Is there any REAL difference in field performance, or just perceived difference? Just curious as I do like both. I have owned many 6.5s, and enjoyed the 7s twin in short actioned 7/08s. I understand the paper ballistics of the 55 vs 57 and long action/heavy bullet feature/benefit vs. newer short action cousins. .5 mm seems moot to me, honestly.

My thinking is that like bullets i.e. S.D. and construction WITH like shot placement would yield like results. What does 100+ years of history on game with either round say?

It seems the 6.5's reign in Sweden, etc., but you hear more on 7x57s in say Africa. Game laws pertaining to caliber restrictions the reason? Ammo availability in different countries, inc. Canada?

Or is the desireability of the 7x57 in NA (esp. in custom Mausers or Ruger #1's) simply more an emotional sentiment?

Thanks to all posters.

The reason 7x57's are more popular in Africa and North and South America, while 6.5x55's are more popular in Scandinavia is real simple -- miltary use. The 7x57 came to the USA after the Spanish-American War, as captured weapons, and have been sold regularly as surplus arms from Spain and most Central and South American countries since before WWII. And Winchester, at least, chambered rifles in 7x57.

As far as whether one is better than the other at shooting big game...no, I don't think so. On the other hand, you could throw about 40 other cartridges in the same category, because if you hit it in the right spot with the right bullet, it will just die.

Either one is a grand cartridge with lots and lots of really interesting history.

Dennis

The 7mm Mauser was in Africa as a military round (Boer War) and used for game as well. Also, lots of Germans in Colonial Africa, and they brought it as well.

Which is why I think the 7mm is a more popular round over there, along with other metrics. The 6.5 x 55 has never been used in a war or military action and its use wasnt' spread that way. I think it got its reputation mostly from hunters and gun mags...a well-deserved reputation, I might add.

I have a CZ is 6.5 and it's a great rifle. Actually, when I went to buy it was looking for a 7mm Mauser, but they'd quit importing them. Goes to show you, I guess, on the popularity of the rounds over here.

i hope someone from sweden chimes in to clarify or substantiate what i have repeatedly read over the last few years - that is, the 30-06 and 308 has far surpassed the 6.5x55 in popularity and use in europe. i also read where the largest ammo maker in europe (norma) loads 3 times more 30-06 ammo than it does for the 6.5x55. if this is true, it seems that while the 6.5 enjoyed a degree of immense popularity in years gone by, that era has passed.

regarding their popularity, i think muledeer hit it. there are just too many other rounds available these days, and that fact has and will continue to lessen the popularity of the 6.5 and the 7x57. these two rounds can still "get it done", but i wouldn't be surprised if they fell off the cart of factory loaded (u.s.) ammo in the near future.

What the 7x57 and 6.5x55 both do best is distinguish the shooter as a rifle world history buff, without taking a backseat to any modern cartridge for medium game.

You cannot just compare rankings and percentages of the mix of cartridges, because the USA is so large a market and there are so many gun owners.

There are only 9,000,000 people in Sweden.
There may be more 6.5x55mm rifles in the US than in Sweden.

Some countries, like France, still prohibit civilian ownership of rifles in former military calibers, such as 7x57, 8x57, .30-06, 7.62x51mm NATO, and 6.5x55mm.

Not a gunwriter but I've owned a Win. Fthrwt. in both 7x57 and 6.55, a Rem 700 Classic & Mtn. Rifle in 7x57, a sporterized Mexican 7x57, a Ruger MKII in 6.5x55 and several military surplus ones in both calibers.

I've killed more stuff with the Mexican 7x57 and a Bushnell Banner 4x using factory 139s or 140s than all the others. Ranges varied from 75 to 300 yards and it was the least accurate of them all, inch and a half at best but it was the only centerfire rifle I had at the time and I shot it a lot.

I agree with muledeer, I don't think one is more effective than the other in the field and there are a lot of cartridges that are equally effective with good shot placement. The main difference in the ones I've owned has been that the 6.5s have always been more accurate but not enough to make any difference to me as a hunting rifle. YMMV.

Thanks guys, I appreciate all the info, history lessons which I never was great in but do appreciate.

As to ammo disc. in the US, that would be disappointing but not surprising, as to Norma's higher production of '06 and '08 does not shock me as they sell globally and those rounds rank very high on top sales list of arms and ammo.

Gene, I first took an serious interest in the 6.5x55 when John Wooters wrote about sporterizing a '96 mauser for a total of $200 and his results were very good. Since then I bought 3, sporterized 2, sold them all, owned a 700 classic in between, and currently enjoy a #1 ltd. edition Ruger. Not had a 7x57....yet, but do have an interest some day. Likely a '98 of sorts. 700 Classics and Fwt M70s made it tempting in the past to try the round in a rifle that was affordable and up to snuff to handle today's top loads with pressures similar to say 270s.

The only complaints I ever heard were from Ruger owners who said various mfg. dates had varying throat lengths, and one simply needed to consider it when rolling their own for optimal results. Simply chamber reamer spec variations, not a QC issue per se.

Thanks Dennis (and GLAD to see you back!), Gene, and ALL for your insight educating me on the 57s popularity.

43, I'm with you, success can be had with lackluster yet solid equipment, provided it's used properly Something you know very well.

The only thing that might pique my interest as much as a 57 in a Mauser would be the 338/06 and 9.3s, but Jim Carmichaels svelte little 250-3000, (a shortened Mauser IIRC) made me think....another old classic round, the Savage. In 6.5x55, I love my #1, a good looker and shooter, but a Sako Finnlight in longer bbl model 85, dropped in an Edge stock would be a versatile all weather hunter.....nice to think about what's next.

You guys have a great day.

I own a few examples of both and think that, when chambered in like-strength actions, they are as close to being equal as the 260 and 7mm-08.

I think that the 7x57 may have been more popular because it was written up by JO'C, probably the most influential gun-writer of his day, and because anyone could buy a variety of surplus military Mausers, often in excellent condition, for very little $$ by mail order until 1968. When I was a kid, there were lots of minty Brazilian, Chilean, Mexican, Peruvian, and Venezuelan 7x57 Mausers in both military and sporterized configurations in the gun racks of northern New England. For as long as I can remember, Federal, Remington, and Winchester/Olin have cataloged 7x57 ammo. The 1st CF rifle that I purchased with $$ that I earned for myself was a sporterized Venezuelan FN 24/30 carbine in 7x57 for which I paid $37.50. I fed it a diet of Winchester/Olin 175 grain SPs from the yellow boxes and it was the rifle/cartridge combination that I learned to reload for.

The 6.5x55 Krags and Mausers were always less common in northern New England, but I do recall that there were a few of the Interarms imported 1894 carbines, marked "INTERARMCO 33/50", around. Until the mid-1980s, I don't recall that 6.5x55 ammo was available from Federal, Remington, or Winchester/Olin. IIRC, the only factory ammo available was from Norma and it was typically a little more expensive then U.S. ammo.

Jeff

The 6.5X55mm is probably the most popular cartridge in Sweden for "elk" (same as our moose). The 8X57 and 30-06 are popular, but less so than the 6-5X55. In the 1980, I worked for a Swedish company and went there every month for meetings and talked with several hunters who also worked for the company.

Those long, heavy (160 RN) bullets really penetrate and are effective for moose..

Norma distributes much of its ammunition production world-wide (remember, Sweden only has about 9 million people) since the "home-market" is so small. In order to maintain viable companies, Sweden has to export much of what it produces. Much of Norma's ammo output is sent to the US and other nations where the 30-06 and 308 Winchester are popular.

Good info, thanks again guys. Jeff, you are right about Norma prices.....good stuff but the price can scare one away. Not to worry for sighting and hunting I suppose.

I'd bet some of that Norma stuff in 156/160 in Swede and other 6.5 i.e. 54mm has taken more than a few head of game in Alaska etc. where surplus rifles were used. I can imagine NA moose as well as bear have fallen. No doubt as to effectiveness when used properly.

I believe it was Finn Aagaard who considered the 7x57 to be the minimum chambering he would choose for an all-around rifle. I happen to have much affection for both the 7x57 and the 6.5x55 and wondered why he did not make the Swede his minimum. My hunch is that the slightly greater bore diameter, and the slightly greater bullet weight for the 7 (think premium 175 grain bullets) gives the 7x57 the edge. When you think about it, what can you do with a 180 in a 30-06 that you can't do with a 175 in a 7x57? The 30-06 gives you more velocity and so slightly more point blank range (and yes you can go up to 220 grain bullets) but for most of us the 7x57 will accomplish a whole bunch of hunting chores as well as the beloved 30-06, with a whole lot less beating on the shoulder bone.

I recall a picture I saw a few years back on Sierra's website -- it was a BIG brown bear taken with a 140 grain Sierra out of a 7x57... it gave me a lot more respect for my 7x57.

I have hunted quite a bit with both the 6.5 x 55 and 7 x 57. Shot a lot of game over the years. I never could tell the difference with either one, or my shoulder as far as recoil goes. That being said, America is not a Metric country, some metric cartridges are popular here, Ie 7mm Mags and 7mm-08 comes to mind, mostly we are a 30 cal nation, this has to do with well the kind of cartridges that served the Nations Military. In the end its all hair spliting, 6.5's 7mm or 308 you are not going to be able to tell the difference for the most part, so its pretty much becomes a moot point any of them will do and do well in the field. I like 6.5 x 55 and 7 x 57, thou I shoot more 7mm RM these days because that is what the barrel was on my Blaser R-93 when I bought it. They all work, for some odd reason.

The 7x57 and 6.5x55 are my two "go-to" cartridges for deer hunting. I've used a number of others through the years, but finally settled on these two for most any reasonable hunting situation where I live and hunt.

Dogger, many might say the same of the 140-160gr 6.5x55 vs an '06 with 180s. True, wound channel surely would vary from .264 to .308 but not to say proper shot placement allows both to be effective.

Good stuff. The only remaining question I would be interested in knowing more would be all else equal, are similar bullets in 7mm vs. 6.5mm constructed similarly to where they expand/retain wt. similarly at like impact speeds? Or are 7mm overall a tad stouter and prefer faster speeds for expansion? The question directed at 139-175s on 7mm and 120-160s in 6.5mm. I know there are no absolutes, each bullet being specific unto itself, but are there generalities?

I know i.e. 7mm bullets sometimes are fired from a Rem Mag and others from a 7x57, depending on loading and what gun as to pressure/speeds so bullet mfg. may consider that...of course you could say that about the 264 WM and 6.5 RM though many of the latter were short carbines hampering mv, and the plethora of 6.5's in x52, x53 IIRC, x54mm, 55mm, 57mm, and up.....so much spread of velocity ranges. I have read the 6.5's were designed to open at lower speeds. I know much of this pertains likely to older cup/core bullets as newer bullets are made to withstand higher speeds if a premium type slug.

Thoughts?

Except for the wart hog, I shot all of my plains game in Botswana with a Winchester/USRA 70 FWT in 6.5x55 using Norma 156 grain cup & core factory loads. The PH kept telling me that I'd still have to pay for the game that I only wounded and should switch to the 375 H&H, but after the 1st 3 head, he decided to "let" me continue to use the 6.5x55. The only animal that didn't die after 1 shot was the Eland that I shot 3x, all of the bullets stiking within a 4"x4" area, he was an old gray bull that just refused to ackowledge that he time had come.

Jeff

Congrats Jeff. You know, heard stories about multiple hits on game, and wondered if the killing effect would be greater if one hit further away than a few inches from a previous shot, assuming the last did plenty damage, might as well damage new untouched tissue, but I guess it's a matter of hitting vitals and enough bleeding out to occur on large game if the CNS is not taken out.

BTW, I watched video of several Moose my cousin in AK has shot with a 300 WM, and they often just stood there awhile, then tipped over. They just soak energy it seems.

You did well. I wonder what those Norma's do in MV? I think they load hotter than many IIRC. Some RP and WW loads it seems based on memory were weak vs. potential of x55, perhaps due to so many mil-surp rifles.

Sounds like your guide had the American ideology, bigger is better? The 6.5 may not punch as big a hole, but likely nearly as deep I'd expect. Obviously you shot well, kudos.

What are common ranges where you hunted? It seems lots of African game are taken at modest ranges from what I have read.

I think that my PH had had a couple of American clients who were demanding, difficult, and according to him, not good shots, so he had a poor opinion of American hunters in general and in our hunting/shooting skills in particular.

Jeff

I'd have to go with the 7x57 simply because I own one. I would think it a might bit superior with the heavy bullets, but what do I know. I could be easily persuaded the other way. Give me an excuse to get another rifle. I've seen a Tikka in 6.5x55 but am not very taken with their looks. Any other factories chamber for it?

6BR, I read an article about 15 years ago about sporerizing the 96 Mauser, and followed through on it. It was a VERY good shooter, put a scope on it and checkered the stock. I had the bolt bent and barrel cut off.

It was a nice rifle, but I like my CZ better.

Ruger chambers the Model 77, Remington had a run of their Model 700 Classic, Winchester offered it off and on in the Model 70 throughout the '90s until they closed in 2006 (there are two in the classifieds right now), Sako has occasionally offered the chambering for the U.S. market, etc. You also have the option of having a rifle re-barreled. Lots of choices besides the Tikka.

There are also CZ and Ruger #1 K1A in 6.5x55. I have a TIKKA and a #1 so chambered. Also a #1A and 70 FWT in 7x57. I prefer the #K1A with Hornady factory 140 gr loads for just about everything. Here is one that fell to the K1A http://www.alariver.com/index.php?o...g2_view=core.ShowItem&g2_itemId=1779

Gene, those old mausers were very well made, but I had reformed some brass from 25/06, the necks I did not turn, had not miked....until after I about blew up the gun. The primer blew and the case head cracked and stamped the back of the brass lettering into the boltface......the bolt body was cracked. The OD on the loaded round was .310, max was .297 IIRC.....never again. No forming brass as the necks were too thick and the base as you likely know is smaller in an '06 case.

The cock on close action, had the firing pin slam rearward bottoming out and about continued thru my head....scared my butt let me tell you. Ordered a new bolt, checked headspace, sold it off. Yes, I'd pick a CZ in a second for it's 98 style 3rd 'safety lug' as well as modern metallurgy. The old 96's had nice 4groove cut rifled bbls in 7.5" or so twist bbls. Throated long, I have seen them still shoot 85s well, though made for 156-160s. Likely the same article you read. Kimber sporterized '96s were a bargain for bent bolt, tapped for scopes, nickel plated/hard chrome, syn. stocks.......all for around $300. Heck of a knock about deer rifle.

Ed, my K1A loves the 130 Accubonds over IMR 4350 if you ever get around to reloading. Not that those 140s will ever have any trouble taking any deer Congrats.

I would like to mention that the accurate Steyr SBS is still available in 6.5x55. Perhaps the best 6.5x55 on the market if price is not a factor.

djs thats "elg" not elk, and they are the same as moose...

Never had a 7X57, but it's probably next on the list if I ever get another rifle (I'm currently going through one of those "what am I doing with all these guns" phases.) Two 6.5X55's and love 'em both though they're far apart on the dollar and pretty scale. One's a "jack knife sporter" Swedish Mauser (cut down, refinished, military stock, recrowned, Williams FP receiver sight. It's a deer rifle for rainy days in the woods. Shoots 160 grain Hornady RN's real well at around 2300fps. The other is a Sako 85 with a 2.5-8 VXIII that will consistenly shoot five 130 grain AB's into absolute bugholes at just over 2700. (I'm sure I could get more out of them but why bother, these work well on deer out to 400 or so, as far as I shoot.) What's not to like about this caliber?

Yeah, that caught my eye too. I believe the Swedes actually spell it "�lg."

I have owned and hunted many rifles and calibers through the years, and this topic concerns my two current favorites. I currently own Ruger M77MkIIs in 6.5x55 and 7x57, a pre-warning M77 in 7x57, and a Rem M700 MR in 7x57, and have owned others in both calibers. One major reason I love these calibers is my preference for heavyweight bullets for hunting big game. I still hold the SD of a bullet in high regard. In 7mm I prefer bullets of 160 grains or more, and in 6.5mm I prefer 140 grains or more. I have owned several rifles in calibers 7-08 and 260 Rem - arguably the American "counterparts" of the 7x57 and 6.5x55 - and none of them shot particularly well with my heavy bullets. My theory is that the most common rifling twist rates of rifles chambered for the American rounds are insufficient to stabilize the longer, heavier bullets I prefer. Maybe that's hooey, but I know what I like.

Regarding the difference in performance between the two: My position is that as long as the bullet and load produce sufficient penetration, and the bullet is placed correctly in the animal, the difference in field performance is negligable. Oh, a 160 grain 7mm bullet of like construction as a 140 grain 6.5mm bullet may theoretically make a slightly larger hole in the animal, but in reality shot placement and penetration are WAY more important than any percieved advantage of 0.02" larger bullet diameter.

Regarding the heavier bullets: A 175 grain 7mm bullet of decent aerodynamic shape fired at 2400 fps muzzle velocity shoots a lot flatter than many people think, and a 140 grain 6.5mm bullet fired at 2600 fps is even flatter. I have used loads exactly like these almost exclusively for several years and the results are totally acceptable. My rifles shoot both loads under MOA, and I zero both rifles/loads at 200 yards. The bullets impact within 2 inches of point-of-aim out to about 250 yards - basically right where I aim. This encompasses 90% of my shots on game. Beyond that range hitting the mark is a matter of knowledge of the bullet's trajectory, precise range estimation, and practice. Last week I placed a 6.5mm 140 grain Speer Hot-Cor from my 6.5x55 through both shoulders of a doe deer at about 325 yards. According to witnesses and the videotape, the deer jumped straight up about 6 feet into the air, landed on the ground, and never moved again. All I saw through the scope was a little cloud of dust where the deer previously stood. Several other deer have died similar deaths at the hands of my various 7x57s with my "slow" heavy-bullet loads. Now I ask you: What more does a deer hunter really need?

-

Big Redhead, your 6.5x55 really needs to take a deer down with the Hornady 160 grain bullet. Ditto your 7x57 with a 175... we look forward to the field reports.

I have used the 6.5 Gibbs, the .264 win., and the 6.5x55 to some extent and never was overly impressed with the 6.5 calibers..They work well enough but I found them lacking to a degree... My self set standard for big game calibers begin at .277, and 284 suits me better and go up from there. At least from an advisory standpoint, and I realize that there are those who could use a 30-30 and get by fine the rest of their life on about anything.


The 7x57, on the other hand, has been my darling for many years..The 7x57 is the lightest caliber that I would, without hesitation, hunt any animal on this planet with if need be, and almost have with the exception of Lion, Elephant, and the big bears of Alaska, but it would include elephant as I have seen it used on elephant, and I was very impressed with the 175 gr. solids and softs on those big boys.

I can't see how 0.020"/0.5mm difference in bore diameter, cases that have a 3 or 4 grain difference in capacity, and a bullet weight difference of 15 grains can be all that different if you're shooting bullets that are close in design and construction.

IIRC, before WDMB used the 7x57 to shoot elephants, he used the 6.5x54 with long heavy solids and probably could have continued with the same degree of success that he had with the 7x57. It seems to me that if you shoot a 160 grain 6.5x55 bullet at the same velocity (+/-) as a 175 grain bullet fired from a 7x57, assuming that all other factors are kept as similar as is possible, bullet construction/profile/etc., you're likely to end up with the results that differ by a factor of rounding error.

Jeff

Reading Jack O'conner in outdoor life as a youth started my interest in the 7x57. Finn Aagard finished me off and I had to have one. John Barsness wrote a few very good articles about the 6.5x55. Maybe someday I'll get one of those.

Ron

Good stuff, 106rr, I was really drooling over a Steyr Mannlicher with gorgeous wood in mannlicher stock, it had some NICE wood, but the price matched.....now I drool over Blaser like this one:

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=134786418

I am no lefty, but love nice quality, and just could not put some K95s down at the Shot Show.....some day I will get a 2nd mortgage perhaps

The Steyr looked like this one that I was eyeing....

http://www.steyrarms.com/products/hunting-rifles/classic/

But it may not have been the SBS, perhaps the model prior. Those euro rifles just exude quality, and from all reports shoot like a custom. Euro vs. US dollar exchange seems to not help....have to settle for my K1A Ruger for now. The Blaser might be the ultimate 'upgrade' over my Ruger for a nice single shot, and a Martini & Hagn and even the old Model 10 Dakota's did not look bad either.....

I have some old Norma 156s that need to go in my Ruger....if someone could just put me in front of an elephant....I'd try one!

I don't know about Sweden, but I hunted in Norway in 1996, meeting a total of about 30 local hunters while going after red deer. Not a single one carried a 6.5x55. Probably the most popular round was the .308, and the most popular rifle the Remington 700. (By the way, the 6.5.5x55 was co-designed by the Norwegians and the Swedes. The Norski military used it in the Krag-Jorgensen.)

I have never used the 6.5x55 on anything bigger than mule deer, while I've used the 7x57 on animals such as kudu, wildebeest and moose. I don't know why the 6.5x55 wouldn't work just as well on bigger animals, given all the other similarities between the rounds, but have never tried it.

In my earlier post I said that in my experience the 6.5x55 was more accurate. I didn't mention that I've found it to shoot all bullet weights well, light or heavy. From what I've read here and elsewhere that's pretty common.

Too bad no one chambers the 7 x 57 today, I guess its a long action cartridge in a short action world.

HUH??????

http://www.ruger-firearms.com/Firea...h&blength=Barrel+Length&work=Yes

Maybe I just don't know that much about this question, but it seems to me that each have somewhat of a cult following here in NA but neither are as popular as they ought to be... they're kinda the "Rodney Dangerfields" of rifle cartridges.

I've got a custom 7x57 in the works and intend to get a 6.5x55 going soon too. They're both incredible cartridges, IMO.

To me the perfect three-rifle battery would be a 22 lr, a 6.5x55, 7x57, or 30'06 (none of these get the respect and appreciation they deserve just because they're not "new") and a 404 Jeffery or 416 Rigby.

too bad not one chambers in a bolt there BT.

I shoot 'em both and like both, little difference in either IMO, both work great....
Cat

Again, HUH????!!!!! I suppose your logic also dictates that with Pontiac headed for the graveyard there won't be any more automobiles. NULA, Montana Rifleman, Cooper, Dakota, and any-damned-gunsmith can put together a 7x57mm and any-damned-barrel maker can install a 7x57mm tube on an appropriately sized action. And I doubt Ruger's catalog will be without a 7x57mm Model 77 for any appreciable length of time.

I'm sure glad I didn't listen to you when I had a .250-3000 put together three years ago.

What do you have for a 250 Savage there Bricktop?

My favorite is the 7x57 and I have owned maybe a dozen different rifles over the years (I think 6 at the moment). Ironically all have been Swedish made Husqvarna rifles. I shoot either Norma factory 150 gr. loads or hotter handloads using 150 gr. Nosler Partitions.

I had a Remington 700 BDL LH re-barreled from .243 to .250-3000 by Shilen a couple of years back. And I also have a classic .250-3000 rig -- a Model 99 Savage with a Stith-mounted Weaver J2.5.

Dogger, you happen to be half-way in luck. I say half-way because I have not yet tried the Hornady 6.5mm 160 grain, but I have killed several with the 7mm 175 grain. It clobbers the deer. The first was last fall in a heavy snow storm. My son and I were sitting in a ground blind between two rows of pines, at the end of the row. The son was watching down the row, and I was trying to cover the ends. A deer stepped out the end of the next row over and walked broadside to us at about 20 yards, oblivious to our presence. The 175 grain Hornady went in the ribcage tight to the shoulder and out the opposite side ribacage leaving a gaping hole. The deer went about 50 yards leaving blood that looked like it was dumped from a bucket. Nothing like "kosher" deer (except for that cloven hoof thingy). We have killed several more with the 175 Hornady since then and all have been spectacular kills.

Can't wait to try the Hornady 6.5mm 160 grain RN. Are they still a current-production item? It seems like I have read that they were discontinued. Hope not.

-

The Hornady .264 160gr roundnose is still a production item as well as a .268 160gr roundnose. The .264 160gr that did go out of productionwas the 160gr semipointed Sierra. I bought the last and only box(100)that I have seen.

Bricktop try to wrap your mind around the concept that my comment was directed toward the popularity of the round compared to the 7-08. Me thinks you protest too much.

You stated that the 7x57mm was no longer chambered, did you not? Very typical from you.

Broketip its good we have you here to keep track of everything!

The "Ignore" feature works very well in this case.

-

Don't go too far... my 6 yr old cracks up every time he sees BT's avatar...

From time to time I hear folks say that x number in caliber cross section can't possibly make any differnce in killing/stopping power but in reality that does not compute as far as I am concerned..It appears to me to make a big difference. Take into consideration that most all double rifle calibers shoot at about the velocity and the "best", for lack of a better word, killers are absolutly the bigger bores.

I base that on my own experience in that for instance there is little balistic difference in my .338 and 375 in that both shoot a 300 gr. bullet at 2500 FPS the way I load them, but on buffalo I can tell the difference and the .375 kills them faster..Also I can tell the difference in a 350 gr. .375 cal and the 350 gr. 40 caliber at the same velocity as the 40 caliber kills best, or so it appears to me. I am not saying that one will not kill and the other one will, they both get the job done but with a larger cross section of bullet, I am of the opinnion that the larger will kill quicker..

I won't argue the point, but I won't conceed otherwise as that has been my personal experience. I know a number of PHs that are of the same opine but to even a more extent than mine, they swear by it.

I can only imagine that it makes a difference on dangerous game, but I have never hunted those critters - except for wounded black bears , and I like a SXS for them.
I use my rifles mainly for deer and moose, and bithe fall down dead about the same way with either a 160 SMP out of the 6.5X55, or a 160 Game King out of the 7X57.
Cat

Big Redhead, thanks for the feedback! I am not sure if the 160 grainers remain in production with Hornady... I recall reading several years ago (I believe in Rifle Magazine) a very entertaining article by Ross Seyfried about how a lady client used the 160 grainer in an old rifle to take an elk. I believe the velocities were very moderate, the range was reasonable, and the elk was 4 hooves up in short order. I no longer have a 6.5, but I do have a 7x57, along with a box of Speer 175 grain Grand Slams begging to be used on something. Your feedback gives me just the push I need!!

I used to own a Mannlicher carbine in 6.5x54mm which shot 160-gr bullets very well, although at rather anemic velocities. I loaded 129-gr bullets in it, but the original owner used RN 160-gr for years for his woods deer rifle.

His "big rifle" was another Mannlicher MCA carbine in .30-06.

I sold the 6.5x54 to a friend, who took it to Africa along with his .318 WR and .404 Jeffery. He shot a half dozen antelope stone dead with the Mannlicher.

Try the 160-gr Sierra GK SPBT in the 7x57, and for a tougher bullet, the Sierra GK HPBT - accurate, excellent ballistics, with good terminal velocity and energy.

Guys, you will probably be surprised at the performance of the 175 grain Hornady from an accurate 7x57, and quite likely pleased. It is not necessary to shoot 52,345 fps to kill deer. The 175 Hornady at 2400 fps muzzle velocity does so amazingly well, even at 200 yards or more, and it shoots plenty flat enough for that application. Every bullet drops.

-

Just because someone can kill an elk or whatever with a lesser caliber proves nothing yet we still use it for an example..I have shot a number of elk, Mule Deer and Whitetail with the 25-35 Win and a large number of deer with the 22 L.R. That does not mean they are viable big game calibers, they are not except under very controled conditions by someone that is willing to pass up all but the perfect shot, and is willing to let most of the sighted animals just walk off into the sunset!!

Today I use a .338 Win.for most all of my elk hunting and at least a 30-06 or a 7x57 as minimum..Will the 6.5x57 do the job, I suppose it will, but with more reservations than my .338 Win.

The point I am stressing is give yourself every "edge" you can when hunting elk on todays public hunting grounds, as you may only get one window of opertunity, you better use that shooter wisely as Tom Selleck said in Quigley Down Under!

I have two 6.5x55 and 7x57 rifles. In my older years (64) I have realized that these cartridges are accurate, adequately powerful and field sufficient for almost all of the hunting that I do. I have hunted deer, antelope, caribou, black bear and elk as well as the european reh and hogs on several continents. I no longer need the recoil and weight of the more powerful cartridges, although i own and shoot them. I also like the 270/280 and really like the 7SAUM. My Ruger #1K1A in 6.5x55 will be with me on every hunt for many years to come (I hope).

I shot another doe last night with my Ruger M77MkII in 7x57. This time the load was a 145 grain Speer Hot-Cor over 46 grains of H (from Speer #13). The range was about 275 yards across a soy bean field. The bullet went through both shoulders blowing apart the heart and lungs on the way through. The deer ran NOWHERE! It was the coolest shot of the year so far. All the various sights and sounds were there, including the fireball at the muzzle, bean plants blowing down in front, and "BOOM-ssssssssss-THWACK." My buddy just said "Down." Can't wait to see the footage.

-

you guys are already deer hunting up there now? Life stinks for me I have to wait until September!

Dang Big Redhead, I also have an M77MkII chambered in 7x57, with reloads consisting of Speer 145 grain hotcor and 48 grains of H414... I can't wait to use them on a deer...

My 6.5 before I scoped it last year.






Nice thing, shoots as good as it looks....to my eye.

65Br, BEAUTIFUL rifle!

Seems to me that a #1 screams for a classic like the Swede, a 30-40 Krag, 7x57, or 8x57, "oldie but goodie" status all the way around.

My eye agrees with yours...

Thanks, some disdain SS/Walnut.....I like.....and never worry about rust and wiping them down.....though I do on occasion wipe them down. A bead blast SS can give less game alarming glare than a high gloss blue, something nice to admire, but I will never forget seeing a glint many times and finally spying it's source thru my binos on another hilltop in Colorado, the hunter must have been 1/2 mile to 1 mile away. His blued steel was reflecting the sun. Game would see that as well. Bead blue in fine matte is nice for hunting however. The best I seen were: my former M70 20" carbine 7/08 w/syn stock - nice fine matte, a Bill Hicks 700 308 fluted in HS stock- ltd. edition, and the Micro-Hunter Brownings. The heavy bead blast i.e. on Express 870 shotguns, and other rifles are a huge turn off to me as to me the finish serves to hold water/moisture and rust, as well as just less asthetically pleasing.

Some OUTSTANDING rifles an acquaintance I knew had, were Sako actions, custom bbls, and some faux wood synthetic, quality wood grain. The steel had been Armor Alloyed to match the SS bbls, and the stocks functioned as Synthetics, but looked like nice walnut. I think he was onto something.....we had similar taste.

Naw, it's not really hunting (but close enough for me). My BIL is a farmer and gets permits to kill a few does because there are too many in our area and they eat too many crops. He got 30 permits this year to use on about 2000 acres total (separate parcels). He could get more permits but we don't want to kill all the deer, just thin them out a bit. Trust me, the herd around here can handle it. All the farmers in the area do it, even the ones that were staunch anti-doe-hunting 20 years ago. They used to get doe permits and burn them just so others would not get them. It's different now that the deer are affecting their wallets.

-

First of all, I ask all of you to forgive me for bringing this up from the basement. There is SO much good info and great sharing in this thread and I found it in a search online for info on both these rounds that, no surprise to me, brought me right back to "The Fire".

I would have loved to quote many of the posts previous to this one (in 2009 ) but I simply am not savvy enough to do so with more than one but bringing this thread back TTT I feel each will be shared, once again, with those perhaps new or ...like me, new to these rounds. IMHO this thread simply was worth a review so back up it comes!

While not yet carved in stone (until the estimated date it will reach it's final vote in May) there is a proposal for my home state of Indiana to be able to use the somewhat standard ".243 caliber and up" cartridges for deer starting this fall. Such was greeted with open arms and a big grin by yours truly!!

While many are losing their minds having thoughts that some will be spraying bullets 5-600 yards and worrying about "safety issues" too much has come to my attention while reading hunting articles and stories in states where such IS much more of a possibility that even in those states a huge percentage of shots taking big game run around 200 yards. If Alzheimers has not set in early I do believe JB has stated this was the case in 40 plus years of records for him and others in his hunting parties. (Correct me if I "misremember" that, JB!)

Unless one wants to take a chance on "accidently" dropping a spike or small forky and burning his "one and done" buck tag (or worse, shoot a second buck!!) each and every hunter is going to take the time to take a GOOD look at each deer, even at 200 yards. STILL believing that the majority of true sportsmen and women are sensible and conscientious hunters, I feel all will also be looking BEYOND said whitetail before venturing a shot just like in the states where these rounds have been safely used for decades and decades. I am not saying there does not EXIST the type of "hunter" out there that throws caution to the wind but I am insisting that a difference in weapon used is not going to create MORE of them than we deal with currently whom do equally dangerous stunts..regardless of weapon in their hands.

BACK on topic. Off my stump on that issue.

Being older, the lesser recoiling, aka "sensible" rounds are the only ones that were of any interest at all and we are blessed with more than just a few of really great rounds fitting that description, each with their own merits and followers.

While narrowing the choices down within that list terms like "classic" and "time proven", each with there own intriguing history that I greatly enjoyed reading, increased my already heightened interest.

Weeks and weeks of reading all I could get my hands on concerning old and "new" pressure ratings, the rifles such are commonly found in, differences in US and foreign manufactured cases, the improved (to ME) ability to seat even the very longest of hunting bullets without radically encroaching on powder capacity with throats to match, efficiency, "killing" reputation and on and on........and I was sold.

Something old but new to me, still as useful as when first introduced over 100 years ago that, quite interesting to me, also seem to be much more "in tune" with the newer oh-so-long, high BC hunting bullets that many will shoot nothing but simply because, upon introduction, very heavy for caliber thus "long" bullets were SOP for them so very long ago. Both make top notch candidates for those interested in shooting the high BC bullets, at least IMHO. "Needed" or not is a non-issue and a personal choice yet these two rounds just lend themselves very well to adapting to these state of the art bullets resulting from our past decade or so "ballistic coefficient war" where bullet BC has taken a much larger hunk of advertising funding than it did in my youth.

While many moan the "disadvantage" of the long military throats, I only ask that each reviews previously posted comments on the accuracy hunters have found these rounds quite capable of. True, custom throats to whatever chosen bullet one would venture to select as their "go to" bullet would be nice but whatever "gain" one would achieve in velocity or group size seems at first glance to be more of a desire than actually having much benefit for a hunting rifle round. I'll venture to say that I personally probably couldn't tell the difference while hunting and I am equally positive the deer wouldn't either.

Either round appeared to be near "perfect" for my uses so I didn't really look for one more than the other but as luck would have it (and believe ME, this was pure luck if not God sent!) I dumbed into a VERY nice 6.5x55 in a model 96 that someone had put much love and effort into making a lovely, jeweled, hand checkered, roll over cheek pieced, mannlicher stocked hunting rifle AND a Douglas match, air gauged, SS 7x57 barrel sitting new already turned and threaded for a 700 Remington, both at a price that I still feel a bit embarrassed about paying they were so inexpensive.

Such a NO BRAINER.......I took them both!! Obviously the 7x57 has another purchase yet to be made and a bit of 'smith work but, all in all, I feel like I pretty much hit the old and poor deer hunter's lotto with both!

So while I added little to nothing in information on the two but only added my enthusiasm for them posting my own personal reasons, it's back TTT for this REALLY great thread for any to partake in that may have missed it some 5 plus years ago.

In closing, while I mentioned that each does well to lend their use to the high BC bullets of longer lengths??........somehow, one not using ye ol' cup and core bullets just "doesn't feel right". Knowing me, I may whack a deer or two with the long and heavy for caliber round nose bullets that they are known for, if for no other reason than having done so and paying homage to two great rounds that sometimes get over looked during these times of desires and advertisements for maximum velocities.

God Bless
Steve

I started Gunsmith school in 1952. I have been actively involved with firearms ever since. In all those years I have seen only 2 6.5's,both 6.5x54MS. One was one of the first rifles I built in school and the other a 1904MS carbine I owned many years later. During this time I have seen a multitude of 7x57's and am in process of having one built at the current time. It will be on a Sarco/Dumolin 98 action. My other 7x57 is also a custom done by a classmate about 10 years ago. The 7x57 proved very successful for me in Africa accounting for several Impala and several Kudu. 6.5 Arisakas were popular when I was in gunsmith school as they were a very low cost action,other than that I have just never seen many 6.5 caliber guns in all those years.

If you have experience with it and know what it can do, the 7x57 is very hard to disparage.

I recently sold a John Rigby & Sons .275 and have already replaced it with a Model 70 Super Grade in 7x57.

After using this cartridge since 1981, I know what I can trust it to do and this latest rifle will be a keeper.

On the other hand.......I have loaded for and used a couple of 6.5x55's and for deer sized game, there isn't much between them, meaning you won't see a difference if you average out the kills.
The advantage however, goes with the 7x57 if you extend the game up to 1,000 pounds+ because of the heavier bullets and slightly larger caliber.

Not a gun writer, but thanks for bringing this back to the top. My dad built a 6.5x55 out of VZ24 Mauser for my youngest daughter. It has a slim 20" barrel, with a trim walnut stock. She used it to kill her first deer this year and I couldn't be more proud.

After seeing the results from my daughter's deer, I hunted with her gun for the majority of the season. I killed my largest deer ever with her gun, a beautiful 12 pointer that is in the 140s. It's the largest deer ever killed on our lease in over 40 years! I'm now having a hard time giving her back her gun

I have other guns, some with newer cartridges (like a 7mm-08), but most are chambered in something almost to over 100 years old. There's nothing like the feeling of using something most folks think is obsolete and making it work just as well (or better) that the latest and greatest.

What???

Over priced and over valued.

I have owned 2 Rigby's, the other was a double made in 1912 with original case and all accessories. It's gone too.

I have had 6.5x55 and 7x57, can't really say as there is any realistically practical difference in them. Between those two and the 260 or 7-08 the only difference will be the guns they are acquired in. Norma 6.5 ammo was never distributed very well in Canada, it was hit and miss over the years,but it was around, there was Yugoslavian stuff which was pretty good up til the Balkans issue arose. But, that's all changed now. It's readily available other than the general ammo issues of the last couple of years.
I think more people are discovering the practicality of the mid sized cartridges like these, and a few more mfgrs are offering the 6.5's than used to be the case.
Don't see how a person can go wrong with them for anything other than the big dangerous critters. They will all work fine on moose and elk sized critters.

Both the 6.5X55mm and the 7X57mm are excellent cartridges (for their intended game). Also the 260 Remington and the 7X08mm Remington are similar and as such, are equal.