MontanaMan,
You're right, my comparison of a high-BC 140 in the 6.5 Creedmoor and a typical softpoint in the .270 was disingenuous. I made because that's the typical comparison made by anti-Creedmoor guys, who only look at muzzle velocity--but should have mentioned the reason for my comparison
Let's make another comparison, using anoth pair of 140-grain bullets of the same brand and model, this time "mid-BC" bullets of tougher construction, so they'll penetrate reliably both at close and longer ranges--140-grain Nosler AccuBonds, again at 2750 in the 6.5 and 3000 in the .270. Let's also limit the range to 500 yards, still farther than most hunters shoot.
The .270 bullet will shoot flatter than the Creedmoor's, dropping 10" less at 500. So what? Most people who shoot that far dial-in elevation.
At 500 the .270 bullet will be traveling less than 100 fps faster, instead of the 250 fps at the muzzle. For those who firmly believe in kinetic energy, at 500 the .270 bullet will carry about 100 more foot-pounds--2/3 as much as a 40-grain high-velocity .22 Long Rifle at the muzzle.I sincerely doubt that would make any difference when hitting the ribs of a deer or elk.
At 300 yards (the maximum range for many, if not most hunters) the .270 will shot 2 inches flatter. I doubt like hell that the average hunter can hold within 2 inches at 300 yards.
At ANY range wind-drift will be just about the same, so there's no advantage or disadvantage there.
The big difference, as prairie goat pointed out in his recent post, is in recoil. The 6.5 Creedmoor kicks about 2/3 as much as the .270. Of course, some people would say the .270 doesn't kick much, but as PG also pointed out, if you're going to practice much with your big game rifles, it does make a difference.
I once spent what was an essentially an 8-hour work day, minus an hour lunch break, shooting a 6.5 Creedmoor with 140-grain AccuBond factory ammo out to 1000 yards, though most of the shooting took place from 300-700. Don't remember exactly how many rounds were fired, but it was well over 100, and probably over 150. I would NOT want to do that with my Winchester Featherweight Model 70 .270.
I also know, from actual field experience, that the 6.5 Creedmoor will kill big game just as well as a .270, whether deer or elk. I also know a 140 AccuBond from a Creedmoor will exit the chest of a 6-point bull elk at 40 yards, because that's what one of my hunting partners used last fall on a hunt here in Montana--and the elk dropped in less than 50 yards.
I am not a 6.5 Creedmoor addict, though I do own one (my third since 2010), in part because so many hunters want to know about it this days, including handloading data with the latest powders and bullets. But I also own and hunt with a .260 Remington, 6.5x55 and .270--along with a bunch of other rifles. If I decide to take a 6.5 hunting in the local mountains, it would more likely be a Tikka T3 Superlite .260 Remington, because it's consierably lighter than my Ruger American Predator in 6.5 Creedmoor. On more level ground I might just take my custom FN Mauser in 6.5x55, with a hand-made walnut stock, Lilja barrel and Leupold 3.5-10x fitted with Darrell Holland's ART reticle. Or my Sauer drilling, made in the 1950's, which like the others has a 1-8 twist rifling twist, but also has two 16-gauge barrels in case I run into pheasants, Huns or grouse.
Or just for the hell of it, I might take my .270--or my NULA .30-06, Barrett Field Craft .243, or grandmother's 722 Remington .257 Roberts. With me, you never know, because both as a journalist and rifle loony I try to be "fair and balanced" to all rifles--unlike those who hate the 6.5 Creedmoor even though they've never shot one.
