Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters 6.5 Creedmoor for Elk & Moose under 300yd - what bullet

Nope, but I get to see what happens in the biggest (and arguably most accessible) elk herd in the world. And I get to see all the animals that weren't recovered at the end of November lying around on the ground. Some are too eaten to learn anything from. Some are not. There are three basic patterns in those animals:

1) Blowups that didn't reach enough vitals from Bergers, Scenars, SMKs, and the like leaving the heart and far lung intact (or very close). Usually this is the result of a rib impact. Sometimes you see this pattern with for example a core lokt or SGK on the shoulder too, but less. Most of those seem to get recovered, probably because elk with broken shoulders don't go as far.
2) Pencil throughs
3) Shots not in the chest, but this is rarer than you'd think - maybe 10-15% of failures to recover.

So the first thing to learn is that those who harp on shot placement are dead wrong. The vast majority of failures to recover follow a shot in the chest.

Now, with pencil throughs often times you don't know what happened - it could be some idiot ignoring hunting regs and using FMJ or small bore solids. But often times it's known what outfitter/client a given elk is associated with,and the outfitters are supposed to weed out the FMJ. In those cases it's..... Barnes.

Maybe Barnes has fixed the problem with the LRX, but given that this is their 4th attempt I stopped trusting them a LONG time ago.

bsa, hijacked pics of dead animals off the 'net, by themselves is just as valid as posting nothing. Good try though, keep at it.

Sooo…this is the Gunwriter forum. Can we dial it back fellas? I really enjoy the shared experiences from all viewpoints and find that arguing about something we all care a ton about is pointless - especially given what this particular forum is all about.

Maybe it’s my bad - I asked for nothing held back lol

A 130 Accubond works well on cow elk.


You poor dumb ass, you’ve been posting that same cow and target pic for 10+ years. I guess when you suck as bad as you do, it’s your only move. I notice none of the below are a Creedmoor, so run along until you have something of value. I understand guessing is what you’re best at, but it adds no value. See, pics are easy, even when you’re solo. In between cooking and smoking, I packed out another 6.5 130 victom. So in your words, put up, or shut the fu ck up.

Please explain exactly how you determined all this from "animals that weren't recovered at the end of November lying around on the ground":

1) What bullet was used. Did you dig around and find the bullet? If so, some photos would (again) help.
2) Did you necropsy the elk to determine if the bullet "penciled through" or was a "blowup"?

More than one of us would like to know how many animals have you shot--or even seen shot--with Barnes bullets. I ask this because of considerable experience with them in calibers from .224 to .375, in several countries, on animals up to 1500 pounds. Once again, your credibility would increase if you could provide actual data and photos, instead of blanket-statement generalities, especially when they conflict with the long field experience of many other hunters.

Soooo many questions....

The part about "shot placement does not count" reminds me of Ron White's famous 'you cant fix stupid "

Forgot to mention. Cute back pack.

^
This.

Interesting thread. I would just add the 155 Lapua Mega to the list. Mega has a really well designed mechanical lock to keep it together.

*Taken with a Kodak disposable camera, circa 1996




Last bull LOL

Got anything from this millennium?

Are you serious? This has been going on for decades. The X bullet has been out since the late 80s or early 90s but it really got going in the mid to late 90s when the Californians became more numerous.

Some animals were on family land. Some were on neighbors. Some were recovered by what was then DOW, now P&W. Depending on where they are we leave them or get then with the front end loader. If we pick them up or the wound is on the up side and shallow it's easy to see what happened. Got a 3" deep wound on a rib? That's a Berger or SMK. Got a .309 entry and exit and an outfitter calling you from across the road? That's a Barnes. It's really not that hard to figure out.

The bullets that have consistently performed the best are the A-Frame, TBBC series, and Northfork. All three have reliable expansion with a soft lead nose, and a mechanical structure that stops expasion, plus bonding to ensure weight is retained. The second tier is the Partition, Accubond, and Weldcore. They shed more weight than is desirable but generally work OK especially if you go heavy.

It's interesting how many people have a stick up their ass about the facts of which bullets do and don't work well on elk. Meanwhile those of us who see the carnage every year just shake our heads

Oh, and since you ask I will never, ever use a Barnes mono bullet for hunting. Why use a [bleep] bullet when I can use a good one? I just watch them ruin other people's hunts.

Wow, just wow.

When everyone is wrong and you are the only one right, you might pause and ask yourself why….

There's plenty of other people who use the correct bullets. And a few clowns who use Barnes and frangible target bullets. Although the number of clowns is rising due to Barnes' effective marketing/lobying strategy of using the California legislature to outlaw their superior competition. That right there is a good reason never to buy their products.

The nice thing about facts is that they don't change because of who does or doesn't believe them. They remain facts, and people who know those facts are right, and those who do not are wrong. That's the way it works.

One might ask why supposed professionals are so ignorant of the facts, but in this case one would hope it's because being a whore pays. If this is honest ignorance, well, that's a different animal.

Yep, just as long as one has enough gumption to recognize fact from opinion, things will go right….

What bullets do when they hit an animal is fact. It doesn't change because of what you want, or what manufacturer provided the bullets for today's magazine entertainment. It's just what happened.

This really isn't hard, but some people who have an attachment to [bleep] bullets try to make it hard. That's their problem.

Yes, but judging by your last few posts, your description of what bullets do is not fact. It’s a guess, and based on very shaky ground, at that.

Your guessing game of identifying bullets based on a set of assumptions is an inherently flawed method of assessing bullet performance, in the first place. I would have expected much more respect for the scientific method from an engineer. You must see that testing the performance of a given bullet is not equivalent to testing the type of bullet based on given performance. Especially when most of your performance assessments are based on external appearance alone, rather than full post-mortem analyses.

Interesting post on an interesting bullet.... I'm looking for something other than the Hornady 160 round nose for some shorter range hunting that needs penetration from hard angles. Thanks for bringing this one to my attention!