6.5x55 or .308

[NigelM]

I have a 6.5 Lapua. It runs around 100 fps quicker than the Swede. I have shot a lot of deer with it now.

Love it. Mild recoil, very accurate, with those long 6.5mm bullets it dodges the wind reasonably well too.

For Munties, Roe, Fallow, Sika and Red Hinds it's all the gun you need. For Sika Stags if you want to put a bullet through both shoulders, or for dropping Red Stags over 200 yards I would be happier with a slightly heavier calibre carrying a bit more energy, but I have shot plenty with the 6.5. A .308 would be spot on.

The other one that shoots flatter and delivers more grunt is the .270, but they can make a bit of a mess of Munties and Roe because of the velocity. Perfect for Stags on the hill.

There is no single rifle that is perfect for everything. Either decide what you are going to shoot and get the appropriate calibre or get two calibres and decide which you are taking dependant on the quarry of the day.

You are barking up the right tree though. The two you have chosen are both great calibres and from a ballistic perspective are very similar, so if relying on hold over for distance shooting you will only need to understand one trajectory/set of numbers (within reason) even if you have both of them. 120 grain in the Swede and 150 grain in the .308 and there will be nothing in this country you don't have the right weapon for.

 

[bewsher500]

You must have magic bullets

We are discussing ballistics relative to ethical hunting practices. I don't shoot a whitetail in the ass on some false promise that my super whizz bang magnum will remotely incapacitate the animal.


You like to cite blunt force trauma, and this is where your analogy falls flat on its face.
A 1000gr 2 1/2" round baseball bat swung at 45mph is a lot different than a 140gr 7mm bullet traveling at 2700fps. You should know the difference between blunt force trauma and penetrating trauma, 1-1 transfer ratio, etc., shouldn't you?
Energy figures, when it comes to penetrating projectiles, are misleading for this very reason.


Most evidence in support of remote wounding is anecdotal in nature. Never have I ever seen anything remotely close to the phenomena in the field even with some ultra magnums.

You are missing the point or doing your best to avoid it.

i am not talking about some magic wave that overcomes the animal regardless of where shot....but you already know that.

neither am I comparing a bullet to a baseball bat

what I am comparing is the exact same cause of death

Energy imparted into key areas of the CNS through "close" passing of high velocity projectiles through surrounding tissue or from outside without penetration by blunt, non penetrating objects

Not spinal breakage
not blood loss

 

[Canadian1]

You are missing the point or doing your best to avoid it.

i am not talking about some magic wave that overcomes the animal regardless of where shot....but you already know that.

neither am I comparing a bullet to a baseball bat

what I am comparing is the exact same cause of death

Energy imparted into key areas of the CNS through "close" passing of high velocity projectiles through surrounding tissue or from outside without penetration by blunt, non penetrating objects

Not spinal breakage
not blood loss

Can't say I have ever experienced anything like that nor have I ever heard from anyone close to me of such a thing occurring. Moreover, I am skeptical that there would be enough energy generated to the peripheral regions for something like this to occur. Even so, I doubt it would be strictly a function of velocity.

I can't imagine where one would have to be aiming in an effort to have no blood loss and yet come within close enough proximity to the spinal column to have the energy "waves" shut down the animal's CNS?

 

[Mungo]

I can't imagine where one would have to be aiming in an effort to have no blood loss and yet come within close enough proximity to the spinal column to have the energy "waves" shut down the animal's CNS?

I have had this happen once with a bullet that went just below the spine (but not touching) but above the lungs: animal dropped like a puppet with strings cut and stayed down. I have always assumed that there had been enough force transmitted to the spine to cause enough damage to the CNS to prevent recovery. I am open to other explanations.

 

[palmer_mike]

I have had this happen once with a bullet that went just below the spine (but not touching) but above the lungs: animal dropped like a puppet with strings cut and stayed down. I have always assumed that there had been enough force transmitted to the spine to cause enough damage to the CNS to prevent recovery. I am open to other explanations.

Maybe why high shoulder shots tend to drop deer like a sack of spuds?

 

[bigoak]

Well this sure is an interesting thread. I have a 260 and a 308. I love them both but one thing is clearly evident. The 308 wins in the smackdown department.
I've shot some decent Red deer with the 260. Its accurate and flat shooting allowing good shot placement. I use 120 gn sierras or 120 gn taipans. It kills well. But the smackdown effect is clearly more evident with the 308.

 

[MARCBO]

I've never actually seen a tea-cup fall over. I think the centre of gravity is too low for it to be a common occurrence.

That aside, I wonder how much of the effect would have been the bullet physically pushing the animal over, compared to the effect of its depriving it of control of its limbs by destroying the spine?

I suppose we need to think about the weight of the beast and the remaining energy of the bullet at 200yds.

Try pushing the tea cup at a point near the rim and it will fall over....

Do you think an animal will fall to the side by severing the spine? Not, they drop.

Approx weight estimate for the buff from the guide was 2,300lbs.

The one I shot in 2012 at approx 120yds was shot high in the lungs. The bullet did not exit nor hit any major bones, stopped under the hide on the far side, estimated weight was 2,200lbs. Bull ran less than 25yds, stopped, blew out a bunch of blood and dropped in its tracks. In this case the transfered energy was not what took the bull down but the large caliber bullet passing through did.

Lesson: Use a big bullet that does not rely on expansion to kill.

SS

 

[howa243]

Try pushing the tea cup at a point near the rim and it will fall over....

Do you think an animal will fall to the side by severing the spine? Not, they drop.

Approx weight estimate for the buff from the guide was 2,300lbs.

The one I shot in 2012 at approx 120yds was shot high in the lungs. The bullet did not exit nor hit any major bones, stopped under the hide on the far side, estimated weight was 2,200lbs. Bull ran less than 25yds, stopped, blew out a bunch of blood and dropped in its tracks. In this case the transfered energy was not what took the bull down but the large caliber bullet passing through did.

Lesson: Use a big bullet that does not rely on expansion to kill.

SS

My stalking is done in reasonably close proximity to other people, so I am happy that they don't go too far upon impact.

 

[MARCBO]

My stalking is done in reasonably close proximity to other people, so I am happy that they don't go too far upon impact.

Implying what you shoot drops on the spot?

SS

 

[howa243]

Implying what you shoot drops on the spot?

SS

Was on about the round not the quarry.

 

[bewsher500]

Can't say I have ever experienced anything like that nor have I ever heard from anyone close to me of such a thing occurring. Moreover, I am skeptical that there would be enough energy generated to the peripheral regions for something like this to occur. Even so, I doubt it would be strictly a function of velocity.

I can't imagine where one would have to be aiming in an effort to have no blood loss and yet come within close enough proximity to the spinal column to have the energy "waves" shut down the animal's CNS?

It is not just down to velocity.
it is down to bullet construction, impact velocity, calibre, angle, weight/size of target animal and god knows how many other things I can't explain.

I am not deliberately aiming at this spot.
I am talking about circumstances where the bullet hasn't gone exactly where I want it too.
shoot enough and they happen by themselves!
Its not an ideal situation by any mean, as the other end of the spectrum is a wounded and stunned animal that bolts as it wakes up!

I have had this happen once with a bullet that went just below the spine (but not touching) but above the lungs: animal dropped like a puppet with strings cut and stayed down. I have always assumed that there had been enough force transmitted to the spine to cause enough damage to the CNS to prevent recovery. I am open to other explanations.

Exactly.

I shot a roe doe at 185-190yds with a 60gr .222 but had held slightly too high.
Poleaxed.
Barely any blood on entry or exit, on gralloch the bullet had gone just under the spine, but not penetrated the lungs other than a slight nick, obviously lung collapsed from a pierced pleura
I have had several of these shots in the high chest over the years, 4-5 from memory. even have a picture of the last one

At least three of these that I can recall where the bullet has gone wide and above the spine in the high neck shots, especially on stags
dead, no eye reaction, no heart beat....and no blood
massive blow to the back of the neck below the skull.

Shot a fox at 20ft with a CB long, smack between the eyes. no penetration at all. Stone dead

 

[Dalua]

Try pushing the tea cup at a point near the rim and it will fall over....

Later, perhaps.

Do you think an animal will fall to the side by severing the spine? Not, they drop.

Approx weight estimate for the buff from the guide was 2,300lbs.

The one I shot in 2012 at approx 120yds was shot high in the lungs. The bullet did not exit nor hit any major bones, stopped under the hide on the far side, estimated weight was 2,200lbs. Bull ran less than 25yds, stopped, blew out a bunch of blood and dropped in its tracks. In this case the transfered energy was not what took the bull down but the large caliber bullet passing through did.
SS

So, you've shot two enormous animals with a big heavy bullet, which in both cases stopped in the animal.

In one case, where coincidentally the spine was severed, you feel that the bullet literally knocked this ton-plus animal over.
In the other case, where the animal was left with an intact spine, it simply went for a little run while it bled out and then fell over.

Why was the second animal not also, tea-cup-like, knocked over?

 

[Thar]

Canadian with due respect I would say the average UK stalker will shoot far more deer than a Canadian, I make this statement biased on I have an stalking friend who emigrated to Canada.

There are UK stalkers that will cull 100 or more deer per year, OK a lot might shoot single figure numbers but you get the idea. For example Our Roe session in Scotland is open 12 months a year; our Red session is 6 months long. Unless you have an out of session licence which will extend this time period even longer. In England some of their sessions are just as long.

Because of our strict firearms laws those that do stalk tend to be enthusiastic and dedicated hunters, you have to be to jump through all the hoops to stalk, there are proportionally fewer casual hunters in the UK.

So if I was looking for somebody with real world experience of shooting deer I would look to somebody like Ed or Ed, sorry not somebody from Canada. How many deer did you shoot last week?

The 6.5X55 is slightly more powerful than a 243, it will push a 120gn bullet as fast as 243 pushes 100gn bullet when home loaded. Nothing wrong with that, it will kill any UK deer. But I have seen its performance wanting, I put this down to people using heavy bullets from short barrels, resulting in runners as the bullet “pencilling though” the animal. As seen in some of our other posts on here some 6.5x55 loading are not legal for use on deer as we have a minimum velocity limit of 2450fps, you can argue the merits all you like be we have had this law for almost 50 years so I doubt it will change any time soon.

To quote a friend of mine that has shot 1,000 of deer my dog loves it when people turn up with a Swede, a statement that might be a bit unfair but you never hear it said about a 308. Also unless you home load not every gunshop has 6.5X55 ammo in stock while 308 stuff is everywhere.

For the record I don’t own either cal’ at the minute so have no horse in this race.

ATB
Tahr.

 

[Canadian1]

It is not just down to velocity.
it is down to bullet construction, impact velocity, calibre, angle, weight/size of target animal and god knows how many other things I can't explain.

I am not deliberately aiming at this spot.
I am talking about circumstances where the bullet hasn't gone exactly where I want it too.
shoot enough and they happen by themselves!
Its not an ideal situation by any mean, as the other end of the spectrum is a wounded and stunned animal that bolts as it wakes up!




Exactly.

I shot a roe doe at 185-190yds with a 60gr .222 but had held slightly too high.
Poleaxed.
Barely any blood on entry or exit, on gralloch the bullet had gone just under the spine, but not penetrated the lungs other than a slight nick, obviously lung collapsed from a pierced pleura
I have had several of these shots in the high chest over the years, 4-5 from memory. even have a picture of the last one

At least three of these that I can recall where the bullet has gone wide and above the spine in the high neck shots, especially on stags
dead, no eye reaction, no heart beat....and no blood
massive blow to the back of the neck below the skull.

Shot a fox at 20ft with a CB long, smack between the eyes. no penetration at all. Stone dead

Taken from: http://rkba.org/research/fackler/wrong.html

[h=4]4. Presumption of "Kinetic Energy Deposit" to Be a Mechanism of Wounding:[/h]Serious misunderstanding has been generated by looking upon "kinetic energy transfer" from projectile to tissue as a mechanism of injury. In spite of data to the contrary (1, 63), many assume that the amount of "kinetic energy deposit" in the body by a projectile is a measure of damage (2-5, 36, 37, 40). Such opinions ignore the direct interaction of projectile and tissue that is the crux of wound ballistics. Wounds that result in a given amount of "kinetic energy deposit" may differ widely. The nondeforming rifle bullet of the AK-74 (Fig 6) causes a large temporary cavity which can cause marked disruption in some tissue (liver), but has far less effect in others (muscle, lung, bowel wall) (9). A similar temporary cavity such as that produced by the M-16 (Fig 2), stretching tissue that has been riddled by bullet fragments, causes a much larger permanent cavity by detaching tissue segments between the fragment paths. Thus projectile fragmentation can turn the energy used in temporary cavitation into a truly destructive force because it is focused on areas weakened by fragment paths rather than being absorbed evenly by the tissue mass. The synergy between projectile fragmentation and cavitation can greatly increase the damage done by a given amount of kinetic energy.A large slow projectile (Fig 7) will crush (permanent cavity) a large amount of tissue, whereas a small fast missile with the same kinetic energy (Fig 4) will stretch more tissue (temporary cavity) but crush little. If the tissue crushed by a projectile includes the wall of the aorta, far more damaging consequences are likely to result than if this same projectile "deposits" the same amount of energy beside this vessel.
Many body tissues (muscle, skin, bowel wall, lung) are soft and flexible--the physical characteristics of a good shock absorber. Drop a raw egg onto a cement floor from a height of 2 m; then drop a rubber ball of the same mass from the same height. The kinetic energy exchange in both dropped objects was the same at the moment of impact. Compare the difference in effect; the egg breaks while the ball rebounds undamaged. Most living animal soft tissue has a consistency much closer to that of the rubber ball than to that of the brittle egg shell. This simple experiment demonstrates the fallacy in the common assumption that all kinetic energy "deposited" in the body does damage.
The assumption that "kinetic energy deposit" is directly proportional to damage done to tissues also fails to recognize the components of the projectile-tissue collision that use energy but do not cause tissue disruption. They are 1) sonic pressure wave, 2) heating of the tissue, 3) heating of the projectile, 4) deformation of the projectile, and 5) motion imparted to the tissue (gelatin bloc displacement for example).
The popular format for determination of "kinetic energy deposit" uses a chronograph to determine striking velocity and another to determine exit velocity. A 15-cm thick block of tissue simulant (gelatin or soap) is the target most often used. This method has one big factor in its favor; it is simple and easy to do. As for its validity, the interested reader is referred to wound profiles shown in Figs 1-7. Comparing only the first 15 cm of the missile path with the entire missile path as shown on the profiles shows the severe limitation of the 15-cm block format. The assumption by weapons developers that only the first 15 cm of the penetrating projectile's path through tissue is of clinical significance (64) may simplify their job, but fails to provide sufficient information for valid prediction of the projectile's wounding potential. The length of bullet trajectories through the human torso can be up to four times as long as those in these small blocs. Even if this method were scientifically valid, its use has been further flawed by nearly all investigators who have included the M-16 rifle bullet in those projectiles tested. This method assumes that the projectile's mass remains constant through both chronographs. The M-16 routinely loses one third of its mass in the form of fragments which may remain in the target (see Fig 2). The part of the bullet that passes through the second chronograph screens weighs only about two-thirds as much as the intact bullet that passed through the first set of screens. No provision is made for catching and weighing the projectile to correct for bullet fragmentation when it occurs. The failure to correct for loss of bullet mass can cause large errors in "energy deposit" data (8).
Surgeons sometimes excise tissue from experimental missile wounds that is, in their judgment, nonviable and compare the weight of tissue excised with the "kinetic energy deposited" (65). A surgeon's judgment and his technique of tissue excision is very subjective, as shown by Berlin et al (66), who found in a comparison that "One surgeon excised less tissue at low energy transfers and rather more at high energy transfers than the other surgeon, although both surgeons used the same criteria when judging the tissues." None of these experiments included control animals to verify that tissue the surgeon had declared "nonviable" actually became necrotic if left in place. Interestingly, all studies in which animals were kept alive for objective observations of wound healing report less lasting tissue damage than estimated from observation of the wound in the first few hours after it was inflicted (43-47, 67, 68). In a study of over 4,000 wounded in WW II it was remarked, "It is surprising to see how much apparently nonvital tissue recovered" (69).
Anyone yet unconvinced of the fallacy in using kinetic energy alone to measure wounding capacity might wish to consider the example of a modern broadhead hunting arrow. It is used to kill all species of big game, yet its striking energy is only about 50 ft-lb (68 Joules)-- less than that of the .22 Short bullet. Energy is used efficiently by the sharp blade of the broadhead arrow. Cutting tissue is far more efficient than crushing it, and crushing it is far more efficient than tearing it apart by stretch (as in temporary cavitation).


Likewise, the author also states in:
[h=4]2. Exaggeration of Temporary Cavity Size, Pressure, and Effect:[/h]In 1971, Amato et al (53) wrote that the temporary cavity "can approximate 30 times the size of the missile." They showed the temporary cavity caused by a 0.25-in. (6.4-mm) steel sphere shot at 3,000 ft/s (914 m/s) through the hind leg of an anesthetized dog. Although no scale was included on the high-speed roentgenograms, the reader can use dividers to determine the sphere diameter and will find that the largest temporary cavity shown is 11 sphere diameters--not 30 diameters. Wound profile data obtained in our laboratory gave comparable results; a 6-mm steel sphere at slightly over 1000 m/s produced a maximum temporary cavity of only 12.5 sphere diameters (Fig 4). Other authors, citing no data, describe the temporary cavity as "...30 times the diameter of the projectile..." (35), "...30 times or more..."(54), and 30 to 40 times the missile diameter (36, 40)--all sizable exaggerations.To further confuse the issue, pressures of up to 100 atmospheres are incorrectly attributed to temporary cavitation by many authors (39, 40, 55-57). These authors appear to have confused the sonic pressure wave with the pressure generated in tissues by temporary cavitation. Temporary cavity tissue displacement can cause pressures of only about 4 atmospheres (31). A careful reading of Harvey's paper (31) should correct this confusion.
Probably the most exaggerated account of temporary cavity effect in the literature appears in High Velocity Missile Wounds by Owen-Smith (36). His Fig 2.20 on page 35 shows a lesion in a pig's colon caused by a "standard bullet fired at 770 m/s (2500 ft/s)." Concerning this wound, he states "there are microscopic changes of cell death extending 20 cm from the edge of the hole in the colon; this is why such an area must be resected if it has been damaged by a rifle bullet." Perusal of the source document of this picture (58), however, reveals that a deforming soft-point hunting bullet was used for this shot. In describing the effect of this shot, the source document states, "...haemorrhage extended macroscopically to a diameter (my emphasis) of 20 cm." When the 8-cm hole diameter is subtracted, a 6-cm distance (rather than the 20 cm reported by Owen-Smith) from the edge of the hole on each side adds up to the "diameter of 20 cm" reported by Scott in the source document. Furthermore, photographs of bowel defects caused by bullets must be viewed with caution. Folding back the bowel wall around the edges of the hole can make tissue defects appear larger. If colon tissue at a distance of 20 cm from the bullet hole is killed, as asserted by Owen-Smith, what happens to the loops of small bowel and other organs that are within 20 cm of the bullet hole? Are they killed too? If so, this would equate to destruction of most of the abdominal contents by every penetrating "high-velocity" bullet. Clearly, this conclusion is inconsistent with well established available facts. A study done in our laboratory (9), for example, showed damage to a pig colon caused by a nondeforming military bullet traveling at 911 m/s (2989 ft/s) that was only slightly larger than the dimensions of the bullet that had caused it.
It should be noted, however, that stretch from temporary cavity tissue displacement can disrupt blood vessels or break bones at some distance from the projectile path (40), just as they can be disrupted by blunt trauma. We can produce this in the laboratory by careful choice of projectile and projectile trajectory in tissue (48), but in practice this happens only very rarely. Data from the Vietnam conflict show that the great majority of torso and extremity wounds were attributable to the damage due to the permanent cavity alone (59).


Before you jump on the last point, read very carefully. I don't doubt you experiences, but they seem disproportionately out of the norm and definitely not in line with my experiences. The range in size and physiology of the animals I hunt is also much greater. The smallest deer I hunt are on average 200-250 lbs.

 

[Canadian1]

Canadian with due respect I would say the average UK stalker will shoot far more deer than a Canadian, I make this statement biased on I have an stalking friend who emigrated to Canada.

There are UK stalkers that will cull 100 or more deer per year, OK a lot might shoot single figure numbers but you get the idea. For example Our Roe session in Scotland is open 12 months a year; our Red session is 6 months long. Unless you have an out of session licence which will extend this time period even longer. In England some of their sessions are just as long.

Because of our strict firearms laws those that do stalk tend to be enthusiastic and dedicated hunters, you have to be to jump through all the hoops to stalk, there are proportionally fewer casual hunters in the UK.

So if I was looking for somebody with real world experience of shooting deer I would look to somebody like Ed or Ed, sorry not somebody from Canada. How many deer did you shoot last week?

The 6.5X55 is slightly more powerful than a 243, it will push a 120gn bullet as fast as 243 pushes 100gn bullet when home loaded. Nothing wrong with that, it will kill any UK deer. But I have seen its performance wanting, I put this down to people using heavy bullets from short barrels, resulting in runners as the bullet “pencilling though” the animal. As seen in some of our other posts on here some 6.5x55 loading are not legal for use on deer as we have a minimum velocity limit of 2450fps, you can argue the merits all you like be we have had this law for almost 50 years so I doubt it will change any time soon.

To quote a friend of mine that has shot 1,000 of deer my dog loves it when people turn up with a Swede, a statement that might be a bit unfair but you never hear it said about a 308. Also unless you home load not every gunshop has 6.5X55 ammo in stock while 308 stuff is everywhere.

For the record I don’t own either cal’ at the minute so have no horse in this race.

ATB
Tahr.

Shooting roe on an estate is a little different from hunting in Canada. We do have lower limits, but we also have equal rights to crown land and game stock, not to mention a much greater variety of game animals. I've hunted since I was 14 and guided professionally for over 10 years in the interior. I don't need to defend myself to someone who thinks in such minuscule terms.

I hunted for over 15 years with a .30-06. It is a great round as is the 6.5x55. No end difference on game animals including moose. I've heard that statement before on TSD, and, like most forum folklore, I doubt its origins. It's one of those perpetual insidious comments repeated often by people who have little or no insight into the matter at hand.

Also, I've never once questioned the advice of experienced stalkers--I've received PM's from a few on this forum and they've all more sense than to argue which is the better cartridge.

 

[stephentri]

I have a 6.5x55 and think its a great caliber but that's because I homeload for it.if you don't homeload get a 308

 

[swarovski]

Calibre choice is down to preference and what you are confident with, after all the replies nothing has changed and nobody is going to win, they're obviously both tried, tested and proven performance.

 

[Thar]

Shooting roe on an estate is a little different from hunting in Canada. We do have lower limits, but we also have equal rights to crown land and game stock, not to mention a much greater variety of game animals. I've hunted since I was 14 and guided professionally for over 10 years in the interior. I don't need to defend myself to someone who thinks in such minuscule terms.

I hunted for over 15 years with a .30-06. It is a great round as is the 6.5x55. No end difference on game animals including moose. I've heard that statement before on TSD, and, like most forum folklore, I doubt its origins. It's one of those perpetual insidious comments repeated often by people who have little or no insight into the matter at hand.

I am not sure what the shooting Roe on an estate remark refers to, or its relevance? I have hunted from the age of 13 so what????

Canadian it is not about defending yourself, it is about facts, which is the average UK stalker will have shot more deer than a Canadian one, fact. I would guess that Edi and Ed have put more deer on the grass than you, this gives them real life experience.

I don’t know by what you refer to forum folklore but I have personally tracked a deer for guests and friends with my deer dogs over the years to have seen the failing of the 6.5X55 with my own eyes, while this might only be anecdotal evidence, as these posts demonstrates I am not the only one.

My beef is not so much with the 6.5/308 is best debate, I have already said that the 6.5X55 fine so long as it is matched to the correct bullet for UK deer, but your failure to acknowledge that these people you argue with are killing deer every week and know a little bit about what works.

ATB

Tahr

 

[Canadian1]

I am not sure what the shooting Roe on an estate remark refers to, or its relevance? I have hunted from the age of 13 so what????

Canadian it is not about defending yourself, it is about facts, which is the average UK stalker will have shot more deer than a Canadian one, fact. I would guess that Edi and Ed have put more deer on the grass than you, this gives them real life experience.

I don’t know by what you refer to forum folklore but I have personally tracked a deer for guests and friends with my deer dogs over the years to have seen the failing of the 6.5X55 with my own eyes, while this might only be anecdotal evidence, as these posts demonstrates I am not the only one.

My beef is not so much with the 6.5/308 is best debate, I have already said that the 6.5X55 fine so long as it is matched to the correct bullet for UK deer, but your failure to acknowledge that these people you argue with are killing deer every week and know a little bit about what works.

ATB

Tahr

For someone so enamored with facts, you seem to know very few. Moreover, you know nothing about me or my hunting past. BTW, what advice are you referring to? Telling people that either is the right choice. That after having taken dozens of game animals much larger than what can be found in the UK with both cartridges that either will do the job.

I am not arguing with anybody regarding the .264/.308 debate--there is no debate. There is choice.

If you go back and read, I brought up issue with EIG's assertion that the .308 is the better cartridge, which led to him making erroneous and unscientific claims about energy and ballistics, of which it is obvious he has little understanding of. After sifting through some of your forum posts, I've come to the conclusion that you, too, are on an equal playing field. I won't waste my time.

 

[Canadian1]

I don’t know by what you refer to forum folklore but I have personally tracked a deer for guests and friends with my deer dogs over the years to have seen the failing of the 6.5X55 with my own eyes, while this might only be anecdotal evidence, as these posts demonstrates I am not the only one.

What posts? You mean your post? You're the only one with an axe to grind. Grow up. This post reflects your capacity (or lack thereof) to think critically.