Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters 6.5 Creedmoor Inherently Accurate?

Sorry for another post on the 6.5 CM but here it is anyway.

Is the 6.5CM considered an inherently accurate cartridge like the .308? Lots of people talk about how accurate their Creedmoors are but is it because of the cartridge design itself, or because of new reamers, new barrels and new tooling? I recently rebarreled a rifle to 7x64 using a brand new reamer in a high quality barrel with a very competent gunsmith. The 7x64 is long and skinny with a fair bit more taper than a .280 which is apparent when viewed side by side. It doesn't fit the norm of inherently accurate cases with short powder columns like the 6mm PPC, Remington's 6mm BR and .308, yet it shoots groups down to 0.35 inch at 100m (3 shots).

So how much of the Creedmoor's accuracy is from the cartridge design itself, rather than from new tooling, barrels and reamers etc.

I hope that makes sense.

It’s the name that makes it accurate.

I have always been under the impression that you can make any cartridge "inherently accurate," all things being equal. Take a 30-30 Winchester for example, design a rifle around it that's built for accuracy, with the right action, stock, and barrel with the correct rate of twist. Load it with a good bullet, and it will more than likely shoot itty bitty groups.

Time for JB to cut and paste the answer he's given other places ad nauseum. Short answer: Yes.

Consider this "all things being equal" scenario: short range benchrest competition. The 222 was king for a while, but the PPC cartridges came in and that was that. The 222 rifles were being built with all the best methods and materials available, but the "inherent accuracy" mojo of the 222 wasn't as strong as that of the PPC.

Caveat: I'm not saying the average shooter/handloader can reliably prove the difference.

I highlighted the biggest part of accuracy/precision. Now get those same ducks in a row but change it to 6mm PPC and see what happens.

It's F'ing Magic.

What I consider to be "accurate," you or someone else might not. I am not a competitive shooter, I just hunt, and the ranges at which I get to shoot probably would top out at the 400-500 yard distance. So, a few hundredth's of measurement in a group that my rifle shoots is not going to mean much. But, it most certainly would if I was shooting in a match.

The 308 has been one of those cartridges labeled as "inherently accurate," yet I've seen some rifles chambered for it that were not. I've also seen some that were, so my thoughts have always been that good accuracy, for me, starts with the rifle, then the ammo, and not the cartridge.

I have a 6.5CM in a cheap Howa rifle, and it is among my most consistently accurate rifles. I don't know if it's the rifle or the cartridge, and to be honest, in my case it doesn't matter. As far as the 6.5 goes, there is a lot of very good components to choose from when working up a load. That helps a bunch.

PFM!

I don't see that as a counterexample to the notion of inherent accuracy. Any cartridge can be built into an inaccurate rifle for a variety of reasons. I agree the rifle and ammo must be good for the finest accuracy in any given situation. Given equally good conditions however, history indicates to me that some cartridges have more mojo than others. PPC vs 222 for example.

Here's an essay I wrote about a decade ago. Obviously, if written today it would include more stuff about new 6.5 cartridges:

FACTORS IN CARTRIDGE ACCURACY

Theories about what makes a centerfire rifle cartridge accurate have changed since 1890. The first smokeless rounds often followed the shape of bottle-necked black powder cartridges, with long, sloping shoulders and tapered bodies. A theory developed among some shooters that a longer, more sloping shoulder promoted better accuracy. The wildcat version of the .257 Roberts, known as the .25 Roberts, was developed on the 7x57 Mauser case in the 1920’s by well-known “gun crank” and writer Ned Roberts. He evidently tried several variations on the before settling on a more sloping shoulder, claiming it resulted in better accuracy. Perhaps it did, at least with the powders of the day, but by the mid-1930’s Remington changed the shoulder angle to the original found on the 7x57.
That still didn’t destroy the notion that a long, sloping shoulder was more accurate, however. Partly the notion hung on because in the late 1930’s Ben Comfort won the Wimbledon Cup, the trophy for “any rifle” 1000-yard target shooting at Camp Perry, with a rifle chambered for the .300 H&H. Before then Wimbledon winners shot .30-06 rifles, but afterward many shooters switched to the .300 H&H. This “follow the leader” syndrome continues today, and not just in shooting.
After World War Two the sport of benchrest shooting became popular. Instead of shooting for score, benchrest shooting was concerned with “pure” accuracy, and most organized shoots were decided by the smallest group. The sport got big boosts because two competitors were Mike Walker, a Remington engineer, and Warren Page, the shooting columnist for Field & Stream magazine—also a friend of Walker’s, and a not-so-subtle booster of Remington rifles.
The first benchrest rifles were often made on military surplus 1898 Mauser and 1903 Springfield actions, chambered for rounds such as the .219 Zipper Improved and the .22-250, then a wildcat cartridge. Soon, however, the more technically-minded bench shooters (and there were many, since the sport attracted gunsmiths) realized the limitations of old military actions, especially slow lock-times and lack of stiffness. They also soon decided that the bigger .22 centerfires kicked too much for sustained accuracy, and started producing smaller wildcat cartridges.
Mike Walker had an advantage on these gunsmiths, namely the Remington company. He was part of the design team that produced the 721/722 Remington shortly after the war, the rifle that became the Remington Model 700 in 1962. The 721 and 722 were long and short versions of the same action. They were largely designed for easy, cheaper production, and the action body itself was essentially a steel tube with various machining cuts. This was a cheaper way to make a rifle, but it also proved to be much stiffer than most previous bolt actions, and the rifles also had very quick lock-times.
In 1950 a new cartridge appeared in the 722, a small .22 centerfire called the .222 Remington, designed by Mike Walker. The .222 became wildly popular among varmint hunters, but also became the first truly dominant cartridge in benchrest shooting. By the 1960’s almost every match was won by the .222, and almost every shooter shot one, or some wildcat variation on the case.
Warren Page continued promoting benchrest shooting, plus fine accuracy in hunting cartridges. In 1967 he published an article in Gun Digest named “The Smaller The Case” that included statistics from Remington’s indoor test-firing of their 40-x rifles in various chamberings. The smallest average groups were made by rifles chambered in .222, and average group size grew as the cartridge and bore grew bigger. To many shooters, this was documented proof that smaller rounds--both in bore diameter and powder capacity--were more inherently accurate.
The .222 dominated benchrest matches until the 1970’s, when the PPC cartridges came along. Developed by Dr. Lou Palmisano and Ferris Pindell, the .22 PPC case was shorter and fatter than the .222 case. In theory the shorter case body promoted more consistent ignition of the powder by the flame of the primer, yet still allowed small rifle primers to be used, which didn’t go bang with the accuracy-upsetting violence of large rifle primers.
The new case also featured a 30-degree shoulder, steeper than the 23-degree shoulder on the .222 case. The new theory was that steep shoulders promoted more consistent powder burning, and hence accuracy. Apparently they did, because the .22 PPC and, eventually, the 6mm PPC dominated the sport of benchrest shooting, and the “short-fat” theory of cartridge accuracy took over not just benchrest but all other forms of target shooting.
It also took a big bite of the hunting market, especially after the .300 Winchester Short Magnum appeared in 2000. Here, however, the short-fat theory encountered two problems. First was recoil. This had already been encountered by every generation of shooters, but each new generation of shooters (by definition younger) at first tends to ignore recoil, because bullets from bigger cartridges drift less in the wind and also kill better, whether when shooting varmints or big game. Benchrest shooters had even flirted with the bigger cartridge theory in the 1960’s, when some turned to the .308 Winchester, hoping to diminish the influence of wind bullets. It worked—except for the fact that the .308 eventually also kicked competitors into flinching.
There’s no doubt that the .300 WSM, and other short-fat rounds, are inherently more accurate than older, longer rounds of the same bore diameter. Bob Nosler, for instance, informed me a couple of years ago that while the Nosler company used to use the .308 Winchester for accuracy-testing lighter .30 caliber bullets, and the .300 Winchester Magnum for heavier .30’s, now they use the .300 WSM for all .30 caliber testing. Plus, cartridges such as the 6.5/.284 and, lately, the 7mm Remington Short Action Ultra Magnum, are being favored by some longer-range target shooters. But some long-range target shooters also favor even smaller 6mm and 6.5mm rounds, and many hunters have discovered that the .300 WSM, contrary to early propaganda, still kicks like a .300 magnum.
The other factor is, well, factory barrels. While the short-fat cartridges do have a definite accuracy edge in custom barrels and gunsmith-built rifles, in the average factory rifle this advantage is hard to find, especially by the average shooter. This is one reason the Winchester Super Short Magnums (WSSM’s) fell on their collectives faces. In factory rifles their finer accuracy was pretty much invisible. Since they didn’t provide any velocity advantage over already established .22, 6mm and .25 caliber rounds, most hunters just shrugged.
There’s also a third factor. The incremental accuracy advantages in newer cartridges are only detectable by a minority of shooters, in certain situations. Target shooters not only shoot at known ranges, from steadier positions (whether from a benchrest or snuggled into a shooting jacket), but some are allowed to use wind flags.
Target shooters also shoot a heck of a lot more than most hunters, and understand the subtleties of scopes, wind and handloading. The average hunter simply isn’t going to notice the tiny advantages of a super-accurate round might provide when shooting without wind flags and using a scope that isn’t adjustable for parallax, even when shooting off as benchrest. So in reality the biggest factor in hunting cartridge accuracy is the well-known “nut behind the bolt,” just as it has been since some German cut spiral grooves in a barrel 500 years ago.

Thanks John.

BINGO ! ! !

Have shot 3 rifles so chambered only one liked the lighter bullet factory loadings.

Most did best with the 140 grain eld bullet.

The M1A that my brother in law has shoots lights out with them and has shown some promise with the 129 Nosler.

They will require some more effort to really get the last drop out of them.

I actually am real curious to try the 6.5 in an AR10. I've got two of them in .308, and neither can keep 5 shots in less than an inch. I suspect the reduced recoil may give the new round an advantage.

OK no experience at all with the Creed Mo so that qualifies me as an expert. The 30 degree shoulder has proven to be the basis of some very accurate cartridges like the PPCs and BRs. Word has it that velocity, pressure, extreme spread and standard deviation are all more uniform for this type case. Also a medium to moderate sized case seems to be more uniform and flexible. But given all this the case configuration is about fourth or filth down the line on accuracy. Shooter, barrel, trigger, bullets, powder, and then maybe case design. The 300 H&H can provide splendid accuracy and won the earliest 1000 yard bench rest competitions with ease and aplomb. If you pitted a short fat 30 with the H&H I think the better shooter would always prevail in-spite of the theoretical advantages to the contrary.

I'll repeat it for you:

The following except is from the last PP of MD's post above.


"The average hunter simply isn’t going to notice the tiny advantages of a super-accurate round might provide when shooting without wind flags and using a scope that isn’t adjustable for parallax, even when shooting off as benchrest. So in reality the biggest factor in hunting cartridge accuracy is the well-known “nut behind the bolt,” just as it has been since some German cut spiral grooves in a barrel 500 years ago."


I agree and the Absolute Best Shooter can't shoot itty bitty groups with a sorry rifle/bll. I simply don't believe in "inherently accurate".

Jerry

instead of inherently accurate one might say - harder to screw up, or easier “not to screw up”.

Personally I get a kick out of the fact that on one talks about the change is rifle chambering an barrel machinery, and accuracy of how chambering is done, not to mention reloading.

No shit?