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

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.

I finally broke down and bought a 6.5 Creedmoor, it is a 257 Roberts...

I'd like to thank Lu Yeng, hunter of yaks, and husband of an ugly wife. Yeng reminded me that eating yak is healthier than eating a Big Mac. But I believe eating uranium is healthier than eating a Big Mac.

In the meantime...

If Creedmoors Were Gold

If Rugers were silver,
And Creedmoors were gold,
I'd have much more deer meat,
Than my cellar could hold.

But Rugers aren't silver,
Nor Creedmoors pure gold,
So I'll stick with my lever
That's one hundred years old.

The Creedmoors are shiny,
And their sales are quite strong.
Just like the Short Magnums,
That have since come and gone.

But the shine will wear off,
And the fad will soon pass,
Replaced by the next thing,
Made of matte steel and brass.

And while I am waiting,
For the next craze to show,
I'll hoist my old lever,
And off hunting I'll go.

- Stephen Redgwell, 2018

Nice rifle. Can you seat out to the lands with that short action?

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.

I know exactly what consumers want. They want Sako L61R quality at Ruger American prices, and a right to bitch about it the "plastic" parts.

I know exactly what consumers want. They want Sako L61R quality at Ruger American prices, and a right to bitch about it the "plastic" parts.

My 6.5 CM is also a .257 Roberts although my old Ruger Model 77 tang safety is not nearly as purty as yours! Happy Trails

I just did a quick look around. In June 1962 the intro price of a Rem 700 ADL was about $115. Putting that through a CPI inflation calculator says that's about $940 today.

but am growing just as weary of 6.5 "Creedmore" nitwits, who believe somebody, somewhere, is somehow,demanding they buy a 6.5 Creedmoor.

Amen.
There's a good many dudes here that would make for excellent mother-in-laws.

If pressures were equal, which one do you think would kick azz?....:

My question isn’t “why get a Creedmoor,” but is “why wouldn’t you get a Creedmoor?”

It ticks off so many boxes it’s absurd...