Which Caliber for Deer, perhaps Hogs, Elk: .270 or 6.5x55 ?

[longwinters]

There is an article on reloading for the 6.5 in Handloader mag.  Thought you might be interested.

long

[stork]

I would get the Swede because when or if you become a relaoder you can reload to make this little cartridge do what ever you want it to do.  It is not too small for elk as long as you place your shots well.  You don't need a huge rifle to hunt elk all you need is a well placed shot.

[Coyote Hunter]

SIgma -

When I made the statement "If you place your shots well, the specific cartridge becomes relatively unimportant," it was with the assumption that appropriate bullets would be used for each caliber -- the older I get the more I like bullets that penetrate, expand, destroy a lot of tissue, and hold together while doing so.

All due respect (and the more I read about the 6.5x55 the more I appreciate it), I'll stick by my statement.  I put a 16 gauge slug smack between the eyes of a domestic hog one time and the results were pathetic -- the slug came out the bottom of the throat and, although the pig was bleeding profusely, nothing immediately vital was hit.  We ended up chasing the pig to the back of a 5 acre area and spent several minutes trying to shoot him again.  Not only did the hog need a second round further back in the head, it was touch and go as to whether I could shoot it again before it took my friends leg off.  I don't think anyone would argue that a 16 gauge slug from 4-5 feet is inadequate, but the between-the-eyes placement certainly was.

As to penetration, a 160g Grand Slam from my 7mm Mag penetrated a 6x5 bull at 350 yards.  Based on a muzzle velocity of 2852fps, the impact velocity was in the area of 2103fps.  That corresponds to a 7mm-08 launching the same bullet at 2600fps and reaching out to 300 yards, or a 2600fps 180g Grand Slam from a .308 at 310 yards.  While I've never hunted wild pigs, my guess is that the vast majority are taken are ranges significantly under the 300 yard mark -- especially those taken with handguns, .30-30's, .35 Rem's and so forth.

As to the "forgetting ammo" topic - its a valid one.  Once I almost left on a week-long elk hunt without my wallet (I was headed out the driveway).  Another time I left my boots home on a dove hunt (and got snake bit for my trouble).  Although I have never forgotten rifle or ammo, I can certainly see how it would happen, and have to think that with the millions of hunters taking to the field every year, it has happened many times.

[Sigma]

Long, Thanks for the heads-up on the article.

Coyote Hunter, your experience with the 16 gauge demonstrates how important shot placement is....no disagreement there. Even with appropriate bullets used the Swede IMO, does better than other calibers.

Notice in one of my other posts that a typical 140g Swede load (taken from Winchester's specs) starts at a mere 2550 and still has 2002 ft/sec. at 300 yards, whereas the 140g 7mm08 round starts at 2800 and dissipates quickly to 2027 ft./sec. at 300 yards. As you and others are aware, penetration is not just a function of velocity and ft. lbs. of energy at target, but also of sectional density and bullet design.  

If both rounds were to hit, let's say a 300 yard Elk, at the same spot, the Swede would probably be the clear winner when it comes to penetration. Reason: better sectional density. To equal the sectional density of the "small" 140g 6.5 bullet, you would need about a 190g .30 caliber bullet. If you upped the ante and used a 160g Swede, its sectional density compares to a 220g .30 caliber bullet.    That's pretty impressive!

Chuck Hawks explains why the 6.5's are excellent penetrators in an article on sectional density of the Swede vs. .30 caliber bullets:

"The advantage of deep penetration conferred by the excellent sectional density of 6.5mm big game bullets should not be underestimated. It is the secret of the 6.5mm cartridge's success. It is what allows 6.5mm bullets to get deep inside of even large animals, where they can do the most damage.

For instance, the light 120 grain 6.5mm bullet has a SD of .246, the same as a 165 grain .30 caliber bullet. The 125 grain 6.5mm bullet has a SD of .256, equal to that of a 170 grain .30 caliber bullet. The medium weight 140 grain 6.5mm bullet has an outstanding SD of .287, which is essentially the same as a 190 grain .30 caliber match bullet. And the heavy 160 grain 6.5mm bullet has a SD of .328, about like a 220 grain .30 caliber bullet. Ponder these comparisons for a moment and it becomes clear why the 6.5's kill almost as well as the larger calibers, but with much less recoil and muzzle blast."

I'm not knocking guys that love their 7mm08's, 308's and 30.06's but I'm convinced the Swede was and is a great cartridge. Inherently accurate, pleasant to shoot and deadly on game.

Regards

[Coyote Hunter]

Sigma -

I'm not doubting the penetration capability of the 6.5x55 with 140 or 160g bullets.  But in 20 years I have recovered exactly ONE 160g 7mm Speer Grand Slam -- all the others penetrated completely.  The one that I did recover was taken from under the hide on the off side of a big bull elk after destroying both shoulder joints.  The point is that more penetration isn't necessarily needed.  Indeed, it may be detrimental at some point, as once a bullet exits all its retained energy is useless.  I have shot coyotes with expanding and non-expanding (FMJ) .224" bullets at similar velocities, and can tell you that the expanding bullets were always far more effective than the non-expanding bullets -- the difference is in how much energy is transferred to the target and how quickly that transfer occurs.

In fact, on big game I will gladly trade some excess penetration (read that as "untransferred energy") for additional transferred energy.  To put that another way, while I prefer exit wounds, I would prefer that a bullet exits with just enough velocity to make a big wound -- but no more.  Let's say that velocity is 600fps for the expanded bullet.  If it exits at 1200fps instead it has transferred far less energy than I would consider ideal.  If we're talking about a 160g bullet at these exit velocities, the difference in retained (wasted) energy is 384 foot-pounds, while for a 140g bullet that drops to 336 foot-pounds.  Granted, I'm pulling those exit velocities out of my you-know-what to make a point.  

Given equal energy and weights, the bullet that expands to a greater diameter will usually transfer energy faster. If all bullets expand 2x their original diameter, an expanded 7mm will have 16% more frontal area while a .308 will have 36% more area than an expanded 6.5mm.  

I could only find two 160g bullet in 6.5mm -- the Hornady 160g RN and the Sierra 160g Pro-Hunter - neither of which are a premium bullet when compared to Nosler Partition/FailSafe, Barnes X/XLC/TSX, or Speer Grand Slam/Trophy Bonded bullets.  Just something to keep in mind regarding the 6.5mm -- if you want premium bullets you will probably have to stay with 140g bullets, at least for now.   (I highly recommend a premium bullet for elk and larger.)

Since you are considering handloading (and good for you!), here are some numbers taken after comparing my Speer #12, Barnes #2, Nosler # 5, Hornady #6 and Hodgdon Annual Manual.  In most cases I used Nosler data for the Nosler Partition because a) data was available for it for every cartridge/bullet weight combination except the 6.5mm/160g, and b) the Nosler velocity data was at the top end or very close to it in all cases.  For the 6.5mm/160g bullet I used the Sierra Pro-hunter with velocities from Hodgdon's Annual Manual.  (In other words, I made a conscious effort to make fair comparisons.)

Code: [Select]


6.5x55mm
140g Nosler Partition, S.D. .287, B.C. .490, Muzzle 2790fps, 2497fpe, Nosler #6
160g Sierra Pro-Hunter, S.D. .328, B.C. .390, Muzzle 2524fps, 2264fpe, Hodgdon Annual Manual (with Hornady 160g RN bullet)

7mm-08
140g Nosler Partition, S.D. .248, B.C. .434, Muzzle 2922fps, 2655fpe, Nosler #6
160g Nosler Partition, S.D. .283, B.C. .475, Muzzle 2780fps, 2746fpe, Nosler #6
175g Nosler Partition, S.D. .310, B.C. .519, Muzzle 2612fps, 2652fpe, Nosler #6

.308
150g Nosler Partition, S.D. .226, B.C. .387, Muzzle 3001fps, 3000fpe, Nosler #6
165g Nosler Partition, S.D. .248, B.C. .410, Muzzle 2820fps, 2914fpe, Nosler #6
180g Nosler Partition, S.D. .271, B.C. .474, Muzzle 2718fps, 2953fpe, Nosler #6


I think one would have to agree that the .308/180g combination offers considerably more energy at the muzzle than the most rambunctious 6.5x55?

But what about downrange?  Here are the Maximum Point Blank Ranges (calculated for a 6" diameter target) and the 300-yard retained energy figures for the above loads:

Code: [Select]


6.5x55mm
140g Nosler Partition,   281 yard MPBR, 1609 fpe @ 300 yards
160g Sierra Pro-Hunter,  249 yard MPBR, 1314 fpe @ 300 yards

7mm-08
140g Nosler Partition,   290 yard MPBR, 1686 fpe @ 300 yards
160g Nosler Partition,   278 yard MPBR, 1800 fpe @ 300 yards
175g Nosler Partition,   263 yard MPBR, 1785 fpe @ 300 yards

.308
150g Nosler Partition,   276 yard MPBR, 1574 fpe @ 300 yards
165g Nosler Partition,   278 yard MPBR, 1786 fpe @ 300 yards
180g Nosler Partition,   272 yard MPBR, 1926 fpe @ 300 yards


Once again I think any reasonable person would have to conclude that the .308/180g combination delivers considerably more available energy at 300 yards than the 6.5mm -- 20% more.

Couple the .308's extra energy with 36% greater frontal area and it is easy to imagine that more energy is transferred to the target and much faster than with the 6.5mm.    

If you want a 6.5mm, go for it -- bullet placement will count for more than anything discussed above.  But I will stick buy my belief that a good .308 load is a significantly better choice for elk and larger and that a 7mm-08 is a slightly better choice.  


Remember -- you can always load a .308 down to 6.5mm/140g recoil levels, but you cannot safely load the 6.5mm to provide the downrange energy the .308 can deliver.

[Fla Brian]

Coyote Hunter,

With all due respect, the "energy transfer" idea of effectiveness on game is of rather dubious value. Animals are killed by tissue destruction. Let me give an, admittedly, extreme example. If one were to shoot a large animal with a .300 magnum at close range using bullets designed for the .30-30, said projectile would enter the animals body and would not be very likely to exit. One might say that all its energy was transferred to the game animal. But, it's highly unlikely that that shot would result in a quick kill as it would not penetrate deep enough to do sufficient tissue damage. It's the same situation as using bullets designed for varmints against big game - total energy transfer resulting in a nasty, immediately non-fatal surface wound. It is the massive internal tissue damage that kills, not merely the energy.

The ideal bullet is one that expands sufficiently to cause massive tissue disruption, while retaining sufficient weight to penetrate completely through the animal. This is where energy comes in. A bullet must strike with enough energy to cause the above to take place.

The next variable in the equation is sectional density. This, loosely defined, is the ability of the bullet to penetrate, due to its length/caliber relationship.

Finally, there is bullet construction. In order to do its job, a bullet must hold together, retaining sufficient weight to assure proper penetration.

In sum, the ideal projectile is one that hits with sufficient energy to penetrate all the way through a game animal, while expanding well, retaining most of its weight (holding together) and causing massive internal damage.

The experience of generations of Scandinavian, and other, hunters using the 6.5X55 against large game animals of elk-like size, with great effectiveness, speaks for itself.

Let me conclude by adding that I am a huge fan of the .30-06. Its record against big game is legion, but it does what it does with a great deal more recoil than the even older Swede. While recoil doesn't bother me much, there are those for whom it is an important consideration. If I had to venture forth into the field with either for any but dangerous game, I would not feel at all "undergunned."

By the way, wouldn't "loading down" the 06 also reduce its impact energy?

Feliz cazando! Chasser heureux! Glückliches Jagen! Ricerca felice! Gelukkige jagen! Caçada feliz! Счастливая охота! Glad å jaging!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Happy hunting!

[Coyote Hunter]

Fla Brian -

I don't think we're all that far apart in our thinking, but we're not quite on the same page, either.

...the "energy transfer" idea of effectiveness on game is of rather dubious value. Animals are killed by tissue destruction.  

I agree whole heartedly on the second part.  But what is it that causes tissue destruction?   Rapid energy transfer per unit area!   (Note that slow energy transfer may not destroy tissue at all, even though the total energy transferred may be much greater.  While this is not rocket science, it is physics.)

Your "extreme example" of the .30-30 bullet at close-range .300 Mag velocities is indeed much like shooting varmints with frangible bullets.  If the .30-30 bullet gets inside the chest cavity, death is likely to be spectacularly quick as the bullet disintegrates.  I went to some pains, however, to compare bullets of similar (and appropriate) construction at velocities that were not as far apart as the .30-30 and a .300 Mag.  The expectation was that the Partition bullets would expand, possibly losing their front core as they often do, but maintaining the integrity of the rear section.

 The ideal bullet is one that expands sufficiently to cause massive tissue disruption, while retaining sufficient weight to penetrate completely through the animal.  

I also agree completely with this statement.  But I also added in my previous post that I would prefer that the bullet exit with no more energy than necessary to make a big eit wound.  In other words I want as much energy transferred to the target as possible -- the energy carried by the bullet when it exits is essentially wasted.  A bullet with a larger diameter will transfer the energy more efficiently.

 The next variable in the equation is sectional density. This, loosely defined, is the ability of the bullet to penetrate, due to its length/caliber relationship.  

Actually, its the relationship between the caliber and the weight -- length is irrelevant.  That aside, what I tried to convey in my previous post was that I consider there to be such a thing as "excess penetration".  Consider two bullets of similar weight, construction and velocity but different sectional densities -- one has a higher S.D. (smaller diameter) and will penetrate 6 feet of elk, the other has a lower S.D. (larger diameter) and penetrates only 3 feet of elk.  (Or you could compare a non-expanding hardcast against an expanding bullet, both with the same weight and original diameter.)  My preference would probably be the second bullet as it will transfer more energy and still exit on a broadside behind-the-shoulder shot.

 
Finally, there is bullet construction. In order to do its job, a bullet must hold together, retaining sufficient weight to assure proper penetration.

In sum, the ideal projectile is one that hits with sufficient energy to penetrate all the way through a game animal, while expanding well, retaining most of its weight (holding together) and causing massive internal damage.
 

Agreed 100%.  That's why I lean toward premium bullets.

 
The experience of generations of Scandinavian, and other, hunters using the 6.5X55 against large game animals of elk-like size, with great effectiveness, speaks for itself.
 

I know they shoot moose with these on a regular basis, more than with any other caliber or so I've read.  But like shooting a moose with a .30-30, while it can be done effectively, may not be the best all-around choice.

 ...
By the way, wouldn't "loading down" the 06 also reduce its impact energy?
 

Yes, but that may not be the important element.  If a .30-06 or .308 is loaded down to 6.5mm recoil levels, the bullet may (and probably will) still have more than enough energy to exit on a well placed shot.

Gotta run...

[Sigma]

Coyote Hunter, Brian beat me to a response.  :roll:

I agree by and large with Brian's post....but your conclusions are nothing to sneeze at either.

On the sectional density thing and Brian's comment regarding bullet length/caliber relationship: Here's the formula: Sectional Density =  (Bullet Weight [grains] / 7000 [grains per pound]) / (Caliber) 2.

We see that although bullet length is not factored into the SD initial equation, it is "hidden" in the equation as Bullet Weight, or a relation between caliber and bullet length. Naturally, bullet diameter is not a variable, the increase in weight comes about by using longer bullets.

On penetration, and your comment: "I would prefer that the bullet exit with no more energy than necessary to make a big eit wound. In other words I want as much energy transferred to the target as possible -- the energy carried by the bullet when it exits is essentially wasted."

In the ideal world, we would match the bullet perfectly to the game and also shoot at distances which would allow the bullet to do its work perfectly, i.e. exit with only minimal energy "wasted." But I'm not sure that a bullet that penetrates all the way through an animal should be viewed as one that has wasted its energy. When we think of tissue destruction we also think of long temporary and permanent wound channels, i.e. a result of good penetration.

Using a 30.30 on Moose? Please not at 300 yards, where the 30-30 comes up with a measly 600-700 ft. lbs and 2 ft. low.... It might be okay if you sneak up 100-150 yards or so.

Just picked up this months Handloader magazine. (Thanks, longwinters) It's an excellent read, IMO.

Brian said:

"Let me conclude by adding that I am a huge fan of the .30-06. Its record against big game is legion, but it does what it does with a great deal more recoil than the even older Swede. While recoil doesn't bother me much, there are those for whom it is an important consideration. If I had to venture forth into the field with either for any but dangerous game, I would not feel at all "undergunned.""

I agree wholeheartedly. Thanks for all the comments from everyone. This is an interesting topic, judging by the amount of views and replies.

Regards

[Buckeye]

I'm a big 6.5X55 fan,but the .308win,or the 30/06 ethier or with 180 gr. Nosler part. are capable of taking anything in North America! Not my 1st. choice for bigger bears,but I'm sure they have taken many.
I've got a ole Sporterized Springfield 03,in a 30/06,that the former owner has taken several Elk,and big brownies with,and the .308 is right on the heels with the 30/06 (with 180gr.ers or less),
Even though the 6.5X55 is a great round ,you have to be a handloader to reach its full potenial ,unlike the .308 win.(30/06)

Buckeye

[Sigma]

Buckeye,

Agree with your comment on handloading the Swede to reach its potential.

I have a friend who lives in Alaska and flies hunters in. For bigger bears I'd only be comfortable with a .338 or higher. How about a .50 bmg?  :-)

Regards

[Coyote Hunter]

...
We see that although bullet length is not factored into the SD initial equation, it is "hidden" in the equation as Bullet Weight, or a relation between caliber and bullet length. Naturally, bullet diameter is not a variable, the increase in weight comes about by using longer bullets. ...

Sigma -

You are correct -- the scientific formula disregards length, but hunting bullets for the calibers under discussion basically come in three flavors -- solid copper, solid lead or jacketed lead.  Since the caliber is fixed, increasing the weight of any type means increasing the length.  For a given weight, the solid lead bullet will obviously be the shortest and the solid copper the longest.

In theory, however, you could use depleted uranium for a very heavy, short bullet.   :grin:

[Sigma]

Agreed!

Depleted Uranium, hmm.... don't get the handloaders excited....

[Fla Brian]

...
We see that although bullet length is not factored into the SD initial equation, it is "hidden" in the equation as Bullet Weight, or a relation between caliber and bullet length. Naturally, bullet diameter is not a variable, the increase in weight comes about by using longer bullets. ...

Sigma -

You are correct -- the scientific formula disregards length, but hunting bullets for the calibers under discussion basically come in three flavors -- solid copper, solid lead or jacketed lead.  Since the caliber is fixed, increasing the weight of any type means increasing the length.  For a given weight, the solid lead bullet will obviously be the shortest and the solid copper the longest.

In theory, however, you could use depleted uranium for a very heavy, short bullet.   :grin:

I'm glad to see you've come to understand why I described SD, loosely, as I said, the way I did.

There's another reason that I did not deal with before. Traditionally, SD has been used as a measure of ability to penetrate. That might have been true in the age of traditional jacketed bullets, as you surmised. The fact is, since the development of the X Bullet, the traditional ballistic view has to be altered somewhat. I did a little research, and the SD for both the Barnes X and the Sierra 180 grain boatails is the same, .271 for both. But the ballistic coefficient of the Barnes is listed at .552 and Sierra shows a range, depending on velocity of from .502 - .506.

What this does is change the whole SD/penetration relationship. Since, at any given range, the Barnes, if started out at the same velocity as the Sierra, will be traveling faster than the Sierra, its striking energy will be greater. And, as I'm sure you'll agree, striking energy is a great factor in penetration.

As a result, I think we need to come up with a new ballistic relationship for describing penetration ability, perhaps creating a new measure known as Penetration Index which would be the relationship between bullet diameter, length (or BC) and impact velocity.

Of course, as previously noted, this would only apply to big game bullets constructed to hold together at the given velocities.

I do love these theoretical ballistic discussions, don't you?

[Coyote Hunter]

...
I do love these theoretical ballistic discussions, don't you?

My name is Jim, and I'm a hoploholic -- and worse...   :grin:

[Fla Brian]

Too bad you live so far away or you culd attend one of our HA meetings. Fortunately, they don't do any good. No one's got past the first step yet.

Every time the craving comes on me, I call my partner ... and he encourages me to go right ahead on, bless his heart.

[Sigma]

Brian, Coyote Hunter, keep em coming....

As a result, I think we need to come up with a new ballistic relationship for describing penetration ability, perhaps creating a new measure known as Penetration Index which would be the relationship between bullet diameter, length (or BC) and impact velocity.

Adding the Velocity factor to the equation sounds interesting, but I think it would get even more complex than that. You'd have to express the penetration ability with yet another factor - an index for different materials or game. That'd be a tough one...guess that's why the industry settles on bullet descriptions such as this one: "Delayed, controlled expansion. Deep penetration through thick, tough skin, heavy muscle tissue and bone."  

By the way, Coyote, that's from the 30.06 Winchester Failsafe. :-)

Regards

[Fla Brian]

Brian, Coyote Hunter, keep em coming....

As a result, I think we need to come up with a new ballistic relationship for describing penetration ability, perhaps creating a new measure known as Penetration Index which would be the relationship between bullet diameter, length (or BC) and impact velocity.

Adding the Velocity factor to the equation sounds interesting, but I think it would get even more complex than that. You'd have to express the penetration ability with yet another factor - an index for different materials or game. That'd be a tough one...guess that's why the industry settles on bullet descriptions such as this one: "Delayed, controlled expansion. Deep penetration through thick, tough skin, heavy muscle tissue and bone."  

By the way, Coyote, that's from the 30.06 Winchester Failsafe. :-)

Regards

No system for quantifying penetration in, and effectiveness on, game can be perfect. I've read of several of them, including something called Optimum Game Weight, a formula created by Ed Matunas, I believe. There's just no way to quantify all the variables with precision. Some animals in a given species are just tougher, and harder to kill than others. How does one create a formula that would take into consideration precise bullet placement or the relative amounts of soft tissue/bone a bullet will encounter on the way through an animal.

I would imagine that, for comparative purposes only, a standard testing medium would have to be settled on, perhaps ballistic gelatin. One could compare the amount of penetration achieved by any combination with that of another combination. We could then say, as a general rule, whether a particular combination would penetrate more than another one. And, bullet construction would be taken into account. Two bullets with identical Penetration Indexes, on paper, might display very different penetration one from the other when shot into the test medium.

Just some food for thought.

[Sigma]

I would imagine that, for comparative purposes only, a standard testing medium would have to be settled on, perhaps ballistic gelatin. One could compare the amount of penetration achieved by any combination with that of another combination. We could then say, as a general rule, whether a particular combination would penetrate more than another one. And, bullet construction would be taken into account. Two bullets with identical Penetration Indexes, on paper, might display very different penetration one from the other when shot into the test medium.

I'm sure there would be differences and they might be surprising. Sounds like a great topic for a magazine article. What would the unit for the PI be? Just playing with that thought for a moment.

Regards

[Coyote Hunter]

No system for quantifying penetration in, and effectiveness on, game can be perfect. ... How does one create a formula that would take into consideration precise bullet placement or the relative amounts of soft tissue/bone a bullet will encounter on the way through an animal.

If we use a very large diameter, very heavy bullet it all becomes moot -- except maybe for grazing shots.

I'm thinking 105mm here...   :grin:

[Coyote Hunter]

Sigma -

The September or October 2002 edition of Shooting Times (? might have been another rag) had a good article where they tested various bullets impacting gelatin at 3000fps and at 2000fps.

I don't recall all the statistics, but it was an informative read and the data correlated well to my own experience.

The Grand Slam penetrated well and had good expansion.  My buddy and I have taken 6 elk in 5 years with a 7mm 160g Grand Slam.  It just works.

The Barnes XLC and Winchester Failsafe got good penetration but after expansion the petals broke off at 3000fps.  At 2,000 fps they penetrated well, kept their petals and retained 100% of their weight.  Unfortunately, that's the equivalent of a 600 yard shot with my 7mm Mag load.     On an antelope I put two through the chest cavity, hitting the lugs but missing the heart.  After I circled around for a closer shot, the antelope got up and tried to walk before a 3rd bullet took out the heart.  The first two XLCs either failed to penetrate or the petals broke off, not sure which.  The newer X bullts have larger hollowpoints and are heat treated to remedy these problems, don't know about Failsafes.

The Swift A-Frame penetrated well and retained nearly 100% of its weight.  Pricey bullets, but no more so than others I have used.  I have a hard time imagining these bullets failing in any way.

As a result of these tests and my own experience with Grand Slams (excellent), Barnes XLC's (poor), I have decided to work up 7mm Mag loads using bonded bullets -- Swift Scirocco, Swift A-Frame, North Fork, and Speer Trophy Bonded being the top candidates. In my .257 Roberts, I am giving Barnes' new Triple Shock X (TSX) bullet a try.  (Its very accurate, but I don't know yet what I will shoot with it.  Probably antelope, as that is what I shot with the XLC.  Should be able to get a good comparison there.)

Back to your original post, I think you will be OK with whatever cartridge you choose as long as you choose an appropriate bullet and place it well.  Just don't get a .30-06, as you will have no need to get anything else later!  :grin:

[Fla Brian]

I would imagine that, for comparative purposes only, a standard testing medium would have to be settled on, perhaps ballistic gelatin. One could compare the amount of penetration achieved by any combination with that of another combination. We could then say, as a general rule, whether a particular combination would penetrate more than another one. And, bullet construction would be taken into account. Two bullets with identical Penetration Indexes, on paper, might display very different penetration one from the other when shot into the test medium.

I'm sure there would be differences and they might be surprising. Sounds like a great topic for a magazine article. What would the unit for the PI be? Just playing with that thought for a moment.

Regards

Frankly, I haven't thought it through to the point of coming up with some kind of formula. I doubt that there is such a formula that can very accurately predict bullet performance based on any objective measure of bullet dimensions.

I think what is really needed to get a good idea of how a bullet performs on game is, as Coyote Hunter has described, observing results in the real world on real game animals. Tests in gelatin would be valuable in comparing different bullets against each other but would not provide an objective index of bullet performance with any great accuracy.

As a theoretical discussion, this is fun, but putting theory into practice isn't always particularly easy.

[Fla Brian]

No system for quantifying penetration in, and effectiveness on, game can be perfect. ... How does one create a formula that would take into consideration precise bullet placement or the relative amounts of soft tissue/bone a bullet will encounter on the way through an animal.

If we use a very large diameter, very heavy bullet it all becomes moot -- except maybe for grazing shots.

I'm thinking 105mm here...   :grin:

I tried them. I got fabulous penetration, but expansion left a lot to be desired. Of course, I cannot be absolutely sure as no bullets were recovered, and there wasn't very much tissue left to dissect. The explosive projectiles might have had something to do with that.

I would surmise, however, that they might give good results in hunting rather large varmints. Further testing would be required before I would hazard any definitive judgements.

[MGMorden]

Well, don't know if you've decided yet, but I'd say go with the Swede for deer.  Don't know about elk, but everyone I've talked to says the Swede is PERFECT for whitetail deer.  Anything more powerful is unecessary.  I've not actually hunted with mine yet, but I've shot a good bit of factory loads and 40-50 rounds of reloads in it, and man oh man, it's a pleasure to shoot.  When I take my .30-06 to the range with the 6.5x55 the '06 gets maybe 10 shots fired before I sit it aside and go for the 6.5.  It's a much more boring caliber, and it starts to sting the shoulder after a while.  Now if I were to go out on some Alaskan hunting trip, I'd probably take the .30-06 just because of it's greater power, but for hunting deer and anything smaller in my own locale, it'll be the 6.5x55 from now on.

As to the 6.5x55SE being "dead", that seems to be not the case at all.  Indeed, almost all the shop owners who I talk to say that the round is quickly gaining in popularity over here in the US.

[Prince of Wales]

Formulas are fine in their place but caution must be used not to accept all information as factual. A few years ago John Whooters came up with one that would determine which calibers had greater killing power. It looked real good until you got into depth and discovered his formula rated the 30/06 Accelerator as being a better killer than the 45/70. Which is the better choice in the face of a charging brown bear? Overall the rating was very good but caution has to be used to  detect an occasional obsurdity. Best of luck. POW

[Fla Brian]

Formulas are fine in their place but caution must be used not to accept all information as factual. A few years ago John Whooters came up with one that would determine which calibers had greater killing power. It looked real good until you got into depth and discovered his formula rated the 30/06 Accelerator as being a better killer than the 45/70. Which is the better choice in the face of a charging brown bear? Overall the rating was very good but caution has to be used to  detect an occasional obsurdity. Best of luck. POW

That is pretty much what I said. Formulas are OK for theoretical discussions but won't take the place of actual field experience. In my experience, formulas almost always reflect the bias of the formulator. If one favors heavy bullets at moderate velocity, it's a safe bet that any formula that individual creates will lean toward such projectiles. The same would be true of the light bullet/high velocity crowd.

[Sigma]

Everyone,

Appreciate all the replies and feedback - it's led to some interesting discussions.

Going back to the original issue: .270 or 6.5x55, I've decided I'll go with the Swede. :grin:

As for the rifle, I'll be going for a Tikka. A Sako 75 might be nice, but they're alot more, of course. I looked at the CZ550 American, liked the steel, but felt that it was too heavy for a lot of carrying and climbing in the field. Thought of getting a Winchester, but found that most people rebed those to get acceptable accuracy. Haven't been a fan of Ruger rifles, although I own one of their revolvers, which is very good. A Kimber 84 might be nice, but they only come in 260 and I'm choosing the Swede over that one.  Plan on scoping the Tikka with a Bushnell Elite 3200. I was pretty impressed with the brightness and clarity for the price.

Regards

[Fla Brian]

Sounds to me like a pretty sensible, well though out choice. I wish you many happy years of hunting with it, and many tasty animals for the freezer.

[huntsman]

Sigma,

Just topped my M98 Swede with a Bushnell Elite 3200, took it to the range, and proceded to shoot a 1/4" group at 50 yards with my first three shots. Averaged less than 1.25" groups at 100 yards on next four three-shot groups. That is significantly better than I was getting with my old scope. You won't be disappointed with the 3200 for your scope. It has great clarity, and the rainguard seems to work quite well (sprayed mist on it and looked through - could see my target pretty well).

If you decide to handload, I have some data that might be useful for 85 gr, 100 gr, and 120 gr bullets. Have fun with your new weapon of choice!  

[Sigma]

Brian, Huntsman,

Thanks for your replies. What factory ammo would you recommend to get started? Sellier & Bellot any good? 140 grainers go for around $8.50 / box, which seems very reasonable.

Huntsman, Thanks for the feedback on the scope. Impressive accuracy on your Swede. I ran across a nice M38 with a "1" on the indicator at the show last weekend but didn't pick it up. I'll probably regret that. But there are more out there.... Thanks for the offer on Handloads, I might get back to you on that.

April's Handloader Mag has a nice article on the 6.5 with a few loads as well. (Thanks longwinters)  

Regards

[huntsman]

Sig,

I have heard others who have had good experiences with S&B, but mine was not. I bought 5 boxes of the 131 gr and they shot 2"-6" 100yd groups consistently out of both my Swedes. I won't be buying any more S&B. I have also shot PMC 139 gr, which seemed fairly hot, with fair accuracy @ 2" 100 yd groups, and the 140 gr Sierra Gameking (Silver) with about the same accuracy. I've shot one hog @200 lbs head-on through the skull at 15 paces with the 139 gr for an almost instantaneous kill, and one hog @ 250 lbs broadside at 75 yds with the 140 gr gameking through the shoulder that stopped him in his tracks. But if I had to go out and buy a box of factory ammo for deer/hog hunting for the Swede, it would be Remington 140 gr corelokts. I have used the corelokts for years in my .270 with great results. I don't quite remember now exactly why I ended up with the PMC and S&B instead of the Remington in the first place; I think it had something to do with price, availability, and wanting to try something new.

I haven't had a chance to try my handloads on any live game, but their target performance has about halved my groups on average. Plus I get to pick the exact bullet weight and construction I want. I can reduce the loads for my daughters that are learning to hunt (120 gr Speer hot-cor @ 2400 fps, 100 gr Sierra prohunter @ 2600 fps, 85 gr Sierra HP @ 2800 fps). For those tough hogs I loaded some 160 gr Hornady RN Interlocks @ 2400 fps. From what I hear they penetrate "into tomorrow". We'll see, I guess.