24hourcampfire.com
24hourcampfire.com
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Hop To
Page 5 of 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 32,029
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 32,029
I'm going to bed, as it is about 2:30 AM in Omaha and I've got to clean the snow off the drive in about 4 hours.

If we can agree of the following assumption, I will run the numbers sometime tomorrow:

Assumption #1, it is desirable for bullets not to protrude into the case below the bottom of the neck and any protrusion below the bottom of the neck will occupy case capacity that could otherwise be filled with powder. However, a bullet must be seated deeply enough so that it isn't loose and won't fall out of the case in the magazine or while being cycled into or out of the action. Therefore, we will assume that it is optimal, for the purposes of this discussion, to seat the bullet so that its base is flush with the bottom of the neck for both the 260 and 6.5x55.

If we can agree to this assumption, I'll gather that data and run the numbers tomorrow for the following scenarios:

#1, 260 in a standard short action Remington 700.
#2, 260 in a modified short action Remington 700 with a Wyatt's Outdoor extended magazine box.
#3, 260 in a standard long action Remington 700.
#4, 6.5x55 in a standard long action Remington 700.

If I can find the bullet lengths, I'll run the numbers for both the 140 grain Nosler Partition and the 160 grain Hornady.

BTW, since Hornady has discontinued production of the 160 grain RNs, who is making 6.5mm/.264" diameter bullets heavier than 140 grains and longer than 1.290"?

"Better" is always an objective unit of measure.

JEff

BP-B2

Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 509
J
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
J
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 509
Originally Posted by 260Remguy

BTW, since Hornady has discontinued production of the 160 grain RNs, who is making 6.5mm/.264" diameter bullets heavier than 140 grains and longer than 1.290"? JEff


I don't know the length of either of them but the 6.5 Lapua Mega 160gr and Lapua Naturalis 140gr are both long bullets, but greater than 1.290"??, maybe someone else can help there.

Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 6,912
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 6,912
Originally Posted by atomiclab
Smithrjd,
you said it better than me.

Maybe I shouldn't have said "kick ass" in reference to the 6.5x55 beating the 260rem in the heavier bullet category, but it still stands. All day everyday, the 6.5 swede handles the heavier bullets better. thats its advantage, mild yet does better with the heavier bullets.

Long range shooting (bench rest) is an exercise in consistency. the more consistent you are the tighter groups you have and greater accuracy.
Flat trajectory is not of great importance in 1000 yard shooting. Consistency is!

in hunting where shots might be made and many different ranges, flat trajectory starts becoming more important.

the 2 rounds in question are very similar (OBVIOUSLY) that is the whole point of the discussion. but the 6.5 Swede does handle the heavier bullets b e t t e r than the 260 rem especially when hand loaded!!!!


just like another example
308 vs 30-06
both spit 150gr, 160gr , 168gr, bullets like rockets
but load both with a 200gr+ projectile on then end and 308 just can preform like the 06.
will the 308 with 210gr bullet go bang? yes. will it come out the end of the barrel? yes. will it be going so fast you can't see it? yesss. will it kill something at 100 yeards??? yesss!
will your hold over point of impact have a more dramatic variation over various distances as compared to the 06 same bullet YESS!!


Don't get mad when a slightly bigger cased cartridge eeks out a little more Umph!
They physics are what they are and we all know it.

Good post atomic


Selmer

"Daddy, can you sometime maybe please go shoot a water buffalo so we can have that for supper? Please? And can I come along? Does it taste like deer?"
- my 3-year old daughter smile
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 16,540
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 16,540
All I have to say is that the 6.5x55 is an inefficient use of a .473" long action.


The Chosin Few November to December 1950, Korea.
I'm not one of the Chosin Few but no more remarkable group of Americans ever existed.
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 32,029
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 32,029
True, but name me a 6.5mm/.264" bore cartridge with a .473" bolt face and a case length longer than 55mm/2.165" that is available as factory loaded ammo in the U.S.?

My favorite long action 6.5mm/.264" bore cartridge with a .473" bolt face is the 256 Newton, but I hate to make cases. I can turn a 25-06 or 270 case into a 256 Newton case at the rate of about 5 per hour, including breaks. The 6.5-06 would be an easier conversion, but for some reason, Charles Newton opted for a slightly shorter case when he designed the 256 about 100 years ago.

What I don't understand if why some folks are blind to the fact that if you use a long .473" bolt face action to build either a 260 or a 6.5x55, the COAL issues are 100% irrelevent with all bullet weights, which brings us back to the 2 grain difference in case capacity. It ain't much of a box, but some people just can't seem to think outside of it.

JEff

IC B2

Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 3,943
W
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
W
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 3,943
Originally Posted by nsaqam
All I have to say is that the 6.5x55 is an inefficient use of a .473" long action.


You must really think poorly of a .22 Hornet on a pre-64 Model 70 then...

Following your lines of thinking, much could be argued that the .260 Rem makes inefficient use of a .473 short action when you can tighten up the COAL and load a 6.5x284 or open the bolt face/feed rails and load a 6.5 WSM. I know you have touted the 6.5-06 on a long action because you get more powder per inch of action length, but even then, if more powder is the goal why not skip the -06 and load the .264 Mag or go all out and chamber a 6.5x375 Ruger?

Personally, I like the Swede in a LA and NOT being restricted to a specific COAL when loading 140gr or 160gr bullets--bullets that would otherwise eat a fair amount of powder space in a 2.8" mag box.

With that said, I no longer have my LA Swede and have gone the singe shot route ala Ruger #1. However, I disagree with the fundamentals of your arguement.

Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 32,029
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 32,029
Nobody ever said that the 22 Hornet was a good fit in the pre-'64 Winchester 70 action, or for the 222 that many of the Hornets were converted to, or all of the 51mm case length cartridges that were introduced post-308, but times were simpler then.

JEff

Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 3,943
W
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
W
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 3,943
No doubt Jeff, I agree that it was less than ideal but it was an exaggerated example that popped into my head.

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 874
B
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
B
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 874
Gentlemen, from a Hunter's view the Whietail will never know the difference between a 120,130,140 grain bullet well placed by either one. To imagine that a 100 + years ago a group of rifle loonies decided that a 6.5 was a great bullet was sheer genious! I have a 6.5x55 that loves 120 grain Barnes TSX. The deer seem to loathe the combination and my shoulder says, "thats all you got for recoil." Splendid firearm and caliber. By the way I could be just as pleased with a .260. The Whitetails don't know the difference. Buckfever1

Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,427
B
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
B
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,427
being a 260 fan I found this thread quite interesting... and applaud those contributing for keeping it civil and informative. wink

IC B3

Joined: May 2005
Posts: 687
M
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
M
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 687
I think the 6.5x284 rules the .264 caliber roost. Having said that I wish I still had a rifle chambered in .260 Remington cry I miss it..


"Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything." Genesis 9:3
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 16,540
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 16,540
Originally Posted by 260Remguy
True, but name me a 6.5mm/.264" bore cartridge with a .473" bolt face and a case length longer than 55mm/2.165" that is available as factory loaded ammo in the U.S.?



PRVI sells 6.5x57 in the US. grin

I understand what you're saying and I'm a big fan of the x57 case which shares all the traits of the x55 case.

I do think that the ardor for the 6.5x55 would be significantly lessened if the 6.5-06 would have been legitimized long ago.

I also think that if the 6.5-06 were legitimized tomorrow the popularity of the Swede would take a pretty good hit.

No competition in the bore size has been a good thing for the cartridges popularity.

There is a reason the 7x57 is almost non-existent as a factory chambering in bolt action rifles. It doesn't quite fit right in anything and what it does fit can be had chambered in cartridges with superior ballistics.



The Chosin Few November to December 1950, Korea.
I'm not one of the Chosin Few but no more remarkable group of Americans ever existed.
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,697
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,697
Originally Posted by 260Remguy
BTW, since Hornady has discontinued production of the 160 grain RNs, who is making 6.5mm/.264" diameter bullets heavier than 140 grains and longer than 1.290"?

I can't tell you the lengths but Norma makes the 156g Oryx, Vulcan, and Alaskan and Lapua makes the 155g Mega. Woodleigh makes a 160g and I believe it's length has been quoted at 1.380" or thereabouts.


“There are three things all wise men fear: the sea in storm, a night with no moon, and the anger of a gentle man.”
― Patrick Rothfuss, The Wise Man's Fear
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 32,029
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 32,029
If you extend the conversation, I think that we could infer that none of the currently "popular" metric cartridges would have much traction in the U.S. except for the infusion of cheap surplus military rifles post-WW1 and again post-WW2. The 6.5x55 would be a niche cartridge without all the surplus Swedish Mausers imported since the 1950s. The 7x57 would be the same if not for all of the surplus Centeral/South American Mausers, both small and large ring configurations. The 8x57 would also be the same if not for all of the war trophies and surplus German 88s and 98s.

The other day, I came across a 1961 vintage ad for the Hunters Lodge of Alexandria, VA, which appears to be related to Interarms, selling surplus British #1, #5, and Pattern 14 Enfields in 303, U.S. 1917 Enfields and 1903 Springfields in 30-06, German and Iranian/Persian Mausers in 8x57, South American and Spanish sr & lr Mausers in 7x57, Argentine 1891 Mausers in 7.65x53, Swedish 1894 (Interarms G33/40s) Carbines in 6.5x55, Italian Carcanos in 6.5x52, Russian Moisins in 7.62x54R, and French Lebels in 8mm Lebel. The prices ranged from $9.95 to $39.95. They also listed 3 different revolvers, Colt 1917s for $25, S&W Victorys for $35, and Webley & Scotts in 38 S&W for $17.

If not for WW1, Charles Newton's firearms production business might have succeeded and the 256 Newton might have become the standard American 6.5mm/.264" bore cartridge.

All relative, since hindsight is always 20/20.

JEff

Joined: May 2008
Posts: 16,540
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 16,540
Originally Posted by 260Remguy
If you extend the conversation, I think that we could infer that none of the currently "popular" metric cartridges would have much traction in the U.S. except for the infusion of cheap surplus military rifles post-WW1 and again post-WW2. The 6.5x55 would be a niche cartridge without all the surplus Swedish Mausers imported since the 1950s. The 7x57 would be the same if not for all of the surplus Centeral/South American Mausers, both small and large ring configurations. The 8x57 would also be the same if not for all of the war trophies and surplus German 88s and 98s.



I do believe that would be the case.


The Chosin Few November to December 1950, Korea.
I'm not one of the Chosin Few but no more remarkable group of Americans ever existed.
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 32,029
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 32,029
I agree that the 57mm cartridges are intermediates, falling halfway between the short 51mm and long(er) 62/633mm cartridges. Even though their intermediate length doesn't efficiently utilize all of a the long action's COAL limits, I still like the 7x57 better than both the 280 and 7mm-08 by a ratio of 8 to 1 each.

Say a guy, any guy, has 8 7x57s, but only 1 7mm-08, plus 8 6.5x55s and 22 260s? Any guy obviously prefers the longer 7mm, but goes way the opposite way with the shorter 6.5mm. Why such opposing trends when the relationship of the 7x57 to the 7mm-08 is exactly the same as the relationship of the 6.5x55 to the 260? Science, art, or just 'cause?

JEff

Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 32,029
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 32,029
Actually, the 6.5-284 and 6.5x55 share the same case length, so if the ROT says that the 6.5x55 is a long action cartridge, why do most folks look at the 284 as a short action cartidge and generally opt for the 280 in a long action?

JEff

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 59,908
M
Campfire Kahuna
Online Content
Campfire Kahuna
M
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 59,908
Because of the standard SAAMI overall length for the 6.5x55 (3.15") and .284 (2.800).

Originally all 6.5/.284's were built on short actions; today this is known as the 6.5/.284 Winchester. Then the target shooters started seating bullets out to .30-06 OAL, and that variation came to be known as the 6.5/.284 Norma. But the original intent of the wildcat was to put a good amount of powder behind a 6.5mm bullet in a short action.

You can load the 6.5x55 with bullet seated deep enough to fit in a 2.800" magazine, but what with the .260, 6.5 Creedmoor and 6.5/.284, there's no point.


“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.”
John Steinbeck
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 16,540
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 16,540
Unless you have a 3.00" magazine SA I consider the .284 and the 6.5x284 to be better suited to a LA. In a 2.800" mag you're severely constrained.

Heck, according to Nosler #6 the SAAMI max COAL for the 6.5-284 is 3.310" (Loaddata lists it at 3.228")

That is definitely LA territory and the length is needed to fit the long .264" bullets comfortably.


The Chosin Few November to December 1950, Korea.
I'm not one of the Chosin Few but no more remarkable group of Americans ever existed.
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 32,029
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 32,029
OK, I understand SAAMI, but as a practical matter, the 6.5x55 and 284 share the same 55mm/2.165" case length, so wouldn't COAL would be the same for each cartridge, regardless of the bullet used in either a LA, longer COAL, or a SA, shorter COAL?

For example, if you loaded the 140 grain Partition into both the 6.5x55 and the 6.5-284 at short action COAL, 2.800", wouldn't you have to seat the bullet at an equal depth, below the bottom of the neck, to achieve 2.800" COAL? If so, wouldn't that make the 6.5-284 as equally unattractive in a short action as is the 6.5x55?

JEff

Page 5 of 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10

Moderated by  RickBin 

Link Copied to Clipboard
YB23

Who's Online Now
838 members (12344mag, 10gaugeman, 1234, 12308300, 10gaugemag, 007FJ, 76 invisible), 3,276 guests, and 1,310 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums81
Topics1,187,712
Posts18,400,290
Members73,820
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023


 







Fish & Game Departments | Solunar Tables | Mission Statement | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | DMCA
Hunting | Fishing | Camping | Backpacking | Reloading | Campfire Forums | Gear Shop
Copyright © 2000-2024 24hourcampfire.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.3.33 Page Time: 0.132s Queries: 15 (0.005s) Memory: 0.9079 MB (Peak: 1.0665 MB) Data Comp: Zlib Server Time: 2024-03-29 01:50:54 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS