Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters 6.5 Creedmoor,260 Rem Vs 6.5X55 in a modern rifle.

Is there anything the 6.5 Crredmoor or 260 Rem.can do better than a 6.5X55 in a modern rifle like a Sako ?Is it just a loony thing.Scandanvians have been using the 6.5X55 for rifle matches forever.Huntz

http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/8953007/1

Nice explanation by Mule Deer in this thread.

Don’t know how universally my comments here apply but can offer some experience on two rifles in these chamberings.

Montana 1999 in 6.5x55 – the 1999 has a 3.1” magazine but with the very long throat they give it that’s still too short to seat the longer bullets out to kiss lands and still fit in the magazine. Shorter bullets, specifically a Hornady 100 gr. A-Max, don’t even have their bases inside the case mouth if seated to an OAL which would touch lands. To its credit the rifle is still accurate with loads fitting the magazine but I have a nagging suspicion it can't meet its full potential hampered like that.

Tikka T3x .260 – This one is the classic .260 conundrum since it comes with a 2.8” magazine, you can load to 2.805 or 2.81” max. The relatively short Hornady 100 gr. A-Max is only .01 off the lands at a 2.8” OAL, even the Hornady 129 Spire Point is only .015” off the lands when seated to touch. But the 123 gr. A-Max is a full .090” off the lands at 2.8”. In mine the 100 and 129 grainers shoot just fine, half inch or better for 4 shots in fact (it is a Tikka, after all), but that 123 grain bullet needs another .08” room, it will shoot great but only if you load it too long to fit in the mag. I tried a long magazine to see if that would work – even in their "short action" i.e. short bolt stop the bolt comes back far enough to allow a 3.1” OAL and still pick up the rounds - but feeding becomes problematic with bullets tending to nose dive and shift around in the magazine too much.

As can be inferred here I've only worked with the three Hornady bullets so far, 100 A-Max, 129 SP and 123 A-Max. I would imagine heavier streamlined bullets and especially the really long VLD types would be even more affected.

I understand that the Tikka 6.5x55 uses their full long bolt throw and 3.4” (or 3.34?) magazine, so you should be able to seat the longer bullets out to hit the lands in that. In fact, knowing what I know now, the MRC 1999 would be the better match for the .260 and the full length Tikka a better match for the 6.5 Swede.

Sure do wish Ruger would see fit to chamber the 6.5 Creedmoor in their standard SA American, to include left handers. Or Tikka would chamber the Creedmoor in their short mag T3, that would be one super accurate and well matched combo.

In my world, nope.......

Fit in a short or medium action. Velocity is within 100 to 150+/- fps with the Swede taking the lead if you load to the same pressure in a long action.

I've got 5 6.5X55mm rifles (two Husquarna M-36 military, 2 Husqvarna M-36's converted by Kimber to sporting rifles and, 1 Danish M-52 target rifle with Lyman 48 sights [converted German M-98 with 28" Schultz and Larsen barrel and Lyman 48 sights). All are accurate and one of the M-36's is equipped with Elite aperture sights and is very accurate (1.5" groups) while the M-52 can do 1" if I do my part (with 75 year old eyes)! I wonder what younger eyes could do?

I also have a Remington Model Seven in 260 Remington (1-9" twist) that is not too accurate. I'm going to have it re-barreled with 1-8" rifling.

The 6.5 bore seems to be an ideal bore size for many applications.

Since 1997 I haven't had much trouble shooting good groups with bullets in the 95 thru 130 grain range in 1-9" ROT Remington 7 and 700 barrels chambered in 260 and 6.5-284. I have even had a little success shooting minute-of-deer groups with 140 grain Partitions from those same barrels in 260.

Not for me. I have a Swede in a modern action, CZ 550 American. It's my favorite rifle. Don't reload for all of my rifles but do for this one, 130 grain Berger Hunting VLD's.

I seem to be in the minority because it doesn't matter one whit to me whether a cartridge is long action or short action.

If I ever get a .308 based AR it will be a 6.5 Creedmoor, because you can't get a 6.5x55 AR and there seems to be much better factory ammo selection in 6.5 Creedmoor than .260 Remington.

You 'bout gotta reload for the 6.5x55 for full potential in a modern action.

That's the beauty of the 6.5 Creed. For non-reloaders, there's outstanding factory ammo on dealer's shelves at reasonable prices.

I have both, reload for both, like'em both. It boils down to the individual rifle, IMO. Performance is pretty close; they both kill stuff.

DF

Even if we load the 6.5x55 to its full potential, there is only a 3 to 5 grain difference in case capacity when compared to the 260, so how much more actual muzzle velocity can 3 to 5 grains of powder produce if all the other variables are equal? It seems to me that the 6.5 Creedmoor, 6.5x47, 260, and 6.5x55 are more alike than different and that for medium game hunting purposes what one will do, the others will likely do equally well. Since I don't shoot competitively, I can speak to the question of which of the four would be better for competition shooting, but since the 6.5x47 and 6.5 Creedmoor were designed for competitive shooting, they might have a practical advantage over the 260 and 6.5x55 for the casual competitor due to the easy access of factory match loads.

These carts are too close to call IMO. For me personally the 260 wins simply due to component availability as a hand loader. The ballistics are very similar. The only thing the Creed has going is the ability to seat longer bullets, but with a custom tube, that's really a non issue.

They're close, differences are subtle.

But, what would Loonies be discussing, ruminating over, otherwise...

Nit picking, splitting hairs...?

Good stuff...!

DF

I've measured the practical difference in the .260, 6.5 Creedmoor and 6.5x55 using water, with the same 129-grain Hornady Interlock seated to the cannelure. This is more realistic than filling cases to the mouth, which makes longer-necked cartridges appear to hold more powder. The results were around 48 grains with the Creedmoor, 50 with the 260, and 52 with the 6.5x55.

Since potential muzzle velocity increases or decreases at 1/4 the rate of case capacity, when loaded to the same pressure, this means the 6.5x55 has about a 2% advantage over the 6.5 Creedmoor, around 50-60 fps with most loads. The .260 is obviously in between, so there obviously isn't any practical difference between any of the three ballistically.

If a 6.5 caliber projectile leaves the muzzle at 2700 fps, what cartridge did it come out of?

But, as Dirtfarmer said, we're loonies, what would we argue, cuss and discuss?

Critters wouldn't know the difference, hunters wouldn't either without looking at the headstamp...

DF

Well that right there is crazy talk -
.... if whitetails couldn't tell the difference, then why do I have essentially identical rifles shooting essentially identical load ;-)

Now, that's a $64, Loony question to which there may be no answer...

Or, to answer that one would be to hold the Key to the Loony disease process...

Not an easy nut to crack, for sure...

DF

So reading between the lines...

The 260 is way better.
(since I own two of em)

I like the design and performance of the 6.5 Creedmoor.

The 260 and 6.5 Swede should both be able to beat the Creedmoor in a footrace.

But to be practical, if the Creed was too light in the azz for a particular purpose, I wouldn't look for the 260 or the 'Swede as a significant upgrade in performance.

I don't have a .260 because I have a Creed and a Swede...

Too light in the azz..?

Time to move up to heavier ordinance.

But a mod speed 6.5 is pretty efficient at killing most stuff that won't bite you or stomp you to death...

Not that some haven't used it on such critters...

Not me...!

DF