Help me out, what am I missing. Why does the 264’s performance only just equal the PRC round? I would have thought with the additional case capacity, the 264WM should have had a significant performance gain. Thoughts?

See the recent thread 7mm RM vs .280 AI. Maybe similar issue.

Got a couple 264’s. The PRC sounds cool. There was a time not that long ago we had few 6.5’s, now one behind every bush!

PRC is new kid on the block. I would seriously consider getting one except I've been shooting a 264 for 50 years and have never found it wanting. I will enter raffles to win a PRC though. If I win one then . . . . . . . .

Marketing 101....

The original 140 gr bullets from both WW and Remington were dual diameter bullets. That's right back half to 1/3 of the bullet at groove dia., a short tapered section forward of the cannelure then the diameter was .257"which ran on top the lands. Which both rifle makers utilized a very short throat and held the coal to 3.34". Neither bullet was a real tackdriver either but atleast the throat allowed them to be seated out a bit. With modern full diameter full length 140's you have to deep seat them to accommodate the short throat which robs you of powder space. Put a short barrel on it and really fug it's potential. With a 700 and it's 3.6" box plus the judicious use of a throating reamer 140's+ the right slow burner powder would be more than a dream...mb

The original 140 gr bullets from both WW and Remington were dual diameter bullets. That's right back half to 1/3 of the bullet at groove dia., a short tapered section forward of the cannelure then the diameter was .257"which ran on top the lands. Which both rifle makers utilized a very short throat and held the coal to 3.34". Neither bullet was a real tackdriver either but atleast the throat allowed them to be seated out a bit. With modern full diameter full length 140's you have to deep seat them to accommodate the short throat which robs you of powder space. Put a short barrel on it and really fug it's potential. With a 700 and it's 3.6" box plus the judicious use of a throating reamer 140's+ the right slow burner powder would be more than a dream...mb

Bottom line is the 264 Win Mag like the 257 Wby is a highly overbore and needs a 26-inch barrel to increase its expansion ratio and get the most out of the powder volume and gas expansion. The PRC is less reliant on barrel length due to less powder usage and more uniform burn rate.

If one were to set up the 264 Win Mag long throated with a 26” barrel and use VLD bullet loadings you could better 3,200 fps with 140gr - 145gr class bullets. Starting a Berger 156 OL at 3,000 fps would be a wicked long range game getter.

The PRC only needs a 24” barrel to produce high velocity performance (shy of 3,000 fps with 140gr class bullets), but will not produce upper end speeds or better the use of heavier 6.5mm bullet performance than a 264 Win Mag. It is however a better carry rig for hunting purposes, especially alpine type, while the 264 Win Mag is a better long range bean field rig utilizing a 26-inch barrel delivering a heavier payload.

I think the .264 Winchester is good for a couple more hundred FPS with the same bullet.

The Hornady Match load in 6.5 PRC and the 147 ELDM lists velocity at 2910.

I’m shooting the 147 out of my .264 WM at 3090 and it’s in a lower velocity node, pretty tame

550 yard group on development day




The 139 Scenars went around 3225

Yup. That's what I'm doing as well.

Last elk camp turned out to be an all 6.5mm affair. Got to use a borrowed PRC on a cow elk. It was nice, but I'm not gonna go out and buy one.

If however, I win one, well, that's different...

I wore out one barrel on a Win 70 Classic in 264 mostly looking for 3200 fps with 140 gr partitions and spbts.

Early RL25 was a step in the wrong direction.

The feat can be achieved today with most rifles using new powders I did not have available.

But I am satisfied with 3300 fps with Magnum and a 130 accubond from the new 27 inch PacNor.

many cartridges like the 6.5 PRC do well for a while then all of a sudden they are obsolete no matter how good or bad that cartridge is. but the old 264 Win. mag. 30-06 and many others just keep on truck`n ahead. 10 years from now lets see if the 6.5 PRC is still around ?

Steve,

I suspect the 6.5 PRC will be around a lot longer than the .264, partly because the .264 keeps fading in popularity--and at its peak was never a popular as either the 7mm Remington or .300 Winchester Magnums.

This thread contains some good points, but also some common misconceptions. Let me start with the reason today's pressure-tested loading data for the 6.5 PRC and .264 Winchester shows very little difference in muzzle velocity:

1) NEW .264 data has been scarce for a long time now, because the cartridge never was that popular. When I bought my first one around 20 years ago--a genuine M70 Westerner--new data was even scarcer. Which is why I worked up loads with new powders using old-time methods, such as measuring case-head expansion--though my comparisons were a little more sophisticated. But I still managed to work up what were apparently "safe" loads at 3200+ fps with various 140-grain bullets. (If anybody wants to read this old article, it appeared in the February 2005 issue of Handloader.) Have continued to experiment with the .264 since then, in others rifles with various barrel lengths and rifling twists--most of which appeared in Chapter 30 of the first Big Book of Gun Gack.

The biggest long-time misconception that appeared in this thread is that seating bullets "longer" gains any significant amount of velocity. This is due to the 4-1 Rule, which is that any increase in powder capacity in cartridges of the same caliber results in about 1/4 as much velocity.

Let's say bullets in the .264 are seated 1/2" further out--which would be quite a stretch. This results in .127 cubic inch in extra powder capacity. The cubic capacity of the .264 case with a typical bullet seated is around 78-80 grains of water--which happens to weigh just about as much as modern smokeless rifle powder. The additional "powder room" added by such longer seating amounts to less than 1% more powder room--but let's call it 1%, to make things easy. 1/4 of 1% amounts to about 8 fps in additional potential velocity. Try to find that on the typical chronograph.

I just checked the maximum-velocity loads of the 6.5 PRC and .264 Winchester in three sources of newer, published, pressure-tested data, with bullets around 130 grains and 140 grains. The sources were Hodgdon, Hornady and Nosler, and the difference between muzzle velocities in the two rounds were indeed very small--and the SAAMI maximum average pressure is 64,000 PSI for the .264 and 65,000 for the 6.5 PRC--which is insignificant.

Instead, I believe the "sameness" of the results is due to three factors:

1) The barrel length is all mixed up. The Hodgdon data was shot with a 24" barrel in 6.5 PRC, and 26" in the .264--but the Nosler data as shot with a 26" 6.5 PRC barrel and a 24" .264 barrel, as was the Hornady data.

2) Since the .264 isn't very popular, companies tend to run their .264 pressure barrels longer before replacing them. As the barrel wears, eventually this results in lower pressures and velocities.

3) Since the .264 isn't very popular, there's no major reason for companies to try every new powder to determine the "best" powder--especially in new pressure barrels. They just want to provide "safe" data for the relatively few handloading hunters who still use the .264.

I'll additionally observe that the major difference between the .264 and the 6.5 PRC is the PRC was designed to use high-BC bullets--which don't need to be started as fast to provide similar down-range performance to .264, especially in the original M70 Westerners which had 1-9 twists, which wouldn't stabilize some of today's 6.5mm bullets.

My model 70 classic has a 1-9 twist and my daughters BACO stainless featherweight has a 1-9. What makes no sense Winchester used 1-8 twist barrels in the 6.5x55 classics and as we all know the 6.5 cm..

That is where I landed in terms of same same but different in terms of velocities and barrel lengths in the reloading manuals. The old 264wm seemed to have a bigger boiler room and wasn't getting any real world advantage over its newer sibling. I was wondering whether the 264wm had more in it given newer powders, much like the 270 has done with RL26 and 150 grain bullets.

Buddy has a 264Win Mag 1:8 Bartlein @ 26” on a M-70 loading 156EOL’s @ 3.335” & 2910fps via Magpro.

Just throwing out some more modern twist/projectile/powder data for the 264Win.

Ran a bunch of powder models on QL. R-33 and VV570 were the only 2 that theoretically were appreciably faster than Magpro, getting close to 3K FPS w/the 156’s.

With the 264 WM, I will mention a couple of things. First, this cartridge EATS barrel throats, but H1000 burns cool and will greatly enhance the barrel life as will N160.

Second, if/when you try R#25, expect the best accuracy, and lowest SD(sub 10 fps) with a Winchester Magnum primer, while a fed 215 will just blow the groups up with this powder!

Years ago, I shot a Winchester Model 70 out with 129g HOrnady sp with IMR 4831 before I learned how well H1000 performed with 139g Lapua's in a Rem 700.

When you have no experience with the 264 Win Mag caliber, it can seem to be particularly finicky to find a load for. If you follow the Kiss, Find Pressure, Rock On method, your success will be easy. Barrel life was almost used up developing loads on my Model 70(my ignorance), not so much on the Remington. When I did find a load with the 123g Lapua and 129g Hornady Sp, velocity was 3175, and I never used more than one shot on a deer or hog...never, under 300 yards was typical. A Brux 8T in this caliber would be my choice because they are slick as glass inside!

I had a friend and an uncle that used a .264 in the 70's and 80's and seemed to work well enough...no better than the .270 wcf I carried .
I also used a 25/06 alot at that time, the .264 diameter bullet didn't offer anything special.
A fast twist barrel doesn't offer me anything either, and the 6.5 PRC just seems unneccessary.
In the old days we carried wood and blue up into the highest basins, weight and a long tube just didn't seem to matter, these days Iike lighter more compact gear.
I carry a different .270 wcf now, lighter and shorter and higher performing than ever.
Rule #1 for me, a repeating rifle will not have a long tube and the wcf works ideally with a 22" barrel.
The 25/06, .264, 7mm magnums do not. My criteria at 65 years.
Can the 6.5 PRC thrive with a 22" barrel? I doubt it.

well then throw this in with the 6.5x284 which has set a lot of bench rest records , 6.5 x284 brass might be easier to find and /or neck down 284 brass than a 6.5 PRC ? yes i am a 257 Weatherby mag lover and now days this cartridge can compete in the hunting world yet . the one thing about the old 264 Win. mag. is if you have a Winchester model 70 pre-64 " which i have a couple " this old rifle cartridge in a PRE-64 will still work fine for hunting but it will always have way more resale value. yes the 6.5 PRC is right now the hot 6.5 cartridge so to speak " yes i did schooled a little by John " but for how long will this cartridge " 6.5 PRC " in a rifle be around or have much value in the future . or be the better 6.5 cartridge and maybe another caliber will be the new hot ballistic cartridge ? could be a 25 caliber ? seems the ammo - gun manufactures are always trying to find a way to figure out a new hot cartridge which is fine ,personally i wish they would bring back some old cartridges in a fine looking wood stock ? 6.5 Swede ,257 Roberts , 256 Newton , 250 Savage just a few examples , some us are tired of the small selection of rifle / cartridge selection available and seems all are plastic stocks now mostly ICK !

The 6.5 PRC does not depend on a 26" barrel to do well, with a 18" barrel and 139 gr. Scenar and R-26, the 6.5 PRC suppressed kills as well as any thing else i have used, on all types of big game, some bigger than the storied bullet proof Rocky Mountain Elk. if you haven't tried it don't knock it. Rio7

But will the 6.5 PRC outpace the 7mm PRC in popularity or will the 7mm PRC doom the 6.5 PRC like the 7mm Rem Mag put and end to the 264.

I say this because many 6.5 PRC show up on long actions, same as used by the 7mm PRC, which requires one.

son killed a huge bull elk on public land no guide either with a 30 inch arrow so ya any centerfire rifle with a good bullet can kill an elk.

I think the PRC is so popular because so many of the younger shooters (not necessarily hunters) are getting into long range shooting. Performance is on par with the 270 Win but exceeds the Win at distances beyond 500 yards do to the BC of the 6.5 bullets. Overall, I think it's a great cartridge but I have two 270 so why bother with a "270 short". The long range shooting community is all about short action cartridges, the 300 PRC excepted, so there's not much interest in the museum piece cartridges like the 270. I had a nice 264 in a Win 70, very cool, kinda like my 257 Roy but I had a 270 and figured why bother.

Plenty of incorrect assumptions here.

I’ve got both the PRC and have had a few 264’s. The 264 seems about 100-125 FPS on top of the PRC with the same bullets.

Never seen the short throat on the Model 70’s hurt anything with todays long bullets.

I can't seem to get the same accuracy out of my 270 as I can the 6.5 PRC or my 6.5 Creed. Both will shoot in three shot groups in the .2's when I'm on my game. I can't get the 270 Winchester even close to that.

Craig Boddington implies that the 6.8 Westerner is the new hotness, but I'm on the 6.5 train, a place I thought I'd never be after a lifetime of 7mm and 30 cal magnums.

Among the reasons the 6.5 Creedmoor and 6.5 PRC (and other new cartridges) tend to be more accurate is their chamber throat (leade), which starts out as a cylinder just barely above bullet diameter before tapering into the lands. This tends to keep the bullets straighter as they move from the case to the bore.

The .270 Winchester's throat/leade, like many other older cartridges, is tapered, which doesn't help keep the bullets straight--and is why seating depth is often more critical in such older rounds.

For many years, we have been told the belt on magnum cases was superfluous. Later, it was not just superfluous, but detrimental. It caused feeding problems, headspace issues, reloading issues and contributed to chronic dandruff. So it was that we began to see the introduction of the beltless magnums (like the ones Charles Newton marketed over 100 years ago). At the same time, perhaps due to lifestyle differences, shooters began having trouble operating bolt action rifles with long bolt throws, so we got short Magnums. Now, these are a lot different than such cartridges as the Remington short magnums (350 and 6.5) because those cases had belts and would barely launch a bullet.
Strangely enough, when I built 6.5 Rem Mag rifles, 40 years ago, with 24 inch barrels, they performed pretty well. I put 8 twist barrels on them because I always thought an 8 was better in a 6.5. The belt seemed to be a fairly innocuous, if unnecessary, feature of the case. Today though, brass is hard to get and top quality brass, nearly impossible.
The PRC checks the boxes necessary for a modern cartridge. It is beltless, shortish, and well advertised. It may not perform a lot differently than the old 6.5 Remington, but it will perform a lot better with factory loads because 6.5 Rem factory loads suck!
In many respects, everything being accomplished with modern offerings could have been accomplished by changing a few things on existing cartridges. Throat configuration, bullet offerings, different powders, and other changes would have done the trick. Unfortunately, some changes could not be accommodated by rifles already chambered for these cartridges, so it worked as well to just start fresh.
I am always saying, if Winchester had chambered the Newton cartridges, there are a whole bunch of cartridges we would never have seen. A Ruger 77 in 30 Newton would be a fine rifle. Do you know, a 30 Newton will still push 180's to 3100 fps?
In the end, the cartridge case is nothing but a powder holder and a gasket. Some gaskets catch and hold the attention of shooters; others do not. GD

Good post in general, but this statement here is prime-quotable material.

The biggest advantage to the 6.5 PRC is good reamer designs and the availability of good quality brass like Lapua. When I did load development on my first 6.5 PRC, every load I tried shot 0.5 or under. My second PRC shot the first load I tried in the .2s. Its and easy round with low recoil, quality brass, and good powders.

If it's that good, guys should quit dicking around with those PPc's and BR's. Good reamer designs? What does that even mean? I'm pretty sure they use the same six flute design as for every other reamer. Quality Lapua brass? Like the 30/06? Sounds a little bit like make-believe to me. GD

Yep, as usual gaydog just doesn’t quite get it

why no love for the 6.5-06? Think it has the Same case Capacity as the all new PRC

Dense much?

Smart enough to know there no magic bullets. When I started chambering rifles with parallel throat, just over bullet diameter, I was cocky enough to think I had the answer. My rifles shot real well and I won enough to feel pretty confident. Now, 45 years later, I've seen enough to be a little less assertive in this regard. Regarding cartridge design, I do believe there are some designs which make a better gasket. Cases with a strong head might allow one to load just enough hotter to find the sweet spot. This was amply demonstrated when the 6PPC took over from the 6x47. 6x47 brass was weaker and would fail right when you wanted it to work.
There is no doubt in my mind that ammunition manufacturers do a better job with some cartridges. There is not a lot of pressure to make precision 303 British, so they don't. If they did, the average rifle wouldn't know the difference. However, a well built rifle, fed precisely made 303 ammunition, will shoot as well as any other rifle shooting any other cartridge.
With the modern cartridges, like the PRC, the development has been a fairly holistic endeavor, but this doesn't necessarily mean the cartridge itself is anything special. It only means that the expectations for the entire system were set above those for the 260 Remington, for instance.
The 6.5/284 Norma was standardized as a precision cartridge and it worked fairly well (no better than a 6.5x55, mind you) except that the primer pockets tended to give out about the time one was approaching the place where it was starting to perform real well. The PRC should have a stronger head so it will allow that little bit extra. In this regard, it is a better gasket; so was the 6.5 Remington. It holds a suitable amount of powder, so it is a decent powder holder as well. Don't dispute any of this. What I dispute is the belief that this could not be done just as well with similar cartridges which already exist. I know it is possible to make a 308 which will shoot sub 1/4 moa. Likewise, I know it is possible to make a 7x57 shoot damn close to that. These are not, in their original factory guise, precision cartridges, but rifles which chamber them can be made to be so. GD

From my view, he gets it quite well. Would you care to demonstrate how he doesn't?

A couple more comments:

The 6.5 PRC, like most of the new "accuracy" cartridges since the 6mm PPC appeared, has a 30-degree shoulder. The 6mm PPC ended up with one after Lou Palmisano and Ferris Pindell did considerable pressure-testing of various case designs, finding 30 degrees resulted in the most consistent pressures and hence velocities. This may seem like BS or unimportant minutiae, but Rob Reiber--the recently retired long-time head of the ballistic lab at Hodgdon--says he definitely saw the same thing over the decades. While obviously very accurate rifles can be built for cartridges with a wide variety of shoulder angles, 30 degrees does indeed result in the most consistency.

Might also mention that when doing an article on case shapes, none of the several pressure-lab people I interviewed said that there was a case shape that resulted in "extra" velocity with the same amount of powder--which was one of Winchester's early claims about the .300 WSM. Instead the pressure-lab folks all said potential velocity is directly proportional to powder capacity--but that case shape did affect pressure/velocity consistency.

Shorter cases in a given caliber also results in more consistent pressures/velocities, another reason so many "accuracy" cartridges of various sizes have followed the 6mm PPC basics since it was introduced--which of course include the 6mm and 6.5 Creedmoor and all three PRC rounds.

One of the interesting things about the success of the 6mm/.284 is that eventually many shooters who wanted a plain old .284 Winchester often ended up buying 6mm/.284 brass and necking it up--when the origin of the 6mm/.284 was necking down .284 cases. This is because there isn't as much high-quality .284 brass available as there is high-quality 6mm/.284 brass.

About two years ago I decided my life would not be complete without a decent bolt action in .308. After months of searching, I could not find one that spoke to me. I did find a Cooper Raptor in 6.5 Creedmoor that did. I was not enamored with the cartridge, but thought if it wasn't all that and a bag of chips I'd send it down the road. Cooper used to give a target with the handload that made it. I was able to duplicate the results quite easily. The rifle due to its weight was a joy to shoot. But I thought the round was too light for elk. So I went ahead and went for the Creedmoor magnum, the 6.5 PRC. Also in a Cooper. This one a Open Country. Again even a caveman could replicate the handload. I used it for a large cow elk last December. I don't know that I'd use the Creedmoor or the PRC for a big black bear, but I sure like it for just about anything else in the lower 48 save the really big stuff like bison and moose. It's the pure accuracy I'm getting from these rounds that really make me sit up and take notice. And the lack of serious recoil. I just wish introduction of these cartridges and rifles (submoa capable) hadn't come so late in my hunting career.

I cannot dispute the efficiency of the shorter cases, nor can I dispute the 30-degree shoulder, although I doubt there is a huge difference between 25, 30, or 35. I well remember testing my first 6ppc, which I built in 1978, and it was amazing! I was shooting a 6x47 at the time. The 6x47 is probably best described as a scaled down 30/06 and, although my 6x47 shot very well and had won a bunch of stuff for me, the 6 PPC was markedly better. My very first test group was under .2". So this cartridge definitely worked. So did the 6 BR. Nonetheless, I am resistant to the idea that there is any magic in the shape. I got bored with just shooting a PPC, like everyone else, so I competed with 308's, 223's, and even built a semi-serious 30/40 Krag. If the build was good and the case capacity reasonable, any cartridge was capable of shooting to the 3/8 moa level or better. Big cartridges, like the 308 and the 30/40, were just harder to shoot well; at least for me! A good 223 seemed to shoot right along with the rest.
Nonetheless, I can't argue with the findings of the ballistic lab guys. I don't have their equipment, nor do I have their data base. I shoot a Creedmoor and like it fine. I don't think there is any magic in the design and I'm almost certain I could accomplish the same thing with a 6.5 Jap. I'm not trying to rain on any parades at all, I'm just not on the bandwagon. To me, a hunting rifle cartridge just has to push a bullet at the desired velocity. The rifle is the important thing, the cartridge is just a part.
I'm going to shut up now because I think I'm sounding a bit curmudgeonly! GD

I think you both missed it a little. Reamer does matter. What I see with the 6.5 CM and 6.5 PRC is consistency reamer to reamer. Over the decades there have been a lot of variations of the .264 reamer .. throat length, angle, etc .. so y' have to fine-tune ammo to match the throat. So far, the dimensions among 6.5 CM reamers and among 6.5 PRC reamers appear to be a lot more consistent meaning that it is possible to come up with a load which shoots well across a higher percentage of rifles in either of the newer chamberings than the older one. (Honestly, that's true for most cartridges.)

So far as 6.5 PRC vs .264 win mag ..

One "hidden" plus to the consistency of the 6.5 PRC throats .. or lack of gun maker / gunsmith deviation in custom reamers for them .. is that the ammo companies don't have to throttle back on factory loads as much out of concern that someone's custom short-throat reamer will create a pressure problem with a long-seated bullet. In other words, consistency is not just accuracy, it is safety as well.

If you were to take all the advantages of throating devised for the 6.5 CM and 6.5 PRC and put those in front of a .264 case, it'd shoot. Fast and accurate.

Another thing .. the 6.5 PRC brass is consistent .. there isn't sloppy 6.5 PRC brass. There is some pretty [bleep] .264 win mag brass out there. If you did the work and sorting to get .264 brass as consistent in weight and dimensions as the Lapua 6.5 PRC brass .. it's going to help accuracy.

Though I'm currently shooting a 6.5 PRC, I'd be just as happy with a .264, maybe more so, if I had comparable components and rifle. .. makes me wonder about a 6.5x.300 weatherby but that's a different question.

T O M,

I had a 6.5-.300 Weatherby Magnum for a while, along with my 26 Nosler. As far as velocities go they were just about identical, not surprising since powder capacity is just about exactly the same. (Barrels were 26" on both rifles, a Mark V Ultra Lightweight, and a Nosler Patriot.)

Accuracy was kinda touchy with the 6.5-.300, probably because of the thin, fluted barrel--but the rifle really shot the load it "liked." (Have found Weatherby Magnums have shot very well since around 2000, probably partly because they tightened the "freebore" diameters to just above bullet diameter.) It's most accurate load was the 140 Nosler Partition with US869 powder, with also worked with the 130 Swift Scirocco II, but it also grouped 143 Hornady ELD-Xs nicely with IMR8133 (which of course was recently discontinued).

Both the "big 6.5s" easily got 3300 fps with bullets in the 140-grain range.

That is certainly true regarding Weatherby throats. One early 300 Weatherby (mid-sixties) I measured was .313" in diameter and about 7/8 inch long. That rifle shot Hornady or Nosler bullets reasonably well, but Sierra Boattails would barely stay on the paper. On the other hand, I built one in the late eighties which I chambered with a conventional throat, 3085 dia. and .300 long. It shot great but he wasn't getting the velocity he hoped for, so he asked me to cut more freebore. I did so and made the throat .625 long, but still .3085 dia. His velocity dropped and he added powder until he was at his max and the velocity was just the same as before. Accuracy was still excellent. This was repeated with other chamberings over the years GD

i did some research on the 6.5 PRC and yes its a great cartridge but for me at 69 years of age its to late for me to change cartridges i have plenty other good cartridges that will still get the job done. i thought about 6.5 PRC but do i want more recoil or a ported rifle , more new reloading stuff at my age ? if i shoot at the bench a lot i really am liking my 6 BR rifle no recoil , tiny little groups , cheap to shoot too. the 6 PRC does sound interesting i wish you guys great enjoyment with this cartridge, Pete53

Cobbled this one together last year. Howa 1500 that started life as a 7mag. Pulled the tube and put on a Preferred Barrels 7.5 twist with a long throat. Shoots a 147 ELDM into nice tight groups at 200 yards at around 3100. Made shooting the elk at 250 yards a little too easy.

You CAN make other cases work “just as well” in some cases but it requires work and modification; usually not a standard reamer.

When you choose something like the 6.5 PRC, the default is already the way it should be. As you said, better gasket. It sounds more like you agree than disagree.

And yes, quality brass is very important.

But here we sit and the .264 Winchester has never been something in the winners circle nor been of any significant notoriety as a precision cartridge.

Did the men named above (or anyone else) also test Wby's double-radius shoulder as well? Any idea if they formed any opinions regarding that point? Just idle curiosity on my part. My grand total of 1 257Wby and helping a friend with his 240Wby is the extent of my Wby case involvement so I'm hardly a zealot, just gacking.

horse1,

Ron told me the double-radius shoulder works about like a 35-40 degree "normal" shoulder. Nothing special, but not bad.

A lot of how accurately a particular cartridge shoots is due to the throat/leade. This is why I started becoming fascinated with the 6.5 Creedmoor after buying my first one in 2010 at a local store, a Ruger Hawkeye. Also bought some Hornady factory ammo--and the very first group at 100 yards with the 140 A-Max ammo measured .63 inch--for FIVE shots, not just three.

The only reason I'd bought the rifle was to do an article an editor wanted, and after writing it thought I was "done" with the 6.5 CM, so sold the rifle. But eventually had to buy others, because editors kept wanting more articles on it--even one who for a while said he wasn't going to run any more 6.5 CM stuff. Turned out the magazine's readers kept demanding more....

Have now owned a total of six factory 6.5 Creedmoors, partly due to wanting to know if they all shoot well. The worst-shooting (a $299 rifle) would still put three shots of just about any factory ammo in less than an inch. The MOST accurate was probably one of two Ruger Americans, a Predator model. After acquiring it I loaded some ammo with a combination that had worked in other 6.5 CMs, the 140 Berger Hunting VLD and 41.5 grains of H4350. The first 5-shot group at 100 yards measured .33 inch....

Have also shot a few borrowed 6.5 Creedmoors, including a semi-custom rifle that retailed for $3500. None shot any better than that RAR. All of this is why I eventually concluded the design-features of the 6.5 CM do indeed contribute to "inherent accuracy." Yes, any cartridge can shoot very accurately in a custom "precision" rifle, but the only other factory rounds that have come close to the 6.5 Creedmoor in factory rifles have been the .222 Remington and 6mm PPC.

The 6.5 PRC shares the same basic accuracy features as the 6.5 Creedmoor, but in a larger case. Have only fooled with two so far, the one Charlie Sisk barreled for me when the cartridge was announced. Was assigned by Hodgdon to do an article on it in their Annual Manual, but no factory rifles had yet appeared. So I bought a Lilja barrel and a PT&G reamer, and sent them to Charlie, and the rifle of course shot very well. It's best hunting-bullet handload groups FIVE (not just three) shots into half an inch, and this is a hunting rifle that weighs a little over 7-1/2 pounds scoped.

The other 6.5 PRC I've wrung out was a semi-custom from a company in Idaho, which guaranteed 100-yard, 3-shot groups of half an inch with factory ammo. They sent along several boxes of Hornady Precision Hunter 143-grain ELD-X ammunition, and the rifle easily beat their guarantee. It wasn't a heavyweight either, a carbon-wrapped barrel model that weighed 8-1/2 pounds with a Nightforce 2.5-x20x50 NX8. Its first 3-shot group was under .3.

But I probably will have to buy a relatively inexpensive factory 6.5 PRC just to see how well one shoots--as I've done with a series of 6.5 Creedmoors.

Darn. I was hoping for some sort of venturri, Ram-jet, Scram-Jet, afterburner super-swirl that would make the projectile begin to rise again @ the 300 yd mark and keep it flat to 600 or so.

MD, your answer was kind of a buzz-kill.

You mean you never got a rifle built for the legendary B-29 cartridge?

Yawn, another endless thread debating the merits of two 6.5s either one of which will kill anything in the lower 48 very dead.

Just had a fast twist 264 bbl made for my Blaser TAC-2 (300 Win Mag) as it fits the magazine and feed fine.

100% confident that it would do anything any newer 6.5 will do with one exception.

The Blaser.



The exception. 6.5-300 BEE 30" barrel.