07-21-2014, 09:00 PM
stokesrj Wrote:Yes, the higher initial velocity of a .270 Winchester is noticeable at short range compared to the Grendel. But I don't think that will hold true at longer range. The bullets available for the .270 winchester are poor ballistically, they are designed for 0-300 yards and within that envelope they perform well indeed. But once the .270 has dropped below the velocity threshold of a massive temporary wound cavity it be comes just another chunk of metal through the vitals.
Also, I would find another guide, if he tells me be prepared to shoot 400 yards, he is telling me he has a poor area, or poor techniques. Most guides worth their salt will be advising the opposite, and plan to get you in close, unless they observe you really have the skill for a 400 yard shot, they won't even permit it.
I'm a long range hunter and a short range hunter, I would not hesitate to use my 6.5 Grendel out to 400 yards on a mule deer, whether it be a meat hunt or a trophy hunt makes no difference, I don't want to wound either. I find the 6.5 Grendel far more effective than the .243 and lots and lots of trophy mule deer have been taken with the .243. I even let one of my sons use our .243 on the Kiabab, and that is a hard to get tag. He killed a nice buck at 275 yards with a 100 grain Speer Grandslam from the little Remington model 7 .243. The 6.5 Grendel would have been more effective, and if I had one then, he would have used it. But dead is dead, and a 270, .243, or 6.5 bullet throughout the thorax makes them very dead.
Bob
Very well said.
The ability to place the bullet where it should go is most important.
Lots of practice and an accurate rifle helps.
The 6.5Grendel is very accurate with little recoil in a great platform.
After seeing how well it shoots if I wanted to shoot way out there like 600 yards and beyond I'd get a 260 rem or 6.5 creedmore.