6.5X55 Swedish for moose?

kevral

Anyone out there have any experience with this cartridge for moose? It has just the bare minimum of ft.lbs. for being legal here in Norway, so I wonder if it has enough stopping power.

jonk

Never used it myself but I have read of many who have, mainly in Europe. Get a good max load and premium hunting bullet, be sure of shot placement, and go for it! I'm more confident of my ability to put a 6.5X55 in JUST the right place than a more powerful shell (but less accurate) in a general lethal REGION.

---

"...hit your enemy in the belly, and kick him when he is down, and boil his prisoners in oil- if you take any- and torture his women and children. Then people will keep clear of you..." -Admiral of the Fleet Lord Fisher, speaking at the Hague Peace Conference in 1899.

whiteclouder

kerval:You are on the right track. Follow the physics. The amount of energy delivered along with bullet performance are the keys to caliber selection for shooting big game. Always bear in mind that you are shooting an animal that deserves a quick death. An animal the size of a moose demands something bigger than a 6.5mm bullet. Physics requires that you increase speed to compensate for light weight but at high speeds the bullets cannot react properly to deliver good killing shots. In my opinion I would go for something bigger like 7.6 or 8 mm. There will be disenters who will tell stories of 6mm shots on elephants. Just remember, they aren't the ones suffering a poorly placed bullet, the animal is.Clouder..

Pelican

Have always heard you can kill anything with a sewing needle if you stick it in the right place. I guess the trick is finding the right place.Heck, just get ya a LAWS and be done with it.

7mm_ultra_mag_is_king

ha ha I just gotta do this! Get a 7mm!couldnt help it I'm sorry. Gotta love that .284, in my personal opinion the .284 is just as versitle as the .30. If you can shoot it accuratly and make clean shots with it it is a good gun for the hunt. I pick on 30-30 guys by saying I'm not a good enough hunter to get close enough to hit the deer over the head with it but just look at how many kills the 30-30 has. Ask some farmers and some "speedbeefers" how many deer died real fast with a rimfire.22. I'm just full of opinions and I have never played with that caliber to know anything about it. All I can say is read up on different bullets untill you find one that will do what you want it to do,people shoot bear with .44 mag handguns and kill them but not this boy!Have a good one and remember,when all else fails.........get a 7mm!

---

when all else fails........................

Guns & Glass

6.5x55 Swede is more than enough to harvest a Moose. It is a very inherently accurate round, has been used by Nordic hunters for many years in moose hunting,...more than ANY other caliber.Power is only part of the "equation". The Sectional Density (SD) of the 6.5 bullet selection makes it one of the BEST bullets available. It's ability to penetrate vs the same/similar grain weight of 7mm., 7.62mm, and 8mm is simply superior.6.5's years ago were loaded in cartridges that never made it; ie. 264 Win Mag. It wasn't really the bullets fault because the physical properties of the bullets available then were not up to the 264 Win Mag's velocities. The story's, and publics perspective has not caught up with today's reality of what's available in today's market.Don't give it a second thought.

---

Happy Bullet Holes!

whiteclouder

Kerval:You will see that you can get bad information here as well. 7mm-ultra is right as far as he goes. The 7mm bullet will deliver enough energy to humanely dispatch a moose. I would argue however, that in a standard 7X57 configuration it is marginal. A 7mm Remington Mag or the 7X61 S&H will do well. But then he goes on to tell you deer stories. Your interest was not a 200 pound deer which a 30-30 will handle easily, it's a 1000 pound moose.And then you are told the 6.5X55 is more than enough to harvest a moose. Harvest I take it means you can find the beast after you've tracked him all day with a terrible shoulder wound or worse yet, gut shot. But that shouldn't happen because that round is 'inherently' accurate. Hell, you can't miss. Then you are told power is part of the equation but are not told how much power we are talking about. Interesting math. A bullet has NO power. I have them lying around all over the place and they so far have exhibited no tendencies to move, fly or explode. But I'm patient, maybe I'll learn something. And then this unknown power factor is somehow combined with the sectional density of the pellet to arrive at a bullet that is superior simply because it has a higher SD. Nothing about form, or jacket composition or interior construction. He is implying a 6.5mm cylinder is superior to a 7.62 180gr jacketed soft point bullet. Pure BS. Read a little about something called ballistic coefficients. That value takes into account shape or form and the SD. Much better predictor of performance. A tungsten-cored full metal jacketed bullet will penetrate, and how. It just doesn't do a damn bit of good to shoot clean through the animal. As far as the public and reality is concerned, here in the US at least, most young shooters are feed huge doses of pap by the press. The gun-writers have a vested interest in touting the latest junk about "hyper velocity" and 'knock-down' and 'wound channels', ad nauseam. They are the hype in hyper. What you are looking for in a cartridge is bullet energy delivered to a vital organ, not penetration. The old Swedes and Norwegians used a 6.5X55 for a reason other than personal choice. I'll let you guess the reason. Go to Amazon.com and find an old copy of Hatchers Notebook. What he knew then has not changed and is factual data, no hype.Oh. By the way, when the mountains of Scandanavia wear down to desert and the antelope move in, buy a 264 Winchester. Best sage goat medicine ever created.Respectfully,Clouder..

7mm_ultra_mag_is_king

Clouder, I was mainly joking around there. The comments about the old 30-30 was not meant towards the moose nor was the comments about the .22 and deer. I was merely stating that the right gun in the right hands will work. I would not be afraid to take my 7mm moose hunting nor would I be afraid to take a smaller gun as long as I know that the bullet that is loaded in the cartridge will do what I want it to do,there are so many different bullet types out there that if you cant get a certain caliber to acheive something then that caliber wont do it, I have never shot a 6.5 or looked into one but I'm certain that if an individual takes his time to load or shop for ammo that is designed for heavy game it will work. Back to the deer for a moment, how many will frown on a .223 for deer? how many deer die due to a .223 and die quick. it is up to the man or woman who loaded and learned the gun. But again I saywhen all else fails............get a 7mm

---

when all else fails........................

He Dog

I have a good friend in Sweden who regularly hunts red stag with a 6.5x55, and it is and has been used for Moose for a hundred years there. I, however, agree with Clouder, you need more than just enough. It is fine to get pedantic and say bullet placement is all, but I never got a bullet placement guarantee with a rifle or a license. Sometimes they move, sometimes you hit a twig you did not see. Over 1000 elephants were killed in Africa with a 7x57 by a "white hunter," Selous, I think, but that does not make it a good idea for 98% of the hunters out there. I haven't hunted moose, and a friend in Newfoundland uses a .30-06, but I would take the .375 H&H or at least a .300. Good Luck!

Guns & Glass

Will try to explain/reply so there is no more fuzzy logic."Harvest", a old hunting term for killing a legal game animal."Inherently accurate" refers to the performace of the cartridge. Not someones ability to shoot, or read between the lines.Yes, bullets do have power. When it is just laying around it has "potential energy"(power).When it falls off the table, or "flies through the air propelled by the explosive force of expanding gases pushing it through a barrel, it has "kinetic energy"(power).By using the word "power", I hope it's reasonably understood that I'm referring tothe "known" energies of the earlier mentioned cartridges. You can easily have a more powerful cartridge than another, but not have as effective bullet penetration.Which leads us to Sectional Density (SD) vs Ballistic Coefficient. SD has nothing to do with BC! Nothing.SD is a mathematical weight ratio.BC is a mathematical form ratio.SD refers to bullets ability to penetrate(retain) energy.BC refers to a bullets ability to maintain velocity (flying energy).SD for example: Let's compare bullets of the SAME shape, and SAME weight, SAME construction, or as close as we can get.6.5mm vs 7.62 jacketed soft point(JSP). 140gr 6.5mm has a SD of .288. 130gr 7.62 " " " " .196. 150gr " " " " " .227.Now for heavier bullets for heavier game. Round nose(RN)bullets.160gr (heaviest avail.) 6.5 has a SD of .330.180gr 7.62 has a SD of .272.PS. The BC of the 140gr JSP 6.5 is .441.150gr JSP 7.62 is .359.160gr RN 6.5 is .313.180gr RN 7.62 is .228.The 6.5 will retain more energy, therefore have better POTENTIAL penetration. These are comparisons of the bullets shape, AND weight, AND construction to penetrate.But, SD & BC like the power of a cartridge are still parts of the cartridge evaluation.Point still being don't sell the 6.5 Swede short. In today's more modern guns it can be loaded to SAAMI's edge without the problems of yesterday's actions.However, you choose what your comfortable with. If you are prone to bad shots, choose a more powerful cartridge, and hedge your bet for youself, if not for the moose.True story about a guy who goes to the same church as I do. He for years hunted with the 30-06 he bought from me. Had shots at buck & doe, but never "harvested" one. Always had an excuse. Then two years ago he bought his first tree stand, gave his 30-06 to his son, and got himself a new .300 Win Mag.Gut shot a buck, but found it. Also, shot a doe, the same year. He now thinks the 300 mag is the best. His son wants to get one too, since he missed a shot at a doe.

---

Happy Bullet Holes![This message has been edited by Guns & Glass (edited 12-17-2001).]

Iconoclast

G&G - HeHeHe . . . same old, same old . . . when they miss it's the gun or cartridge, never the shooter. Kevral - you can take darn near anything w/ virtually any cartridge provided sufficient skill and luck. The 6.5x55 is one of the all time great cartridges; G&G's data and points are valid. That said, for the average hunter, IMHO, a larger bore weapon would be a better choice in hunting moose, for it gives one a greater margin of error. Clouder neatly summarizes the ethical imperatives of hunting that would play into this choice. [This message has been edited by Iconoclast (edited 12-17-2001).]

He Dog

Naw, I missed and I am pretty sure it was me. Hurried the shot and probably * the trigger... Well maybe it was evil spirits.

whiteclouder

G&G:I hate to do this, you seem like a nice guy but I am a stickler for factual presentation, especially when a seeming neophyte asks the question. Now you have challenged what I thought to be factual and I have to take a stand for kerval's good, if not yours. When you say something is inherent you are saying by its very nature of being it has some characteristic. (Webster: involved in the constitution or essential character of something) Now that's what the word means, you can't argue it. And you said the 6X55 is inherently accurate. So what you said was, BECAUSE it is a 6X55 it is accurate. Now you know that's wrong. So does everyone else. You said 'SD has nothing to do with BC! Nothing.' Even used an exclamation point I see.Here it is, right out of the book:"The larger the ballistic coefficient, the more efficient the bullet's performance in air. It can be described as the ratio of it's sectional density to its coefficient of form, where sectional density is the weight of the bullet divided by the square of its diameter. It can be written as:(1) C = SD/i = w/id2 Where C = ballistic coefficientSD = sectional densityi = form factorw = weight of bullet, lbs.d = diameter of the bullet, in."If the book is right, you are wrong. You said, 'The 6.5 will retain more energy, therefore have better POTENTIAL penetration'.The sectional density of a blunt ended cylinder 6.5mm in diameter and weighing 140grains is .288.The sectional density of a 7.62mm 130 grain Spitzer shaped bullet is .227.And you are saying (maybe you are saying) the.288 SD somehow grants the 6.5mm slug better penetration than the .30 caliber bullet. I don't think so. SD does not take into account the form of the projectile. And you have to. Why you muddle things with the word 'potential' begs scrutiny but personally I think you're fudging. How well the bullet flies (the BC predicts this) tells us how well it retains its speed and therefore its energy. SD is only part, I repeat part, of the equation.You said (rather badly, I might say) 'However, you choose what your comfortable with. If you are prone to bad shots, choose a more powerful cartridge, and hedge your bet for youself, if not for the moose.'Do not go down this road. Aspersions and innuendo will get your nose bent here. I guarantee you will loose. Let's keep it civil.Nobody sold the 6X55 short. It is fine for smaller animals, it is a little light for moose.Good talking with ya.Clouder..

mlincoln

I will not argue ballistics; you fellows know much more than I. I will say, though, that clouder is spot on when he talks about the importance of a quick, clean kill. Too often knowledgeable people will try to push equipment to its limits and will forget about the basic rules of the game: safety and a quick and humane kill. Nothing offends a decent hunter more than an animal staggering about in agony for a long period of time before it dies. It's cruel and offensive. To my way of thinking, well-nurtured skill and an appropriate cartridge are the only way to go. If you're not sure, it's probably the wrong cartridge.

He Dog

Yup and a moose leg or gut shot with a .375 is no deader. Shot placement does count and larger calibers will help out a little if you are a few inches off, but not if you are half a bull off. Clouder is right on.

simonbs

Here are my recommendations:Brown Bear - .22 sinle shotMoose - .218bee (had to throw it in for ya')Elk - .223Whitetail (AL) - .338mag (minimum)Squirrel - .50BMG Semi-auto for follow ups in case they charge you.

concealedG36

Hey simonbs, please do not ever invite me on a bear hunt with you.However, I'd LOVE to do some squirrel hunting! And, for the rest of you (clouder), you are WAY too smart.

---

Gun Control Disarms Victims, NOT Criminals

varmit hunter

Facts from Speer loading manual,And Blackwels load from a disk.30/06 180gr sp MV 2700fps Bc .435 energy at 200 yrds = 2095ft lbs.6.5x55 140gr sp mv2674fps bc.482 energy at 200 yrds=1918ft lbs.My question.Will the moose know the difference in 187 ft lbs?

---

A unarmed man is a subject.A armed man is a citizen.

whiteclouder

varmit:If the moose is well enough to answer your question, you got it wrong. Otherwise, no, probably not.Clouder..

simonbs

Are you sure? Those tree rats can get mean.

7mm_ultra_mag_is_king

Also clouder it seems nobody but me has even mentioned different makes of bullets. Different bullets do different things. A fmj will make a small hole and not much damage in a soft spot, however a nosler ballistic tip will make incredible damage, I have used different bullet types on deer( We dont have moose here but I imaginge the same philosophy works) and had different results. The right bullet is a big part of the equation. for me personally I have found sierra game kings to be best for deer in my opinion. I will not argue ballistics since I believe you know a little more than me, but if he wants to use the 6.5 somebody that has used that gun needs to steer him in the right direction for bullet and load data. Like I said I have never used that caliber so I don't know, all I can say is look for a bullet available for that cailiber that will provide deep penetration, retain weight and expand. Make sure it is loaded right to acheive desired results. Combined Tech makes Ballistic Silvertips that work well for what I mentioned. Ballistic tips in a heavy weight may work also but they tend to make a mess of things. Just look out there because there are so many different bullet designs available it is hard not to get something to work.

---

when all else fails........................

Patrick Odle

ClouderDid some of your relatives have a bad experience with a 6.5 or did the Blondes ignore you when you visited Sweden. I took a347 lb. black bear when I lived in Greeneville Tn.,One shot in the shoulderwith a 156 round nose factory load at aprox.170 yds. The bear,a moderately large boartraveled about 40 ft. in mountain laural, preventing a second shot. I own a 30-06but I prefer hitting the animal where I aimrather than anti-tank artillary. I am totally convinced that the same bear could have been dispatched with a 105 howitzer,but in that event you probably wouldn't be able to find all the pieces. If it takes more than a 6.5 to kill, I don't want to be in the same State with it,much less the same woods.

He Dog

Patrick no one here denies that the 6.5 is a fine cartridge, but there is a lot of difference between a 350 pound black bear and over a thousand pounds of moose.

whiteclouder

Oddle: Many times those who fear they would otherwise not be believed practice exaggeration. And you illustrate that this fear can be well founded. You come off as an old fool.Clouder..

whiteclouder

Oddle: Many times those who fear they would otherwise not be believed practice exaggeration. And you illustrate that this fear can be well founded. You come off as an old fool.Clouder..

Guns & Glass

Back to the "maylee of the 6.5 ".'Inherently Accurate' was a specific choice of words since it has been known, written about, and documented that certain cartridges have a better accuracy potential than others. In the context of my post it hopefully should be read, and understood as that. Especially since Kervals post wasn't about markmanship, and marksmanship wasn't mentioned in my earlier writings.Since we should bediscussing "killing"(harvesting) performance, I will clarify that SD is related only to potential performance of a particular bullets penetration. Note that the shape of a bullet has nothing to do with it's SD.Please reread my posts, I listed bullet caliber, shape/form/profile- Jacketed Soft Point (JSP).Please note in any rifle bullet manual: when comparing the SAME caliber, SAME weight,....regardless of shape/form /profile....they have the SAME SD.!.As too effectiveness, yes a 6.5-140gr-JSP will usually have equal to, or better penetration than a 7.62(30cal)-150gr JSP in ballistic gelatin. Even though the 7.62 will be traveling at a slightly higher speed(power).As to my "badly choosen" words, I'll stand on what I wrote. It's all in the correct/right books, therefore I am right. At least this time. But, you are right that I could have chosen better words that might be taken as offensive regarding 'shots' taken. Will take your advice.IMHO/experience been with too many hunters that just plain shoot, expecting their mini cannons, and bullet to compensate for low marksmanship skills, and practice. Just ask the Varmit Hunter, he has alot of field experience with paying hunters. Merry Christmas, and Happy Healthy New Year

---

Happy Bullet Holes!

barto

clouder-you are an unmannerly picker of nits.(my PERSONAL opinion)

varmit hunter

Just a observation,nothing more.We somehow have gotten to the point,Where nothing can stand on it's own.Trucks,cars, cameras,you name it has to be hyped.Xlt,sst,z29,z71,sse,xe,lx the list goes on and on.Now it has made its way to our sport.I can fill a page with bullet descriptions,and it will be full of x,v,t,s,.Now Magnum is not good enough,We have to have Ulta,and ultra, hyper,I am wating on turbo,Probley be one at the Vegas SHOT SHOW.As someone who gets to spend a lot of time at the range,and in the field.I get to observe a lot of different shooters.We shoot two IDPA matches a month.There is one man,who has never shot the same pistol two matches in a row in the last year.He is now sporting a $1400 pistol that has no name,Just a conglomaration of letters.Has is score improved?NO.On the other hand we have a man,who has kept at it with his Makarov,Paying no attention to the verable abuse that goes along with this pistol.Wont to guess which one I wont on my side in a fire fight.Now lets move to the rifle range.Scopes that need cantilevers to keep them in line.Barrels measured with yard sticks,And made from the same materal as the nose cone of the space shuttle.Now who dosent wont a .50cal for Christmas.How did Jack O'Connor manage to kill anything at all amazes me.Lord knows I dont wont to use the word MOOSE.Last month I watched the Discovery channel.A weatherd Alaskan native paddled a old canoe up a stream.On the side of this stream was a very large MOOSE.In the front of the canoe was a NRA condition (delapadated) Winchester 30/30.This man being totaly uninformed on the values of BC,SD.MV,KE,And a bullet with no xs,npt,bt or nothing else,Proceded to kill this MOOSE with one well placed shot.Just as his Father and his Grand Father did before him.Just as soon as I can locate his www.I will inform him he can not do this.Now what is my point?I have no point.Just a observation,Not ment to challeng,berate,belittle,or condem anyone or anythig.

---

A unarmed man is a subject.A armed man is a citizen.[This message has been edited by varmit hunter (edited 12-19-2001).]

He Dog

Varmit, you are certainly correct in all you say. I would suggest however that there is a difference between a man who hunts to live and the average American hunter who hits the field 1, 2, or 3 times a year depending upon how many permits he drew. I submit the average hunter (and Jack O'Connor was not average) is better off with a bit more rifle. Two years ago I was on an Oryx hunt and Jim Zumbo of Outdoor life was hunting. He said it was his 175th hunt in the last year. I simply think having enough rifle/bullet to get through the ribs of a moose is not a bad thing. In truth most of us, the average hunters, are not precision shooters. Even if we are pretty good at the bench, surgical shooting is often a bit more difficult under hunting conditions as you well know. For an old hand 6.5 x 55 is enough for moose for a novice (judged by the fact that he asked if it was enough) moose hunter, I still recommend a bit more rifle. Good thread guys, lots of interesting data and opinion, and even fairly civil. Best wishes for Christmas and the new year to all! [This message has been edited by He Dog (edited 12-19-2001).]

varmit hunter

Hedog,You have some points well taken.Would love to hear more about your Oryx hunt,And Jim Zumbo.He is a man well worth listing to.Have meat him on only on brief occasions.

---

A unarmed man is a subject.A armed man is a citizen.

Tony Barnes

Hey, I'm a Moose, don't shoot me!!

---

simonbs

Where's my .218! You better run!

Patrick Odle

ClouderSorry I unintentionly got your red-up atthis festive season aproaches. MERRY CHRISTMAS and A HAPPY NEW YEAR to you and yours,but I do hope Santa doesn't leaveyou a nice shiney 6.5 under the tree. Would ruin you whole day. There are old fools andyoung fools,some by choice,others by naturebut I do not Mis-Lead purposely, my story about the gnat's eyelid was easily recognized as good natured b.s.,Ihave never been so limmited, mentally or physically that I had to lie,and for someone to evenmildy suggest that I do it is best that they do it from a distance for I take the labelLiar from no one near enough for me to get my hands on them.Better to be old and foolish about a few things than to be ignorant about a lot of things and content in your ignorance. Odle

218Beekeep

Did sombody say somthin` about bees?.218P.S.Tags,permits,licenses,..no spotlights allowed,..only one or two months of huntin` season,..what a drag!!This is not the way it was supposed to bee!!

whiteclouder

Patrick:I did not and probably would not call you or anyone else a liar. A liar knows himself as such and that's usually more than punishment enough. The thread was opened with a serious question and what he got back was data that were not correct. I tried to remedy that. He also got exaggeration and some nonsense. I am all for both, but I thought his question deserved more. Sorry if that sounds stuffy but that's me.Another .264 for Christmas? Please, I've had one for over forty years and have two grandsons who are silently squabbling about who's going to get it. I could use a spare. Winchester Westerner pre-64 if you are offering, to match the one I have.Merry Christmas and a successful new year to a fellow writer.Clouder..[This message has been edited by whiteclouder (edited 12-21-2001).]