I have certainly heard a lot about the FC in 6.5 CM and, in fact, own one. I have become a fan.

Does anyone have some experience with the FC in 30-06?

If I ever give up my rifle looney status, I thought maybe the Fieldcrafts in 6.5CM and 30-06 might be a good pair to finish with.

donsm70

I have that pair. Haven't spent much time with the 30-06, only enough to set a 100 yard zero, get drops at 200 and 300, and plink a little. I like the contour/weight/balance. I've not started reloading for it yet but do wish it had a longer mag box....but will probably do fine as is.

I have the FC in 6.5 CM and have had similar thoughts on the same in 30-06 - that pair would make the rest of my bolt actions unnecessary. What a terrible thought!

I have it in ‘06 and really love the contour and weight. Shoots sub moa with reduced recoil hornady loads I got to break it in. Tried two Barnes loads and got moa ish groups. It will work for me.

Anyone else?

donsm70

Not me. Based on a few shots from my son's Kimber Hunter 6.5, I'm turning into a recoil p*ssy in my old age. A 6-pound '06 sounds like more fun than I want to have these days. You go ahead though.

I've got a nice light deer load for you if you get one.

Oddly enough, the only rifle/round combo that I've shot in the last several years that made me say "I wasn't expecting that!" was 20 rounds of Winchester factory 140 gr 6.5 CM ammo in a Fieldcraft rifle...only factory loads I've put through that one. Maybe I was just extra hung over that day but I've put hundreds of 143 gr reloads (right at book max) through the same rifle and nothing has seemed as harsh as those first 20 factory rounds. Thinking on it, the 150 gr factory ammo I've put through an -06 Fieldcraft have seemed very mild. Same stock design with the 06 being a little heavier, with more powder pushing a slightly heavier bullet but recoil seemed softer than the CM.....there was something about that factory CM ammo that got my attention.

I have a NULA in 30-06,and a really accurate Kimber in 6.5 Creedmoor,so I have achieved the same thing with two rifles of similar size,weight,and accuracy.

And you are correct that those two will handle nearly everything,nearly everywhere. A guy could add a 375 to the mix and you don't have to say "nearly".

But for everything in North America,the two you mention would work very nicely indeed.

Are your long action NULA and short action Kimber really that close in size? I have a Forbes 24B in 270 and a Kimber Montana in 7-08. When I lay them side by side there is a huge difference in size. The Montana looks like a kids gun compared to the Forbes. I'm not sure of the weight. Both are very light. The size difference is however huge. I'm 6'4 and large frame and I like the fit of the Forbes a lot more. I can shoot the Montana just fine but it feels more like a toy even though it's only about 1/2 to 3/4 pound lighter than the Forbes.

The NULA stock feels beefier,but overall size and weight seems pretty close to me.

I don't get how Barrett nailed the mag box on the short actions but screwed the pooch on the LA version.....

I don’t get how Barrett nailed the barrel contour on the long actions but screwed the pooch on the SA version...

Just following Mr. Forbes layout. If they would have lengthened the long action to a 700's length it would be perfection (at a couple oz's cost).

Does the Barrett have a "closed" grip area like the obsolete Forbes?

It is a more closed grip. I don’t have a Forbes so I can’t compare. It is more closed than a Kimber 84M, probably close to a Bansner. I really like it.

Didn't Melvin help design the Montana stock for Kimber? Urban legend?

Don't know about that, but I do know if you mention Kimber Montana to Melvin you will quickly realize it was a mistake.

What are the two rifles in your photo, please?

Top
and
Bottom.

donsm70

Looks like a BFC on top and a Kimber 84M on the bottom.

LOL!

Yep, Barrett FC 6.5 Creed on top, Kimber Montana 84m 7mm-08 on bottom.

Thank you. That's what I thought, but just checking. I'm sure the FC in 30-06 would be a similar stock contour.

donsm70

+1!

That's what's keeping me from getting a FC in .308.

+2
Yes, my thoughts exactly..... !

Hey,thanks for posting that Jordan.There looks to me to be more size difference between my Forbes 270 and my Montana 7-08. I don't know though if it's just because of the picture as opposed to a personal view or actual difference. I'll try to learn the new picture hosting and post one of my combo.

I think there is some serious hair splitting going on here. I’d say my 22” (.56) 84M in 338 Fed points fantastically. I’d also say it has less of a weight forward feel than my 21” (.55”) Fieldcraft in 6.5 Creedmoor that is full length bedded. At least they are so close that the difference in the field is truly trivial.
For Barrett to choose a lighter contour on a rifle designed to be ultra-Lightweight makes sense. It works incredibly well as they designed it. If your PREFERENCE is for more weight that’s fine, I might even agree for some applications. But what they made works in terms of pointing and feel, and is ultra light. I’m finding I appreciate having less weight in the rifle as the scopes I’m shifting to are more than making up for it. For my latest build having less weight in the barrel works to my favor. With wood and an SHV I’ll take all the weight reduction elsewhere I can get.

If it wasn't for hair-splitting, this would be a pretty small forum.



That's the key for me. My preference would be to have more weight forward. That's what feels best.

I’ll take a muzzle diameter of .600 - .620” @ 22” personally...

308 Win - 5.1 lbs (2.31 kg)

30-06 Sprg - 5.5 lbs (2.49 kg)

Weights from Barrett's website. There appears to be .4 lb difference between the 21" 0 contour .308 and the 24" #2 contour 30-06. ~.25lb (4oz) should be action weight, so the barrel difference is ~.15 lb or about 2.5 ozs. I'd love the .308 to have the #2 contour at 22" (or even 24", it's easy enough to have it cut).

Dry firing the 6.5 CM and the 30-06 off hand really lets me see how much the forward balance steadies the long action.

For me, the less a rifle weighs, the more important "where" the weight is. Generally, I'm not shooting off a rest and the weight forward helps settle things down, especially on a light weight rifle.

I'm no expert, but it seems that the 6.5x55 has it all together with regard to mag box length and barrel contour. I sure like mine.

I suspect that the same rifle in 30-06 would be a bit sporty off the bench with full-power 180 grain loads.

I'm not sure 24" is not the more important number in that equation rather than the diameter. Clearly both are relevant though. I've always thought saving weight in the barrel, receiver, mag, bolt, etc. but adding a fixed sight at the muzzle would really be the best solution. At least have the weight be useful.

When I rebarrelled my 84M I went to 23" and .585 at the muzzle. While I do like the feel, I honestly can't say I shoot it better in the field. If I were shooting at competition targets and keeping score, and a half inch mattered, then maybe a difference would reveal itself. But for quick shots at game I find the 84M works fantastic. Haven't shot the Barrett at a critter yet but it points well too. To make a real difference I would have to add so much weight that carrying it would be a pain. One I get the Barrett back I'll take it out and shoot it offhand at 10yds for score and compare to my 26" bull barreled .308 and 84M in 338 Fed and see how much it really matters.

I've no complaints with my FC 6.5 CM, but if I had the choice, I'd probably have gone with the #2 they use on the long actions. I went back and forth on the FC in CM vs. Swede for that reason and since I had two Swedes and no CM's, the decision to go CM made the most sense. Recoil of the '06 in that light of rifle would concern me...

Please turn in your rifle looney card....... 😉

I just went with the 6.5 CM and made it a 25" barrel length to keep the weight at the end of the barrel. But honestly I am not nearly astute enough to get wrapped around the handle on balance. I have had whippy barrels and have had heavy bull barrels. From field positions it really doesn't matter to me that much which it is. But I suppose I could act like I can tell the difference between a 21" and 23" barrel of the same contour if I were to pick up one with my eyes closed.

What field positions are you referring to?

Agreed.



Also 100% in agreement.
Perfect melding of cartridge to magazine length, twist rate, and correct barrel contour for the rifle setup.

Something's not quite right there. The barrel length difference alone will be around 2.5 ounces, let alone the difference in contour. Would be nice to weigh a long action and short action Fieldcraft of the same caliber to see the difference.

The more closed grip on that Forbes variant allowed the back on the trigger guard to rap against my middle finger. Once was a warning - the second time at the same range session was brutal.

Without a doubt the 6.5 swede FC is amazing and I am really enjoying it. But I have owned a Montana in 7/08 and now own a FC in 7/08 and I would trade in my Montana every time for a FC, not that there was anything inherently wrong with the Kimber. I just really prefer the way the FC handles and fits me, the barrel diameter isn’t going to kill any more or less game this year, and the difference in weight between the LA and the SA FC is minuscule in my hands. The throat geometry of the SA FC is tight and it is only 2.810 OAL for a 168 gr VLD to kiss, and I have all this mag box left to work with. But in my Montana I couldn’t even reach the lands with that and I had already begin to run out of mag box length. Like i said no complaints but the FC has been a more consistently accurate rifle for me.

It seemed odd to me but I'm just playing with numbers. I am making an assumption about the 4 oz difference in action weight between the short and long action based on Mr. Forbes 4 oz difference between his Model 20 and Model 24. There may be a bit less of a difference with the Fieldcraft....but it shouldn't be tremendously different.

Worst recoil I ever felt was a Remington BDL 3006 placed in an ADL stock. Why that would make a difference I have no idea, but it was brutal. My friend quickly put the BDL stock back on.

[/quote]



My math designation tells me that the 5.1 and 5.5 lbs represent fractions and not lbs./ounces. Eg.- 5.5 lbs should mean 5 # 8 ounces. If 5.5 means 5# 5 oz., that is misleading. I sent "tech support" an email.

The weight difference is less than most would expect. I posted this before but the differential between a 6.5 creed and 6.5 sweed was 5.5 ounces on my scale. 5 pounds 3.5 ounces on creed; 5 pounds 9 ounces on sweed.

Ok, tech support at Barrett answered my email. They explained that 5.1 pounds is 5 pounds and 1/10 of a pound - which is 1.6 ounces. So...5.5 pounds is 5 and a half pounds or 5 pounds 8 ounces. So each .1 is 1.6 ounces. Personally, I do think it is confusing to use decimals as a measure of ounces.

I'm looking to buy a dedicated hunting rifle that I can use for bigger game. All my current rifles are either varmint caliber or range guns. I'm strongly considering a Fieldcraft in 30-06 to fill this role. So many options out there..

The 270 would work too.LOL

I was thinking the same thing.

A 30-05 in a sub 6# rifle is rather perky. My .02 is that a .270 Win. would be a better choice. 150gr NP's is where I would start and stop.

I have a fc in 30-06 and my hunting buddy has one in 270. Shooting 130 gr at 3300 and 150 gr at 3k hasn’t been punishing with the ‘06. I don’t have a need for heavier bullets (150 gr Barnes will do it all), but I like the option if I want to shoot 180 gr at elk. That said, the 270 is a little more pleasing to shoot.