Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters New Hornady 6.5 PRC?

You mean like Newton did in 1912? GD

There's no need to introduce facts into a thread...

Imperial Magnums were based on the 404 Jeffery case, as were the Ultra Mags.

aalf, did the Imperial Mags have a rebated .534" rim like the RUMs or full .543" .404 rim?

I remember reading about them, never handled one.

DF

The PRC is just a long necked, no belt, long leade version of the 6.5 Rem Mag. There is nothing new here.

Way back when, my smith had the IM reamers, as I was interested in doing one. After reviewing the brass situation at the time, I shelved the idea.


A little history.....

In the early 1980s Aubrey White and Noburo Uno of North American Shooting Systems (NASS) based in British Columbia Canada began experimenting with the full length .404 Jeffery by reducing the taper and necking it down to various calibers such as 7 mm, .308, 311, 338, 9.3 mm and .375. These cartridges were known variously as the Canadian Magnum or the Imperial Magnums. Rifles were built on Remington Model 700 Long Actions and used Macmillan stocks. Cartridges were fire formed from .404 Jeffery cases with the rim turned down, taper reduced and featured sharp shoulders.

Both Remington and Dakota Arms purchased the formed brass designed by Noburo Uno for use in their own experimentation and cartridge development. In 1999 Remington released the first of a series of cartridges virtually identical to the Canadian Magnum cartridges which featured a slightly wider body, increased taper, and shallower shoulders and named it the .300 Remington Ultra Magnum. Dakota too released their own version of the cartridge but chose not to turn down the rim and shortened the case to work in a standard length action. Remington would go on to design their own shortened versions of the Ultra Magnum cartridge which they were to call the Remington Short Action Ultra Magnum or RSAUM for short."

This is a fantastic thread. Thanks for the great info. I particularly appreciate your last post, aalf.
jason

The PRC should have more case capacity (velocity), and is actually factory supported (component availability). Not to mention ditching the useless belt...

Thanks for that history lesson.

I remember the name and that they were Canadian. That's about all.

Seems those guys were pioneers to a whole family of big rounds.

Interesting.

DF

The 6.5 Rem Mag was a good idea, ended up as a step child, largely due to Rem's decision to bring it out in a short barrel carbine, never giving it proper play, never developing it to what it should have been.

So, having a very similar round (PRC) in a better configuration, rolled out by a better company, developed into what it could be, will be way different than what went down with Remington and their 6.5 Mag. If there was a way to screw something up, Remington seemed to be there. They hit a few home runs, like the 7RM, seems to me they struck out more than they hit.

IMO.

DF

I know there was a 360 Imperial Magnum which was a 358 not a 9.3, I'm not sure there was ever a 9.3 mm version. For a time Speer made a 200 gr .311 Grand Slam designed for the 311 Imperial Magnum but obviously the round never went anywhere.

Seems innovators often end up on the back burner. As they say in business, the second rat eats the cheese.

Those guys were on the cutting edge, which can also become the "bleeding edge". Been there a few times, myself...

At least their ideas live on and we all benefit.

Leave it to aalf to come up with a good history lesson.

Thanks,

DF

Been reading this older thread because I find the PRC interesting. Any first hand experience yet with this round? Results?

Decided to include Benny's post only to add something that I don't recall reading in the thread regarding to comparison of PRC to SAUM/GAP 4S. The base of the PRC is the same diameter as the rim, so the rim is not rebated like that of the SAUM. Obviously this contributes to the slightly smaller capacity of the PRC. The slightly smaller diameter of the PRC is also carried out to the shoulder. I read where George Gardener said he preferred the non rebated rim. Maybe this helps with reliable feeding? Not sure, but he did note that. He also indicated that the PRC, based on the RCM, is the case he wanted to use BEFORE the GAP 4S, but when he approached Hornady then, they didn't have the capacity to produce the brass due to their demand during the panic buying era at the time. He was left to modifying available brass which was SAUM, thus the GAP 4S.

All that to say, maybe the PRC is simply standardizing what Gardener wanted in the first place, not necessarily to improve on the GAP 4S. Granted, seemingly all it does is reduce diameter by less than 0.020"......