Decisions,decisions....

[Hello123]

Just some thoughts. Thinking about building a target rifle that will realistically punch paper at 100 yards, shoot up to 300-400 yards. However, in case I decided to get into 1000 yard shooting I would like that capability. I have considered the following: 260 rem, 264 Win Mag, 6.5x55 swede, 6.5-06, 6.5-284. Decisions, decisions. At this time I am leaning toward the 6.5-06.

[jhgreasemonkey]

My vote goes to the 6.5x55mm that one has phenominal flat shooting long range performance and seems to be getting more popular recently so ammo is easy to find.

[MeekAndMild]

I suppose you're going to just get .270 brass and neck it down? Where will you get loading info? Just flipping through my loading tables I find a lot of entries for the 6.5 x 55 and the .264 Winchester magnum but nothing on the 6.5-06.

Seems like the .264 Win magnum is more flexible in terms of maximum loads but has a lot of lower velocity loads as well. But jhgreasemonkey is right about the ease of finding 6.5 x 55 factory loads. I sometimes wish I'd gotten one of them instead of the Grendel with its expensive and hard to find ammo.

[Scorch]

Where will you get loading info?The Hornady manual has loading information for the 6.5-06. 20+ years ago when I owned a 6.5-06, I used 25-06 loading info for a starting point. Worked like a charm.
Seems like the .264 Win magnum is more flexible in terms of maximum loads It will take more powder in the 264 WM case to achieve the same velocity.

[tINY]

I thought that the 6mm rounds were the current darlings of the extreme precision crowd - lots of good bullets available.....




-tINY

[precision_shooter]

Maybe I am wrong, but I have always heard and read that the 7mm boat tail was the most efficient bullet with the flattest trajectory due to it's overall design and drag co-efficient or lack there of. Like I said, I could be wrong.

[MeekAndMild]

The Hornady manual has loading information for the 6.5-06. Thanks. I've used the Speer manual for years and the Lee for not quite so long. Will put Hornady on my list for Santa Claus. My untutored prejudice still leans toward the 6.5x55.

precision_shooter, here is a link which has the equation for calculating ballistic coefficient. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_coefficient and another which lists some typical BCs. http://www.chuckhawks.com/bc.htm I'll take your word for it if you work the math, comparing the 6.5 and 7mm. :)

[Scorch]

I have always heard and read that the 7mm boat tail was the most efficient bullet with the flattest trajectory due to it's overall design and drag co-efficient 7mm bullets have some of the highest ballistic coefficients short of 50 caliber. This holds true for all bullet makers' product of the same design and profile. Check your manuals and the bullet makers' web sites.

My untutored prejudice still leans toward the 6.5x556.5-06 will give you 300 fps over a 6.5X55, and still shoot sub-MOA all day long. And cases are easy to make from other brass! Of course, velocity and accuracy aren't always part of the decision-making process (I shoot a 7X57 rather than a 280 or 7mm RM).

[MacGille]

You are just going to punch paper, you don't care about retained energy or knockdown power, and you don't want to beat yourself up with a magnum. I would use the current data from taget shooters and go with the 6.5X55.

It's accurate, precise, available, medium power and inexpensive. No brainer.:)

[Hello123]

The bolt face would have to be reamed out for the swede. No big deal, but it corners me in.