Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles No love for 6.5 Remington mag

After reading the various 6.5 CM threads a lot of the logic seems to be a bullet with great BBC and a short action. It made me wonder why the 6.5 Remington magnum never caught on or has not made a resurgence .

I think the confines of the Remington rifles it was introduced in did it in and keeps it done in... brass hard to find. only one factory load out there i think. i have often thought of having a NULA made in 6.5RemMag... Mr. Forbes would get it done right. it is a cool cartridge.

it will need at least a 3" COAL to do justice to the high BC bullets of today

What the other guys said, plus it has the very un-cool belt. Not sure about ammo and/or brass availability.

These sort of threads always make me wonder why people give a big doodle about what others think about their pet cartridges, rifles, etc. Use and enjoy what you like and fugg the naysayers.

If you're just thinking about getting one, Rick Jamison just did an article on a 6.5 WSM he had built. Pretty impressive, and maybe a bit easier to feed. Even he said, however, that for hunting, the standard .270 WSM was his choice because it was a simpler way to go.

+1 Pappy.

As I've said before, buy one, hoard brass, have the absolute coolest rifle in any deer camp, and proceed to shame all 6.5CMs that dare make an appearance. I have 2, a 600 and a 700 and have been taking deer with them since the 70s. Gun writers have been promoting the flavor of the month and talking smack about the 6.5RM, but I will bet most have never even seen one let alone shot and hunted with a 6.5RM. Writers condem the so called experts that use an example of one yet write like experts after an example of none. I'm not talking down the 6.5CM, just saying the 6.5RM is better.

George

Always thought the Mohawk rifles were cool as a kid. They got bad press from day one because they didn't have that classic look and some writers hated short barrels. Oh, and they didn't copy the Model 70 bolthandle. If it works for you, far out and groovy.

When I had my 264 Win mag built I was actually was wanting to build a 6.5 Rem mag but the brass situation on this side of the border killed that idea so I went with the 264 instead. I still think with a 3.00" + magazine length it is one heck of a good cartridge that should be much easier on barrels than the bigger 6.5's. Hornady's new 6.5 PRC probably fills that slot these days.

What about the Remington guide gun? Wasn't it made in 6.5 and 350 Rem mag? Model 673. I like the vent rib.

673 very cool, but an acquired taste. I would want the 3+ mag box for hand loading long bullets to the case potential

Whenever I see something about the 6.5 Remington magnum, I always think back to about 30-35 years ago. My wife always insisted that I take her out to supper on the Friday night before our deer season opened on Saturday. We had eaten, and then went to Walmart for a few things before heading home. This was just about the time that the deer herd here was starting to explode, and out of county and out of state hunters were beginning to come here. There was a fellow back in the sporting goods department that was in here from out of the area, and he was frantically trying to find some ammo for his rifle, because he'd left his ammo at home. His rifle.....a 6.5 Remington Magnum. I've often wondered what happened, because I'll bet there wasn't a box of that ammo on a gun store shelf in the area.

The 6.5 Rem does what the 6.5x284 does with out straining. If building a rifle now I would also consider the 6.5 SAUM as it is a 6.5x06AI in a compact package. I would start either build by first stocking up on brass and getting 300 or so cases to last the life of the barrel.

I always consider the brass sources. I refuse to buy a rifle where Remington is the only supplier. I've made that mistake once (.221 Fireball). Remington is piss-poor about servicing a cartridge once it's introduced, such as the .17 Fireball, for one example, the 6.5 RM is another, and if you want more, just keep looking at the list of cartridges with the Remington suffix on 'em. SAUMs are a whole category, as are the other Ultras.

It's not that Remington cartridges are bad, the company just doesn't do them justice.

I still have my Fireball rifle (a CZ 527), and now Nosler and Norma have cases available, but for a long time, Remington was the only supplier, and they weren't too enthusiastic about it, either.

It's something to think about.

Still with the popularity of the Swede, the creedmoor the 260 and all things 6.5mm it's interesting that no one picked it up from the rubbish heap and resurrected it. After all the Swede was all but obsolete too save the importation of a bunch of old m96s 20 years ago.

I bought a 6.5 Model 673 and 10 boxes of ammunition when they first came out. I agree with you completely. Remington doesn't care about providing it's customers with a. supply of ammo after they give up on one of their new whiz bang cartridges. It was shameful over what they did to owners of the old 5mm Remington Magnum. I heard that they junked the machinery because it was worn out but they couldn't have made enough ammo to have worn it out. They are like a lot of other corporations ran by accounts. They no longer care for the people who made them what they are.

Bangeye

I would have considered the 6.5 RM but

all the rifles " I saw " were the 600 or 660. Not my cup o tea.

I would not build a rifle for that cartridge-- i'd take the 264 WM first before a build.

Jerry

There was some use of the 6.5RM for 1000 yard bench rest shooting. The theory was the 6.5x284 was straining to get to the next higher accuracy node but the 6.5RM could do it easily with lower pressures. The theory was the lower pressures would increase barrel life. I don't think that part panned out as any time you push long skinny bullets over 3K there will be barrel wear. But it did prove to be accurate.

The 600 in ether caliber is an ideal "fishing gun" except that damn shark fin front sight is a fly line snagger for sure.

Mainly I'm thinking along the lines col is 2.8 so no longer than the 6.5 CM that is so popular yet offers larger case capacity over the CM, the Swede and the 260. I guess I'm just a bit surprised by the hubbub over the 6.5 CM when short 6.5s have been around for years in the form of the 6.5 Remington and the 6.5/284.

The draw of the 6.5 Creedmoor for me is the excellent factory ammo, I'm really looking forward to shooting a whitetail or two with the Winchester/Olin 125 grain Deer Season XP factory load in October, November, December, and January. I've owned a couple 6.5 Rem Mags and still have four rifles chambered in 6.5-284, but felt that the 2.17"/55mm case length made them too long for short actions, unless the longer/heavier bullets were seated deeply enough to fit into the magazine box. For whatever reason, nobody thinks of the 6.5x55 as a short action cartridge, but the 6.5-284 and 6.5 Rem Mag share the same case length and have always been sold in short action rifles.

Since the 6.5-284 and 6.5 Rem Mag only have a one or two grains difference in case capacity, 65/66 for the 6.5-284 vs. 67/68 for the 6.5 Rem Mag I can't see how the 6.5 Rem Mag could produce the same velocity numbers as the 6.5-284 at lower pressure.

I know a 'smith who could build any rifle/cartridge combination that he wanted to, but his primary hunting rifle is an older Ruger 77 R in 6.5 Rem Mag. He has shot most species of North American game, except for the big bears, with it. He is something of an enigma to me, in that he could hunt with any rifle/cartridge combination, but he chooses to be a one gun, one load, hunter.