6.5 Creemoor 120 Hornady GMX load on Elk?

[Doublegunner]

Last year I bought a Kimber Montana in 6.5 Creedmoor. Yes, another Creedmoor thread. I tried a few different hunting loads for accuracy and the Hornady 120 gr GMX Outfitter loads shot the best at about 1/2 inch at 100 yds so that is the load that I set the rifle up with. I used that setup to take my deer last season but didn't use it for elk. I have other more powerful rifles that I generally use for elk. That being said, the Kimber weighs 7 pounds with sling without ammo. My other rifles suitable for elk are around 9 pounds so the weight savings is noticeable. I do a lot of hiking when I elk hunt so saving same weight is not a bad thing. My question is this, has anybody used the 120 grain GMX load on elk? If so, how did it perform? What was the distance? Most of my elk hunting is for Roosevelt elk so they are generally pretty big bodied. Velocity on that load is 2907 FPS out of my rifle. I will be candid and say that I am on the fence on this. Should I be? My Savage .270 is loaded with Barnes 130 gr TTSX bullets going a little over 3000 FPS and I hauled that around the hills looking for elk and didn't think much of it. Is the .270 that much more powerful that it makes a difference? 10 grains and about 100 FPS more. Most threads I have read seem to indicate the .270 is just fine for elk. Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

You’re fine especially if it’s close shots.

 

[MTHeifer]

I have always heard that a bullet for elk should have 1500 ft-lbs of energy and be at least a .270. I think that the .264 diameter bullet is big enough with good shot placement, but you'll have to consider how quickly the energy is dropping off at long ranges.

I just used the federal premium ballistics calculator for a 120 grain 6.5 creedmore and it looks like it is at 1500 ft-lbs just over 300 yards and the 130 grain .270 bullet hits that threshold around 375 yards. I think people are getting in trouble with the 6.5 because they think they can take 500+ yard shots that they have made at the range and don't make a perfect shot then end up wounding and not recovering the elk. I would say use the gun, just don't try to take shots over 350 or so yards.

 

[Buckyranger42]

Folks will tell you a .243 with 100 grain bullets will work with proper shot placement. So, maybe it'll force a better shot and be MORE effective than another option for you. I'm one to make sure my set up and technique allow me to maintain sight picture for follow up shots if needed - shoot 'til it drops.

 

[Deleted member 38069]

 

[Addicting]

You could reach out to Steve at Hammer bullets. He can load you up some ammo with the 130g Shock Hammer. If I were using my Creedmoor for elk again that’s the road I would go down first.

 

[TheJason]

Well, 85 grain Barnes TSX have been plenty big for number of elk I've shot. There is absolutely zero real world difference between the two different rifles you described. Think about it, 10 grains and 100 fps? Take the gun you like better and take good shots.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Folks will tell you a .243 with 100 grain bullets will work with proper shot placement. So, maybe it'll force a better shot and be MORE effective than another option for you. I'm one to make sure my set up and technique allow me to maintain sight picture for follow up shots if needed - shoot 'til it drops.

I was actually thinking the same thing. Perhaps hunting with a perceived "under powered" rifle is better because you are more likely to avoid taking crappy shots, which even with a .338-378 weatherby mag would not be immediately lethal.

Impossible to prove either way.

 

[TheJason]

I was actually thinking the same thing. Perhaps hunting with a perceived "under powered" rifle is better because you are more likely to avoid taking crappy shots, which even with a .338-378 weatherby mag would not be immediately lethal.

Impossible to prove either way.

#justsendit, amirite?

 

[belshawelk]

oh boy.....................

 

[Deleted member 40315]

I have always heard that a bullet for elk should have 1500 ft-lbs of energy and be at least a .270. I think that the .264 diameter bullet is big enough with good shot placement, but you'll have to consider how quickly the energy is dropping off at long ranges.

I just used the federal premium ballistics calculator for a 120 grain 6.5 creedmore and it looks like it is at 1500 ft-lbs just over 300 yards and the 130 grain .270 bullet hits that threshold around 375 yards. I think people are getting in trouble with the 6.5 because they think they can take 500+ yard shots that they have made at the range and don't make a perfect shot then end up wounding and not recovering the elk. I would say use the gun, just don't try to take shots over 350 or so yards.

Perfect reply perfect answer to terminal ballistics on shot target. 6.5 will get it done; the only problem is the terminal ballistics for the ftlbs/sec and velocity drop off quick as the distance to target grows. At higher altitude this distance is extended because of the thinner air. My answer to this question would be the same and to make sure you check your dope at the altitude you believe tour going to shoot elk at. 7000 ft is different than 9600+ft. Do some math and you should be ok.

always remember these numbers too:https://www.chuckhawks.com/kill_zone_game_animals.htm

Randy also says velocity @+1800ft/sec and energy @ +1250ftlbs.

(3:20)

 

[Doublegunner]

What are peoples thoughts on the GMX bullet? This is the only rifle I am running it in. I really don't know that much about it except Hornady rates it for an elk size animal. I haven't seen a lot of threads about it. In contrast to the Barnes, which I am much more familiar with. I wanted a mono bullet and it shot well so went with it.

 

[TheJason]

No experience with GMX. I have lots with Barnes TSX and Hammers and would recommend those two to anyone, without hesitation.

 

[Bigjav]

I’ve used the GMX factory Superformance in 308,7-08, 243 and 30-06 on deer sized game and like them, you just have to be aware of your down range ballistics because the GMX are gelding which is harder than copper so your impact velocity needs to be north of 2000fps

 

[44hunter45]

Not aiming this at @wllm1313,or the OP, but rather just putting this out there. I commend the OP for airing out the question, and here is my response. Its worth what you pay for it.

This is no doubt TLDR. But then I left a certain long range hunting forum site because I was repeatedly warned about violating their,"No ethics discussion" rule. That certain "envelope pushing" hunting techniques can't be discussed in an ethical context matters. At least it matters to me.

I was actually thinking the same thing. Perhaps hunting with a perceived "under powered" rifle is better because you are more likely to avoid taking crappy shots, which even with a .338-378 weatherby mag would not be immediately lethal.

Impossible to prove either way.

If we are going to think this way, let me suggest using enough gun, but going to a single shot to add the "Have to get it right" factor. Back in the 70's, Ruger #1 and Browning High Wall shooters always wanted to tell you they were better shots because they had to be. But they were carrying rifles that would handily kill elk.

I also get the augment that we are likely to practice more with a lighter caliber. To which I say that the Caldwell Lead Sled is a cheap investment.

I'm bothered by the idea that we experiment with how little is enough to cleanly kill an elk. They deserve better. Yes, Native Alaskans kill "almost everything" with a .223 Remington, Swedes kill "all" their moose with a 6.5x55, and people do kill elk with a .243 Winchester. All of these being examples used by those who generally want to go around under-gunned. But the ugly truth is that no one brags about the time it all went horribly wrong.

I've killed elk with a higher end 6.5. I've also had them take 6 well placed premium 180 grain bullets from a .30-'06. Some recent research showed me that the .358 Norma Magnum and 9.3 caliber still have a strong following in Scandinavia. They obviously are not ALL using 6.5x55 there (BTW- they primarily use 156 and 160 grains in 6.5 for big bodied game). For me, and I get this is just me here, the idea of doing our best to get a clean kill should out-weigh all questions about caliber and how far we can "morally" shoot. Even how much farther in we can get by shaving weight from our load-out. I love to geek out on ballistics as much as anyone, but to me ethics requires that we do not niggle around the edges.

Regarding ballistics, one of the key things which makes the 6.5 caliber punch above it's weight is its high Sectional Density and BC, that advantage diminishes rapidly when you go to shorter, lighter weight bullets. Retained energy matters. I do not want to be the guy whose rifle is deadly to 350 yards on paper, but whose range finder says that 400 class bull is at 400 yards.

(Rant about outrageous claims regarding the lethality of the 17 Remington removed)

Sometimes we just need to back up and think about the animals and everything that goes into an ethical hunt. The driving factor of ethics is what happens when it turns to crap, not when everything goes perfectly. Elk do not read ballistic calculators, they are tough SOB's with an amazing will to live.

BTW- There are PLENTY of lightweight rifles in calibers all the way up to 300 Weatherby Mag

 

[Deleted member 40315]

I shoot 165 Hornady gmx with my 300 win mag. They are designed to have a terminal ballistic impact at high velocities to be effective in performance, ie mushrooming. Again, know your terminal ballistics for target because the farther away the less speed, velocity, and/or energy you have from the muzzle. I like the gmx. They fly true and perform consistently but that’s why I shoot them with a magnum. Interlocks from Hornady are a crimped option as well for weight retention; just a version of Nosler’s partition.
I have a 6.5 creedmore rifle but have not shot it yet. I bought it for my daughter to shoot. One day I’ll probably use it more often than not. Until that day I’ll stay with my magnums (even 270 ). Performance to some would say overkill, but I’ve never had to “chase” after the first shot or the second. Practice good shooting skills and know what a bullet is designed for. Hornady.com
Has great videos on not only their cartridge capabilities but what their bullets actually do from gmx, interlocks, internbonds, to sst.

 

[handwerk]

I know the GMX shoots well in your gun, but just curious did you try the 127 barnes LRX?

 

[Doublegunner]

I know the GMX shoots well in your gun, but just curious did you try the 127 barnes LRX?

When I was setting that rifle up I bought a few different loads but couldn't find a box of the LRX at any store I tried. I latter got some mail order but haven't tried them. I plan too.

 

[Brian in Montana]

There are those that believe the 6.5CM to be rather on the light end for an animal the size of an elk. I'm that camp, but as others have pointed out, I know a couple guys that have killed elk with a .243. so anyway, use the gun you're most comfortable and accurate with, but be realistic about it. One of those guys that shot a bull with his .243 swore he would never do it again. The fact is that a Creedmore will kill an elk, but bull elk are huge and can absorb a lot of abuse.

Anyway, off my soapbox now. The GMX is made of a pretty hard guilding metal and requires a lot of energy behind it for it to expand and perform as desired. I second Wilm's advice, that if you go with this set up, I'd pass on longer shots.

 

[Deleted member 40315]

I know the GMX shoots well in your gun, but just curious did you try the 127 barnes LRX?

No I didn’t. I’ve heard great things about Barnes bullets. When I set my rifle up, it ate and love the gmx consistently, so that’s what I stuck with. Accuracy was great too. I could have tried the Barnes and maybe I’ll pick up a box. Honestly thought, I’d be more apt to buy some federal with Nosler partitions and try those. But I like the way u think