Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters What Does It Take - to Hunt Medium/Large Game at 600 Yards?

The points that the OP should really be arguing are that in the same case, e.g. 6.5-06 v .270 Win, the .270 will usually drive the same weight projectile (e.g. 140 grains) faster. This, together with a larger frontal area will give the .270 a slight advantage at most normal hunting distances, provided the sectional density is sufficient for complete penetration (which it usually is). Eventually the higher bc 6.5 projectile will catch up and be superior at the extreme distances. If 99% of shots my most hunters are taken at the shorter distances, then the .270 has some advantages over the 6.5. For the occasional shot at 600 yards, it doesn't really matter that there may be better options than a .270, a .270 will still be ok. Practicing at 600 yards with a .270 Win or .270 PRC is still a beneficial exercise, knowing full-well that 600 yard shots are in the minority and that the .270 really shines at the more-frequent closer hunting ranges.

Someone that’s a better shot than me!

The major problem with your "theory" is that there's far less difference between how various "cartridges" (actually bullets) kill big game than many hunters believe. This is especially true of "frontal area," which is only minutely different between 6.5mm and .270 bullets--and doesn't matter nearly as much as EXPANDED bullet diameter, which can vary considerably with various bullet designs. Some bullets expand far more than others, in particular bonded bullets--but this also reduces penetration, because the major factor in penetration is NOT retained bullet weight, but frontal area.

I have considerable experience with the .270 Winchester on big game, partly through buying my first in 1974, and after a couple of decades having used it on more big game than any other cartridge. Plus, my wife got her first .270 in 1984, and killed a bunch of big game with it as well, at one point making 10 one-shot kills in a row on animals, from pronghorns at over 400 yards to bull elk and moose.

I have also killed quite a bit of big game in the same size-range with various 6.5mm cartridges, and seen hunting partners do the same, including the 6.5 Creedmoor, 260 Remington and 6.5x55, which produce basically the same velocities with the same bullet weights. I have yet to be able to tell ANY consistent difference between the way any of those 6.5s (and several others) kill big game and how the .270 Winchester kills big game.

This is partly because there's actually far less difference in how various "cartridges" (again, actually bullets) kill big game as long the bullet penetrates and expand sufficiently while passing through the vitals.

If you prefer to believe in such minute theoretical differences as .013 in unexpanded bullet diameter in "killing power," that's your privilege. But I quite believing in such tiny stuff years ago.

What a bunch of gobble-de-gook!

Just throw that iron up to your shoulder, find the horizon above da fur, exhale, and squeeze.

Works every time.

Lol

🦫

Just hold a chest-and-a-half over its back and let fly!

I'm not the one complaining, nor am I offended-- that, sir, is in your court.
All I was saying is that if you feel that some here have poured a little sand on your mangina perhaps you should leave this site or.....

You may try taking your own advise on that baby bottle.

Your choice.

😝🦫

The problem with a theory that there is no difference between 6.5 and .270 bullet killing performance as opposed to what I advocated being a slight difference, is that the same argument becomes there is no difference between .270 and 7mm, and no difference between 7mm and .308 in killing performance. Similarly, there is no difference between .308 and .338, and no difference between .338 and .375. Therefore, there is no difference between the killing power of 6.5 and .375. Now obviously there is a difference between 6.5 and .375 killing power. A better theory is that the difference between the killing power of 6.5 and .270 is only slight - which is what I said. I agree, that it is usually not noticeable, but this is probably due to the fact that we are unable to duplicate in a controlled scientific way where all other things are kept constant as much as possible, the kills of a 6.5 v .270 in a large enough sample size. I don't really think we are arguing different things, I mentioned "slight advantage" which you didn't agree with, implying there is no difference. However, it seems that your argument is negligible difference versus my "slight difference". I also agree that expanded bullet diameter is far more important than unexpanded diameter, but I haven't seen data which clearly shows that 6.5 bullets expand greater than .270 bullets from the same type of bullet made by the same manufacturer. Even if a 6.5 bullet expands to the same diameter as a .270 bullet of the same weight, then if the .270 bullet is travelling faster, I would expect that it would penetrate deeper simply because of greater momentum brought about by a slightly higher velocity...which is another point I made when I said the .270 bullet has a slight advantage over the 6.5-06 at most normal hunting distances. But I did qualify what I said by using the word "slight".

To me the whole caliber thing for hunting comes down to if you wanna shoot 100-120gr high bc huntng bullets for your game use a 6mm, if you wanna use 130-145 use a 6.5, if you wanna use 150-170 use a 270, if you wanna use 160–180 use a 7mm and so on up the ladder. Velocity and wind drift end up similar at long ranges because BC is similar but the heavier bullets will have some more energy and recoil. Notice I said hunting bullets not match bullets. Match bullets have thinner jackets in most cases and hence have more weight for a given length (due to more lead and less jacket) and will have higher bc. Also jacket and shape can be more optimized for BC as you are not dealing with a jacket designed for some form of controlled expansion. This is why eldm have higher bc than eldx. The berger is one delta here but that is because it does not rely on exposed lead nor a hollow point and purely on a very thin jacket to expand - why they don’t recommend their target bullets for hunting which have a heavier jacket. The OP can easily get high bc 270 hunting bullers these days if using a 1-8 that run in the pack with the others. I should know as I own most of them and have no trouble getting them. Something I can’t say for my 6.5 where I can only find match bullets (luckily I have a good supply of 130 sciroccos:)) A higher bc match bullet may be available in other calibers than 270 but who cares for hunting. If you want to shoot game with match bullets that is fine with me and it will lilely work since you are slinging a hunk of metal a few thousand fps at simething vital. However, I nor the guys who design and sell the bullets think it is a good idea to select them for hunting as they are not designed for that

Lou

Generally speaking, I'm in agreement with this.

I'm not commenting on "long range shooting", as I've only had less than a handful of opportunities where that could have been a possibility on a bull moose in the "Far North" of Ontario in some clear cuts. So I toted my .340 Wby for such a possible chance - but ended up shooting a bull at 165 yards. My comment has particular reference to any distinctions in calibers and their bullets in construction and profile.

From 2006 to 2015, I along with one and sometimes two partners were hunting bear on a private properety - an old farm that was no longer in use as such, but hunted for deer by the owner and family. He wanted "all the bears gone"! He was into heavy equipment. During that period we hunted parts of six fall seasons. Two of the bears I shot were in 2011 and 2013. They were shot from the same ladder stand in a line of trees that separated two pastures of uncut grass that was from 24" to 30" in height. The property bordered a Provincial wildlife sanctuary, so lots of game spilled onto this ancient farm. In 2011 my stand was facing NE and in 2013 it faced SE. The two bears were as near identical as twins could be, and both were shot under the chin as they faced me in the tall grass just a few yards from their baits. The range of the first was 70 yards ands the second was 68 yards. They both squared 6'.

Here's the point: The first (in 2011) was flattened on the spot so fast that I lost sight of him in the tall grass. He was shot with a 465gr FT, .458-cal hardcast leaving the muzzle of my NEF single-shot .45-70 at 1900 fps. Impact was about 1750 fps/3163 ft-lbs. The second (in 2013) was also shot as it faced me in tall grass at 68 yards off to the side of the bait barrel. It too dropped so quickly I lost sight of it. I fully expected it to be found where it was hit. I got down from my stand, walked to where I expected to find a dead bear... Instead, no bear was to be found. My partner (a CO) heard the shot from 3 kms away at another site, called me on his radio asking if that was my shot and did I need any help? I replied: I hadn't yet found the bear. That bear was found at the bottom of a nearby escarpment - and what a task for both of us in retrieving it up out of there!

As said, it was a near identical bear to the one in 2011, shot identically under the chin (as all I could see in both instances were their heads and part of their shoulders above the tall grass.

The bullet from the first bear was lost somewhere in the soil under the bear as it left a bullet-size entry in frontal chest and exit below the sternum. When I opened the chest the heart had exploded and the chest cavity was like a pond of blood. There were no fragments of lead, and no evidence that the 465gr hardcast had expanded.

The bullet that killed the second bear was retrieved in the right flank in skinning. It weighed 73% of its unfired weight. A 286gr Partition at +2600 fps and impact at ~2500 fps/3970 ft-lbs from my 9.3 x 62. Not much distinction in KE but a very significant difference in results, which confirms my view that momentum (bullet weight x velocity), bullet caliber, construction and profile can make huge differences in results at "normal" hunting ranges.

Bob
www.bigbores.ca

Understand all that already, but obviously disagree that a .277"/150 gr. ABLR at ~ 3,000 fps wouldn't be a solid 600 yd. round.

Why the thread was started.

What, exactly, are 600 yd. large game hunters using?

Eight pages of everything but.




GR

Riflehunter,

"The problem with a theory that there is no difference between 6.5 and .270 bullet killing performance as opposed to what I advocated being a slight difference, is that the same argument becomes there is no difference between .270 and 7mm, and no difference between 7mm and .308 in killing performance. Similarly, there is no difference between .308 and .338, and no difference between .338 and .375. Therefore, there is no difference between the killing power of 6.5 and .375. Now obviously there is a difference between 6.5 and .375 killing power. A better theory is that the difference between the killing power of 6.5 and .270 is only slight - which is what I said. I agree, that it is usually not noticeable, but this is probably due to the fact that we are unable to duplicate in a controlled scientific way where all other things are kept constant as much as possible, the kills of a 6.5 v .270 in a large enough sample size. I don't really think we are arguing different things, I mentioned "slight advantage" which you didn't agree with, implying there is no difference. However, it seems that your argument is negligible difference versus my "slight difference". I also agree that expanded bullet diameter is far more important than unexpanded diameter, but I haven't seen data which clearly shows that 6.5 bullets expand greater than .270 bullets from the same type of bullet made by the same manufacturer. Even if a 6.5 bullet expands to the same diameter as a .270 bullet of the same weight, then if the .270 bullet is travelling faster, I would expect that it would penetrate deeper simply because of greater momentum brought about by a slightly higher velocity...which is another point I made when I said the .270 bullet has a slight advantage over the 6.5-06 at most normal hunting distances. But I did qualify what I said by using the word "slight"."

I have heard and read many people make this argument, but that's beside the point, because as you noted there's a vast difference between a 6.5 and .375. Though I have killed and seen killed plenty of big game with both various 6.5s and .375s, and the difference in killing power isn't as vast as many assume it might be--including with many cartridges between those two extremes.

You also might want to test your theory that a .270 Winchester bullet will penetrate deeper than a similar 6.5 bullet due to increased velocity and hence momentum. I have run a bunch of tests in various kinds of "media," both softer and harder, and the biggest factor in penetration if expanding bullets hold together reasonably well is indeed frontal area. But many bullets will penetrate LESS if pushed faster, because they expand more--or even lose too much weight.

This is one reason many hunters have had such fine results on heavy game with various "mild" 6.5mm cartridges for more than a century: Their muzzle velocity isn't high enough to really stress bullets. This is probably why I've yet to see a cup-and-core spitzer come apart and fail to penetrate the vitals of even really big deer when fired from a mild 6.5mm--and I've seen some taken that weighed over 300 pounds. Yet I have seen several .270 bullets penetrate even less, after expanding wider due to their higher velocity. This didn't usually affect "killing power," unless the bullets failed to penetrate the vitals at all--but it is one factor among several.

Some of my conclusions about this stuff have some from such experiments, but perhaps even more have come from witnessing a lot of big game killed with rifles chambered for various cartridges, using different bullets. Among other things, around 15 years ago I started formally noting how far various animals went after typical broadside lung-shots with different calibers and styles of bullets--and on average bullets that expanded more and lost more weight killed them quicker.

Right now my data-base is approaching 1000 animals, ranging in size from around 100 pounds live weight to 1500. Due to this I wrote a long chapter titled "Opinions of Killing Power" for THE BIG BOOK OF GUN GACK II, published in 2018. I may post that here, because it contains some info that would surprise many hunters.

The other thing I quit believing in during all this is "examples of one," mostly due to concluding that almost anything can happen ONCE after we pull the trigger, even with the best of cartridges and bullets.

That is one of most overlooked and underthought concepts of all, IMO. My takeaway after reading Gack II is that sometimes less is more when it comes to velocity, depending on the bullet. I would not use a conventional C-and-C bullet if there was a possibility of impact velocity of 3400 fps, nor would I use a mono if impact velocity might be much under 2000 fps, based on the concept. My own thoughts on killing power boil down simply to what bullet, hitting at what velocity, and where on the animal.

Not preaching here, by any stretch. I'm here to learn more than to advise. Just my thoughts.

Just trying to summarize what your argument is and draw some conclusions from this. 1. You don't seem to be saying that 6.5 bullet construction is inherently better than .277 bullet construction 2. You don't seem to be saying that 6.5 bullets expand more than .277 bullets 3. You are indicating that expanded bullet frontal area is very significant in killing performance 4. That the mild 6.5's kill really well because of the lower velocities than the .270, that is, the bullets maintain their integrity better. From this a few comments from me: If frontal area is significant then you shouldn't be referring to a difference in diameter, which is a linear measurement. The unexpanded difference in frontal area between a 6.5 and .277 bullet is 10% which is the percentage difference between the square of the radius of the bullet. This is a greater percentage difference than the difference in diameter. Secondly, if .270 bullets start out with a larger frontal area (10%) than 6.5 bullets, then for at least the initial part of the wound, there is a 10 % greater displacement of tissue, etc with the .270. Unless 6.5 bullets expand to the same degree or more than .277 bullets, then if impact velocity is the same, the .277 bullet should perform better than a 6.5 bullet, as frontal area would be greater. If as you imply that the culprit is the .270's greater velocity, then the solution is to slow down the .270 to 6.5 Creedmore velocities. Slowing down a .270 to perhaps 2800 fps muzzle velocity would give greater frontal area than a 6.5 bullet and maintain the bullet's integrity and give a slight increase in killing power (because of the greater expanded bullet frontal area which is of prime importance). Other consequences of your theory would include: a 6.5 Creedmore kills better than a 6.5 PRC because of the slower velocity, a .308 with 150's at 2800 fps kills better than a .30-06 with 150's at 2950 fps; a 7-08 with 140's at 2860 fps kills better than a .280 with 140's at 3000 fps; Ackley would have gotten better results when shooting burros with a .222 than the .220 Swift he was using; a .270 works better at 300-400 yards (because of the reduced velocity) than at around 150 yards.

"How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

Need to count their RCH in order to correctly answer that question.

Well put. I think the success of our wartime snipers has spawned a whole new generation of coyote feeders. I really wish that folks would understand just what's at stake here. Please, shoot targets all you need at extended ranges and learn the game but don't try to apply it to game animals. Just my disgusted .02.
Darrel Wick

If you have to ask you possibly shouldn’t be hunting to 600 yards. But I’ll bite. You definitely need to know your rifle’s performance at that range. I wonder if your a millennial or gen xer. They always crave the need to for the world to see them. Lol

Well put. I think the success of our wartime snipers has spawned a whole new generation of coyote feeders. I really wish that folks would understand just what's at stake here. Please, shoot targets all you need at extended ranges and learn the game but don't try to apply it to game animals. Just my disgusted .02.
Darrel Wick