Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters 6.5-06

I guess I've never seen why we shouldn't use loads in the 6.5x55 that exceed 1892 standards, at least in "modern" rifles.

I didn't pressure-test any of my 6.5-06 loads, but I did stick to published data.

John,

thanks...jim

Sounds like fun...but help out with the practical: Why not just get a 25-06 or a .270 and call it good. Lack of factory ammunition is a big deal if a hunter travels. Either cartridge has fine long range bullets.

No flies on the 6.5 - I'm a big believer in the .264 Mag, but I won't fly to a hunting trip with mine even though it's a factory cartridge. The 6.5-06 would be quite a bit more difficult.

That's because the 6.5-06 is the minimum cartridge for whitetails, but the 270 is waaay overkill!

-

This is also a great choice. Take into account the higher pressures possible with a modern action, the added case capacity and you can still shoot factory 6.5x55 in a pinch.

I like the short magnums because they allow you to move to a shorter, more compact rifle for hunting. The brass is designed for the higher pressures these cartridges run at, and I like that.

Just me, waiting around for the 6.5 RCM.

jim

Well, here it is, Jim, although it's called 6.5 Creedmore instead of RCM.

http://www.ruger.com/Firearms/FAProdSpecsView?model=17168

-

Yeah, the Creedmore is cool for a 50 gr capacity case, but I am looking for 70 gr or so. Plus I am already working with the .375 Ruger case and the .300 RCM.

I like the Creedmore for target work and the RCM for hunting.

jim

6.5 rem mag

After reading the title of this topic, I scanned through quickly to see of Ken Howell had rung in with his 2 cents. I recall a number of years ago on another board, Mr Howell and a noted Highpower Competitor debated the comparative merits of his 6.5 Howell (which I believe was similar to a 6.5/06) and the 6.5-284.

One of the merits claimed for the 6.5 Howell was a longer barrel life because it had a greater case capacity and was able to run the same velocity as the 6.5-284 at a lower pressure.

I'd love to see if my recollection is correct and see if Mr Howell has any updated thoughts on the comparison.

I have a theory why the LR Competitors are seeing shorter barrel lives than those shooting a 6.5-284 for other purposes;
1) Yes, Highpower Competitors are probably running them hotter than most others would. This is primarily a 1000 yd cartridge and we're throwing ~140gr bullets as fast as we can to outdo the magnums.
2) The accuracy demands as range increases are not linear. ie. one inch at 100yds does not translate to 10 inches at 1000yds. Also barrels that are shot out show their groups opening up first at long range. So what for some folk is good accuracy at 200, 300, 500 or even longer range, may not hold up at 1000yds.

3) Someone mentioned 20 shot strings under timed conditions. That's another factor not only from a physical standpoint (hot barrel that doesn't get a chance to cool down for 22 or more shots)...but also from a "demands" standpoint. That barrel has to put the rounds on call at that 20th round for record just as well as it did at the first. ...again a barrel that is part gone can shoot a good 5 shot group on occasion, but how will it do for a 20 shot group...every time out, where performance is critically measured every time out?

In the LR Highpower context, folks are getting 1000 to 1500 "accurate" rounds of of a 6.5-284. I'd be curious to hear how many accurate rounds the folks that differ are getting? ...what measure of accuracy are ya'll using to draw your conclusions?

whoops, I just read through the thread more carefully and saw that I just retread what IndyCA35 posted nearly identically. Well you know what they say about Haste and Waste

Or great minds in similar channels!

jim

What about a 6.5-270 WSM; here is your reamer

http://www.midwayusa.com/eproductpage.exe/showproduct?saleitemid=919201

I have a Mark X action at my 'smith's place that I am considering 264 Win Mag or 6.5-280 AI. I must say, however, that this discussion is pushing me toward the former rather than the later. Of course the 26" barrel will limit its practical applications, but I'm sure I can find justification then to book my dream caribou hunt or at least get out after pronghorn .

If I had a WSM action available though, I'd do that 6.5-270 WSM in a hearbeat.

I have no magnums in my cabinet and honestly... the 6.5 in a long range hunting cartridge is the only magnum I'd really care to own.

If you need any more info their is a good article written by JB in the OCT 2008 Handloader.

I do have a problem with said article though, ].Because the swede is MY personal favorite,I am always interested in what other 6.5`s will do,whilst reading the article again something struck me as being VERY odd,Quoting the above from a past post on this subject John`s article states a max of Ramshot Hunter to be 54g but the NOSLER 6 guide states a max of 49g for the 125 NP thats a 5g differance this must be wrong? Also for the same bullet using H4831sc the discrepancy is 3.5g`s.Maybe I am being anal about this but thats a WHOOPING differance in MAX loads.

UKdave,

Perhaps I should have said that I BASED my loading data in the article on published data. Also, while there is a surprising amount of 6.5-06 data out there, some is a little, uh, cautious, as it often is with wildcat cartridges, because of variations in chambers and, especially, throats. In fact, many published 6.5-06 muzzle velocities can be safely matched with modern pressures (60,000 psi) in the 6.5x55.

While it would have been nice to have Nosler's Hunter data on the 6.5-06, their #6 manual hadn't appeared when I did the shooting for the article. So instead I had to make some educated guesses.

I did this with Hunter in two ways. First, over the years I have found Hunter to be about like RL-19 in burning rate. Obviously, comparing burning rates isn't advised for "hard" load data, but it is a starting point. Nosler's 5th manual (the only one available at the time) listed 53.5 of RL-19 as maximum with the 125 Partition.

Second, the powder capacity of the 6.5-06 is almost exactly that of the 6.5-284. Ramshot's data for the 120 Sierra lists 54.0 grains of Hunter as max.

I also did some figuring with various formulas, which indicated that a maximum velocity of around 3200 should be safe (given the right powders)from the 26" barrel of the E.R. Shaw rifle. This was based on a ballistic rule for the same case size with different bullet diameters. My calculations indicated that the 6.5-06 should get 97.5% of the veloicity of the .270 with the saame bullet weights, at the same pressure.

I once owned a .270 with a 26" barrel (another E.R. Shaw) and it got around 3250 fps with the 130-grain Nosler Partition and the widely published load of 60.0 grains of H4831. So I multiplied 3250 times .975 and got 3169 fps.

Then I used another formula to figure the difference in potential velocity between 130 and 125-grain bullets, and came up with 3232 fps.

So I worked up loads on that basis. While I have no doubt that Nosler's data is correct, for whatever pressure they decided to test at (there is no SAAMI standard for the 6.5-06), there wasn't even a hint of excessive pressure in any of my loads. I could open the bolt with my little finger, and the cases, primers, etc. showed no signs of distress. Primers stayed nicely rounded, with no cratering, and primer pockets stayed tight.

I do not trust those "traditional" pressure signs completely, so I also compared the case-head expansion of the brass (Remington .25-06 and .270) with case-head expansion of the same brass with published loads in the .25-06 and .270. They were all in the same range.

Finally, I trusted the chronograph.

I used a similar technique with H4831. Hodgdon has 6.5-06 data, and lists 52.5 grains as max with the 120 Swift A-Frame, a bullet that (because of it's all-copper jacket and long bearing surface) tends to produce more pressure than most other bullets. So I figured that another grain was probably safe with the 125 Partition--and indications (fired brass and muzzle velocity) were that it was.

So yes, my data was extrapolated from published data--plus the use of my own formulas for internal ballistics. These were published in another Handloader article called "The Rules" in the June 2006 issue.

UK-

I am sure JB used data he received from Ramshot on the 6.5-06. It is the same load maximum I received from the company prior to the publishing of his fine article on one of my favorite cartridges.

Well, no, I didn't--but it's nice to know that my "educated guess" and their suggested maximum are the same.

Why not just get a 264 Win Mag and be done with it.

A valid question. In my case it was because E.R. Shaw offered to build me a rifle, on the condition it was a wildcat. I had already fooled around a lot with the .260 Rem., 6.5x55 and .264 Winchester, so asked for a 6.5-06.

However, my question after owning and hunting with a .264 for a while (a pre-'64 Model 70 "Westerner") was why not just get a .270 and be done with it?

Thanks JB. I thought their had to be something else to it.

critter-Rifle loonies go all around the houses to get to the same place!!