Biggest game?

Yup.
Dogleg said it well.
I prefer more powerful cartridge with heavier bullets for hunting the larger species of Canadian game.
But if the only rifle I had was a 6.5 CM, and I couldn't borrow or buy something more powerful/capable, I'd load up with good heavy for caliber, controlled expansion bullets and hunt moose with it.
And it would probably work just fine because I have the experience, skills and discipline to use it within its limitations.
These questions come most often from beginners, who most likely lack a couple of the above.
Shooting skills and discipline can be worked on, and are the only thing a beginner can do to ensure a good outcome.
Experience can be earned. I hope the experience is gained without an unreasonable amount of wounded and lost game. That depends on skill and discipline.
 
Eagleye said:
Quote: For nice broadside shots on moose, you need at least 1600 ft-lb of terminal energy.

I am here to assure you that game animals do not read energy charts. That is why so many
Moose and Elk have been successfully taken with chamberings that do not have "X" amount
of energy. [ that some armchair ballistician decided was needed] EE
Click to expand...

This is entirely fair. But if you want a benchmark, that is the Swedish requirement. You absolutely could get by with any legal cartridge (and less).
 
Last edited:
Since I have better calibers for moose and being a old guy who hates cold water in the fall I will use my 300 mag or if I feel like it 375 HH just because Ican .
 
Less than zero interest in the 6.5 cm but I like the 6.5x55, I'd use it on deer.
Lots of moose have fallen to the 6.5x55, but I have a whole safe full of more fun guns than that.
 
anmogamdilx said:
What's the biggest game you can hunt using the 6.5 CM? Or what's the biggest you've heard is safe to hunt using the 6.5?
Click to expand...

Are you proficient with your hunting rifles? IME, the chambering matters almost not at all, compared to the importance of shot placement. The 6.5s, and the very similar 7-08, work very well on moose and elk for us.
 
Had a buddy jump on the 6.5 CM bandwagon last year. He floated right up to a bull moose and was so confident is his progressive new outfit with its super high performance wonder bullet that he smacked it right between the eyes. Bull blew snot and ran away. The moose gun he replaced was a peep sighted 444 marlin that he would of undoubtedly aimed at the big part.
Keep it simple stupid.
 
starvin said:
Had a buddy jump on the 6.5 CM bandwagon last year. He floated right up to a bull moose and was so confident is his progressive new outfit with its super high performance wonder bullet that he smacked it right between the eyes. Bull blew snot and ran away. The moose gun he replaced was a peep sighted 444 marlin that he would of undoubtedly aimed at the big part.
Keep it simple stupid.
Click to expand...
Did he ever recover the bull?
 
Nope. Not the fault of the gun or calibre obviously.
He was going on about how the .264 bullet had all the best numbers and would penetrate a tank. A victim of hype.
 
BattleRife said:
William Bell, quite famously, hunted elephants with the 7mm Mauser. So, what's 0.5mm smaller than an elephant?
Click to expand...

I thought his preffered caliber was the .223 to the skull? he perfected the kill shot with the anatomy of skulls...i think thats what i recall? all though he did try a variable of calibers also
 
Bell was a professional poacher, legendary as his exploits and great as the books are, he was running on a different understanding of hunting. There have been many professional poachers on this continent of far lesser regard as North American ivory is harder to find and pays poorer, who favoured the .22 rimfire. I don’t think Bell is a useful example to most sport hunters, other than to illustrate the importance of shot placement above all else.
 
starvin said:
Nope. Not the fault of the gun or calibre obviously.
He was going on about how the .264 bullet had all the best numbers and would penetrate a tank. A victim of hype.
Click to expand...

Ah. Too bad. Hopefully Mr. Bullwinkle escaped and lived on.

I agree. If he’d actually hit it between the eyes, it likely would have been recovered on the spot. Poor shot selection and execution. Hopefully there were lessons learnt!
 
Ardent said:
Bell was a professional poacher,
Click to expand...

Define "poacher". To me, it means someone who hunts contrary to the law. I've read most of Bell's writings, and from what I've been able to glean from that, Bell operated either within the law or in the absence of law. As an example, when in the Lado Enclave, Belgian territory at the time, Bell acquired a permit to hunt commercially. When the Belgians vacated the area, it was roughly 6 months before the British could legally assume jurisdiction. In that period, he was hunting in absence of law.

I've heard the "poacher" label applied to Bell quite frequently, and it's usually intended as a slander. Others, like Taylor and Nyschens, by their own admission hunting in contravention of the game laws, but they always seem to get a pass. I've never quite understood the double standard, though I have my suspicions.
 
starvin said:
Nope. Not the fault of the gun or calibre obviously.
He was going on about how the .264 bullet had all the best numbers and would penetrate a tank. A victim of hype.
Click to expand...

I worked with a guy that shot a moose a couple times in the ass, with his brand new super-duper 7mm STW, and stood like a fool, as it walked off into the swamp to (likely) die a slow death.

He was honestly astonished that the head didn't blow off.

He and his used to get drunk and do fool things like shooting at each others boots as they dried by the fire, in camp. Pretty happy to say i never bothered to hunt with him.

Not the brightest spark. The same guy did a runner on a police car that was not actually interested in him until he matted it... Got in a car crash, got an Impaired charge. Still managed to get on the Snowbirds though... Nothing but the best the CF has to offer!
 
9.3mauser said:
Define "poacher". To me, it means someone who hunts contrary to the law. I've read most of Bell's writings, and from what I've been able to glean from that, Bell operated either within the law or in the absence of law. As an example, when in the Lado Enclave, Belgian territory at the time, Bell acquired a permit to hunt commercially. When the Belgians vacated the area, it was roughly 6 months before the British could legally assume jurisdiction. In that period, he was hunting in absence of law.

I've heard the "poacher" label applied to Bell quite frequently, and it's usually intended as a slander. Others, like Taylor and Nyschens, by their own admission hunting in contravention of the game laws, but they always seem to get a pass. I've never quite understood the double standard, though I have my suspicions.
Click to expand...

Bell killed elephants to collect tusks for sale, as many and as fast as possible with little regard to the sustainability of the activity. To be clear, I have a great deal of respect for Bell and an old volume on Wanderings of an Elephant Hunter on the shelf in my office I enjoyed immensely, several times. Of all of them, he was the most modest and definitely most businesslike, and as such the most lethal and efficacious. That business was collecting tusks, and hunting was just the way he did it rather than the activity.

I could easily see myself viewing things the same way if I’d lived in his era, and trying and failing to manage a similar life on account of lacking anything comparable in his drive and relentless pursuit of systematic efficiency. Bell was the Henry Ford of killing for profit. Most of those we read stories about and by, have some questions of some sort, be they in law, ethics, motivations, or honesty. The Taylors and the Capsticks and such. I don’t like Taylor or subscribe to his theories, they proved inaccurate in my experience. Bells theories proved scientifically supportable, though I don’t apply those either as his way of hunting doesn’t apply today outside culls.

My take, perhaps poacher is harsh terminology for Bell. But I believe if Bell had a button with which he could electrocute every large bull in a herd to collect the ivory in record time, I have no doubt he’d have used it. I don’t think many sport hunters would do the same, they’d just be after the biggest they could get a shot at. The times and understandings have changed since Bell. That doesn’t render him unimpressive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom