6.5 PRC: Why No Lightweight Bullet Load Data?

[jackstrawIII]

Hey guys,

Seriously considering purchasing a new rifle in 6.5 PRC. Looks like an easy way to get 6.5-06 or 6.5x284 level performance in a more "standardized" and easily available format without having to build something.

With that said, my favorite .264 cal bullet is the 105 grain CBB (all copper). I can't find any load data for anything under 120 grains anywhere.

Does anyone have any load data for 100-105 grain bullets for this new cartridge? That would be wonderful.

Thank you!

[Shadow9mm]

2 things come to mind.

the lighter bullets at those velocities might not agree with the common 1:8 twist

that the cartridge was designed for longer heavier bullets, and shorter bullets have too much jump to the rifling making them inaccurate.

[jackstrawIII]

Shadow,

These bullets are only 105 grains, but since they're all copper they're still quite long. I think they'd work from that perspective.

[burrhead]

Start with the 120gr data and work your way up.

[FrankenMauser]

Wrong cartridge for bullets like that.
As mentioned above, the twist rate and throat won't get along with them.
The cartridge also wasn't intended to use light bullets. It was developed for long range shooting with high ballistic coefficient bullets.

If you want to shoot the light stuff and want more velocity than 6.5 Creed / .260 Rem, you'd be better served by the capacity and throat geometry of 6.5x55 Swede, 6.5-06, or 6.5-284 Win in a short action (not 6.5-284 Norma in a long action).

[T. O'Heir]

Neither the 6.5-06 or 6.5x284 have anything to do with the 6.5 PRC.
Hodgdon tested their PRC loads with a 1 in 8 twist. It's most likely they just did not test the PRC with light bullets.

[jackstrawIII]

Neither the 6.5-06 or 6.5x284 have anything to do with the 6.5 PRC.

I’m simply noticing that they all have similar ballistic numbers using the same bullets. The benefit of the PRC (as I see it) is that it is a standardized cartridge without a bunch of different chamber specs, as the other two cartridges have.

[kilotanker22]

Jack Straw, Sierra has load data for their 107 grain Matchking. After I get home from work I can send you their data via pm

[jackstrawIII]

Kilo, thank you!

[hounddawg]

data for 85 grains and up

https://www.shootersreference.com/re...fle-cartridge/

[FrankenMauser]

I’m simply noticing that they all have similar ballistic numbers using the same bullets.

T Oheir likes trying to irritate people, just for the fun of it. Just look the other way until he goes elsewhere.

The benefit of the PRC (as I see it) is that it is a standardized cartridge without a bunch of different chamber specs, as the other two cartridges have.

6.5-284 Norma is a standard cartridge.
SAAMI and CIP.
You're running from a wildcat that has been tamed.

6.5-284 Winchester is still a wildcat. Because it is a waste of time in the eyes of most potentially interested parties.

6.5-06 is also standardized. It was approved by SAAMI in 1997. That's why you can (or could) get ammo for it from major manufacturers.
But it isn't SAAMI listed any more. Something went screwy with 6.5-06 (aka 6.5-06 A-Square, or 6.5 A-Square) when A-Square went bankrupt (circa 2011), and it got delisted. I don't remember exactly what the deal was, but I believe it involved a trademark claim by a creditor, that SAAMI just didn't care to fight. Somewhere in the Handloading or Rifle forums, there's a run-down of what happened (about 5-6 years old?). Companies making brass, reamers, or ammunition still stick to the standardized specs, though.

[jackstrawIII]

Mauser, thanks for the informative post. I've always wanted a 6.5-06. Maybe I'll do it...