The ultimate Elk Cartridge? - Does a Man-Bun make you more sensitive to recoil?

I have no doubt the military sees a drop in marksmanship with more than 11 ft-lbs. When you’ve been around firearms your entire life, a bit of noise and recoil are trivial things. If not, guns are scary. People today may or may not be smarter, they may or may not be wussified, but they certainly are living with greater ease and less discomfort than ever before.

Even poor people today rarely exist away from air conditioning, they have better food than kings enjoyed 100 years ago, and they have access to excellent anesthetics and pain killers. For most people, truly there is no need to be tough.

The “magic” of the 6.5 Creedmore is nothing more than an inherently efficient, accurate cartridge paired with modern bullets in a package that doesn’t recoil that much. Compared to the crazy 1970s and 1980s when the 7 mag and .300 reigned supreme for rabbits to pronghorn, marksmanship with such a rifle is assuredly better, on average.

Also, on average, the people that frequent this forum probably shoot 10X or 100X more than the average weekend deer hunter.

Years ago, my .300 Wby bothered me much more than it does now. Did I get “tougher?” Did the load get softer? Did my old body get numb to the recoil? I don’t think so. Did my shooting technique improve? Did my ability to manage the recoil improve? Did I internalize that it wasn’t going to hurt me? Yes, obviously. Lots of people here shoot genuine big-bores all the time, and those that persist beyond a single box of ammo learn how to do it.

Now, for elk…… I’ve killed a pile of them and I’ve seen many more get shot. Little bullets in the vitals are always better than big bullets in the legs or in the guts. No problem there. A 6mm TSX or A-frame is probably better at killing, on average, than a cheap 7mm bullet at the same velocity. I’ve been witness to two fine gents with big Weatherbys wound and ultimately loose nice elk. Both of them would have probably killed those same elk if they were using a .260 or .308. Both of them had horrendous flinches.

It’s a little odd that long range hunters have no problem shooting a 180 grain bullet from a .300 Win at elk at 700 yards, but the same guys feel under gunned using a .308 for elk at 300 yards. It’s the same bullet impacting the animal at the same speed. Actually, at these ranges, the .308 is a little better.

When my little pipsqueak nephew drew an elk tag, it was my .243 Tikka that was assigned to the task. One shot later, it was done. His sister used the same rifle to kill her elk. One shot and done. It wasn’t my first choice for elk, but it was the best choice for the situation.

Final answer….. For elk, use something in the 7mm to .300 class and put a suppressor on it. It starts to act a whole lot more like a .243 or .308.

BryceM said:

I have no doubt the military sees a drop in marksmanship with more than 11 ft-lbs. When you’ve been around firearms your entire life, a bit of noise and recoil are trivial things. If not, guns are scary. People today may or may not be smarter, they may or may not be wussified, but they certainly are living with greater ease and less discomfort than ever before.

Even poor people today rarely exist away from air conditioning, they have better food than kings enjoyed 100 years ago, and they have access to excellent anesthetics and pain killers. For most people, truly there is no need to be tough.

The “magic” of the 6.5 Creedmore is nothing more than an inherently efficient, accurate cartridge paired with modern bullets in a package that doesn’t recoil that much. Compared to the crazy 1970s and 1980s when the 7 mag and .300 reigned supreme for rabbits to pronghorn, marksmanship with such a rifle is assuredly better, on average.

Also, on average, the people that frequent this forum probably shoot 10X or 100X more than the average weekend deer hunter.

Years ago, my .300 Wby bothered me much more than it does now. Did I get “tougher?” Did the load get softer? Did my old body get numb to the recoil? I don’t think so. Did my shooting technique improve? Did my ability to manage the recoil improve? Did I internalize that it wasn’t going to hurt me? Yes, obviously. Lots of people here shoot genuine big-bores all the time, and those that persist beyond a single box of ammo learn how to do it.

Now, for elk…… I’ve killed a pile of them and I’ve seen many more get shot. Little bullets in the vitals are always better than big bullets in the legs or in the guts. No problem there. A 6mm TSX or A-frame is probably better at killing, on average, than a cheap 7mm bullet at the same velocity. I’ve been witness to two fine gents with big Weatherbys wound and ultimately loose nice elk. Both of them would have probably killed those same elk if they were using a .260 or .308. Both of them had horrendous flinches.

It’s a little odd that long range hunters have no problem shooting a 180 grain bullet from a .300 Win at elk at 700 yards, but the same guys feel under gunned using a .308 for elk at 300 yards. It’s the same bullet impacting the animal at the same speed. Actually, at these ranges, the .308 is a little better.

When my little pipsqueak nephew drew an elk tag, it was my .243 Tikka that was assigned to the task. One shot later, it was done. His sister used the same rifle to kill her elk. One shot and done. It wasn’t my first choice for elk, but it was the best choice for the situation.

Final answer….. For elk, use something in the 7mm to .300 class and put a suppressor on it. It starts to act a whole lot more like a .243 or .308.

Click to expand...

Picking the proper bullet for the cartridge is more important then the cartridge

Not sure whether a man bun actually makes you more sensitive to recoil but it damn sure makes you look like a recoil sensitive namby pamby!

Be

Russ16 said:

Speak for yourself, I'm early 50s and have as much hair as I ever did--and no gray!

Click to expand...

Be patient it is coming.

Wow this one hit a nerve. I only poked fun at the man-bun hunter in the video because that was who posted a video that I did not fundamentally agree with and by poking fun hoped to generate some friendly debate, lol. Some of my younger friends and professional colleagues wear man-buns and only a couple of them are sissies. I know just as many who are bald sissies.

For the record I plan to hunt my Elk & Moose with the 338wm. I shoot it well enough. I will bring the 7mm Mag along but only plan to use it if the terrain is so open that a 300y or closer shot is not likely. Also, for the record, I have never shot at a game animal past 300y distance except for a Blk Wildebeest at 314y with a 7mm/09 which fell with one shot using a 140g Barnes TSX. I practice for longer shots but have never found it to be necessary. I have killed coyotes and other varmints at much longer ranges out to 575y but do not place such in the same class as Elk or Moose. I own a 243 but have yet to kill a game animal with it. I know the 243 is a useful deer rifle and as such the 6.5cm which I do not own should also be at least as effective as a 243 and likely more so. I would put the 6.5cm in the same class as the 7mm/08 which is to say barely adequate for a 250lb animal at 300y. I would not choose either for Elk or Moose on purpose. Would they work? Sure. Just not my game.

I have a hunting buddy who recently hunted Axis deer on the big island of Hawaii with a 223 rifle and was impressed how effective it was on the large deer. We all hunt deer together but in general our smallest deer rounds are 270 win. I do agree that with good bullet placement, and quality bullets most centerfire rifles are lethal as long as you place the shot well and are close enough to get good penetration. But if a 243 or 6.5cm are enough, then a 300wm or 338wm are clearly more. More is better as long as you can handle it well enough. My advice is choose a TTSX or bonded core in a heavy for caliber weight and the largest caliber you shoot well at the expected distances for your hunting zone and have a blast. If you are finding that your shot game animals are running further than about 60-70y or 10sec, I would respectfully suggest that you use enough gun next time and work on your marksmanship in the mean time. If a 125lb 5' 7" lady can be trained to operate the M249 SAW like one of my friends (a former 101st AB) or a 375HH game rifle then there are few of us guys who should be so shy as to not take the time to do the same. The SAW is not possessed of much recoil but weighs in at 22lbs with a 200rd belt attached. She lugged that pig thru three tours in Iraq and Afghanistan that included more than her fair share of combat.

I'm glad I refrained until now to post because most of my thoughts and rebuttals were covered. Gen-X/mostly gray/none lost/no MB and I HATE recoil from the big boomers. There's nothing fun about it to me; I'm not the guy who says, "Man, that was a blast!" But I like big calibers and I'm not in the camp of, "Only accurate rifles are interesting." The rifles and calibers I like are interesting. There's no one on this forum who wouldn't shoot more consistently accurate if they knew there would be zero recoil. Even having mastered it or overcome the fear/flinch of it, it affects everyone to a degree; but, maybe not to a degree with practical significance. Maybe it's why the newer "Gens" are always fantasizing about railguns- that mythical, shoulder-able, recoil-less rifle. They'll come up with it some day. Necessity- the mother of...

The man bun is most associated with Millennials, who popularized the hairstyle during the hipster movement of the early-to-mid 2010s.
Sorry, as a Gen Xer I just had to put this out there.

Shoot what you can shoot well. However, a .243 or 6.5 Creed on elk is a bit light unless you are within 100 yards and have a heart/lung shot. Still too light due to the mass on an elk or similar size.

If you can't handle the recoil, use a suppressor on a proper caliber.

This is not that hard.....

I am not the biggest supporter of shooting large caliber rifles but I am also not the biggest supporter of the tiny cartridge for everything fad either. There are legitimate points on both sides of the argument. Look back through history and the trend will absolutely show societies shift towards smalled calibers and lower recoil! Hell at one point in time the 270win, a fan favorite among many on this page, was looked at with the same distaste as the 6.5cm is today. Here's a news flash for those who don't understand balistics too, the 6.5cm really isn't that far off from a 270win!

I've killed a pile of game over the years with a .243 and when I was shooting it consistently I absolutely would not have hesitated to use it on an elk inside 300 yards. I shot a 7 rem mag for years after the .243 and if I am being honest, not a damn thing I shot with it was any deader than the .243. I've packed a 338rum, 300rum, and 300prc through the mountains of Id, Mt, and Wy along with a slew of smaller cartridge like the .243, 6mm cm, and 6.5cm. None of those big thumpers killed anything I shot any deader than my smaller rifles would have. The biggest perks to shooting big rifles is the shot opportunities they open to the hunter. When I pack smaller cartridges I know I need to choose my shots more carefully, I can't make the same hard quartering shots I would pushing big tough bullets. I also know the majority of the time I don't have the same range capabilities. Shooting anything smaller than a 270 I limit myself to 300 yards on elk and 500 yards on deer, velocity dependant, when shooting most of my bigger rifles I limit myself to 700 yards, condition dependant.

I see it time and time again year after year and gun store after gun store. Guy comes in looking for a gun he wants to use to start hunting. Fudd behind the counter says 300wm because it's God's gift to man kind and can kill anything that walks the earth. Guy buys said rifle because he doesn't know any better then buys 2 boxes of cheap ammo and goes to the range. Proceeds to shoot both boxes flinching worse and worse every single time and usually by the end isn't even hitting paper at 100 yards. Or best case scenario is shooting pie plate size groups at 100 yards thinking he's more than capable of shooting deer at 500 yards because the guy at the counter and all the online experts tell him the rifle is more than capable of it!

Take my ramblings for what you will. These are just the experiences of one millennial, more mullet than man bun though if it counts for anything. If you can handle the big rifle absolutely you should but you should also be man enough to admit when you can't and to see the flaws in your own fundamentals.

On a completely different side note/tangent, it would absolutely astound most folks on here how much game is taken by native Alaskans with the AR-15 in the humble .223. It was absolutely absurd to me when I started working up there and found this out. Foxes to Moose that is a renowned favorite in nearly every village I visited, especially along the rivers!

I guess minimum caliber rules/laws keep a large segment of the population from thinning the DG herds.

A bit to unpack from the OP, but folks have already covered most of it.

I own a 6.5CM and it is easy and cheap to shoot. If needed, I wouldn't mind using it on Caribou or similar sized creatures, especially in the alpine open country up here. I use a 7x57 with 168 LRXs at 2640 fps instead (because I'd like to think I'm classy). Given the same shot placement and bullet type, would the 6.5CM do the same thing on those Caribou? Almost certainly. Obviously there would be similar results in ideal conditions on most animals here in Northern Alaska, but...

I think there are more effective choices for Elk or Moose or Eland or Zebra etc. than a 6.5CM (and definitely 22CM). The first seventeen moose I took were all with 180gr TSXs out of my .30-06 at around 2700 fps. This worked fine, no complaints. I would condsider .30-06 a minimum for my use case.

The moose usually trotted/hobbled a little ways then died without much tracking or effort. It should be mentioned that most of my shots were close range on moving game from less than ideal angles though. I needed the .30-06 penetration to get them down relatively quickly as they are hard to track near the heavily vegetated river I hunt on (plus they are heavy, less distance from my boat is good). I can honestly say I've never thought I needed a smaller more effecient caliber/rifle in those hunting situations.

Fun story about going to a bigger caliber,
I recently built a .458 for an upcoming hunt in Namibia, so I used that for Moose last fall for funsies. Emphatic bullet effect from a .458 404gr bullet going 2450fps was obviously more pronounced than the 180gr .30 cal at 2700. Do you need a .458 for moose? No of course not, but it was nice when he was down on the shot and didn't get up (texas heart shot, full length penetration). This was perfect as a follow-up shot would have been near impossible.
A 6.5CM would not have been effective in that situation. Most folks can't catch up to an alert wounded Moose running full speed with a 143gr 6.5mm bullet stuck in his butt (I obviously wouldn't have taken that shot).
In fact, he was so close, there was also the potential he would have taken offense to me using such a small bullet and likewise attempted to insert his antlers up my... nevermind.

I'll reiterate what others have said. Smaller calibers may be more efficient in some ways, but you need to plan on passing up opportunities that you may have otherwise had if you'd chosen a bullet/caliber combination with more inherent penetration potential.

I guess I don't have a man-bun so I cant' speak to that. I do have a large moustache though. Is that why I'm tempted to hunt everything with a 7x57...?

JG26Irish_2 said:

Wow this one hit a nerve. I only poked fun at the man-bun hunter in the video because that was who posted a video that I did not fundamentally agree with and by poking fun hoped to generate some friendly debate, lol. Some of my younger friends and professional colleagues wear man-buns and only a couple of them are sissies. I know just as many who are bald sissies.

For the record I plan to hunt my Elk & Moose with the 338wm. I shoot it well enough. I will bring the 7mm Mag along but only plan to use it if the terrain is so open that a 300y or closer shot is not likely. Also, for the record, I have never shot at a game animal past 300y distance except for a Blk Wildebeest at 314y with a 7mm/09 which fell with one shot using a 140g Barnes TSX. I practice for longer shots but have never found it to be necessary. I have killed coyotes and other varmints at much longer ranges out to 575y but do not place such in the same class as Elk or Moose. I own a 243 but have yet to kill a game animal with it. I know the 243 is a useful deer rifle and as such the 6.5cm which I do not own should also be at least as effective as a 243 and likely more so. I would put the 6.5cm in the same class as the 7mm/08 which is to say barely adequate for a 250lb animal at 300y. I would not choose either for Elk or Moose on purpose. Would they work? Sure. Just not my game.

I have a hunting buddy who recently hunted Axis deer on the big island of Hawaii with a 223 rifle and was impressed how effective it was on the large deer. We all hunt deer together but in general our smallest deer rounds are 270 win. I do agree that with good bullet placement, and quality bullets most centerfire rifles are lethal as long as you place the shot well and are close enough to get good penetration. But if a 243 or 6.5cm are enough, then a 300wm or 338wm are clearly more. More is better as long as you can handle it well enough. My advice is choose a TTSX or bonded core in a heavy for caliber weight and the largest caliber you shoot well at the expected distances for your hunting zone and have a blast. If you are finding that your shot game animals are running further than about 60-70y or 10sec, I would respectfully suggest that you use enough gun next time and work on your marksmanship in the mean time. If a 125lb 5' 7" lady can be trained to operate the M249 SAW like one of my friends (a former 101st AB) or a 375HH game rifle then there are few of us guys who should be so shy as to not take the time to do the same. The SAW is not possessed of much recoil but weighs in at 22lbs with a 200rd belt attached. She lugged that pig thru three tours in Iraq and Afghanistan that included more than her fair share of combat.

Click to expand...

Do they shoot the 6.5 Man bun? I rest my case

I sincerely hope no one took offence to my firmly tongue in cheek posts. But I can’t promise I won’t do it again. All in good fun of course.

Hate to break it to you but you’re a few decades off with who you’d be offending, youngest Gen X’ers are 46, the millennials currently are 30-45. To be late 20’s you’d be into Gen Z territory. I’m 28, which puts me in gen Z. Just recently I got a 1/4 MOA group with a relatively light 257 wby mag, with Ft/lb of recoil being in the 22-24 range, and I’ve gotten half MOA groups with a 375 Allen Mag, with recoil in the 42+ range. Young guys still shoot guns with heavy recoil, but the marketing makes guys afraid of recoil that isn’t worth being afraid of. The more someone works you up about needing to be afraid of something, the more flinch you’re gonna have when you finally get around to it. The more people get used to smaller and smaller guns, the more the rumors spread about big ones being way too hard to handle, even though they’re not.

ThinusS said:

Choosing 6.5mm's for hunting large animals is not a new trend either. The 6.5x54 MS, 6.5x57 Mauser and 6.5x58 Portuguese were all very popular calibers in Africa and were used on large animals. The 6.5x55 was (and probably still is) very popular in Scandinavia for use on moose.

Click to expand...

This right here is actually also a really good point. The 6.5x55 is not questionable as a moose cartridge but the 6.5 creedmoor is?

A quick look at the Hodgdon reloading data actually shows the 6.5 creedmoor launching 143gr eld x(not my favorite bullet but just go with it for the sake of argument) at 2791fps out of a 24” barrel while the 6.5x55 shows a 142gr Sierra at a max of 2671fps.

I continue to express my opinion that bullet construction, shot placement, and self control (don’t take low percentage shots) are much more important than caliber choice. I like my .300 win mag with a 180gr ttsx for elk above all else. But I’d take a 6.5 creedmoor loaded with a 127gr Barnes lrx over a 300 win mag loaded with a 180gr Berger target bullet.

Miletic said:

One should be moderate in the choice of caliber. Although I'm a fan of the 243win, I don't think it's an ideal choice for shooting elk. I also have 300wm, 3006 and 8x68 in the closet. I hunt most game with the 243, and use it every day. He will knock down any animal if hit in the chest. The choice of bull is very important. With a bonded bull of 100 gr, 243 is ready for anything and everything. However, for ethical shooting, I consider distance to the target more important than caliber. If someone shoots an elk from 500-600-700 meters, I consider it unethical. I know that sometimes such a distance is imposed by itself and that the hunter has no choice, but it is not logical to me that this true hunter talks about how I am not normal because I shoot a deer at 120yds with a 243, and they are ok because at 600yds they shoot with a 300win mag.

Click to expand...

You always have a choice and should not be based on the money you paid to hunt or that was the only shot you had. Not referring to you.

slam8031 said:

So, according to this logic bows don’t send arrows fast enough with enough damage?
I have shot an elk with 7mm rem mag. But, last summer on a tiny ten specific hunt I took a kudu at 90 yards with a 6.5 creedmoor ELDX one shot. DRT
My two youngest daughters two weeks ago shot two impala, a large zebra mare, and a wildebeest with a 243 shooting Barnes TSX. All but the wildebeest were one shot kills and the wildebeest was one bad shot and one really great shot. The younger daughter also took a very sick buffalo cow with a 243 between the eyes. That was mercy not hunting. The argument is proper bullets at reasonable speeds placed accurately often do what they are supposed to do. The size of the bullet, weight of the bullet, and speed of the bullet can often be secondary issues.
Gen X member, (I grew a man bun to give my hair away for a wig for cancer patients), and I love my 375 h and h. But the smaller calibers have their place.

Click to expand...

That is a long reach I think, broadheads kill differently than bullets. Yes, you can do anything you want with your hair. Also, would not every use a ELDX again.

I’m on the younger side. I’ve used both a 6mm and 25 cal to take big game out west. I’ve used the 25 cal on multiple elk. I’m also taken multiple animals at over 500yards and several in excess of a 1000.

@JG26Irish_2 if you know a 5’7” 125lb female who was a SAW gunner on 3 different tours in Iraq and Afghanistan you met a unicorn. She either wasn’t spending enough time with the right E7’s or is taking some liberties. No one is a SAW gunner on 3 tours especially as a dismount humping a gun, and even more as a female when they weren’t allowed in combat arms roles until after Iraq ended and the foot patrols in Afghanistan became “to dangerous”. Non combat arms troops rarely patrolled like that, they were mostly in support/supply type convoy. The FET teams that came into play later in the war also didn’t run an automatic rifleman (in my experience)

I personally would not go below 7x57mm Mauser.

I have noticed that younger generations of hunters generally tend to be slightly more sensitive to recoil than our generations.

@JG26Irish_2 im also not calling out your friend because she very likely did carry a SAW at some point during her 3 deployments, potentially even in a foot patrol or serve as a gunner, just calling out your BS second hand telephone game example from someone