Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Custom Rifles & Wildcats Big 6.5 Wildcat

In 7mm, it's an LRM...and you can get brass, too.

I am pretty interested in that wildcat of yours, PM incoming....

If you're looking at a 28" tube, I'd personally think about either a 7 STW (6.5?) or 30/378. Great open-country muley/elk guns with strong resale if you ever chose to trim your inventory.

The biggest advantage to a caliber like this is at least you can get US 869 and H50bmg, seems to be the only powders readily available around here ,except Leverevolution!

Safariman do a quick google search for Kirby Allen mags 6.5 Allen mag and 6.5 Allen express. You will like what you find Kirby is over on the longrangehunting forum very nice guy he knows all about over bore cases and will help you decide what you are really looking for. The Allen mag is a full length rum case and the express is a Dakota case, both are blown out to minimum taper and sharper shoulders. As extreme as you can get and very impressive.

I will do that ! Thanks for hte idea and name dropping.

Safariman,

I googled up a picture to satisfy my own curiosity, but the website may of good use to you, so here is some info for you.

From ASP Rifles website


Left to Right: 25-06 Rem, 257 Weatherby Mag, 257 S.T.W., 257 Allen Magnum, 338 RUM (Parent case for 257 A.M.). The 257 A.M., with same bullet weights, produces 500 fps more velocity then the 257 Weatherby and +200 fps more velocity then the 257 S.T.W. Looking at it another way, the 257 A.M. will drive a 156 gr ULD RBBT to the same velocity as a 257 Weatherby with a 120 gr. bullet weight.

John

Impressive! Wondering now if the 6.5 version, with 127GR LRX bullets, will work through a standard 30/06 length Mauser action? I am thinking with the shorter bullet it just might.

Answered my own question in that the 6.5 EXPRESS will fit regular '06 length actions. Pretty impressive lineup. I am glad that someone else besides me saw the benefit of combining high BC bullets WITH high starting speeds. So far, most of the high BC bullet proponenets have been touting pipsqueak cartridges. Why not have BOTH? High BC AND high initial velocity? I am going to check more into the 6.5 express. Sounds like it may be about identical to the 26 Nosler, or at least very close.

I'm gonna use a 700 action so I can go long if need be. So far the 6.5 RUM looks like it will get the nod, but I'm gonna wait until the specs on the 26 Nosler come out.
I am a glutton for punishment, and when I can't decide on something I usually get both!! I'll look into the Express on the shorter Dakota case. I have no idea on why I need both, but I do have a 98 action laying around also.

I'm hoping the Matrix 160gr will shoot! It claims a .635 BC

Oxymoron there!

I usually enjoy your posts even though I think you are stuck in the mud about actions. But I cannot believe that you made the above statement. Are you that naive to think that you are one of the pioneers to think high BC + high velocity is a good thing? Although I think your choice is more Mediocre BC plus fast start velocity....which is fine in certain circumstances, but not long range specific.
I shoot a 257 STW a bit with light ping pong ball ballisticly challenged bullets just so I do not have to worry with dialing or holding during the rut. When the bucks are only crossing logging roads and shots are limited to say 400 yards you do not have time to worry with much other than deciding if it is a shooter and getting a good shot off. That is how I would see your planned setup.
For true long range start speed is a great thing, but it has to be coupled with a real long range bullet. I would rather have a 300gr berger launched at 3400 than a 250 launched at 3600. BCs are relevant for long range, not so much for short range.

Yeah, it needs some 'splainin'.
I am trying to stay away from the long thin columns of powder like the STW and Wby cases. I prefer the slightly shorter and fatter stacks of powder in the case (RUM, Newton, Dakota...). IMO they offer the same vels with less powder and longer barrel life. That's why I call them efficient. I realize the term is "relative".

Got a 6.5 Leopard I'll sell cheap
6.5 X 300WSM

Thanx, but I already have one on a Savage action.

The Matrix 160's are listed at .685 BC. I am running them at 3120 in my 264WM with RL33 and Norma brass. Hoping to stretch them out soon to check BC.

I'd be interested in hearing your report on their BC. How long is your 264 barrel?? Do ya think 3300 is possible with a 6.5 RUM and 29"-30" of barrel??

Short fat cases might make a little bit of difference VS a longer case in a benchrest match, but the less powder for the same velocity idea has been shown and proven fraudulent more than one time. A custom rifle maker whose name escapes me right now, and out own Mule Deer here did experiments, using the same barrel IIRC, with the 300WSM and the 300 H&H whose case volumes are identical. The results? EXACTLY the same powder charges in each gave EXACTLY the same velocities. Recoil difference was undetectable also.

I think that for a hunting rifle, the longer, slimmer cases are going to give easier and more reliable feeding. I have had more than one custom rifle that utilized a long or big case that was 1/2 inch at 100 yards accurate. That kind of accuracy is more than good enough for any big game hunting, and actually groups of twice that size are more than good enough.

Not trying to convince you not to build what you want, but the idea that the short fat cases are any better for a hunting rifle has been debunked and shown to be only a slick marketing idea that sorta worked, sold some rifles, but has no real bearing or truth in it.

From Layne Simpsons article in Shooting Times a little while back:

We have also been given several reasons why one of the new breed of super-short magnum .30 cartridges is the thing to have, while long, slim .30 magnums are out of style. One argument in favor of the super-stubbies is their greater efficiency. A look at the efficiency comparison chart on page 56 backs up that opinion with fact, but are the differences enough to really matter? As you can see, when the maximum loads of five .300 magnum cartridges listed in six reloading manuals were compared, the .300 WSM produced an average of 45 fps in velocity for each grain of powder used. Closest to it in propellant stinginess is the .300 H&H Magnum at 43 fps, while the .300 Winchester Magnum averaged 41 fps. Looking at it another way, when the three cartridges are loaded to maximum velocities with 180-grain bullets, the .300 WSM burns an average of 3 grains less powder than the .300 H&H and 5 grains less than the .300 Win. Mag.
My trusty calculator tells me that it takes a pound more powder to load 2,300 rounds of .300 H&H

Then we have the matter of recoil. Our perception of recoil is influenced by many things, including the shape of a riflestock and how well its pad soaks it up, but if the various .30-caliber magnums are fired in identical rifles, some are more comfortable to shoot than the others under certain circumstances. As illustrated in the recoil comparison chart, there is very little difference in recoil between the .300 H&H Magnum, .300 WSM, and .300 Win. Mag., but it starts to increase as we move up to the faster .300 Weatherby Magnum. We then have a substantial jump between that cartridge and the .300 Remington Ultra Mag. Do recoil energy figures on paper accurately equate to actually shooting those cartridges? At the benchrest, I find the .300 H&H and .300 WSM a tad more comfortable to shoot, and while the .300 Win. Mag. and .300 Weatherby do kick a bit more, those two feel about the same to my shoulder. I can really tell a difference when switching to the .300 Ultra Mag. On the other hand, when shooting game in the field, I am never conscious of a rifle�s kick, and for that reason all .300 magnum cartridges feel the same.


Promoters of short and stubby .300 magnum cartridges seldom fail to mention that since the 6mm PPC is also short and stubby, they have to be incredibly accurate as well. The 6mm PPC wins most benchrest matches today simply because it is the cartridge most benchrest shooters shoot. Those guys switched from the long and slim .222 Remington to the short and fat 6mm PPC not necessarily because it was more accurate, but because they wanted to move up to 6mm, and the PPC proved to be the best cartridge of that caliber available. In addition to being easy to work with, the 6mm PPC is incredibly accurate, but had benchresters stayed with the .222 Rem., they would still be setting new accuracy records simply because because it is the cartridge most benchrest shooters shoot. Those guys switched from the long and slim .222 Remington to the short and fat 6mm PPC not necessarily because it was more accurate, but because they wanted to move up to 6mm, and the PPC proved to be the best cartridge of that caliber available. In addition to being easy to work with, the 6mm PPC is incredibly accurate, but had benchresters stayed with the .222 Rem., they would still be setting new accuracy records simply because actions, barrels, bullets, powders, and shooters have continued to improve through the years. I know of at least one record set decades ago by a competitor using a rifle in .222 Rem. that has yet to be beaten by the 6mm PPC.

If someone eventually proves me wrong and a .30-caliber magnum on a short, stubby case actually is slightly more accurate than one on a long, slim case, the difference will be so slight that only benchrest rifles will be able to prove it on paper. Hunting rifles, even those capable of half-MOA accuracy would never know which cartridge they are chambered for.

Recoil chart from article:
http://www.shootingtimes.com/files/2010/09/st_pros_and_cons_of_.300magnums_g.jpg


Velocity camparison using same powder charges and bullet, 300 magnums:

http://www.shootingtimes.com/files/2010/09/st_pros_and_cons_of_.300magnums_f.jpg

Mule Deer's article showed even less difference, as in ZERO. John, please correct me if I am mis quoting your work, but I believe I am getting it spot on. My great interest iin the various 300 Magnums made these articles stand out to me.

Same-same as the report I read from a custom barrelmaker who ran the same kinds of tests, using the same barrel but re chambered from one cartridge to the other for the testing.

Wow, Who knew
Thanks for the info Safariman - you just made my decision that much harder
When the WSM... came out I compared their vels with the time tested standards. I could see why the writers were hyping them, because with the lighter bullets they were matching the vels of the bigger cases, all while using less powder. When you get into the heavier bullets - case capacity always won (in velocity, not in fps/grain of powder). With this new information I will have to look at everything again. I plan on using a 160gr high BC bullet.
Recoil isn't an issue as I'm thinking the rifle will be in the 12-14lb area with scope.