact that a poorly placed bullet is just that, poor. In the event that occurs we tend to fall back on bigger is better, simply because more damage can occur, and therefore better chances of recovery results. What some people find is that "they" shoot the 6.5's better than they do the larger pills and wind up with better overall precision, plus they know the shot placement counts more and slop is not as acceptable.

I might be wrong, but this how I tend to think about the arguments. They will all do the job if the job is done right.

I agree with you 100 percent. I just wouldn't mind a bit more velocity for less wind correction and flatter shooting, and more down range energy makin it possible to shoot further, but now that I'm seeing what people are doing with the creedmoor I'm not sure I see the need for those things anymore. Either way I will practice ALOT but I just figure a little more velocity couldnt hurt.

 

[BrentM]

Understood. I chose the 6.5-284 for the same basic reason. I also put together a 6.5 SAUM. The idea was to shoot the 150 and 160 matrix bullets. My current 6.5-284 with mild charge of Retumbo is at 3020 fps in a 28.5" barrel. I am not sure I like the long barrel yet but the plan was down load the charge for mild recoil and decent life. My 24" was at 2940 and .5 grains more.

I think you will be happy in the end with any of them

 

[Aaron D.]

Understood. I chose the 6.5-284 for the same basic reason. I also put together a 6.5 SAUM. The idea was to shoot the 150 and 160 matrix bullets. My current 6.5-284 with mild charge of Retumbo is at 3020 fps in a 28.5" barrel. I am not sure I like the long barrel yet but the plan was down load the charge for mild recoil and decent life. My 24" was at 2940 and .5 grains more.

I think you will be happy in the end with any of them

I think I'm gonna start with the creedmoor. Sounds like everyone who gets a 6.5 gets more so that's the plan. You can never have too many guns or shoot too much! gun)

 

[Cold Trigger Finger]

So I am a little confused. Are you saying you would use a larger caliber to make up for poor or less than ideal shot placement?

A 6.5 in the kill zone will kill an elk just fine according the many kills acquired on this site alone. I know several guys who never post on here that do well with 6.5's. To me the question is if you can shoot effectively at 800 yards, lets say, then caliber consideration is purely for the effectiveness of the bullet based on mass and velocity. A heart shot elk with a 140 or a 250 gr bullet is just as dead, right.

Although I agree that larger bullets at greater speeds are more ideal for larger game I would not shoot at a range I am not comfortable with regardless. I would imagine most people would agree, they would do the same.

So it boils down to the age old idea that shot placement trumps everything within a certain amount of reason. American hunters have been set on the big 30's for so long that we tend to ignore the fact that a poorly placed bullet is just that, poor. In the event that occurs we tend to fall back on bigger is better, simply because more damage can occur, and therefore better chances of recovery results. What some people find is that "they" shoot the 6.5's better than they do the larger pills and wind up with better overall precision, plus they know the shot placement counts more and slop is not as acceptable.

I might be wrong, but this how I tend to think about the arguments. They will all do the job if the job is done right.

For me, its a larger bullet with a much higher bc
And my own knowledge of what a 300 gr monometal expanding bullet will go thru to hit the ticker. I've never hunted large game with these little bullets. A 338 was the smallest I would use. The only reason I now shoot a 6.5 is for its ability to kill game up to caribou size effectively and NOT blow a huge hole in a fox or lynx. I just use the appropriate bullet for both jobs.

 

[trueblue]

6.5 SAUM or 264 Win