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

You can cut that group in half by getting closer to the target. Shoot from five yards instead of ten.

This isn’t the Coyle thread..l

I shot my ruger predator only enough to sight it in last year before season.then,only needed one shot in season.
At thirty FEET.
It worked superbly,but then,so would most anything at that range.
Have since been able to find a few boxes of match ammo.
Hoping my world slows down enough this year to have time to shoot it more than six times.

BWAHAHA!!!! You NEED an AR-10 in 6.5 Creed!!! You can't live without it!!!!

Steve,

Apparently you don't realize that many discriminating Campfire members can tell how accurately (or inaccurately) a rifle will shoot by it's price or looks, or even just by how it feels--if they condescend to touch the thing.

Well I shot next to a guy at the range 100 yards his Creedmoor my Mossberg patriot 308 just gun for gun his bullets, mine 130 gr, yes 130 gr. mine one ragged hole 8 shots his close so what in the hell is the big deal a gun a guy wants he will buy so what a kill is a kill

True enough. But life’s too short to shoot fugly rifles, drink cheap whisky, or take ugly girls to the dance. Happy Trails

That's because advertising $$$ don't skew my perception of things....
In other words, I'm not for sale...

Powder burns on the target may be hard to explain...

DF

Seems like just another way to illustrate the difference in priceless vs. worthless...

One needn't be a proctologist to see you coming.

Maybe you got nothing to sell, nothing anyone would pay to read or hear.

Just saying.

DF

Same with TTSX's, even SSII's.

DF

Or I don't need to sell s h i t to be somebody...

I noticed that.

A lot of people here can remember when rifle stocks were almost exclusively made of wood. Even the so called "budget rifles" had walnut stocks. But something happened. More stocks were made with birch or beech or something, and people complained. The stocks weren't as well finished. Gone were the rich, darker tones of quality walnut. And some people said that these cheaply stocked rifles weren't as tight shooting as their more upscale counterparts.

In 1983, I got a Rem 788 in 222 Remington that shot .5 inch groups with 4198 and Rem bulk bullets. It also had a cheap hardwood stock. That was in the daze before 788s became magical. Few people wanted them, at least, around here. For the life of me, I cannot figure out why half inch groups were possible from a cheaply stocked rifle.

My point is that companies have always tried to reduce costs by changing stocks, not offering iron sights, changing metal for stampings of even polymers. From my perspective, none of these changes has made any firearm less accurate. No company can afford to build a rifle that doesn't shoot. Their reputation is on the line. The method of assembly and materials must come together to create a firearm that is as accurate or better than the previous generation.

These advances sometimes come with the odd hiccup. The biggest hiccup however, is the consumer. He fights, kicking and screaming, railing against polymer magazines or cheap metal stampings. But the consumer rarely knows what he wants.

From the armourer's perspective, I have often wondered why all the rifle companies didn't use a form of Savage's screw on barrel or their plastic, pillar bedded stocks. For maintenance and cost reduction, this was the bee's knees. The bonus was, they shot well. But humans being what they are, the resistance was strong. They were ugly, would 'probably' break, and there was the big one, Savages never won shooting competitions. Of course, that nonsense has since been dispelled.

If looks are your thing, there are lots of aftermarket accessories to dress them up. And Savage did get rid of the old barrel nut to smooth out the lines.

Remington helped Savage out immensely. Remington was lost in the wilderness for years, trying to come up with a econo-rifle, but never getting the formula right. Winchester decided to change their rifle line as well and they got expensive. Ruger figured it out though. And for the US at least, more Euro-rifles hit your shores. You got more choices and the quality has improved, as much as many of you will disagree. The fact is, rifles and cartridges are better today than they were even ten years ago.

Now comes the Creedmoor. Pair it with these advances in rifle construction, and you have a winner. The barrel twist, throat, magazine length and the cartridge have come together to create that magic. We also have a lot more powder and bullet choices.

The only thing I would say is that with the Creedmoor cartridge and rifles, we have witnessed one of the few times that everyone did their part correctly and the end result came together perfectly.

You can do this with virtually any rifle cartridge now, but you will have to pay someone to change the barrel, change the throat or trigger. You can get the same performance as the Creedmoor, but at a price. Or you can simply go out and buy a rifle chamber in the 6.5 Creedmoor and be done with it. For me, this concept is what I have been screaming about for years. Give me a rifle that shoots well out of the box. One that doesn't need hundreds of dollars spent in aftermarket parts to make it better. Give me a rifle that is easy to work on, should I need to change the barrel or stock.

Well, they delivered, but I have no need for one.

To be fair I keep coming back to see what he will say next.....been pretty good entertainment this morning...grin

The powder blend is propriatery using ground up Unicorn horn.

I thought that's what 280AI guys use to get 7 mag velocity.

qwk,

Have posted most of this before, but will do so again.

I started writing for magazines over 40 years ago, back when magazines were much like newspapers, keeping editorial and advertising completely separate. The theory back then was to write to attract readers, and if the magazine attracted enough readers then advertisers would sign on, so they could reach more potential customers. As a result, magazines were always looking for new writers, and I managed to be making my entire living writing within about 6 years. Have been doing so ever since, but only relatively recently started writing for gun magazines. Instead I wrote about a variety of subjects, including history (both human and "natural"), fishing, hunting, optics and the West, for magazines including National Geographic, Sports Illustrated, and regional "general interest" magazines, along with just about every major (and some minor) hunting, shooting and fishing magazines.

But the business changed, at least somewhat, starting in the late 1980's, when a certain New York publishing company decided to please advertisers instead of readers. That was when many magazine articles started with a paragraph clumsily mentioned plenty of advertisers' products. Luckily, the magazines I wrote for didn't go that route, but these days it's harder to find ones that don't.

In fact this year I quit writing for one magazine that had been a steady market for me over the last 20 years, and a well-paying one, because instead of wanting me to write the historical and technical firearms articles I'd been doing, they wanted me to write stiff to please advertisers. (Interestingly, the publishing company that started this trend failed a couple years ago.)

I don't mind testing advertisers' products, but damn sure don't want to do it all the time, and the magazines I write allow me to pass on projects if I don't want 'em. I also retain the right to mention flaws, or even not write about the product at all if it doesn't work right.

I also often buy stuff to write about, rather than test products directly sent by manufacturers. In fact, I've purchased all three of the 6.5 Creedmoors I've owned from stores or other shooters. The one I've mentioned here, in fact, I bought from a Campfire member, who would probably be willing to confirm that. Partly I buy my own test subjects because I can then NOT write about them if they don't work, but it also allows me to really wring things out over a period of months or even years, instead of coming to a quick conclusion about some new cartridge, rifle or scope based on one sample.

But another thing that's became obvious during the last 20 years is that writers don't HAVE to write for publishers. Instead they can go directly to readers, either via the Internet or by self-publishing books. My wife's a writer too, and right now about half our income comes from our own book publishing company, plus our own on-line quarterly magazine, RIFLE LOONY NEWS. (As a matter of fact the latest edition of RIFLE LOONY NEWS just got e-mailed to its subscribers today, if any of you are reading this.)

There's no advertising in either the books or RLN, which I'd guess is partly why both are pretty popular. Yeah, I get "paid" to write both the books and the magazine, by readers paying for them.