I was recently gifted with the new Lyman 49th edition manual. They claim the 6mm Rem was/is not as accurate as the .243 Win. Can't say I'd ever seen that claim before. Of course I realize many variables are at play, and nothing is ever truly equal, but for those that have or have had both a 6mm & 243, could you tell a major accuracy difference in one vs the other? Ever had a problem 6mm that just wouldn't come around like you think a typical sporter should shoot?

I fully realize how close the rounds are & that what one will do the other will do equally well. The accuracy claim is what I'm most interested to hear about. Any and all info is appreciated.

I've owned several and for the most part were accurate. I built one on a Win 70 action with a custom barrel and it was extremely accurate (5 shots you could cover with a dime @ ioo yards). should have kept that one. Oh well!

I have in the past,and do again now,have both a 243 ,and a 6mm,or 244.I have had good accuracy with both.

Most of those claims of poor accuracy stem from the original issue of the 6mm, when it was called the 244 Remington.

As originally conceived, it was twisted too slow for heavier bullets to perform well. IIRC, the twist was 12", but that's just from memory.

When the 243 came out, which was after the intro of the 244, Winchester was smart enough to recognize the problem & they twisted the 243 at it's current rate of 9-9.5" or so.

Remington recognized the error of their ways with the 244, changed the name to 6mm & increased to twist rate.

Since that time, the cartridges have been more or less on equal footing depending on who you talk to & what their personal biases are.

I've had 'em both & the 6mm is just as accurate in equivalent quality hardware as the 243 & it does provide a marginal potential velocity advantage.

MM

Poppycock! It has a LOT more to do with the barrel, bedding, ammo and shooter than the cartridge. I think a good smith could build a 30/30 that would shoot in the 2's or 3's if asked to do so and given enough money and parts etc.

My 6mm's have been great shooters and I for one consider it to be a superior round to the 243. Don't have one right now, but I could see myself owning the cartridge again when the grandkids are a little older.

Interesting claim they made. I bought a used 700Rem bull barrel that I worked with for quite some time and was never able to get the accuracy that I was expecting. Thank goodness somebody else wanted it worse. I've got a Mod 600 6mmRem now that is more accurate than the .243 Tikka that I have at the present. I think my wife will use the 6mm this year for deer.

I've had both and if there is anything to the claim it would take the loading/shooting abilities of those in BR.

I think that if there is any truth to that rumor it has more to do with the brass available and higher number of Bench and Heavy Varmint Rifles made up in 243 and 243 AI as opposed to 6mm Rem.

If you used the same barrel for each first 243 and then set back to re-chamber to 6mm I doubt you would see a measurable difference assuming comparable brass and loads were used.

Hope the 6mm Rem. is continued, to me it is the better round. Seems to be hanging in there in Europe. Now a 6mm Rem Rimmed aka 6x57R in a nice single shot would really get me going.

What MontanaMan said. I have an early 1960's edition labeled 6mm Rem, and it's quite accurate. So much so that the wife has taken it away from me. It's accounted for all of her deer and pronghorn.

Had a Ruger 77V, tang safety, Heavy bbl was shortened to 21" before I bought it.

5 once fired Federal cases, H450 Powder (now discontinued IIRC), 97gr Hammett VLD bullets, and Benchrest primers....

ALL in ONE HOLE at 100 yds............and that hole was small!

Shot many 243s, most all shot from 5/8" -7/8", factory sporters.

Both very accurate, but the 6mm Rem may hold an edge. Surely an identical gun using say Lapua 243 brass would give that 6 above a good run.

Many a die hard 6mm fans out there who feel it has an edge.

I think Lyman's text is an errant slip that simply reveals the text-writer's bias, nothing more. They are also quite high and wordy about the 243.

FWIW, the phrase in the Lyman text is as follows:

"However since most shooters have found it it slightly less accurate than the Winchester round it has never been extremely popular."

MontanaMan nailed it. It came from the .244 street rep. and the longer bullets. I have a 6mm Mohawk that will shoot a gnat in the rear hole at 100 yards and always has. (and that's little!) My .243's shoot just as well. Not much differece in them that I've ever seen.

MontanaMan,

Your post is close but not exactly historically correct. Both the .243 and .244 came out in 1955, and while the .224 may have beaten the .243 by a few months there wasn't enough time for Winchester to change anything. The original twist in Winchester .243 barrels was 1-10. It may be different now but remained 1-10 for many years.

I have always found the 6MM very accurate and at least with the rifles I have worked with easier to find an accurate load for than the .243.

After more years of shooting than I care to tell, I have shot several 243's and several 6mm's. Have shot some that were scary accurate. Scary in a good way, very accurate. Never sell the 6mm short, both in accuracy and range. A man that can shoot can love shooting and hunting with that round.

JB,

Thanks for the clarification,.............I didn't go back & look up the exact dates, just going from memory on what I knew of the story.

Yeah, the original Win 243's were 1/10" but Rem's current stuff is 9.125" which is kinda an odd number; haven't checked Win's current twist.

MM

The most accurate rifle I own is a 6mm Rem on a Model 700 Long action.. with a 24 inch Pac Nor Stainless Steel Barrel, in a heavy magnum contour and a one in 7 twist...

I like the 243 a lot.. and shoot it a lot..

but I'd take a 6m Rem on a long action any day over ANY 243...

My Ruger IIRC was around 1-9", MOST all 243s I shot showed a preference to 85 BTHPs though 100s shot well.

My current 6BR has a 10 twist as all my former 243s and it loves the 95 B tip but shoots 66, 68, and 70s just as tight.

I think the former twist in original 6mm/244 no doubt hurt w/heavier bullets, but the latter were properly twisted, and I believe most 'in the know' would argue the longer neck and sharper sholder on the 6 Rem has an edge in 'inherit accuracy potential.'

The king IMHO is the 6BR w/8 twist if you want the best in accuracy, w/6mm on 6.5x47 case running right with it, brass quality has few peers. The PPC will do very admirably to 300 yds, tad more w/o heavy wind, and twist rate/bullet wt. can affect how the round holds up 'on out yonder.'

Most hunters are not handloaders. Factory ammunition for the 244 was appropriate for the rifle's twist. No accuracy problems there.

The 244 lost out to the 243 because the 722 was a plain, cheap looking rifle too long-barreled and heavy for a sporter and too light for a varmint rifle. The 243 was in the M70 Featherweight. If the rifle's cartridges had been reversed, the M70 in 244 would have been the winner. My opinion-I was there.

Bruce

bcp has a good point. The 721,722 series is uglier than a sack full of fried eholes. Even to another 721-722.

Got my 6mm Rem, a tang-safety Ruger Mod 77, new in Jun 70. Mine had the pencil whip standard barrel and never shot with any consistency. Occassional just-below-an-inch to 2"-3". Drove me nuts.
In Handloader Magazine #132, Mar-Apr 1988, a Mr. C.E. Harris did an analysis of the 6mm comparing it to the .243 Win. Mr. Harris also sometimes did technical pieces for the American Rifleman. He used 12 identical rifles (same make and model) in each caliber, 6mm and .243. He showed much better accuracy with the .243. His conclusion was the 6mm Rem chamber had a 3 degree forcing cone (leade?) compared to a 1.5 degree cone for the .243 Win,. This creates a longer cone for the .243 with a more gentle transition to the rifled bore during obturation. Mr. Harris reports making a 6mm reamer with the .243 Win forcing cone and realized a big improvement in the 6mm's accuracy.
Don't know how much of this is true, I'm just the messenger.
I had my 6mm Ruger rebarreled with a hand-lapped Shilen blank and a modified chamber reamer in Germany in 1986, Mine also has the 1.5 degree cone. Worked (and works like a champ).

Don Boyd



Don Boyd

I'd also agree with bcp's statement that the .244/6mm was beated out by the .243 because of the guns available.....not the strength of the round or accuracy of either.

I too was there when the .243/244 were "new". In the late 50's and early 60's a centerfire rifle was (at least in my neck of the woods) a "deer" rifle. Varmits were somebody the white hatted cowboys chased on the TV westerns.....not something you hunted. A rifle was for hunting deer.

Most shooters in that day did not handload ammo and only shot factory loads. As they came from the factory, the .243 and .244 were equally accurate.

The .308 Win. was also very new and was almost instantly accepted as a "great" round. In my area, the .243 seemed a logical step for Winchester following the .308 and benifitted from the positive reputation of it's parent round. The .244 was veiwed as Remington's attempt to "copy" the .243 even though they were introduced at almost the same time.....sort of a "me too" thing that was not very flattering to Remington.

In those days, where I hunted, bolt action rifles were fairly rare. Here it was thick woods and running deer with dogs that prevailed and faster actions were seen as the way to go. However, if one did want a bolt gun, the older, more established, "Rifleman's Rifle"....the Winchester Model 70....was far more popular than what was seen as Remington's weak attempt to compete (the much uglier 721-722). Strike one!!!

As far as "real" (non-bolt action) deer guns, the lever action was prefered. Although not common, the .243 was available in the established Savage 99......the .244 was not. Much more popular here was the also new Winchester Model 88 in .243. The .244 was not avalable in ANY lever gun......a big strike two against it.

Semi-auto rifles were concidered a good idea, but not too trusted because of reliability issues (particularly the long action....30-06....versions of the Remington 740-742). Along came the beautiful Winchester 100 which was very reliable and chambered in the .243.......the .244 was chambered in the Remington "Jam-O-Matic". Strike three!!

The .244 WAS available in the pump action Remingtom Model 760, while the .243 did not come in a pump action. This SHOULD have been an advantage, but for whatever reason, the pump action guns just weren't very popular in this area.

Accuracy was never mentioned as a reason for choosing one round over the other until several years later.....and most of that talk came from gun magazines, not personal experience. It was the RIFLES that killed the .244 in those early years.....not how it performed. This was true where I hunted at least.

Yesterday evening I shot yet another Roe Buck with the 6mm using 85 gr. TSX, this time measured at 3250 fps.

It was a stalk to into 100 yards in a very fickle wind. The buck was browsing in some very steep and foliated area. Relief and foliage prohibited a knelling or laying down position.

I took the shot at about 90 yards when he stood free, broadsite - offhand, sling supported.

Roedeer are small critters, but tasty. Killzone is about 5x6 inches. Range was streching that kind of shot for me but I hit him good. Lung/Liver; just a smitchen back. One step jump an a little slide; found him 5 steps from the spot.

Conclusion:

1) I love the 6mm Rem.
2) I know the situation would have played out excalty same with a .243 Win.

BTW - my 6mm (Kermit, you know the green one) is very precice, when I do my part.

BTW II: that TSX totally over penetrated that deer.

-Bob F.

I'll admit a bias towards the 6mm Rem.

I've had some 243's and ended up selling them (still have one for sale). Currently have three 6mm Remingtons, including a 40-X.

I like the 6mm Rem enough that when I decided to build a 6mm bore "something" a few years back, I had to buy a new 6mm Rem reamer for my gunsmith, as all he had was a 243 Win reamer. Added to the overall bill, but I like it enough that I did it.

In all practicality, there's probably not a whole lot of difference in them, but it's that intangible "confidence" thing that sways me toward the 6mm Rem. Every single one that I've owned has been an outstanding shooter.

Appreciate all the input folks. Though I need it like Custer needed Indians, I've been thinking about picking up a 6mm Rem 700 Classic. Dies and brass are on sale @ Cabela's, so I think it's a sign. It'd be a lock if they'd bring back their free shipping promotion.

I have had one 6mm Rem and now have a 722 in 244 Rem, both the same case, with the 6mm Rem barrel twist being 1-10" and the 722 twist of 1-12". Since I only shoot light bullets in the 6mm rifles, I never noticed any accuracy difference between the two rifles. The 6mm Rem had a Hart barrel and the rifle I had was built by Hart. I gave that rifle to one of my kids.
Maybe if I try shooting the heavier bullets in my 722, I might note some accuracy degredation due to the slow twist. But, I'm set to go with it as the 95 gn Nosler Partition is very accurate in this 722 rifle.
If one were to shoot the heaviest 6mm bullets in a 243 with a 1-10" twist, and in my 722 with the 1-12" twist, and the accuracy was great with the 243, and very bad with the 244, then attempt to sell in print that the 243 was more accurate than the 244, I'd have to call that person on their integrity being less than acceptable. It sure isn't a fair test.

Don

I have shot more rounds from the 6mm Rem than all other Cal's combined. The 6mm will shoot as good or better as any 243 depending on the bedding and barrel of each individual rifle. My present 6mm Rem has a Shilen 1&12 twist barrel and will group the Hornady 87 gr BTHP with Win 760 just under 1/2 inch. The 6mm is the first long range rifle i started with and the first round i started my handloading career with . I will always have a 6mm Rem in my safe and prefer it over the 243 and 240 Wby which i also have rifles chambered in.

I noticed someone mention having a 6mm made in a LA...is this typical? What action (LA/SA) usually come on a factory 6mm? At one time I was interested in getting a rebarreled 6mm but the interest faded cuz the .243 does everything as well...of course if I could find a factory 6mm I would probably get it and get this to be a donor rifle (and shot it some )

All that I know of, from the factory, are on short actions.

All of my M700's and the 40-X are are short actions.

Some guys will build rifles of the 6mm Rem/257 Roberts/7x57 type stuff on a long, so that they aren't limited to a short action magazine length when they load long, heavy bullets way out. Not exactly necessary, but not unreasonable either.

All of mine are shot single action, so it's a non-issue for me. If they fit in the loading port, they work.

DMB..,

I too have an original 722 in .244. Thus far 55gr BalTips are getting .3 inch groups and old 85gr Nosler Solid Bases are shooting around .4in - these are 3 shot groups. It also shoots Sierra 85gr SP and HP into .5in. Pretty good accuracy, I think, for a 60year old gun that wasn't treated very well before I got it.

I also have a Ruger#1 in 6mm REM and a M700 in .243. Neither shoot quite as well but both are very satisfactory. Have also loaded for several .243's belonging to friends.

So, NO there is no accuracy difference between the 6mm and the .243 other than variations one might expect between differant rifles, in my limited experience.

O

I had a Rem 600 in 6mm Rem in the early 90's. It was a .5 MOA rifle with 85 Nosler Partitions and RL19. I foolishly sold it. Now that I have kids I found and bought another. It's favourite load? 85 Noslers and RL19. Shoots about the same as the last one. Some loads worse some better. Kills caribou well. Never found the .243 to be more accurate than the lovely 6.

Honestly, I think the 243/6mm controversy is just a Ford/Chevy thing. Mostly a matter of personal preference. The 6mm may just be a teeeny bit easier to work with, but that's just me.

O