Ping pong balls for the win. Once you've wrestled everything else in life is easy. Dan Gable I keep my circle small, I’d rather have 4 quarters than 100 pennies.
Ping pong balls for the win. Once you've wrestled everything else in life is easy. Dan Gable I keep my circle small, I’d rather have 4 quarters than 100 pennies.
I suspect hunters will buy the 26 or 6.5-.300 based on the rifle, since the ballistics of the cartridges are pretty close. The Weatherby has a velocity edge in factory ammo, but most handloading data has them running side-by-side--though there isn't much for the 6.5-.300 available.
I solved the choice problem by buying one of each, a Nosler Liberty and a Mark V ULW. Both shoot well; the big difference is weight. I set the Nosler up as a more specialized longer-range rifle, and with a 10x SWFA it weighs 9-1/2 pounds. Put a fixed 6x Leupold on the Weatherby. It weighs 8 pounds on the nose so will be more portable.
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.” John Steinbeck
Thanks for the replies. I am looking hard at Nosler' s M48 "non typical" in 26 Nosler... not sure what "non typical" entails, so sent them an inquiry... intent is to run the factory 120 E-tip as my baseline, then hand loading in an attempt to duplicate.
I just have an itch for extreme velocity, accuracy, and flat shooting...
Last edited by Dogger; 02/03/18. Reason: inch to itch
Thanks for the replies. I am looking hard at Nosler' s M48 "non typical" in 26 Nosler... not sure what "non typical" entails, so sent them an inquiry... intent is to run the factory 120 E-tip as my baseline, then hand loading in an attempt to duplicate.
I just have an inch for extreme velocity, accuracy, and flat shooting...
Just an inch? It doesn't seem like you're very excited about it.
Between the two, i am more likely to go with the 26 Nosler in either the Nosler M48 "non-typical" or an X-Bolt... the X-Bolt for sure the less expensive path
their standard production uses 1:8 twist... no explanation offered as to why the 1:9... but anything built not to production spec is a "non-typical" M48... this particular rifle varies from spec in three areas: (sporter vs magnum contour), (24" vs 26"), 1:9 vs 1:8 twist...
I too believe it will depend on the rifle a person likes or is willing to spend money on. I suspect more Vanguards to sell than M48s, but I could be wrong! Anyone know what the expected life of the barrel is on either one? I have bought used rifles in hot magnums that were decades old, yet "maybe" fired 20 times! ha
All of my Sako’s and pre-64 264 Win mags are 1-9 twist barrels. All shoot 140’s just fine. They are almost 60 years old. I doubt they have had a hundred rounds fired in all three put together. I need to fix that.
I've fired my 26 Nosler almost 300 times now. It still shoots great, and there's only a hint of throat erosion visible through my bore-scope. Nosler reports that most people are getting at least 1000 rounds before requesting a rebarrel, and one went 1500. Based on what I'm seeing with my rifle, that sounds about right.
The 6.5-.300 Weatherby has just about exactly the same case capacity, though the long "freebore" throat allows a little more velocity. If anything, I'd expect the freebore to extend barrel life. I've fired my rifle around 100 times, and can't be sure I'm seeing any erosion in the bore-scope.
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.” John Steinbeck
My hunting, shooting, and business partner owned a “specialized” rifle for every conceivable situation. He had every variation of short/long, light/heavy, bigger/smaller, long range/short range and so on. His idea was to have a passel of porters each toting two of his rifles. He fantasized that he could to turn to his porters and they would present him with the “just right” rifle.
I had a 7 pound 270 and just went hunting.
Last edited by RinB; 02/08/18.
“Perfection is achieved not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away”. Antoine de Saint-Exupery. Posted by Brad.
Another story. My African PH outfitter buddy work hard for many days to find a massive kudu for his well equipped US client. Finally he found the kudu, and told the client “shoot straight quickly”. The American ranged it with his laser, checked the wind, turned the dials of his scope, and adjusted the power ring. Sadly, the kudu wandered off. My pal who is not easily provoked got himself under control and asked his client why hid didn’t shoot. Our nimrod explained he was preparing for the shot. My pal didn’t understand the need for all the technical adjustments the kudu being about 115 yards from the muzzle of the gentleman’s rifle. True story.
Last edited by RinB; 02/08/18.
“Perfection is achieved not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away”. Antoine de Saint-Exupery. Posted by Brad.
Another story. My African PH outfitter buddy work hard for many days to find a massive kudu for his well equipped US client. Finally he found the kudu, and told the client “shoot straight quickly”. The American ranged it with his laser, checked the wind, turned the dials of his scope, and adjusted the power ring. Sadly, the kudu wandered off. My pal who is not easily provoked got himself under control and asked his client why hid didn’t shoot. Our nimrod explained he was preparing for the shot. My pal didn’t understand the need for all the technical adjustments the kudu being about 115 yards from the muzzle of the gentleman’s rifle. True story.
I'm confessing,..... I stole this story w/o your permission. I used it in another thread to 'illustrate' my point on MPBR. I'm asking 'forgiveness' instead of permission. IF you don't approve -- I can delete that from the other thread.
Originally Posted by RinB
Another story. My African PH outfitter buddy work hard for many days to find a massive kudu for his well equipped US client. Finally he found the kudu, and told the client “shoot straight quickly”. The American ranged it with his laser, checked the wind, turned the dials of his scope, and adjusted the power ring. Sadly, the kudu wandered off. My pal who is not easily provoked got himself under control and asked his client why hid didn’t shoot. Our nimrod explained he was preparing for the shot. My pal didn’t understand the need for all the technical adjustments the kudu being about 115 yards from the muzzle of the gentleman’s rifle. True story.
Another story. My African PH outfitter buddy work hard for many days to find a massive kudu for his well equipped US client. Finally he found the kudu, and told the client “shoot straight quickly”. The American ranged it with his laser, checked the wind, turned the dials of his scope, and adjusted the power ring. Sadly, the kudu wandered off. My pal who is not easily provoked got himself under control and asked his client why hid didn’t shoot. Our nimrod explained he was preparing for the shot. My pal didn’t understand the need for all the technical adjustments the kudu being about 115 yards from the muzzle of the gentleman’s rifle. True story.
That story is fulfilling in so many ways. I feel uplifted.
RinB's logic and experience is why i have stopped short of buying so many rifles in so many different chamberings the last ten years. I know that my M700 in 280 Remington will do anything i need doing. Knowing that has kept me from buying a 270, a 3006, and a host of other "must have because" cartridges. It has kept me from falling for the 6.5 Creedmoor koolaid, and likely a 26 Nosler... lol
RinB's logic and experience is why i have stopped short of buying so many rifles in so many different chamberings the last ten years. I know that my M700 in 280 Remington will do anything i need doing. Knowing that has kept me from buying a 270, a 3006, and a host of other "must have because" cartridges. It has kept me from falling for the 6.5 Creedmoor koolaid, and likely a 26 Nosler... lol
Agreed. I've only been bitten by the bug (where I could afford more rifles) for about 5 years. I started planning every possibility in my head until I had an epiphany. In the real world, the difference on paper between between a 270 win and 7-08 are not as significant. Also, the weight difference between a 7.5-8# all up rig wasn't worth the extra $1000 - $2000 for me.
Now, I fully plan builds and analyze ballistics on paper. But, I almost always stop before I regret it. I settled on a 30-06 Savage bedded into Boyds for my hunting rig with a .243 M77 Ruger as my light gun. I'll probably toy with a M70 classic SS 7 Rem I have to possibly take the 30-06's place and add a Talkeetna down the road. That should round me out for life.
If you knew RinB as well as I do, you'd also know that he still constantly buys and sells rifles, trying to find perfection. He swears off once in a while, but then a year or so later is right back in it.
However, his story about the guy who couldn't shoot a damn kudu at 115 yards because he "needed" to dink around with his high-tech gear is also familiar. Even before the recent changes some hunters were guilty of similar delays. I know this from doing some guiding myself over the years. One of my "favorites" was a guy from Maine who came to Montana on his first pronghorn hunt. He'd hunted quite a bit for whitetails, caribou and moose, but this was his first Western trip.
I was driving along a ranch road, headed for a reliable area I knew well, when a small herd suddenly appeared next to the road. The buck was pretty darn good, especially for a first antelope, and it was early in the season so the herd wasn't very spooked, so we got out and lay down on a small hill next to the road, my client with his 7mm Remington Magnum.
By that time the herd had stopped about 200 yards away "That's a GOOD buck," I said, expecting the guy to shoot, since I'd seen him loading the chamber. When he didn't I looked over, finding him looking through HIS binoculars, so I said, "Shoot him. He's not going to stand there forever."
The guy finally dropped his binoculars, but then started fiddling with his scope. By then the antelope had decided to move on, but still weren't terribly alarmed, trotting slowly. They'd started to slow down to stop again, still only about 250 yards away, when the guy finally shot--and of course missed.
Afterward I asked him what he'd been doing with his scope. It turned out he felt 200 yards was way to far for a 4-12x variable set on 4x, so he was turning it all the way up....
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.” John Steinbeck
Sirs, I appreciate this desire to find personal perfection in a rifle. I have a lot to learn. I dropped my M700 into a B&C 2265 Alaskan ti and I like it very much. It shoots Nosler 140 E-tip into groups small enough to put game down at any reasonable range if i do my part. But I wonder about that bolt handle breaking off (grin) and I wonder about that nylon bottom metal failing at the wrong time... I know i can improve on this platform for fast shots at longer ranges, but the gains will be small increments - there ain't much that will shoot noticeably flatter and buck the wind better than a 140 grain 280 out to 400 yards.... the 26 Nosler is likely to give me the biggest stretch. Not sure what to scope it with... the idea is to build the flatest-shooting wind-buckingest bullet launcher i can, with a simple scope set up, and when the "Go" decision is made to shoot, put the reticle on the right spot of hair and pull the trigger... no dial twisting, no adjusting power... no spazzing as precious seconds step by and the critter moves away.
After owning 3 264's and many other 26 calibers over the last 20 years.
I'm not all that impressed with large powder volume 26 calibers.
I can pretty much mimic the same performance with a 7 mm Rem Mag and 120/140 grain bullets at 3,500/3,300 fps. Especially if your large powder volume 6.5 rifle is a purposed flat-liner with no turrets.
For me, the high B.C. 6.5 caliber bullet is what does the work, not the powder volume.
The 6.5 bullets over-perform with less recoil, that's the beauty of shooting a 6.5/26 caliber rifle.
I wouldn't own a 6.5 rifle without being able to dial a turret for it as the 6.5 bullet is a natural for hang time.
60 grains approx of powder is about as much as I want to go in a 26 caliber rifle.
I like the 6.5 caliber a lot, my one only run with it was in a 6.5/284 with the 120/125s for a couple years. I "did" have a rifle made up for the Creedmor but had only shot a box of factory ammo ( 123 SST stuff) before I had to sell it for a pressing expense. I felt like it was/is a "modern .257 Roberts" as far as uses go, based on my former use of it ( I even had "it" Ackleyed) so I actually have more time with faster .25s, i.e. 25-06, 257 Weatherby. I hunted/played with the RUMs a few years, and "almost" had a 6.5 STW made up once, same with the 6.5/06 (went back and forth on standard or Ackley) Never did either one. Due to Obammacares "hidden in the 2000 pages" tax on Ministers Benefits I had to sell everything not nailed down in the last year, now I'm back to rebuilding a "sensible" battery...for a Preacher anyhow, ha. A 338 Winmag, a 7mm Mauser and working on getting a .243 Win. I discovered that my "Loonyism" just won't let me sleep with one "do it all" rifle. Been there done that wasn't happy! lol I always think of my old friend down in East Texas that does that with his Mod 700 .264 winmag. He shoots deer from spitting distance to several hundred yards down the pipeline right of Way with 140gr Partitions ( when he can get them from our mutual handloading friend down there, or factory loads. His boys have used it to shoot varmints and a few bucks out to 500yds with it! ha He will "wipe it with a rag/gun oil" and about every three years take it to a gunsmith for " a good cleaning", ha. If his throat is burned up, he wouldn't know it! Its only guys like us that fret with those things, and how many of "us" actually "get" to hunt/shoot enough to even "reach" a 1000 rounds on one rifle? I bet not many...I don't think I ever have and I'm a pretty looney 65 yr old ! ha
what's really ridiculous is my 300 RSAUM can likely push a 150 accubond as flat to 800 yards as a 130 accubond in the 6.5x284... of course with more drift and more recoil.
Guess my "problem" with 6.5's is a different one. Right now I have eight, after having played with a few others during the past several years: a 6.5x54 Mannlicher-Schoenauer; two 6.5x55's, one Norwegian Krag the other a custom FN Mauser with nice "California English" stock; a Tikka T3 Superlite .260 Remington; a Ruger American Predator 6.5 Creedmoor; a Sauer drilling with a 6.5x57R barrel under a pair of 16-gauges; a 26 Nosler Liberty; and the 6.5-.300 Weatherby Mark V Ultra Lightweight. Among the ones sold were a couple of .264 Winchesters, including a pre-'64 Model 70 "Westerner," and two other 6.5x55's.
The sights range from open (the Krag) to the aperture rear on the Mannlicher, to several "set-and-forget" scopes,"and two dialing scopes on the 6.5 Creedmoor and the other on the 26 Nosler. Also included is a 1-4x Leupold on the drilling, so if I flush a grouse or pheasant while big game hunting I can wingshoot with the scope on 1x. But if primarily bird hunting I take the claw-mounted scope off, and if I encounter a deer, elk or black bear use the open sights. The rear sight automatically flips up when the barrel selector is changed to "rifle."
So my problem is NOT deciding which 6.5 cartridge is absolutely perfect. My problem is I'm a rifle loony.
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.” John Steinbeck
Guys, my pal Mule Deer is correct, I am constantly working to build “the perfect” 270 Win. Man have I tried. As I write this have three in the works. All have 1-9 twists. Am gravitating to shorter barrel lengths. Went like this...25-24-23-22.75-22-21. Now prefer 20.5 to 21”.
I handload and am primarily a big game hunter. I shoot jackrabbits to improve my skill.
I don’t get much interested in different cartridges. I have proven to myself that with modern bullets I don’t need anything more until a big gun is needed. Used to prefer 416 but with expanding monos am starting to think 375 H&H. I would much rather have a fine push feed than a common crf.
I am very picky about actions and am working on three 270’s now. One each with Surgeon, BAT, & Lone Peak. Those rejected are Defiance, Stiller, Borden, NULA, Win M 70 crf, anything with a M16 or Sako type extractor. I would never rely on anything with those two extractors. I “tolerate” the Lone Peak for the Ti receiver but it will likely hit the road before long.
Scopes...well haven’t figured that out.
Want to end up with two that are slightly different. The rest go to my pals who are not so obsessive.
Oh, in addition to the three new 270’s, there are 5 or 6 more laying around and about to leave.
Have used big 7’s and big 30’s and 338 Win. Those went away.
Currently getting interested in a really fast 22 or 24. I want one that with each shot one can see small chunks of rifling spewing out the muzzle. Think 22 Creedmoor or 6-284 or 6-280 AI.
Last edited by RinB; 02/09/18. Reason: Many
“Perfection is achieved not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away”. Antoine de Saint-Exupery. Posted by Brad.
a 21" 270 in a bodacious pushfeed does sound more nimble and handy than a 24" 6.5x284 at reasonable hunting ranges. I was handling a 22" M700 in the LGS today and wondering what I was thinking when I went with the 24" tube of my 280 CDL... and then remembered I wanted to maximize the V of the 280 to give it that little bit extra over a standard 270
I am and always have been a velocity junkie. The super hot 6mm will likely use a 1-8 Proof 22” barrel. I like the 6-284 because of the availability of Lapua brass. Considered a 22 Creedmoor but presently wanting more bore.
Yes, I will loose some velocity but if that was my only goal I would get a 28+”. But I don’t care...most all of this rifle silliness is the pursuit of vanity and the quest for something interesting.
Last time I fooled with something like this I had a 7STW assembled for a trophy pronghorn hunt. Got my goat at a measured 89 yards because I am a crawler and stalker.
Last edited by RinB; 02/11/18. Reason: Grammar
“Perfection is achieved not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away”. Antoine de Saint-Exupery. Posted by Brad.
I have an old JC Higgins Mod 50 in .270, which, so far is about a 1.5" 3 shot grouper with 150s and a couple 130s. I am going to try some Sierra 110s on a couple loads and the Federal 110 TTSX factory load ( I have almost 2 boxes on hand. Shot 3 in my old BAR into 3/4"!) It would seem "to me" that a fast 110 TTSX in the old .270 would give the 6.5 lighter bullets a run for their money! If this old barrel doesn't suit me, I will rebarrel it with something, "maybe" that 6.5/06 finally! But I can't help but think that the 125 Partition would be elk poison, especially cows and spikes!
I am and always have been a velocity junkie. The super hot 6mm will likely use a 1-8 Proof 22” barrel. I like the 6-284 because of the availability of Lapua brass. Considered a 22 Creedmoor but presently wanting more bore.
Yes, I will loose some velocity but if that was my only goal I would get a 28+”. But I don’t care...most all of this rifle silliness is the pursuit of vanity and the quest for something interesting.
Last time I fooled with something like this I had a 7STW assembled for a trophy pronghorn hunt. Got my goat at a measured 89 yards because I am a crawler and stalker.
lol, understand and appreciate the low crawl...80 more yards and do it with a spear!
I am and always have been a velocity junkie. The super hot 6mm will likely use a 1-8 Proof 22” barrel. I like the 6-284 because of the availability of Lapua brass.
I didn’t know this about you. I chase velocity (speed for our technical friends) & accuracy at the same time. Fast w/o accuracy is useless. I take a 270 over a 308.... 7MRM over a 6.5x55..et.al.
I read a statement you made in hyperbole, « you’re looking to spit particles of steel out the end of the barrel » lol, I’m close to that but not quite that extreme. grin
In prep for deer season — if I change loads or get a diff rifle ... I CHECK that 1st shot , cold bll. Regularly over the years I’m awed how well my rifles remain stable and the scopes don’t shift ZERO.
I have several rifles, diff cartridge, diff scopes and I’ve had to ADJUST the scope/s so SELDOM.
RinB : what 270 cal bullets are you using that require 9" twist, or are you anticipating ?
Jack O'C was a known shooter of the Hare for the same reason, maybe that's the true purpose for the .270 Win , ha
Start working with the .280 in the shorter barrels, or even the 280 AI for curiosity; and I'll swing by for a visit. - What pressure are you running in those carbine barrels ?
My favourite 6.5 is the 6.5-280 AI or maybe a 6.5-280 RCBS;
Or maybe, the 256 Long CreedMoor Express :
- CM Neck with the .462" diam, 30 degree shoulder on a blown forward .270 or .280 case, throated to match the short CM, or the magazine, or ...
I think it wants a longer barrel to really perform ...
pure loonyism
Last edited by 338Rules; 02/14/18. Reason: typos, formatting, clumsy 2 finger typing, new idea
I only gained 50 fps by having a 22" bbl .280 reamed to the Ackley. I was sooooo disappointed! I would want at least a 24", 26" would be even better, IMHO. Same for the 6.5/280 AI, give me some barrel! ha Being tall, I never cottoned but to two carbines....the leverguns ( any caliber but no longer than 20", even 18 is OK with the 45-70. And the M4. For a bolt gun, it just seems "odd" to me, just doesn't "swing" right. But hey, I know several guys who just love the 18" 30-06s! Way too loud for me. Go figure... also, are the 6.5/06 and 6.5/280s as "loud" as the 25-06? That sucker "seemed" louder to me than the 257 Weatherby.
I only gained 50 fps by having a 22" bbl .280 reamed to the Ackley. I was sooooo disappointed! I would want at least a 24", 26" would be even better, IMHO. Same for the 6.5/280 AI, give me some barrel! ha Being tall, I never cottoned but to two carbines....the leverguns ( any caliber but no longer than 20", even 18 is OK with the 45-70. And the M4. For a bolt gun, it just seems "odd" to me, just doesn't "swing" right. But hey, I know several guys who just love the 18" 30-06s! Way too loud for me. Go figure... also, are the 6.5/06 and 6.5/280s as "loud" as the 25-06? That sucker "seemed" louder to me than the 257 Weatherby.
Agree about the need for longer barrel in a round that relies on High pressure for it's MV . improvement
Over the years, In my quest for the perfect .280 Improved for Mule Deer hunting, I went over and rejected several .280s that only had 22" barrels in my search for one that :
a ) had a 24 " barrel, and b ) was accurate enough to re-chamber to the AI
Only later did I learn that the .280 could reasonably be loaded up to .270 or the AI levels ( 65k psi) for much better performance.
Knowing what I know now, I just shake my head at the lost opportunities created by my artificial selection criterion. I would have been much further ahead to have just re-barelled a suitable LA donor .
I could have started with 26.5" and worked back to 25.25" and then started fooling around with Long Throating in suitable magazines
Don't know about loud, my 20" carbine is a .308, and I believe that a lot has to do with pressure levels again. I don't recall Blength etc. on my 303Brit Jungle carbine, but it was nasty enough on the recoil side that I never noticed the blast, Ha
Last edited by 338Rules; 02/14/18. Reason: Sober Second Sight
I hunt and have hunted a lot with a 270 W. I am good with close to 3000. Now that 2950+ can be reached with 145+ bullets I am shifting away from 130’s.
On twist, I prefer more than 1-10 for two reasons: First... Bullets are getting longer because of BC increases. Second... I am convinced terminal performance is better (e.g. degree of expansion & straight line penetration). Plus barrel makers today make 1-9’s.
For a hunting rifle I focus on bullets and worry about optics.
The rifle nut (I still prefer that term) part of me prefers more velocity but the hunter side much prefers lighter, shorter, and trimmer. Over the years I have been unable to observe any advantage to a barrel which is longer than needed and over those years have decreased the lengths of barrels on my hunting rifles which are mostly 270’s. With modern bullets and powders I can get what I need from a 270 with a 21” barrel. If I need more then I most likely will use a 416. If I was a brown bear hunter I would get a 375. Nothing is a substitute for marksmanship.
I am taken with the idea of a super fast, high BC, 22 or 24 for a “project” but confess I could load some 100-110 bullets I my 270’s and get the job done, pretty much.
Last edited by RinB; 02/14/18.
“Perfection is achieved not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away”. Antoine de Saint-Exupery. Posted by Brad.
I have been fascinated with the idea of a 6.5-06, 6.5 PRC, or 6.5-280 Ackley but then I run the numbers out to 500 and consider ammo availability and then leave good enuf alone and build another 270W.
I think I have finally built the perfect one...hah...laughing at myself.
“Perfection is achieved not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away”. Antoine de Saint-Exupery. Posted by Brad.
I am also fascinated by the idea of a 270 Ackley but when I fooled with multiple standard 280’s v 280 Ackley & RCBS the most difference I got was 35 FPS. Insignificant!
“Perfection is achieved not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away”. Antoine de Saint-Exupery. Posted by Brad.
ALL of the newer, high-BC .270 bullets up to 150 grains are designed to stabilize in the standard 1-10 twist, and even the 170-grain Berger will at typical Western elevations as long as the weather's not too cold. (This also means it will stabilize in typical warm-weather African hunting, though you're not likely to use it.) I know this not from theory but from actually shooting all of 'em in a 22-inch barreled Model 70 .270.
But I also realize you're going to go ahead with your rifle nut theories anyway. Have fun!
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.” John Steinbeck
I am also fascinated by the idea of a 270 Ackley but when I fooled with multiple standard 280’s v 280 Ackley & RCBS the most difference I got was 35 FPS. Insignificant!
in my P.O. Ackley book, I recall him saying that AI'ing with 270 was a waste of time in his opinion.. along with the 25/06...
of course that was with powders available during his time....
"Minus the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the Country" Marion Barry, Mayor of Wash DC
“Owning guns is not a right. If it were a right, it would be in the Constitution.” ~Alexandria Ocasio Cortez
OK, I’m fascinated by the obsession we share with rifles and bullets on this forum. I have a real thing for 6.5 calibers. I currently am on my second 6.5 Creedmoor, have a long range rig set up in 26 Nosler, and am considering another light weight rifle in 26 Nosler or 6.5-300 (for whatever reason, the lightest weight rifle I can find between the two is in 6.5-300, but I would like to stick with 26 Nosler so I don’t have to buy new dies).
I’m also obsessing over a lightweight rig in 300 magnum. I run the numbers and see I can run a 110gr ttsx bullet at 3900 fps, and ultra high BC 230gr bullets at 2800 fps. With the new quick detach scope rings, I can have two guns in one! A heavy hitter and a light weight flat shooting rocket! Somehow my brain says this would satisfy my desire to have the perfect rifle battery, but my own history shows otherwise.
In the meantime, I’m also eyeing a 28 Nosler to compliment my 26 Nosler. Oh the madness!
NO matter what you do RinB, you will probably always want more.
I hunt and have hunted a lot with a 270 W. I am good with close to 3000. Now that 2950+ can be reached with 145+ bullets I am shifting away from 130’s.
On twist, I prefer more than 1-10 for two reasons: First... Bullets are getting longer because of BC increases. Second... I am convinced terminal performance is better (e.g. degree of expansion & straight line penetration). Plus barrel makers today make 1-9’s.
For a hunting rifle I focus on bullets and worry about optics.
The rifle nut (I still prefer that term) part of me prefers more velocity but the hunter side much prefers lighter, shorter, and trimmer. Over the years I have been unable to observe any advantage to a barrel which is longer than needed and over those years have decreased the lengths of barrels on my hunting rifles which are mostly 270’s. With modern bullets and powders I can get what I need from a 270 with a 21” barrel. If I need more then I most likely will use a 416. If I was a brown bear hunter I would get a 375. Nothing is a substitute for marksmanship.
I am taken with the idea of a super fast, high BC, 22 or 24 for a “project” but confess I could load some 100-110 bullets I my 270’s and get the job done, pretty much.
There's something to be said for the accuracy that the shorter barrel yields, especially when looking at overall weight and balance.
For me, under 22", I want a short action. .270-08 Improved anyone ? 21" 9" twist 150's @ ?? MV
I miss our friend BobinNH, He brought great insight to these .270 conversations.
I am also fascinated by the idea of a 270 Ackley but when I fooled with multiple standard 280’s v 280 Ackley & RCBS the most difference I got was 35 FPS. Insignificant!
I am also fascinated by the idea of a 270 Ackley but when I fooled with multiple standard 280’s v 280 Ackley & RCBS the most difference I got was 35 FPS. Insignificant!
in my P.O. Ackley book, I recall him saying that AI'ing with 270 was a waste of time in his opinion.. along with the 25/06...
of course that was with powders available during his time....
Most AI "improvements" are actually more due to Increased Pressure vice the volume increase due to reduced body taper. Recall that at the same pressure, MV increases at 1/4 the volume increase. Needs a big volume increase to make a significant increase in MV
The regular .270 and 25/'06 are already factory loaded to higher pressure levels.
ALL of the newer, high-BC .270 bullets up to 150 grains are designed to stabilize in the standard 1-10 twist, and even the 170-grain Berger will at typical Western elevations as long as the weather's not too cold. (This also means it will stabilize in typical warm-weather African hunting, though you're not likely to use it.) I know this not from theory but from actually shooting all of 'em in a 22-inch barreled Model 70 .270.
But I also realize you're going to go ahead with your rifle nut theories anyway. Have fun!
MD : Good to Know !, I thought the new bullets would be the death knell of the 10" .270
Any insight into a possible 27 Nosler for the die-hardsout there ?
338Rules. I use an OAL of about 3.5” in my 270’s now that I have “discovered” M700 clone actions. That and new powders are all the “improvement” I need.
Also...I just don’t get the short action thing. And I detest wildcats. Been there, done that from 375-06 Ackley to 404 cases shortened and blown out to 378 Wby shortened to 2.5”.
BobinNH Well he and I became friends in around 1981 and talked almost daily from then on. We tried every conceivable variety of 270 modifications & many different big 7’s. Eventually he got Mashburn fever but I gravitated to a 270. We tried twists as fast as 1-8 in both and oversize groove dimensions and hand-made bonded core bullets and throat configurations and custom reamer specs. Miss him more than I can express. We were getting ready for an African trip when he got sick. Sad.
His son called me just as Bob passed. I was at SCI last year. It was a painful horrible day. Bob never let me know how bad it was.
Last edited by RinB; 02/14/18.
“Perfection is achieved not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away”. Antoine de Saint-Exupery. Posted by Brad.
John my friend, I plan to load the 150 Nosler Long Range Accubond with latest Doppler measured data. I consulted the Berger twist calculator and it suggested a twist faster than 1-10 in order to maximize BC. Who am I to disagree with Berger? Rick
“Perfection is achieved not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away”. Antoine de Saint-Exupery. Posted by Brad.
John my friend, I plan to load the 150 Nosler Long Range Accubond with latest Doppler measured data. I consulted the Berger twist calculator and it suggested a twist faster than 1-10 in order to maximize BC. Who am I to disagree with Berger? Rick
With the excellent concentricity of modern bullets, there isn't any reason to under-twist a new build. On the Other hand, I just don't see bullet manufacturers having much success producing & selling bullets that require a tighter twist than something that has become such a widespread standard as the 10" .270
As MD says below, there's calculators, and then there's calculations, but the proof is in the results. In any event it won't hurt to over-stabilize a wee bit.
Upon reflection, your shorter barrel will reduce MV a bit, perhaps enough that some extra twist is of benefit ?
I think you're swimming against the tide of tradition. Innovation never comes easily, but is its' own reward. I am most interested in hearing of your results.
Cheers
Last edited by 338Rules; 02/14/18. Reason: More thoughts
The Berger twist calculator, as I have pointed out a few times before on the Campfire, is based on a formula worked out by the late Don Miller, as are most twist formulas these days. I knew Don fairly well, since we both liked to fool with ballistic numbers, and after he derived the basic formula, he came to the conclusion that plastic tips shouldn't be counted in the length of the bullet. Or at least the majority of their length shouldn't, because they weigh so little.
The Berger version of the Miller formula doesn't take this into account, the reason it predicts a number of plastic-tipped bullets won't stabilize in standard twists under certain conditions, even though nobody's ever had a problem with 'em. A good example is the 40-grain V-Max in the .204 Ruger with the standard 1-10 factory twist.
The JBM Ballistic twist formula includes a place to list the length of plastic tips, and works more realistically with such bullets. It indicates a 1-10 twist is plenty for the 150 .270 ABLR, which has been my experience in more than one rifle.
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.” John Steinbeck
338Rules You want to know results. Well a 270 130 TTSX started at 3000+ will consistently penetrate 30-34” of muscle bone and chest cavity tissue on all African plains game. Hit thru the heart lung area most everything will be found within 35 paces. Swift AFrames and Scirocco’s penetrate less but give the same results meaning everything down and out in 35 paces. The LRX works just like a TTSX. The 130 Speer Hot Cores are surprisingly good as well. This is based on the tougher plains game; zebra, wildebeest, oryx, waterbuck, and eland.
I don’t use muzzle brakes...bad manners towards your PH, his dog, and everyone else in the area.
Have used and seen used 280, 7 RM, 30/06, 308, big 30’s, 338, and 375’s. I haven’t observed enough difference to justify heavier rifles and more recoil. Energy tables are not predictors of results. Same with chronographs. Twice I have used 25” barrels and they were awkward. Haven’t seen any difference in field results between 22” and 25”. My latest is 21”...if it fails to work I will let you know.
All this plus the ancient 270 shoots flatter than a Creedmoor out to 440 which is my self imposed limit...maybe 500.
And MOST IMPORTANTLY, you can find ammo to make it go BANG.
Last edited by RinB; 02/14/18.
“Perfection is achieved not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away”. Antoine de Saint-Exupery. Posted by Brad.
Nothing wrong with a 6.5-284. It moves 130 at about 3000 give or take. For a BG hunting rifle I am more concerned about the fit, size, and function than the cartridge. For me a perfect general purpose rifle moves a 130-150 at 2950-3100. Flat shooting, manageable recoil, light weight, and reasonable size. Pick a suitable bullet, it does the real work. Bore between .26 & .30. If more is needed then start with a .375.
Mostly the super large cases are there just to sell more stuff to guys who want to spend money trying to find performance. A 280 long throated with high VLD bullets will reach way out for a good shooter. I used one for many years and on then on a trip couldn’t find ammo to make it go bang so went to a 270 and gave up about 3%.
“Perfection is achieved not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away”. Antoine de Saint-Exupery. Posted by Brad.
I got to know John Lazzaroni pretty well. He told me that the big money was in sale of brass not rifles. Notice how Nosler has created demand by introducing cartridges for which only Nosler sells brass. Smart business. Now convince everyone that these new cartridges are just what they need. Profits!
“Perfection is achieved not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away”. Antoine de Saint-Exupery. Posted by Brad.
All this plus the [/b] ancient 270 shoots flatter than a Creedmoor out to 440 [b] which is my self imposed limit...maybe 500.
Hallelujah ! Praise the Lord ! Pass the Jar !
Finally, somebody put this in print FROM experience.
BobinNH told the SAME thing to another Fire Member. I'll not drag him into this. I hope he joins in voluntarily. Bob had a 6.5 Creed and SHOT it and said, "This thing drops more than the 270 !"
jwall Bobby and I laughed and then laughed some more about how the ancient 270 out performed the 6.5 Creedmoor out to about 500 for BG hunting. He got that Creedmoor barreled action from me. I got the parts in a trade and sent it to Bobby cause he was curious about all the fussing and noise. It is what it is, 140 @ 2700. BFD!
Now just wait for the number lovers to start sending numbers and charts and graphs.
Last edited by RinB; 02/14/18. Reason: The truth
“Perfection is achieved not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away”. Antoine de Saint-Exupery. Posted by Brad.
..... For me a perfect general purpose rifle moves a 130-150 at 2950-3100. Flat shooting, manageable recoil, light weight, and reasonable size. Pick a suitable bullet, it does the real work. Bore between .26 & .30.
DANG! I don’t know how I missed that... It sure sounds FAMILIAR
Are you a brother from a diff mother ?
Anyone who has read much from me KNOWS fast & flat gets my chores DONE.
sigh... my 280 and its utility has kept me from buying so many rifles chambered for other cartridges. I do need a 270, just so the two can argue relative merits with each other in the safe.
I have been fascinated with the idea of a 6.5-06, 6.5 PRC, or 6.5-280 Ackley but then I run the numbers out to 500 and consider ammo availability and then leave good enuf alone and build another 270W.
I think I have finally built the perfect one...hah...laughing at myself.
So... if someone were to market the 6.5RinB in a 1:8 twist, long action, .473 bolt face, 30 degree shoulder, capable of pushing a 127 grain LRX to 2975+ in a 22" barrel, with factory ammo available wherever 270 is sold, at $30 a box, RinB might get off the 270... this should be easy...
jwall Bobby and I laughed and then laughed some more about how the ancient 270 out performed the 6.5 Creedmoor out to about 500 for BG hunting. He got that Creedmoor barreled action from me. I got the parts in a trade and sent it to Bobby cause he was curious about all the fussing and noise. It is what it is, 140 @ 2700. BFD!
I remember the call the first day he shot that one at the range - "Skaaaawt, this thing drops like lead - gimme the phaaawwking .270......Do you want another Creedmoor?"
jwall Bobby and I laughed and then laughed some more about how the ancient 270 out performed the 6.5 Creedmoor out to about 500 for BG hunting. He got that Creedmoor barreled action from me. I got the parts in a trade and sent it to Bobby cause he was curious about all the fussing and noise. It is what it is, 140 @ 2700. BFD!
I remember the call the first day he shot that one at the range - "Skaaaawt, this thing drops like lead - gimme the phaaawwking .270......Do you want another Creedmoor?"
The 6.5 PRC is a great idea...same as that which Warren Page developed in the late 1960’s...his 6.5-270 Improved. The beauty of the 6.5 PRC is that Hornady will make a bundle of $ selling brass which only Hornady makes and gun makers will sell many new short action rifles to those who think that SHORT & FAT is a virtue. Me, I like TALL & LEAN.
Last edited by RinB; 02/15/18.
“Perfection is achieved not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away”. Antoine de Saint-Exupery. Posted by Brad.
jwall Bobby and I laughed and then laughed some more about how the ancient 270 out performed the 6.5 Creedmoor out to about 500 for BG hunting. He got that Creedmoor barreled action from me. I got the parts in a trade and sent it to Bobby cause he was curious about all the fussing and noise. It is what it is, 140 @ 2700. BFD!
I remember the call the first day he shot that one at the range - "Skaaaawt, this thing drops like lead - gimme the phaaawwking .270......Do you want another Creedmoor?"
I got the same call Scott. Cracked me up.
I also remember explaining mils on Bobs first 6x SS. That was a good phone call. I’ll give him props though, he was putting some great groups up at 600 once he sorted it out. I knew that scope would never push his 6x36 with Dotz off the Mashburn though!
It’s funny how hard the 6.5 Rem Mag flopped. If it were released today it would’ve probably sold like hot cakes.
I was HOPING you would join this with YOUR perspective.
Originally Posted by jwall
BobinNH told the SAME thing to another Fire Member. I'll not drag him into this. I hope he joins in voluntarily. Bob had a 6.5 Creed and SHOT it and said, "This thing drops more than the 270 !"
I was HOPING you would join this with YOUR perspective.
Originally Posted by jwall
BobinNH told the SAME thing to another Fire Member. I'll not drag him into this. I hope he joins in voluntarily. Bob had a 6.5 Creed and SHOT it and said, "This thing drops more than the 270 !"
Thnx
Jerry
By all accounts I can figure Bob wasn’t wrong. I’m a young guy around here but he and RinB speak from years of experience. The part that really makes those fellas tops in my book is they will try new things and give an honest answer from their viewpoint.
Bob could’ve sold ice to eskimos. After the first two hours of speaking to him I had a rifle at my smiths becoming a Mashburn and had started hunting down Bitterroots... I’m still searching for any Bitterroots I can find. I figure if I have at least a 100 of them I have enough to build a rifle.
I remember talking to Bob from Wyoming after I took an Elk with the Bitterroot and he said “what do you think Scotty” I said “you’re right buddy, it crushes em”
Miss that fella everyday. He was a lion of a great guy that loved to hunt and talk good rifles and Bullets. My kinda fella.
Yes, indeed. Bob was a friend I never met nor hunted with. We talked enuff over the years that I got to know him >> not like you or Mr. Rin. or Skane and Paul but we had a lot in common. Our last PM was in Oct 2016 and we discussed our health issues. His last post on the fire was Feb 1, the day before he passed.
sigh... my 280 and its utility has kept me from buying so many rifles chambered for other cartridges. I do need a 270, just so the two can argue relative merits with each other in the safe.
Ha me too, I could've bought oodles of nice .270 Win, or .30'06 as donors, but somehow I didn't want an action that had been abused that way
Or as I said before, they were only 22", and felt short. I actually once passed on a sweet deal on a new Sako 75 Stainless .280 Rem for that reason ?!? ( 22 7/16" IIRC )
Now just wait for the number lovers to start sending numbers and charts and graphs.
Well it didn't take too long.
Originally Posted by SU35
Quote
All this plus the ancient 270 shoots flatter than a Creedmoor out to 440 which is my self imposed limit...maybe 500.
We should be comparing apples to apples here, right? With TTSX bullets of comparable S.D. the 270 out shoots the 6.5 CM by 1.2" at 450 yards even though it starts out 100 fps faster....wow. bfg? The 6.5 CM uses 15 grains less powder, and fits into a short action. Short action or shorter 21" barrels, take your pick.... Or, just maybe a short action with a shorter 21" barrel? I like that, but the 270 won't do that. (6.5 CM will) But, the 270 will give me an extra 1.2" at 450 yds! If that matters to you. Bet Rick and Bob never tried that. And I miss Bob, a lot!
I've been reading HERE more than a few times....that SD doesn't mean anything.
jwall Bobby and I laughed and then laughed some more about how the ancient 270 out performed the 6.5 Creedmoor out to about 500 for BG hunting. He got that Creedmoor barreled action from me. I got the parts in a trade and sent it to Bobby cause he was curious about all the fussing and noise. It is what it is, 140 @ 2700. BFD!
I remember the call the first day he shot that one at the range - "Skaaaawt, this thing drops like lead - gimme the phaaawwking .270......Do you want another Creedmoor?"
Now just wait for the number lovers to start sending numbers and charts and graphs.
Funny, Rick can give his, but mocks those who might see it different.
Quote
I've been reading HERE more than a few times....that SD doesn't mean anything.
Not in impact on an animal, it means nothing.
But comparing a smaller caliber 140 against a larger caliber 130 is not a fair comparison. (Especially one that shoots 15 grains more powder)
You need to compare bullet overall weight/diameter and SD does that. 6.5/120 to 27/130. So yes, it does matter in that respect. 26/120/.246 ....27/130/.242
Quote
S A are for those that like them.
Or, shorter barrels are for those that like them. Rick obviously does. He wants a shorter overall rifle length. (AKA (handi-rifle)
Again take your pick shorter action or shorter barrel, or you can get the best of both worlds with the 6.5 (AKA (handier rifle)
What advantages you get with a 270 is 1.2" at 450 yds and better cartridge availability, if you shoot factory.
The 6.5 CM will give a shorter overall rifle, less recoil, and in my perspective just as good performance as a 270.
I remember the call the first day he shot that one at the range - "Skaaaawt, this thing drops like lead - gimme the phaaawwking .270......Do you want another Creedmoor?"
[/quote=jwall]
Bob's response was FROM the RANGE. He's not here to elaborate, I'm sad to say.[quote]
I loved Bob, and highly respected him and learned a lot from him.
But again, he didn't wring that 6.5 out all the way as it could be and sounds like Rick gave up on it before it was even built. Both men have an obvious bias for the 270 and that's ok it works for them.
btw, I am shooting 47.5 grains of RL26 with a 6.5 147 ELD for 2,800 fps. check those numbers out past 500 yds.
Barnes load data shows a 260 Rem pushing a 100 TTSX to 3200+ fps and a 120 TTSX to 2900+ fps in a 24 inch barrel; and the 270 pushing a 110 TTSX to 3400+ fps in a 24 inch barrel; the 129 LRX and 130 TTSX to 3200+...
Seems to me all those bullets would do the same thing on a big deer to any reasonable range. The 270 will always offer more V, but is it needed at reasonable hunting ranges 0-440 yards? The appeal of the 270 is the max V and ammo availability. The appeal of the 260 is accomplishing the same result with less blast and recoil.
if one can't decide, the 270 makes sense for overall availability of everything...
I loved Bob, and highly respected him and learned a lot from him.
But again, he didn't wring that 6.5 out all the way as it could be and sounds like Rick gave up on it before it was even built. Both men have an obvious bias for the 270 and that's ok it works for them.
btw, I am shooting 47.5 grains of RL26 with a 6.5 147 ELD for 2,800 fps. check those numbers out past 500 yds.
I’m pretty happy with it. I attempted to get out again and shoot on a public range last weekend but both times I got surprised by another shooters muzzle blast on the line.
I’m still pretty happy with the load overall. Can’t wait for a long weekend to stretch it out a little. This is just a plain Jane T3X with a SS 6X MQ on it.
I kinda think if Bob had tried the 6.5 CM with any of the great 125/130 grain Bullets with 17 he’d probably liked it a little more. I kinda think that’s what I wanna try next.
I’m pretty happy with it. I attempted to get out again and shoot on a public range last weekend but both times I got surprised by another shooters muzzle blast on the line.
I’m still pretty happy with the load overall. Can’t wait for a long weekend to stretch it out a little. This is just a plain Jane T3X with a SS 6X MQ on it.
I kinda think if Bob had tried the 6.5 CM with any of the great 125/130 grain Bullets with 17 he’d probably liked it a little more. I kinda think that’s what I wanna try next.
I agree with your last statement. All the interactions Bob and I had privately were about my my experiences hunting with "target" bullets. Bob had them, but he couldn't be convinced that they were effective for hunting. I tried to sell him that an Amax or VLD through the ribs or shoulders would be as reliable as his Bitterroots or Partitions. He had far more experience than I did, and knew his stuff, so I didn't push it.
For sure. I kinda learned about Bullets as a young kid from Hagel, and a couple others that liked the Partitions and BBCs. As far as I knew BBCs were dead by the time I was really buying a bunch of Bullets. To this day, I’d be fine if that’s all I ever used to be honest. I’m pretty open to trying some of the super sleek Bullets though. Bob used the 162 AMax a bunch in his Mashburn but since out to 600 they shot the same as his Partitions and BBCs, well, you know what he used. I kinda fell in on what those guys were using for killing BG so that is where I gravitated. Once he got me some BBCs and explained how he made them shoot I was gut hooked with their performance on animals. Not that others didn’t work great but I saw what all of the others were talking about.
It was fun to interact with him, at least for me. He was a helluva good rifleman and pretty simple with his reloading too. My bud that was a good family friend said he never saw a set of calipers on his bench
The cool part is there is room for all of us and our opinions. Still seems like good shooters probably make more difference than the cartridge or bullet and I don’t know if any technology will ever change that.
***"My bud that was a good family friend said he never saw a set of calipers on his bench grin"***
I'm not asking anyone these ??? but that makes me wonder.......
How often did he trim cases ?
How did he determine COAL ?
How could he know chamber distance to lands ?
etc.
Jerry
Well, RinB might better answer this but Bob would make most of his ammo to fit the magazine since he dealt with a bunch of Long throated rifles he liked to build (300 Win, 7 Mashburn, 7 Rem). He just loaded them to fit in his magazines and was pretty happy.
Don’t know about trimming cases? I know the Mashburn never required trimming though
I don’t think he cared about distance to the lands. He just loaded what fit and believed if the rifle was straight, it would shoot. If it didn’t, he tripped it down the road.
Once he had a known good load he made a dummy cartridge up and that’s what he used to set up his dies. He liked to shoot and not waste a bunch of time handloading.
For sure. I kinda learned about Bullets as a young kid from Hagel, and a couple others that liked the Partitions and BBCs. As far as I knew BBCs were dead by the time I was really buying a bunch of Bullets. To this day, I’d be fine if that’s all I ever used to be honest. I’m pretty open to trying some of the super sleek Bullets though. Bob used the 162 AMax a bunch in his Mashburn but since out to 600 they shot the same as his Partitions and BBCs, well, you know what he used. I kinda fell in on what those guys were using for killing BG so that is where I gravitated. Once he got me some BBCs and explained how he made them shoot I was gut hooked with their performance on animals. Not that others didn’t work great but I saw what all of the others were talking about.
It was fun to interact with him, at least for me. He was a helluva good rifleman and pretty simple with his reloading too. My bud that was a good family friend said he never saw a set of calipers on his bench
The cool part is there is room for all of us and our opinions. Still seems like good shooters probably make more difference than the cartridge or bullet and I don’t know if any technology will ever change that.
Bob was an honorable sportsman, gentleman, and rifleman, in my experience of him. A great man that I would love to have met, or shot along side. I was grateful he took the time to personally discuss my experiences, and what I'd gleaned from them. I knew a few men like him when I was younger. They were no-nonsense men when it was time to be serious, and a hell of a lot of fun otherwise.
I've never been immune enough to recoil to understand Bob's perspective through experience regarding pushing tough bullets hard for flat trajectories on game, but I know that it obviously works very effectively, given the numbers of hunters that still employ this method and their success rate. I never argued that with Bob (though I have with others here). Idid attempt to convince him that long, efficient bullets in the air also kill efficiently, given good shooting, which is also the case with fast, flat, and tough bullets.
For sure. I kinda learned about Bullets as a young kid from Hagel, and a couple others that liked the Partitions and BBCs. As far as I knew BBCs were dead by the time I was really buying a bunch of Bullets. To this day, I’d be fine if that’s all I ever used to be honest. I’m pretty open to trying some of the super sleek Bullets though. Bob used the 162 AMax a bunch in his Mashburn but since out to 600 they shot the same as his Partitions and BBCs, well, you know what he used. I kinda fell in on what those guys were using for killing BG so that is where I gravitated. Once he got me some BBCs and explained how he made them shoot I was gut hooked with their performance on animals. Not that others didn’t work great but I saw what all of the others were talking about.
It was fun to interact with him, at least for me. He was a helluva good rifleman and pretty simple with his reloading too. My bud that was a good family friend said he never saw a set of calipers on his bench
The cool part is there is room for all of us and our opinions. Still seems like good shooters probably make more difference than the cartridge or bullet and I don’t know if any technology will ever change that.
Bob was an honorable sportsman, gentleman, and rifleman, in my experience of him. A great man that I would love to have met, or shot along side. I was grateful he took the time to personally discuss my experiences, and what I'd gleaned from them. I knew a few men like him when I was younger. They were no-nonsense men when it was time to be serious, and a hell of a lot of fun otherwise.
I've never been immune enough to recoil to understand Bob's perspective through experience regarding pushing tough bullets hard for flat trajectories on game, but I know that it obviously works very effectively, given the numbers of hunters that still employ this method and their success rate. I never argued that with Bob (though I have with others here). Idid attempt to convince him that long, efficient bullets in the air also kill efficiently, given good shooting, which is also the case with fast, flat, and tough bullets.
For sure. I’m pretty sure we’d all get along around a real campfire.
Many members of the "older generation" will stick to what they know works--though a lot of them saw many changes in what worked when they were younger.
One aspect has become apparent to me while working with a lot of different cartridges/bullets/scopes over the past several decades: One reason the older generation is obsessed with muzzle velocity and a flat trajectory (or at least an initially flat trajectory) is those are exactly what hunters have been obsessed with during the history of rifles, especially after the introduction of practical smokeless rifle powders in the 1880's.
Muzzle velocity made the most difference in trajectory over typical hunting ranges, with ballistic coefficient definitely being secondary. Since range-estimation was iffy, especially "eyeballing," an initially flat trajectory helped over what most hunters considered "normal" ranges. Using a scope's reticle for ranging worked far better, but still became unreliable beyond about 500 yards, because bullets started dropping so quickly. Thus the obsession with muzzle velocity: It was the most realistic and effective way to reduce the effects of ranging errors.
The muzzle velocity obsession, however, results in a skewed vision of newer cartridges/bullets/scopes. The biggest mistake is still obsessing over muzzle velocity, when bullets with higher ballistic coefficients make it less relevant.
In fact, laser rangefinders and dialing scopes (or even good long-range reticles, if you can't stand the thought of a dialing scope) make a few inches of extra bullet "drop" irrelevant. Second, high BC doesn't just reduce wind-drift--it also reduces the difference in a bullet's velocity over several hundred yards, which also reduces the differences in bullet expansion at closer and longer ranges, one of the primary reasons "controlled expansion" bullets started appearing in the first place.
Controlled-expansion bullets were partly designed to withstand hitting a big-game animal at close range with a high-velocity cartridge. In fact, that's exactly why John Nosler came up with the Partition. He really liked the flat trajectory of the .300 H&H, but even one of the supposedly toughest bullets of the day came apart on a moose shoulder. So he invented a better moose-trap, and eventually so did several other hunters.
However, none of the controlled-expansion bullets designed through the 1980's had very high ballistic coefficients. In fact, many spitzers were handicapped by flat meplats, the very tip of the bullet.
Flat meplats were common because so many hunters shot controlled-expansion bullets from "magnum" cartridges, which tend to recoil more, so batter the tips of soft-point bullets against the front of the magazine. This flattening annoyed many hunters, so several companies produced bullets with pre-flattened tips. This reduced the BC, resulting in even more obsession with muzzle velocity to compensate for suck BC's.
But with high-BC bullets there's no real need to start them at super-high velocity, because they retain far more velocity than older controlled-expansion bullets. Thus they can be started at 2800 fps or so and still work well on close-range game, even the "cup-and-core" high BC bullets--and because they retain far more velocity at longer ranges, they'll still expand way out there.
However, when many older hunters hear "long range bullet" they automatically assume the need for high velocity, because they're used to the poor BC's of many older controlled-expanding bullets. While some of today's controlled-expanding bullets have higher BC's, very few of the tougher ones have really high BC's. If somebody still really feels the need for muzzle velocities much above 3000 fps, they can use one of these compromise bullets, whether a Barnes LRX, Nosler AccuBond of Swift Scirocco II. They'll retain more velocity than a typical Nosler Partition, though some Partitions have decent BC's (as long as the soft tip isn't flattened during recoil) and a LOT more velocity than a Bitterroot Bonded Core, Norma Oryx, Swift A-Frame or other pre-tip-flattened bullet. Yet they still hold together on big game, especially if not started too fast. And there's no need to start them super-fast, since they retain more velocity at longer ranges.
Most really high-BC hunting bullets aren't designed to hold up at high velocities on close-range big game, for a simple reason: They're designed for shooting at longer ranges, where velocity has fallen off. In fact, when Nosler started working on a long-range hunting bullet, they'd didn't plan to bond the core.
But even many so-called long-range hunters demanded a bonded bullet, because even among them many believe bonding is somehow magic. So Nosler complied, producing the AccuBond Long Range, a longer, more streamlined version of the standard AccuBond. However, to insure expansion way out there, they had to use a somewhat thinner jacket. This resulted in a bullet that at close range, when started at the high velocity so many hunters think necessary, retains less weight and expands wider than the standard AccuBonds, reducing penetration.
A good example is a young Alaskan hunter I know. He used an ABLR for moose hunting last fall in his .300 Winchester Magnum, and of course handloaded it to high muzzle velocity. He did this despite not planning to shoot much beyond 400 yards, because he never does. Now, the ABLR killed a bull neatly at 200 yards, but the young man then complained that it lost too much weight.
Which is exactly what will happen with some of the "traditional" hunters now planning to use ABLR's, or other long-range bullets, at traditional ranges. They'll start them as fast as possible, because that's what "long range" has always meant to them, and when they end up shooting an animal at 100-300 yards, they'll complain that the bullet ruined too much meat, or didn't retain enough weight--unlike the Barnes TSX's, Nosler Partitions or Swift A-Frames they've used in the past.
In fact, a lot of these traditional hunters can't believe the 6.5 Creedmoor will kill as well as the .270 Winchester, because it can't reach the same muzzle velocities with the same bullet weights. (I also know that a lot of traditional hunters rate a cartridge's "killing power" by how much it recoils, and while the .270 Winchester doesn't kick hard, it kicks noticeably more than the same rifle in 6.5 Creedmoor.)
For those guys, here's a typical example of what's often called "real life." Last fall one my elk-hunting companions used a 6.5 Creedmoor with 140-grain Nosler AccuBonds. He's a young guy, and used a rifle many traditional hunters would hate--plastic-stocked, with a dialing scope and a suppressor. The muzzle velocity of his load was around 2750 fps, pretty pitiful by .270 standards. Yet he somehow managed to kill a mature 6x6 bull, and not out at 500 yards but at 40, in timber. Even at such a pitiful muzzle velocity, the AccuBond exited, and the bull went less than 50 yards before keeling over.
However, if he'd "had" to shoot at 500 yards, out where many traditional hunters feel 3000 fps is supposedly necessary, the 140 AccuBond from his pitful 6.5 Creedmoor would have been traveling only 100 fps less than a 140 AccuBond started at 3000 fps from a .270 Winchester. That's how quickly even medium-BC bullet like a standard 6.5mm AccuBond starts to catch up with a .270 Accubond started 250 fps faster at the muzzle. (The BC's used to calculate these numbers, by the way, came from Bryan Litz's tests.)
I realize the obsession with muzzle velocity isn't going away, because it's what most open-country hunters have been obsessed with for over a century. I should also state that I'm not anti-.270 Winchester, owning and hunting with a walnut-stocked, lightweight Model 70 with a non-dialing 6x scope. But I also own and hunt with a plastic-stocked, detachable magazine, push-feed 6.5 Creedmoor equipped with a dialing scope--also a 6x. As a result, I actually know how each performs in the field, instead of guessing based totally on muzzle velocity.
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.” John Steinbeck
Guys, my pal Mule Deer is correct, I am constantly working to build “the perfect” 270 Win. Man have I tried. As I write this have three in the works. All have 1-9 twists. Am gravitating to shorter barrel lengths. Went like this...25-24-23-22.75-22-21. Now prefer 20.5 to 21”.
I handload and am primarily a big game hunter. I shoot jackrabbits to improve my skill.
I don’t get much interested in different cartridges. I have proven to myself that with modern bullets I don’t need anything more until a big gun is needed. Used to prefer 416 but with expanding monos am starting to think 375 H&H. I would much rather have a fine push feed than a common crf.
I am very picky about actions and am working on three 270’s now. One each with Surgeon, BAT, & Lone Peak. Those rejected are Defiance, Stiller, Borden, NULA, Win M 70 crf, anything with a M16 or Sako type extractor. I would never rely on anything with those two extractors. I “tolerate” the Lone Peak for the Ti receiver but it will likely hit the road before long.
Scopes...well haven’t figured that out.
Want to end up with two that are slightly different. The rest go to my pals who are not so obsessive.
Oh, in addition to the three new 270’s, there are 5 or 6 more laying around and about to leave.
Have used big 7’s and big 30’s and 338 Win. Those went away.
Currently getting interested in a really fast 22 or 24. I want one that with each shot one can see small chunks of rifling spewing out the muzzle. Think 22 Creedmoor or 6-284 or 6-280 AI.
Rinb here is another option if you don't care for the Sako type extractors , horizontal ejection added to one of the best made Remington clones made by Borden actions.....
John : I assume that you are referring to the OP's original question. In typical 24HrCF fashion, we have long since meandered into only semi-related territory.
Honouring Bob in NH's memory, and our friendship with him through this medium. It's all good. I didn't know him as well as some of you, but I benefited greatly from our exchanges, and I've missed him, Lots.
As for the two big 6.5's The Nosler is very interesting, but the .Wby has the long neck, and the long magnum magazine. Much like the 6.5 CM, the Nosler 26 is built around magazine, and specific action constraints of the N48 / Howa derived action.
Ultimately, No it doesn't matter. I think the Wby wins on the basis of the Mark V platform, and the Weatherby mystique .
Carry On
Last edited by 338Rules; 02/17/18. Reason: No Good Reason
You could have sold this one to a magazine, we got it for free.
Quote
Many members of the "older generation" will stick to what they know works--though a lot of them saw many changes in what worked when they were younger.
One aspect has become apparent to me while working with a lot of different cartridges/bullets/scopes over the past several decades: One reason the older generation is obsessed with muzzle velocity and a flat trajectory (or at least an initially flat trajectory) is those are exactly what hunters have been obsessed with during the history of rifles, especially after the introduction of practical smokeless rifle powders in the 1880's.
Muzzle velocity made the most difference in trajectory over typical hunting ranges, with ballistic coefficient definitely being secondary. Since range-estimation was iffy, especially "eyeballing," an initially flat trajectory helped over what most hunters considered "normal" ranges. Using a scope's reticle for ranging worked far better, but still became unreliable beyond about 500 yards, because bullets started dropping so quickly. Thus the obsession with muzzle velocity: It was the most realistic and effective way to reduce the effects of ranging errors.
The muzzle velocity obsession, however, results in a skewed vision of newer cartridges/bullets/scopes. The biggest mistake is still obsessing over muzzle velocity, when bullets with higher ballistic coefficients make it less relevant.
In fact, laser rangefinders and dialing scopes (or even good long-range reticles, if you can't stand the thought of a dialing scope) make a few inches of extra bullet "drop" irrelevant. Second, high BC doesn't just reduce wind-drift--it also reduces the difference in a bullet's velocity over several hundred yards, which also reduces the differences in bullet expansion at closer and longer ranges, one of the primary reasons "controlled expansion" bullets started appearing in the first place.
Controlled-expansion bullets were partly designed to withstand hitting a big-game animal at close range with a high-velocity cartridge. In fact, that's exactly why John Nosler came up with the Partition. He really liked the flat trajectory of the .300 H&H, but even one of the supposedly toughest bullets of the day came apart on a moose shoulder. So he invented a better moose-trap, and eventually so did several other hunters.
However, none of the controlled-expansion bullets designed through the 1980's had very high ballistic coefficients. In fact, many spitzers were handicapped by flat meplats, the very tip of the bullet.
Flat meplats were common because so many hunters shot controlled-expansion bullets from "magnum" cartridges, which tend to recoil more, so batter the tips of soft-point bullets against the front of the magazine. This flattening annoyed many hunters, so several companies produced bullets with pre-flattened tips. This reduced the BC, resulting in even more obsession with muzzle velocity to compensate for suck BC's.
But with high-BC bullets there's no real need to start them at super-high velocity, because they retain far more velocity than older controlled-expansion bullets. Thus they can be started at 2800 fps or so and still work well on close-range game, even the "cup-and-core" high BC bullets--and because they retain far more velocity at longer ranges, they'll still expand way out there.
However, when many older hunters hear "long range bullet" they automatically assume the need for high velocity, because they're used to the poor BC's of many older controlled-expanding bullets. While some of today's controlled-expanding bullets have higher BC's, very few of the tougher ones have really high BC's. If somebody still really feels the need for muzzle velocities much above 3000 fps, they can use one of these compromise bullets, whether a Barnes LRX, Nosler AccuBond of Swift Scirocco II. They'll retain more velocity than a typical Nosler Partition, though some Partitions have decent BC's (as long as the soft tip isn't flattened during recoil) and a LOT more velocity than a Bitterroot Bonded Core, Norma Oryx, Swift A-Frame or other pre-tip-flattened bullet. Yet they still hold together on big game, especially if not started too fast. And there's no need to start them super-fast, since they retain more velocity at longer ranges.
Most really high-BC hunting bullets aren't designed to hold up at high velocities on close-range big game, for a simple reason: They're designed for shooting at longer ranges, where velocity has fallen off. In fact, when Nosler started working on a long-range hunting bullet, they'd didn't plan to bond the core.
But even many so-called long-range hunters demanded a bonded bullet, because even among them many believe bonding is somehow magic. So Nosler complied, producing the AccuBond Long Range, a longer, more streamlined version of the standard AccuBond. However, to insure expansion way out there, they had to use a somewhat thinner jacket. This resulted in a bullet that at close range, when started at the high velocity so many hunters think necessary, retains less weight and expands wider than the standard AccuBonds, reducing penetration.
A good example is a young Alaskan hunter I know. He used an ABLR for moose hunting last fall in his .300 Winchester Magnum, and of course handloaded it to high muzzle velocity. He did this despite not planning to shoot much beyond 400 yards, because he never does. Now, the ABLR killed a bull neatly at 200 yards, but the young man then complained that it lost too much weight.
Which is exactly what will happen with some of the "traditional" hunters now planning to use ABLR's, or other long-range bullets, at traditional ranges. They'll start them as fast as possible, because that's what "long range" has always meant to them, and when they end up shooting an animal at 100-300 yards, they'll complain that the bullet ruined too much meat, or didn't retain enough weight--unlike the Barnes TSX's, Nosler Partitions or Swift A-Frames they've used in the past.
In fact, a lot of these traditional hunters can't believe the 6.5 Creedmoor will kill as well as the .270 Winchester, because it can't reach the same muzzle velocities with the same bullet weights. (I also know that a lot of traditional hunters rate a cartridge's "killing power" by how much it recoils, and while the .270 Winchester doesn't kick hard, it kicks noticeably more than the same rifle in 6.5 Creedmoor.)
For those guys, here's a typical example of what's often called "real life." Last fall one my elk-hunting companions used a 6.5 Creedmoor with 140-grain Nosler AccuBonds. He's a young guy, and used a rifle many traditional hunters would hate--plastic-stocked, with a dialing scope and a suppressor. The muzzle velocity of his load was around 2750 fps, pretty pitiful by .270 standards. Yet he somehow managed to kill a mature 6x6 bull, and not out at 500 yards but at 40, in timber. Even at such a pitiful muzzle velocity, the AccuBond exited, and the bull went less than 50 yards before keeling over.
However, if he'd "had" to shoot at 500 yards, out where many traditional hunters feel 3000 fps is supposedly necessary, the 140 AccuBond from his pitful 6.5 Creedmoor would have been traveling only 100 fps less than a 140 AccuBond started at 3000 fps from a .270 Winchester. That's how quickly even medium-BC bullet like a standard 6.5mm AccuBond starts to catch up with a .270 Accubond started 250 fps faster at the muzzle. (The BC's used to calculate these numbers, by the way, came from Bryan Litz's tests.)
I realize the obsession with muzzle velocity isn't going away, because it's what most open-country hunters have been obsessed with for over a century. I should also state that I'm not anti-.270 Winchester, owning and hunting with a walnut-stocked, lightweight Model 70 with a non-dialing 6x scope. But I also own and hunt with a plastic-stocked, detachable magazine, push-feed 6.5 Creedmoor equipped with a dialing scope--also a 6x. As a result, I actually know how each performs in the field, instead of guessing based totally on muzzle velocity.
You could have sold this one to a magazine, we got it for free.
Quote
Many members of the "older generation" will stick to what they know works--though a lot of them saw many changes in what worked when they were younger.
One aspect has become apparent to me while working with a lot of different cartridges/bullets/scopes over the past several decades: One reason the older generation is obsessed with muzzle velocity and a flat trajectory (or at least an initially flat trajectory) is those are exactly what hunters have been obsessed with during the history of rifles, especially after the introduction of practical smokeless rifle powders in the 1880's.
Muzzle velocity made the most difference in trajectory over typical hunting ranges, with ballistic coefficient definitely being secondary. Since range-estimation was iffy, especially "eyeballing," an initially flat trajectory helped over what most hunters considered "normal" ranges. Using a scope's reticle for ranging worked far better, but still became unreliable beyond about 500 yards, because bullets started dropping so quickly. Thus the obsession with muzzle velocity: It was the most realistic and effective way to reduce the effects of ranging errors.
The muzzle velocity obsession, however, results in a skewed vision of newer cartridges/bullets/scopes. The biggest mistake is still obsessing over muzzle velocity, when bullets with higher ballistic coefficients make it less relevant.
In fact, laser rangefinders and dialing scopes (or even good long-range reticles, if you can't stand the thought of a dialing scope) make a few inches of extra bullet "drop" irrelevant. Second, high BC doesn't just reduce wind-drift--it also reduces the difference in a bullet's velocity over several hundred yards, which also reduces the differences in bullet expansion at closer and longer ranges, one of the primary reasons "controlled expansion" bullets started appearing in the first place.
Controlled-expansion bullets were partly designed to withstand hitting a big-game animal at close range with a high-velocity cartridge. In fact, that's exactly why John Nosler came up with the Partition. He really liked the flat trajectory of the .300 H&H, but even one of the supposedly toughest bullets of the day came apart on a moose shoulder. So he invented a better moose-trap, and eventually so did several other hunters.
However, none of the controlled-expansion bullets designed through the 1980's had very high ballistic coefficients. In fact, many spitzers were handicapped by flat meplats, the very tip of the bullet.
Flat meplats were common because so many hunters shot controlled-expansion bullets from "magnum" cartridges, which tend to recoil more, so batter the tips of soft-point bullets against the front of the magazine. This flattening annoyed many hunters, so several companies produced bullets with pre-flattened tips. This reduced the BC, resulting in even more obsession with muzzle velocity to compensate for suck BC's.
But with high-BC bullets there's no real need to start them at super-high velocity, because they retain far more velocity than older controlled-expansion bullets. Thus they can be started at 2800 fps or so and still work well on close-range game, even the "cup-and-core" high BC bullets--and because they retain far more velocity at longer ranges, they'll still expand way out there.
However, when many older hunters hear "long range bullet" they automatically assume the need for high velocity, because they're used to the poor BC's of many older controlled-expanding bullets. While some of today's controlled-expanding bullets have higher BC's, very few of the tougher ones have really high BC's. If somebody still really feels the need for muzzle velocities much above 3000 fps, they can use one of these compromise bullets, whether a Barnes LRX, Nosler AccuBond of Swift Scirocco II. They'll retain more velocity than a typical Nosler Partition, though some Partitions have decent BC's (as long as the soft tip isn't flattened during recoil) and a LOT more velocity than a Bitterroot Bonded Core, Norma Oryx, Swift A-Frame or other pre-tip-flattened bullet. Yet they still hold together on big game, especially if not started too fast. And there's no need to start them super-fast, since they retain more velocity at longer ranges.
Most really high-BC hunting bullets aren't designed to hold up at high velocities on close-range big game, for a simple reason: They're designed for shooting at longer ranges, where velocity has fallen off. In fact, when Nosler started working on a long-range hunting bullet, they'd didn't plan to bond the core.
But even many so-called long-range hunters demanded a bonded bullet, because even among them many believe bonding is somehow magic. So Nosler complied, producing the AccuBond Long Range, a longer, more streamlined version of the standard AccuBond. However, to insure expansion way out there, they had to use a somewhat thinner jacket. This resulted in a bullet that at close range, when started at the high velocity so many hunters think necessary, retains less weight and expands wider than the standard AccuBonds, reducing penetration.
A good example is a young Alaskan hunter I know. He used an ABLR for moose hunting last fall in his .300 Winchester Magnum, and of course handloaded it to high muzzle velocity. He did this despite not planning to shoot much beyond 400 yards, because he never does. Now, the ABLR killed a bull neatly at 200 yards, but the young man then complained that it lost too much weight.
Which is exactly what will happen with some of the "traditional" hunters now planning to use ABLR's, or other long-range bullets, at traditional ranges. They'll start them as fast as possible, because that's what "long range" has always meant to them, and when they end up shooting an animal at 100-300 yards, they'll complain that the bullet ruined too much meat, or didn't retain enough weight--unlike the Barnes TSX's, Nosler Partitions or Swift A-Frames they've used in the past.
In fact, a lot of these traditional hunters can't believe the 6.5 Creedmoor will kill as well as the .270 Winchester, because it can't reach the same muzzle velocities with the same bullet weights. (I also know that a lot of traditional hunters rate a cartridge's "killing power" by how much it recoils, and while the .270 Winchester doesn't kick hard, it kicks noticeably more than the same rifle in 6.5 Creedmoor.)
For those guys, here's a typical example of what's often called "real life." Last fall one my elk-hunting companions used a 6.5 Creedmoor with 140-grain Nosler AccuBonds. He's a young guy, and used a rifle many traditional hunters would hate--plastic-stocked, with a dialing scope and a suppressor. The muzzle velocity of his load was around 2750 fps, pretty pitiful by .270 standards. Yet he somehow managed to kill a mature 6x6 bull, and not out at 500 yards but at 40, in timber. Even at such a pitiful muzzle velocity, the AccuBond exited, and the bull went less than 50 yards before keeling over.
However, if he'd "had" to shoot at 500 yards, out where many traditional hunters feel 3000 fps is supposedly necessary, the 140 AccuBond from his pitful 6.5 Creedmoor would have been traveling only 100 fps less than a 140 AccuBond started at 3000 fps from a .270 Winchester. That's how quickly even medium-BC bullet like a standard 6.5mm AccuBond starts to catch up with a .270 Accubond started 250 fps faster at the muzzle. (The BC's used to calculate these numbers, by the way, came from Bryan Litz's tests.)
I realize the obsession with muzzle velocity isn't going away, because it's what most open-country hunters have been obsessed with for over a century. I should also state that I'm not anti-.270 Winchester, owning and hunting with a walnut-stocked, lightweight Model 70 with a non-dialing 6x scope. But I also own and hunt with a plastic-stocked, detachable magazine, push-feed 6.5 Creedmoor equipped with a dialing scope--also a 6x. As a result, I actually know how each performs in the field, instead of guessing based totally on muzzle velocity.
Damned straight, SU! Well done JB - and right on the money.
Very Very Good M D and I thank you. I have a few comments or ?? and w/o quoting and deleting I'll copy & paste what I'm referencing.
** " One reason the older generation is obsessed with muzzle velocity and a flat trajectory (or at least an initially flat trajectory) is those are exactly what hunters have been obsessed with during the history of rifles, especially after the introduction of practical smokeless rifle powders in the 1880's." **
Are you saying I'm OLD school ? Why, yes I am.
** "Muzzle velocity made the most difference in trajectory over typical hunting ranges, with ballistic coefficient definitely being secondary." **
** "In fact, laser rangefinders and dialing scopes (or even good long-range reticles, if you can't stand the thought of a dialing scope) make a few inches of extra bullet "drop" irrelevant." **
I am on the same page w/you in this context. WHY I haven't changed to Adjusting Scopes is 400 yds is TYPICALLY the longest distance I have op to shoot at game, -- 500 yds being the exception. In other context 500 yds is NOT long range -- I understand that.
Where I've hunted even between 200-400 yds there is OFTEN not enuff time to Bino, LRF, Read Chart, Dial Scope, Aim, Shoot. That takes time and at LONG range guys have that kind of time. It is much quicker to use MPBR with your LOAD --IF you know your trajectory.
** "But with high-BC bullets there's no real need to start them at super-high velocity, because they retain far more velocity than older controlled-expansion bullets. Thus they can be started at 2800 fps or so and still work well on close-range game, even the "cup-and-core" high BC bullets--and because they retain far more velocity at longer ranges, they'll still expand way out there." **
I also AGREE when the terrain allows you to see/watch the game for a reasonable amount of time. I have NO problem or opposition with High BC & slowER velocity IF you have time to use it.
** "I realize the obsession with muzzle velocity isn't going away, because it's what most open-country hunters have been obsessed with for over a century." **
I think you are right there also. As for me, what can I say....I LIKE fast bullets.
Again Thnx and I appreciate the time it took you to post all that. As someone else said, "You could have gotten paid for that... & we got it free."
John, Read your post and have no disagreement but would like to add several things. Bob and I were within a few weeks of the same age. He lived on the east coast and I in the intermountain west. However we have very similar experiences.
Each of us got interested in shooting because we were both hunters of deer and varmints. Today's new shooters come from either military or plinking/target backgrounds. Fewer come from hunting because there is less hunting in general.
Both of us enjoyed the experience of the chase. It was a way of experiencing life on the ground, up close and personal. It was not an abstract cerebral experience. We practiced the same profession and got plenty of brain work doing that.
Because we were hunters, we were very concerned with terminal performance AND with quickly making first round hits. Also we walked a lot! You might look for a giant mule deer for years and when you first see him have about 10 seconds to evaluate him, get ready, and shoot.
Given the right circumstances I am certain I can get the job done with a Creedmore. However the circumstances are not always “right”. I have been in situations where the range finder doesn’t work or the dials have moved and so on.
One of the major changes I see is that the ”modern” types shoot at known distances, with knowledge of wind, and and are dependent upon multiple electronic devices. Terminal Bullet performance is irrelevant to making holes in paper or hearing the noise of a gong. I read an article written by a long range hunter describing his kit. Rangefinder, range cards, wind meter, barometer, ballistic calculating device, tripod, bags on which to rest rifle, extra batteries, GPS device, binos, spotting scope, etc, etc. His rifle alone weighs more than I pack for a long day in the mountains. I grew up packing a snickers bar, a small knife, and a couple of extra shells. Never thought I needed a bottle of water. In really rough country I might pack a compass and a PB&J.
Today making the actual shot is more of an abstract engineering process. In fact the animal becomes an abstraction, it is a furry substitute for a metal gong. Today I hear hunters bragging about the length of their shot rather than how close they were able to get. I don’t get much of a thrill shooting big game at really long distances. If I must resort to those long shots it is evidence of my lack of skill as a hunter. When sheep hunting, there have been times when we put them to bed and retreated to go to camp, to plan a stalk for the next day. To me, that is more exciting and rewarding than whanging way at 750 yards. Thrilling is getting close enough to a wildebeest that I can hear him breathing and see the snot dripping out of his nose. I suppose it is how one measures success. Several of my most memorable experiences came about when I came back with no game.
I am more old school. I view hunting as an encounter with nature. I enjoy it most when my quarry has the chance to be as aware of my presence as I am of his. Bow hunters understand and appreciate this feeling.
Last edited by RinB; 02/17/18. Reason: Grammar
“Perfection is achieved not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away”. Antoine de Saint-Exupery. Posted by Brad.
I read your post per our attitude and perception in actual hunting. I read with a smile about the guy with a 'truck load of equipment' - my paraphrase.
The following is an excerpt from my post earlier:
* "Where I've hunted even between 200-400 yds there is OFTEN not enuff time to Bino, LRF, Read Chart, Dial Scope, Aim, Shoot. That takes time and at LONG range, guys have that kind of time. It is much quicker to use MPBR with your LOAD --IF you know your trajectory." *
I ask again IF you are a brother from a diff mother ?
My point wasn't that old-school is bad, but that today the obsession with muzzle velocity isn't necessary, and often results in more recoil for the same results with a high-BC bullet at somewhat slower muzzle velocity. It's easy to get 2900 fps from a 127-grain Barnes LRX in a 22"-barreled 6.5 Creedmoor, or 2800 with a 140 Accubond. Either will hit, and penetrate, big game animals out to 500 yards just as well as traditional .270 loads--or even a 150 Partition at 3000 fps with RL-26 (which is also one powder to use in the Creedmoor to get 2800 with a 140). But the Creedmoor does it with significantly less recoil, which makes practicing more pleasant and productive. It's also usually easier to get really fine accuracy with a Creedmoor, even with really "affordable" factory rifles, though in my experience the .270 is also an accurate round.
The other thing I know even more certainly is that one sure way to get the snot kicked out of you is to push heavier bullets at really high BC's with magnum cartridges, because you believe a certain "premium" bullet with a mediocre BC is absolutely necessary for killing big game, whether deer, elk or whatever. But it's much more fun to use a good higher-BC bullet with less powder to achieve the same results.
These comments on 6.5 Creedmoor ballistics apply equally to similar rounds like the .260 Remington and 6.5x55. But the Creedmoor became so popular because it accomplishes this easily in factory rifles, with factory ammo.
I'll also point out that the entire history of hunting rifles has been a "regression" toward smaller calibers and cartridges, especially after smokeless powder appeared. Before World War II many hunters were whining about a new cartridge that they claimed was OBVIOUSLY inferior to the .30-06, which had just become comfortably established as the most popular big game round in North America.
The new cartridge used small, lighter bullets than the favored 180's and 220's for the .30-06, and many hunters (including established gun writers) spent considerable time trying to persuade other hunters to avoid this new-fangled cartridge. Many even insisted cartridges much larger than the .30-06 were necessary to consistently kill mule deer, let alone elk. This was because, like many of today's hunters, they clung to what HAD worked for them, so insisted the upstart cartridge was a fraud, and would fade away.
But it didn't, partly because bullets continued to improve, to the point where many hunters feel very comfortable that "new" cartridge on not just mule deer, elk and moose, but African plains game. That new-fangled cartridge that would OBVIOUSLY fade away, of course, was the .270 Winchester.
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.” John Steinbeck
Believe me, if you want to use the 6.5 Creedmoor as a quick "point and shoot" deer cartridge, it will do it quite well with 120-130 grain bullets. One I've used for that very purpose is the 120-grain Ballistic Tip, which can easily be started at 130-grain .270 Winchester velocities with published loading data.
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.” John Steinbeck
You could have sold this one to a magazine, we got it for free.
Originally Posted by MuleDeer
Many members of the "older generation" will stick to what they know works--though a lot of them saw many changes in what worked when they were younger.
One aspect has become apparent to me while working with a lot of different cartridges/bullets/scopes over the past several decades: One reason the older generation is obsessed with muzzle velocity and a flat trajectory (or at least an initially flat trajectory) is those are exactly what hunters have been obsessed with during the history of rifles, especially after the introduction of practical smokeless rifle powders in the 1880's.
Muzzle velocity made the most difference in trajectory over typical hunting ranges, with ballistic coefficient definitely being secondary. Since range-estimation was iffy, especially "eyeballing," an initially flat trajectory helped over what most hunters considered "normal" ranges. Using a scope's reticle for ranging worked far better, but still became unreliable beyond about 500 yards, because bullets started dropping so quickly. Thus the obsession with muzzle velocity: It was the most realistic and effective way to reduce the effects of ranging errors.
The muzzle velocity obsession, however, results in a skewed vision of newer cartridges/bullets/scopes. The biggest mistake is still obsessing over muzzle velocity, when bullets with higher ballistic coefficients make it less relevant.
In fact, laser rangefinders and dialing scopes (or even good long-range reticles, if you can't stand the thought of a dialing scope) make a few inches of extra bullet "drop" irrelevant. Second, high BC doesn't just reduce wind-drift--it also reduces the difference in a bullet's velocity over several hundred yards, which also reduces the differences in bullet expansion at closer and longer ranges, one of the primary reasons "controlled expansion" bullets started appearing in the first place.
Controlled-expansion bullets were partly designed to withstand hitting a big-game animal at close range with a high-velocity cartridge. In fact, that's exactly why John Nosler came up with the Partition. He really liked the flat trajectory of the .300 H&H, but even one of the supposedly toughest bullets of the day came apart on a moose shoulder. So he invented a better moose-trap, and eventually so did several other hunters.
However, none of the controlled-expansion bullets designed through the 1980's had very high ballistic coefficients. In fact, many spitzers were handicapped by flat meplats, the very tip of the bullet.
Flat meplats were common because so many hunters shot controlled-expansion bullets from "magnum" cartridges, which tend to recoil more, so batter the tips of soft-point bullets against the front of the magazine. This flattening annoyed many hunters, so several companies produced bullets with pre-flattened tips. This reduced the BC, resulting in even more obsession with muzzle velocity to compensate for suck BC's.
But with high-BC bullets there's no real need to start them at super-high velocity, because they retain far more velocity than older controlled-expansion bullets. Thus they can be started at 2800 fps or so and still work well on close-range game, even the "cup-and-core" high BC bullets--and because they retain far more velocity at longer ranges, they'll still expand way out there.
However, when many older hunters hear "long range bullet" they automatically assume the need for high velocity, because they're used to the poor BC's of many older controlled-expanding bullets. While some of today's controlled-expanding bullets have higher BC's, very few of the tougher ones have really high BC's. If somebody still really feels the need for muzzle velocities much above 3000 fps, they can use one of these compromise bullets, whether a Barnes LRX, Nosler AccuBond of Swift Scirocco II. They'll retain more velocity than a typical Nosler Partition, though some Partitions have decent BC's (as long as the soft tip isn't flattened during recoil) and a LOT more velocity than a Bitterroot Bonded Core, Norma Oryx, Swift A-Frame or other pre-tip-flattened bullet. Yet they still hold together on big game, especially if not started too fast. And there's no need to start them super-fast, since they retain more velocity at longer ranges.
Most really high-BC hunting bullets aren't designed to hold up at high velocities on close-range big game, for a simple reason: They're designed for shooting at longer ranges, where velocity has fallen off. In fact, when Nosler started working on a long-range hunting bullet, they'd didn't plan to bond the core.
But even many so-called long-range hunters demanded a bonded bullet, because even among them many believe bonding is somehow magic. So Nosler complied, producing the AccuBond Long Range, a longer, more streamlined version of the standard AccuBond. However, to insure expansion way out there, they had to use a somewhat thinner jacket. This resulted in a bullet that at close range, when started at the high velocity so many hunters think necessary, retains less weight and expands wider than the standard AccuBonds, reducing penetration.
A good example is a young Alaskan hunter I know. He used an ABLR for moose hunting last fall in his .300 Winchester Magnum, and of course handloaded it to high muzzle velocity. He did this despite not planning to shoot much beyond 400 yards, because he never does. Now, the ABLR killed a bull neatly at 200 yards, but the young man then complained that it lost too much weight.
Which is exactly what will happen with some of the "traditional" hunters now planning to use ABLR's, or other long-range bullets, at traditional ranges. They'll start them as fast as possible, because that's what "long range" has always meant to them, and when they end up shooting an animal at 100-300 yards, they'll complain that the bullet ruined too much meat, or didn't retain enough weight--unlike the Barnes TSX's, Nosler Partitions or Swift A-Frames they've used in the past.
In fact, a lot of these traditional hunters can't believe the 6.5 Creedmoor will kill as well as the .270 Winchester, because it can't reach the same muzzle velocities with the same bullet weights. (I also know that a lot of traditional hunters rate a cartridge's "killing power" by how much it recoils, and while the .270 Winchester doesn't kick hard, it kicks noticeably more than the same rifle in 6.5 Creedmoor.)
For those guys, here's a typical example of what's often called "real life." Last fall one my elk-hunting companions used a 6.5 Creedmoor with 140-grain Nosler AccuBonds. He's a young guy, and used a rifle many traditional hunters would hate--plastic-stocked, with a dialing scope and a suppressor. The muzzle velocity of his load was around 2750 fps, pretty pitiful by .270 standards. Yet he somehow managed to kill a mature 6x6 bull, and not out at 500 yards but at 40, in timber. Even at such a pitiful muzzle velocity, the AccuBond exited, and the bull went less than 50 yards before keeling over.
However, if he'd "had" to shoot at 500 yards, out where many traditional hunters feel 3000 fps is supposedly necessary, the 140 AccuBond from his pitful 6.5 Creedmoor would have been traveling only 100 fps less than a 140 AccuBond started at 3000 fps from a .270 Winchester. That's how quickly even medium-BC bullet like a standard 6.5mm AccuBond starts to catch up with a .270 Accubond started 250 fps faster at the muzzle. (The BC's used to calculate these numbers, by the way, came from Bryan Litz's tests.)
I realize the obsession with muzzle velocity isn't going away, because it's what most open-country hunters have been obsessed with for over a century. I should also state that I'm not anti-.270 Winchester, owning and hunting with a walnut-stocked, lightweight Model 70 with a non-dialing 6x scope. But I also own and hunt with a plastic-stocked, detachable magazine, push-feed 6.5 Creedmoor equipped with a dialing scope--also a 6x. As a result, I actually know how each performs in the field, instead of guessing based totally on muzzle velocity.
Originally Posted by Mule Deer
Rick,
I grew up hunting the same way, and still do.
My point wasn't that old-school is bad, but that today the obsession with muzzle velocity isn't necessary, and often results in more recoil for the same results with a high-BC bullet at somewhat slower muzzle velocity. It's easy to get 2900 fps from a 127-grain Barnes LRX in a 22"-barreled 6.5 Creedmoor, or 2800 with a 140 Accubond. Either will hit, and penetrate, big game animals out to 500 yards just as well as traditional .270 loads--or even a 150 Partition at 3000 fps with RL-26 (which is also one powder to use in the Creedmoor to get 2800 with a 140). But the Creedmoor does it with significantly less recoil, which makes practicing more pleasant and productive. It's also usually easier to get really fine accuracy with a Creedmoor, even with really "affordable" factory rifles, though in my experience the .270 is also an accurate round.
The other thing I know even more certainly is that one sure way to get the snot kicked out of you is to push heavier bullets at really high BC's with magnum cartridges, because you believe a certain "premium" bullet with a mediocre BC is absolutely necessary for killing big game, whether deer, elk or whatever. But it's much more fun to use a good higher-BC bullet with less powder to achieve the same results.
These comments on 6.5 Creedmoor ballistics apply equally to similar rounds like the .260 Remington and 6.5x55. But the Creedmoor became so popular because it accomplishes this easily in factory rifles, with factory ammo.
I'll also point out that the entire history of hunting rifles has been a "regression" toward smaller calibers and cartridges, especially after smokeless powder appeared. Before World War II many hunters were whining about a new cartridge that they claimed was OBVIOUSLY inferior to the .30-06, which had just become comfortably established as the most popular big game round in North America.
The new cartridge used small, lighter bullets than the favored 180's and 220's for the .30-06, and many hunters (including established gun writers) spent considerable time trying to persuade other hunters to avoid this new-fangled cartridge. Many even insisted cartridges much larger than the .30-06 were necessary to consistently kill mule deer, let alone elk. This was because, like many of today's hunters, they clung to what HAD worked for them, so insisted the upstart cartridge was a fraud, and would fade away.
But it didn't, partly because bullets continued to improve, to the point where many hunters feel very comfortable that "new" cartridge on not just mule deer, elk and moose, but African plains game. That new-fangled cartridge that would OBVIOUSLY fade away, of course, was the .270 Winchester.
Thank You Mule Deer !
Please do, ( Work it into an article, Book chapter etc. that is) And sell it !
I am sure I'm not alone when I say that is priceless, and bears repeating to the masses. I've been reading, and re-rereading some of your Reality Articles for just that reason. Each time I come away with something new and practical.
Now if we could just find a way to beat down the shipping costs on your Big Books to Canada, we'd have it licked.
I think I once suggested a Goose Hunting / Fishing research trip, combined with some Book Signing appearances - Do you speak well ? I know that Eilleen does.
Cheers from Frozen Alberta
Last edited by 338Rules; 02/17/18. Reason: Typing with 2 fingers and Thumb
John, Read your post and have no disagreement but would like to add several things. Bob and I were within a few weeks of the same age. He lived on the east coast and I in the intermountain west. However we have very similar experiences.
Each of us got interested in shooting because we were both hunters of deer and varmints. Today's new shooters come from either military or plinking/target backgrounds. Fewer come from hunting because there is less hunting in general.
Both of us enjoyed the experience of the chase. It was a way of experiencing life on the ground, up close and personal. It was not an abstract cerebral experience. We practiced the same profession and got plenty of brain work doing that.
Because we were hunters, we were very concerned with terminal performance AND with quickly making first round hits. Also we walked a lot! You might look for a giant mule deer for years and when you first see him have about 10 seconds to evaluate him, get ready, and shoot.
Given the right circumstances I am certain I can get the job done with a Creedmore. However the circumstances are not always “right”. I have been in situations where the range finder doesn’t work or the dials have moved and so on.
One of the major changes I see is that the ”modern” types shoot at known distances, with knowledge of wind, and and are dependent upon multiple electronic devices. Terminal Bullet performance is irrelevant to making holes in paper or hearing the noise of a gong. I read an article written by a long range hunter describing his kit. Rangefinder, range cards, wind meter, barometer, ballistic calculating device, tripod, bags on which to rest rifle, extra batteries, GPS device, binos, spotting scope, etc, etc. His rifle alone weighs more than I pack for a long day in the mountains. I grew up packing a snickers bar, a small knife, and a couple of extra shells. Never thought I needed a bottle of water. In really rough country I might pack a compass and a PB&J.
Today making the actual shot is more of an abstract engineering process. In fact the animal becomes an abstraction, it is a furry substitute for a metal gong. Today I hear hunters bragging about the length of their shot rather than how close they were able to get. I don’t get much of a thrill shooting big game at really long distances. If I must resort to those long shots it is evidence of my lack of skill as a hunter. When sheep hunting, there have been times when we put them to bed and retreated to go to camp, to plan a stalk for the next day. To me, that is more exciting and rewarding than whanging way at 750 yards. Thrilling is getting close enough to a wildebeest that I can hear him breathing and see the snot dripping out of his nose. I suppose it is how one measures success. Several of my most memorable experiences came about when I came back with no game.
I am more old school. I view hunting as an encounter with nature. I enjoy it most when my quarry has the chance to be as aware of my presence as I am of his. Bow hunters understand and appreciate this feeling.
Spot on RinB !
I don't know how many times, I've become aware of the eyes of a trophy animal on me, before I saw them. Totally Made. My only recourse is to stop moving completely, and wait. Any movement at all would have spooked them hard. Rely on disruptive camo. I'm talking Mule Deer, Elk, and even Moose in the Parklands, Mountains and Prairies, and of course Antelope and wily Coyote.
I've also had lots of encounters at a distance sitting on a ridge munching a snack with binos in hand, where they were completely oblivious to my presence. Ranging and Dialling would work if I could dope the wind perfectly.
But that quick encounter with the trophy of a lifetime often just doesn't leave time to Range and Dial; and then assume the best shooting position.
I find getting into a slinged sitting position is a lot of commotion anymore. Needs practice
With Whitetail or Moose in the bush, the range is often a lot less, and they are already in full evade mode. Give me a rifle ( carbine really ) that handles like an English shotgun for that scenario. I still like my .308 for that.
And then there's the seismic cut-lines, power lines and pipeline Right of-Ways which yield the Medium and Long Range opportunities ...
Last edited by 338Rules; 02/18/18. Reason: Even More Pertinent Thoughts
Believe me, if you want to use the 6.5 Creedmoor as a quick "point and shoot" deer cartridge, it will do it quite well with 120-130 grain bullets. One I've used for that very purpose is the 120-grain Ballistic Tip, which can easily be started at 130-grain .270 Winchester velocities with published loading data.
Thnx MD
I have a Win 70, 6.5X55 and this past year I got an accurate load with the 120 N P @ 3000 fps. The only reason I didn't hunt it was that I ALSO got my 284 Win up and running. I have always wanted a 284 so it took priority last season.
I haven't had time yet to practice with the Swede at 3000 fps so I have NOT experienced what it is capable of doing say to 300-350 yds. That is on my agenda for this year.
If you guys will buy all the 270 stuff that I have here AND promise that I can find 6.5 Creedmore ammo in far away places then I will switch. I am certain that I can get the job done cause I still will limit my shooting to within a quarter of a mile. Pony up the cabbage.
I can start shipping next Tuesday.
Last edited by RinB; 02/17/18.
“Perfection is achieved not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away”. Antoine de Saint-Exupery. Posted by Brad.
John, I agree regarding the trend to smaller “regressive” cartridges. Somewhat ironic to be having that discussion under a by-line about the 26 Nosler and 6.5-300 Wby.
“Perfection is achieved not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away”. Antoine de Saint-Exupery. Posted by Brad.
SU35, SKane and others who commented on my long post,
Actually, I have already published an article along similar lines, in RIFLE LOONY NEWS. the quarterly on-line magazine my wife Eileen and I write and publish. (Actually Eileen publishes it; I'm just what's known in some circles these days as a "content provider.)
Am going to publish it again as a chapter, probably with some additions from this post, in GUN GACK II, my next book, which should be appearing in late summer.
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.” John Steinbeck
You know a 338 shooting 200/210 bullets isn’t quite as good as a big 30 shooting 200’s at the same velocity of 3000. The big 7 guys will say a 175 at 2950 is just as good as the 30. 280 guys will say shooting a 150 @ 3000 with R26 is pretty much the same as a 7RM. Now the CM lovers will say a 140 at 2800 is just as good as the 280. I think this reasoning is referred to as INCREMENTALISM.
When will I hear the argument that the CM does the same work of a 338? Actually most cartridges are, broadly speaking, more alike than different.
One of my hunting pals, now deceased, said pick something and use it until it fails, then and only then go searching for something else. He was talking about hunting. Since I am a hunter, that is my perspective. I was a buyer and builder of many rifles for many different cartridges and eventually discovered the futility and wastefulness of it all. There is always something new to chase. The entire commercial enterprise is built around that premise. It keeps manufacturers, magazines, and related commerce moving and churning thereby increasing the bottom line. That is OK by me but I am skeptical about the claims attributed to new cartridges.
I do think the big improvements are due to bullet technology, both terminal and in-flight, optics, and range finders. Sadly there is almost no talk of improving the ability of the shooter.
I hear these tales of a 6.5 CM moving a 140 @2800 in a 22” barrel but I have never seen the load data. Perhaps it can be done with R26 but that is the only powder which might do it. There are many ways to move 130’s at 3100 in my old time 270. Plus I never find myself in a place where there isn’t ammo to make it go BANG.
My friend John will point out that I continue to build 270’s and he is correct. However, I am the first to admit I am not making many improvements. Actually the primary reason I must build more is because my friends keep making off with my most recent one. That has happened to the last 5.
Last edited by RinB; 02/18/18.
“Perfection is achieved not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away”. Antoine de Saint-Exupery. Posted by Brad.
[/quote=Rinb]You know a 338 shooting 200/210 bullets isn’t quite as good as a big 30 shooting 200’s at the same velocity of 3000. The big 7 guys will say a 175 at 2950 is just as good as the 30. 280 guys will say shooting a 150 @ 3000 with R26 is pretty much the same as a 7RM. Now the CM lovers will say a 140 at 2800 is just as good as the 280. I think this reasoning is referred to as INCREMENTALISM. [quote]
Thanks for the title, I haven't heard that one. However I've been listening to that argument per 300 Mags->30-06->308->300Sav ! ! AND 7 mags ->-> 270 ->-> 6.5 creed. huh. "just as good as".
AIN'T SO. I have been told and read here on the 'fire' that you can SEE the diff when the 300 Mags hit an Elk compared to lesser cartridges. NOW the lesser cartridges WILL kill the animals reliably BUT the MORE powerful cartridges produce visual reaction.
I HAVE SEEN that with a 35 Whelen when shooting WT. It's like getting the wind KNOCKED out of you or being hit with a brick vs a ball.
Rin B : Your "friends" are just trying to save you from yourself
Seriously though, the improvements we see are incremental. Sometimes small steps forward, sometimes backwards. The commercial successes aren't always due to better results. Sometimes just better marketing and distribution.
Is the .280 better than the .270 ? Not if you can't find ammo for it in the stores in hunting country. That is the ultimate test. Doesn't matter if it's Improved 28 RCBS, or SAAMI AI 40 - No brass, No bang.
Why are the premium bullets not loaded in .280 Rem ? Demand & Supply.
6.8x64 is available world-wide with virtually every suitable bullet.
SU35, SKane and others who commented on my long post,
Actually, I have already published an article along similar lines, in RIFLE LOONY NEWS. the quarterly on-line magazine my wife Eileen and I write and publish. (Actually Eileen publishes it; I'm just what's known in some circles these days as a "content provider.)
Am going to publish it again as a chapter, probably with some additions from this post, in GUN GACK II, my next book, which should be appearing in late summer.
Ok, Ok - I'll Re-subscribe to RLN
And somehow I need to find a way to deliver both of your new Big Books - catapult across the Medicine Line maybe Sometimes I think those int'l parcel shipping costs are based upon a quick lap around the Moon
Well, My Loony hat doesn't have ear-flaps, and I'm hiding in the outhouse from the thought police -- Brrr
I was pointing our how the 6.5 Creedmoor, used with the same brand/type of 140-grain bullet as the .270 starts immediately (and pretty quickly) catching up, to the point where the 6.5mm bullet is within 100 fps at 500 yards--despite starting 250 fps slower.
The velocity I used for the 6.5 Creedmoor, 2750 fps, is exactly what I get with 140's in a 22" barrel, using the load I've settled on for the moment, 43.0 grains of IMR4451. Sierra lists 42.9 grains as getting 2800 in a 24" barrel.
Speer's latest data, just recently released, lists 42.1 grains of Reloder 26 getting 2849 fps with the also-new 140-grain Gold Dot--which has a listed BC of .571. Am planning to test 26 with other bullets ASAP, but also need to get hold of some of the Gold Dots.
You're obsessing about muzzle velocity again!
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.” John Steinbeck
Fascinating conversation, gentlemen! I come down decidedly in the "CM camp", with the new-fangled high-BC bullets being pushed rather moderately by today's standards and being used to good effect on animals beyond "normal" hunting range with a few simple tools. And I seriously dislike "suck BC bullets"!
I always appreciate your writing, John Barsness, and I'm looking forward to Gun Gack II.
Well, the question in the back of my mind now, is why you're thinking of trying the 150 Nosler AccuBond Long Range with Reloder 26, when you've done just fine with the .270 using bullets with lower BC's, and powders that don't get quite as much muzzle velocity.
What are you looking for? More RLM (Rifle Loony Madness)?
My excuse is I have to fool with a lot of rifles, because it's my job. Of course, it probably wouldn't have become my job without a severe case of RLM....
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.” John Steinbeck
Mule Deer, In support of my thoughts about the greatness of the 270W I must cite you to the writings of my buddy JOHN BARSNESS.
He recently wrote an article on the great 270W for RIFLE. He makes a brilliant analysis of the significance of BC. MR BARSNESS forcefully makes the point that BC doesn’t matter much inside 500 yards. In his article on the 6.5-06, MR BARSNESS makes the same compelling point. Further, he explains how the ancient beast, the 270W not me, is flatter shooting than the 6.5 Creedmore within 500 when using the classic load of 130’s at 3100.
Who am I to dispute his erudite analysis? In the words of Master Yoda, unassailable his logic is!
Me, I have used many different 130’s all at around 3100. For the last 10 to 12 trips I have mostly used various monos.
I have never gotten more than 2850 with 150’s using older powders and 2850 doesn’t do much for me. The 2750 “steak” has even less sizzle. R26 has changed that. I am getting ready for trip #25 and thought I would try lead core 150’s at 3000. In PM’s MR BARSNESS has told be how well the 150 NPtn works so I decided to follow his advice. I threw in the 150 LRAB just to take advantage of the “free lunch.” I would continue to use the 130’s but MR B was quite emphatic about greatness of the 150 Partition (despite its BC).
Lastly, wind isn’t much a concern for me. I am a rather delicate fellow and if the wind blows, I retire to the lodge for a martini and snacks.
So, I suggest you contact MR BARSNESS. He is a fine fellow, a good man. He has a first rate mind. I believe he lives near you. Cheers.
Last edited by RinB; 02/18/18.
“Perfection is achieved not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away”. Antoine de Saint-Exupery. Posted by Brad.
Mule Deer, In support of my thoughts about the greatness of the 270W I must cite you to the writings of my buddy JOHN BARSNESS.
He recently wrote an article on the great 270W for RIFLE. He makes a brilliant analysis of the significance of BC. MR BARSNESS forcefully makes the point that BC doesn’t matter much inside 500 yards. In his article on the 6.5-06, MR BARSNESS makes the same compelling point. Further, he explains how the ancient beast, the 270W not me, is flatter shooting than the 6.5 Creedmore within 500 when using the classic load of 130’s at 3100.
Who am I to dispute his erudite analysis? In the words of Master Yoda, unassailable his logic is!
Me, I have used many different 130’s all at around 3100. For the last 10 to 12 trips I have mostly used various monos.
I have never gotten more than 2850 with 150’s using older powders and 2850 doesn’t do much for me. The 2750 “steak” has even less sizzle. R26 has changed that. I am getting ready for trip #25 and thought I would try lead core 150’s at 3000. In PM’s MR BARSNESS has told be how well the 150 NPtn works so I decided to follow his advice. I threw in the 150 LRAB just to take advantage of the “free lunch.” I would continue to use the 130’s but MR B was quite emphatic about greatness of the 150 Partition (despite its BC).
Lastly, wind isn’t much a concern for me. I am a rather delicate fellow and if the wind blows, I retire to the lodge for a martini and snacks.
So, I suggest you contact MR BARSNESS. He is a fine fellow, a good man. He has a first rate mind. I believe he lives near you. Cheers.
prairie_goat has a suppressed .270, which I've shot on prairie dogs. It works great on PD's--and also on elk! Might be the ideal all-around rifle.
Hey I know that guy!
The 17" barrel of that suppressed rifle will spit out 150s over RE-26 at ~2850, essentially duplicating normal 270 factory ammo. The rifle also sends 110 ttsxs at 3050-3100 with a couple different faster burning powders.
Mule Deer, In support of my thoughts about the greatness of the 270W I must cite you to the writings of my buddy JOHN BARSNESS.
He recently wrote an article on the great 270W for RIFLE. He makes a brilliant analysis of the significance of BC. MR BARSNESS forcefully makes the point that BC doesn’t matter much inside 500 yards. In his article on the 6.5-06, MR BARSNESS makes the same compelling point. Further, he explains how the ancient beast, the 270W not me, is flatter shooting than the 6.5 Creedmore within 500 when using the classic load of 130’s at 3100.
Who am I to dispute his erudite analysis? In the words of Master Yoda, unassailable his logic is!
Me, I have used many different 130’s all at around 3100. For the last 10 to 12 trips I have mostly used various monos.
I have never gotten more than 2850 with 150’s using older powders and 2850 doesn’t do much for me. The 2750 “steak” has even less sizzle. R26 has changed that. I am getting ready for trip #25 and thought I would try lead core 150’s at 3000. In PM’s MR BARSNESS has told be how well the 150 NPtn works so I decided to follow his advice. I threw in the 150 LRAB just to take advantage of the “free lunch.” I would continue to use the 130’s but MR B was quite emphatic about greatness of the 150 Partition (despite its BC).
Lastly, wind isn’t much a concern for me. I am a rather delicate fellow and if the wind blows, I retire to the lodge for a martini and snacks.
So, I suggest you contact MR BARSNESS. He is a fine fellow, a good man. He has a first rate mind. I believe he lives near you. Cheers.
jwall Bobby and I laughed and then laughed some more about how the ancient 270 out performed the 6.5 Creedmoor out to about 500 for BG hunting. He got that Creedmoor barreled action from me. I got the parts in a trade and sent it to Bobby cause he was curious about all the fussing and noise. It is what it is, 140 @ 2700. BFD!
I remember the call the first day he shot that one at the range - "Skaaaawt, this thing drops like lead - gimme the phaaawwking .270......Do you want another Creedmoor?"
[quote=RinB] [/b] Further, he explains how the ancient beast, the 270W not me, is flatter shooting than the 6.5 Creedmore within 500 when using the classic load of 130’s at 3100.[b]
Boy Howdy -- I have RUN OUT of room in my SIG line..
I am going to FIGURE OUT how/where to store this UNTIl I decide how I want to EDIT my sig line. TOO VALUABLE !!
I know this Barsness guy! He says you're obsessing over muzzle velocity and flat trajectory again. As he pointed out earlier, a few inches in trajectory is almost irrelevant these days--though he has to mention it in articles because of the obsessions of so many readers.
It's much like having to mention W.D.M. Bell killed lots of elephants with the 7x57 in every 7x57 article: Readers expect it, and if an author fails to mention elephants, they'll write to the editor, pointing the elephants out. Flat trajectory is similar to elephants: If it's not mentioned, editors are deluged with e-mails and even a few snail-mails. In fact, you might be surprised by the number of gun-magazine readers who still use snail-mail, especially those who obsess about muzzle velocity, flat trajectory, and elephants shot with 7x57's.
But Barsness understands those obsessions, partly because he often got phone calls from your old friend Stu. He also obsessed about getting 3000 fps--though not with 150-grain bullets in the .270, but 165's in the .30-06. They had several hour-long conversations about what Stu called, "All those zeroes!" At one point Barsness suggested just installing a 26-inch barrel, but of course Stu felt that wasn't acceptable. Barsness even got the feeling Stu believed it would be cheating. Congratulations for carrying on his tradition.
Barsness also wants you to know that 2850 fps works extremely well with 150-grain bullets in the .270, despite not shooting quite as flat as "all those zeroes." He's seen a bunch of big game killed with 150's at 2850, including the bull moose his wife killed with a single Partition. Lung-shot moose often stand around as if thinking it over, but that one took a single step and folded up dead. He's also seen a number of elk and similar-sized African plains game shot with the 150 Partition at around 2850, and the farthest any has gone before falling was about 50 yards--a gemsbok bull, considered by many hunters as tough as they come.
He also said it's good thing you have the sense to quit hunting when the wind blows, as .270 bullets drift like dandelion seeds in the mildest breeze. It was good a thing the bull moose his wife killed was only 125 yards away, and early in the morning when there wasn't much breeze. Otherwise the bullet might have missed completely.
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.” John Steinbeck
In fact, you might be surprised by the number of gun-magazine readers who still use snail-mail, especially those who obsess about muzzle velocity, flat trajectory, and elephants shot with 7x57's.
I believe that covers most of the folks posting here, including yours truly.
I have a question and a couple of observations.
Rick, what is/are the reason/s behind your dislike of the M-16/Sako type extractors? Not trying to pick a fight or start an argument, I'd just like to get the benefit of your experience. You've obviously built more rifles than I have, which gives you more insight, and I love to learn.
I am very grateful for all of the information you gentlemen have shared here and on other threads. My first centerfire rifle was a Win Mod 70 in .270W I bought the day after I turned 18. I carried that rifle as my big game rifle in Alaska for 11 years until I got myself in a situation where I needed more gun, so I went to a .338WM for the following 23 years.
John, thank you for your input and your observations. Given the formula as outlined, I can now take my .30-06 as my "DGR", a .243AI as my medium rifle and a .223 Rem. for everything else.
And, joining in the choir, I also miss Bob. I never spoke with him, but always enjoyed his posts.
Ed
"Not in an open forum, where truth has less value than opinions, where all opinions are equally welcome regardless of their origins, rationale, inanity, or truth, where opinions are neither of equal value nor decisive." Ken Howell
I have had too many malfunctions with M16 and Sako extractors. The problems are not limited to conversions of M700’s. Bolts supposedly made for those extractors, by rotating the ejector position on the bolt face, are just as bad.
It goes like this, open the bolt to eject fired case, case hits scope tube or turrets, case bounces back into action loading port, often backwards, action jams. I have had this happen at the worst possible times.
Never an issue with the original M700 extractor which tosses cases directly to the side. Likewise the sliding plate extractor on M70 push feed actions and offered by BAT side ejects.
I like Surgeon actions because they can be had with original M700 extractor plus are really well made. Pretty hard to beat original M700 too.
Last edited by RinB; 02/19/18.
“Perfection is achieved not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away”. Antoine de Saint-Exupery. Posted by Brad.
Mule Deer, I am mis-informed. My pal Scotty Beretz ran some loads thru his 6.5 Creedmore today. He did this because he has been following our discussion. Anyhow, he sent to me the figures, 127-129 bullets, R17, 2950 in, I believe, a 22”. Pretty darn good! I stand corrected.
Please give my regards to Mrs Barsness when next you see her. Rick
“Perfection is achieved not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away”. Antoine de Saint-Exupery. Posted by Brad.
I was fairly impressed when I ran the numbers on the load myself. The 127 LRX with the .468 (Going off memory) started at 2950 has about 2000 FPS and 1200 Ftlbs at 500 yards. The 129 ABLR (.561) started at 2950 holds 2000 FPS and 1200 FtLb's out to 600 yards. I will say that is pretty danged good looking for about 42.5 grains of powder. I am not sure how well the LRX's expand at 2000, but I'd assume they must be decent with the tip in them. I know the ABLR's open up fine at 2000 FPS though. Pretty deadly little combo.
In fact, you might be surprised by the number of gun-magazine readers who still use snail-mail, especially those who obsess about muzzle velocity, flat trajectory, and elephants shot with 7x57's.
LOL!
ONE more comment - snail mail still works; it could apply to SLOW bullets
It's an interesting little cartridge. My first was a Ruger Hawkeye with a 26-inch barrel. Not only did its very first 5-shot group at 100 yards (without the benefit of any barrel "break-in") measure .63 inch, but was shot with Hornady 140-grain A-Max factory ammo on a moderately gusty day. That was in 2010.
There wasn't as much published data around back then, or as many new wonder-powders, but Ramshot Hunter looked like it had real potential. With Ramshot's listed max charges, the 120-grain Ballistic Tip with got 3094 fps, and 140 Berger VLD's 2845, both with excellent accuracy. (In case somebody suspects my chronograph might have been faulty, it was an Oehler 35P that showed right-on velocities from other rifles that day.)
Another interesting thing about the Creedmoor is the SAAMI maximum average pressure is 62,000 PSI, somewhat mild compared to the 65,000 PSI for a number of other rounds. Some people complain about Hornady brass being "soft" because primer pockets open up, but when I've asked what loads they're using, they're always well above listed maximums. (Apparently the fixation on muzzle velocity is just about universal.) I still have some of the Hornady brass from 2010, and primer pockets are still tight.
I ended up selling that rifle, but have owned a couple other 6.5 Creedmoors since, and thoroughly tested a couple of others for articles, one a Savage and the other a Fierce. The WORST shooting rifle of any was one of the others I owned, an inexpensive factory sporter, and it's first 5-shot group at 100 yards was still under an inch.
My present 6.5 Creedmoor is a Ruger American Predator, purchased slightly used off the Campfire Classifieds for $350. I was fresh out of Hornady factories when it showed up, so loaded up a popular Creedmoor accuracy combo, 41.5 grains of H4350 with 140-grain Berger VLD's. After getting one shot on paper at 100 yards, I fired four more, which all basically went into the same hole, the 5-shot group measuring .33 inch.
Will give your regards to Ms. Clarke!
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.” John Steinbeck
APDFSNO864 My goodness that is a long moniker. I have had too many malfunctions with M16 and Sako extractors. The problems are not limited to conversions of M700’s. Bolts supposedly made for those extractors, by rotating the ejector position on the bolt face, are just as bad....
Rick,
My moniker is a passcode to my former work identity. Any present or prior Anchorage Police Department employee or criminal justice system employee in Alaska could figure out who I was just with that designator.
Most folks call me "Ed", although I've been called many other things, and have even been re-named here as "Edtoomanyletters".
Thanks for the ejector info. Makes perfect sense. If it works, don't fix it.
Ed
"Not in an open forum, where truth has less value than opinions, where all opinions are equally welcome regardless of their origins, rationale, inanity, or truth, where opinions are neither of equal value nor decisive." Ken Howell
I was fairly impressed when I ran the numbers on the load myself. The 127 LRX with the .468 (Going off memory) started at 2950 has about 2000 FPS and 1200 Ftlbs at 500 yards. The 129 ABLR (.561) started at 2950 holds 2000 FPS and 1200 FtLb's out to 600 yards. I will say that is pretty danged good looking for about 42.5 grains of powder. I am not sure how well the LRX's expand at 2000, but I'd assume they must be decent with the tip in them. I know the ABLR's open up fine at 2000 FPS though. Pretty deadly little combo.
Alright now, y'all just STOP it right there! ! 2950 is just TOO CLOSE to my accepted minimum speed.
But it's still using ODD ball , 127 & or 129 bullets.
And its name is still Creedmoor, or creedmore, or creedmare - summin like at!
Yes, I can learn or BE taught.....even tho I don't like it.
I should have mentioned that when the LRX designed appeared, my friends at Barnes informed me the copper was annealed to be softer, as I recall just in the front end, so they'd expand easier at longer ranges.
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.” John Steinbeck
I should have mentioned that when the LRX designed appeared, my friends at Barnes informed me the copper was annealed to be softer, as I recall just in the front end, so they'd expand easier at longer ranges.
Thanks for the heads up. I’d bet that doesn’t hurt to keep the petals from shearing away either. I haven’t put them on paper yet but they look like they could be a great Bullet in that little case.
I was fairly impressed when I ran the numbers on the load myself. The 127 LRX with the .468 (Going off memory) started at 2950 has about 2000 FPS and 1200 Ftlbs at 500 yards. The 129 ABLR (.561) started at 2950 holds 2000 FPS and 1200 FtLb's out to 600 yards. I will say that is pretty danged good looking for about 42.5 grains of powder. I am not sure how well the LRX's expand at 2000, but I'd assume they must be decent with the tip in them. I know the ABLR's open up fine at 2000 FPS though. Pretty deadly little combo.
I am getting right about the same numbers you are out of my 6.5 Creedmoor using the 127 LRX. According to someone I talked with at Barnes, the LRX should be GTG down to at least 1800, making this a legit 600+ yard load. Since I have never shot an elk (or a deer) at anywhere near that distance, I am thinking this LRX might be the cat's azz in the Creedmoor, as it has been easy to good accuracy and the velocity speaks for itself. I trust the Barnes bullet to penetrate as well as or better than anything once it arrives on target.
The elk are not going to be happy with these developments, at all. >>grin
What could be a sadder way to end a life than to die having never hunted with great dogs, good friends and your family?
I dunno if the softer front end helps keep petals from shearing away, but then I don't really care if they do, as have never noticed any difference in how TSX's kill whether they have petals or not. The big cow elk Eileen shot last fall is a good example. The range was about 250 yards, the bullet a 130 TTSX from her .308. The cow stood quartering toward us, and Eileen put the bullet in the shoulder, just above the big joint. The cow staggered about 25 yards and went down, and we found the bullet under the hide in the middle of the ribs on the far side, having lost all its petals, as TSX's often do when they hit larger bone.
Though we did find one of the detached petals in the rib meat on the edge of the exit hole. Have found a few of exit-hole petals over the years too, not just from TSX's but Fail Safes and E-Tips, indicating the petal stayed attached during the bullet's travels through the animal.
In fact the original X-Bullets often sheared their petals, which Randy Brooks thought that might help create a larger wound channel. But when people started complaining when the petals sheared, he tweaked the bullets so they wouldn't, at least not as much. He told me this around a campfire during a mule deer hunt in Old Mexico a while back, saying he'd rather have happy customers than worry about whether the petals stayed intact or not.
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.” John Steinbeck
I dunno if the softer front end helps keep petals from shearing away, but then I don't really care if they do, as have never noticed any difference in how TSX's kill whether they have petals or not. The big cow elk Eileen shot last fall is a good example. The range was about 250 yards, the bullet a 130 TTSX from her .308. The cow stood quartering toward us, and Eileen put the bullet in the shoulder, just above the big joint. The cow staggered about 25 yards and went down, and we found the bullet under the hide in the middle of the ribs on the far side, having lost all its petals, as TSX's often do when they hit larger bone.
Though we did find one of the detached petals in the rib meat on the edge of the exit hole. Have found a few of exit-hole petals over the years too, not just from TSX's but Fail Safes and E-Tips, indicating the petal stayed attached during the bullet's travels through the animal.
In fact the original X-Bullets often sheared their petals, which Randy Brooks thought that might help create a larger wound channel. But when people started complaining when the petals sheared, he tweaked the bullets so they wouldn't, at least not as much. He told me this around a campfire during a mule deer hunt in Old Mexico a while back, saying he'd rather have happy customers than worry about whether the petals stayed intact or not.
That’s a great story. Thanks, John.
What could be a sadder way to end a life than to die having never hunted with great dogs, good friends and your family?
It's an interesting little cartridge. My first was a Ruger Hawkeye with a 26-inch barrel. Not only did its very first 5-shot group at 100 yards (without the benefit of any barrel "break-in") measure .63 inch, but was shot with Hornady 140-grain A-Max factory ammo on a moderately gusty day. That was in 2010.
There wasn't as much published data around back then, or as many new wonder-powders, but Ramshot Hunter looked like it had real potential. With Ramshot's listed max charges, the 120-grain Ballistic Tip with got 3094 fps, and 140 Berger VLD's 2845, both with excellent accuracy. (In case somebody suspects my chronograph might have been faulty, it was an Oehler 35P that showed right-on velocities from other rifles that day.)
Another interesting thing about the Creedmoor is the SAAMI maximum average pressure is 62,000 PSI, somewhat mild compared to the 65,000 PSI for a number of other rounds. Some people complain about Hornady brass being "soft" because primer pockets open up, but when I've asked what loads they're using, they're always well above listed maximums. (Apparently the fixation on muzzle velocity is just about universal.) I still have some of the Hornady brass from 2010, and primer pockets are still tight.
I ended up selling that rifle, but have owned a couple other 6.5 Creedmoors since, and thoroughly tested a couple of others for articles, one a Savage and the other a Fierce. The WORST shooting rifle of any was one of the others I owned, an inexpensive factory sporter, and it's first 5-shot group at 100 yards was still under an inch.
My present 6.5 Creedmoor is a Ruger American Predator, purchased slightly used off the Campfire Classifieds for $350. I was fresh out of Hornady factories when it showed up, so loaded up a popular Creedmoor accuracy combo, 41.5 grains of H4350 with 140-grain Berger VLD's. After getting one shot on paper at 100 yards, I fired four more, which all basically went into the same hole, the 5-shot group measuring .33 inch.
Will give your regards to Ms. Clarke!
Yes, but will it shoot "Minute of Elephant" ?
Virtually the same as the 6.5 x 55 , another noted slayer of Pachyderms. The CM of course is designed to fit in a Short Action magazine.
Actually, the 6.5x54 Mannlicher-Schoenauer was the "noted slayer of Pachyderms," not the 6.5x55, due to one of W.D.M. Bell's favorite rifles being a customized M-S 1903 carbine. He called the ".256," because at that time the British often applied their names to European cartridges, the reason there's a .275 Rigby (7x57).
The 6.5x54 cartridge is even smaller than the 6.5 Creedmoor, at least in head-size and powder capacity, though it's slightly longer.
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.” John Steinbeck
Wow John (aka Mule Deer). I wasn't expecting such a response like yours from anyone especially someone whom I have met and I must say was much more pleasant to converse with.Let's all just enjoy our sport!
Jobs Jobs Jobs I am glad if more people are employed in a growing economy to build barrels, make powder, accessories and hopefully because more folks have more money to enjoy their hobby or even to buy a good steak more often. Why it bothers people who want to use a more conventional cartridge that some want to enjoy zippier designs escapes me. Kinda interesting that folks who like to have fun with a round like the 28 Nosler aren't bothered a bit that their neighbor likes an older more sedate round. Fun stuff
You will not make peace with the Blue Coats, you are free to go
About 15 years ago, when Western Powders was starting to market their Ramshot brand, I did some experimenting with a new-to-me .416 Rigby, finding 100 grains of Magnum to works excellently with 400-grain bullets. I reported this to the owner of Western Powders, who said, "Yes!!! I love it when the powder level drops half an inch with each pull of the measure handle...."
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.” John Steinbeck
Actually, the 6.5x54 Mannlicher-Schoenauer was the "noted slayer of Pachyderms," not the 6.5x55, due to one of W.D.M. Bell's favorite rifles being a customized M-S 1903 carbine. He called the ".256," because at that time the British often applied their names to European cartridges, the reason there's a .275 Rigby (7x57).
The 6.5x54 cartridge is even smaller than the 6.5 Creedmoor, at least in head-size and powder capacity, though it's slightly longer.
MD : I stand corrected , Your historical knowledge is impeccable. My aging brain must be addled by too many rounds of .303Briish in SMLE Jungle Carbines in my youth !
They must have been using 160 RN solids in those 6.5x54 M-S's, for the brain shot on the big Tuskers - gives me the Willy's just thinking about it !
I wouldn't attempt that with anything less than a 300 grain .338
Yeah, the bullets were heavy solids. Bell eventually went back to the 7x57 not because of its slightly heavier bullets, but because the cases for Austrian 6.5x54 ammo split too often on firing. Otherwise he would have stayed with the ".256," because his customized rifle was very light and handy. Bell did sometimes use a .318, which he preferred for more difficult angles on brain shots.
No doubt some elephants were taken with the 6.5x55 using solids too, but I can't recall reading about it.
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.” John Steinbeck
Alright now, y'all just STOP it right there! ! 2950 is just TOO CLOSE to my accepted minimum speed.
But it's still using ODD ball , 127 & or 129 bullets.
And its name is still Creedmoor, or creedmore, or creedmare - summin like at!
Yes, I can learn or BE taught.....even tho I don't like it.
Okay guys --- an admission
This thread has CHANGED < helped > my attitude ABOUT the Creedmoor ! That's quite a step. I have HAD only contempt for PIPsqueeks and shooting LESS powder. However NOW I see the Creedmoor is really capable of more than I HAD thot. Good Job guys.
H S T - S A don't mean anything important TO ME. I have a 70, 6.5X55 and it's doing GOOD. ( I know, I know)
I still don't WANT a Creedmoor, I don't need it. Shooting 60-70 grs of powder doesn't bother me. I'm currently developing my new Tikka T 3X 7MM R M; and it PLEASES......
[/b]"I reported this to the owner of Western Powders, who said, "Yes!!! I love it when the powder level drops half an inch with each pull of the measure handle...."[b] Quote M D,... Now we don't want to put the powder co's out of business, do we ?
Seriously -- Thanks Guys, I may be hard headed but I CAN learn.
Mule Deer, In support of my thoughts about the greatness of the 270W I must cite you to the writings of my buddy JOHN BARSNESS.
He recently wrote an article on the great 270W for RIFLE. He makes a brilliant analysis of the significance of BC. MR BARSNESS forcefully makes the point that BC doesn’t matter much inside 500 yards. In his article on the 6.5-06, MR BARSNESS makes the same compelling point. Further, he explains how the ancient beast, the 270W not me, is flatter shooting than the 6.5 Creedmore within 500 when using the classic load of 130’s at 3100.
Who am I to dispute his erudite analysis? In the words of Master Yoda, unassailable his logic is!
Me, I have used many different 130’s all at around 3100. For the last 10 to 12 trips I have mostly used various monos.
I have never gotten more than 2850 with 150’s using older powders and 2850 doesn’t do much for me. The 2750 “steak” has even less sizzle. R26 has changed that. I am getting ready for trip #25 and thought I would try lead core 150’s at 3000. In PM’s MR BARSNESS has told be how well the 150 NPtn works so I decided to follow his advice. I threw in the 150 LRAB just to take advantage of the “free lunch.” I would continue to use the 130’s but MR B was quite emphatic about greatness of the 150 Partition (despite its BC).
Lastly, wind isn’t much a concern for me. I am a rather delicate fellow and if the wind blows, I retire to the lodge for a martini and snacks.
So, I suggest you contact MR BARSNESS. He is a fine fellow, a good man. He has a first rate mind. I believe he lives near you. Cheers.
not to be a smart@$$, but if 3000 fps is what we are looking for with a 150, in a hunting rifle with a self imposed shot limit of 440 yards, why not go with an E-Tip or a TTSX in a 30-06? ammo as available as the 270, wind drift not too much off, drop not too much off, and completely dodges the I270GF (Ingwe 270 Gay Factor)
I used it in another thread to 
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/X0n16mr.png)
![[Linked Image]](http://s723.photobucket.com/user/beretzs/media/RIFLES/Tikka%20T3X%206-5%20CM/IMG_3953_zpsf5bdynwg.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://s723.photobucket.com/user/beretzs/media/RIFLES/Tikka%20T3X%206-5%20CM/IMG_4020_zps45ktpml3.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://s723.photobucket.com/user/beretzs/media/RIFLES/Tikka%20T3X%206-5%20CM/IMG_4019_zpsgszrwwcm.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](https://s17.postimg.org/xsgsy1bzj/81_A9170.jpg)
"just as good as".
![[Linked Image]](https://i.imgur.com/xWdyoF1.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://i.imgur.com/hLbmOLQ.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://i.imgur.com/ICPrvvP.jpg)
