I sure hope LRRP typed that on the computer cause his fingers are going to cramp if he did on the phone.

I was just looking at another forum member's 1000yd huge bull elk kill with .264 Winchester Magnum.

A .264 Win Mag will push a 140gr at 3000fps with a max load from a 24" barrel.  It's a great point blank zero cartridge for those who don't know their drop well or don't have a lot of time to practice, and a very effective long range hunting cartridge.

With a 140gr, it has anywhere between 325-450yds effective range over a 24" 6.5 Grendel shooting the same bullet.

If you get the 140gr AMAX or ELD-M to 2400fps from a 24" Grendel, that's a 600yd capable hunter at sea level for expansion.

For where I hunt at altitude, it changes it to an 800yd capable rifle/bullet combo.

600yds 1789fps 995ft-lbs 4.9 mils drop 1 mil drift for 10mph FV

If you shoot the 129gr ABLR in a longer barrel 6.5 Grendel, expansion is available farther than you would imagine, beyond 1000yds even at elk altitude.

Anyone on here telling you to hunt elk with a 6.5 Grendel is just a fan boy. Can it be done yes with perfect shot placement. If you are even off by a little with the grendel there just isn't enough power behind it to do the damage needed to get a humane kill let alone being out in the woods with a pissed off elk.

It is not the caliber for elk hunting no matter how bad the fan boys say it is. Coming from this group I am sure they say they could take water buffalo and elephants with the mighty 6.5.

Like most on here have said you need something more powerful than will fit in an AR mag. The 458 and some of the large calibers would probably work at short ranges but there are much better rifles suited for elk hunting.

Minimum should be a .308.

could not agree more!

that said, doubly agree on .308 minimum for elk.  People really underestimate these animals

Id say the 308 class 6.5's and 7mm08 are min.  That along with the 270.  Obviously cartridges like the 264 win mag and 7mm mag are plenty even with the smaller bore.

No matter what caliber you use, if you don't have shot placement through the vitals, an extra .044" bullet diameter isn't going to help you one bit.  I know several people personally who have used .308 irresponsibly attempting to shoot elk, who had no business making shots at the distances they were trying, but did it anyway.  You must know and adhere to the capabilities of you and your rifle/optic/mount/ammunition and the position you will shoot from.

Furthermore, the additional recoil of the cartridge decreases your chances of hitting the vitals because you won't get as much practice with it, and when you have to make a shot from an improvised position in the field, your hit potential goes down measurably.

There are dozens of projectiles for 6.5mm that will perforate the vitals of elk with a broadside shot, and penetrate fully through the vitals with a quartering shot, often with DRT.

Also keep in mind that most elk tags are for cows and spikes, not bulls, not that a moderate velocity 6.5mm won't drop a bull within a few yards, if not DRT.

The first time I ever saw someone use a 6.5 Grendel for elk, it was a Christmas card from Mark LaRue in 2007, and that was a pretty big bull at 407yds, piled up.

A 120gr TSX behaves more like a cup and core bullet 1.4-1.5x the weight, so at worst, a 168gr cup and core bullet, only you are going to get 25"-30" penetration with a 120gr TSX with 1% weight loss.

With impact speed at somewhere around 1800fps, which is not optimal for the 120 TSX, that bull still dropped within a few yards of his shadow.



Then look at what this one did.  Dead before she hit the ground.



If your intent is to shoot elk at long range, and by long range, I mean 600yds and farther, then you need more gas in the pan.  There are 6.5 Grendel loads that will do the job within 600yds from longer barrels.

For my 18" Lilja, I knew that I wasn't going to be making any shots past 300yds with a 95gr GMX, which still gives me over 2200fps impact speed, with over 1000ft-lbs of energy, and full expansion, with 99% weight retention.

I have a .270 Winchester, a .260 Remington, and several 6.5 Grendel's.  I doubt I will ever take my .270 hunting again in my lifetime.

My .260 Rem is way too heavy.

If I could have a .260 Rem or 6.5 Creedmoor that weighed what my Grendel's do, the recoil would be pretty substantial without a brake.

For a dedicated LR hunting rifle, I will weigh my options after I see how this little Howa does with 129gr ABLR, 130gr ELD-M, and 140gr AMAX and ELD-M.

Anyone who tells you that you need a .308 minimum for elk doesn't understand applied physics or terminal effects and how they work with smaller caliber options.

The 7mm-08, for example, is a superior cartridge to the .308 for hunting elk because of sectional density, lower recoil if you shoot 139gr GMX, or even up to 154gr, and tighter twist.

For the guys that are shooting elk at ELR with 6.5x284 or 6.5mm magnums, their bullet performance at those ranges is like my 18" at 450yds.

Which one is more ethical?  Same bullet.  Same impact speed.  One has a higher hit probability (the closer range shot).

You can even dial that in from 600 or 700yds, which is easily within the capability of the magnums and many DRTs have been harvested that way on big bulls.

Which is more ethical or within the capabilities of the cartridge?



Take a 6.5 Magnum, 6.5x284, and shoot a 129gr ABLR at 3000fps up at where we see elk in season 23.53" mercury on the barometer.
700yds 2084fps 1244ft-lbs 1 mil drift for 10
800yds 1969fps 1110ft-lbs 1.2 mils
900yds 1857fps 988ft-lbs. 1.3 mils



18" 6.5 Grendel, 129gr ABLR, 2400fps, same conditions
275yds 2064fps 1221ft-lbs .5 mils
375yds 1950fps 1089ft-lbs .7 mils
450yds 1866fps  997ft-lbs .8 mils

That bullet expands all the way down to 1300fps.  There are experienced long range shooters who make these kinds of shots regularly past 1000yds with 130gr from some type of fast 6.5mm, quick kills, no tracking involved.

For most hunters, you aren't going to be making shots past 200yds.  Even the ones who own 300 RUM don't have the first level of training to be able to consistently make hits at distance, usually fundamentals.

So for the layman, you have to tell him that he is being unethical with a 6.5 Grendel within 300yds when shooting elk, while others are making much harder shots with DRT or quick kill results at 900-1300yds with the same bullet, with more wind drift, and much tighter margins of error.

The math just doesn't add up.  I know it doesn't look like the elk cartridge our daddies and grandaddies told us was absolutely necessary, but the bullet doesn't know the difference, and neither does the animal when you put it through the vitals.

Op,
You posed a question with non-specifics, and answered yourself once with a great answer/

300 Weatherby bolt action.

and look at all the stuff you generated.

Hats off and happy hunting

I know you are the ultimate fan boy and a single word against the Grendel will get your panties in a bunch but THE 6.5 ISN'T ENOUGH OF A GUN TO RELIABLY TAKE MOOSE.

Just like I said before it can but then again I have taken hogs with .22lr and just because I was able to does it mean the the .22lr is a good cartridge for hunting hogs?

Take a chill pill sit back and just admit that the 6.5. isn't the best cartridge for hunting elk, water buffalo or elephants.

Just get a quality AK and use that. Problem solved. Get a decent optic and you can hit and take down said animal easily from 400 yards and in.

And you know this . . . how?

Type less read more.  The thread isn't about moose.  He was merely citing factual evidence that is relevant to the discussion.  And the question specifically requested a cartridge from and AR-15 platform.  I'm sure there are wildcats I don't know about, but as far as commercially available loads, I think the 6.5 grendel is the best option from and AR-15 for elk.  I personally wouldn't choose to hunt elk with an AR-15, but that doesn't change the answer.

I hesitate to wade into this, but at the same time, it doesn't seem like many hunt in the same world I do. Am I wrong?

I've been hunting elk for ~30 years. (ugh, I'm getting old). I am *not* an expert on hunting elk. I like being out in the woods, if I see animals, I'm happy. I take just as much pleasure seeing animals as I do getting one or helping others get one out. Our area varies from thick brush to open timber, but very steep hills. Seeing an animal within 200yds is fairly rare. 800+ is common.

In that time, I've seen a pair of hunters use 40 rounds (not a joke) of .300 win mag try to take an elk at 500+ yds.

I've watched others shoot the same distances with various guns that missed just as cleanly.

I've watched people beat thick brush in driving, cold rain for hours, looking for an animal they thought they hit.

I've been on the receiving end of people shooting 7-800yds at animals I was clearly stalking.

I've seen a spike take 4 rounds of 30-06 to the chest at ~400yds before dying.

I've seen a cow take a 180gr .303 to the shoulder and essentially shrug it off at 300yds.

I've tracked an animal for hours that was hit in the leg with a 30-06 at 200yds.

I've known of a young bull falling to a .45ACP.

Every season I hear (and see) people emptying their magazines at animals they have no clue how to hit. The up side is that in most instances, when you hear that many rounds being fired, the animal is in probably no danger.  

My takeaway from all these years and experiences is that you:

A) Need to know your equipment (ballistics, bullet performance at a given range, etc) and be PROFICIENT in shooting at whatever range you choose to shoot at, so that you can hit the animal in the vitals.

B) Know your limitations and don't make shots you or the gun/round aren't capable of.

or

C) Keep shots at close range and *hope* you connect in an area that doesn't wound the animal.

My *opinion* after all this time is that A and B are exponentially more important than the specific round being used for the vast majority of people. Hit the animal in the vitals, and it will go down. In the real world, many, many people miss. They shouldn't be taking the shot if they miss where they should be hitting. But that doesn't stop people, so caliber is unimportant.

People who take zero time to understand ballistics, performance envelope of the bullet/load they are using, or being accurate, will have the same rate of success whether shooting .22LR or .338 Lapua.

Know where you fall in the above, stay within the limitations you know, and the round used is nowhere near as important as every other factor.

All I know is we have deer wounded every year by people who claim not to miss and then exclaim "well I hit it".

No, just no. Sit down and really think about it. The right answer is .308 in AR or any other larger caliber. How many hunters actually take game at 600 yards effectively? Why do people insist on taking on big game with a barely adequate caliber for bigger game than deer? You don't get extra bonus points or even a cookie! All you get is a wounded animal unless you have and do make a great shot. You literally have a lot of options in AR now days so that is ridiculous to say that. There are even better 6.Xmm options FFS.

If I had the chance to go elk hunting in Colorado, as much as I love my AR 308, I would take my 338 LM bolt rifle. Would suck to make the trip, see a nice size elk at a long distance, and not able to make the shot, or make the shot and only wound with an AR. Would consider my bolt 308 too but since I have a larger caliber that will for sure do the job, wouldn't take the chance bringing the wrong rifle. Bring a bolt rifle with the appropriate caliber to do the job right with the 1st shot!

You also have a happy squirrel.

Reading comprehension and avoiding hyperbole are important for adult conversations, as is being well-informed.

I think too many people who are gun guys get wrapped around the axle regarding projectile diameter and differences between center fire rifle performance, without seeing the big picture that you are launching a projectile at well over 2,000fps, with the potential to make that piece of metal fly through the animal's heart and lungs.  

No matter what you use, if you know the capabilities of the rifle/projectile and your limitations, as long as the projectile can be placed through the vitals with enough tissue-damaging characteristics, it's going down.

Our ancestors killed these animals with rifles and smooth bores that had nowhere near the same killing potential, particularly when you look at velocity.  Good thing they didn't have the internet to slow them down.

Those rifles didn't make a small hole when fired into an elk either. Take a guess how big of a hole and damage a 50-60 caliber lead round ball can make in you.

You know, I read through your post twice just to make sure.

I can't disagree with a single thing you said.

On the spike that took 4 rounds of .30-06, he just didn't he know he was dead probably on the first round.

It's funny to see people in season out hunting with whatever it was they brought.  You will often hear one, two, three, four, and even five shots because they just didn't wait to watch the elk go down for a nap after it started losing blood pressure.

I have been shot myself, and didn't realize it at the time.  I was more concerned that I heard muzzle blast in my immediate vicinity, and wanted to assess where it was coming from, why it happened, and to make sure it didn't happen again.

Meanwhile, I had 4 holes in me with profuse venous flow like drinking fountains pouring out all over-didn't even feel it.  If I had seen it coming, I would have probably cringed and felt excruciating pain, while trying to get away from it.

A lot of these animals will just let people shoot them repeatedly like it's cool, as they chew their cud or continue to look around.  Others spook and bolt off rather quickly.

I'm like you though, especially with bulls.  One of the most exhilarating, peaceful, soul-soothing things for me to watch are bull elk in the wild, especially near water and beautiful forest, bugling like mountain trumpets.

We have plenty of squirrels.  And they are well fed. For the record I lost a buck last year. The first sense 1996. I guess I flinched on a chip shot. I got hair right above his spine and knocked him down. Then he got up and took off when I unloaded my rifle to cross my hay meadow fence. That was with my  .270. But he's still alive and growing another non typical rack. Everyone will make a poor shot if they hunt long enough.
I stand by the Tac15 crossbow upper to 50 yards for big game.

Good looking smoke pole and that is a damn nice elk!

And a Flynt lock to boot.

Take a guess what a 6.5mm hunting bullet expands to upon penetration....at over 1,000fps faster impact speed and with way tighter twist than muzzle loaders.

Then look at the penetration characteristics of high sectional density bullets, especially the premium bullets, even after blowing through bone like a TSX.

They smoke the weak and wimpy ancient muzzle loaders all day long on-target.  It's not even funny how poorly a muzzle loader compares to a modern, center-fire rifle cartridge with enough projectile weight to make it through the animal.

You literally have zero advantages with a muzzle loader over a modern metallic rifle cartridge, other than seasonal restrictions and early season access to game that aren't spooked as much yet by the crowds.

Muzzle Loader Ballistics

Chuck Hawks: Muzzle Loaders

The only way for a muzzle loader to even come close to modern centerfire metallic cartridge rifles is with sabots, and they didn't use those back in the day where much of the elk, grizzly, moose, and bison populations were shot in volumes that would make modern hunters cringe.

If only they would have had a .308 or .300 Win Mag back then (even though the technology to contain the pressure of 1950s-era metallic cartridge did not exist):

To heavy!

Get a bigger truck that's what people do down here.
For the record I have been having a hell of a time adjusting to my crossbow sense I can no longer use my compound bow. In fact I could hardly make myself go last year.  Maybe this fall I can get back to motivated.

Nobody said there was an advantage over modern rifles. Bigger bullets equal bigger holes with less fps needed. There are many other modern calibers that do better with elk than the 6.5 GR that have just as much speed. Why would you want to limit yourself to a 6.5 when there are much better calibers? Those speeds you talk about are achieved out of 24" barrels, not the 18" like the OP's. Unless you want to reload. Heck I'd take the 7mm-08 instead of the little GR any day.

The old buffalo hunters... most of those were not one shot-one kills.  They would shoot the lead cow first so she wouldn't lead the herd away.  Then the rest of the herd would just mill around in a panic not knowing what to do as the hot lead volleys screamed in.  Not really what today's hunter is after.

And yeah, our ancestors were hunting elk, buffalo and whatever with flintlock or cap and ball rifles, but they were not doing it at 400yds like the OP asked and anything went as far as rules.

For their day I think they would outlast a modern cartridge rifle.  Using whatever kind of lard they had for lube, fouling cleans with water, can easily mold your own projectiles, even can make your own powder if you want and a stupid simple design are all pretty good traits when out in the wilds for months/years at a time... but that is really neither here nor there for this topic.

7mm-08 doesn't fit in the AR15.

I think we worry too much about caliber, when bullet diameters are within tiny fractions of inches of each other. Difference, for example, between 0.264 and 0.308 is 0.044 — about 1mm. One . . . millimeter. As thick as your thumbnail.

In big game hunting, the point is not the size of bullets relative to each other.

The point is the size of bullets relative to the animal.

Let’s say a bull elk weighs 700 lbs and one guy shoots him with a .308 180gr Core-Lokt. And another shoots him with a Hornady 6.5 Grendel 123gr SST. Relative to the 123gr bullet, the 180gr bullet is 46% bigger. Surely it’s much more effective?!?

Maybe. Maybe not. Think about this. . . .

1 lb = 7,000 grains

700 lbs = 4,900,000 grains

180 grains = 0.00003673% of the mass of an elk.

123 grains = 0.00002510% of the mass of an elk.

As far as the elk is concerned, do you think he cares about that 0.00001163% percent bullet mass difference?

Now, this is oversimplifying cuz there's velocity effects, bullet construction, and you're not shooting the whole mass of the elk at once, so the more technical question is: What is your bullet mass relative to the mass of something like his heart and how much of his heart needs to be destroyed to stop its functioning? But this gives some food for thought.

(You can play the same game with caliber, bullet frontal area, and the point remains.)

Anyway, this is just another way of saying that as long as your bullet has the oomph to penetrate TO and THRU the vitals, SHOT PLACEMENT is what matters.

This is why I don't like the 6.5 anymore. The fanboys are just overwhelming. Talking about it is ok to shoot elk at 1,000 yards with their rifle.

Anyone seriously thinking about building a gun in the 6.5 Grendel for elk hunting is setting themselves up for disappointment at minimum let alone an bunch of inhumane kills.

It is a small bullet on a big animal and the fact you are trying to justify it by saying the OP asked for something that would fit in the AR magazine. The correct answer is you don't go for elk with something that will fit in an AR magazine.

I WILL SAY THIS SLOWLY. THE 6.5 GRENDEL IS IN NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM ADEQUATE FOR ELK HUNTING. Anyone telling you different is either a misguided fan boy or trying to get you into the Grendel in the hope you will buy his reloading manual.

If you take the square root of sectional density, divided by shot probability squared, add a pinch of faster twist rate and pew pew pew 6.5G Drt'ing elks all over the place

This is the kind of moronic logic that you can expect from the Grendel crowd. Other than shot placement the rest is just junk as we have much better ways of measuring killing capabilities than trying to compare the size of bullet to the size of the animal. As I said though it is hard for the fanbois to admit their cartridge isn't thors hammer.

What happens when you miss the heart?  Or that the grendel may not penetrate to the heart? The simple fact is that the bigger bullets with more mass and speed do more damage which gives you a better chance at getting to vitals and destroying the vitals.

The sad thing is you want to take a below minimum caliber and hope for the best shot to make up for it being underpowered. That is just a recipe for an incredibly inhumane kill followed by the elk getting away.

I know the fanboyism is strong in the 6.5 crowd but common it is not enough rifle for reliably killing elk.

So where does this leave the .300 Blackout? A big whitetail buck can soak up a lot of lead too. It doesn't matter the animal a poor shot is a poor shot and no amount of added caliber will make up for it. I don't condone the Grendel past 300 yards on whitetail. So there's no way I'm going to condone it on elk but that's the persons choice and their responsibility if they make a poor shot. But the .264 Win mag with a good 140 gr bullet might be pretty interesting. But here I promoted the Tac 15 crossbow upper and it's the least amount of energy of all the available uppers. Only complaint so far is it's heavy. My best Friend seems to be Murphy

It's not a Kentucky long rifle smooth bore either.

It's funny the argument some make and the numbers they come up for a caliber that just isn't a good fit for larger game. There certainly a lot of sniper quality 6.5mm long range hunters in here.

Going by that logic why not use the 223?  Its only .40 difference in diameter from it to the grendel.  The 223 with a 62 grain ttsx will penetrate on a broadside shot.

Indeed, why not? The logic must be consistent. While admitting an oversimplification, I'm challenging some preconceived notions. Could be a 223 doesn't have enough mass to penetrate TO and THRU the vitals. But if it DOES, and your 223 shreds the elk's heart, is he going to recover?

Just playing Devil's Advocate; everyone try and remain calm. It's OK.

So, Is the 6.8 completely out of the equation then?  Not trying to start a poop flinging contest, Just curious.

Absolutely not but a better caliber for elk and moose is a 6.5mm GR or .223. The smaller and lighter bullets really pack a punch on them critters.

And make sure the shot is at least 500-600 yards because if any closer you might as well just use a 22LR.

I have a barnett razr ice I got cheap off a neighbor who is getting older and was going to switch from his bow.  He said he just couldn't do it yet and instead lowered his pull weight.  I really like the crossbow its fast, accurate and most importantly with scope its 7lbs and 18" wide uncocked.

Like the grendel it will work but isn't ideal.  With a expanding solid and keep ranges down to where it will guarantee expansion it will work.
thats the thing with the ttsx,gmx and e tip they say they expand at 1800 fps but they don't really expand much at those speeds.  I would want 2200 fps to guarantee good expansion.  That brings the range way down.  For instance a backup elk gun I have is a 308 loaded with 168 ttsx at 2750.  The bullet is down to 2200 fps at around 325 to 350 yards and that would be my limit with that load.  But inside that range that bullet will go through both shoulders and exit.

I got a wicked ridge by ten point.  But it's loud and noisy as all get out. I might try a silencer kit this fall but my wife decided she likes it. So I might just let her have it. If I get the extra income I might get the Tac 15 just to play with.

Funny how reading comprehension isn't your, or recoil737's strong suite.  OPs question clearly states best caliber in an ar15.

You should go hang out in GD, it would be more your speed.

No shit cup cake...I was replying to the post and pic of the smooth bore in this thread. U mad, you seem mad?

Gotta love them defenders of all that is small caliber. I can see someone doesn't' like it when they don't agree with them.

Not a defender as I'm more of a big bore guy myself. It's just annoying when kids like you show up, take everything out of context and then shit all over a thread.

.308 Win not enough for elk?

Sorry but if you read ALL of my previous posts in this thread I'm not shitting in it. The 6.5mm defenders just won't let go. Why don't you just move along instead of coming in late and pretending to know what's going on as you seem just as clueless.

Why yes it is and that was my thought as well. To bad the 7mm-08 only comes in AR10.

The OP has a 6.5m 18" GR. and was asking for opinions. It's enough with caveats whereas the Win .308 really doesn't have any.

Once in a lifetime shot?  300 Winchester magnum or bigger. Sure, you can kill him with a lot of calibers, but why risk it. Honor the animal.