A study was conducted in normal healthy C57BL/6 mice to determine the effect of method of blood collection on clinical pathology parameters and to provide value ranges for these parameters. Males and females were used and were randomly assigned to treatment groups based upon phlebotomy method. The blood was collected using one of four methods: intracardiac (IC), a single attempt at collection from the caudal vena cava (VC), collection from the caudal vena cava with collection of any extravasated blood from the peritoneum (MC), or retroorbital phlebotomy (RO). Evaluation of blood and serum samples was conducted for a number of serum biochemistries including liver function tests and complete blood count with differentials and platelet counts. Female mice demonstrated higher values for red blood cell number, hemoglobin (p < 0.002), hematocrit, alkaline phosphatase, albumin, total protein, and creatinine. Males demonstrated higher values for platelet counts, specific white blood cell numbers (total, neutrophil, lymphocyte, and eosinophil counts), globulin, amylase, and the BUN/creatinine ratio. Overall, the VC method was associated with the least variation in both sexes and appeared slightly better than the IC method for the parameters evaluated. The largest difference between groups was noted for the transaminase levels. While alanine aminotransferase (ALT) values were similar between the IC and VC groups, aspartate aminotransferase (AST) values were associated with less variation for the VC method. Transaminase levels for the MC and RO groups were associated with relatively large ranges and variation. ALT results from the RO method, the only method amenable to repetitive sample collection used in this evaluation, indicate that this is an acceptable method. The results demonstrate the substantial impact that phlebotomy method has on the assay results and that the VC or IC methods provide the most consistent results. The ranges by collection method and sex provided here can be used to select the preferred method of collection when designing a study and for comparison of data obtained with reference ranges. The authors recommend establishment of normal ranges based upon methods employed within an investigator's laboratory.