22 or 6.5 Creedmore for Moose and Elk?

[Rubberhead]

The term "frozen red herring" comes to mind...

 

[AckleyHunter]

Wounding from bullets has very little to do with bullet construction and very much to do with bullet placement. To say otherwise indicates a lack of experience finishing a wounded animal. It is a very onerous and sometimes dangerous task.

You are mixing up different meanings of the word wound. The size and breadth of the wound that causes bleeding and death is due to bullet construction and impact velocity. The 'we have to shoot him again' type of wound is largely due to shot placement or choosing the wrong bullet, i.e. you used a varmit bullet or an otm match bullet that failed to upset.

I wish bullet construction didn't matter because fmjs are way cheaper than expanding hunting bullets.

But you are right that finishing an aminal can be dangerous. That is why you should use a rifle/cartridge that affords the shooter the highest 1st round hit percent.

 

[JG26Irish_2]

I wish bullet construction didn't matter because fmjs are way cheaper than expanding hunting bullets.

But you are right that finishing an aminal can be dangerous. That is why you should use a rifle/cartridge that affords the shooter the highest 1st round hit percent.

The first round placement is likely the most important variable but only assuming the hunter has already chosen an adequate cartridge/rifle combo. Bullet construction does matter but is much less of an issue as long as the shot is very well place. It becomes more important if the angle is less than ideal or the shot is off a little. I still have to hold that at some point as we go smaller and lighter, the results will become less consistent and IMO at that point the bullet is too small for the job at hand. Example: Nobody is advocating we hunt Cape Buffalo with a 22 Creedmore. Why? It will not consistently kill the buffalo before it kills you. Why? It is too small, too light and while you can/could succeed, why would you want to try? The risk is too high. If Elk were as dangerous and onery as CB then the risk might be too high with them as well. So, perhaps the risk variable is one that is not coming in to play enough here.

 

[Choupique]

Ill chime in as someone who has partially bought into the smaller is better movement.

Ive popped my share of magnum primers, most of them at the range learning how to shoot. I handle recoil well. The smaller is better ethos is built around primarily shooting better, and using the right-sized projectile for the game.

Lately ive been popping a lot of .223 primers and I can tell you, it is absolutely, 100%, no doubt easier for me to make hits with the smaller rifle. With a .338 win mag anywhere past about 150 yards in the field, it takes time and effort to get a good shot off. You cant be out of position or it will punish you, and you will probably miss, and you will have a very long recovery getting back on target. With a .223 none of those factors are there. You can be slightly out of position and still spot your own splash.

Add in a modern bullet that will do a lot of damage in 12-18" of penetration and you've got yourself a big game killing rig. As is often said, a small bullet in the vitals is more effective than a big bullet in the guts.

We've all also seen that a small more frangible bullet can do a lot more damage than a bigger and harder bullet. One of my favorite things about .338 win mag with bonded bullets is how little damage it does to deer. A .270 win with a cup and core bullet on the other hand often looks like the deer was an air strike victim after the hide is off.

Im not TOTALLY on board yet. Ill be bringing a .30-06 after elk this year. I can easily see myself getting totally on board once I have some dead deer with the .223. Its definitely easier to shoot, much cheaper to practice with, and if itll get the job done, why not?

 

[buffybr]

My .223 Vanguard is one of my favorite PRACTICE rifles that I shoot almost every week.

My .300 Wby and my 7mm RM rifles are my elk and moose rifles.

I'll be using my .300 Wby for my Montana mountain goat this year.

 

[ElevenBravo]

The first round placement is likely the most important variable but only assuming the hunter has already chosen an adequate cartridge/rifle combo. Bullet construction does matter but is much less of an issue as long as the shot is very well place. It becomes more important if the angle is less than ideal or the shot is off a little. I still have to hold that at some point as we go smaller and lighter, the results will become less consistent and IMO at that point the bullet is too small for the job at hand. Example: Nobody is advocating we hunt Cape Buffalo with a 22 Creedmore. Why? It will not consistently kill the buffalo before it kills you. Why? It is too small, too light and while you can/could succeed, why would you want to try? The risk is too high. If Elk were as dangerous and onery as CB then the risk might be too high with them as well. So, perhaps the risk variable is one that is not coming in to play enough here.

Ridiculous. There may be some value in the risk variable, but it's secondary.

It is absolutely unethical to shoot at game with a round that has zero to extremely low probability of a one-shot kill. Full stop.

 

[AckleyHunter]

The first round placement is likely the most important variable but only assuming the hunter has already chosen an adequate cartridge/rifle combo. Bullet construction does matter but is much less of an issue as long as the shot is very well place. It becomes more important if the angle is less than ideal or the shot is off a little. I still have to hold that at some point as we go smaller and lighter, the results will become less consistent and IMO at that point the bullet is too small for the job at hand. Example: Nobody is advocating we hunt Cape Buffalo with a 22 Creedmore. Why? It will not consistently kill the buffalo before it kills you. Why? It is too small, too light and while you can/could succeed, why would you want to try? The risk is too high. If Elk were as dangerous and onery as CB then the risk might be too high with them as well. So, perhaps the risk variable is one that is not coming in to play enough here.

I am sure there is a threshold, but I don't know where that is. Seems heavy for caliber 22 bullets are above that threshold. But I would ask, when you say 22 creedmoor what bullet are you thinking about. The headstamp doesn't kill animals, the bullet does. When you say 22 cal, most people think of 55 gr varmit bullets because those are the most common 22 cal bullet people will encounter. Most people have no idea what a 80 or 88 gr 22 cal looks like or does in tissue.

Regarding CB, people hunt those differently than elk or plains game. The thrill comes from getting close to a dangerous animal and risking life and limb for an adrenaline rush. A different task requires a different tool. If you are shooting them at 100-200 yards in the lungs and waiting for them to bleed out like an elk, I am sure the 22 creedmoor with a 80+ gr bullet will work. I base that on the Ed Ashby video I posted that says they did just that with a 22 hornet. But if I am close, I want as much straight line penetration I can get to make sure I break the hip or hit something in the CNS to hit the rest button to stop a charge. A CNS hit does not require a wide wound channel to be effective. 7mm fmjs are enough to put the lights out on elephant at 7x57 muzzle velocities, but it wouldn't be my first choice.

 

[dchum]

Wounding from bullets has very little to do with bullet construction.

Really….

 

[AckleyHunter]

My .223 Vanguard is one of my favorite PRACTICE rifles that I shoot almost every week.

My .300 Wby and my 7mm RM rifles are my elk and moose rifles.

I'll be using my .300 Wby for my Montana mountain goat this year.

Some free, meaning worthless, advice, Mt goat get the reputation of being tough. This is generally due to people shooting them with tough bullets and the goats being thinner than most people think. They are fluffy and that makes them look bigger then they are. Take a bullet that opens rapidly, nosler partitons are always a good choice.

Good luck on your hunt.

 

[MS 9x56]

You are mixing up different meanings of the word wound. The size and breadth of the wound that causes bleeding and death is due to bullet construction and impact velocity. The 'we have to shoot him again' type of wound is largely due to shot placement or choosing the wrong bullet, i.e. you used a varmit bullet or an otm match bullet that failed to upset.

I wish bullet construction didn't matter because fmjs are way cheaper than expanding hunting bullets.

But you are right that finishing an aminal can be dangerous. That is why you should use a rifle/cartridge that affords the shooter the highest 1st round hit percent.

I was in the military sir and am quite certain I know the meaning of the word wound. Any animal with a bullet hole in it that is not dead has recieved a wound. Is it possible for bullet construction to cause a wound? Possible but at a much lower percentage than a wound from a hit in a nonlethal location.

 

[NDWoods]

All elk and moose are safe from the following update as I have no intention of EVER hunting either with 22 Creed.

But

Barnes just release a new 65 grain LRX 22 Creed loaded ammo offering that starts shipping tomorrow. Just an FYI!

It will definitely be field tested on pigs here in Texas.

 

[farmer_john]

People says things like this all the time, but provide little to no evidence to substantiate it. While it seems logical, reality is that wounding from bullets is almost entirely due to bullet construction and impact velocity. Larger diameter and heavier bullets do not make wounds that are bigger around, just longer. i.e. they penetrate more.

Here is a video showing how a 6 creed and 223 make bigger wound chanels than a 50 bmg. If your bullet is too big and tough, the path of least resistance is to push through and not upset, the media it is going through can only push back so hard and is going to be the same regardless of caliber.

Lol the 50bmg is still straight lining a half inch hole
A 223 is a quarter inch even if it has some cavitation
But yes bigger bullets leave bigger holes.
Even if a 6.5/.264 bullet doubled in size through propper expansion. It would be a half inch hole.


And gel isnt a good indicator of anything but a clean passthrough on soft tissue.
Hitting a shoulder

Ill chime in as someone who has partially bought into the smaller is better movement.

Ive popped my share of magnum primers, most of them at the range learning how to shoot. I handle recoil well. The smaller is better ethos is built around primarily shooting better, and using the right-sized projectile for the game.

Lately ive been popping a lot of .223 primers and I can tell you, it is absolutely, 100%, no doubt easier for me to make hits with the smaller rifle. With a .338 win mag anywhere past about 150 yards in the field, it takes time and effort to get a good shot off. You cant be out of position or it will punish you, and you will probably miss, and you will have a very long recovery getting back on target. With a .223 none of those factors are there. You can be slightly out of position and still spot your own splash.

Add in a modern bullet that will do a lot of damage in 12-18" of penetration and you've got yourself a big game killing rig. As is often said, a small bullet in the vitals is more effective than a big bullet in the guts.

We've all also seen that a small more frangible bullet can do a lot more damage than a bigger and harder bullet. One of my favorite things about .338 win mag with bonded bullets is how little damage it does to deer. A .270 win with a cup and core bullet on the other hand often looks like the deer was an air strike victim after the hide is off.

Im not TOTALLY on board yet. Ill be bringing a .30-06 after elk this year. I can easily see myself getting totally on board once I have some dead deer with the .223. Its definitely easier to shoot, much cheaper to practice with, and if itll get the job done, why not?

I think its also a distance thing. A 6.5 is a great stalking round. For medium sized game. But i would not be trying to use it at 500+

 

[MS 9x56]

Really….

Go back and read the whole sentence. Only an idiot or very inexperienced hunter hunts big game with varmint bullets.

 

[AckleyHunter]

Lol the 50bmg is still straight lining a half inch hole
A 223 is a quarter inch even if it has some cavitation
But yes bigger bullets leave bigger holes.
Even if a 6.5/.264 bullet doubled in size through propper expansion. It would be a half inch hole.


And gel isnt a good indicator of anything but a clean passthrough on soft tissue.
Hitting a shoulder
I think its also a distance thing. A 6.5 is a great stalking round. For medium sized game. But i would not be trying to use it at 500+

1/4 inch!? I think your ruler is broken or you didn't watch the video. Odd your 'measurements' are the exact diameter of the bullet.

50 BMG:

223:

6 creedmoor:

 

[Choupique]

. A 6.5 is a great stalking round. For medium sized game. But i would not be trying to use it at 500+

If you ignore the headstamp and just focus on the terminal performance and the math, the long skinny bullets start out-performing the short fat ones as the ranges get longer. For instance, id probably rather hit an elk with a heavy 6.5 bullet at 500 yards than a heavy .308 bullet. The 6.5 bullet is going to hold speed and buck wind better.

Serious contemplation of shooting an elk with a sub-6.5mm rifle and match bullets requires a very open mind. Its counter to everything we've all been taught and most of what we've all done our whole lives. It is however quite logical once you dig down into it. Ill be trying it myself.

 

[pilar]

All this wag the dog talk about bullet and caliber, is certainly filling up voluminous amounts of energy and space.
Empirical evidence suggests under certain parameters that it’s better to error on the side of caution. Because something’s work until they don’t, nothing is 100% under variable conditions.
It’s a endless cycle of debate.

 

[ElevenBravo]

If you ignore the headstamp and just focus on the terminal performance and the math, the long skinny bullets start out-performing the short fat ones as the ranges get longer. For instance, id probably rather hit an elk with a heavy 6.5 bullet at 500 yards than a heavy .308 bullet. The 6.5 bullet is going to hold speed and buck wind better.

Completely ignoring the ethics of taking a shot at game at those ranges. Marksmanship skills aside, "holds speed better" doesn't mean the 6.5 doesn't lose any velocity at all. A 140gr ELDM (poor choice of game bullet) is going to lose 500fps @ 500 yards. F = mv and all that, you're just not going to hit anywhere near the kinetic energy needed to ethically take down medium-sized game.

Assuming the shooter can even hit the vital areas at that range.

Serious contemplation of shooting an elk with a sub-6.5mm rifle and match bullets requires a very open mind. Its counter to everything we've all been taught and most of what we've all done our whole lives. It is however quite logical once you dig down into it. Ill be trying it myself.

One must be careful not to open one's mind so much that it falls out. What you're describing is heresy for a reason. Much like OSHA regs are written in blood, the wisdom of hunting is written in tag soup and the unnecessary suffering of our quarry.

 

[AckleyHunter]

you're just not going to hit anywhere near the kinetic energy needed to ethically take down medium-sized game.

How does kinetic energy kill? An fmj and an expanding bullet of the same mass and velocity have the same energy. Do they both kill as 'ethically'?

 

[Wooster]

I would like to see a picture of a 20 mm thick elk scapula . Even 6mm is very unlikely.View attachment 765067

Even in your picture chosen to promote your view you can see the stark difference. The scapula of an elk is not simply a scaled-up version of a white-tailed deer scapula; it is substantially thicker, denser, and more mechanically reinforced throughout the blade and especially along the scapular spine. Unless you are such a marksman, and professor of anatomy, that you can place your shot to avoid the scapular spine, you have to consider the spine as a potential landing zone for your shot. And, yes, the spine can be up to 20 mm thick. As far as the blade goes, in white-tailed deer, the scapular blade is relatively thin and lightweight, with delicate cortical walls. In contrast, elk scapulae have markedly thicker cortical bone and broader cross-sectional geometry. Cortical density is critical because compact bone provides the stiffness and load-bearing capacity necessary to support the elk’s much greater body mass and muscular force production. Although the chemical composition of bone is similar between species, the elk’s thicker and less porous cortical structure dramatically increases mechanical strength, making the scapula far more resistant to deformation, fatigue, and fracture.

 

[AckleyHunter]

What you're describing is heresy for a reason

Burn the witch!!!!!!!!

Sorry, I couldn't help myself. But your unsupported assumptions and meaningless quips are bordering on religion.