I've got a Tikka 6.5 Creed that was chopped to 18.5 for a suppressor. It shoots everything well that I have tried in it except for for a Horn 129 SP. Chopping from 24.5 to 18.5 lost about 150 fps with existing loads including 129 SST and 127 LRX. I am concerned about expansion with the LRX with a muzzle velocity of 2650.

I'm looking for thoughts on a good bullet for cow elk/deer. At lower velocity, I'm betting all the lead bullets will behave well, even the 'soft' SST. I'm not shooting at game beyond 400 yds and velocity for the 127 LRX should get me there with 2000 fps remaining velocity. A 120 TTSX will start about 100 fps faster buty gets caught up by the LRX at ~400 AND it's a harder bullet too. I'm thinking a 130 Accubond may be perfect but cannot find any to try.

Any 1st hand experience with a slower 6.5? Thanks

18.5" barrel. Hmmm... How 'bout a cup-n-core bullet?

Last season I dropped a full sized cow at around 170 yds with a 143 gr. ELD-X at a MV around 2600. No fuss, no drama.

140 Nosler Ballistic Tip!

Yessir 👍

Hard to find, but I like a Hornady 129 Interbond. Shoot mine at 2700 fps, so far excellent results.

Thanks Guys.

The ELD-X shot well but was slow in my 24.5 inch barrel, it would really be poking along now .

I use SST's for my 'target' bullets and can hunt with them if needed. There is a lot of disagreement on their toughness though, like the BT's. I do like the comfort of a premium for hunting bigger stuff.

All components are tough to get current, especially 6.5 stuff. I just traded into some Accubonds. The 130 6.5 bullets seem to be a good compromise of speed, weight, BC, etc.

I’d go with that or a GameKing.

A 129 is only going 2650 and you guys suggest he go heavier? A 140 will be maybe 2500...

I'd drop to a 120-123 class bullet.

125 gr Nosler Partition next time don't listen to the short barrel cheerleaders. Mb

120 BT is a good bullet or maybe the 129 LR accubond.

The 100 grain ballistic tip is a great killer

You should be able to safely work up to 2700fps in that Tikka with those 130 AB's, using H4350, RL156, IMR 4451, RL17, or Hunter. Not sure what powders you have available though. Another good one with that bullet is Varget.

130 grain Berger VLD...

Just FYI when I talked to Barnes about the 127 LRX, they said it will expand down to 1500 FPS.

I've been rather impressed by expansion of the LRX out of a 18" barrel. Furthest shot was 275 on an antelope and it appeared to expand well. Closer shots have been more of the same.

I’m hoping so. I have H4350, RL17, and just got some Hunter (good powder!).

Good to hear those reports about the 127 LRX. I have a good 3/4 inch load with that bullet. All the TTSX bullets I like started at 3000.

I knew I’d have to reassess bullets when threading but I wanted no more than a 24 inch barrel with the can. Overall weight will be about 8 lbs with a SWFA 3-9. Should be a pretty handy package for everything but really big critters

Yep and to the sob that cut his barrel that much, he's probably wearing a marvelous man bun.

Don't be silly....

Paper punchers usually get hung up on MV, not impact velocity on game....

That anemic 140 won't catch a 123's velocity until beyond 1200 yards...

I've run the numbers, as I've tried it all in several 6.5's. That little creed case struggles with heavy bullets. A 140 is better in a case with more ass behind it like a 6.5-284 and larger.

Of course people love to exaggerate creed speeds with a 140 on the internet. 🙄

Best I've been able to do with 147's is 2700' through my 20" CTR, pushed by RL26.

Pay no mind to the barrel length fetishists, the Creed does fine with shorter barrels, and shorter barrels are the correct answer when hunting suppressed.

I didn't catch what powders you're loading with, but RL16, RL17, RL26 and 6.5 STB are good bets for velocity for pressure. Also, I'd try some 140gr options if you can find them, in my 18", they are not much slower than 129gr at all.





I've played with 129gr Interlocks a little recently just because I was actually able to find them, and use them in my Grendel as well. They really aren't much faster than 140gr though. I like how ABs perform at different speeds, but I mostly used the 140gr, did a little workup with the 130gr and found them to be slow for pressure.





These are my chosen loads for my 20" Kimber. The same 127gr and 142gr loads run 2,735 fps and 2,680fps respectively when fired from my 18" Sig.



Bullets I'd try in that rifle: 140gr AB, 142gr ABLR, 140gr BT, 140gr Gold Dot, 129gr ABLR, H Interlocks, etc.

2680 is awesome! 🤣

Gtscotty,

Thanks for posting actual info rather than speculating and quipping about hairstyles. I actually had a couple barrels done by Ecco Machine on your recommendation and he does great work.

I did lose ~150 fps with the chop but most of my existing loads are a couple grains below max except the 127 LRX which is now ~2650 with 40.8g of RL17. I have RL15/17/26, H4350, and Hunter to play with. I still want to stick with 130's rather than the heavier bullets and am pretty confident I'll be able to get into a 2700 fps range with these weights. Those are some good #'s, but if I'm reading right, you are loading a little hotter that I am comfortable.

It's hard to shake my reluctance to hunt a mono at much less than 3k (even LRX), so started this thread just to hear some actual field reports. Experimenting is tough right now with 6.5 bullets so hard to come by.

A 140 ELD at factory speeds will catch up with a 123 just past 350.

But everybody exaggerates Creed speeds on the internet....

I'm pretty much anal retentive when it comes to terminal ballistics and while it's difficult for any bullet maker to design bullets of different calibers to all perform alike at the same given velocity, this is what I've collected over the years:

Barnes LRX: 1600
Barnes TTX, TTSX: depending on who you get on the phone 1900 to 2000
Federal Edge TLR: 1350 (a true long-range bullet), most other current Federal hunting bullets like Fusion, including the new Terminal Ascent: 1800
Hornady InnerLock: 1800
Hornady GMX, InterBond, SST: 2000
Nosler Accubond Long Range: 1300 (another true long-range bullet)
Nosler Ballistic Tip, Accubond, Partition: 1800
Sierra Game Changer: 1600
Sierra GameKing & ProHunter: 1800
Swift Scirocco II: 1700
Speer Boattail Soft Point: 1600
New Speer Impact: 1800
Woodleigh WeldCore: officially 1900 but most expand well down to 1700

Hope this helps; just remember that expansion is dependent on bullet construction, impact velocity, AND target medium resistance, which is how stout your game is; for example, a bullet that may expand beautifully on a thousand-lb elk may blow through a 100-lb whitetail doe leaving nothing more than pencil holes in and out.

Lol! Nope. 🤣🤣🤣🤣

I just ran the numbers and I own and shoot a Creed, and have tried various bullets...Take the Scenar for example:

A 123gr Scenar with a BC of .547 is traveling 1499 fps at 1200 yards, with a muzzle velocity of 2850.

A 139gr Scenar with a BC of .578 is traveling 1425 fps at 1200 yards with a muzzle velocity of 2650.

The 139 does not catch the 123 until after 1200 yards...

Keep guessing though...

These would probably be your best option for a CM:

Every body has to draw their own line. While some of the loads in those workups are warm, only a few actually go over published data from Hodgdon, Sierra, and Alliant.

On your actual question, I've only actually shot elk with the 127gr LRX (@375yds) and 140gr Accubond (@140yds). Of those two I'd take the 140gr for what seemed like better wound channel (of course it was a closer shot), but the 142gr ABLR would probably be even better.

Nosler Partition if you can find any. They will mushroom at about any speed. 124 grain Hammer Hunter will open to 1700 fps. Which should be around 500 yards or so.

Good list. The numbers for the Hornady's (2000 fps) are the most surprising; I kind of doubt they are that hard - especially SST. I had some good loads with that Game Changer too, but am out and there wasn't much first hand hunting feedback when I tried them.

I am probably over thinking all this but was bored. Even started at 2650 the 127 LRX will not drop below 2k until ~400 yds which is plenty for me. A lot of guys wouldn't blink stretching things further. Basically a 150 fps loss equates to about 75 yds or the average difference between an '06 and 308.

Thanks again Gtscotty. The discrepancy between some load sources is pronounced. The Barnes data seems to be much more conservative compared to the Alliant data. Nosler is also much more 'optimistic' about velocities.

Lee, a lot of talk about those Hammers too. May try to pick some up. I have also had good results with Maker bullets.

I’d be looking at 130 game changers

Most h4350 data is very conservative. Between a ruger murican predator ,tikka ctr & savage axis2 we've been loading h4350 41-43g with 123scenar,129interlock & 130 gc. The tikka takes more pressure evertime. They all group moa easily. I've worked up win 6.5 staball loads for the ruger that I've tested in field with great results also. No chrono yet but these rounds are all 27-2800 according to data.

The 140's c&c (coreloct,) work well in my 700TI barreled .260. 20"? 22"?

In fact, the 140 is the only bullet weight that I've found that it likes, so far. If the shortages ever ease up, I'll try some more additional hand loading for it, so far at a minimum. Right now, I'm just using factory loads.

The factory Barnes TSX in 120 gave me the worst groups of any I've tried. Accuracy of the load, terminal performance, knowing the distance and trajectories thereof is far more important than velocities or bullet weights. Within reason.

Had no problem killing an elk at @150, nor last year's cow caribou at 294, with the 260.

Nor with 150-180 grain loads in a 17" barreled '06 over the years, out to 400 yards, sheep and caribou.

At distance, just mortar slower loads in.....

"Good list. The numbers for the Hornady's (2000 fps) are the most surprising; I kind of doubt they are that hard - especially SST."

Agreed. I've used both factory loads on caribou in '06 150 grain loads out to over 400. SST's tend to leave "larger than average" wounds compared to Corelocts out to about 300, then "normal" wound channels to the 443 yards I've done with them.

The GMX are a bit more conservative than the SSTs, especially at short range.

For 0-400 yards, if the 127 LRX is shooting well I’d go forth and fill up an ark without a second thought.

A couple of things:

Litz published BC values for the 123 and 139 Scenars that are equivalent to G1 numbers of 0.532 and 0.572, respectively.

It’s meaningless to talk about distance where two different bullets have equivalent speed without specifying air density.

Finally, who cares when the 139 overtakes the 123 in velocity? What difference does it make? If you’re talking about minimum expansion velocity thresholds, that’s one thing. As far as trajectory goes, you’re ranging and dialling with either one beyond a couple hundred yards, so the minor trajectory difference is inconsequential. A more meaningful comparison would be where each falls below minimum expansion velocity, and how much each drifts in the wind, as hedging bets in the wind tends to be far more important than speed/flat trajectory out past a few hundred yards (where this discussion matters in the first place).

Whoa there Jordan!

Can't a couple dummies argue ballistics on the internet anymore without some bully using logic, reason and shame?

LOL

Carry on.

129g ABLR, soft for expansion even at long range. I have an old 260 that shoots them well. It's only a 9 twist so it doesn't like the 142g butyour gun might like the 142 and if it does I'd take the extra bc and SD.

Bb

The Hornady data came from their tech services folks - I also think they were being conservative at 2000fps but when the SST bullets were first released the recommended minimum velocity was 2200fps. So at least Hornady didn't over-optimize performance. It's surprising to me how many shoot at extreme ranges with bullets that don't have the terminal ballistics to perform properly at the low impact velocities remaining at ranges beyond. I highly recommend the Terminal Ballistics Research website at www.ballisticstudies.com - they draw their conclusions from actual kill data involving various live animals mostly taken in game herd control hunts as compared to testing in ballistics gel or recovering bullets from previously killed cow carcasses.

It's damned difficult to produce a bullet that will perform at impact velocities from 2800fps down to 1100fps on any kind of game. Someone made the comment about partitions mushrooming at about any speed but that's really an overgeneralization - each separate bullet weight of each caliber produced has differing impact physics due to the variables of bullet construction, impact velocity, and target mass & medium. When I first started referring to the website, I was surprised that in 6.5 caliber partitions, the125gr out performs 140gr in just about all hunting applications from small to large game because in most non-magnum 6.5 calibers there's not enough velocity at impact to deform the 140's front section enough to create good expansion. Until I read that, I just assumed that the heavier bullet was better in my 6.5x55 because I normally hunted where the range never exceeded 250 yards or so. My point is that just because we have a super-aerodynamic bullet that can consistently hit game at longer ranges doesn't necessarily mean that it will kill it. Someone pull my power-plug - it's past my bed time and I'm beginning to ramble . . .

That source seemingly has a different opinion of the 139 Scenar than the many members here who have used it.

First, I wouldn’t put too much faith in that website.

Second, a “super-aerodynamic bullet” not only is easier to hit with at longer ranges, but also retains velocity better which results in higher impact velocities and a better chance of proper expansion at longer ranges.

Jordan,

I'm speaking strictly of impact performance - the point is with extended ranges of today we're asking our bullets to do perform at a wider spread of impact velocity than we did 20 years ago. Of course you're free to form your own opinion of the website but the folks there have collected more impact data on rifle bullets than any other organization that I'm aware of.

You're definitely right about demanding more from bullets than we did 20 years ago.

It's not the quantity of data that I'm skeptical of, but rather their interpretation and understanding of the underlying mechanisms.

Went to the range yesterday and got some good results:

- 2667 fps with 45g Hunter and 127LRX (max load per book).
- Started testing with the 130 Accubond; got only 2518 fps with 43g Hunter (very accurate), but 2650 fps with 42g RL 17.

So for velocity, it seems the 127 LRX likes RL17 and the 130 Accubond likes Hunter in my rifle; all groups were sub-moa. I do wonder why the Barnes data seems low for RL 17 (40.8 max), when most other source show 43-44g max for other 130g bullets.

for true slow: hornady 160-grain round nose ...

Hey Paul, that's what my my old 96 shoots best - the only thing like it is the Woodleigh Wellcore 160gr, though I certainly wouldn't call either a long-range bullet

Have used the ABLR out of my .260 on at least 4 Mule deer and a couple of whitetail.

Its a pretty soft bullet and opens easily but being bonded cup and core stay together.

Pretty deadly bullet every thing pretty much died right there.

Lefty