Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Opinions on the 6.5 Creedmoor......let hear em!

Mule Deer, thank you for your posts......it gets a bit frustrating at times on the board. My main thought process on the creedmoor was this: I have a 250 ai and really like the way it shoots and kills, but there are times i would like to be shooting a bit bigger bullet....hence the 6.5 creedmoor. Do I need one....heck no....would it be fun to mess with...... heck yes will it do anything my Sako A7 in a .270 won't already do...nope...but what fun is it to be rational when it comes to rifle and rounds for them. Thanks again for your time and effort on this post......Goodshot

You're an example of the reason we get called "rifle loonies". Congratulations, it's incurable....grin..

mathman,

How long is the barrel on that push-feed M70? I have had excellent luck with the 100 TSX in the .257 Weatherby and the .264 would be just more of the same good thing!

goodshot,

The 6.5 Creedmoor is certainly versatile. Not only can it be easily loaded with long, tapered 140's (my rifle gets over 2800 fps and excellent accuracy with 140 VLD's with published data) but also gets over 3200 with 100 TTSX's--and similar accuracy.

Another plus is that every factory rifle chambered so far has a 1-8 twist.

It's a 24" barrel, so I figure 3600 shouldn't be out of reach.

Might even be able to beat that by a little bit!

From the above: "As I've said, I chose 6.5x55 simply because I had the dies (and a Yugo Mauser) lying about."

Now this is about as sensible an argument that has been made here. I load for 20 cartridges and there is not any game in the Western Hemisphere that I can't tackle. I've made up my mind that I'll only buy a firearm for which I already load. Each new cartridge/caliber costs me $$$ for dies, cases, bullets and perhaps powder.

I know that I�m missing some fun and new adventures, but I�m just too old and tired to keep seeking new adventures. I�d rather use my remaining brain cells (now where did I put them?) and dollars to buy different firearms of the same caliber. But then, I see something new and ���.

I am new here to the campfire, but I have been reloading for close to 30 years now and definetly would be considered a "Rifle Looney".
After many years of horse trading, buying, and selling guns, and changing my mind several hundred times over as to which calibers are the best and why, I've decided to consolidate a bit as to which calibers to keep on the reloading bench.(its either that or build a bigger bench!)
My personal choices have been narrowed down to .223,.264,.338,and.429 for my hunting/reloading/casting preferences. That said when I decided I "NEEDED" a dedicated general purpose target rifle I chose the 6.5 Creedmoor in a Ruger 77 Target rifle, and could not have been happier with the choice.
JB... I would like to thank you for the info you have shared with us on this subject as I have been tossing around what 6.5 hunting rig I would like to purchase to, dare I say, replace my old faithful mod70 featherweight in 257 Roberts.
Mind you I would love to have the room in the safe and on the reloading bench to keep it, but for me the 6.5 is the direction I am heading in with my "consolidating." Having both my target and main general purpose hunting rigs in the same caliber helps at the reloading bench.
As for the Creedmoor vs this or that, to each his own...I like them all, but agree with JB that the Creedmoor's design is such that you can seat the bigger bullets out farther towards the rifling,(thus infringing less upon the case capacity) which may also help you in the accuracy department with bullets like the Bergers which seem to prefer to be seated out to the rifling in most rifles.

Just my personal choice,
johnny

flattop johnny,

Welcome to the Campfire!

I think you would like the 6.5 Creedmoor a lot--or any of the other smaller 6.5's.

But I'd like to clear up a common misconception: Seating bullets so their bases are below the neck doesn't take up any more powder room. The base of a bullet takes up exactly as much space inside a neck as it does below the neck.

This is hard for many shooters to understand, mostly because they've been told the deep-seating a bullet takes up "extra" powder room for a long time. But seating the bullet below the neck is more the rule than the exception. In fact, a 200-grain spitzer seated to standard overall cartridge length in the .300 Weatherby protrudes almos as far below the neck as the same bullet does in a .300 WSM.

The reason the 6.5 Creedmoor holds just about as much powder as the .260 is not because the neck is longer, but because the shoulder angle is steeper, 30 degrees vs. 20 in the .260. This almost makes up for the slightly shorter case body of the Creedmoor. But the base of a 140-grain Berger VLD still protrudes 2/10th of an inch below the neck of the Creedmoor.

There are several reasons for the Creedmoor case design, but the biggie in bolt-action rifles is that the long, 3/4" ogive of bullets such as the VLD doesn't have to be seated partially inside the case neck, as it is in the .260--which does make seating the shank of such bullets near the lands possible.

Gotcha...sort of like trying to seat the Nosler 225 Accubond's ogive into a 350 Rem Mag....Thanks again
johnny

Exactly!

With all the data, guns, brass, and history available, I see no reason to buy a 6.5 Worthless [Creedmore] over a 260Remington. Anything the 6.5 Worthless will do, the 260 can do and the 6.5x284 can do better. Being based off the 30TC [another worthless cartridge] the brass can't be readily made. Lapua and Savage are now on the 260Remington like bees on honey, so that makes the 260 an even better choice.

The Creedmoor is currently being offered in 3 Rifles from Ruger, a couple from Savage, at least the 4 different versions of the Icon from T/C, DPMS in the AR platform, the Tubb rifle, and one more match rifle whose name is slipping my mind at the moment.

I like all the 6.5's; each for a different reason...maybe I like Rugers, and the only 260 they offer is the Laminated Compact, which has way too short of a length of pull for me, not to mention a "Worthless" 16-1/4" barrel.

good shootin'
johnny

dmsbandit,

I don't know where you got your info on the Creedmoor case not being readily made, but it's essentially the 6.5/.250 Savage Improved. If you can find .250 brass, Creedmoor cases are easy to make.

When the cartridge first came out, the gunwriters doing the articles stated that it was based on the 30TC case. I've also read other articles in different magazines and nowhere does the 250Savage case ever get mentioned as the parent case. I guess the "experts" doing the writing and selling of the cartridge can't get their stories straight.

That's because most gun writers apparently followed Hornady's company line that the Creedmoor was a brand-new design. But when I first opened a box of ammo and took out a round, it looked very familiar, somehow. I measured the case and yep, it's the .250 Savage in slightly different form and caliber.

Actually, the easiest and cheapest way to make Creedmoor brass cheaply is with .22-250 cases--though the Hornady brass is VERY good and reasonably priced.

John,

I buy .22-.250 brass to make brass for my .250 Savage...jim

I suspect a lot of people do! I have done it myself, more than once.

Basically, the 30TC is a high pressure .300 Savage with a slightly longer neck, within a few thousandths of the .250-3000. As JB and others have stated, the Creedmoor is the same case as the 250AI, but with a 30, instead of 40 degree shoulder.
As far as .22-250 brass for the .250, Elk had an article about the .250 several years back, with a sidebar of comments from people in the industry. I believe Alan Jones from Speer did the same thing.

"Not a matter of how it grips it. It's a simple matter of weight ratio. A five ounce bird cannot carry a one pound coconut!"