6.5 BlowMore

[David LaPell]

When I first started looking at the 6.5 Creedmoor's ballistics, I thought they looked pretty familiar, and then I started looking at the 6.5 x 55 Swede, and noticed how close they were. Really close.

The advertised ballistics for the 140 grain Hornady round are 2,710 fps out of a 28 inch test barrel.

One of the posted ballistics for the 6.5 x 55 with a 140 grain SP is 2,651 fps but it doesn't list a barrel length. I was wondering if they got it out of a 28 inch test barrel of maybe the 29 inch barrel of a Swede M96.

Either that, they are very close to each other, and it looks like another case of reinventing the wheel. The 6.5 Swede while it enjoys a little popularity here, is very popular overseas when it comes to hunting. In Finland and other parts of Scandinavia, it's used a lot for moose and reindeer.

The 6.5 Creedmoor will be popular for the same reason those who shoot the 6.5 Swede like it, because it's low recoil and the bullet design is like the Swede, great penetration for a smaller cartridge.

Personally, I think I will stick with my Swede but I wouldn't have kicked a new 6.5 Creedmoor out the door.

[Earlwb]

Well, at first I sort of turned my nose up at the 6.5 Creedmoor cartridge. But later when I read more about it, then it turned out that its designers were really thinking pretty good. When the 6.5x308 or .260 Remington came out, its major shortcoming was you couldn't use the long 140 grain pointy boat tail bullets with it as the cartridge then was too long for a .308 Winchester magazine or mag well. They wanted the cartridge to work in the short action rifles and even the AR10's. So the users of the 260 Rem were stuck with 100 to 120 grain bullets. Remington also decided to use the rifling twist rate to maximize the 100 grain bullets too. Thus the twist rate was wrong for 140 grain bullets. The other 6.5 cartridges such as the .264 magnum rounds were for long action rifles and not the short action rifles. So those magnum types of cartridges were Ok except they only worked with the long action rifles. Now then granted the 6.5 Carcano and 6.5 Arisaka were fine though. But the cartridges were not designed to handle higher chamber pressures. The 6.5 Swede would have been the winner but it doesn't fit in the short action rifles or AR-10s.

Now with the 6.5 Creedmoor, they shortened the 308 TC case a little and then neck sized it for 6.5mm bullets as well as blew it out some too. That allowed them to use the extra long pointy boat tailed 140 grain bullets. Now the cartridge had bullets with really good BC (ballistic coefficient) and it fit inside a .308 Win magazine too. So you could now use it in short action rifles and AR-10's too. So really they just improved on the existing short 6.5 cartridges. I think that also with it being a short fat kind of cartridge case, it might get better ignition and combustion than you would get with a longer more skinny cartridge case. They also opted for the small rifle primers for target shooting too.

Now then the 6.5 Creedmoor 62,000 PSI max chamber pressure is a bit scary. So one needs to use good quality primers. They have had primer blowouts with it. But the factories backed off the charge propellant loads a little bit to help avoid that problem.

Anyway I am more understanding as to why they came out with the cartridge.

I happened to see that Cabelas had the Thompson Center Compass bolt action rifles on sale at $339 this last weekend. Couple that with the TC $75 rebate and a 5% military/veteran discount and any reward points you might have as well and the rifle is downright inexpensive. It isn't a bad way to test out a 6.5 Creedmoor without spending a lot of money to do so.

[lefty o]

might be theory about the 260 not fitting mags with longer bullets, but i have no problem with fitting various 140's in the mag of my .308 length action.

[vzerone]

Well, at first I sort of turned my nose up at the 6.5 Creedmoor cartridge. But later when I read more about it, then it turned out that its designers were really thinking pretty good. When the 6.5x308 or .260 Remington came out, its major shortcoming was you couldn't use the long 140 grain pointy boat tail bullets with it as the cartridge then was too long for a .308 Winchester magazine or mag well. They wanted the cartridge to work in the short action rifles and even the AR10's. So the users of the 260 Rem were stuck with 100 to 120 grain bullets. Remington also decided to use the rifling twist rate to maximize the 100 grain bullets too. Thus the twist rate was wrong for 140 grain bullets. The other 6.5 cartridges such as the .264 magnum rounds were for long action rifles and not the short action rifles. So those magnum types of cartridges were Ok except they only worked with the long action rifles. Now then granted the 6.5 Carcano and 6.5 Arisaka were fine though. But the cartridges were not designed to handle higher chamber pressures. The 6.5 Swede would have been the winner but it doesn't fit in the short action rifles or AR-10s.

Now with the 6.5 Creedmoor, they shortened the 308 TC case a little and then neck sized it for 6.5mm bullets as well as blew it out some too. That allowed them to use the extra long pointy boat tailed 140 grain bullets. Now the cartridge had bullets with really good BC (ballistic coefficient) and it fit inside a .308 Win magazine too. So you could now use it in short action rifles and AR-10's too. So really they just improved on the existing short 6.5 cartridges. I think that also with it being a short fat kind of cartridge case, it might get better ignition and combustion than you would get with a longer more skinny cartridge case. They also opted for the small rifle primers for target shooting too.

Now then the 6.5 Creedmoor 62,000 PSI max chamber pressure is a bit scary. So one needs to use good quality primers. They have had primer blowouts with it. But the factories backed off the charge propellant loads a little bit to help avoid that problem.

Anyway I am more understanding as to why they came out with the cartridge.

I happened to see that Cabelas had the Thompson Center Compass bolt action rifles on sale at $339 this last weekend. Couple that with the TC $75 rebate and a 5% military/veteran discount and any reward points you might have as well and the rifle is downright inexpensive. It isn't a bad way to test out a 6.5 Creedmoor without spending a lot of money to do so.

The sleeper out of the older 6.5's was the 6.5 Japanese. Was just looking an a very old Hornady manual and the 6.5 Japanese out did the 6.5 Swede with all bullet weighs except the 160 which it equaled the Swede. The rifle for it sure can handle the pressure I don't see what modern brass for it couldn't either.

I built a 260 on a longer Savage action and then throated it out to accept the longer 140 grain bullets seated base of the bullet to the base of the neck. It give up absolutely nothing to the 6.5 Creedmoor.

[gnostic]

I've been shooting a couple of 6.5 remington magnums, a 40X and a 600 remington for years and never looked back. The 40X with 120 grain bullet does 3200 FPS, shoots 1/2" and the 600 shoots 3/4". Both guns shoot bullets from 100 to 140 grains without problems...

[Earlwb]

The sleeper out of the older 6.5's was the 6.5 Japanese. Was just looking an a very old Hornady manual and the 6.5 Japanese out did the 6.5 Swede with all bullet weighs except the 160 which it equaled the Swede. The rifle for it sure can handle the pressure I don't see what modern brass for it couldn't either.

I built a 260 on a longer Savage action and then throated it out to accept the longer 140 grain bullets seated base of the bullet to the base of the neck. It give up absolutely nothing to the 6.5 Creedmoor.

Oh yeah, I can agree. The 6.5 Japanese is a good one. The 6.5 Carcano too. Both were setup to use the heavier longer bullets too. But I would be reluctant to load them hot like they do the 6.5 Creedmoor though. 62,000 PSI max in the standard cartridge cases might be pushing it too far. The cases could blow out on them like that. Anyway a fellow could do quite well shooting the 6.5 Arisaka or 6.5 Carcano using the modern 140 grain target bullets in them.

[Earlwb]

might be theory about the 260 not fitting mags with longer bullets, but i have no problem with fitting various 140's in the mag of my .308 length action.

I think the problem is that the base of the longer 6.5mm 140 grain bullets protrudes way down into the case insides too much. Ideally one wants the bullet base to just be at the end of the neck where the slope on the bottleneck starts.

[vzerone]

Oh yeah, I can agree. The 6.5 Japanese is a good one. The 6.5 Carcano too. Both were setup to use the heavier longer bullets too. But I would be reluctant to load them hot like they do the 6.5 Creedmoor though. 62,000 PSI max in the standard cartridge cases might be pushing it too far. Anyway a fellow could do quite well shooting the 6.5 Arisaka or 6.5 Carcano using the modern 140 grain target bullets in them.

The Arisaka action could definitely handle that pressure, but I'd be more concerned with the brass holding up with it's breeching system. Say if it were built on a 700 Remington I think it would be kicking on the heals of the 6.5 Creedmoor for sure. The 6.5 Carcano, although a good round, isn't as powerful as the 6.5 Japanese.

Indeed the 140 grain bullet protruding into the 260 powder capacity hinders it. Remington should have three action. I've run into problems with Remington rifles chamber for the 6mm Remington. Loaded some for a friends rifle using the 100 grain Hornady spire points and although they would fit the magazine and chamber, he couldn't extract a loaded round because the bullet tip wouldn't clear the front receiver ring. They shoehorned a too long of an OAL cartridge in that short of an action.

[Earlwb]

Interestingly enough, this may all be a moot point. The 6.5 Creedmoor has become popular as a hunting cartridge. But for long range target shooting it seems the competition guys have switched over or going to switch over to the 6mm Creedmoor instead. That seems to be the new darling for competition now. it is all about speed, the 6mm throws the bullets downrange faster than the 6.5mm can. Plus the hunters sort of like it now too.

ref https://www.outdoorlife.com/6mm-cree...range-shooting

[Texas by God]

What's old is new again. The 6mm Creed reminds me of the old 6mm International you could get in a 40XB Remington.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[polebilly]

If the ammo company was really thinking about a good efficient 6.5 it wouldn't be the creedmore. It only out does a 6.5 BR by 175 fps. Even the 6.5x47 Lapua is over bore for 6.5. Probably a 6.5X47 Lapua with a body shortened by .050 to .100 would actually produce virtually identical ballistics as the creedmore.

[vzerone]

http://www.accurateshooter.com/featured/65x47/

[Earlwb]

What's old is new again. The 6mm Creed reminds me of the old 6mm International you could get in a 40XB Remington.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

yes, I think that many cartridges today got reinvented again. The problem was years ago a similar cartridge was developed, but it wound up having deficiencies. One example is not being able to get the correct propellant or bullet at the time. The propellants we have today tend to be much better than those in the past. Plus many years ago, we had little to no choice in what propellants to use too. we only had a few to choose from. Then of course bullet designs have evolved tremendously over time as compared to way back then.

[Earlwb]

If the ammo company was really thinking about a good efficient 6.5 it wouldn't be the creedmore. It only out does a 6.5 BR by 175 fps. Even the 6.5x47 Lapua is over bore for 6.5. Probably a 6.5X47 Lapua with a body shortened by .050 to .100 would actually produce virtually identical ballistics as the creedmore.

Actually with the exception of maybe the 6.5 Carcano and maybe another one, the 6.5's are all about equal in performance. Most of them are close in muzzle velocity maybe a 100 to 200 fps or so difference. The magnums add a little more speed though. It really winds up being what kind of rifle and or barrel one has to use. So it winds up being how good is the rifle being used not the cartridge chosen so much.

But if someone wanted to get into shooting and didn't already have 6.5mm something already, then the 6.5CM would not be a bad choice. But if they already have a 6.5 something there really isn't much reason to get a 6.5CM. Albeit unless they really wanted one.

[jakharath]

Just finished reading this thread and realized a few things:

1) Everybody got along in their discussions about 6.5 creedmore
2) A lot of us gun folks like to try new calibers/bullets/guns just because
3) I need to pick up a 6.5 Jap and a 6.5x55 Swiss

[vzerone]

Actually with the exception of maybe the 6.5 Carcano and maybe another one, the 6.5's are all about equal in performance. Most of them are close in muzzle velocity maybe a 100 to 200 fps or so difference. The magnums add a little more speed though. It really winds up being what kind of rifle and or barrel one has to use. So it winds up being how good is the rifle being used not the cartridge chosen so much.

But if someone wanted to get into shooting and didn't already have 6.5mm something already, then the 6.5CM would not be a bad choice. But if they already have a 6.5 something there really isn't much reason to get a 6.5CM. Albeit unless they really wanted one.

I'm not going to say I disagree with you Earlwb. Rather I'll say I don't see it that was. First off the 6.5 Carcano is one of the most balanced 6.5 cartridges. Let's look at their velocities with the heavy 160 grain bullet, which was the original weight in most of them. The 6.5 Carcano does 2200 fps, the 6.5 Japanese does 2400 fps, the 6.5x54MS does 2200 fps, the 6.5 Swede does 2400 fps, the 6.5 Rem Mag does 2800 fps, and the 264 Win Mag does 2900. Now with the lighter 129 grain bullet: the 6.5 Carcano does 2500 fps, the 6.5 Japanese does 2700 fps, the 6.5x54MS does 2400 fps, the 6.5 Swede does 2600 fps, the 6.5 Rem Mag does 300 fps, and the 264 Win Mag does 3300 fps. These were taken from an old Hornady manual. First this you notice is the 6.5 Japanes gives up nothing to the famous 6.5 Swede. I think it was Chuck Hawks that said it was the most underated older 6.5 cartridge and I believe he built a custom rifle for it and cranked the velocity even more. I don't agree that an addition 200 fps is nothing as it is something. Why the Carcano and Japanese 6.5's beat the larger 6.5x54MS I don't know unless it's purposely loaded lower. The 6.5 Rem Mag's performance can be much better if it's used on a longer action so you can load the longer heavier bullets out of the case's powder capacity.

[Earlwb]

I can't complain much about the 6.5 Carcano. As a teenager I used a small 6.5 Carcano Carbine for my truck gun for several years. I had a scope mounted on it as the iron sights were zeroed for 300 yards. Thus it shot way way high at closer ranges. I am not sure if we can boost the chamber pressures much as the brass cases may not be able to handle it. So I was reluctant to say it would work as well as the other 6.5 cartridges. The Carcano rifles are nice shooters though. But in any case that little carbine is a really handy little size.

[vzerone]

I can't complain much about the 6.5 Carcano. As a teenager I used a small 6.5 Carcano Carbine for my truck gun for several years. I had a scope mounted on it as the iron sights were zeroed for 300 yards. Thus it shot way way high at closer ranges. I am not sure if we can boost the chamber pressures much as the brass cases may not be able to handle it. So I was reluctant to say it would work as well as the other 6.5 cartridges. The Carcano rifles are nice shooters though. But in any case that little carbine is a really handy little size.

I reform new modern brass for the 6.5 Japanese and 6.5x54MS and it can take the heat if you know what I mean. Ironically being an Italian, I've never owned a 6.5 Carcano, nor do I want one. I don't like the rifle itself, the cartridge is okay. Only Carcano I would own is the Japanese TYPE I which Italy made for Japan. Those had far better workmanship then the ones the Japanese made. The bores were more consistant too. I'm sorry I passed on a couple of good deals on some of the ones I've seen.

[Earlwb]

Well, it might be interesting to see how a Carcano with a good bore would do for accuracy with the modern long ogive pointy super BC bullets. The gain twist rifling would likely mean it would work well with the heavier bullets 140 grains on up. I'll have to see about maybe reforming some brass out of 6.5x54ms or something for it. No hurry though, too many other things in line ahead of it.

[vzerone]

Well, it might be interesting to see how a Carcano with a good bore would do for accuracy with the modern long ogive pointy super BC bullets. The gain twist rifling would likely mean it would work well with the heavier bullets 140 grains on up. I'll have to see about maybe reforming some brass out of 6.5x54ms or something for it. No hurry though, too many other things in line ahead of it.

From what I've read the Type I had conventional rifling not the gain twist so it would be interesting to see how one shoots. Maybe like a 6.5 Swede huh?