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

John,

You know me and know I have more than just high regard for your work.

I don't have it in front of me, but IIRC Reiber "created" the 6-204 Ruger for one of the Hodgdon manuals. Maybe I don't RC. It featured IMRXBR8208 (not the original "Thunderbird").

I totally "get" the comparison of a one time 270 group and the McMillan group, but 222's were hovering around a long time after that group to call it an aberration.

If David Tubb shot an '03 Springfield chambered for the 6 Lee Navy:
a. It would probably still win
b. Everyone would try to duplicate it.

Dillonbuck,

All excellent points.

The 6mm PPC is a cartridge specifically designed to punch tiny groups in paper at 100-200 yards. It was NOT intended as a prairie dog or coyote round, or a longer-range target or big game round.

I have also pointed out before that the 6.5 Creedmoor case is by no means unique. It's so close to the 6.5x47 Lapua to be almost the same thing.

But instead of being ONLY available in relatively expensive Lapua brass and ammo, in relatively expensive rifles, good brass and ammo are available at average "affordable" prices, and in very accurate, very "affordable" rifles.

We've been through all this stuff on various threads before, yet some keep wanting to argue about all of it--often by arguing that it's all been done before. Well, it has--but not in exactly the same way, though the same factors are always important.

Accurate, affordable ammo, brass and rifles were what allowed the .222 Remington to dominate the benchrest and varmint markets in the 1950's and 60's. It shouldn't be astonishing that the same factors made the 6.5 Creedmoor a success over the past 11 years.

I do have a pretty good collection of older shooting magazines and books, and much the same arguments were made against the 722 Remington back in the 1950's as have been recently made against the Ruger American Rifle and other VERY accurate, yet "affordable," rifles from various manufacturers.

But I haven't found the same sort of venom directed toward the .222 that's been directed toward the 6.5 Creedmoor. That might be due to the relative lack of new ALL factory rounds and rifles back then, due to the Depression and World War II. The .222 and Remington 722 must have seemed to be an astonishing leap, partly because both benchrest and varmint shooting were becoming more popular. Both the rifle and cartridge fit right into the market trends of the 50's.

Well, the 6.5 Creedmoor (and various other rounds) and several "affordable" but accurate rifles have fit right into the market trends since 2000, whether longer-range target shooting and hunting, or smaller-caliber, lighter-recoil cartridges for hunters, thanks to better bullets. This shouldn't seem astonishing to anybody aware of those market trends, though apparently it is.

Many of the same people believe long-range target cartridges stopped evolving with the .300 H&H in the 1930's, or benchrest cartridges and rifles in the 1950's, or hunting cartridges with the .257 Roberts or 7mm Remington Magnum.

Many of those shooters are somehow angry that changes occur--just like some have been angry anytime inevitable changes happen over the generations. This is somewhat astonishing to me, since I own and shoot centerfire rifles made from the 1880's to 2018, and enjoy them all for what they are. I also write about all of them, and often do, a good example being an 1886 Winchester chambered in .33 WCF. Winchester did NOT give it to me, since the rifle was made 97 years ago. Instead I bought it with my own money, at a local store. And I've also purchased every one of the three 6.5 Creedmoor's I've owned with my own money, one at the same store, and the other two off the Campfire Classifieds.

If many of you prefer to believe everything gun writers publish is only due to advertiser pressure, feel free. It usually goes along with the firm belief that ALL gun writers believe (and hence write) exactly the same things, whether or not the gun-writer critic has actually read their published writings or not.

Just a friendly pointer John, the 6 Dasher that Jim used has a 40 degree shoulder, not a 30 like its parent case the 6 BR. Also, Jim has switched to the 6 BRA, as is popular with the 1k BR guys this year. I have been shooting Dasher’s in competition myself, but have considered the BRA for what Jim and others claim it has to offer.

Carl,

Yeah, you're right about the shoulder angle. But it sure isn't UNDER 30 degrees!

Didn't know Jim had switched. I see him about 1-2 times a year and we don't always talk guns! In fact the last time was a couple months ago and the only "gun stuff" was a new set of shooting glasses one of our mutual friends (the host of the party) has recently purchased.

I only know from seeing him at the Indian Creek range when he is an RSO for the monthly steel matches, he’s fun to chat with. I have made a handful the last few years, particularly in the winter months. No shortage of Creedmoor or 6.5x47 based chamberings represented there!

Almost all. You're beginning to get it. I'll give you some more help.

A cartridge is not accurate. No cartridge is. They wait patiently to be loaded into a firearm. In order for a tiny group to form, a number of elements come into play. I call it the "shooter's triangle".

There are three sides. The firearm. The cartridge. The shooter. The cartridge is incapable of being accurate because it takes a rifle and shooter to form groups. Like the fire triangle, all three sides must work together to produce flames, or in this case, tight groups.

Accuracy results from a number of event and material interactions. There is no such thing as an inherently accurate cartridge.

Some have the capacity to be shot more accurately than others; inherently so. After they're assembled and loaded into a rifle, of course. That's a given.

I don't believe you're beginning to get it yet.

To the above add the chamber design interfaces with the cartridge to assure good head space control,
Length and shape of the throat... keeping everything nice and straight, consistent.
Basically, with good manufacturers practices, something like the Creedmore, or even the "ancient" 308!
is able to get close to fireformed, hand loaded fit. With factory ammo. Rifle specific handloads may do better, maybe not.

I'm also frustrated when people keep bringing up "the shooter must be skilled" and "the rifle must be good."

Well, duh.

It seems like the example I cited earlier would take care of those considerations. The firing line at a registered benchrest match ought to be a good place to find skilled group shooters. Somehow I can believe there are a lot of good rifles there too. Furthermore, I believe there are enough of these matches on record for the results to be statistically significant.

Sorry, I didn't read the whole thread. But do you mean to tell me you don't see many .264 Win Mags at benchrest competitions?

I wonder why that is? Shooters must not have figured out the .264 yet.

Wrong twist rate would be my guess...

Points well taken.

Seems there are rounds that are apparently easier to produce tack driving loads than others. That's what I mean when I say "inherently accurate".

DF

But like any equation, you can fix some variable(s) to determine the relative impact of one. In this case you can fix the shooter and firearm and then get a sense for the cartridge.

It's physics and chemistry and computers and talent and luck, all coming together.

WRT ammunition, a better designed and made container is created that is filled with a superior chemical compound; topped with a well made, concentric bullet; fired from a well built mechanism, and operated by a skilled person. It is capable of producing small groups.

One mustn't dwell on the cartridge.

Everything advances. Today's off the shelf Walmart rifles, with the plastic stocks, are mechanically superior to most of the rifles made 20+ years ago.

Today's chemists and engineers are designing better missiles, propellants, cases and launch mechanisms. That's due, in part, to a better understanding of what is required. Computers are a huge part of this.

Many of those funny, plastic stocks are bedded.

The triggers have a lower pull weight, but more importantly, they break more crisply.

The chemistry of propellants/primers has improved. And there are fewer gaps in the burn rate of the compounds - both for canister and non-canister grade propellants.

Scopes have improved.

Barrels are straighter, with good twist rates.

Over all, firearm parts and accessories are built better and with tighter tolerances. Thanks to computer design and computer controlled metal cutting and shaping machinery.

The daze of man, lathe and bar stock wrestling are pretty much gone.

We should all be happy that things continue to improve. All these advances make what people believe is an inherently accurate cartridge. Ave!

And the fact remains that some cartridges are more accurate than others..

One more time: The playing field in competitive BR was level for the 222 and the PPC cartridges. The PPC won out.

Keep your discussion moving, gentlemen. From where I stand you should chase its tail past me a few more times before this has run its course.

Yes, I understood what you meant. You're right, it is easier to make cartridges more accurate. Chemical compositions and polymers, computers and vastly improved manufacturing techniques have really made this easier to achieve.

Over the years, experimenters and designers have learned a few things about cartridge design, propellants, primers and cases. They work everyday to make more accurate products. In the short time from the appearance of the BP cartridge to the standard use of smokeless propellants, they learned that what worked for BP wasn't optimum for smokeless. They learned not to use long necks with droopy shoulders. Because of the higher pressure generated by smokeless, they learned that brass had to be thicker. The bases had to be thickened and standardized. They abandoned the (mostly) BP case designs from the 1800s because smokeless had arrived and there were better ways of doing things. A case is a combustion chamber, so they improved the combustion chambers. And darn it, as much as I hate to say this, rimless cartridges fed from magazines chambered easier and with fewer misfeeds. Headspace measured from the bolt face to the shoulder seems to work better than trusting on a case rim.

But they also learned that tighter groups came from improvements to the rifle and its parts. As a result, we saw better barrels, stock bedding and ergonomics, better bullets, better triggers and rifle scopes. Oh sure, iron sights are still used, but the heavy lifting for the military and police is done by specialty scopes.

Experimenters and designers learned what had to be done to the cartridge, rifle and shooter to improve performance. This collection of improvements are what people mistakenly label as "inherently accurate". They are comparing old technology to the latest, cutting edge developments.

How many Camp Perry's has Tubb won with a 7mm Rem mag? I mean, if all of these new rifles have such straight barrels, great pownder abound, badass bullets, these wonder polymers.....I mean all he has to do is close his eyes, ;pick one, and go win, right?

I would imagine he (Tubb) has forgotten more than Redgwell will ever pretend to know.

No need to get snarky.

Tubb doesn't shoot the same rifles that you and I do. His game is more highly developed. He is an excellent shot. Comparing his equipment and talents to ours is apples and oranges.