Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters 6.5 mm's for hunting?

Just something to consider with respect to the observation above that there is no significant difference between .264 and .277 bore. If the relationship where linear, sure, there isn't a big differnce. But the relationship is exponential, not linear. A simple way to think about things is the cross-sectional area increase in your bullet. And as this increases with the square of the radius, the increase in area in going up from .264 to .277 is actually nearly 10%. Not a whole heap of difference, but it is significant. I can say my brother and i have used a .270 and a 6.5x.284 (and the 6.5x.284 is essentially a ballistic twin to the 6.5-06) side by side, and would argue you can actually see a difference in the wound size.

I own,shoot,load for,hunt with a 6.5x54,55,57,6.5-06 and a 6.5 Creedmoor and then there is a .264 mag at the top.I buy the rifle for what it is,a package,I look for balance,working strenght and it's piece of history in the gun world.The above calibers are made up of Mannlicher,Brno,Ruger,Mauser and a pre 64 Winchester.I worry not about the caliber,they work and make the rifles even "neater".
My local deer are small by Northern/Western deer standards,but I would not buy a new rifle to go out west.So far,the bullets have landed in the kill zone.I am not beat up at the bench and enjoy some great bullets.I'm planning a Black Bear hunt with my 6.5 Mannlicher next year.If not,I've got about 40 other rifles and calibers to choose from....

Lots of pluses and really don't know of any minuses when hunting with the 6.5's.

Any thing larger than a mulie though that looks to be a humdinger?

Alan

SCENARSHOOTER et.al. - Just so there is no mistake about my opinion & position.

I am not only looking for a 6.5X55 but I've found one that looks promising. Details LATER.

I AIN'T a 6.5 opponent or hater.

Nothing better then a good 6.5x55. Jwall, If the one you're looking at doesn't work out for you let me know. I have a couple that I plan on selling soon.

Then is the 264 Win Mag superior to the 270 Win IF both use a 24" barrel?

Teal, I've done some light research on a 6.5 WSM, and I have read that it can be a bit of a barrel burner. Of course, these were guys using it for match rifles, so that probably comes into play. For a hunting rifle, I can't see that it would make that much difference. You aren't going to shoot long strings to heat up the throat. Heck, it's basically a .264 Win Mag, right?

Jerry, catch a fish yet?

6.5 - YEAH - I'm not sure which one is the SUCKA

Has to be him.

Description Bullet Dia. Weight (Grain) G1 BC G7 BC Recomm. Twist Part Number
130 gr Match Grade VLD Hunting .264 130 0.552 0.282 8 26503
130 gr Match Grade VLD Hunting .277 130 0.452 0.231 11 27501

I'll let you figure out with the above 130 grain bullets and book loads how a .270 Win compares to a .260 Rem out past 400 yards, particularly with respect to wind drift. Hint (1000 ft elevation): the velocity gap goes from 250 fps at the muzzle (3000 vs. 2750 fps MV for 22" barrel) to less than 100 fps difference at 400 yards, with the .260 holding more than an inch advantage in (less) wind drift at 400 yards. At 500 yards, the velocity gap is 50 fps (the 6.5 mm bullet gives up 200 fps less velocity over 500 yards), and the 6.5 mm has a 2" advantage in wind drift. Factor in the difference in recoil for most of us mere mortals, and you'll see where the advantage lies. Yes, that's all ballistic gack, but the .260 Rem does catch the .270 Win around 650 yards.

Plusses:

I like my 6.5x55s with 140gr bullets for deer hunting. It shoots plenty flat and penetrates very well. When I place one of these slugs on the shoulder of a deer standing broadside, the deer falls down at the shot and dies instantly. I don't load hot. My manuals say my bullets are trvelling about 2600 fps. Inexpensive bullets behave well at this velocity, so I practice and hunt with the same load. Recoil is lighter than any caliber on the '06 case or larger. I like it.

Minuses:

...I'm thinking...
OK, larger bullets make larger holes, and animals shot through the ribcage with larger calibers bleed more profusely and may die a bit quicker. This matters to people that aim behind the shoulders.

The .260rem is without doubt my favorite deer/elk cartridge.. I am seriously thinking about a 6.5-284.. 140NP's and 140AB's is all a guy would ever need.. IMHO

I'll give you credit for admitting, if not by direct statement but indirect,

that the 260 is BEHIND the 270 until 650 yds. (upper case for emphasis only)

Seriously, my only point was to point out that the 260 DOES NOT outperform the 270 everwhere in every way AS SOME PROPOSE. Actually I would have to LOAD DOWN my 270s to equal a 260 for MODERATE ranges. (Using comparable s d & b c)

Per mere mortals: 500 YARDS is a LONG WAY to shoot at game. I AM NOT criticing those who practice and USE EQUIPMENT capable of doing it.

I've had opportunities to shoot AT deer at 400 yds + in regrowth cutovers. However every deer was MOVING and I did NOT risk wounding and loosing the animal. I practice sufficiently and my gun/ammo is quite capable of 400-500 yd accuracy BUT an animal is not a TARGET. I'm not condescending to anyone.

OTOH - I have a verbal agreement to PURCHASE a 6.5X55 and the transaction is supposed to happen w/in a couple of weeks. (I'm not selling my 270s tho)

Too funny.
Let's see here, even with your figures, it takes 650 yds. for the 6.5 bullet to catch the .270 bullet. Right. We do our killing at 650 plus yards, not the usual ranges.
Second, you "cherry picked the bullets. The .270 can throw a 160 gr. bullet as fast as the .260 throws a 130 gr.
Then there is the little matter of pressure. This is where the "my little round is as good as your big round" sorts kinda sweep this issue under the table. I've seen lots of data that says the .270, at the same pressures pushes it's bullets significantly faster than the .260. When it first came out, Remington tried this argument. Until somebody pointed out their ammo didn't perform like they claimed.
Last of all, you are assuming those BC's are accurate, and hold steady throughout the velocity range. Of which neither is often the case. E

You can believe what you want, but the data bears out differently than your preconceived notions.

Yes, Redhead..there are advantages to 6.5s for some people.

I'm not arguing about this second point, it's just my thinking.

I don't know that larger holes cause death EVEN a bit quicker. I do KNOW that under normal circumstances, a larger hole ALLOWS more blood to flow or be pumped out.

Some on the fire don't agree but the bigger the hole/s, the more blood CAN get out.

That's only important in some hunting habitats. If you're hunting in or near thickets or REGROWTH cutovers it can be valuable.

Several times I've killed deer in regrowths and when you go to look for the animal, EVERYTHING looks different THERE than where you were. I'm speaking from personal experience as recently as Nov 12.2011. I had to go back to my position and re-pick out LANDMARKS just to find a dead buck lying on the ground and no blood trail was needed.

This has happend several times and when you have to blood trail an animal, the MORE BLOOD on the ground the better.

OTOH, I doubt seriously the difference between 264 & 270 would be noticeable. The bullet performance is probably MORE important IMO.

[quote=jwallthat the 260 is BEHIND the 270 until 650 yds. (upper case for emphasis only)

Seriously, my only point was to point out that the 260 DOES NOT outperform the 270 everwhere in every way AS SOME PROPOSE. Actually I would have to LOAD DOWN my 270s to equal a 260 for MODERATE ranges. (Using comparable s d & b c)

[/quote]

Behind in velocity, not in all aspects.

The .260 has an advantage in wind drift at any distance that wind would make a difference. You would need a .270 Weatherby with a couple hundred fps more muzzle velocity than the .270 Win to match the .260 on wind drift.

At moderate ranges, the real choice between a .270 and .260 ballistically is whether you want 15 or 20 yards more in max point blank range (e.g., 295 vs. 277 yards), or whether you want more margin of error with respect to variable winds. Beyond MPBR, you're going to have to compensate for trajectory anyway. The difference in recoil doesn't depend on what distance you shoot.

R R - There is not nearly enough diff in the 260 & 270 when you

use comparable S Ds & B Cs. Especially when the 270 starts out with so much more velocity. For whatever reason you & others are trying reverse or negate or deny the mathematical diff. The laws of physics are static.

Remember I'm not a 6.5 opponent, just realist.

Each to his own.

Happy Thanksgiving

Jerry

As shown by an earlier poster on this thread, as a general rule 6.5 mm bullets still have a BC advantage over .277" bullets with the same SDs. Besides, how is same SD more relevant than same weight when discussing bullets designed for the same purpose? As you go up in bullet weight for the .270, your velocity decreases (roughly 100 fps per 10 gr of bullet weight), and you lose to velocity about what you gain in BC ballistically.

Realism is that 6.5mm bullets drift less in the wind than comparable .277" bullets EVEN WHEN the .277" bullets ARE STARTED 200 to 300 fps FASTER. Science (aerodynamics) is on the side of the 6.5mm bullets, as shown by the BCs. Just think of all that wasted powder and extra recoil with the .270!!!

It truly is all ballistic gack, particularly at less than 300 yards. As I outlined in an earlier post, it boils down to preferences. If wind drift is more important to you, then the .260 is the way to go. If 15 or 20 more yards of MPBR is more important to you, then the .270 is the way to go. If you want less recoil, use the .260. If you want 10% more frontal area, use a .270. Out to 400 yards, there isn't a lot of advantage for one vs. the other in any respect except recoil.

Past 300 yards (past the distance where more MPBR would benefit you with a .270 Win), the advantages in wind drift start favoring the .260. But how many people shoot (or have any business shooting) past 300 yards? The .270 is a great general purpose round, but the .260 (and 6.5x55) really starts to outshine the .270 when people start looking at shooting 400 to 600 yards and beyond. Otherwise, why would competitive shooters favor the 6.5mm rounds over the .270 at long distances?