I just skinned 2 deer shot with a 6.5x55.
One was a neck shot that cut half the neck away, albeit at close range(30yds), the other was a heart/lung shot on a smallish fallow doe at 110 mtrs.
I was very surprised at the amount of bloodshot and bruised meat. Bullets were SST"s,
which I have"nt used much, and I"ve never shot a deer with a 6.5, but I thought the damage was excessive compared to my .243.
Is the 6.5 prone to meat damage? I know any rifle bullet will still be going pretty fast at 110 mtrs, so are SST"s too explosive?
thoughts?
good shooting

SST's are an explosive bullet. You're much better off sticking with bonded or Premium bullets.

It"s not my rifle, and I did"nt shoot them, but I do use Hornady interlocks in my .243 which are just cheap jacket and core bullets like SST"s. I don"t get the same bruising as I saw on the ones shot with the 6.5.
Maybe it"s just because the 6.5 has more energy.
good shooting

Brass thief,
I had the exact same problem , but the other way round.
I has a terrible problem with .243 and meat damage on the smaller framed deer. So much so, that i was wondering about the chest shot only rule we had to abide to on the ground. I was told that " If you have to take the vitals out with a sieve, then you are doing a good job."
.243 certainly did that all right! Any error on a roe or muntjac resulted in either a smelly mess, or half a carcass.

After trying to calm down the carcass damage of the .243 but retain all of the other good things that go with that calibre ( and not getting the results that I wanted), I decided to change and went for the 6.5 x 55 swede.

I'm not saying that this is the best calibre in the world. But basic ballistics of a larger, slower, better constructed bullet certainly go a long way if you are looking for meat damage savings.

I have tried many bullet/weight/powder combinations, and my personal choice has stayed with Sierra Game kings in 140 grains with VV N160 @ 2640FPS for some time now. The bullet expansion at all ranges has proved to be predictable, i.e. all of the energy has gone into the beast (more drop dead shots / less runners).

The bullet's not being pushed too fast so as to come apart , nor to cause hydraulic shock bruising, more commonly seen with the lighter faster bullets.

You do not say in your text what the weight of the bullet used was. I may guess and say that it was a home load with a 120 grain (or lower) weight pushed pretty quickly.

This would get you back to the hyper velocity ((small bullet /V high speed) meat damage that can be seen when people start load development
on a new round.

I would suggest slowing it down a bit, going up in weight and maybe change the head . SST's age well made , but may not suite the application.

The weight is 129 grains, don"t know about speed but they"re very flat, and they are handloads. Knowing the guy who was using them, they"re probably 1 or 2 grains over book max.
What bullets were you using in the .243? I used to shoot Roe with soft points(sierra pro-hunters, h"day interlock and federal factory), and damage was"nt too bad.
I"ve only ever shot one deer with SST"s, that was a small sika stag with 150 gr in the 308. At about 80 mtrs the damage was"nt as bad as the fallow doe shot last night with 129 SST/6.5.
I think he needs to back off a little on the speed, as most of our shots don"t exceed 150mtrs.
I"m beginning to think that the SST"s actually do expand much quicker than soft points.
good shooting

My own experiance with SST`s is that they are pretty much the same as Nos Bal tips, which is no bad thing (in the right situations)and if there pushed fast and at close range they will blow up alot of meat, if i use either of these i never take shoulder shots, i try and tuck the bullet into the "arm pit" but centre hold so i only spoil a couple of ribs this shot placement is usually called "the butchers shot" or if i am up a seat then i will use a high neck shot.
I am back to the 160`s at the mo at around 2500/2600 and am finding this to be pretty much perfect for woods and they are cheap as well!!
B
I have also just found what i think is the most absolutly perfect scope (for me)other than the BIG 3 which i have, its the leupold VX III 3-8-36, i`m not a big fan of variables but the size and light gathering set on 5 power is somthing else.

I think the general consensus is correct, SST's are explosive by nature, and although they have their uses, a traditional soft point bullet would be better.

Well said Simon, I"ve always used Pro hunters and interlock, both 100 gr 243 cheap soft points, and I"ve killed all deer in the UK except CWD(cos I have"nt shot them), and the soft points perform great.
Most of the discussion on premium bullets or whatever the latest whizzbang is, are generated by importer sponsored gun magazine articles trying to tell us that standard common calibres loaded with soft point bullets won"t kill deer.
I"ve found SST"s to be very accurate on paper, but target accuracy is rarely needed on engine room deer shots at 100 mtrs.
good shooting

If you're going to use lighter bullets that expand on roe at similar to 243 100gr velocities then my experience is that you will get more damage than a 243 within 150yards or so. Perversely this doesn't appear to happen on fallow which seem to resist having large holes made in them.

I used and still use 100gr BTs in 6.5x55 at 3000fps - very pleasant and flat shooting. It doesn't wreck a carcass but it creates a bit more mess than a 243/6mm with 85/90gr at 3,300fps.

We ask a lot of our bullets - the same BT on a roe at 250yards will provide a small amount of expansion and small exits. Perfect lung shots (no heart) will take about 10-15 seconds to fall.

Unless you shoot a LOT of arable roe I think lighter bullets in a 6.5x55 are perfectly acceptable. I don't reckon the extra blood shooting wastes a hole (ha ha) lot more it just looks less pleasent.

The 6.5 is a perfect deer round. Heavy for calibre cheap round nose bullets at moderate velocity and moderate distance are perfect for good killing power with minimal tissue damage.
If you need the extra reach then go smaller, faster but use a really well constructed bullet with the jacket bonded to the core which is not a NBT or an SST.

Mark

Brass thief,

You asked about the loads I used in the .243.
Not surprisingly, the explosive heads were Nosler BT, in 95 grain. Almost the same construction as the SST your friend used.

I think that people have fallen for the sales pitch from the big companies stating that the polymer tipped heads are far more accurate then old soft points.

This is true for paper punching. and the shot placement must be better with this kind of head. But the bullet construction, (in the smaller calibres), does lean towards the varmint round. The jackets are too light and the core is not bonded.

I tried a compromise in the .243. I used 105 grain hornady interlock round nose.

I thought I had really discovered something !
Long bullet, thicker jacket with a cannalur. Heavier than the standard rounds I was used to.

I loaded it up and used it down the range. Managed to get it accurate, (sub MOA), at 100 yards , so took it into the woods.

First deer shot was a roe buck at about 40 yards. Hit it really hard heart/lung, and watched it run over 80 yards, off the clear fell, into a wood !

Plenty of pins, but no paint at the strike point. follow up did not show any blood for 70 yards, as I had marked the point a which it crossed a root pile into the wood.
At 80 yards the blood became more plentiful. Over the log pile and up the first rack, blood everywhere.

20 yards in, beast lying stone dead. Shot had taken centre spot on the heart, but had not expanded. The exit hole was really hard to find as it was the same size as the entry. I had simply drilled a hole through the beast with little shock,(knock down energy) being transfered. It was evident that even though there had been a lot of internal bleeding.As there were no large exit or entry holes the blood loss (pressure drop), was not great enough for the beast to go down quickly. Along with this, as the beast ran the wound seemed to close up, as the first signs of blood was when the beast slowed down at 70 yards and negotiated the root pile, eventually pouring out when it entered the wood and felt safe.

It showed that the bullet design was too tough for the game I was using it on.


This was backed up by a couple of shots with the same ammo. on foxes, not the same reaction, as the fox es just died, but the same lack of a wound channel.

It worked better on fallow, but my mind was made up that it was not a good round when i shot a test with it at 200 yards. The rounds just sprayed everywhere. The BC of the bullet and the weight just would not stabilise in my gun.

I changed to 6.5 x 55 soon after, but have since learn-ed a lot. It was not the calibre but what i was feeding through it that caused the problem. If I had changed to a soft nose , better constructed bullet, i would still probably be shooting .243 .

You can only learn my experiment. Along the way you will make some mistakes.

Good hunting

Hi Puntgunner

What velocity were these 105 gn going at?
The bullet did not fail it just passed through without hitting any hard structures. 105 RNSP by definition are not tough but they are small and do not offer as very large frontal area compared to a 6.5 or .308 to initiate expansion.
I have had a similar problem with 165gn swift A-Frame on fallow with zero blood trail, in fact for the first half hour I had almost convinced myself I had missed until I found the beast lying in the field with the tinyest entrance/exit wound throught the chest. It had also ran 100 yds chest shot.
I suppose if you want a beast to drop dead quickly then a fast ballistic tip will produce a whole lot more damage due to primary and secondary projectiles.
If secondary damage is an issue then heavier slower bullets are required but at the end of the day unless you hit a spooked deer through the CNS or both shoulders it can still run a considerable distance with whatever you shoot it with.

Mark

Hornady don't make 105gr RN in 243 but they do make 100gr RN with a cannelure. Speer used to make a 105gr RN with no cannelure. I would imagine Punt Gunners were the 100gr hornadies.

If you look closely at them you will see the jacket folds over into the nose - I thought there was a chance that they might not expand. I've shot about 3 fallow with them and some muntjac and found them no better or worse than other bullets but definately not as good as a BT which seems to expand better and into a more uniform shape.

I must admit to finding the 90gr BT absolute dynamite on deer both roe and fallow lending my 243 great killing power. Just last night I launched 2 at a fallow doe and her buck fawn at 175yards. The doe was hit lung not heart and made 20yards, the fawn was hit top heart and lung and being somewhat aware made 30yards. Bullet launched on the legal limit of 2,925fps (ie just over 1700ftlbs). Nice exit holes about the size of a £2 coin. I have tried a lot of bullets in the 243s - 90gr BTs seem better by fa I don't find the damage too bad and neither does my game dealer.