For some reason you can't see that the just about anyone who now hunts those animals takes larger rifles with better bullets for it but then again it seems you have to go back 50 years to try and validate the 6.5 grendel for hunting game. Because it is now frowned upon today to take anything near the 6.5X45 to hunt that sort of game. Ulike you're loverboy WDM Bell most hunters now want an ethical hunt and unless you shoot them in the brain the 6.5 grendel or the 6.5X54 are not the guns to take to kill anything larger than a deer.

See you don't seem to understand that just because something can do it that you should do it. Most centerfire cartridges will be able to take large game but to do it quickly and humanly you need to put the right cartridge in the right situation. Saying that can you point to one big game hunter today that recommends the 6.5X45 for hunting anything bigger than antelope....I didn't think so.

Wikipedia

Bell shot 1,011[13] elephants during his career; all of them bulls apart from 28 cows. He is noted for using smaller calibre bullets[15][16] rather than the heavy recoiling, larger calibre bullets that were popular with other big game hunters.[17] Around 800 of his kills were made with Rigby Mauser 98 rifles chambered for the .275 Rigby (using the standard military 173 grain FMJ loading), which were considered by most other hunters to be too small for elephants, and which today are not legal for African game; Bell preferred smaller calibers because, besides being lighter rifles to carry, they recoiled less and therefore are quicker to the second shot. Bell found that German and English military ammunition was the most reliable which encouraged him to use the smaller calibers.[18] His favourite rifles were a bespoke Rigby-made 7x57 with which he shot the majority of his elephants,

a 'wand-like' Mannlicher–Schoenauer 6.5×54mm[9] carbine, which he abandoned due to failure of the available ammunition,

a Lee–Enfield sporting rifle in .303 British and Mauser rifles chambered in .318 Westley Richards.[19] As 'the Bell Shot' involves shooting through the mass of the Elephant's skull, he insisted on using military full metal jacket bullets weighing from approx 173 to 250 grains, rather than the 400+ grain soft lead bullets popular at the time[10] He particularly praised a Mannlicher M1893 rifle chambered in 6.5×53mmR supplied by George Gibbs that he used for most of his meat hunting in the Karamojo.[20] On one occasion he managed to kill a small herd of 23 African forest buffalo using a .22 Hi-power 5.6×52mmR rifle. He disliked the double rifles considered archetypal for the African hunting of his time due to what he considered recoil detrimental to accuracy. Bell used the brain shot extensively wanting to kill elephants quickly before the herd became restless or took flight.[20]

He mastered an oblique shot from the rear which was angled through the neck muscles and into the brain. This difficult shot has become known the "The Bell Shot" on elephant.

After World War One he began to use the .318 Westley Richards calibre, observing that his 'inexplicable misses' then stopped.[21]


Wow, nothing like taking something completely out of context or flat out lying.... Sounds like when he did use a 6.5, it failed him..... Source that says otherwise?  And some wonder where the "fanboy" title comes from

Whoa, hold up... per wiki the Mannlicher can throw a 159gr round at 2,460fps from a 17.5" barrel. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.5%C3%9754mm_Mannlicher%E2%80%93Sch%C3%B6nauer

And it also shows the Mannlicher than launch a 139gr projectile at 2,510fps from the same 17.5" barrel

Attached File


I dont know ANY Grendel rifle that can do that. 

i searched around and could only find a guy running 139gr Lapua Scenar at 2,340fps from a 24" barrel Grendel

http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showthread.php?4674-139-grain-Lapua-Scenar

the Grendel is a great round but that sounds like an exaggeration considering a 24" barrel Grendel still can't match the performance of a 17.5" Mannlicher 

ETA: words are not my friends before coffee 

Poachers still take elephant and rhino with the 7.62X39. You will be surprised what you can do with a head shot and full Metal jacket. I like the Grendel but I kill a lot of hogs with it. And with the 123gr AMAX or SST you very seldom get a pass through on pigs over 150 pounds. I posted pictures of both deer and hogs. We average over killing over 60 hogs a year for the last 15 years. Most are with either a  .22 rimfire or  .223/5.56 cause that's what is suppressed and wearing the night optics. I bet I have killed 8-10 hogs a year sense 2008 with the 6.5 grendel. Most across fields while checking cows. Very few have gotten away. Most are drt. But a few run an average of 80 to 100 yards. I have only killed a couple of elk, but I believe they are a bit thicker hided than hogs. Shoulder bones are heavier and they are tough. I would hunt elk with the 6.5 grendel if I could afford nothing else. But I would keep my shots under 250 yards. I had a neighbor when I was a kid that supposedly killed 30 elk with a  .243 win. I don't doubt it he brought back elk every year he went hunting. But the ole fart was a damn good shot and patient as a saint. I don't really doubt the cartridge as much as I doubt the people behind it squeezing the trigger. People tend to exaggerate their ability.  
I really like LRRP and his data and most of the time I agree with him but personally I think he's placing to much faith in people and their ability to perform in field conditions and under stress.

If you notice a lot of the time when people ask about what they should use. I answer if you got to ask you need to go to the range. Because you have to know beyond all doubt that you can perform with your rifle. Otherwise you are guessing. ..

Do you recon WM Bell asked "what gun I should use? ". I think he did once and then selected what he shot the best.

Why is no one else suggesting the big bore AR-15 cartridges?  450BM, 458 SOCOM, 50 Beowulf would all make excellent big game cartridges if you're limiting yourself to the AR platform for some reason.

Just to add that bigger calibers allow you to get a more ethical kill with a not so perfect shot or bad angle with more penetration.

It's not that the 6.5 GR can't do it. Most calibers can given perfect circumstances.

If you read his books, the failures with 6.5x54 M-S were poorly manufactured ammo in cans.  He could pull the projectiles with his fingers.

One of the main things WDM Bell looked at was logistics.  If he didn't find adequate logistical support for his rifles, he ditched them, like he did with the massive Jeffries.

He found 7x57 Mauser (Brits called it .275 Rigby as to not be associated with anything German-named after what the Boers did to them with it not too much earlier) to have the kind of logistics behind it, especially since it was a mainstay of the Boer riflemen in that region.

The .303 Enfield also had solid support, as it was the British Empire's service rifle cartridge.  He referred to the .303 as his "big bore".

If you read actual books, rather than Wikipedia for information about history, you will have more reliable context for the subject.

In a modern action with steel alloys that didn't exist before World War II, yes, you can push a 6.5x54 M-S to those speeds because it has the case capacity for it.  None of that existed in 1902.  Working pressures back then were much lower, so actual book data for 6.5x54 M-S in surplus rifles is not what you will find on Wikipedia.

WDM Bell had a long history of hunting predating his years in Africa, but the elephant hunting years were from 1902 until The Great War broke out, when he immediately went back to England and became a reconnaissance pilot.

After the war, he returned to Africa to hunt elephant.

His saying about cartridge selection went like this: "100 grain bullet in the right spot is as good as 400."

He had been hunting man-eating tigers for pay at the age of 16.

They'll work fine within the range that you can put the bullet through the vitals.

Biggest thing with the big bores is, will you be able to practice with them regularly?

For a lot of people, that answer is no.

By 200yds, 6.5 Grendel has more energy than any of those 3, trajectory is a lot flatter, so getting the heart shot is more likely.

For people worried about penetration, use a Barnes 100gr TTSX or 120gr TSX and keep the range within expansion if you include expansion as one of your ethical kill parameters (WDM Bell didn't).

I don't agree with bigger calibers giving you more ethical kill with bad shot placement.

That animal is going to run off.

It may run off or not but it will do more damage and or being able to go through more bone and allow the animal to expire faster than a so so caliber. So basically you are disagreeing with common sense. good job.

I have found early on in this life that there is no such thing as common sense in practical terms, only the application of logic, or lack thereof.

In that context, the only common sense I have seen is a lot of illogical conclusions by people who have precious little experience with what they are discussing, but since they heard it from a friend, family member, or even acquaintance, they would rather double down on a clearly bad idea than to admit being wrong.

As such, a .243 Winchester with proper shot placement will cause more effective damage than a .300 RUM with bad shot placement.

You are more likely to have bad shot placement with a .300 RUM because of recoil.

As long as you accept the range limitations they are really comparable to modern muzzle loaders.  I would say if you're happy with one of the big bore ar's by all means use it.

I don't conveniently have a fully stocked library in the lunch room at work to pick any random book in the world from,  gotta love Wikipedia for the cliff notes.   Implying that the 6.5 was one of his go to rounds for elephants.... Hmmm, doesn't seem to be the case.  These threads are entertaining atleast to a point, just to see how far the lies will go.  Darwin will hand out awards to everyone foolish enough to believe a 6.5 Grendel is good to go for hunting grizzly or moose because some guy a hundred years ago used a 6.5 in Africa.

Exactly,  Big heavy tough bullets doing 2000+ fps works nicely on big game.  Out to ~200 yards many loads in these big bore AR-compatible cartridges deliver more kinetic energy with tough big game worthy bullets than just about any other cartridge you can fire from an AR platform.

Then those people should not use a .300 RUM but they sure should be able to handle a better suited caliber for the bigger game they are hunting. Again my point stands.

And there is just something special about a wound channel length wise through a 200+ pound hog that you can slide a rock bar through. That's speaking from my  .45/70 sense I don't own a big bore AR. But they are comparable in mass. LRRP is always talking about recoil sensitive shooters. Well the 20 gauge is very popular dove gun that a lot of people shoot very well. And a 450 bushmaster is very comparable to the 20 gauge. Just a little food for thought.

It depends on who you mean by “you.”

It may be true for some people, but, IMO, not true for everyone, including those who practice and train with the higher-recoiling rifles.

I’m not saying that a 6.5 is inappropriate for someone skilled with it, and who knows, and abides by, its limitations.  But, I think the generalization that all people are more likely to be inaccurate with stouter rounds is, at best, an overgeneralization.  

I had no problem making an accurate 97-yard offhand shot on a brown bear with a .375 Wby or three quick successive accurate shots at a large moose at a comparable range with a .340 Wby.  When I saw those critters in my scope, the last thing I was worried about was the recoil of those rifles (and I don’t recall feeling it).  I was thinking sight picture and “squeeze.”  I would have shot no more accurately with a .243.  

Everyone is different.  Some may shoot a .243 more accurately than a 300 RUM.  Some may not.

I'm certainly not suggesting that all hunters need to use the biggest boomers to hunt big game.  It's a personal choice, including what works best for one personally based on his level of practice and skill with the various options.  But, big certainly works well for some. I personally wouldn't want to face that brown bear or others I have seen with a .243.  I know that a lot of Alaskans have ethically and effectively taken big moose with a .243.  However, those generally are Alaskan residents who have almost endless opportunities to hunt moose in good locations every year.  But, I don't, and I wanted to have something more likely to have a greater effect, especially if a fairly long shot was my only option.  So, I practiced, and practiced, and practiced, and got good and non-flinchy with those rifles.

Wikipedia is often garbage if you're looking for reloading data and cartridge performance.

Anyone can modify the pages.

When you have people with decades of relevant experience on a subject, who have not only read the books, but have been actively engaged in the subject at hand for many years on a regular basis, I'm always interested in what those people's perspective is.

A forum where these people can share their experiences and lessons-learned could be a great place to exchange that information, as long as those who don't have experience read more and post less.

The point about using a larger caliber with bad shot placement doing more damage than a smaller caliber with good shot placement does not stand, and needs to be highlighted as one of the main problems with the Fudd's approach to hunting.

Over the years, I have seen at least 50% of hunters using some cartridge that is too big for them to handle, with no relevant practice with the rifle, attempting shots at distances they have never shot at before.

The rifle is plenty capable if the shot is true, but they have not put in the effort to bring their capabilities up to speed to make those shots.

They figured a larger bore with more power will compensate for their lack of training throughout the year, and attempt shots on moving animals at distances twice what I would even think of attempting, and I've spent considerable time over the past 23 years shooting movers.  The previous 19 years of my life were all focused on stationary targets.

All the retained energy and recoil in the world will never make up for bad shot placement.

Heavy-Recoiling rifles suited to hunting in the mountains are hard to carry, hard to manage, and only increase your chances of bad shot placement.

They should be avoided as a rule, left only to the most experienced riflemen who know how to manage them after years of training with lighter calibers and loads, so that a flinch doesn't develop.

Yeah, I finished my 450 BM build last weekend.  Hope to shoot it this coming weekend.  In the near term I will use it for whitetail and coyote but I would feel very comfortable hunting elk or moose with it using a good tough bullet.  I am going to try some 300gr XTP/MAG in it.  I have had good luck with that bullet from my muzzle-loader.

Bell slaughtered elephants he didn't care if he wounded one or not.  Big difference from the hunting of that time and today.  I agree with you on your thoughts on the grendel.  I wouldn't use it for anything over 300 to 400 lbs unless it was all I had, I would then keep shots close and only take good shot angles(avoiding big shoulder bones)  I look at the grendel as similar on game as the 243(with normal factory twist), which to me is one hell of a accomplishment to get that performance out of a ar15.  But its not in the class of the 6.5's 270, 308 or 06 for hunting game over 300 lbs.

Because the OP asked about a ar15 cartridge capable of 400 yard shots.

Out of all of my rifles(grendel included) the one I shoot the best is my 300 wsm, which also happens to have the most recoil.  Now its not a super hard kicker and my groups do start to open up after 10 to 15 rounds.  But for the first 10 I shoot it really well.  I have a similar gun that is in 223 and I use it to practice more often.  But I do shoot 30 to 50 rounds a year with the 300 wsm.

But those slob hunters wouldn't practice with a lighter caliber either!  They are going to hunt the way the hunt.  But something like the 6.5 creedmor or 7mm 08(with 140 grain premium bullet) can be shot well by just about anyone and are better sensible minimums when it comes to hunting something over 400 lbs.

*sigh*

Modern high power rifles with synthetics are lighter and easier to carry now days while not increasing recoil at the same time. Better stock absorbing stock and recoil pads.

That excuse is getting old and not everyone is hyper sensitive to recoil. All you need is 1 or two shots, not a day at the range.

In some instances yes it can with retained energy and a larger caliber. And what does recoil have to do with it, people make bad shots with every caliber?

You are just making straw arguments now.

If Remington would have introduced the 6.5mm RAR or 7mm RAR for the AR15, rather than the .30 RAR, that would have been the answer.

The .243 WSSM is looked at as being too small by many, but is more than adequate within the limitations of that cartridge, and has been used to quickly anchor large bull elk.

I remember running into 2 guys who do a lot of elk hunting, including culling for DNR throughout the year.

They said for under 200yds, they do a lot of head shots with .223 Rem and .223 WSSM AR15s.

They also used .243 WSSM and something larger for heart-lung shots on elk.

They had the rifles there, and were confirming zero at 200yds.

I think they were Olympic Arms rifles, not D-Tech.

They said one of their magazines had issues feeding, which was common with the Olympic Arms guns.



If you could have case capacity like that with a 6.5mm in the AR15, you would have a serious 600yd elk rifle for heart-lung shots, but since 6.5mm projectiles for that task are so long, the case has to be shorter to get the ogive to fit.

This is where the .30 RAR case would have filled the void.  Since Freedom Group's DPMS made the GII instead, they dropped support for the .30 RAR uppers and ammo through the Remington product line.

I just think that this is too absolute of a statement based on my own observations.  

For example, in 2009, my then 68-yr-old father was preparing to go with me on one of my brown bear hunts in Alaska.  He was and is a very experienced and competent shot with handguns, but had not shot rifles much in a while.  The most powerful rifle he had ever shot (other than in the Army) was a .308 Win.  He had a .44 Mag lever gun he used on pigs, it had no recoil pad, and he hated the recoil.  I gave him my 700 BDL .300 WM to use on the hunt.  It has a good recoil pad, and I gave him a strap-on shoulder pad.  He was skeptical about shooting it comfortably and effectively.  However, when he used the shoulder pad, he found it quite comfortable to shoot, and after a short time, he was shooting 1/2” - 3/4" inch 100-yd groups with it consistently.  He sadly didn’t get to go on the hunt because it was postponed for a year due to the guide’s injury, and could not go the next year.  But he became quite proficient with the .300 WM in a fairly short time, and was anything, but one of “the most experienced riflemen.”

There are things you can do at the range to mitigate recoil, and then you just don’t need them out in the field because recoil is the last thing on your mind when aiming at big game.

I agree that one should practice until he is proficient with whatever he is going to use on a hunt.  However, sometimes with some people it’s not that amazingly difficult, even with a rifle with a fairly-heavy recoil.

How does recoil energy work again when the rifle weight goes down?  Physics-study it more before posting.  Recoil increases when rifle weight goes down, given 2 rifles firing the same cartridge, one heavier, one lighter.

It isn't as much about recoil sensitivity for the shooter as it is tracking the shot yourself.  With excessive recoil, you can't see what happened with where the shot went.  Gas guns do very well to mitigate this, but then you have muzzle blast, which impedes your ability to see what is happening.

You need multiple days at the range under professional instruction if you are going to be shooting with high hit probability at 400yds.

When you start stacking the round count, heavy-recoiling rifles just don't cut the mustard, and prevent you from learning on the curve.  The attitude that you need only 1 or 2 shots at the range is Fuddville wounded game recipe.

A straw man argument is something you need to look up the definition on before accusing me of it, because you clearly don't know what it means.

Some of you should really stop posting and doubling down on really bad information.

Recoil sensitivity isn't my main concern with recoil, it's being able to track my own shot when whoever is spotting can't, or I don't have a trained spotter with me.

Those methods you mention are great for reducing the energy transfer from the butt into the shoulder, but won't do anything to help you see your own hit.

A lot of spooked animals that people end up tracking were spooked because the hunter and his party did not witness the impact of the shot, and see the animal still standing there, now more alert.  They then make repeated shots at or into the animal, causing it to run off, when it would have just went to sleep if they let perfusion run its natural course.

With lighter-recoiling rifles, I can see my hit, especially when they don't have eyeball-deforming muzzle blast just at the moment when my eyesight needs to be keenest.  Scratch another notch in why I'll never use .308 Winchester, .300 Win Mag, or any magnums unless I have a trained spotter with me.  For a carry gun in the short action profile, the 6.5 Creedmoor makes a lot more sense than .308 Win, but it doesn't fit in the AR15.  For something that should be mild-recoiling, there is no benefit to using the .308 Winchester.  The 7mm-08 and 6.5 CM or .260 Rem have higher hit probabilities, which proved to be true with the Scandinavian moose hunting survey that included over 14,000 samples.

I have no worries about a 95gr GMX going 2800fps at the muzzle from 6.5 Grendel though, or a 100gr TTSX going 2750fps.  The sight picture barely moves, muzzle climb even without a brake is almost non-existent.  Where we normally see elk, the altitude is so high that my retained energy and impact speeds are substantially more than what you would see at sea level.

With the 95gr GMX, I still have over 1200ft-lbs at 200yds, and over 1000ft-lbs at 300yds.  With a 200yd zero, I stay within an elk's heart dimensions out to 250yds, 275yds if the wind is 7mph or less.

Oh for fucks sake I'm out after this.

That 1 or 2 shots was for the hunt not the range. When at the range shoot until comfortable with the gun. I though you might be smart enough to figure that out. You don't shoot until your shoulder separates.

Any ethical guide would tell you to bring a better rifle and or him having to stand by with a better gun for a quick second shot just in case. Either case he probably won't be happy when you show up at camp with a 6.5 GR and 18" barrel in an AR15

You should print out all those statistics and pics, then put them in a binder and take it hunting with you so you can preach to all those veteran guides in person how wrong they are.

I guess that leaves pretty much everyone out of the equation, including the OP amirgiht? I shot a cow elk at 418 yards without professional guidance.

STOP THE SMALLER CALIBER IS GOOD FOR EVERYTHING BULLSHIT PLEASE. JUST STOP!

To quote the OP, "I would likely stay to well under 400 yards."  450 Bushmaster and 458 SOCOM are both 300 yard guns (minute of elk/moose boiler room) with good ammo, a ranger finder and a decent scope  (assuming functional meat-ware behind the trigger).  The standard Hornady 450BM 250gr FTX ammunition zeroed at 150 yards is only ~7.5 MOA low at 300 yards and still over 1000 ft-lbs of KE.  You could probably push them farther if you have some real skill though they are starting to bleed kinetic energy pretty badly past 300yards.

7mm Valkyrie + pay a reloader (if there is not pre-made already) to load you up 100 rds for practice and hunting?  5-7 rounds in an AR-15 mag should be good enough for hunting right?

What are the expanded diameters of those projectiles? Of the 150gr TTSX 30-06 bullets that went into my buddies Spike this year, only one was recovered. If that bullet exceeded .308 diameter (minimal expansion due to velocity on impact) I'd be surprised.

It's hard to argue "larger" calibers work better, if the projectile diameter ends up smaller than a "smaller" bullet, and equal or less weight retained based on bullet construction.

FWIW, the .308, based on that HITS calculator mentioned before, is insufficient for Elk, as would be the 30-06 if using 150gr bullets.

IMO there are too many variables to make blanket statements in this debate. In a given situation a particular round may be sufficient, in another situation, it would be wholly inadequate.  

And that doesn't even include the skill of the person pulling the trigger.

.452" and .439", shot into timber behind the zero targets for zero confirmation at base camp.  It took well over an hour to dig these out.  They now weigh 92.4 and 93.4gr.

Also keep in mind that a 6.5mm from a 1/8" twist or even 1/9" twist is spinning way more RPM than any of the .30 bores as it tears through the vitals at anywhere from Mach 1.5-2.5.

There is a measurable terminal effect from twist rate and RPM.  The faster the projectile spins, the more rapidly the designed deformation takes place on the nose, and the more spiral waveform effects (temporary cavitation) there are in the tissue.  Had a good talk about this phenomenon with Hornady's engineers at SHOT.

From recovered game, we haven't been able to tell the difference between .308 and 6.5 Grendel, other than one instance where the 123gr SST left a larger wound path than a 150gr Soft Point, but that's just one anecdote.

One of these shooters is properly equipped for an elk hunt...

I wouldn't want to carry any of those rifles in the mountains.  With those brakes I wouldn't really want to shoot any of them without ears.  

This is a proper FUDD configured Elk rifle.


 

What are you talking about.  The hits calculator says 900 and up is prefered on elk sized game.  These are the numbers for a 308 not going to use superformance ammo Just basic remington specs.

150 in a 308 scores 956
and 180 1278.
those are at the muzzle
at 2200 fps 200 yards with the remington ammo the 308 scores 1073
2000 fps or 300 yards its at 976
just for info here are the specs for a hornady precision hunter
1046 at 300 yards
976 at 400
911 at 500.

Basically according to hornady the 308 is capable out to 400 in a normal 22" bolt.  Now you can get better ammo in the 308 than those specs.  Something like a 200 grain accubond from double tap at 2500 fps from a 22 inch barrel scores 1505 at the muzzle.
the 06 adds another 50 to 75 yards on top of what the 308 does.

The one that hit the bullseye.

How do you practice shooting is being talked around, but not quite addressed.

With .223 to 6.5g it is possible to track your shots.

I do not flinch with .243 to .308 but I also can not track individual shots.

IF I were to hunt moose, where I have been invited has brown bears, so... I would bring a .338win mag. But, EVERY time I practice with it I also bring a .22. Eventually I notice that I am flinching or wincing. The group will open up. It is time to pick up the .22 and overcome the subconscious response again.

While some individuals know exactly what their magnum rifle is capable of, and that is what they would choose to hunt moose. But, there are those hunters who over rely on their not used enough magnum. I would prefer to see such an individual practice with something from a 6.5 swede to 7-08. The 7mm Valkyrie is this type of caliber. It, just, fits an AR-15 upper.

PERSONALLY:

I live in WI .243win is is more than is needed here. It will take whitetails. But, the opportunities to punch paper at the distances it is capable of are limited. The grendel necked down to 6mm might be perfect. Where Wisconsin is wooded the .300savage might be better. This can be approximated as well with an AR upper.

What I'm talking about is the different approaches and experiences people use to determine what they think is appropriate. All of this relating to appropriate cartridge is opinion. There is nothing hard and fast, except as we've already determined the real lower limit is .22LR, and upper is .50BMG. :)

HITS uses impact velocity, and is HEAVILY reliant on bullet weight, not diameter for a high score.

Taking the maximum velocity (read:cherry picking optimum testing conditions for best results) of a 150gr Nosler BT from Hodgdon out of a 24" tube (2974FPS) and dropping that to 2924FPS for a more realistic 22" tube (which is still longer than I'd want for a rifle I carry, but whatever, personal preference, conditions, gun at hand, etc), and dropping that into Hornady's ballistics calculator, 901 is reached at just over 150yds. Note that I rough guessed 18" velocity previous, which drops HITS sooner.

I suspect if you start playing with rounds such as the 7MM-08 and other smaller diameter/non-magnum rounds, you'll find similar results in HITS.

Knock another 100FPS off that muzzle velocity for an 18" barrel and you are where I arrived at 100yds.

It's so heavily reliant on weight for performance determination, by HITS determination, any round not pushing 150gr+ bullets is going to be very limited by range, if it even scores 901 at the muzzle. I suspect the majority of 308's used for elk are loaded with 150gr bullets, simply based on production hunting loads available.

How many people are now going to dump 150gr .308's (or even 30-06, which is nearly identical with a 22" barrel, at 150yds) for elk hunting?

I need more velocity to get the Barnes to expand, and I'm going 130. With a short barrel, it is the only way to increase velocity to stretch range and still have any hope at expansion with a solid. It scores 790 in HITS, at the muzzle. And again, 16" barrel on a .308 probably isn't the norm, but illustrates very clearly why caliber-specific blanket statements (on either side, I'm not arguing for or against, as I don't have a Grendel) are near-worthless. Every possible factor that can be controlled needs to be considered, but nothing after the trigger pull is fact. That is a specific result, based on a vast number of variables that will never be repeated exactly.

Some more talking out of your ass. Flinching is now why we need to use an underpowered cartridge to get proper hits on targets? By that logic a .22lr is the best cartridge to hunt wild rhino.

What book told you that the 6.5 grendel was capable of taking elephants?

You continue to espouse a ton of BS about nothing and all the while the fact is the 6.5 grendel is an incredibly poor choice for hunting Elk.

I think W.C. Fields said it best "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull$hit."

The fact that you keep bringing up obscure references and comparisons that have absolutely nothing to do with today's hunting just shows how weak your argument is for using an underpowered cartridge on large game.

Let me guess you are now going to prove how wrong I am by printing 50 more pages about nothing as long as it has 6.5 in it quoted from people 50 years ago.

If you are basing this info on a AR10 yes. 24 or 22 is a long barrel.  But guess what they make actions other than SA.  Both my 308's are 22" barrels.  Ones a ruger 77 the other is a savage 99f.  The 99 is definitely not a cumbersome rifle to carry by any means in fact its easier to carry than my 18" grendel and around the same weight.  Thats why you don't use a solid in the 308 with a short barrel.  Use a 165 or 180 partition.

Attached File

Yep.  Out of the AR15 platform, I'd be using the grendel.  

300BO isn't designed for this use, but I've considered using it anyhow (close shots, relying on precision to overcome the energy issue)

458 socom would work better than grendel in closer shots, but the grendel is going to be the best all-around for hunting as you can reach farther with it.

A shot to the heart is a shot to the heart.  The only question here is which round is going to make it there the best.  .22lr is a long cry from even 5.56.  

I'd rather hunters were very accurate with their rifles even if they were of smaller caliber/lower energy, than used rifles with uber energy and made crappy shots.

Everything I have stated in this thread is valid.

Personal attacks show that you're incapable of having an adult conversation, and you should consider staying out of the tech forums if you can't make an intelligent argument for your unsupported claims.

A lot of Hornady's current developmental work is invalidating the HITS method, especially when you look at the solid hunting projectiles like the GMX.

They are a big fan of the GMX because of its expansion and penetration characteristics.

What a lot of people don't seem to see is that the shooting industry as a whole is going through a major evolutionary step, mainly more in the US, since Scandinavians, Europeans, Afrikaners, New Zealanders, and Australians have known the capabilities of 6.5mm and 7mm for well over a century now.

A lot of people are just doubled-down on that .30 bore stubbornness, mainly because of what their family members or shooting acquaintances told them and passed down, without any real scientific data to support it.  Small anecdotal samples, even from more experienced hunters, have been used to recommend and justify .30 bores and magnums ever since magnums became a thing, disregarding centuries of previous hunting experience.

Like I said, I used to agree with everyone that says you need something with more diameter, until I became more experienced and informed on this, from decades of hunting, examining actual terminal ballistics on animals, and gaining access to hand-held ballistics programs that show numbers we never had before.

Crappy shots are crappy shots. It doesn't mater what the caliber is. Not every crappy shot is because of recoil flinch of a larger caliber rifle. Talk about generalizations...