Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters is there a winner between the 6.5-300 and 26 Nosler?

Bob was an honorable sportsman, gentleman, and rifleman, in my experience of him. A great man that I would love to have met, or shot along side. I was grateful he took the time to personally discuss my experiences, and what I'd gleaned from them. I knew a few men like him when I was younger. They were no-nonsense men when it was time to be serious, and a hell of a lot of fun otherwise.

I've never been immune enough to recoil to understand Bob's perspective through experience regarding pushing tough bullets hard for flat trajectories on game, but I know that it obviously works very effectively, given the numbers of hunters that still employ this method and their success rate. I never argued that with Bob (though I have with others here). Idid attempt to convince him that long, efficient bullets in the air also kill efficiently, given good shooting, which is also the case with fast, flat, and tough bullets.

Does it matter?

For sure. I’m pretty sure we’d all get along around a real campfire.

Many members of the "older generation" will stick to what they know works--though a lot of them saw many changes in what worked when they were younger.

One aspect has become apparent to me while working with a lot of different cartridges/bullets/scopes over the past several decades: One reason the older generation is obsessed with muzzle velocity and a flat trajectory (or at least an initially flat trajectory) is those are exactly what hunters have been obsessed with during the history of rifles, especially after the introduction of practical smokeless rifle powders in the 1880's.

Muzzle velocity made the most difference in trajectory over typical hunting ranges, with ballistic coefficient definitely being secondary. Since range-estimation was iffy, especially "eyeballing," an initially flat trajectory helped over what most hunters considered "normal" ranges. Using a scope's reticle for ranging worked far better, but still became unreliable beyond about 500 yards, because bullets started dropping so quickly. Thus the obsession with muzzle velocity: It was the most realistic and effective way to reduce the effects of ranging errors.

The muzzle velocity obsession, however, results in a skewed vision of newer cartridges/bullets/scopes. The biggest mistake is still obsessing over muzzle velocity, when bullets with higher ballistic coefficients make it less relevant.

In fact, laser rangefinders and dialing scopes (or even good long-range reticles, if you can't stand the thought of a dialing scope) make a few inches of extra bullet "drop" irrelevant. Second, high BC doesn't just reduce wind-drift--it also reduces the difference in a bullet's velocity over several hundred yards, which also reduces the differences in bullet expansion at closer and longer ranges, one of the primary reasons "controlled expansion" bullets started appearing in the first place.

Controlled-expansion bullets were partly designed to withstand hitting a big-game animal at close range with a high-velocity cartridge. In fact, that's exactly why John Nosler came up with the Partition. He really liked the flat trajectory of the .300 H&H, but even one of the supposedly toughest bullets of the day came apart on a moose shoulder. So he invented a better moose-trap, and eventually so did several other hunters.

However, none of the controlled-expansion bullets designed through the 1980's had very high ballistic coefficients. In fact, many spitzers were handicapped by flat meplats, the very tip of the bullet.

Flat meplats were common because so many hunters shot controlled-expansion bullets from "magnum" cartridges, which tend to recoil more, so batter the tips of soft-point bullets against the front of the magazine. This flattening annoyed many hunters, so several companies produced bullets with pre-flattened tips. This reduced the BC, resulting in even more obsession with muzzle velocity to compensate for suck BC's.

But with high-BC bullets there's no real need to start them at super-high velocity, because they retain far more velocity than older controlled-expansion bullets. Thus they can be started at 2800 fps or so and still work well on close-range game, even the "cup-and-core" high BC bullets--and because they retain far more velocity at longer ranges, they'll still expand way out there.

However, when many older hunters hear "long range bullet" they automatically assume the need for high velocity, because they're used to the poor BC's of many older controlled-expanding bullets. While some of today's controlled-expanding bullets have higher BC's, very few of the tougher ones have really high BC's. If somebody still really feels the need for muzzle velocities much above 3000 fps, they can use one of these compromise bullets, whether a Barnes LRX, Nosler AccuBond of Swift Scirocco II. They'll retain more velocity than a typical Nosler Partition, though some Partitions have decent BC's (as long as the soft tip isn't flattened during recoil) and a LOT more velocity than a Bitterroot Bonded Core, Norma Oryx, Swift A-Frame or other pre-tip-flattened bullet. Yet they still hold together on big game, especially if not started too fast. And there's no need to start them super-fast, since they retain more velocity at longer ranges.

Most really high-BC hunting bullets aren't designed to hold up at high velocities on close-range big game, for a simple reason: They're designed for shooting at longer ranges, where velocity has fallen off. In fact, when Nosler started working on a long-range hunting bullet, they'd didn't plan to bond the core.

But even many so-called long-range hunters demanded a bonded bullet, because even among them many believe bonding is somehow magic. So Nosler complied, producing the AccuBond Long Range, a longer, more streamlined version of the standard AccuBond. However, to insure expansion way out there, they had to use a somewhat thinner jacket. This resulted in a bullet that at close range, when started at the high velocity so many hunters think necessary, retains less weight and expands wider than the standard AccuBonds, reducing penetration.

A good example is a young Alaskan hunter I know. He used an ABLR for moose hunting last fall in his .300 Winchester Magnum, and of course handloaded it to high muzzle velocity. He did this despite not planning to shoot much beyond 400 yards, because he never does. Now, the ABLR killed a bull neatly at 200 yards, but the young man then complained that it lost too much weight.

Which is exactly what will happen with some of the "traditional" hunters now planning to use ABLR's, or other long-range bullets, at traditional ranges. They'll start them as fast as possible, because that's what "long range" has always meant to them, and when they end up shooting an animal at 100-300 yards, they'll complain that the bullet ruined too much meat, or didn't retain enough weight--unlike the Barnes TSX's, Nosler Partitions or Swift A-Frames they've used in the past.

In fact, a lot of these traditional hunters can't believe the 6.5 Creedmoor will kill as well as the .270 Winchester, because it can't reach the same muzzle velocities with the same bullet weights. (I also know that a lot of traditional hunters rate a cartridge's "killing power" by how much it recoils, and while the .270 Winchester doesn't kick hard, it kicks noticeably more than the same rifle in 6.5 Creedmoor.)

For those guys, here's a typical example of what's often called "real life." Last fall one my elk-hunting companions used a 6.5 Creedmoor with 140-grain Nosler AccuBonds. He's a young guy, and used a rifle many traditional hunters would hate--plastic-stocked, with a dialing scope and a suppressor. The muzzle velocity of his load was around 2750 fps, pretty pitiful by .270 standards. Yet he somehow managed to kill a mature 6x6 bull, and not out at 500 yards but at 40, in timber. Even at such a pitiful muzzle velocity, the AccuBond exited, and the bull went less than 50 yards before keeling over.

However, if he'd "had" to shoot at 500 yards, out where many traditional hunters feel 3000 fps is supposedly necessary, the 140 AccuBond from his pitful 6.5 Creedmoor would have been traveling only 100 fps less than a 140 AccuBond started at 3000 fps from a .270 Winchester. That's how quickly even medium-BC bullet like a standard 6.5mm AccuBond starts to catch up with a .270 Accubond started 250 fps faster at the muzzle. (The BC's used to calculate these numbers, by the way, came from Bryan Litz's tests.)

I realize the obsession with muzzle velocity isn't going away, because it's what most open-country hunters have been obsessed with for over a century. I should also state that I'm not anti-.270 Winchester, owning and hunting with a walnut-stocked, lightweight Model 70 with a non-dialing 6x scope. But I also own and hunt with a plastic-stocked, detachable magazine, push-feed 6.5 Creedmoor equipped with a dialing scope--also a 6x. As a result, I actually know how each performs in the field, instead of guessing based totally on muzzle velocity.

Rinb here is another option if you don't care for the Sako type extractors , horizontal ejection added to one of the best made Remington clones made by Borden actions.....

The one you buy is the winner.

John : I assume that you are referring to the OP's original question.
In typical 24HrCF fashion, we have long since meandered into only semi-related territory.

Honouring Bob in NH's memory, and our friendship with him through this medium. It's all good.
I didn't know him as well as some of you, but I benefited greatly from our exchanges, and I've missed him, Lots.

As for the two big 6.5's The Nosler is very interesting, but the .Wby has the long neck, and the long magnum magazine.
Much like the 6.5 CM, the Nosler 26 is built around magazine, and specific action constraints of the N48 / Howa derived action.

Ultimately, No it doesn't matter. I think the Wby wins on the basis of the Mark V platform, and the Weatherby mystique .

Carry On

You could have sold this one to a magazine, we got it for free.

Damned straight, SU! Well done JB - and right on the money.

Very Very Good M D and I thank you. I have a few comments or ?? and w/o quoting and deleting I'll copy & paste what I'm referencing.

** " One reason the older generation is obsessed with muzzle velocity and a flat trajectory (or at least an initially flat trajectory) is those are exactly what hunters have been obsessed with during the history of rifles, especially after the introduction of practical smokeless rifle powders in the 1880's." **

Are you saying I'm OLD school ? Why, yes I am.


** "Muzzle velocity made the most difference in trajectory over typical hunting ranges, with ballistic coefficient definitely being secondary." **

** "In fact, laser rangefinders and dialing scopes (or even good long-range reticles, if you can't stand the thought of a dialing scope) make a few inches of extra bullet "drop" irrelevant." **

I am on the same page w/you in this context. WHY I haven't changed to Adjusting Scopes is 400 yds is TYPICALLY the longest distance I have op to shoot at game, -- 500 yds being the exception.
In other context 500 yds is NOT long range -- I understand that.

Where I've hunted even between 200-400 yds there is OFTEN not enuff time to Bino, LRF, Read Chart, Dial Scope, Aim, Shoot. That takes time and at LONG range guys have that kind of time. It is much quicker to use MPBR with your LOAD --IF you know your trajectory.


** "But with high-BC bullets there's no real need to start them at super-high velocity, because they retain far more velocity than older controlled-expansion bullets. Thus they can be started at 2800 fps or so and still work well on close-range game, even the "cup-and-core" high BC bullets--and because they retain far more velocity at longer ranges, they'll still expand way out there." **

I also AGREE when the terrain allows you to see/watch the game for a reasonable amount of time. I have NO problem or opposition with High BC & slowER velocity IF you have time to use it.


** "I realize the obsession with muzzle velocity isn't going away, because it's what most open-country hunters have been obsessed with for over a century." **

I think you are right there also. As for me, what can I say....I LIKE fast bullets.

Again Thnx and I appreciate the time it took you to post all that. As someone else said, "You could have gotten paid for that... & we got it free."

Jerry

Agree with SU35. Thanks John.

John,
Read your post and have no disagreement but would like to add several things.
Bob and I were within a few weeks of the same age. He lived on the east coast and I in the intermountain west. However we have very similar experiences.

Each of us got interested in shooting because we were both hunters of deer and varmints. Today's new shooters come from either military or plinking/target backgrounds. Fewer come from hunting because there is less hunting in general.

Both of us enjoyed the experience of the chase. It was a way of experiencing life on the ground, up close and personal. It was not an abstract cerebral experience. We practiced the same profession and got plenty of brain work doing that.

Because we were hunters, we were very concerned with terminal performance AND with quickly making first round hits. Also we walked a lot! You might look for a giant mule deer for years and when you first see him have about 10 seconds to evaluate him, get ready, and shoot.

Given the right circumstances I am certain I can get the job done with a Creedmore. However the circumstances are not always “right”. I have been in situations where the range finder doesn’t work or the dials have moved and so on.

One of the major changes I see is that the ”modern” types shoot at known distances, with knowledge of wind, and and are dependent upon multiple electronic devices. Terminal Bullet performance is irrelevant to making holes in paper or hearing the noise of a gong. I read an article written by a long range hunter describing his kit. Rangefinder, range cards, wind meter, barometer, ballistic calculating device, tripod, bags on which to rest rifle, extra batteries, GPS device, binos, spotting scope, etc, etc. His rifle alone weighs more than I pack for a long day in the mountains. I grew up packing a snickers bar, a small knife, and a couple of extra shells. Never thought I needed a bottle of water. In really rough country I might pack a compass and a PB&J.

Today making the actual shot is more of an abstract engineering process. In fact the animal becomes an abstraction, it is a furry substitute for a metal gong. Today I hear hunters bragging about the length of their shot rather than how close they were able to get. I don’t get much of a thrill shooting big game at really long distances. If I must resort to those long shots it is evidence of my lack of skill as a hunter. When sheep hunting, there have been times when we put them to bed and retreated to go to camp, to plan a stalk for the next day. To me, that is more exciting and rewarding than whanging way at 750 yards. Thrilling is getting close enough to a wildebeest that I can hear him breathing and see the snot dripping out of his nose. I suppose it is how one measures success. Several of my most memorable experiences came about when I came back with no game.

I am more old school. I view hunting as an encounter with nature. I enjoy it most when my quarry has the chance to be as aware of my presence as I am of his. Bow hunters understand and appreciate this feeling.

Very cool write up MD.

It is a mindset shift.

Mr. Rin

I read your post per our attitude and perception in actual hunting. I read with a smile about the guy with a 'truck load of equipment' - my paraphrase.

The following is an excerpt from my post earlier:

* "Where I've hunted even between 200-400 yds there is OFTEN not enuff time to Bino, LRF, Read Chart, Dial Scope, Aim, Shoot. That takes time and at LONG range, guys have that kind of time. It is much quicker to use MPBR with your LOAD --IF you know your trajectory." *

I ask again IF you are a brother from a diff mother ?

Thanks for your input.

Jerry

Rick,

I grew up hunting the same way, and still do.

My point wasn't that old-school is bad, but that today the obsession with muzzle velocity isn't necessary, and often results in more recoil for the same results with a high-BC bullet at somewhat slower muzzle velocity. It's easy to get 2900 fps from a 127-grain Barnes LRX in a 22"-barreled 6.5 Creedmoor, or 2800 with a 140 Accubond. Either will hit, and penetrate, big game animals out to 500 yards just as well as traditional .270 loads--or even a 150 Partition at 3000 fps with RL-26 (which is also one powder to use in the Creedmoor to get 2800 with a 140). But the Creedmoor does it with significantly less recoil, which makes practicing more pleasant and productive. It's also usually easier to get really fine accuracy with a Creedmoor, even with really "affordable" factory rifles, though in my experience the .270 is also an accurate round.

The other thing I know even more certainly is that one sure way to get the snot kicked out of you is to push heavier bullets at really high BC's with magnum cartridges, because you believe a certain "premium" bullet with a mediocre BC is absolutely necessary for killing big game, whether deer, elk or whatever. But it's much more fun to use a good higher-BC bullet with less powder to achieve the same results.

These comments on 6.5 Creedmoor ballistics apply equally to similar rounds like the .260 Remington and 6.5x55. But the Creedmoor became so popular because it accomplishes this easily in factory rifles, with factory ammo.

I'll also point out that the entire history of hunting rifles has been a "regression" toward smaller calibers and cartridges, especially after smokeless powder appeared. Before World War II many hunters were whining about a new cartridge that they claimed was OBVIOUSLY inferior to the .30-06, which had just become comfortably established as the most popular big game round in North America.

The new cartridge used small, lighter bullets than the favored 180's and 220's for the .30-06, and many hunters (including established gun writers) spent considerable time trying to persuade other hunters to avoid this new-fangled cartridge. Many even insisted cartridges much larger than the .30-06 were necessary to consistently kill mule deer, let alone elk. This was because, like many of today's hunters, they clung to what HAD worked for them, so insisted the upstart cartridge was a fraud, and would fade away.

But it didn't, partly because bullets continued to improve, to the point where many hunters feel very comfortable that "new" cartridge on not just mule deer, elk and moose, but African plains game. That new-fangled cartridge that would OBVIOUSLY fade away, of course, was the .270 Winchester.

Jerry,

Believe me, if you want to use the 6.5 Creedmoor as a quick "point and shoot" deer cartridge, it will do it quite well with 120-130 grain bullets. One I've used for that very purpose is the 120-grain Ballistic Tip, which can easily be started at 130-grain .270 Winchester velocities with published loading data.

Thank You Mule Deer !

Please do, ( Work it into an article, Book chapter etc. that is) And sell it !

I am sure I'm not alone when I say that is priceless, and bears repeating to the masses.
I've been reading, and re-rereading some of your Reality Articles for just that reason. Each time I come away with something new and practical.


Now if we could just find a way to beat down the shipping costs on your Big Books to Canada, we'd have it licked.

I think I once suggested a Goose Hunting / Fishing research trip, combined with some Book Signing appearances
- Do you speak well ? I know that Eilleen does.

Cheers from Frozen Alberta

Spot on RinB !

I don't know how many times, I've become aware of the eyes of a trophy animal on me, before I saw them. Totally Made.
My only recourse is to stop moving completely, and wait. Any movement at all would have spooked them hard. Rely on disruptive camo.
I'm talking Mule Deer, Elk, and even Moose in the Parklands, Mountains and Prairies, and of course Antelope and wily Coyote.

I've also had lots of encounters at a distance sitting on a ridge munching a snack with binos in hand, where they were completely oblivious to my presence. Ranging and Dialling would work if I could dope the wind perfectly.

But that quick encounter with the trophy of a lifetime often just doesn't leave time to Range and Dial; and then assume the best shooting position.

I find getting into a slinged sitting position is a lot of commotion anymore. Needs practice

With Whitetail or Moose in the bush, the range is often a lot less, and they are already in full evade mode.
Give me a rifle ( carbine really ) that handles like an English shotgun for that scenario. I still like my .308 for that.

And then there's the seismic cut-lines, power lines and pipeline Right of-Ways which yield the Medium and Long Range opportunities ...

Thnx MD

I have a Win 70, 6.5X55 and this past year I got an accurate load with the 120 N P @ 3000 fps. The only reason I didn't hunt it was that I ALSO got my 284 Win up and running. I have always wanted a 284 so it took priority last season.

I haven't had time yet to practice with the Swede at 3000 fps so I have NOT experienced what it is capable of doing say to 300-350 yds.
That is on my agenda for this year.

Thanks Again

Jerry

If you guys will buy all the 270 stuff that I have here AND promise that I can find 6.5 Creedmore ammo in far away places then I will switch. I am certain that I can get the job done cause I still will limit my shooting to within a quarter of a mile. Pony up the cabbage.

I can start shipping next Tuesday.