I do alot of reading and I always look at "new and better" cartridges with a careful review. The ONLY advantage of the Creedmore over the 260remington is the slightly longer neck. Put them in the same twist and length barrel, and the 260 is just as good if not better ballistically with any weight bullet.Bandit,
You've offered your opinion, several times, that the Creedmoor is "an answer to a question no one was asking". I guess I don't understand where you're coming from, because the round was meant to answer the question, "Is there a better case we can deliver a 6.5mm bullet from, for accuracy?" I think it answers the question fairly well, although I tend to think a round is as accurate as the gun it is shot from, along with the guy pulling the trigger.
How is it that your absolute love of the 6.5x55 and 260Rem have evolved into such a disdain for the 6.5Creedmoor, when these three are ballistic triplets? Is a case that is just a little shorter and a little fatter really so bad, when it performs the same magic, once the bullet leaves the barrel?
I'm just askin' here, not trying to stir something up.
With the notable exception of the 7mm Rem Mag, you're absolutely right! (Ironically, it really doesn't compare well with a number of cartridges with more "standard" US naming conventions, but has still sold very well.)Yeah, I have no technical reasons why the 6.5 Creedmoor may be 'bad'. In fact, all the reasons I like the .260Rem are equally valid for it (and the 6.5x55SE). If any two of those three were immediately discontinued in all ways (no more barrels, rifles, or ammo), I'd switch to the remaining one without batting an eye.
The other reason why the 6.5s have always had a problem is that people in the USA seem to have some phobia about metric measurements. That's why we see stuff like ".325 WSM", ".260 Remington", and "370 Sako" instead of something like "8mm WSM", "6.5mm Remington" or "6.5x51", and "9.3mm Sako" (the 370 Sako is actually called the 9.3x66 outside of the USA).
I couldn't agree more! I don't know of any other company who is willing to make the gun YOU want, the way Savage is...all the others could learn from that example. So many shooters are willing to pay a little over the base cost, to get the gun they really want. Why wouldn't ANY gun company realize that and figure out what they need to charge to make a profit, while meeting the customer's needs? I guess it has to do with tooling costs, but whatever Savage is doing to make it happen, I like it.That's how you sell more guns, by giving the customer what they want, not want you want to sell.
Oh... and yeah, when I got my barrel made for my T/C Encore Pro Hunter, I specified 1:8 twist because I knew I'd be shooting 140gr primarily.The 260 has suffered because Remington thought they knew better than the Swedes. The 6.5x55 has had a 1-8 or 1-7.5 twist since day one and has the uncanny ability to shoot any .264 bullet into tiny clusters for over 100 yrs. So what did Remington do when they brought out the 260? They put a 1-9 twist on it, and the 260 has issues with 140 grain bullets or heavier no matter what the style.