The truth does make people angry at times especially when it goes against everything that they have become to believe over a lifetime of misinformation. In the gun world we have become conditioned to believe that the speed of a bullet gives us a much greater Point Blank Range (PBR) or Effective Terminal Energy (TE) Range than a heavier, slower bullet. They believe this to be especially true if the cartridge case is bigger or the bullet is larger in diameter in spite of what the terminal ballistics show. Instead of accepting them and learning from the facts presented to them they resort to accusing one of twisting the facts to make ones self look better or other bullying tactics. Unfortunately all of the facts in the world are not going to change the minds of some but hopefully the rest, especially young people just starting out, will benefit.
I have been the brunt of a lot of this kind of bullying behavior on more than this site for a lot of years since I began posting about the efficient wildcat cartridges that I designed along the same lines that Dave Emary designed the 30 TC and the 6.5 CM. I got a lot of flack over my 6.5 EXTREME design, just like we have seen over the 6.5 CM and likely will still see about the 6.5 PRC. Who would have thought that the 6.5 PRC design would be so close to my 6.5 EXTREME that I can use Hornadys Match Grade PRC dies as "shoulder bump" dies. In fact when the 6.5 PRC was first introduced it was said to have been on the 300 RCM case and the dimensions given were for my 300 RCM/6.5EXTREME PT&G reamer dated 12/09. I am happy to see that the Hornady version was improved by reducing the body length by about 0.070", to 338 RCM length, as my version actually has about 2-3 grains unusable powder capacity although it works better in a Remington LA. The 6.5 PRC really works best in an "intermediate length action like the Winchester/Montana Rifle Co./Kimber WSM actions. Imagine the flack I get when I point out that my 20 EXTREME is a very efficient design that rivals the 204 Ruger/ 20 Tactical with 32-40 grain bullets and the 22-250 Factory Ammunition, to 500 yards with the 55 Berger, all seated properly in the neck and fitting in Saami 223 length (2.26") magazines. Talk about efficiency when you consider that this is accomplished with less than 22.2 grains of powder!!
Stinky Coyote has come under much the same bullying tactics on every thread that he started trying to point out the efficiency of the 6.5 Grendel and 6.5 CM as hunting rifles. This is largely because many seem to think he is running down their pet cartridge or they believe that these cartridges are not up to the task. He is using the method commonly used by manufacturers to determine what type of game and at what distance their ammunition is suited for which is SD under/over 2.5 x recommended Minimum Impact Velocity (IV). He is right yet the Nay Sayers insist that you need a bigger cartridge/caliber to get enough Muzzle Velocity/energy to do the job. Well they are right in that the bullet, not cartridge, with the most Terminal Energy (TE) will do more damage than one with less TE even if it don't penetrate as deeply. I think it is about time we realize that energy is included in SC's/industry's method only not used as proper SD and IV are all that is needed to give enough penetration and energy to do the job intended.
For many more years than I care to remember I have relied on the old method of determining Effective Range of a Cartridge/Bullet combination which is Terminal Energy (TE). I believe that MV, BC, SD and IV are all taken into consideration when determining Terminal Energy so all I have to do is determine what TE is need too kill a moose with a bullet designed to do the job. Someone posted earlier that Elmer Keith wrote that 800 ft. lbs. was minimum for big game and I believe that is pretty close. Have personally seen 4 moose taken, with one shot, at 600 yards with three different Caliber/ Bullet combinations. The 3006 with Win 180 PPP bullets had 1415 f/s IV and 1106 ft.lbs. TE and the perfectly mushromed bullet came to rest "under the hide on the other side" and the moose fell over on the spot. Two shot with the 270 Win using Win 130 PPP ammunition were hit with 1747 ft.lbs. IV and 881 ft. lbs. TE and they both died on the spot but the bullets were not recovered as they spent their remaining Momentum/Energy on mother earth. The fourth was shot with My 7mm08 running a 140 Nosler SB bullet at 3000 fps MV and the moose walked about 10 steps before falling dead (perhaps 10 seconds). The 1891 f/s IV was greater than both the 270 and 3006 as was the 1112 ft.lbs TE. Surprisingly the 140 grain bullet exited after entering between the 3rd & 4th rib, ripping through both lungs and the off shoulder blade due of the fairly large bull moose. As I like to add a little, in case the bullet hits a rib, I have settled on 1200 ft.lbs TE as minimum for moose/elk and have taken 1900 f/s IV which is about mid range for industry standard.
The following chart compares the Effective Range of Various Factory (F) and handloaded (HL) ammunition as per the above parameters. I have included MV, ME, RE and PBR so one can make comparisons to help in making an informed decision of which caliber that is best suited for its intended use. If needed a light rifle with minimal recoil and chose to limit my shots to under 300 yards the 6.5 Grendel would top my list. I chose the 7mm08 as I had trouble with Rheumatoid Shoulder Joints and it was proven to be effective to 600 yards which has always been my maximum. Looking over this chart I can see that the 6.5 CM, 143 ELD-X, Factory round is just as effective as my 145 Speer BTSP handload so would likely be my choice today in spite of my love for the 7mm08. If I wanted to stretch it out to 750-800 yards I would likely go with the 6.5 PRC even over my 6.5 EXTREME. On second thought if I stick to handloads maybe Alberta Al's 6.5X47 L may be the winner s it will fit in a 2.8" magazine and performs nearly as well, or perhaps better as someone's pet load in the 308 with the 168LRAB. Will likely come as a big surprise to someone who would perhaps whish I had manipulated the facts. Perhaps we can get some constructive conversations going instead of the rubbish that seems to be the norm.
[IMG]
[/IMG]