I am new to the 6.5 CM and have only been shooting it for about 1 1/2 years. Just started to hand load for it.

All of the factory loaded ammo boxes of the 143 gr ELD X that I have make no mention of the the recipe. From what I could gather, it was 41.7 grs of H4350.

Why did they stop printing that information?

I’ve never seen a single box of factory ammo with load data on it. Never.

For the most part, they use powders we usually don’t have access to or that we would recognize. The manufacturers buy powder in “carload” lots made to a specific burn rate (plus other measurable parameters). Federal doesn’t, for example, buy a trainload of IMR 4350. Mule Deer explains this much better than I do, but that’s the cliff notes version.

Some did indeed come with data on it.

I think it was the early years right after introduction?

I know John Barsness bought some in 2010, but I don't know the date of manufacture.

Yep, Hornady put load data on boxes of their 6.5 Creedmoor factory ammo for a while. Whether it was the load actually used in the ammo, or a suggestion, might be debatable.

From what I read putting the load recipe on the box was one of the stipulations for development. The criteria for the load was asked to a known LR shooter. That was one of the suggestions. I can't find the article.

I've got one of them boxes - saved for when the CM museum come callin'

Cool. What is the load?

140 gr. AMAX, H4350 41.5 gr, Fed 210M primer, COL 2.810", MV 2700 fps. from a 24" barrel

Not gonna shoot this box...

I shot those loads in my first 6.5 Creedmoor, a walnut-stocked Hawkeye with a 26" barrel. If I recall corrrectly (this was a decade ago) 5-shot groups (not 3-shot) averaged around .6" at 100 yards. Have used the same basic load in several others 6.5 CMs since then, and all have shot well--including a Ruger American Predator which shot even better.

Kinda wish I kept that rifle, but bought several other 6.5 CMs to see if they shot as well. Also have fooled with a few loaners. My latest is a Bergara Ridge, which also shoots very well, but is sort of in the middle of the 6.5 CMs owned.

When the Gen 1 RPR first came out, I put my money down and bought it along with a small pallet of those AMAX Match factory ammo.

I recall some shooters on the line mentioning the load was hot (???) in their custom rigs, but the RPR just loved that load.

I'm wouldn't be surprised to hear Ruger made sure their RPR foray would shoot that factory round like a champ.

Pud

Well, that's probably why !

I never bought any 6.5 Creedmoor ammo and I never 'looked' at a box of it.

Jerry

Eggzackly

Lawyers?? Someone was certain to blow themselves up using the listed load.

CGPAUL,

I doubt it. If that was the concern, why does Hornady still publish a new handloading manual every few years?

That would be my concern..it`s on a box, not in a Manual, that has years of history behind it. And in working with the general public for many years, seeing first hand what people will do for a buck,my faith in human nature has kinda wore thin.

Uh, the load on the box is the same load in the #10 manual. They just back off the OAL by 0.010".

If someone can't put that recipe together and manage to keep all their fingers attached, then perhaps they should switch to baking something else...

Another good point about CGPAUL's not-so-insightful post.

When Dennis DeMille (at that time GM of Creedmoor Sports) and Dave Emary (Engineer with Hornady) got to talking during downtime at Camp Perry during Highpower week, Dennis outlined his criteria for the ideal highpower rifle cartridge. One of his criteria was accurate long range match ammo with the load printed on the box. Emary took this to heart and Hornady produced the ammo with load recipe's. The scuttlebut in the highpower community at the time was that it was the "real" load recipe. I don't know why they discontinued the practice...but perhaps there's truth to the assertion that the ammo is now loaded with non-cannister grade powders that for us ordinary folk is unobtanium.

Does your Gen 1 have an unthreaded muzzle?

I doubt it.....

Why not? You figure it’ll be worth something one of these days? 🙄

After some thought, I suspect one reason Hornady may have quit listing the H4350 load on the box is that H4350 has been unobtainium for long periods (including right now) ever since the Obama Panics.

Uh...some handloaders found that 43gr - 43.5gr was more accurate ??

OCD. I have different boxes dating back to the '60's...that would be the 1960's ...

Nope.

The online Hodgdon data is more conservative. 140 gr bullet with a max load of 40.0 grs and list as compressed. What's up with that?

https://www.hodgdonreloading.com/data/rifle


Seems like H4350 comes and goes often enough to grab some. I got it from Midsouth about a month ago.

That's because the 140 Hodgdon used for pressure-testing, for some reason, is the Swift A-Frame, which is among the bullets producing the most pressure for the same diameter and weight.

Maybe, but I doubt it.

I have now owned five 6.5 Creedmoors made by various companies, and handloaded for 3-4 other loaners. In general H4350 is at least one of the most accurate powders for bullets in the 140-grain range, but the most accurate charge will vary some due to several factors:

The rifle.
The particular lot of H4350.
Brass and primer.
The particular bullet. (Here it should be noted that Hornady no longer makes the 140 A-Max.)

I purchased my first 6.5 Creedmoor in 2010 from a local store, a walnut-stocked Ruger Hawkeye, along with several boxes of Hornady factory ammo, the only kind available then. The load we're talking about, with the 140 A-Max and 41.5 grains of H4350 printed on the box, was the one I chose to sight-in with. It's very first group at 100 yards--which was 5-shot, not 3-shot--went into .63", which is not bad for an OTB factory rifle with factory ammo. And gee, I didn't even break the barrel in "properly"--whatever that means.

JB, just recently pulled out The Big Book Of Gun Gack and re-read your introduction to the 6.5 Creedmoor. That rifle was a heck of a good shooter. Also gleaned info from GGII.

Do you have experience with the 139 Scenars? Any article on if?

Just a little. but only on paper, not game.

Due to the experience of many others (especially Pat--"scenarshooter" on the 'Fire) I am sure they'd work fine. Plus, I have plenty of experience with the Berger Hunting VLD, on game up to elk size, and it works fine, though a little differently than the Scenar.

But even today many of the magazines I write for have a policy of not discussing the use of "target" bullets on big game--partly because they get too many letters from readers (most of whom have never used "target" bullets on big game) objecting to the practice. As a result I haven't tested them, whether on "media" or game, because there are far too many other bullet tests of various kinds that can be published.

That last sentence could end with "far too many other bullets that work".

Yep.