Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Why/How does the Creedmoor out run the 260 & 6.5x55?

Mule Deer (Jonh) said:

Steve,

Sorry, but those aren't the only factors in the popularity of the 6.5 Creedmoor. But like many people (especially rifle loonies who handload almost exclusively) you refuse to get it.

The 6.5 Creedmoor provides the same basic muzzle velocities as the .260 and HANDLOADED 6.5x55 ammo--but in "affordable" factory ammo, and very accurate "affordable" factory rifles.

Why in the hell would an average shooter (or even an above-average shooter) go to the trouble of buying or building some sort of 6.5x55, when throats lengths differ enormously? Handloading the 6.5x55 is a very variable pursuit, and factory ammo is also a crapshoot in both price and pressure. If you don't know this, then you haven't dealt with many 6.5x55's.

The .260 is more consistently throated, but that doesn't solve the handloading problems, even with many standard hunting bullets. In my present .260, a factory rifle known for fine accuracy, even Nosler AccuBonds (not Long Range Accubonds) and Hornady SST's can't be seated out long enough for consistent accuracy. Which is why I eventually felt compelled to modify the magazine to take 2.95" rounds.

The Creedmoor solves all those problems, with "affordable" factory rifles and ammo. If you don't get that, then you obviously don't have a grasp on the reality of modern rifle and ammo manufacturing.

But that isn't untypical of those who assume every hunter is a handloader, or even owns only custom rifles.

Ok I'll reply point by point.

I don't refuse to "get" it. I don't see anything to get, and I surly do not refuse.

However I will say you are largely correct. I do usually assume most rifle loonie will load their own. Maybe that's not true on a national scale. But every single man and woman I know that owns a 6.5 CM (or a 6.5 Swede for that matter) does reload. Maybe that because of where I live and who lives here too. So I have to admit John is probably right on that point. Guilty Guilty Guilty!

To address the point of throat length, it don't think that counts. Swede rifles have not been made by the Swedish military in a very long time. The only 6.5X55s I have seen with problematic throats were some old military barrels and some of the Howas. But that's not a good argument for selling a shell. I am all for leveling criticisms at various rifles and their makers when they do something wrong, and I have done that many times. But that has nothing to do with cartridge design or even bolt action design for that matter. I am on record as praising the 6.5 CM, but I just cannot be convinced it's anything revolutionary or even improved. I believe the best 6.5MM shell ever made for a balance of "goods" with not"bads" is the 6.5 Swede and any shell that equals or comes within 2%-3% of the Swede is going to have my respect. So I am certainly NOT in the anti 6.5CM camp. FAr from it. But when you hear and hear and hear all about how new and improved it is and you have been building guns that do the exact same thing for over 40 years it just gets to be a bit much. The CM has it's strong suit in what magazines it will fit. That it and that all. It does everything piratically the Swede will do and that is high praise, but it's not "new". Chambering a gun in the CM when you could chamber it in the 260 or the 6.5X55(and have it feed with any bullet) is NOT a step forward. It's not a meaningful step backward either in a practical scene. It's just the same thing ballisticly we have had for many years. That's the only point I was making. If I were to make myself a 6.5MM rifle I would choose one of these 3 shells, depending on what action I was going to use. There is no real difference in the performance of any of them.

So when you say not everyone has a custom rifle I agree. You make a point there that I would not defend. But I can't help wonder why the rifle factories are not simply chambering the 260 or the 6.5X55 and making small changes where needed to feed the older shells with the longest bullets. I see the M1A and the AR10 type guns being pushed in the CM. That's exactly the way I think it should be done. Same with the Ruger Precission rifle and others that take the mil-spec mags. But doing that on any rifle that would easily take the Mauser shell is a perfect answer to problem that have never existed. Nothing wrong with it at all. But there is nothing "more right with doing that either, and yet we read and read and read over and over and over how the CM is new and improved. Even the US Army saw the wisdom is used the long 700 action so they could load longer bullet in their M21s. It's not a big step in logic to do the same with a 260 Remington. Heck it would be a very minor change in manufacturing to make sheet metal mag boxes .100" longer that mill out the rear of the mag well so they fit. Instantly you have a 260 that can be loaded with the very longest bullet made, and it work fine. You can't do it on every action because some have a screw in the way, but that's not a big deal to change over at the factory.
So my mental questions are based on not the "what's" but the "whys".

Ok ..... Ammo.... I can't see any more 6.5CM ammo on the shelves at Rocky Mountain Sports, Sportsman's' Warehouse or Wal Mart in any town I have been to in Wyoming than I see 260 Remington ammo. So I don't think there is an answer to a problem there either. and when I look at the prices of the ammo it's the same as the 6.5CM usually with 1 dollar. Maybe that's not the same in other places, so I would not be dogmatic about that, but I would have to ask other shooters if they see the same thing.

And "affordable rifle"? There is NO difference in a rifle made by any company from one caliber to the next when we look at the 243, 260 6.5CM 7-08 or 308. None at all! So I may be wrong about the counter point of the ammo being priced the same (as I said, I'll just have to ask other shooters in other places) but I am 100% right about the rifle pricing. It even goes for custom rifles. I build a CM for the exact same price I would build a 308, 243 260 or anything else that works on the action. So please explain to me what I "obviously do not understand." A Ruger RPR or a Tikka or a Remington or a Savage in 308 S 6.,5 CM all cost the same. I see ammo in 260 and 6.5 that cost the same too. (so far)

Ease of loading? Here I would have to disagree with you John. I have made many dozens of Swedes and worked on loads for many others with military barrels. I have made 2 for myself and I owned on Winchester M70 in the 6.5 swede at one time. I have not had any more problem loading ammo for them than any other shell. Not ever. And I have been working on guns and ammo for 50 years now.
Sure there have been some old guns that didn't shoot well, but those had barrels that were not in the best of shape. I think I am safe to say a lot of 6.5 CMs will have some accuracy problems in 80-100 years too. Again that has absolutely ZERO to do with cartridge design.

Coming back to my point: if the factories would have standardized the Swede as they have the CM, all such "problems" (real or imagined) vanish. So why is it best to invent a new shape of shell instead of just setting standards for the old one, and then saying the new one is "better" when it's really not? Again I will say it now loud and clear...it's not worse either, but it's not the miracle we are being told it is.

I'd be equally happy with any one of the 3. I'd be happiest with the 6.5X55 in a classic bolt action, and I'd be happiest with the CM if I had a NATO length mag, but the deer elk and antelope would never know of care which one I had.

Yeah, the VLD's ogives are usually (not always) too long to tough the lands from factory-standard short magazines. Which is no doubt partly why Berger has newer 140-grain bullets with shorter ogives than the VLD's, but with BC's as good, or even slightly higher. But haven't had any trouble seating other bullets in the 140-grain range to the lands in standard "short" magazines.

On the other hand, I've had several .260's, my latest a Tikka T3 Super Lite. I couldn't even seat Nosler AccuBonds (NOT AccuBond Long Range) bullets out to the lands and have the rounds fit the magazine. And it definitely shot much better with AccuBonds seated to the lands--so I modified the magazine to accept 2.95" rounds. Hard to do that with other factory rifles, though.

It also depends on what you mean by "shoot well." My experience with quite a few .260's and 6.5x55's decidedly mixed, and I've owned both factory and custom rifles in both. But I've now owned four 6.5 Creedmoors, all factory rifles, and the WORST any of them shot, right out of the box, was 5 shots (not three) in an inch at 100 yards.

My first 6.5 Creedmoor's first 5-shot group at 100, with Hornady factory ammo, was around .6 inch. My latest 6.5 Creedmoor's first 5-shot group at 100, with a handload that had done well in other rifles, went .33 inch. Both those groups were shot with out-of-the-box Ruger rifles, the first a Hawkeye and the second a Ruger American Predator.

In fact, the RAR out-shoots both the Tikka .260 and my custom FN Mauser-actioned, Lilja-barreled 6.5x55.
That said, I'm not going to get rid of either the .260 or , because I really like the light weight of the Tikka and the nice European walnut stock on the 6.5x55. (Plus, I got the FN action from my late stepfather-in-law.) I

f I did dispose of any of the three rifles, it would be the RAR, because I am pretty sure it could be replaced with another factory 6.5 Creedmoor that shoots just about as well.

Steve,

You still miss the points about the 6.5x55. Neither the chambers or ammo can be standardized, because there are too many old 6.5x55's of widely varying throat dimensions still in existence, and not just old military rifles but European sporters and modern American sports. There never has been any SINGLE 6.5x55 chamber in over 125 years, so factory ammo can't be produced to produce good results (or even safe results) in every 6.5x55.

The problem with magazine length in the .260 is, of course, more easily solved. But major firearms companies have been building short-action rifles with magazines of around 2.85" for a long time now. Remington was the first in 1947 the 722, and the other companies took their lead. Once again, a LOT of rifles already exist with that length magazine, and nobody is going to go back and retrofit them all.

The problems of both 6.5x55 chambers (and sometimes weak actions) and .260 magazines (and sometimes 1-9 twists) are two factors that 6.5 Creedmoor critics can't seem to accept the war is already lost. There's no way to go back and "fix" the histories of the 6.5x55 and .260, especially when no major rifle company wants to, given their ability to sell every 6.5 Creedmoor they make.

As for popularity, I recently looked at the MidwayUSA website, and Midway is perhaps the biggest retailer of shooting stuff of any of the present Internet companies. They list 27 kinds of .260 ammo and 51 kinds of 6.5 Creedmoor.

I just think its funny that the creedmoor is suppose to the greatest thing since slice bread yet it seems everybody and their brother has a used one for sale. I know I unloaded mine within weeks of buying it. imo most over rated and over hyped caliber ever.

I do think that the 6.5 Creedmoor is a great round, well though out and executed. The guns are good, at many price ranges and the factory ammo excellent. Just not so sure about the better part...

When purchased, what were you expecting from the 6.5 Creedmoor that it didn't deliver?

As for popularity, I recently looked at the MidwayUSA website, and Midway is perhaps the biggest retailer of shooting stuff of any of the present Internet companies. They list 27 kinds of .260 ammo and 51 kinds of 6.5 Creedmoor.

Wow, now that's relieving John. You just scored a point in this discussion.
And you are 100% correct in the specs being "all over the page" from various countries and makers chambering the Swede, but I do not think it could not be done. CIP and SAMMI both have specs for the chamber. If I were in charge I'd pick the SAMMI and go with that from that day forward. True you can't change the past, but you don't have to keep making the same mistake either.

I can see the point of just buying a CM and avoiding the problem or even the potential problem so again that may be a point on you side. But the idea that the 260 rifles could not be set up for the longer mag and throat is just someone in the industry not paying attention.......or just not giving a c..rap I made a 260 for a friend in Reno on a KAR Mauser with it's longer magazine (then the Remington 700 I mean) and the rifle is a super good shooter and he uses the longest VLD bullets he can buy. No problem. Makes me wonder why the industry can't see that it is a simple problem to fix.

But overall the CM is a very fine shell. One of the better ones, and one of only a few "new shells" I'd agree has a reason to exist. It really is good. I think it's good because it attains the same goals successfully that the 6.5X55 did, ( or close enough to not worry about the difference) and that is wonderful.

Good points Szihn!
.. and what Midway stocks makes the Creedmoor a real world sensation ? Sure it's a very efficient cartridge and has it's place, but teach it to run a 160 RN and it still wouldn't out-perform a modern 6.5x55. The Creedmoor is overrated and obviously over- sold.. especially as a hunting cartridge, but the ammo is supposedly cheaper, readily available and everybody is building rifles for it. Oh my .

I don't own a 6.5cm yet but this is how I see it.

The 6.5cm fills the gap for a plug and go cartridge without the baggage... and maybe that's what pizzes rifle loonies off. You don't have to earn it through recoil, load development, custom chambers or mag box dimensions, twist rates etc etc to make it work. It just does.

Ya go down to the LGS, pull one off the rack, grab a couple boxes a' boolits and hit the range. With out even trying it shoots little groups and doesn't kick your wife or daughter to death. In fact the ladies like it... and the man of the house doesn't have to check his manhood at the gate when he shoots it because, well, it's just like a 6.5 Swede..and, ya know, all those moo..I mean elg they shoot over in Scandinavia....them guys are vikings!

The Swedes have an old term/word," Lagom". Basically it means "just right", or "the right amount", "in balance".
The 6.5 caliber fits the word Lagom in many ways and the 6.5 cm may just be the cartridge to match the boolit.

The CM can shoot enough bullet, fast enough from factory ammo or reloads, with the right amount of accuracy to kill game up to the size of moose and yet be a comfortable and accurate enough round for long range sessions and competitions. Oh, and the marketers know a good thing when they see it.
Lagom with no baggage.

H414 has been such an easy and resilient powder in several other cartridges that I once tried a load in my 6.5 Swede that created a primer pocket I might have seated a 50 BMG primer in afterward. I'm thinking that load was 'a bit' over 51K anything.

In Scandinavia, there are hundreds of thousands of active competition shooters, shooting tens of thousands of 6.5x55, factory Lapua Match ammunition every week.
I guess many also reload, but 6.5x55 Match ammunition is cheap over there.


They use the Sauer 200 STR rifle, as their standard weapon. I belive compined there are 300-500.000 active shooters in those 4 countries.


Several types of events, this is one of them:

You can do that, it would be great, you'd sell some rifles too.

But, competition shooters prefer short actions and automatic rifle shooters & manufacturers both prefer short actions. Those 2 groups of shooters together probably shoot 10x more ammo than everyone else combined, so that hill will not be climbed.

Steve,

Much of the industry is "paying attention" to the short-magazine length problem. A bunch of smaller rifle manufacturers use "short action" magazines longer than the standard of 2.85" Remington established in 1947 with the 722 action. However most, but not all, are smaller manufacturers. The first I knew of was Ultra Light Arms in their Model 20 in 1985, with a 3" magazine, but a few others I can think of offhand are Barrett, Fierce and GA Precision. Even a few larger manufacturers use longer "short" magazines: A Savage Axis I have has a 3" as well.

But many others do not. How many .260's with 2.85" magazines already exist from Remington, Ruger, Kimber, Winchester and others? Is the ammo industry going to make TWO lengths of .260 ammo? I doubt it, because even if "long .260" ammo was plainly marked on the box, many shooters won't pay any attention. They'll try to use it in their Remington (or whatever) and when the ammo doesn't fit inside the magazine, they will be pissed off.

The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute was organized in the late 1920's to make sure ALL ammo for a given cartridge would fit and function safely in ALL firearms so marked. I sincerely doubt SAAMI is going to approve TWO different .260's, for quite a few reasons. One would be a marketing slogan. Lemme see: "The .260 Remington Long, Just as Good as the 6.5 Creedmoor!"

But even if they did, so what? The 6.5 Creedmoor was designed expressly to solve the 2.85" magazine length problem the .260 ran into after shooters and many hunters started using longer high-BC bullets. It's now so far ahead of the .260 in sales that I suspect more factory 6.5 Creedmoors exist than .260's. The race is over.

You might also take a look at Formidilosus's post on the OTHER 6.5 Creedmoor thread still running on "Ask The Gunwriters." He just posted it so it should be easy to find.

Sadly, the above will still be lost on many folks.
The 6.5 Creedmoor certainly isn't sprinkled with fairy dust - and surely isn't for everyone, but to begrudge its existence and success says more about the begrudger(s) than it does about the cartridge.

Pitty may be a better word...

It was a freak incident, one that I never would have thought could happen to me. I'm a careful reloader with a half century of experience.

The reason I know it was 52 gr. RL-15 instead of 42 gr. I pulled the bullets on the remaining rounds, weighed the powder at 52 gr. That's when I figured what happened.

I thank the good Lord and have a lot of respect for FN Mauser actions. They STRONG...

There was no powder blow back, even though the primer was blown, dropped out when I ejected the round.

It's the later "H" type Mauser with both raceways milled thru. The "C" type has only the extractor receway milled all the way thru. The "C" is reportedly better with gas deflection than the "H". This one was good enough, did what it was designed to do, saved my arse, as the Brits would say...

DF

The Creed is magic- plain and simple

There is no such thing as cheap quality factory ammo. You get what you pay for. Today's cheap factory ammo plain sucks. There is a reason that the cost is almost the same as it was 25-30 years ago.

The advantages of the 6.5CM are not tied to muzzle velocity.

- case/cartridge geometry fits better in short action magazines.
- standard twist rate of 1/8 for the longer bullets.
- reasonably priced match grade factory ammo suitable for long range use.
- reasonably priced factory rifles that shoot well.

Combine those factors with a laser rangefinder and scope with turrets, you have a lot of things working well together.

Surely you're not referring to CM ammo. The opposite is true.

Price is good, so is performance.

That and low cost, accurate rifles is what we're talking about.

DF

This is hardly the case....but especially so in the 6.5 Creedmoor.