I just picked up a 6.5 Creed Tika TX3 Superlite for the grandkids to use on our Alaskan big game animals. I won't be loading my own ammo for hunting this year so I picked up a few boxes of Barnes Vor-TX 127 grain LRX bullets for the upcoming moose and caribou hunt. Bears for now would be ok if we find one while hunting.

I would like opinions on a good elk bullet as I feel that would cover our critters up here. My Dad favored the 140 grain Partition out of his old Mod. 70 in .264 Win. Mag. and I have used many Partitions and Barnes X bullets in the 30--06 and .338 Winny. I know Hornady and several others make bullets for this cartridge. We won't be shooting past 300 yards and prefer under 200 for every thing, especially moose and bear.

We are lung shooters for the most part and have found a good in and out hole through the lungs results in a gut pile.

I like the 120 Barnes in mine but only hunt deer and pigs. The 140 partitions might be better for bears!

Depends on what kind of bear.I think your choice would be good on a black bear as they are not hard to kill.

the gaymoore will kill anything you point it at!

I think you have the best all around factory load available. Doubt there is any better. Any elk shot at a reasonable distance with that load is in big trouble.

I've only been shooting the 6.5CM maybe 6 months now and don't have any experience on game with it yet so I hope I don't ruffle too many feathers here. I get that all the reading material out there says that with good shot placement, the CM with its high BC is capable of taking game much farther than most of us have a right to be shooting (myself included). But during last years elk hunt, I still remember our outfitter shaking his head when one of the other hunters pulled out his CM to check the zero. When I asked him about it later, he just asked me if I would choose a .223 to take on a trophy white tail hunt.

You said grandkids so I'm assuming a .308 with 165's is too much, but wouldn't a light recoiling 7x57 or 7mm-08 with a 140 Barnes or partition be a safer bet for something the size of a moose? Again, not trying to bash anyone here. I've never taken anything bigger than Red Stag or elk so I have no idea what it takes to put down a moose fairly quickly. Nearly 40 years ago my first deer rifle was a Rem 700 in 25-06. I've killed a pile of deer with it and even the Red Stag. It's only .007 smaller than the 6.5 but moving a bit faster for quite a ways, and while I wouldn't hesitate to use a 120 partition on a black bear I just don't have any confidence in using it on something the size of a moose.

I grew up in Michigan and have never hunted outside the lower 48, so I don't doubt that you have infinitely more experience on the truly big game found in Alaska. I can't wait to try mine on deer this fall, but is the 6.5 CM really adequate for moose?

Following comments here as I'm looking to choose a bullet for my 6.5 for elk, mulies and whitetails. So far 140 Berger VLD, 139 Scenar, 147 ELD-M, and 127 LRX all shoot quite well. I've shot the most critters with Barnes (in a larger caliber) so I trust them. Not sure I want to try the other, though many seem to find them working quite well from what I can read.

What would a 140 gr 7mm bullet do that a 140 gr 6.5mm bullet wouldn't do. In fact in the same weight the smaller caliber bullet will penetrate deeper assuming the same bullet construction.

Last fall one my hunting companions killed a big 6-point elk with one 140-grain Nosler AccuBond from a 6.5 Creedmoor. The bull went 40-50 yards and dropped. Oh, and the bullet exited.

The 7x57 and 7mm-08 140's might start out a little faster than 140's from the Creedmoor, let's say 2900 for the 7mm's versus 2750 for the Creedmoor. But at 400 yards a 6.5 Partition would be within 50 fps of the 7mm 140.

I'm wondering if 708man's outfitter had ever seen a 6.5 CM used on elk when he made his comment.

True, and I get that the 6.5 has an awesome SD. The best I can get out of my CM with 143 ELD's is around 2700 through a 26" barrel. My 24" 7-08 pushes a 140 partition or Accubond around 2950 with a little more diameter. More speed + larger frontal area = bigger smack. Just different schools of thought and this is a tried and true combination for me. If the 6.5 is the largest round that a person (of any age or gender) can shoot accurately then it is absolutely the best choice for whatever game they choose and the Barnes are outstanding bullets.

Like I said, I'm new to the 6.5 world and have limited real world exposure on game. For now I'll stick to deer sized game, especially after my outfitters reaction. The hunter with the 6.5CM did get his elk, but apparently there was about a 1/2 mile tracking job. I'm sure shot placement had a large part in it, but this is my limited field experience with the round. My Savage is a joy to shoot and very accurate with several different loads. Again, can't wait to try it on deer this fall. I just don't have the personal experience to feel confident for using it on elk or moose yet.

Also, I have no experience shooting game past 300. To date, my longest shot was on a South Dakota white tail at 285 so except when I'm at the range, the high BC doesn't do me much good. Even my Montana elk last year was only at 230yds, so even though I practice at the range out to 700yds, I don't know first hand what bullets do past 285. I'm comfortable on steel out to 700 but in the field I like to be close enough to hit them in the head with a rock : )

With it being 1Akshooter's grand kids, I figure it would be similar range to what I'm used to.

I wish the hunter in our camp could have had the same result as your companion John, that would have gone a long way to build my confidence in a round that's new to me. Guess I'm just going to have to keep going on hunts and learning. That's a price I'm willing to pay for a good education though. Looks like I'll just have to make another trip to Montana. And Kansas. And Idaho... My wife will just have to understand that it's for a good cause.

I've killed many head of big game, varmints, exotics in the last 25yrs with Barnes bullets. The Original X, the X with Secant ogive, the XLC, then the TSX and TTSX. From .22 caliber to .340 ( I used "similar" Failsafe bullets in the .375 H&H) they were "dynamic killers". I am one of those that firmly believes its like using a bigger cartridge or two with a cup n core bullet. Mr Brooks was available for a phone question from me, back in '93. I was asking about the 160x in the .280AI. He said it would kill like a "300 Mag with regular bullets". Well, since then I have paid very close attention to kills and used a knife alot to follow wound channels. I have recovered very few bullets, those I did went "a couple or more feet, not inches". That 127 LRX load Creedmoor will work just fine on broadside shots, especially at 200yds and under and will probably "kill like a .270/130gr" or even bigger round! There's a guy over in Colorado that uses the 120TTSX in his 6.5/06 on mule deer and elk, with shouts of glee and joy! Maybe he will chime in? I had a real nice 6.5 Creedmoor made up on a Mod 7, synthetic stock with a 24" Shilen, Kepplinger Set trigger...was all set to really wring it out when I had to sell it to help my Mom (nursing home). I felt it would be a great deer rifle, cow elk (for my use), spare rifle, etc. One has to see a 6.5 "anything" used in the field with quality bullets to really appreciate them, in my "most humble opinion". YMMV

Are the OP's grandkids shooting elk at 400 yards? I remember, not too long ago, a gun writer stating that something like 90% of the game he killed was under 300 yards.

That's my issue with the Creed-Craz. Now everyone is a 400+ yard shot. I see that at the local range and gun shops. The same dumb-arses that couldn't hit their deer at 100 yards with their -06 are now "ready" for 800 yards with their new 6.5!

I certainly get the lower recoil appeal, though.

My bear rug upstairs would argue that the 140 grain 6.5 bullet is more than adequate. He was a big boar, and tottered maybe 20 yards. With a Swede.

2950fps with 140's through a 7-08? Shazam!

Swede magic!!!

Teeder,

It doesn't matter if somebody buys a 6.5 Creedmoor and only shots to 200 yards (or whatever). The bullets still have plenty of power for big game at close range. That's part of what I was pointing out when somebody suggested a 7mm of about the same power would somehow be more effective with 140-grain bullets.

This has been proven over and over again by 6.5 cartridges since the 6.5x55 appeared in 1892.

I was thinking the outfitter poo pooing the 6.5 CM should have been asked if he'd heard of Scandinavia.

In his book THE HUNTING RIFLE, Jack O'Connor tells a story about a conversation with a professional outfitter who thought the .30-06, and similar cartridges, were too small for big game. O'Connor asked the guy if he'd ever seen any game taken with the .30-06. The outfitter said very little, since he'd always discouraged it's use.

I like the 120 grain Hornady GMX. The Superformance factory load chronographs a little over 3000fps from my 22 inch barreled Kimber. Haven't killed any moose or bears,but lots of deer and plenty of big hogs with the 6.5 Creedmoor and the 260 Remington.

I think the big hogs are a good test medium that gives you some solid information . I wouldn't hesitate to use the 6.5 with a good monolithic bullet on Alaskan critters if I were you.

last fall my son probably shot the biggest 6x6 typical bull elk shot with a bow and arrow in Montana , this 6x6 bull elk went 100 yards and fell over dead . So when its mention how much better a 6.5 creedmoor is better than any other cartridge hunter`s use > no it `s really not, but Creedmoor will work fine too,the one thing Creedmoor might be better for is recoil shy guys who can`t handle a bigger rifle cartridge and maybe when I am 85 years old I will have to use a Creedmoor too ?

It's pretty good for guys who aren't compensating either.

I thought you were pointing out the BC advantage of the 6.5, which doesn't mean dick IMO. at the less than 200 yards the OP said he wanted to stay under. My mistake.

Honest question for you, have you done any penetration testing with the new high BC bullets when hitting at simulated close range (close to muzzle velocity)?

BTW, I'm not dissing the 6.5's. If I didn't already have a lifetime supply of 7mm bullets, I'd probably get one too.

I've had great groups with Hornady Factory 143 ELD-X's and handloads as well. However, Horn. Factory 120gr. GMX's are ok at 100 but open up drastically to 5-6 inches at 200yds - this is with a 1-8 twist.
I assume for now the mono doesn't like the twist.

https://www.grafs.com/retail/catalog/product/productId/6184

https://www.grafs.com/retail/catalog/product/productId/71405

https://www.grafs.com/retail/catalog/product/productId/29139

Congratulations to your son.

Arrows = apples

Bullets = oranges

For your application, I’d start with the 140 Accubond. My dad now uses that bullet out of a Creed for just about everything, including some big hogs. If that doesn’t shoot well for you, I’d try the 120 E-tip, GMX, or the 127 LRX. Whichever shoots best in your gun should serve you well.

Pics of this new Montana state record? Or are you just going to keep repeating this without anything to back it up? Saying it's a huge Elk is fine, but you keep saying it's the biggest ever shot in Montana with a bow.

"Honest question for you, have you done any penetration testing with the new high BC bullets when hitting at simulated close range (close to muzzle velocity)?"

Yeah, and they perform like you'd expect them to. The 127 Barnes LRX penetrates like a TTSX, the 142 Nosler AccuBond Long Range penetrates like an AccuBond, and the 143 Hornady ELD-X penetrates like an Interlock.

That said, I suspect part of the reason for the ABLR and ELD-X performance is the moderate muzzle velocity. When driven faster by larger cartridges the ABLR tends to lose more weight than the standard AccuBond, and the ELD-X tends to over-expand.

But one of the virtues of the 6.5 Creedmoor (and 6.5x55 and .260 Remington) is the moderate muzzle velocity, which allows a lot of bullets to work well. Same deal with the 7x57, .308 and a bunch of other cartridges.

I don't know what powder you are using, but you can get more out of that round with a 26-inch barrel. You need to try some Reloder 26. I get 2745 easily with the 147 ELD-M, from my 24-inch barrel.

I have shot deer, elk and antelope for years with a 7 mag. I have always liked it, but now that I have a .260 and 6.5 Creed, the mags are sitting still. I have shot probably 40 deer and several antelope with my 6.5s, and they perform every bit as well as the 7 does on deer etc. I have not shot anything bigger with them, as I would still take my 7 mags-because I have them! However, I would definitely not feel under-gunned, if all I had to take after moose, bear, or whatever, was a Creed, or other 6.5. Based on what I have witnessed, the 6.5s kill much better than even their paper ballistics would indicate.

sbhooper,

IMR4451 is another good powder. Am getting around 2750 with Sierra's top listed powder charge and the 143 ELD-X and 142 Nosler ABLR in a 22" barrel.

ROR, nailed it.

Thanks MD.

I have a very limited experience of "once" with Accubonds. A 180 out of my .338-06 at modest .338 Fed velocity at about 40-50 yards. It acted more like a parachute on an average sized WT buck. No exit. Maybe the smaller caliber versions penetrate better.

Sorry for the thread drift!

Sounds like your AccuBond was one of those made for a brief period, a year or two after they first appeared, when one Nosler employee tried to speed up his part of the assembly-line process. AccuBonds started selling so well, so fast that he apparently thought speeding-up would be a good thing, but all it did was create "AccuBombs," which not only didn't bond but were annealed by the heating process used in bonding, so were very soft.

Nosler caught the problem quickly during their testing of bullets both for accuracy and "test-media" performance, but some had already been shipped to distributors. They recalled as many as possible, but some had already been sold to customers.

I've been using AccuBonds since they were first introduced, and have not only killed plenty of game with 'em but seen plenty used by hunting companions as well. The big game has included both North American and African game from pronghorns and springbok to grizzly, elk, kudu, zebra and eland, with on-game performance similar to Partitions, the way Nosler designed AccuBonds to work. Somehow I missed the short "AccuBomb" period, but occasionally somebody still brings it up here.

At moderate velocities the AccuBond Long Range bullets perform very much like standard AccuBonds, the ones that act like Partitions. At higher muzzle velocities they lose a little more weight, especially at closer ranges, but still normally exit deer-sized game.

This one held together well, but the mushroom was wide.

I was using the 129 grain Interlock in the .260 at 2700+ fps. It killed every deer I shot with it, but was opening a little fast for my preference. Though I understand dead deer is a measure of success, I wasn't getting many exits, and decided to try a tougher bullet. I tried the 129 Interbonds for the first time last fall. The wind was blowing hard and the mule deer buck (smaller rack, but good sized body) was close to a steep dropoff. Didn't want him to run, so held on the shoulder, and that deer DROPPED. The Interbond went through both shoulders, left an exit would about the size of a quarter or a little bigger, and I was impressed. Maybe on a lung shot it would be too tough, but time will tell. I suspect at Creedmoor velocities, similar to the .260, the Interbond would be tough enough for moose and bear.

Teeder,

AccuBonds tend to open a little wider than Partitions, but not all that much. The last AB I recovered was the only one found inside a deer, if I recall correctly, and overall I've seen fewer than 20% stay inside any animal. The bullet was a 150 from a .308 Winchester, and the deer a Montana whitetail doe at around 70 yards, facing me almost directly. The bullet hit the inside of the left shoulder and was recovered from under the skin on the right ham, retaining 70.5% of its weight.

My son shot a rag head bull twice with 123ge scenars out of a 6.5x55 last fall at 200 yards. First shot was through the shoulder and was under the hide on the off side. Second was behind the shoulder,destroyed the heart and exited the off shoulder. Great performance imo.

Fred

Killed 4 cow elk and one mature mulie buck, 200 - 500 yds with the 127 LRX running 2808 fps mv. Always a pass through. Never more than 50 yds traveled. 6.5x47!

Yeah, if you want to punch holes through lungs from any angle, it’d be pretty hard to argue with the 127 Barnes LRX. I’ve killed a few elk with the 120 TTSX out of both the .260 Rem and 6.5x284 and got complete pass-throughs every time, even when breaking large bones. The 127 LRX is just a little bit more of a good thing.

I wouldn’t hesitate to use Partitions in 125-140, AccuBond in 130 or 140, ABLR in 142 or ELD-X in 143, either.

Sounds like the Barnes TSX/TTSX are the answer and from the get go. :-)

Yesterday I did a quick “test” of some bullets into a layering of 1.75” particle board and then wet magazines. The magazines did not end up as soft as I wanted so they tore the bullets up pretty good. Not a great representation of an animal...

In order of penetration ( most to least with magnetospeed reading):

139 Scenar (2786)
127 Barnes (2920)
120 GMX (Factory 2879)
140 Partition (2796)
140 Berger (2755)
143 ELD-X (Factory 2569?)
147 ELD-M (2753)

The 147 ELD-M surprised me somewhat. I guess I expected more. Also, the 139 Scenar did excellent, wide channel, once it opened, and deep penetration.

Target (particle board)


Entrance holes behind board.
Top row L to R: 140 Partition, 147 ELD, 127 LRX
Bottom: 143 ELD, 120 GMX (up a bit), 140 Berger, 139 Scenar


Holes roughly 6” into magazines


Bullets. Picture is rotated left.

I’m just gonna get crazy and try to put the 143 ELD-X in the killing spot, hoping the animal will perish.
Questionable, I know.

I suspect it’ll work!