The Truth about 6.5 Ammo

[acs75]

How about there misses. It lost deer. Nobody talks about that! I can show you I believable groups I shot at any distance. Only have done it couple times. They are far and few between.
You haven't factored in wind cold branches, time it takes bullet to get there, deer moved. Anything can be done. I can take deer with my AR-15 at 800 yards. Should I hell no!!!
Blind squirrel finds acorn once in awhile.


Again just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Be a decent human being n ethical hunter.

[Ghost]

How about there misses. It lost deer. Nobody talks about that! I can show you I believable groups I shot at any distance. Only have done it couple times. They are far and few between.
You haven't factored in wind cold branches, time it takes bullet to get there, deer moved. Anything can be done. I can take deer with my AR-15 at 800 yards. Should I hell no!!!
Blind squirrel finds acorn once in awhile.


Again just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Be a decent human being n ethical hunter.

Uh, again where did I say you should?

Furthest I've shot deer was 220 yards, DRT with a muzzleloader.

Furthest with a Grendel was 100, heart, lung and leg shot he snowplowed about 20 yards. I posted the video here.

Last time out, had a buck at 7 yards but let him walk and haven't hunted since.

Most of my deer 20 yards or less. I used to fill 15 tags a year for population control. I've killed plenty don't really care if I shoot any more.

Edit: just thinking it's probably been 15 years since I needed to shoot a deer more than once. Been more than that since I had any unrecoverable.

[acs75]

I was referring to the chuckle heads you were touting shooting at unethical ranges. They have missed they have tracked a deer. Nobody is that great to shoot those distances and not have a strayed shot.
They brag (you are for them) about the one time they dropped the deer. Never discussing their missed shots that wounded that deer.

I wouldn't be advocating to shoot those distances with that caliber as you have.

Your argument would have been received with a lot virtual if you would have talked about what you shoot and how you take your deer.
Talking about other chuckle heads unethically taking deer is giving you n other good hunters a bad name.

Nothing personal just strongly disagree with your thoughts on 6.5 grendal and how it's can be used for hunting

[Ghost]

I was referring to the chuckle heads you were touting shooting at unethical ranges. They have missed they have tracked a deer. Nobody is that great to shoot those distances and not have a strayed shot.
They brag (you are for them) about the one time they dropped the deer. Never discussing their missed shots that wounded that deer.

I wouldn't be advocating to shoot those distances with that caliber as you have.

Your argument would have been received with a lot virtual if you would have talked about what you shoot and how you take your deer.
Talking about other chuckle heads unethically taking deer is giving you n other good hunters a bad name.

Nothing personal just strongly disagree with your thoughts on 6.5 grendal and how it's can be used for hunting

Thank you for your wisdom on internet debate.

However, you can't seem to grasp what I've been saying.

I'm not saying if you buy a Grendel you will be able to do that. I'm saying that round is capable.

It seems that there is a myth that a 300 win mag makes a bad shot better and more ethical.

We aren't discussing the Indian we are discussing the arrow.

[acs75]

lol you crack me up.
I think we will agree to disagree.

Myth is that larger caliber (300WM) makes a better shooter!? You Erud must have went to the same school. Where you weren't required to read the whole post.
Try reading it again. And also refer to the numerous times I talk about elements or deer jump factor. Typical where people try shoving a square peg in round hole. Same ones that only read n hear what they want.

Not trying to instill any wisdom. Just trying to convince the masses to be kinder gentler people n more ethical hunters.


I do enjoy a good debate. Without personal insults. Thank You

[Ghost]

Wisdom is that larger caliber (300WM) makes a better shooter.

?

[acs75]

My bad myth not wisdom I meant. Referring to your comment on the myth


It seems that there is a myth that a 300 win mag makes a bad shot better and more ethical.

Read my posts again

[Ghost]

My bad myth not wisdom I meant. Referring to your comment on the myth


It seems that there is a myth that a 300 win mag makes a bad shot better and more ethical.

Read my posts again

It's been said in this thread that a hunter can get by with a bad shot if using a 300 win mag. They are harder to shoot, some people will flinch or anticipate recoil. They are heavier so if you're carrying it a lot you may be more fatigued.

With a Grendel you can have a lighter package, mild recoil and you won't even come off target watching through the scope. There are videos of a 14 year old girl on YouTube taking all kinds of animals out west, including elk.

The Grendel is ballistically similar to a traditionally loaded 6.5 swede, a caliber that has been used for a century killing moose. Grand slam hunter Bob Stokes converted to 6.5's, and wrote the intro to Grendel handbook 2 on hunting, after watching 6.5's kill a couple hundred animals while guiding in Alaska. He previously thought 375 H&H was the minimum needed for Alaska.

W.D.M. Bell killed 300 elephants with a 6.5mm 149gr FMJ.

It all comes down to shot placement. Shot placement is the key to hunting, a deer heart won't know if a 6.5 or a 300WM round goes through it. A 6.5 will go through it.

And it goes back to what I've been saying the Grendel is efficient and does what it needs to if placed well. The 678 yard white tail kill was a through and through.

[acs75]

It all comes down to shot placement. Shot placement is the key to hunting, a deer heart won't know if a 6.5 or a 300WM round goes through it. A 6.5 will go through it.


Exactly my point! You are thinking about your 50 yard shot. We are talking long distances. 400 plus. That you are committed to sticking with.

There isn't any more weight on a hunting rifle when going up in caliber.
Recoil isn't an issue during hunting. When adrenaline and anxiety kick it you will not think about recoil

Shot placement shot placement. You keep talking about. What the furthest distance you have shot consistently? If it's 400 500 600 plus. You would have a better understanding what elements will do with that bullet. Again wind tree branch. TIME. Animal move. You are assuming at those ranges the stars align every time. They don't. I know.
With a large caliber rifle your chances of killing that animal quickly is MUCH higher then it would be with a lighter load. When the elements have affected the bullets path that you intended it to travel
Stop researching trajectories bc etc. this isn't target practice.
It's about killing that animal as quickly as you can. Why do you mind if it suffers?
You don't because you keep insisting that every shot taken at long distances with sub par caliber are all clean kills. It's impossible for it to happen. It is just less of an issue with larger calibers. That shouldn't be so difficult to understand

6.5x55 love it. Read my post. Boy you guys are bad at this.
The swedes DIDN'T take moose with it at 400 plus yards.

Go ahead recite all the blind squirrels with an acorn.

[Ghost]

It all comes down to shot placement. Shot placement is the key to hunting, a deer heart won't know if a 6.5 or a 300WM round goes through it. A 6.5 will go through it.


Exactly my point! You are thinking about your 50 yard shot. We are talking long distances. 400 plus. That you are committed to sticking with.

There isn't any more weight on a hunting rifle when going up in caliber.
Recoil isn't an issue during hunting. When adrenaline and anxiety kick it you will not think about recoil

Shot placement shot placement. You keep talking about. What the furthest distance you have shot consistently? If it's 400 500 600 plus. You would have a better understanding what elements will do with that bullet. Again wind tree branch. TIME. Animal move. You are assuming at those ranges the stars align every time. They don't. I know.
With a large caliber rifle your chances of killing that animal quickly is MUCH higher then it would be with a lighter load. When the elements have affected the bullets path that you intended it to travel
Stop researching trajectories bc etc. this isn't target practice.
It's about killing that animal as quickly as you can. Why do you mind if it suffers?
You don't because you keep insisting that every shot taken at long distances with sub par caliber are all clean kills. It's impossible for it to happen. It is just less of an issue with larger calibers. That shouldn't be so difficult to understand

6.5x55 love it. Read my post. Boy you guys are bad at this.
The swedes DIDN'T take moose with it at 400 plus yards.

Go ahead recite all the blind squirrels with an acorn.

You are not understanding what I'm saying, this thread was about ballistics of a 6.5 that's why I'm discussing it. Hunting came into play based on the "fun fact" I quoted a few pages back.

[acs75]

Also I think you misunderstand my issue. I don't have an issue with certain calibers. They have their advantages. They all cross paths on there ability to achieve all goal. They all have limits. I just don't know why you continue to say that it's common for these kills to happen as clean and quickly at these distances. It's not. It certainly shouldn't be.
If you want to shoot those distances buy a larger caliber.

My 300WM will hit targets out to mile plus. It's pushing its limits. I intend and doing a couple times. But if it's something that I intend on doing on regular basis I'm buying 338.

[acs75]

I respect your opinion albeit wrong (lol). You certainly at very least have done some research.

You can reply to what I said. Hopefully you read it all first.

But I think we have beaten this dead horse long enough.
I enjoyed that debate. Thanks for conceding the win to me on this one lol

[Ghost]

I respect your opinion albeit wrong (lol). You certainly at very least have done some research.

You can reply to what I said. Hopefully you read it all first.

But I think we have beaten this dead horse long enough.
I enjoyed that debate. Thanks for conceding the win to me on this one lol

No, I can see you don't want to educate yourself on it.

A Grendel at 400 exceeds what is believed to be the minimum energy for killing deer. That's my point, it is not wrong.

To your line of reasoning, a shooter as I mentioned above is not less ethical than one using a 300 win mag. Especially when the 300 win mag guy shoots the deer in the ass because he thinks he can shoot through a twig or flinches anticipating the recoil.

Both rounds have more than enough energy but the shooter must shoot well, the 300 doesn't change that there is no additional "safety factor".

[Rip Van Winkle]

The late Jeff Cooper once opined that anyone attempting to take a game animal at more than 300 yards, under field conditions, should be required to write a 500 word essay on why they felt a need to do so.

[Ghost]

The late Jeff Cooper once opined that anyone attempting to take a game animal at more than 300 yards, under field conditions, should be required to write a 500 word essay on why they felt a need to do so.

Does writing 'Murica and bald eagles over and over count?