Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles 6.5x55 to 60k.?

As some modern cartridges are run in modern actions, would this be ok.?

It becomes magic. 😁

We are talking about in a Modern rifle DESIGNED to handle that pressure right?

If that is the case, I would think it would resemble a 6.5/06...

Is the "magic" as safe as othes at this level.?

Any reason NOT to run it to this level in MODERN actions.?


Will the brass weather the storm as well as others.?

There is a good discussion going on about this in the Nosler forum. The experienced folks there say 60K is no issue at all in a modern 6.5x55 of reputable manufacture. I will be pushing mine to that level.

358wsm,

I'm pushing a 130 accubond at 2925 out of a tikka T3 with 22" barrel. I suspect I'm at least 60K as my velocity exceeds book by 100 fps. After 5 loadings brass shows no signs of loose primer pockets running Lapua brass. I've not seen any pressure signs whatsoever.


Trystan

So does one actually own the instruments to make such determinations?

interested in this question, as well?

For whom it interests.

Do a little search IN Reloading Big Game Rifle forum,

UNDER Campfire Pet Loads find " Good 6.5x55 loads.

Our Denton posts a few loads HE has pressure tested.

I'm using 120 NBT- IMR 4350 - 3000 fps from Win 70, 22" bll.

It's safe in my 70.

Good Luck

Jerry

That given, the load is likely fine in Denton's unit. If one is pushing the edge, however, YRMV.

Common over here in Norway..

150.000 active shooters.. and they are loading it to its full potential!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CC-lNcDumps

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cnAwRJc7Sw

I bought a Tikka T3 Swede out of one of the early shipments to the US, s'posedly one of the last 2 nationally in Gander Mtn according to a store mgr down here ...FWIW the faster I ran it the better it shot. Really scary great accuracy in 120gr Sierra PH's, and was getting there at barely sub MOA's in 130gr NAB's when I decided that I was GTG with what I had and never pushed it any farther. This is exactly why I just bought another one in Darriks last blowout.

But as others have said, never had any pressure sign or loose primer pockets...and even got 6-8+ loadings out of some used range pickups when hunting in deep brush I had started using after I lost several Lapua's and PO'd me bigtime
Ron

Glad to see some responses, thought I might have to apologise for asking a dumb question.

SAAMI pressure for the .260 Remington is 60 kpsi. The 6.5x55 Swede has approx. 6 to 6.5% more volume than the .260. Using the 1 to 4 rule (velocity increases at 1/4 the rate of case capacity), you should be able to best the .260 Remington by about 1.5% at the same pressure. So, if the .260 gets 2900 fps with a certain bullet, the Swede should be capable of 2943 fps. If the .260 gets 3000 the Swede should get 3045 and so on.

I have a .260 Remington T3x and a 6.5x55 MRC 1999 (selling that one), and this is the guide I used. Since I'm a fairly conservative reloader I just loaded to .260 Remington velocities, in my rifle it took about 3-4 grains more of the same powder in the Swede to match the .260. That's basically what John Barsness says in his "Handloads That Work" article:

.260 Remington: Around 41.0 grains of Reloder 15 does it with100-grain bullets, whether for varmints or lighter big game, at around 3,200 fps. With 120- to 125-grain bullets either 44.0 grains of H-4350 or 46.0 grains of RL-19 does the job at close to 3,000 fps in standard-length barrels. With 140s try 44.0 grains of H-4831 or RL-22 for 2,700+ fps.

6.5x55mm Mauser: The powders that work in the .260 also work in modern rifles chambered for the old “Swede.” Up the powder charges 2 to 3 grains with the same bullets for about the same muzzle velocities.

http://www.tulprpc.org/attachments/File/Handloads_That_Work.pdf

is the 4:1 ratio now a rule...:)

Rule, theorem, postulate, hypothesis, name it a rose if you wish. I did not come up with it but am going off of the research of someone with some credibility in this field who did and who has heretofore never steered me wrong.

I'd call it a conjecture, supported by much empirical evidence.

I was hoping you'd be along to add some precision to the terminology.

I'd call it at least a rule of thumb or even a working theory.

After it gets repeated on a couple more internet boards, it will become an immutable physical law...:)

Again, for the long weekend crowd.

Thanks.