Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Long Range Hunting Is the 6.5 SAUM that much better than the 260?

Why would I spend money on those?

Tanner

dumbass, It appears College isn't working....

You can still be my friend though.

The ratio of desired outcome to money spent is significantly higher in college than post-college

hint...

Yes, I've read about everything that I think you've written about it here and on SH.

I just cannot get my head around the lower pressures that are claimed with high velocity, in comparison to a standard 260.

Same here. I don't understand how you can push 140's as fast as a .264WM with less powder AND less pressure.

I'm not arguing or calling anyone a liar, I'm just saying that it doesn't make sense to me.

Just checked Hodgdon's online data for the 264 Win and H1000. It shows 60.4gr with a 130gr bullet and 58.5gr with a 140gr. Both were roughly 62k psi.

In Pat's posts, he's showing 62-63gr with a 130gr bullet and 61.5gr with the 139 Scenar. Both are a few grains higher than the 264 load from Hodgdon.

I know... the bullets are different so we need to take this comparison with salt but unless the burn rate for H1000 is being changed somehow in the 6.5 SAUM, I don't see how a case with smaller water capacity (I think) with a heavier charge is getting higher velocities with 88% of the pressure

And minimal freebore?

I don't get it. Would love to see lab data for the 6.5 SAUM.

The Hodgdon data for a .264 is worked up with a 130 gr accubond and a 140 gr partition ( I Believe). If you substitute a 130 gr. berger for the accubond and a 139 gr scenar for the 140 gr. partition the pressures in the loads will have ALOT less pressure, all else being equal in the .264. The bearing surfaces and construction of the bullet themselves will have a significantly more drag causing pressure. You have to compare cartridges with identical components.

Also read some posts at the Hide stating that George got 3k rounds from the 6.5 SAUM, but the barrel was setback once during that round count. Others saying 3k round life is reasonable and some burning barrels with less.

Another said that the "low pressure loads" George is now using run 3000 fps? So the low pressures stated are true, but not in combination with the higher velocities.

Maybe someone has more info and insight on this as its just hearsay.

J

Agreed, that's why I said to take it with salt.

Maybe two grains

Two heaping scoops (from a small spoon) and a side serving of pressure data

Hmm... I need to get a 6.5 SAUM and commandeer the strain gage equipment from the lab at work

Here's your problem: That's not just a "140 grain bullet" in Hodgdon's chart, it's a Nosler Partition. The 130 is the conventional Accubond. I'm pretty sure Pat's not shooting Partitions (or Accubonds) and if you compare the bullets he's shooting to a Partition side-by side, you'll see the Partition's bearing surface is a lot longer, as is the Accubond's.

If you look at Berger's data for their 140's, they don't show H-1000 but for the powders they do show, their upper limit exceeds the Hodgdon data by a good bit in every case. For example, Hodgdon shows Retumbo's max at 63.5 grains with the 140 NP, and Berger shows 68.5 grains with their 140's. So the Hodgdon data do not seem very applicable.

Ooops, Edited to add, just saw that Wyoming already covered this, but I'll leave it up for the Retumbo data from Berger.

Good point Smoke.

Jason

I wish I worked somewhere there was a strain gauge to "Borrow" but then my .260 loads would probably need reworking if I knew the real pressure numbers!!!!!!!!!!
My defense is the Remington brass I use lasts quite a few loadings and its so consistent I do not want to mess with it....