Does anyone know of or had any experiance with the new(?)6.5 Creedmoor. Looking at have a rifle built for strictly target shooting in a 260 remington but was told his would be a better long distance caliber for target shooting at 100,300 and 600 yards. Noticed Ruger has rifles chambered for it and Hornady has fatory ammom for it

Here is a short video of the 6.5 Creedmoor used in the field

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2COAcHZRlI

If you are only punching paper for fun, look hard at a 6mm BR fast twist, 8" ROT. It will run w/the best of them to 600 yds, and many run them to 1,000. Less kick, powder, blast, recoil, and SUPREME accuracy. Drop/wind should be near equal.

The statement about it being better at distance than a 260 is hogwash.

However, unlike the 260, it was produced from the getgo as a target round, with match ammo made for it from the start.

Do some research on the 260/6.5 Creedore/6.5x47 and you'll see they all accomplish the same thing with various benefits to each.

Aside from the factory match ammo, I feel that the 6.5 Creedmore answers few questions that aren't already addressed by the 260, other than COAL/ magazine length constrains - both of which can be addressed in the throating of your build.

The real benefit of the Creedmore is that it can be chambered in a standard sized AR. In a bolt gun, they are a horse apiece. The creedmore is a great cartridge in an AR platform, and as good as the .260/6.5x47 in a bolt gun, but no better.

Fast Ed

John: The video was interesting... Did WVZ use the 129 Hornady?

I like that 6.5 Creedmore.

Test fired one, a Ruger, last year. Was impressed with accuracy and relatively mild recoil. Haven't acquired one, so my experience remains limited to a favorable first impression.

I have one of the new Ruger Hawkeye sporters with the 26", 1-8 twist barrel. After a little experimenting I settled on the 120 Ballistic Tip at 3100 fps, with the listed load of Hunter from Ramshot's data. Works very well as a hunting round, and shoots very accurately.

Of course it's no better than the .260, or 6.5x55, or whatever. But it's hard to find one of those off the rack with a 26" barrel. Also have yet to fire a factory .260 or 6.5x55 where the first group fired with factory ammo went into .6 at 100 yards.

Somewhat of a bunny trail, but does anyone have a favorite load for a 22 inch 260? Deer and elk, please.

I ran a 22" .260 for a while around 10 years ago, and always had good luck with the 120 Barnes X (pre-TSX) and the 125 Nosler Partition, using 43-44 grains H4350.

Just my take:

From talking reamers with gunsmiths who are fond of the 260 and cater to the tacticool crowd, throating is pretty critical if trying to run VLD's near the lands in a short action mag box. I've been told that a 2.9"+ OAL is needed even when the freebore is taken down to 0.10". If trying to use a standard 2.82" Remington mag box, you'd have to run practically zero freebore or face a decent jump to lands with that bullet. I don't know what kind of freebore most 260 factory hunting ammo is engineered around, but I bet it is nowhere near that short and I know that I don't want a "handload only" match chamber on a rifle that will be used sometimes for hunting.

Having the shorter case and maintaining a similar internal capacity, the idea behind the Creedmore makes good sense if one is concerned with long-nosed bullets, short magazine boxes, and throating harmony. If you want to do the same with the 260, you will need to pony up and go with an aftermarket mag box or DBM to allow for the longer OAL, and both options cost more money. The Creedmore lags way behind concerning brass availability and uncertain life expectancy. Pros and cons both ways I suppose, but I'd imagine a Creedmore chamber could always be re-chambered to 260AI or 6.5-284 if it did not satisfy.

Thanks, John.

I'm working up loads for the 120 BT, the 130 TSX and the 140 partition.

I really like the 120 BT. Cheap, not fussy, kills stuff.

Jpro: That's a good informative post.Makes sense.

JPro,

That is precisely one of the reasons for the Creedmoor. I can easily load 140 VLD's to any seating depth desired in my Ruger, right out to kissing the lands, and the rounds still fit easily in the magazine. It wouldn't work that way with the .260.

By the way, case capacity with my fired Creedmore brass is within 1/2 grain of water of the capacity of a fired .260 case, with 120 Ballistic Tips seated to normal depth for both rounds. They are ballistic peas in a pod.

45 grains of 760 with 120/125's

It's not a custom, but I just had to try out the Creedmoor.

I'm sure I can find a much more accurate load. I didn't have much time to spend on the loading process.

T/C Icon, I sort of like the machined in Weaver style base.

I own both 260 Rem and 6.5x47's so I can say with experience the 6.5x47, possibly the 6.5 CM is the way to go for straight target. Their OAL will NOT be an issue in the 2.82" mags. Even after 700 rounds which equates to the throat elonging .042", with a 140 Berger VLD, quite a long bullet, my OAL is still 2.73". Also, with the same 26" Krieger 1:8.5 barrel I was getting over 2900 fps using Rel 17 to push both 140 VLD's and 140 Accubonds in case anyone wants to hunt it.

Also, 65BR makes a very good point when it comes to pure target shooting.

Alan