Thanks for the great history lesson. I had no idea the 6.5 was so popular in the early days of African hunting. A great post. I will have some more confidence in my 6.5 now.

Thanks ALF, great information.

Here we go, trotting out the experiences of old time African hunters from their antique biographyical works or even reprints !

Most people interested in hunting already know what was done in Africa by early hunters; and some of it none too wholesome to my mind.

If the small cased 6.5's are so good for African hunting then why did a professional hunters association in Africa decide to stipulate a minimum for certain types of game.

Very few professional hunters in African today would reccommend a 6.5 for hunting anything but the smallest of antelopes.

So its no good telling us about what hunters did with a 6.5 100 years ago.

I wanted to hear about your experiences with it,
how much game you killed with it and over what period including those experiences which you would rather deny publically are are hidden away in your own consciousness.

Joe

You have yet to answer any of my questions Mackey, but I'll answer yours.
I use 6.5x55, 260 rem, 260 imp,256 newton, 6.5/284, and 264 win mag with a load that is barely ahead of the 260 imp, but I like the rifle. I shoot 120 nosler solidbase,ballistic tip or sierra and rem corlok. Whitetail,muledeer,antelope,and caribou are the game taken. As I have said I dont do head counts, never cared, but would guess 75-100 head with those calibers. I have lost ....zero.
I have had drop right there kills, I have had to follow up some, and a finisher in a few whether they were down and not going anywhere or not. I hit one deer a little far back that was running and hit the back of the lungs. I followed it ..... maybe 400 yds, seemed further because of the tough tracking conditions, but was recovered with plenty of time on my knees finding blood specks. The results would have been the same if I had been useing a 30-06 with 150's, a 270 with 130's etc, etc.

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
If one looks at the list of what and who hunted what with which caliber it is also amazing, they were not scared to take on big game all over the world with this small caliber.

This is all true, but must be taken in context. I think the above speaks more to the marginal nature of what came before than to the adequacy of the first military small bores for big game. Compared to the BP cartridges firing lead bullets, the small bores with solids were incredible, a bolt from the blue. They gave (give) the sort of penetration that previously could only be had through the use of massive charges of BP and large calibers. The rifles were heavy and beat the Hell out of a person. Then came a way of getting the same or better results with a rifle most people could actually carry all day and shoot well at the end of it. Of course a little 6.5 was better for most hunters than a 4 bore. I find it telling that as the years ground on, the old African hunters, by and large, started to use larger calibers again. Even Bell shot larger and larger calibers as the years progressed.

Dean

Alf,
I too love the 160 Hornady RN's and just found some more of these fine pills. Because they were discontinued by Hornady and disappeared quickly, to find a few more was a joyous event. They are the best example of the "old" bullets that just worked in the 264 bore.
Best regards,
dmw

Alf,
A friend has a Cogswell&Harrison sporter in the old 6.5 rimmed. When he visits next I'll have him bring it and take some photos if your interested in seeing it.

A good summary Alf -

I do believe Bell also wrote some magazine articles which I read in my youth, in addition to his books.

I don't know why, but about 25 years ago when everyone started citing Bell as a great advocate of the .275 (7x57) for elephant, I was very surprised. I know that somehow up until then I had always had the impression that Bell used mainly the 6.5 Mannlicher (both rimmed and rimless) and the .303 British for a lot of his work during his early years (when he killed so many elephants).

That's just one of the reasons I enjoyed my very first big game rifle so much when my dad gave it to me. It was (and is) a 6.5x53-R, also known to the Brits as the .256 Mannlicher. Mine happens to be an 1895 Mannlicher rifle. I have always preferred the various 156 gr. or 160 gr. bullets for it and the many other rifles in the same chambering which I've owned.

We will likely never know exactly how many he killed with what. Maybe the same guy who is talking to God about the exact date for the end of the world can also talk with Bell and get us the straight poop?

Does it actually make any difference what Bell used anyway? For the most part his available choices were very few compared with those of modern day hunters. Who knows what he might have picked from today's array of rifles and cartridges if they were accessible then?

Good stuff Alf.

My comment about Bell going to heavier rifles over time was made with his use of the .416 on his last elephant hunts specifically in mind. I should have said Bell used heavier rifles for elephant as the years went by and the bigger bolt action cartridges became available. This not withstanding his statement to the effect that the .318 was the best of the elephant cartridges he'd used.

Dean

ALF

Having read you post, I don't doubt that you have much greater experience than I in view of the variety and quantity of game you have hunted.

My original question was about the 6.5x55, and not the more powerful cartridges like the .264 win or the 6.5x68.

Many of the ammunition manufacturers load the
6.5x55 to low levels, its certainly ok for casual shooting of light game and at modest ranges but I don't think it warrants the accolades and admiration that many of its users shower on it.

We are never told about the occasions when it failed to perform satisfactorily, and that is what I wanted to get at.

From all your experiiences, you know in your heart that it would not be the most ideal cartridge for someone to bring to Africa for hunting should you be asked advice on the topic.

Joe

quote:

Many of the ammunition manufacturers load the
6.5x55 to low levels,

Your ignorance continues,
chrono some Norma stuff and tell me again how underpowered it is.
you have answered none of my questions to date, troll.

quote:

its certainly ok for casual shooting of light game and at modest ranges but I don't think it warrants the accolades and admiration that many of its users shower on it.

The 6.5 X 55 loaded to 65K PSI in a modern bolt rifle just might be the finest deer and pronghorn cartridge currently available.....PERIOD!

For the rest of the world it's just another noise maker. Loaded by commercial ammo mfr, it's not even on my list of things to own!

I took a Winchester/USRA 70 FWT in 6.5x55 to Botswana in 1987 as my light rifle. My PH wasn't excited about the small caliber and compounded that by claiming not to think much of American hunters' ability to identify game, know where to shoot, or know when to shoot. I convinced him that I could actually ID game and that I could shoot well enough to put a bullet into the vitals. I shot 1 20 round box of Norma 156 grain factory loads while there. 10 round to confirm the rifle's zero; 3 rounds on arrival, 2 rounds after my rifle was dropped, and 1 round each day to confirm the zero. 10 rounds to take 8 head, with the eland being the only animal that remained standing long enough to be shot 3 times. Nothing wrong with the 6.5x55 if you use the right bullet and can hit where you need to hit.

Jeff

Alf -

I am truly sorry to see you removed your posts on this thread.

I thought they were very good, quite correct, and doubtless very valuable to many folk, respondents and lurkers alike.

Best wishes,

AC

I enjoy Alf's posts too. They are good reading. I'm dissappointed that he was offended.

I have a 6.5x55 in the CZ 550 and I've enjoyed shooting it at the range. Mild recoil and fine accuracy is a great combo. I have tried a variety of handloads, including the heavy Norma and Lapua bullets and maybe six different factory loads. All have been excellent accuracy. I settled on the 140gr Sierra, and have it sighted in for that load. It's a new to me cartridge, and I haven't hunted with it yet. I'm really looking forward to taking some deer and hogs with it, which I have no doubt that it serve excellent for the task.

There are several reasons that I'm confident about that, even lacking personal experience with the cartridge. I could make a long list, but mostly I would be preaching to the choir. Simply said, this is a cartridge that's in the short list of the world's all-time great medium game cartridges. Since the intro of smokeless powder, there have been many cartridges introduced in its class, and frankly none are an improvment, IMO.

BTW, from the stuff I've read those really old 6.5mm cartridges didn't produce a lot of velocity, and used a bullet with high S.D. for deep penetration. It has occurred to me that the modern little 6.5 Grendel probably does all the velocity of those older cartridges. Powder capacity is an issue with the Grendel, but I suspect that it will push the heavy 6.5s just fine, although there is no need to do that with the great bullets available in 120-140gr range.

I have two actions out right now to have a barrels installed for that cartridge - a mini-mauser and a Ruger MKII PPC action. Although the Grindel won't do what the 6.5x55 will do, I'm looking forward to testing it, both at the range and on game. I have a hunch it will do just fine.

I thought about it for a long time - which 6.5mm cartridge to get. Aside from the 6.5 Grendel, which is my toy to play with, since I just think it's too neat of a cartridge to ignore. I thought about the 260, 6.5 Creedmoor, 6.5 Lapua, 6.5x284, 6.5 Rem Mag, 6.5-06 and 264. It was settled when a good deal on the CZ 6.5x55 happened. And I think it was the best choice, kinda having qualities common to all of them, and the nostalga of being the oldest - older than the 30-30 - and better today than ever.

KB

Not offended!

However I believe it's wasted information, entering into debate about things shooting is one thing, that almost normal given the passion involved with the subject of shooting and hunting.

However being accused of being drunk , the name calling, attacking one's person if you should disagree, or implying that information gleaned from research, sometimes years to assemble is not worthy of the audience on AR, well that makes publication of any information then superflous !

If ones efforts, how trivial is met with the type of reaction one gets on AR from some participants why bother......

I mean why bother sharing ?

Alf,
I can sorta understand the newby's zealotry. It's a learning curve. I went through the same thing when I was new to AR, and still have to watch myself. I can get side tracked real quick with what I view as speculation, but I've learned to choose my words very carefully, to try to make a point without offending. That's something a newbe has to learn, and also IMO part of the value of the forum.

I suggest that you don't take it personally. I know that's easy to say, but I don't know how to say it better.

Really, what you have to say is valuable - no doubt. It may be controversial or arguable, but so what? That's entirely consistent with the premise of this forum, as I understand it.

I can understand that it is useless to engage in a personal argument, and I agree that it’s appropriate to avoid that. However, there are other creative ways rather than deleting your posts. Hang in there friend, and know that there are some who enjoy your posts.

If we all agreed, that could get really boreing.

Regards,
KB

ALF

I hope anthing that I have written did not offend you you, no offense was intended.

Your posts were enjoyable and informative to read, go on give us some more especially about
some of the escapades you alluded to concerning visiting spotsmen to your game ranch.

Best of luck.

Joe

I think you already summed it up when you said, "If you used the 6.5 exclusively then sooner or later some anomoly in its performance would show
up.

Much of the reason for not receiving support from my point of view is down to human nature
which can particularly be applied to hunters;
namely people do not like to openly discuss
their failures , especially the topic of lost and wounded game."

You are asking to comment on what is clearly an anomaly. All calibers have them.

To your other point, hunters are usually the cause of failure and lost and wounded game, not caliber failure.

Plus, calibers don't fail unless you have a misfire. Bullets fail. The caliber stamped on the barrel is just there to make sure we use the correct ammunition. The caliber doesn't kill anything. The bullet and deer don't care if it's launched from a 6.5x55, 6.5x57, 260 rem, 6.5 creedmore ot 6.5 lapua. They all go about the same velocity.

I find it a bit strange that the OP honed in on one particular round. He isn't asking about anything under 6.5 caliber, only 6.5x55. If I go back far enough, I have probably had "failures" with nearly every round I have hunted with. That is if a failure is an animal that didn't drop dead in it's tracks. I have had animals run 5-100 yards shot with anything from a .25-06 thru a .300 mag.. Usually, the heart and/or lungs were mush upon gutting. How this can be construed as failure for the round, I do not know. I have witnessed a bullet failure (blow up on contact), but this isn't a cartrige failure. To pick out a single round for chastisement without any real facts for backing up your claims is sort of like committing suicide on these forums. You just aint gonna get much help.

quote:

. How this can be construed as failure for the round, I do not know. I have witnessed a bullet failure (blow up on contact), but this isn't a cartrige failure. To pick out a single round for chastisement without any real facts for backing up your claims is sort of like committing suicide on these forums

Dont expect a reply joe25/06
I've asked this of him several times and he refuses to address it.

Joe25/06 and theback40

Calibre does play a significant role in killing game.

That is why we use soft and hollow point bullets
for nearly all game because upon impact the round opens up to often more than twice its original diameter, or if you prefer ''calibre'' !
The expansion causes greater tissue distruction as we all know.

theback40
Why would you need so many different 6.5 cartridges that you mentioned. Is it because you are searching for the elusive ''holy grail'' of the 6.5 that isn't there.

The .264 win mag is certainly a good performer
way ahead of the 6.5x55.

If you shot 75 to 100 head of game with the 6.5
without a loss, then Sir, you are to be applauded.

Best of luck.

Joe

Some of you guys have taken amazing amounts of deer with the 6.5 x 55.

I shot 8 whitetails with it, all behind-the-shoulder hits at around 60-75 yards. All dropped on the spot, or more commonly, ran 40 yards or so before piling up.

I think the key is to not use heavy bullets. I used only the 120 grain Nosler Ballistic Tips.

quote:

Why would you need so many different 6.5 cartridges that you mentioned.

Who said anything about need? Those are only a small part of what I own and shoot. I live where I can shoot out of any door or window of my house, and shooting is my hobby.
as for no losses, it's no big deal. I take proper shots, I know the animals, their habits and how to track, combine that with anything near a proper cartridge/bullet combo you have success.

The little Swede is one of my favorites...super deer cartridge and very comfortable to shoot...doesn't feel much different than my 243 to me. Are there a dozen calibers that will do the same?....absolutely. This is a great cartridge for a young man or woman to start with....good for a mountain rifle too...light weight still shoots easy. Will shoot the heavier 6.5 bullets well. Tough to criticize....but you can always find something to pick at.

quote:

It was (and is) a 6.5x53-R, also known to the Brits as the .256 Mannlicher. Mine happens to be an 1895 Mannlicher rifle. I have always preferred the various 156 gr. or 160 gr. bullets for it and the many other rifles in the

AC, great rifles! It was also called the Dutch Mannlicher. I had one by Westley Richards, but made by primarily by Steyr. Sweet little rifle.

Here is a different spin on your lost deer.

Lost deer just complete the circle of life sooner than if they'd died of old age, no loss to the ecosystem. Scavengers have to eat too and no protein goes to waste in the wild, so a lost deer really isn't such a serious incident. Besides, its not as if you have to pay either a license or trophy fee for a lost deer shot in most places in the U.S.

Despite your tales of woe, I feel certain that I could cleanly harvest close to 100% of the deer that I would shoot at with any of my 33 rifles chambered in 260, 6.5x55, 256 Newton, or 6.5-284.

Jeff

ALF,
I want to thank you for posting the information it enjoyable and educational.

You are right about one thing, it was a waste to post for OP. But there are many others that appreciated it.

Mackey,
If you have a problems killing deer with a 6.5x55, then you are the problem.

quote:

If you have a problems killing deer with a 6.5x55, then you are the problem.

quote:

Originally posted by mackey:


Most people interested in hunting already know what was done in Africa by early hunters

Man, that covers a lot of ground. Talk to most of them?

All you worshippers of the idol of the 6.5x55
cult, need to be honest and truthful about its
capacity as a serious game getter.

I asked for some straight talking about its usefulness or otherwise.

What do I get: a handful of guys that shot a few deer, except for one or two that can really say that they have used it widely to take large numbers of game.
Plus quotes from books written by hunter long passed on !

Craig Boddington wrote a very good article in American publication dealing with various 6.5 cartridges and put some points of view and conclusions across as to why the 6.5 has not done so well in the USA.

My judgement would be that the 6.5's did not cut the 'proverbial mustard' with the American shooting public because most of them after their
experiences with it, decided it was not up to the mark.

Still we get the 6.5 idolaters hanging in there trying to justify its short-comings.

Joe

Oh, now I understand.

Remember, on this forum, any cartridge larger than the 223, 243 or 257R is considered by many as overkill for deer and hogs.

You'll find a different class of people here, and after listening for a while, I decided to join the diminutive deer cartridge club, and get a bolt action 6.5 Grendel, and practice up on the shot placment thing.

KB

quote:

Originally posted by mackey:


I asked for some straight talking about its usefulness or otherwise.



Joe

It appears that you are geting straight talk about it's usefulness, but choose NOT to listen. No one has claimed that the 6.5x55 is the end-all of cartriges. What they have said is that given proper bullets and shot placement, it works as well as anything else. That is pretty straightforward talk if you ask me.

I'm not a fan of, and don't have much respect for, Craig Boddington or his opinions, so injecting him into the mix means nothing to me.

What short-comings?

The 6.5x55 is what it is, a nice medium to medium-large non-dangerous game cartridge when loaded with a bullet that is appropriate to the intended game. It doesn't have hugh case capacity, so no matter how hot you load it, it doesn't have much recoil and is easy for most people to shoot accurately.

Your judgement is your judgement, no better than my judgement or anybody's judgement. Why should anybody assign any particular value or weight to your judgement?

Jeff

quote:

and practice up on the shot placment thing.

No Matter the caliber Kabluey!