Seen a write up - they bumped the 6.5 down like one would do w/a 47 Lapua.

No doubt the 6x47 L has a following, as the XC and BRs.

The 6 CM could be the 'fast twist' 243 option many would like to see in factory rifles, 8 twisted of course.

Anyone?

Gimme' a 270 A-Max first... grin

But the 6CM seems to be a stellar round, from what Pat and a couple other gentlemen have reported out of those GAP10s, it's a screamer and Hornady made a whole bunch of brass for it.

That would be called a 6XC.

Tanner, funny as Hornady execs told me they were doing a 270/TC back before the 6.5CM rolled out, was to push a 120 at the WCF/130 speeds. Seems like they could have capitalized on the 270 name, short action craze, and non-mag recoil, and avoided the 'what is a 6.5' by many not in the know.

Hunz - not sure if it would be exact or not, but brass surely cheaper than XC brass. And Ruger could do a variety of sporter and varmint/target models. I'd seriously consider one, perhaps over a 6.5 as the 260 does all I need that cal.

Correct.

Going to be hard to dethrone the 243 Win.

The 243 fits in a short action with Amaxs and VLDs, so they aren't gaining anything there. That was really was the big selling point of the 6.5 Creedmoor vs. 260.

Probably less than 1 grain difference in case capacity between the 6 Creedmoor and 243. A little more neck length, but that mostly just matters in cyberspace.

What would it do that a 243 Win would not?

To me it's not that it would better the 243 but it would still be a very cool little round.

Lots of cool little 6's already. 6PPC, 6BR, 6 Dasher, 6XC, 6x47, 243...

I still think the 6mm Rem is king if you have the mag space.

I think if I were to build on a 700 SA, I'd do a Dasher or XC, but it sure is tough to beat the 243 in a factory option, especially if the throat ends up working with the bullets you plan to shoot.

I love the 6.5 CM, but this sounds like a solution to a nonexistent problem...? I think the 6mm hole is filled.

The 6.5CM excels in the 120-140 bullet range,the bullets themselves are little missiles. I just don't see a benefit, also a limited market of 6mm bullets in the 110-115 weight to have anywhere close to the 6.5CM downrange capacity...

but as I've said to my last three wives..Never say never!

If they issued it with a fast enough twist in factory rifles to spin the 115 bullets, then yes it would probably sell some.

Other than that, it would have no benefit.

The 243 is a fine round, the 6 Rem better yet, what I see a gap is, factory 6mm rifles that have a fast twist barrel to spin heavier bullets.

Hornady seems to get things done right, as Ruger, when it comes to making rounds that work well w/faster/proper twists, and rifles that match up.

Hence my question.

That's how I see it too.

The 243 Win has been an overwhelming success on it's own merit. I count it among other American Classics, such as the 22-250, 270, and 30-06.

A few rifle loons will recognize the technical advantages of the Creed case, but not the masses.

I watched Pat making empties with his 6 Creed at the Icebreaker this spring. Pretty cool in his AR10.

You make 6XC out of 22-250 brass the same as you make the 6.5 Creedmoor out of.I doubt that you will ever see a 6MM Creedmoor.There is no money to be made manufacturing it.Mr.Average Hunter is plenty happy with the 243 and ammo does not cost a arm and leg.

What is being descibed is the 6mm International,anybody remember that? Old man Ackley wrote about it..good round!

Quite a few factory 243s already spin 105s. There is really only one commercially available heavier bullet on the market that I know of (the 115 DTAC) that offers any real improvement over the 105s. The 115 Berger doesn't show much BC gain for the amount of velocity loss.

So once again, what would be the point?

My 6 Creed should be done on Monday as long as the CG trigger gets there today or on Monday, from the data Im getting this round should be able to push a 105/107 over 3300fps and get great accuracy to boot, my barrel is a 8 twist HV Bartlein, 28", Ill let you know how it shoots.

What he said.

Point would be to run 115s, as an option.

IIRC many 243s still have 10 twist, some have a 9 and change which can spin 105s, or some of them.

I like an 8 twist in any 6mm. A 7.5 would not be a bad ROT for the 115s.

Don't get me wrong, it is a neat cartridge, and I wouldn't mind building a rifle in a 6 Creedmoor or 6XC, twisted for 115s.

As a commercial cartridge.... it would have lots of looney appeal, but have my doubts on whether it would sell. I'm not exactly seeing 6.5 Creedmoors flying off the shelves around these parts, or many rifles built for it in general.

The 6mm Creedmore is not identical to the 6XC. It is (in my opinion) a very specialized niche cartridge.

The .260 Remington is very popular with NRA High Power target shooters because the long bullets buck the wind and get sufficient velocity so they are very accurate. The Creedmore round has one or two tiny advantages, mostly regarding long bullets fed from the magazine if I recall correctly. I didn't think they were important.

I think the real purpose of the Creedmore round is to transfer money from target shooters to the Creedmore company. For hunting,it has no purpose that a .243 cannot do better. Barrel life is better but hunters usually don't shoot enough to notice the difference.

I'd be VERY content w/a 243 8 twist factory in quality rifles.

It just does not look like anyone wants to quick twist anything other than a 223 when it comes to standard OEM rounds that have been around.

A 22/250 would also be a good one to do. All upside and no downside IMHO.

What, exactly, is the Creedmore company?

Hmmm, someone posted some 6mm CM brass recently...so is that now a SAAMI ??

Rifles coming? Should be interesting.

Maybe a 224 Creedmoor next....fast twisted of course.

I may be confused....I was under the impression that David Tubbs developed the 6XC from a re-formed 22-250 or 250 Savage case....and that the 6.5 Creedmoor is nothing more than the 6XC necked up to 6.5....so, a 6mm "Creedmoor" is nothing more than a 6XC.

Did I miss something?

No confusion there...just perhaps cheaper brass, rifles and Hornady ammo, if it's coming to market.

As to the XC, love the round, always thought a 6x47 Swiss Match would be sweet, alas no viable brass source into the US.

Had the 6.5 CM been out first, Rem might never have done the 6.5-08, and had someone done a QT, fast twist 243....same w/Creedmoor, but the newer rounds are better designed no doubt, does that offset the practical benefits of the plethora of older rounds having plenty rifle/ammo/brass choices, is a shooters opinion.

Aren't the IHMSA rounds based on the Savage? Hmmm, the magic of the re-invention of the wheel....and around it goes

"What would it do that a 243 Win would not?"

Probably sell to the rifle loonies for a year or so, then fade into oblivion.

I'd like a 6mm TC. They could neck down the 30TC. That would be about perfect, assuming a 1-12" twist.

brass would be easy to make. start with a .250 sav hull, run it through a 6.5 creed die, run it through a .30 TC die, then run it through a 6mm TC die. trim to length and fireform.

They only thing I'd add to that is "FEW" rifle loonies. We are real but we are NOT the majority of the buying public.

Cheaper and easier if Ruger would twist some .243 1-8"s in their Hawkeyes. Problem solved. Or better yet 6mm Remingtons!

Moses, proper twist rate for bullets thru 105-108 is the primary driver behind a 6 CM IMHO - that said, IF the mfg. would do 8 twist on all 22, 6mm and 6.5mm it allow owners to run the gamut.

I don't have any confidence the industry will change twist rates over the conventional ones that have been used for decades.

Alot to be admired about an 8 twist 243 given plethora of ammo/brass...

I know nothing about the machine that cuts the bore/rifling in a barrel; but it seems it would not take much of an adjustment to change it from a (1-10"/1-9") to a 1-8". The average buyer would never know and the gun enthusiast would be more inclined to buy.

Most of the big boys rifle in a hammer forge, and those mandrels are twist specific and they ain't cheap.
Still the twist could be chenged when the old mandrel wears out.

Can't see Promoting a new round when you can't keep up with the demand for existing ones

Savage chose to chamber 250, 260, 6.5 Creedmoor. It's doable.

The shelves best be filled with all the staples before they come up with another niche cartridge. Otherwise I'm gonna drive down to Nebraska with a case of gin, a hard on, and a heart filled with vengeance.



Travis

True. Well the AR mfg went faster spin, too bad the major mfg haven't done it in all 22s, 6mms, etc. No doubt a good 270 and 150 Partitions would fill up an ark....as many others. Just like lower recoil rifles that 'Get R Done' and preferable with slick bullets for reach when needed.

I send a couple e-mails a week. Nobody writes back.


Travis

LOL!

Two things that stood out the last time I went to a SHOT show, folks from Ruger were VERY receptive to any and all ideas and passed them up the chain, and Hornady, much the same. Remington booth - they could have cared less to ANYTHING I had to say....which is not surprising given how they have missed so many opportunities and made poor decisions. We see the first two companies having some partnering if you will. Glad to see someone is being innovative. Remington was that way it seemed as they evolved, developing the 22, 6, and 7BR etc but they seemed to fade in their interest, and just focus on the mass market of the same stuff in a different wrapper.

So I do applaud Hornady for being proactive in their R&D

Is this the same Ruger that has 1-12" twists on their two-fiddy's, and 1-9"s on the .223's? Phucfkin' [bleep].


Travis

Lol - not sure about those. Know they always used proper 8 ROT in 6.5s...

Had an older 77V long ago, tang model, 6mm, IIRC it was 9 ROT, put 5 97gr Hammett VLDs into one hole using old H450, 1x neck sized Fed brass, and match primer. Don't think the old Rem 244 12" would spin that.