Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters 6.5 vs 270 vs 7mm-08

Have you worked much with the suppressed SA Fieldcraft? Own one?

A walnut stocked 6.5 Creedmoor Fieldcraft with an SHV 3-10 will be just over 7.25 with a sling. Just might cover my bases real well.

I own an 18" Fieldcraft, in 308.

With a Silencerco Omega suppressor and cover, SWFA 3-9, Talley LWs, four rounds loaded with 155 Scenars in the magazine, and a nylon strap sling, it goes around 7 5/8 lbs (would need to check my notes for a precise weight). It needs a fairly heavy scope to balance well - I think with a lighter Leupold it would be too front heavy. I could see the LOP of the stock as being an issue for some shorter folks, but a 13 3/4" length of pull works really well for me.

I really like the rifle setup. Shoots well, and doesn't kick much or make much noise. I purchased it around the first of the year, so haven't had a chance to really wring it out or try any other loads...the weather has been too miserable to shoot very much!

Regardless of looks, the Tikka and the Savage will be the most accurate out of the box. Bergara will be close. Remember Remington is in bankruptcy and has been before, at some point down the road they will cease to exist because no one will bail them out. As far as caliber the 7-08 would be a very good choice if something more historical is wanted then the 7x57 is a super idea. All things being equal an extra 100 fps +/- can be gained with handloads, especially if you go with the 7x57 AI, Ackley Improved. I know the old standbys are often over looked such as the 30-06,308 and 270(not a fan of the 270) but are hard to beat and time has proven so!!! Best of Luck with what ever choice is made.

Sweet... and in the "right" cartridge

I think you're right, the LA Fieldcraft's are tailor made for a heavy 19oz+ type of scope.

Iv'e got a Premier 3-15x50 that's 35 oz's... might be perfect

[quote=DLALLDER0(not a fan of the 270) but are hard to beat and time has proven so!!!.[/quote]

Curious what you don't like about the 270? Long action?

On barrel contour, I never warmed up to a barrel not around .650.......IME thin barrels were tempermental, no pun, but yes, they heat up quick too. I did have an 1885 243 that was very accurate......perhaps the octagon helps, IDK, but never had a bad shooting 243. Regardless if bench accuracy is there, I agree with Brad on weight for an all arounder.

Brad
I was having the same thought about the fieldcraft being a little too light. While I know there is no such thing as too light when carrying a gun, shooting a super light gun is a bit tricky and I think a little bit extra weight would suit him better.

Dlallder
Funny you mention Bergara. The Bergara mountain rifle, with its number 2 barrel and 6.2 lbs. is the leading candidate: although we have not yet found a dealer with one in stock to look at.

Curious what you don't like about the 270? Long action?

On barrel contour, I never warmed up to a barrel not around .650.......IME thin barrels were tempermental, no pun, but yes, they heat up quick too. I did have an 1885 243 that was very accurate......perhaps the octagon helps, IDK, but never had a bad shooting 243. Regardless if bench accuracy is there, I agree with Brad on weight for an all arounder.


[/quote]

Despite being much maligned, I have yet to shoot a CLR that wouldn't shoot MOA or better once the barreled action had been bedded in the factory injection molded stock. The light weight of the CLR in 270 that I carried on high country (low Oxygen) hunts is much appreciated this sexagenarian! Too bad that Colt didn't commit to the CLR line enough for them to catch on and justify the production of a short action variant.

Everybody is talking about weight, but I think that stock ergs and the overall balance of the package are more important attributes than weight alone.

This makes perfect sense in today’s “age of powder and bullets.” We get all the power and penetration we need out of much more sensible cartridges.

I'm a backpacker/mountain hunter mostly, and have three Kimber MT's... they're great for that role, but when it comes to the shot I always wish they had more barrel weight (and overall weight). In fact, I'm going to rebarrel one or two of them to a heavier contour. I've been at this stuff for a while and have settled on the spec's I gave - 7.25 - 7.50 lb''s "all-up" with a barrel of no less than .6" - as the best compromise between shoot-ability and portability. Of course it goes without saying the balance and feel of that rifle must be "right" too. Not saying that's the gospel, just my own hard-won preference.

While I agree that thin barrels can be temperamental, & IMHO, usually shoot most consistently being bedded, when was the last time that you fired a gun in a big game hunting scenario with enough rounds & fast enough to heat it up enough to have an real effect? Assuming it was ever good it the 1st place.

Here's a target shot with a Rem 700 Ti 7-08 (pretty thin barrel, around .510 IIRC) that has 9 shots with one bullet & 3 different powders during testing; the action & barrel are correctly bedded, the 9 shots were fired consecutively, single loaded, over a period of maybe 2.5 - 3 minutes at around 65 F.

8 of the 9 shots are in one big hole; I dropped the 9th shot out of the group.

And I have another barrel, same contour, on a 280, that performs equally...........so thin barrels can & will shoot, & heat from firing while hunting is just simply not a issue.................if the gun is good in the 1st place. Not all are.

MM

Generally, I think that's a good place to be but lighter barrels can & do work, although as you point out, the balance is usually not quite as good as with a slightly heavier barrel.

The gun in my stable that absolutely embodies that is a Rem 700 KS rifle..........I've left the barrel at the factory 24" but it would be absolutely perfect if I cut it to 22". I think that barrel is around .580-.600" or thereabouts.

Lighter barrels are just a little harder to shoot off-hand but at any kind of range beyond 100 yards or so, I want some kind of rest anyway, so to some degree, it's a little bit of a moot point.

As with much of the things discussed here in what has turned out to be a good thread, it just really all boils down to personal preference & doing it enough different ways to sort out what really works best for you.

MM

I’ve shot an untold number of groups at the bench with .55” barrels like the one’s you’ve posted above, including with the svelt Kimber MT’s. But that’s a different type of shooting from what is found in the field, under pressure and exertion. That’s where more barrel and rifle weight are a genuine plus. Having said that, I don’t care to lug around 8.75lb rifles anymore, hence the 7.5lb compromise. My backpack rifles will continue to be sub 7lbs, but my general purpose rifles will be north of 7lbs with no.2-type barrels.

MM, nice shooting. My first experience was in the late 80s, a 700 MR, bad crown that Rem butchered out the door, had to fix that, then lap the lugs, and glass bed the recoil lug and tang. After all that, it shot nickel sized groups for 3 with 150 Bt's, did not like 130s, something later 270s proved to be true as well. A joy to carry, not bad balance and weight with a then 6x. But, it went down the road, later M7s never shot to my standards. As Brad points out, they are nice to carry, but IME, I like more weight for steadying. Out west in open country, over a backpack, on sticks or bipod, etc. you can get steady. For how I have hunted, it's not always possible to get a good rest, so more weight helped.

Jeff, I p/u 2 CLRs unfired a few years back, in 7RM. Trigger untouched was atrocious, but the action seemed well made. Heard mixed reviews on the barrel quality, but most owners have done well with them. The balance and stock fit was surprisingly well with it's IIRC 24" barrel. Not a fan on a 7RM, especially in a real light rifle, so both sold. Had they been in 260 or 7/08, I would have kept them. Too bad Colt did not make SA models. They are not a bad platform and I'd trust their action quality more than a 700. Perhaps their bolt design/attachment was better. Yes, had a 700 fail on me.....

On weight, the rifle that 700 bolt failed, started out as a first production SS MR in 270, mid 90 production, or early 90. Built a 338-06 that weighed 8.0 even sans scope. Ordered a .700 muzzle, but it came out .73 by Hart. Then the stocks were a solid Hard rubber IIRC, I floated it, and it shot 1/2 MOA at 200 yds all day. Yet in the mountains, it was just too heavy up and down terrain with it's 1.5-6x B&L - granted not a light scope.

To me, a Tikka sporter with reasonable scope gets real close to a good weight

Now the best light barrel I shot OEM, was a #1 A Ruger, in 243. 3/8" for 3 out the box, with a 2.5-8x, but it was slated for a 6BR project with varmint bbl to 26", and it shot sub 1/2" - at 330 yds thanks to Pac-Nor, full glass bedding, and Kepplinger, and a 4-16x40 ao elite. That OEM 243 barrel was a good barrel, and thin at the muzzle as I recall. Thin muzzles go best with small bores...stiffer, IMHO.

MM, is that rifle full length bedded in the factory Ti stock?

No, it's not full length bedded, just bedded with a neutral pressure pad just back from the end of the forearm.

The gun was a mess when I first got it (new from the factory, one of the last ones produced) as there was a lot of clearance below the action, such that when the BA was set in the stock, the barrel rested on the tip of the fore-end & the tang rested on the stock.

As such, when the action was tightened down, there was an lot of excessive deflection of the barrel & stressing of the action. I don't think I've seen one quite as bad before or since.

So, I stress free bedded the action, with the barrel floated & shot it that way as well as with a neutral pressure pad & it shot considerably better with the pressure pad, so I added the neutral pad & it's been very good since.

I have a Rem 700 MR barrelled action in a Ti stock & bedded the same way & it shoots about as well also.

MM

Thanks MM

I also have a first gen Ti in 7mm-08. It had the forward barrel channel relieved and brass shim stock installed between the barrel and the barrel channel about 2” from the tip. I got it this way. I haven’t taken the time to really sort it out, as it seemed to shoot well if I never let it get hot. It’s only a matter of time before I won’t be able to leave well enough alone...

Thanks for the information, will certainly take it all into consideration.

The rifle and cartridge is set already. If I have to play with more bullets, I will certainly do that. For the immediate intended purpose, ricochet will not be an issue. The shooting angle will be steep downward, with the ground as a backstop.

Lehigh defense 122gr 0.264 caliber bullets are too long to stabilize at subsonic velocities per Berger twist rate calculator.

Reading all these options gave me a headache and made me glad to have been so ignorant as to buy a pre 64 Model 70 Featherweight .308 as my first center fire rifle.
Now it seems a miracle that I was ever able to kill anything with it over the past 50 years.
Why just last weekend, shooting off hand, I shot two feral hogs in the head and one running in the shoulder (right where I aimed) with it; imagine how many I could have shot with a new whiz bang rifle in another caliber?

Wow.

You've been playing with one cartridge for 50 years?

And a 308 to boot?