The web's most comprehensive user-interactive handloading database! Find the loading data created by handloaders, for handloaders, post your pet loads, or access and develop your own online loading database with our LoadNotes personal handloading database software. This feature, unique in its concept and intuitive in it's data presentation is fast to access, superbly organized and comprehensive in scope.Our online forums for questions and answers on many shooting and outdoor related topics. A dynamic, active, and well-informed resource for your enjoyment and interaction. Our most used resource on this website! Come share the experience with us!
» Advanced

Go Back   Shooters Forum > Rifle and Rifle Cartridges > Rifles and Rifle Cartridges
Register FAQ Members List Donate Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read



Like Tree3Likes

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-31-2009, 08:12 AM
CoyoteJoe's Avatar
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Texas Creek, Colorado
Posts: 1,184
6.5 Creedmoor, how can it be?


Registered Users do not see the above ad.


Hornady's new 6.5 Creedmoor claims ballistics somewhat better than the .260 Remington or the 6.5x55. They further claim it operates at standard .308 pressure levels using common powders available to the reloader. Ammo Guide lists case capacity as 57.3 grains water for the 6.5x55, 54.8 grains for the .260 Remington and only 52.6 grains for the 6.5 Creedmoor. Now the Swede is loaded down and listed handloads are also on the conservative side but surely the .260 Remington must run ".308 pressure levels" yet they claim the 6.5 Creedmoor, which is just a shortened .260 with reduced powder capacity beats it with the same powders. Can it be true or is it just more advertising hype for what may be the least needed cartridge ever produced.
__________________
Life is such a hard school that no one has ever gotten out of it alive!
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-31-2009, 09:09 AM
Tang's Avatar
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,262
You bring up a good point. There is a lot of hype around the Ruger Compacy Magnum's too. Even though they have less case capacity than the WSM line.
__________________
Volatile & Unstable
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-31-2009, 05:43 PM
Brian S's Avatar
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Harrisburg PA
Posts: 44
Since I dont have a chrono I can only go by personal experience of ballistic drop out to 300yds. I ran the fps, bc, etc through a ballistic calculator and these were the results. Since my scope turrets have inches marked and 4 clicks between inch marks, I use 1 inch clicks for software output. Entering published fps (3020fps)With 100 (0) ,200yds(1.4);300yds(3.6). I'm shooting a 26" barrel and 120gr A-Max bullets. I followed the recipe exactly. 43.5gr H4350, Fed210m, 2.720-22 OAL. I used 1 with new brass sized(.003 headspace) and once fired with minimum .001 headspace.
The minimum(.001) headspace 200yds 1.1" turret clicks ; 300yds 3.2" clicks
The normal(.003) headspace 200yds 1.4" turret clicks ; 300yds 3.6" clicks

I can get more fps with Reloder17. I only loaded 10 so far and it shoots almost 1" higher @ 100yds without pressure signs.

I love this caliber, it shoots great and is easy on the shoulder.

See my pics on my post in gunsmithing. I'm turning my blind magazine gun into a magazine.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-31-2009, 07:34 PM
mattsbox99's Avatar
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Havre, Montana
Posts: 6,284
CoyoteJoe-

I have a thread on the 6.5 as well, the biggest feature of the 6.5 Creedmoor is that it can use long high B.C. bullets without crowding powder space. Reloder 17 looks extremely good for this caliber. I have a Ruger Hawkeye VT on order. Production is slated for the end of June for this run of guns.

The 6.5 isn't a shortened .260, its a different shape, but shares the .308 bolt face, so cases could be made from existing .308 brass.
__________________
Buy American, it may be your own job you are saving.
UTU, TY&E Service, BNSF
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-01-2009, 06:06 AM
Brian S's Avatar
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Harrisburg PA
Posts: 44
I ordered a 26" ER Shaw barrel for my Savage 11, originally in 300wsm. It took 16 weeks but was worth it. I did load some 140 gr Remington bullets just to foulout shoot etc between good jacketed bullets, but found out they shoot tremendously well. I still need to get 140 A-MAx and try
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-01-2009, 06:09 AM
CoyoteJoe's Avatar
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Texas Creek, Colorado
Posts: 1,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattsbox99 View Post
CoyoteJoe-

The 6.5 isn't a shortened .260, its a different shape, but shares the .308 bolt face, so cases could be made from existing .308 brass.
I describe the 6.5 Creedmoor as a shortened .260 in the same way one might describe the .308 as a shortened .30/06, but in this instance the difference is very much less.
Not much different at all, just 0.115" shorter. The Creedmoor has a 30 degree shoulder of .459" diameter while the .260 has a 20 degree shoulder of .454", just enough difference that the two won't quite interchange. Yes, you can make 6.5 Creedmoor brass from .308, and you could make it more easily from .260 Remington. Do you believe that difference in shoulder angle explains why the shorter case with less powder capacity is claimed to out perform the original and larger case?
The 6.5 Creedmoor may indeed work better in AR style rifles, I don't know, but in any other action type, who needs it?
I really like the 6.5mm bore and I'm glad to see industry interest in that bore size. I've bought, sold and traded off lots of guns over the years but my M-70 featherweight 6.5x55 is the one "keeper" I won't part with.
I just don't believe a smaller case can beat a larger case with the same powder and bullet at the same pressure. Do you?
__________________
Life is such a hard school that no one has ever gotten out of it alive!

Last edited by CoyoteJoe; 06-01-2009 at 06:43 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-01-2009, 09:11 AM
The Troll Whisperer (Moderator)
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Mesa, Arizona
Posts: 19,351
You're most probably correct on the larger case with same powder and bullet will be faster at the same pressure, Coyotejoe. Handloading with available components available to handloaders will bear this out.

The only caveat I will offer is that factory Hornady ammunition is loaded with a proprietary powder and loading method that isn't available to handloaders and their published results will certainly be higher velocities with same or lower pressures than we can achieve. Note their Light and Heavy Magnum munitions.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
NRA Certified Police Firearms Instructor
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
NAHC Life Member

"Firearms only have two enemies - rust and politicans" author unknown
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-01-2009, 02:37 PM
CoyoteJoe's Avatar
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Texas Creek, Colorado
Posts: 1,184
Ah yes the mysterious "wonder powder", but Hornady specifically states those ballistics are obtained with powders which are commonly available to reloaders.
__________________
Life is such a hard school that no one has ever gotten out of it alive!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-01-2009, 04:40 PM
mattsbox99's Avatar
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Havre, Montana
Posts: 6,284
Guys, this particular Hornady load is H4350 and the recipe is right on the box.

Coyote, if you don't like the 6.5, thats just fine, I happen to like it a lot. The reason the ballistics are better with it, is because they are tested with a 28" barrel (available on the Ruger) whereas the 260 and most other cartridges are tested with a 24" barrel.
__________________
Buy American, it may be your own job you are saving.
UTU, TY&E Service, BNSF
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-02-2009, 12:29 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Winchester, VA
Posts: 541
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattsbox99 View Post
Guys, this particular Hornady load is H4350 and the recipe is right on the box.

Coyote, if you don't like the 6.5, thats just fine, I happen to like it a lot. The reason the ballistics are better with it, is because they are tested with a 28" barrel (available on the Ruger) whereas the 260 and most other cartridges are tested with a 24" barrel.
This makes sense with the above info. The Creedmore is supposed to be loaded with readily available powder that is available to the reloader. The original cartridge was designed with available powders and then took over by Hornady. This cartridge was designed as a benchrest cartridge and was developed with current and existing components. I really like the Creedmore, but don't see one bit of difference in it and the .260 Remington, other than it was designed to work a little better on the AR platform. Same bullets, same powder, almost the same cartridge. I just wish Ruger would have gone back to chambering the .260 in a full rifle and quit makin those useless compact rifles.
__________________
Hunting is not a necessity.......it is an obsession!
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 06-02-2009, 03:38 PM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Utah
Posts: 130
i dont know that I would call the compact rifles useless but I too with the .260 was available in more production rifles.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-03-2009, 05:21 AM
Brian S's Avatar
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Harrisburg PA
Posts: 44
I followed the recipe exactly and came up with the same if not better ballistics published. Some of that due to minimum headspace and 26" barrel. I think the reasoning behind development of the 6.5 creedmoor was to accomidate longer bullets, easier feeding, and supply really accurate ammo for the shooter if they don't reload. Remington left the 260 struggle with no real good ammo and slow barrel twist1-10. Hornady brass is a little soft, and out of 100 pieces I have to throw away 2 to 3. I checked the brass weight and neck thickness and found very few that will go into my hunting/foulout pile.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-03-2009, 05:23 AM
CoyoteJoe's Avatar
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Texas Creek, Colorado
Posts: 1,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattsbox99 View Post
Guys, this particular Hornady load is H4350 and the recipe is right on the box.

Coyote, if you don't like the 6.5, thats just fine, I happen to like it a lot. The reason the ballistics are better with it, is because they are tested with a 28" barrel (available on the Ruger) whereas the 260 and most other cartridges are tested with a 24" barrel.
Thanks for finally answering my question. Obviously you haven't read my post. I do like the 6.5 bore very much, I just don't see the point in yet another round which duplicates one that already exists. If you like it a lot, well that is good. Don't you think you'd like a .260 Remington just as well?
__________________
Life is such a hard school that no one has ever gotten out of it alive!
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-03-2009, 07:18 AM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 1,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoyoteJoe View Post
Thanks for finally answering my question. Obviously you haven't read my post. I do like the 6.5 bore very much, I just don't see the point in yet another round which duplicates one that already exists. If you like it a lot, well that is good. Don't you think you'd like a .260 Remington just as well?
I have a .260. The only thing I can think of would be I'd like a little longer neck on it so it could use 156gr+ bullets a little better and some factory loads for it just so all the options are available The .260 being based on some of the most common brass in the world is a pretty big benefit, IMO (and ultimately why I chose it over the 6.5x55SE).
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-04-2009, 06:17 AM
CoyoteJoe's Avatar
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Texas Creek, Colorado
Posts: 1,184
Have you tried the Hornady 160 grain in your .260? I heard from a fellow I met last season that they work great in the .260. I alternate between 120 & 140 grain in my 6.5x55, it could easily handle the 160 grain but when the 140s and even most 120s give me pass through on deer and elk I don't see any reason to trade off velocity for more bullet weight than I need. I'm thinking now, before hunting season opens, I may just work up a good load with the Hornady 129 grain and use that for everything. My reason for standardizing on one load is that right now I have loaded ammo, factory and reloads, with half a dozen different loads and I don't remember what I last sighted in with. My Winchester/Bushnell combo has held zero wonderfully well over the years and different loads don't make a really big difference in point of impact but I like to know exactly.
__________________
Life is such a hard school that no one has ever gotten out of it alive!
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 06-04-2009, 06:59 AM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 1,339
I haven't started reloading, yet. I have been thinking about getting into it. The only thing I've heard about the 156gr+ and the .260 is that with standard COL, the bullet will dip into the powder area more and cost you some fps (I think I've seen ~2500fps listed for loads using the 156gr bullets). How fast are your 140gr in your 6.5x55? I have started out just using Remington Green box 140gr Core-Lokt factory loads with my .260, they claim 2750fps (don't have a chrony to check). I've only shot them at the range, so far, but I think they'll do great on whitetails and hogs. I'm going to try out some 120gr AccuTip factory loads to see how those shoot, as well. I'll probably use them around here (whitetails) and use the 140s where there are hogs. Maybe I'll be able to use the 140s on some elk sometime in the future
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06-04-2009, 07:58 AM
CoyoteJoe's Avatar
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Texas Creek, Colorado
Posts: 1,184
I'm not into pushing the envelope, I found my best accuracy with the 120 Nosler Ballistic Tip at about 2800fps with H-450 powder, which is no longer available. I was loading the 140 grain Hornady's to about 2700 fps, just a bit faster than Winchester factory loads. I expect to run the 129 grain Hornady's around 2700-2800 also. I still have some Norma brass I bought with my first m-96 Swede back when Norma was the only thing available. I have no idea how many time I've reloaded those cases but for sure a bunch of times so I think my loads must be pretty mild. I've seen some data pushing the 120 grain bullet past 3000fps and the 140 over 2900 but I won't go there. An extra 100 or 200 fps makes absolutely no difference in the field but a big difference in safety and durability. Those velocities are from the 22" barrel of an M-70 Winchester Featherweight.
__________________
Life is such a hard school that no one has ever gotten out of it alive!

Last edited by CoyoteJoe; 06-04-2009 at 08:14 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 06-04-2009, 08:31 AM
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 1,339
What's the twist of your barrel? I have an Encore barrel with 1:8, which favors the heavier bullets. I haven't tried the 120s yet to see how they'll go through it. The 129s should be good in it, though.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 06-04-2009, 09:45 AM
Tang's Avatar
Beartooth Regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,262
Joe, just build you a 6.5 STW and get it over with. Leave them all in the dust.
__________________
Volatile & Unstable
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 06-04-2009, 11:05 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1
To wade in, here - I'm a huge fan of the Creedmoor. CoyoteJoe wonders about its function in AR-type rifles.........and that is exactly, 100% and precisely why I chose it. If I would've been building a bolt gun, I can't say I wouldn't have picked it, but on a gasgun the choice seemed obvious to me.
I absolutely love the 6.5 ANYTHING, but I also like mag-fed guns, and more specifically ARs. I have always been a velocity nut and have been wed to the .300 Winmag for years - in a bolt-gun format. Well, long story short, I am getting back into shooting after a layoff and I'm getting into long-range instead of going back to IPSC (holy shmitz, is this fun or what). I have absolutely nothing against bolt guns - I own, work on and love the **** out of 'em - but my "gamer" side always wants an advantage - hence, a long-range AR. .308 is the gold standard, but IMHO, 6.5 is simply better for too many reasons to list. Having said that, where do I go? .260? 6.5x47? 6.5CM? Any would've worked, but I needed to be able to seat my bullets to my liking and still operate through the mag (DPMS in this case). 6.5 CM and 6.5x47 fit this. Lemme just say that I'm still working up loads, but my initial tests went well, then my second round of testing (last Sunday) gave me what I was looking for - 2750+ from a gas gun, and a 1.1" to .864" 5-shot groups at 200 from a bipod. This is out of a 26" Kreiger.
The ONLY complaint that I think can be made about the CM is that the brass is a bit soft, which is not unusual for Hornady IMO, but I recently got a "new" run of brass that at least LOOKS better, and we'll see how it works in a day or two.
PS - on another note, the loads are listed on the factory ammo, and although they are from Hornady's 28" test barrel, they are not hard to duplicate, making allowances for the shorter bbl length. AND, I find that I can actually get at least .050-.070" extra cartridge length in a C-Products magazine (DPMS compatible, need minor tuning, but very slick) This was a big help in my seating depth trials (which, incidentally, I'm .025 off the lands with 140 A-Maxs)
FWIW, I'm diggin it with a shovel.
Carlton

Last edited by kdub; 06-04-2009 at 01:08 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
6.5 stw countryboy Wildcat Cartridges 32 04-21-2012 12:23 PM
6.5 Jap reloading data fastfreddy Handloading Procedures/Practices 14 06-04-2009 02:47 AM
need reloading help for Remington 6.5 mm mag jack j Handloading Procedures/Practices 1 04-29-2009 08:58 AM
6.5 mm rough bore? Catch Gunsmithing 7 02-21-2009 05:36 PM
New Hornedy RCM's and 6.5 Creedmoor faucettb Rifles and Rifle Cartridges 7 07-23-2008 02:24 PM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:15 PM.

< Contact Us - Shooters Forum - Archive >

 
 

All Content & Design Copyright © 1999-2002 Beartooth Bullets, All Rights Reserved
View Privacy Policy | Contact Webmaster | Legal Information
Website Design & Development By Exbabylon Internet Solutions
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2