Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Custom Rifles & Wildcats Why is Hornady taking credit for the 6.5 Creedmoor?

Hornady has a statement in their advertisement taking credit for "developing it". In reality the 6.5 Redding is virtually identical and at least thirty years older. They've certainly done a fine job marketing it, and it is a dandy little round but it certainly wasn't Hornady who came up with it.What's wrong with giving credit to who deserves it?

I don't see 6.5 redding on the ammo shelves, nor them taking credit for their oh so successful 'development'.....

Dennis DeMille and Dave Emory developed the 6.5 CM. There are articles floating around that discuss how it began in 2007. Your argument could also be applied to the .260. However, in Hornady's case, they put a lot on the line to make it successful. Huntsman has it right.

Lastly, there's not been an original thought in cartridge development in a long time. It's all been thought of before at different points in time.

Without Hornady, and to a lesser extent Ruger, the 6.5 Creedmoor would have never been a blip on the radar. Hornady did a heck of a job marketing it, and the Ruger RPR really stoked the fire.

For the same reason that ACC and Remington took credit for developing the .300 Blackout when the cartridge had been around as the .300 Whisper for at least 25 years prior to it coming out. JD Jones had the patent on the Whisper, but never got SAAMI specs. So, the Blackout developers changed one dimension, got it approved by SAAMI and, voila, a "brand new" cartridge.

At the moment, I still have minimal interest in the 6.5CM. If I want 6.5CM performance, I will download my .270Win to 6.5CM velocities with a reduced charge of H4895.

Having said that, I am happy to see the success that the 6.5CM is generating. Additional rifle sales. Additional Ammo sales. Lots'o of buzz and energy in the business that is good for the firearms industry. Not my cup-o-tea. But, hey, if it is bringing in new shooters, new hunters, generating sales for firearms manufacturers and ammo manufacturers, so much the better.

A tip-o-the-hat to Hornady. In recent years, Hornady has had a significant role in the 6.5CM, .17HMR, .17M2, and several other "new" cartridges that I can't think of at the moment. They put their money, literally, where their mouth is. And made it work. Kinda like the American free enterprise system at work. Not so? I understand that Hornady cannot do it all themselves. However, they have been willing to partner with multiple firearm manufacturers to roll out the various cartridges.

25-06 Remington? Ask Niedner how he feels about that.

Hornady legitimized/commercialized the 6.5 Creedmoor in the same way that Remington legitimized/commercialized the wildcat cartridges that became the 22-250, 244/6mm, 25-06, and 280. When a manufacturer legitimizes/commercializes a cartridge, they get to attach their name to it.

6.5 Redding - 6.5 Creedmoor/Hornady

22 Varminter - 22-250 Remington

240 Page Super Pooper - 244/6mm Remington

25 Niedner - 25-06 Remington

263 Express - 260 Remington

7mm-06 - 280 Remington

7.62x51 - 308 Winchester

It seems like the cases are pretty similar, but If someone had or had jumped through the SAAMI hoops 30+ years ago the 6.5 Redding and todays Creedmoor would still be pretty different. 30 years ago the redding would have been twisted and throated for 120's and would have been the same as the 260 was when Remington legitimized it. What Hornady did was get the the OAL, throat and twist in the creedmoor figured out.

What .600+ BC bullet to you run in your “downloaded” .270 to match Creed performance?

I’m sure you can load your .270 to it’s “maximum potential” with that same .600+ BC bullet.... and match 7 RM performance too... right?

It differs in the case length dimension, and that's where it counts. The shorter case of the Creedmore is what allows the long ogive, high BC bullets to be seated to fit in short action magazines and still have their ogives begin forward of the case mouths.

The 260 Remington's introduction was poorly designed and managed. It seems as though every time Remington made a decision regarding the 260, they made the wrong decision. I think that the 260 Remington would have been much more successful if Remington had done the following upon its introduction in 1997:

1. Standardized a 1-8" ROT instead of a 1-9" ROT.
2. Offered the 260 in their most popular rifle styles, the 700 ADL and 700 BDL.
3. Offered 3 standard priced factory loads in 100, 120, and 140 grains that were loaded to maximize their velocity potential.
4. Pushed the 260 into the market via a matte/synthetic 700 ADL sold through high volume retailers, like Wal-Mart, that was priced between $300 and $350.
5. To support #4, insure that 260 ammunition was on those shelves when the rifles hit the racks and that it was priced comparable to the 243, 270, 308, and 30-06.

Don't forget that the 6.5 Creedmoor designers had the benefit of seeing all of the 260's flaws and fixing them.

And the 35 Whelen

Spot on. I don't really take the time to sit down and figure out what needs to be done to built a precision rifle or where to get it done. I don't have the patience or take the time to figure out twist rates, throating or proper chambering and reloading data. A pure novice such as myself can purchase a Ruger RPR and ammo off the shelf and be in the same zip code if not same neighborhood as the guys who literally live and breath this stuff thanks to Hornady and Ruger. And really at a more than fair amount of financial output. I enjoy this time in manufacturing history, really a good time to be a gun nut.

They also has some very good developments out of Europe to re-purpose ideas from.

The 6.5x47 Lapua design predates the Creedmoor by years and to those who reload it remains a slightly more forgiving cartridge.
The 6x47mm Swiss Match predates both the 6.5 Lapua and Creedmoor by nearly a decade (6x47 Lapua and 6mm Creedmoor by nearly two decades) and had the throat geometry and case v. magazine length sorted a long time ago.

6.5CM with 142gr NABLR 0.625BC @ 2700fps vs a .270 with 150gr NABLR 0.591BC @ 2700fps... Less than 1" diff in drop at 500 yards. One click on a 1/4MOA scope turret at 500 yards...

Don't do gun games. My longest shot on game was inside 200 yards. A +0.600 BC bullet does nothing for me. If I need more "oomph" than a .270, I've got a .300H&H for that...


As I said in my original post:

However, I do not see it as the "second coming" that so many are hyping in the media and on the Internet. Nuff said.

From what I see at the local range, it seems as though some less sophisticated, more casual, hunters have come to believe that buying a rifle chambered in 6.5 Creedmoor will give them a short cut to MOA accuracy and compensate for a lack of shooting skills and practice..

The B.C for LRAB are fluffed up pretty good. Litz tested them and the 270 150 lrab has a BC of .543. The 142 wasn't around for the 6.5 yet.
https://forum.snipershide.com/threads/nosler-lr-accubonds-bc-testing-results.226889/

I mean no disrespect, but that is because you shoot a .270 win and not a 6.5 creedmoor. If you shot the 2 side by side, like I have, you'd see the difference. Even at 500 yards. The 6.5 creedmoor was developed by a Hornady ballistics scientist and the vice president of Creedmoor sports, as a premier long range target cartridge. What it has evolved into in the hunting world has ruffled a few feathers I suppose. Guys like you don't like hearing that, but it's plain and simple truth... You'll find the guys that are bad mouthing it are guys like you, traditionalists and 260 shooters. The 260 had the bull by the horns until the creedmoor showed up. Now its popularity far exceeds it. Yeah, I guess it gives them something to cry about...

6.5 cm vs 270? What’s next, 6.5 cm vs 7mm-08? Inside of 500 yrds I don’t think anything will notice. And this is coming from a guy with rifles in each caliber. How well built the rifle is will make a bigger difference that the cartridge. My 7mm-08 is the first of the 3 I choose when I need complete confidence. Of course, the guy behind the rifle will be a far greater factor.

I did have a guy at work who has a 270 say he need something to go out west with, like a 6.5 cm. Apparently a couple of the guys told him that was a far better cartridge than his 270 for elk. It has gained mythical proportions in some circles.