6.5 Creedmoor for hunting

[Daisy]

Id be interesting in your results with the GameChanger tipped bullet.
Target bullets for hunting is the downfall of the Creed like Mr Glass says.

We hunt for meat so losing a large percentage of a small Springbuck is an issue.

I guess the hard part is it comes from both sides. Half say you have to wear panties to shoot it. The other side said the damage is too great!

 

[shark_za]

I stand up to pee, I shoot a 6.5x55

But the 6.5 Creedmoor can pretty much match it with good bullets.
Once the mindset of target bullets is dropped.

 

[Mauser78]

I stand up to pee, I shoot a 6.5x55

But the 6.5 Creedmoor can pretty much match it with good bullets.
Once the mindset of target bullets is dropped.

But this is a Mauser, so its creed for men LOL

 

[Mauser78]

so that sounds very cool and I would love to try it!

However. The average traveling hunter won’t experience anything like that. 99.9% won’t run out of distance with a 6.5cm.

It is something different, the shooting is nice, but overall I still have mix feelings about it, since I am used to normal walk and stalk hunting.

 

[Philip Glass]

I have to say I’ve never understood this thought process. Damage is part of what kills. I’ll sacrifice a little meat for a quick kill.

It's kinda hard to sew up those holes for a trophy mount. They are just as dead with my .300 and less damage. That is my point from years of hunting with different calibers.

 

[SaintPanzer]

To be clear, my issue with the Creedmore is not that there is anything wrong with it, it's that as a target rifle (with high BC, lighter weight bullets) it's not suitable for hunting, and as a hunting rifle with the higher weight bullets, it doesn't do anything a 6.5X55 doesn't do. So I can't wrap my mind around the marketing hype. It just strikes me as a nasty, flash, gimcrack thing that I don't need.

Full disclosure: my whitetail rifle is a 6.5X54. Now, as much as I love that rifle, it has its limitations. The 160 grain bullet is effective (on a lot of things) but its blunt nose not only means it drops quickly, but also loses velocity quickly. I "know" intellectually it can be effective on any of the Hochwild I hunted in Europe, but it does not meet the game laws in places like Germany or Poland that need 2,000 joules at 100 meters. The 140 grain bullets have a higher BC, and will do that, but I just haven't played with them enough. I'm playing with the 156 grain Oryx "just to see what I can do with it".

Honestly, I am not that recoil sensitive, so I rely on my .30-06 for most of the things the Creedmore can do. I mean, they were shooting 1,000 yard matches at Camp Perry with the '06 way before anyone thought of a Creedmore, and if that means I have to think a little more about elevation changes on the scope before firing, well, I'm not going to hunt at 1,000 yards, so why worry? Maximum Point Blank Range is a thing. As the guy said in Fast Times at Ridgemont High: "Learn it. Know it. Live it."

I've often said my ammunition choices include the .45 ACP (1911), 9X19 mm (1908), .30-06 (1906), 6.5X54 (1903) 9.5X57 (1910), and I'm starting to play with 7X57 (1892). I'm starting to consider a .300 H&H, but I'm really not sure I'm ready for anything as modern as 1925. If I'm going to get on the belted magnum bandwagon, maybe I should start with a .275 H&H Magnum first.

There's old school class for you: a traveller rifle with a .275 H&H for deerstalking, and a .375 barrel for everything else in the world. One receiver, two barrels. I need to look into that. But I think only Hawk Bullets and Woodleigh would make the appropriate .287" bullet. Maybe I'll just neck it down to .284" and call it good.

 

[Daisy]

To be clear, my issue with the Creedmore is not that there is anything wrong with it, it's that as a target rifle (with high BC, lighter weight bullets) it's not suitable for hunting, and as a hunting rifle with the higher weight bullets, it doesn't do anything a 6.5X55 doesn't do. So I can't wrap my mind around the marketing hype. It just strikes me as a nasty, flash, gimcrack thing that I don't need.

Full disclosure: my whitetail rifle is a 6.5X54. Now, as much as I love that rifle, it has its limitations. The 160 grain bullet is effective (on a lot of things) but its blunt nose not only means it drops quickly, but also loses velocity quickly. I "know" intellectually it can be effective on any of the Hochwild I hunted in Europe, but it does not meet the game laws in places like Germany or Poland that need 2,000 joules at 100 meters. The 140 grain bullets have a higher BC, and will do that, but I just haven't played with them enough. I'm playing with the 156 grain Oryx "just to see what I can do with it".

Honestly, I am not that recoil sensitive, so I rely on my .30-06 for most of the things the Creedmore can do. I mean, they were shooting 1,000 yard matches at Camp Perry with the '06 way before anyone thought of a Creedmore, and if that means I have to think a little more about elevation changes on the scope before firing, well, I'm not going to hunt at 1,000 yards, so why worry? Maximum Point Blank Range is a thing. As the guy said in Fast Times at Ridgemont High: "Learn it. Know it. Live it."

I've often said my ammunition choices include the .45 ACP (1911), 9X19 mm (1908), .30-06 (1906), 6.5X54 (1903) 9.5X57 (1910), and I'm starting to play with 7X57 (1892). I'm starting to consider a .300 H&H, but I'm really not sure I'm ready for anything as modern as 1925. If I'm going to get on the belted magnum bandwagon, maybe I should start with a .275 H&H Magnum first.

There's old school class for you: a traveller rifle with a .275 H&H for deerstalking, and a .375 barrel for everything else in the world. One receiver, two barrels. I need to look into that. But I think only Hawk Bullets and Woodleigh would make the appropriate .287" bullet. Maybe I'll just neck it down to .284" and call it good.

6.5 creedmoor not suitable for hunting? Do you really believe that?

 

[C.W. Richter]

I'd use it on long-range rock hyrax in an appropriately set up gun! I'd go bigger for Impala on up. But, you'll have tracker(s)! Use heavier, more traditional hunting bullets that will work at needmore velocities (even the Hornady 160 SPs will do, but Woodleighs, Nos PTs) and keep the range more limited than the typical bigger boy rounds for PG. Not what pretty marketing stories tell you. My (3,150 fps) 264 WSM just cut the mustard IMO (using 140s-160s) on med-sized PG. Consider handloads/custom handloads. Damage is caused by high velocity (NO) and too low a bullet SD (I'd say the typ. 130ish slug is a bit light for PG. The 0.29-0.3+ SDs work best in .264" (140s-160s)-they penetrate and kill sans all the damage. I laugh when i see 120s gr 6.5 (virtually varmint SD/military but will work on thin-skinned deer) bullets sold for hunting (they make things smaller these days to spare costs, hype it up and make profits. Wake up! I believe it was initially made for an AR-10 (good idea in that case), and then re-purposed as the latest whizbang 6.5 sold like coca-cola en masse. "Use More Gun" and "Any Shot You Want" are more my creed! GL Took this giant at 300 yds and a hotter 6.5, as it was in attack formation...per Capstick, it was just a matter of when it was going to come! As I recall, the only animals "damaged" were far hides of dik-diks taken with hotter 6.5s at too close a range. (Not a big deal in the end, as the taxidermist will feature the near side on mounts. They do make solid/FMJ bullets for 6.5 and that's what I'd use for any future such occasions. We did switch to DG 375 solids for future such hunts and it worked out well! Solids are best if pelt preservation is your passion, but using proper heft bullets in the much lower V creedmore should work out ok (like a more traditional 6.5 cartridge).

 

[C.W. Richter]

Here you can see the differences amongst the range of 6.5 cartridges (and it's vast.) Primarily for longer range, but also terminal energy at any range (which translates better for larger animals.)

 

[Daisy]

Here you can see the differences amongst the range of 6.5 cartridges (and it's vast.) Primarily for longer range, but also terminal energy at any range (which translates better for larger animals.) View attachment 687124

I don’t but Into the terminal energy thing. But even if you did you didn’t include increased recoil with heavier bullet and increased case capacity.