Adamjp,
Your response to my question about "equally effective" cartridges was exactly what I expected.
The anti-Creedmoor rifle loonies who inhabit the Campfire (like you) apparently believe EVERY shooter and hunter on earth handloads, and is willing to spend considerable money on custom rifles or rebarreling, to use other 6.5 cartridges than the Creedmoor.
But why should they, when they can buy off-the-rack rifles and factory ammo that will do the same things? I purchased my present 6.5 Creedmoor for the vast sum of $350, and for another $25 can buy a box of factory ammo that groups 5 shots well under an inch. And my rifle's very first 5-shot group at 100 yards with handloads measured .33 inch, which is not exactly an aberration. The other three factory 6.5 Creedmoors I've owned were also very accurate.
...
Yes, there are reasons beside the "recent" publicity on the 6.5 Creedmoor for its extreme popularity. I put "recent" in quotes because the cartridge was introduced a dozen years ago, and has kept growing in popularity since then. Most new factory centerfire rounds only sell well for 2-3 years before starting to fade. That's because publicity can only do so much, and factoryPR departments can only afford to flog some new cartridge for a short time before the cartridge must stand on its own. (In a way, it's like book publishing. If a new book doesn't continue selling after the initial announcement and publicity, then the company eventually quits printing copies, because there's no sense in printing books that never leave warehouses.)
Cartridges that become profitable within that initial period usually stick around for a while, and those that are selling FAR better after a dozen years tend to become world standards, meaning that just about every company making sporting rifles chambers them, and just about every ammunition company makes ammo. That is exactly what's happened with the 6.5 Creedmoor. Not only do major American companies produce both rifles and ammo, but so do many European companies--and that trend continues to spread.
...
But according to you, and others like you, the 6.5 Creedmoor's world-wide and growing popularity, a dozen years after its introduction, is totally due to publicity.
John,
Yes, I handload. For full disclosure, where possible I use Lapua brass, then Norma and then others although I'm looking forward to developments with the emerging case manufacturers like Alpha, ADG and Petersen. Lapua/Norma are preferred through hard won experience as when I start reloading I will batch the available brass - the variation between good ol' Hornady/Winchester/Federal brass in the same packet is scary and will not help in the long run.
If I were asked by someone wanting to get into longer match ranges or a good rifle for light/medium game at any useful range I would certainly recommend a 6.5 Creedmoor. In fact I did back in November when one of my staff was about to undergo a shoulder reconstruction and doctors advice was 'no shooting' for a long time. I recommended a 6.5 Creed in a Varmit weight rifle with a very effective muzzle brake and a limbsaver recoil pad (the 30mm one). He starts shooting that next month (3 months after the surgery). The combination is such that it is an effective package and should be at the top for anyone.
FWIW my staffer also reloads, but cannot for probably a year as he cannot manipulate the press post shoulder surgery.
The longevity of the Creedmoor is down to the fact that it does work. As I said in an earlier post...
...I'm not saying the Creedmoor does not deserve a reputation for easy accuracy and useful performance for the everyman. There is no other combination that you could buy from most any sporting goods store that would perform as well out of the box - this is why the 223 is more popular than the 222 or 222 Magnum...
Simple fact is that when first launched the Creedmoor was heavily marketed by Hornady, just like they did the 204 Ruger before it, and most recently with the 6.5 PRC (full page adverts in the magazines, pushing product to the reviewers in print and online). Nothing wrong with that, but you must admit that Hornady do have a habit of strong marketing campaigns, sometimes for pretty mediocre product. As you state, a cartridge popularity usually wanes after 2-3 years (the 6.8 SPC is the latest of a long line of Remingtons marketing missteps). That the Creedmoor continues to sell strongly suggests that it has reached a level of acceptance with the buying public, passing a fad stage several years ago and has became a benchmark cartridge.
My issue is that I have an innate dislike of faddish behavior perpetrated by manufacturer marketing and industry magazines/websites which are sometimes nothing more than advertorials. I know there is an industry out there to sell products, be they rifles, ammunition, or column inches (or is that column electrons now?). I look forward to reading about it, but don't think I won't consider the outcomes with a level head and call BS when the words don't add up to reality.
My point is, and remains that there are equally effective products for those who choose to use them. Yes, they do lack ammunition options across the counter which makes them a reloader choice, but they are as effective as the Creedmoor.
You may want to reconsider labelling me (and some others here) an "anti-Creedmoor rifle loony".
If you were to take a Tikka T3 Varmit in each of these cartridges, buy or assemble equal cartridges then it would difficult to spot a difference between them.
Hmm, sounds difficult.
Since they don't sell the T3 Varmit in 260 Remington, 7-08 Remington, 6.5x55 Swedish or 6.5x47 Lapua
(NO PRODUCT). (Available in 6.5 Creedmoor.)
As usual, you only look to what is sold over the counter in the USA, not what is available from the factory or by special order from Beretta USA.
Tikka T3x Varmit Stainless Factory Production
