quote:

---

Originally posted by 'Trapper':
...was wondering if anyone had a better load combination for the 8x57?

---

As long as there's a bang at the end of the barrel, the 8x57 will kill moose just fine. VV N 150 is a good powder for this cartridge, you can't really pack enough N 160 in the cases for it to be useful with 170 grainers. I've gotten really good accuracy around 2700-2750 fps with N 150 and 170 Hornady, but I've yet to draw any conclusion as to how it kills. The normal bullets over here are the 200 gr Partition and Norma's various 196 grainers and they are proven moose slayers.

Just don't tell my Swedish friends that I admitted its killing abilities - the 6.5x55 still rules!

-- Mats

the 8x57 IS is excellent for moose, but put something heavier in it than that little Hornady. Norma has an Oryx in about 200 grains or Woodleigh a 220 grainer. Both will do an sufficient work. (And, 6,5x55 is in my humble opinion not quite dependable for moose - it�s too small and light. It�s very good for roe, however.)

With best regards,

Fritz K.

------------------
When in doubt, empty the magazine.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fritz Kraut:
...6,5x55 is in my humble opinion not quite dependable for moose...

---

BWAAHAHAAAHHHAAHHAAAHH... Best joke I heard all week, ROTF...

It is apparent that whenever we have to track a shot-at moose, it's either a .30, 8 mm or 9.3 mm cartridge that was used for the first shot(s). They may be easy to kill, but they need penetration and of course good placement. The high SD and light recoil of the 6.5 gives you both.

-- Mats

------------------

I quote speer - 'The 200gr speer spitzer is primarily designed for the 8mm rem mag. However it may be used on moose and elk at close range at maximum permissable velocities' The max 8x57 velocity is 2,469fps measured from a 24" barrel. It seems a big drop, seeing as the same book gives 2,996fps for the 8mm rem mag, the velocity it was designed for.

What I'm taking a long time to say is Speer appear to be indicating that this bullet may tend not to expand from 8x57.

------------------
Ray Atkinson

ray@atkinsonhunting.com
atkinsonhunting.com

------------------
Kluane Mountaineering Ltd
http://www.kluane.ab.ca

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mats:
BWAAHAHAAAHHHAAHHAAAHH... Best joke I heard all week, ROTF...

It is apparent that whenever we have to track a shot-at moose, it's either a .30, 8 mm or 9.3 mm cartridge that was used for the first shot(s

---

Hey Mats, I don�t share your estimation of 6,5x55 for moose, as I�m not Karamojo Bell. Maybe one reason is that I hunt in southern Sweden, where the neighbour�s ground always is quite nearby. Wenn we shoot a moose here, we want him to drop almost at the spot. For that purpose we need something more powerful than that tiny six-and-half. Old 8x57 or 9,3x57 are still popular here, and so is the .30-06 and 9,3x62.

But in the North the neighbour�s ground is far away, and as you have good dogs, it doesn�t matter in the same way if the moose goes 300 yards after a neat hit in the lungs with 6,5x55.

Use enough gun!

Fritz K.

Trapper, Why not use a Speer 170gr Semi Spitzer moving at about 2700fps? That would be plenty to drop an elk or moose. Also, looking in my Hornady manual the IMR 4350 is the least effecient powder listed for their 170gr bullet. I would suggest 43.8gr of IMR 3031. That will give you another 100fps, use less powder and produce slightly less felt recoil. Just a thought.

------------------
When in doubt, empty the magazine.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fritz Kraut:
--- the moose goes 300 yards after a neat hit in the lungs with 6,5x55.

---

Fritz, it's an old discussion and the 6.5x55 is kind of like the Citro�n of rifle cartridges - you either love it or hate it. Like Citro�n, it's normally those who have never tried one that doesn't like them!

Seriously though, we both know that no other cartridge has killed as many moose as the "little" 6.5. The only way a moose goes 300 meters after a lung shot is on the back of a pickup truck...

But let's agree to disagree. However, I'd like to modify your last claim a bit: It's not "Use enough gun", it's "Don't use piece-of-shit bullets".

-- Mats

P.S. Vi HAR bra hundar: Jag sk�t min f�rsta �lg f�r F�bodh�jdens Ketty; Sveriges h�gst meriterade avelstik... D.S.

[This message has been edited by Mats (edited 05-04-2001).]

I only shoot 185 Rem C. L. and 200 gr. Speer for deer..Any thing bigger gets a 200 Nosler, 220 or 250 Woodleigh....

------------------
Ray Atkinson

ray@atkinsonhunting.com
atkinsonhunting.com

Well Mats,

I don�t think I�like to compare six-and-half to a Citro�n car. I am a dedicated Citro�n fan and use a 6,5x57R combination gun on roe and capercailles. I load the cartridges to the same prestanda as the 6,5x55 from Norma. My own experience on roe is that they usually run much longer after a shot with that gun than after a hit with my 8 mm. However, I�m going to try another bullet instead of the recent 140 grains Speer Hot-core, perhaps the Norma Oryx 160 gr. But having those experiences from running roes, I would really not use that gun on moose. I also know from huntingmates, that they prefer bigger bores on moose. However, the 6,5 is a excellent caliber for the right purpose, but for moose and other large beasts.

I fully agree with you, when you stress the importance of choosing a high quality bullet. And, me thinks, a good 160 grains in 6,5 is less bad than the same bullet weight in 8 mm because of the sectional density.

Best regards,

Fritz K.

6,5-carrying citroenist

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fritz Kraut:
I am a dedicated Citro�n fan...

---

Fritz, there has to be a good brain between those shoulders then! At this time, I have a 1974 DS 23, a 1987 CX GTI Familiale, a 1989 BX GTI 16V and haggle about the price on a 1990 AX GT (though it's no real Citro�n, it's a fun car around town). Sad to say I don't use any of these, apart from the 16V from time to time (have it borrowed out to a friend who wants to buy it).

BTW, for roe you need to use softer bullets than the 139-up variety, they don't expand enough on the small critters. The 120 gr Ballistic Tips are better, the 100 gr Varminters work like the hammer of Thor but can destroy a lot of meat and might be marginal if shooting through the shoulder bone. For moose I'd say 140 Partition, 156 Mega, 156 Oryx or any of the other bonded cores loaded to the hilt. The Oryx expands reliably even at lower velocities, it is a most impressive bullet. The X seems to be a bit too tough for the way we shoot moose, I don't know anyone who has been impressed by it - it just doesn't do enough damage.

Good driving and shooting,

-- Mats

originaly posted by Fritz Kraut

However, I�m going to try another bullet instead of the recent 140 grains Speer Hot-core,

I'm amazed at this - I have only had one runner (the rest not even a yard) with the approx 15 fallow/roe/muntjac I have heart/lung shot with this bullet. I did expected it to be less effective than the 120gr ballistic tips I generaly use but found quite the opposite. Despite the fact it doesn't leave massive exit wounds (sometimes a roe hit by a ballistic tip looks like it's been bitten by a shark) I drive them at 2700fps. Speer state that it will expand even at handgun velocities so maybe shot placement should be checked?

I tend to shoot quite forward and high to touch the shoulders and get a high heart hit, I find this does very well. The one runner I had was a muntjac that went 25 yards on a very low heart shot. It would have done this whatever calibre (I know, one did when hit in same place with 270gr 9.3x62 at 8 yards!)

Here in the UK people either love the 6.5x55 or hate it. Those that hate it tend to say it's not man enough. They shoot 150gr .308s with a bullet with poorer SD and only 150fps more. Or 270s or 2506..... I can do everything they can with less recoil and noise but they'll never admit it. At last here 270 is being recognised as an overly loud hard kicking brute that has ruined more shooters shooting than any other calibre. The shops are full of them second hand and 6.5x55 is on a roll.

No I'm not saying that! I'll repeat that to my eyes Speer appear to be telling you that expansion of this bullet maybe marginal. The words marginal and hunting aren't good bed fellows in my (limited experience)

Anyhow Atkinson's used it (and I haven't) so perhaps he can tell us the reality!

I'll repeat that to my eyes Speer appear to be telling you that expansion of this bullet maybe marginal

Amazingly expansion doesn�t seem to be the problem: the bullet exits the chest of the roes through a four inches large crater and blows the lungs through that horrible hole. And still they run some fifty or sixty yards.

Roes shot with .30-06 or 8mm drop instanly, althoug I have used hard bullets a the RWS Brenneke TUG or Barnes X, which just punch a neat little hole exiting. It ought to be the contrary, if expansion were the main thing. I have no theories about this...

Fritz K.

P.S. To Mats: I have only one Citr�en, a XM TCT, and earlier I drove a BX. Nice cars, but I like the BX more than the XM.

The quote was for the 8x57 speer load however what you say makes me wonder.

For some time I have noticed that roe and muntjac with really big holes in them seem to run more than ones with neat holes in them. Not invariably so but often enough that I had noticed and wondered why.

Could the massive trauma and pain of a highly expanding bullet trigger a flight response/reflex that a lesser expanding bullet doesn't?

quote:

---

Originally posted by 1894:
Fritz Kraut,

Could the massive trauma and pain of a highly expanding bullet trigger a flight response/reflex that a lesser expanding bullet doesn't?

---

I think your theory is quite plausible, and that is a somewhat disgusting aspect of the matter.
Anyhow, I�m going to try the Norma Oryx in the six-and-half- it can�t be as inefficient as the Speer. These long runs are always annoying, because you don�t know if the beast was correctly hit or not. And then you have to wait an awfully long hour before you goes on the track with a dog.

I hope that "Trapper" excuse us for this extension of his important topic!

Fritz K.

------------------
'Trapper'

Sorry to prolong the digression. Don't want to leap on you especialy as your English ten times better than my Swedish.

What happens to the animal eg wounds etc when hit with a bullet maybe unpleasant but it is the ultimately what we do all this reloading for.

Hunting animals by firing projectiles through them to cause death by trauma never has and I venture never will be a clean and clinical process. Sometimes nasty things happen and we should acknowledge this.

I've enjoyed discussing this with you, I would be interested to know how you get on with the Oryx's. Did you ever chrono the speer loads? Maybe a difference in velocity was responsible for our differential experience.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 1894:

Did you ever chrono the speer loads? Maybe a difference in velocity was responsible for our differential experience.[/B]

---

My loading friend, who makes my ammo, chronoed the bullet to 830 mps (Meters, not miles), but a range of 75 meters it will be about 750 mps at impact.

Regarding the ethics I�m quite aware that hunting "never will be a clean and clinical process", but nevertheless I prefer clean kills. I find it much more satisfying when the buck drops for a clean shot than to see him wild running away god-knows-where which all chest blown into mince-meat because of wrongly choosen rifle and ammo. I don�t know the proper english word but we Swedes speak about being "jaegarmaessig", the Germans about being "waidmaennisch". I�ll continue my search for the best ammo.

Best regards,

Fritz

Apologies if I came accross as preaching, it wasn't my intention. Have a look at

http://ulfhere.freeyellow.com/ballistics/wounding.html

In it the author talks of very rough and jagged wounds self sealing to a greater extent than cleaner cuts. Maybe that's the reason for our respective experiences of runners. Good luck with your search.