The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > The Art of the Rifle: Bolt, Lever, and Pump Action

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old April 2, 2013, 11:15 PM   #26
Geo_Erudite
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 26, 2013
Location: Washburn, WI
Posts: 126
Reynolds,

No cartridge is super wonderful, if there was one, there would be no need for any other type of cartridge. I love my Creedmoor, and it is super wonderful to me. I would say though, that the Creedmoor is the natural progression from .250-3000 to .22-250 to 6mm XC to 6.5 Creedmoor.

GeauxTide,

The .260 is a fine cartridge, it's just not my cup of tea in regards to short action 6.5 mm cartridges. Max Planck once stated "science advances one funeral at a time." In my mind the 260 represents a stagnation of thought processes, and the 308 cartridge family are the old guard of the short action club. I just tire of the old guard bashing other cartridges as redundant, when instead they should celebrate the advancement in cartridge "science." That is why I get a tad bit defensive.

Last edited by Geo_Erudite; April 3, 2013 at 08:13 AM.
Geo_Erudite is offline  
Old April 3, 2013, 12:05 AM   #27
emcon5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 10, 1999
Location: High Desert NV
Posts: 1,489
The 6.5 Creedmoore is great, almost matches the performance of what the Swede's put out in 1894.

Most shooters would never notice any difference from an accuracy/performance standpoint between the 6.5 Creedmore, 6.5x55 Swede, 260 Remington, 6.5-284, or 6.5-06.

I am a big fan of the 6.5 mm in general, and when I was building a LR rig, I built a 6.5-06, because at the time the 260 had just been introduced, and wasn't widely available. If I was doing it again today, I would build a .260.
emcon5 is offline  
Old April 4, 2013, 11:32 AM   #28
tamezacdc
Junior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2012
Posts: 7
.260 rem question

How about the 6.5 Remington Magnum?
tamezacdc is offline  
Old April 4, 2013, 08:07 PM   #29
reynolds357
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 10, 2012
Posts: 1,893
Geo, the only real difference in the .260 and the Creedmoore is their name. I'm no real fan of either. I bought a Creedmoore because the price was right. Its a nice cartridge, but its success is due much more in part to successful marketing than performance or accuracy difference between it and the .260.
reynolds357 is offline  
Old April 4, 2013, 09:28 PM   #30
emcon5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 10, 1999
Location: High Desert NV
Posts: 1,489
Quote:
How about the 6.5 Remington Magnum?
According to the latest Sierra manual, pushing a 140 gr bullet, the highest velocity loads are:

264 Win Mag: 3000FPS
6.5-06: 2950 FPS
6.5-284: 2900 FPS
6.5x55 Swedish Mauser 2700 FPS
260 Remington 2700 FPS

6.5 Rem Mag: no loads for 140 gr, Sierra says they did not include them because the OAL would be too long for a short action with heavy bullets. Published 120 gr loads are (surprisingly)~300 fps slower than 6.5-06 or 6.5-284.
My Horrnady manual does lists 140 gr loads up to 2900 FPS.

6.5 Creedmoore: Not listed in any of my loading books. Hodgdon's web site lists 140 gr loads in the 2600 range for max loads.

A practical difference between the 260 Rem and the 264 Win Mag, in a 10 MPH full value wind, you will have about 4" less wind at 600 yards (4.5MOA/28.5" @ 2700 FPS vs 3.8MOA/24.2" @ 3000FPS) The Creedmoore would be a little worse, but not much.

A High master Long Range shooter could probably tell the difference, but most people couldn't. A deer certainly wouldn't.
emcon5 is offline  
Old April 4, 2013, 09:47 PM   #31
reynolds357
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 10, 2012
Posts: 1,893
Most of the data you see on the .264 Win. mag. is 24" barrel data. The .264 Win. mag. is significantly faster than published data with a 26" barrel. I have 4 .264 Win mags. Two have 26 in barrels, 1 has 24, one has a 28. The 26" barrel can push the 140 real close to 3300 without showing extreme pressure signs. The 28 will push a 100 grain over 4000fps. In my opinion, all the 22" and 24" loading data out there for the Win. mag. do it extreme injustice.
reynolds357 is offline  
Old April 4, 2013, 10:18 PM   #32
Geo_Erudite
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 26, 2013
Location: Washburn, WI
Posts: 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by reynolds357
Geo, the only real difference in the .260 and the Creedmoor is their name.
Reynolds you are correct, the real world application and performance between the two are trifling. I am however a nerd, and love to analyze the minute details between cartridges.

Quote:
Originally Posted by emcon5
6.5 Creedmoor: Not listed in any of my loading books. Hodgdon's web site lists 140 gr loads in the 2600 range for max loads.

A practical difference between the 260 Rem and the 264 Win Mag, in a 10 MPH full value wind, you will have about 4" less wind at 600 yards (4.5MOA/28.5" @ 2700 FPS vs 3.8MOA/24.2" @ 3000FPS) The Creedmoor would be a little worse, but not much.
Creedmoor Max Loads:

From Nosler's new reloading manual:
140 grain Accubond loaded to max with 44 grains of Hunter is 2730 fps

From Hornady's 8th Edition:
With 140 grain A-Max or SST loaded to a max with 41.7 grains Norma URP, 43.2 grains of Winchestor 760, 42 grains of RL-17, or 42.6 grains of Hybrid 100V you achieve 2725+ fps.

Last edited by Geo_Erudite; April 4, 2013 at 10:48 PM.
Geo_Erudite is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

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 Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2013 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.08358 seconds with 9 queries