Ok, first let's get the disclaimers and claimers out of the way.....
I haven't read the article by Boddington; I don't own a 6.5 of any sort; I'm not an expert on anything, much less rifles and bullets, but I do own a 270.
Now I have read this post and one of the things that keeps being said, in this thread and other places, is that the 6.5 CM is better than a 270 at long distances. There are graphs that show velocity, drop, energy, etc. that prove this point.
But, in none of these comparisons are they comparing apples to apples. Why? Because they dont make the same bullet for each caliber, at least I dont think they do. What would the comparison look like if they did make the same bullet for each caliber, or almost the same bullet?
Well, we're in luck, because Sierra is now making the GameChanger bullet and it can be bought as loaded ammo or bullets for reloading. 6.5 comes in 130 gr at .510 bc and the 270 comes in a 140 gr with .508 bc. As far as I know, these 2 bullets are as close to being the same, as you can get. What would the charts look like when you compare apple to apples, or as close to that, as you can get.
As stated in this thread, the 270, for what ever reason, never caught on for shooting long range. I really dont know why, but I just chalk it up to another thing I dont know. I've shot steel at 1000 yds. with mine. Someone said it was because of the lack of good bullets. I agree that to shoot long distances, it takes good bullets, and the 6.5 has a better variety of good bullets for distant shooting.
Both rifles are good, no doubt about it. With proper shot placement, both rifles will kill things..... dead is dead, no matter how you look at it.
Ok, I've had my say, so flame away!
Old Turd- Deplorable- Unrepentant Murderer- Domestic Violent Extremist
