264 Win Mag ballistics.
If it fits in an NATO detachable mag they may have something there that will be interesting when joined with some types of rifles.

If it's only for bolt actions it's going to be a re-invention of the wheel, more or less.

Isn't that the 6.5 SAUM?

It's not a 6.5 Saum but very close. It's supposedly built off a RCM case. Like stated pretty much a reinvention of the wheel. Should've gone 7mm.

2.96 COL. What's it go in. LA? SA? A new Ruger intermediate?

From the little bit digging I just did that is what it sounds like. Have to be honest I was hoping for the 6.5 SAUM.

And the RCM case is just an Imperial Magnum case. None of that stupid belt that is a throw back to double rifles. Should have gotten rid of that across the board years ago.

never seen barrel life listed before...2200 rounds

I noticed that also. Interesting.

Not even close.


I love any 6.5 cartridge but I have to wonder what is the purpose of this one?

To long for a short action and to short to really benefit a long action.

Reminds me of the 6.5x284.

It was a misprint at 200 that some added another 2 in ink or pencil. They did the same on action type. More 6.5 options needed or not.

100fps faster than I load my 6.5x284s and mine will also fit in a Savage short action magazine box, 3".
I don't expect to get 2200 accurate rounds down my barrels though so I'll watch to see how this one does in the real world.
Maybe it'll be well wrung out by the time I have to decide on a re-barrel... GAP or PRC... Hmmm

If they support it with factory 143/147 ELD ammo for under $35 a box it stands a chance.

Case Capacities
6.5 Rem Mag = 69gr
6.5-280AI = 70.5gr
6.5 SAUM = 70-72gr depends on brass used to form
300RCM = 73.5gr (might loose some capacity necking down)
6.5-270WSM = 77.8gr
264 Win Mag = 79.9gr

The reason the 6.5 Gap 4s is built off the SAUM case is because its shorter and will let you load bullets out further and not take up case capacity. With the RCM case at 2.1" your going to have issues unless you built it on an action that can handle 3.0"+ COAL.

I see the 6.5 PRC as an answer to a question no one asked. Even if it has factory ammo it doesn't make a big difference because it wont work on a Rem 700 SA, it wont feed out of most AICS Mags @ 2.88 or @ 2.95 that people use in Comps.

The MRC short action and mag box are 3.125".

I believe the Ruger 77 SA was actually a "Short Intermediate" at ~3" mag length.

Googling Hornady 6.5 PRC took me to the Hornady page , which in turn referenced the GA Precision page where I found nada



Wonder if this is a typo by Hornady, as GAP is selling the 6.5 SAUM brass that Hornady makes up for them.

6.5 RCM is interesting if it fits anything. At 2.1" case length it is hardly the Creedmoors bigger brother though.

The Imperial Magnum case was a rebated .404 J, .550" at the base.
Not at all what the RCM is about ie .532" at the base, non-rebated rim

I hope it takes off, Maybe Ruger can fit it into their RPR.

Quote from GA on SnipersHide/FaceBook, to the effect that it was better for "toploaders" - would that be blind-magazine bolt-actions ?

Yes, that's what a top-loader is.

Huh?

It is built on the RCM case.

The SAUM case is a better mousetrap for short actions as it is a shorter case yet with more capacity and more popularity.

The new Hornady will be a flop, and seems like they simply wanted their "own" cartridge rather than fully supporting the 6.5 SAUM. There was no call anywhere from anyone to build a cartridge on the RCM case. Has anyone even bothered to wildcat such a critter?

Hence, both will probably languish. Foolish move on Hornady's part. They could have factory-ized the 6.5 SAUM to the fullest extent and really had themselves a monopoly.

Actually, I suspect it's a smart move by Hornady. The 6.5 SAUM has been a wildcat for a while now, and as a result there are different versions of reamers, and I believe even GAP even offers two different throat lengths. As a result, it's something of a PITA to come up with a SAAMI acceptable chamber for an existing wildcat.

Hornady bypassed all that by using the RCM case, which doesn't have enough less capacity than the SAUM to make any practical difference in velocity.

But why not shorten the case to allow 2.8" with a 140? Any manufacturer could adopt it and factory ammo could really shine with a proper reamer....

There aren't any factory 6.5s in short with any poop.

W

Soooo, Hornady isn't at this time pursuing a new commercial artridge? just providing cases for GAP? Maybe GAP decided to standardize their 6.5 going forward. The COL still seems weird. Everything I can find shows the Ruger 77 short and compact magnum boxes are less than 3". I didn't measure one so correct if I'm wrong. Remington short sure won't work. Winchester short might, I think. And the Montana short surely will. Sounds like it'll be crammed into a short action or blocked to whatever length needed in a long. Maybe??

edit: and I found the same link on the Hornady site:
http://www.hornady.com/support/faqs/65-PRC

Not another 6.5 cartridge!! There goes the neighborhood.

6.5-378 Wby??

I predict it will succeed.

1. It has the magical 3,000 fps bullet speed that helped propel the 250 Savage (in its day), the 243 and the 270 to widespread use.

2. It's capitalizing on the long-range shooting fad by advertising a load that features the 140gr ELD Match and calling it a "precision rifle cartridge".

3. Hornady obviously wants it to steal its audience from the very successful 6.5 Creedmoor. They call it the "big brother" to the increasingly popular 6.5 Creedmoor, by inference making the Creed into the 6.5 PRC's "little brother". The message: What kind of wimp wants to be shooting a "little brother" when you could have the big guy? This approach should appeal to the shooter that salivates every time he sees a cartridge with the word "magnum" in its name (which Hornady was careful to include in its advertising with the words "MAGNUM bolt face").

Now, if they REALLY want it to succeed, they will put reasonably priced ammo on the shelves quickly and will have arranged with several rifle manufacturers to build rifles chambered for it.

http://www.hornady.com/support/faqs/65-PRC

After giving it some more thought you may be right on it succeeding for the reasons stated above. If they offer good brass and ammo at a reasonable price then it has a good chance. I have had some interest in some of the Nosler cartridges but brass costs over $4.00 per case here which is kind of tough to swallow. Hornady offers good brass at a reasonable price so we will see. A 140 @3000 fps is a good place to be.

As I measure it, my M77 SA measures about 2.9 inches.

Kaiser Norton

The 6.5x284 will do the same speed, no problem, with a C.O.L. of 2.880"

Compared to the 6.5 PRC of 2.960.

The new Barrett hunting bolt action rifles are going to be around 3" mag box...

140@3k

Grab a 270

Not one mention of the RPR. You can't talk about Ruger and tactical/long range without the Rpr.You see the huge success the CM is in the RPR, wouldn't shock me the least if it ends up in chambered in it.

Adam

Sounds like a good option for your 264 Gerry

The belts were introduced to give positive headspace on rounds with long, sloping shoulders in magazine rifles, not doubles, in a way that wouldn't interfere with feeding. Since handloading wasn't something even contemplated for ordinary humans, the potential issues caused by the belts weren't issues at all.

Doubles were chambered for the belted rounds later on, no doubt because the rounds were popular and effective, and ammunition was widely available in far-flung locations, unlike some of the old, proprietary rimmed rounds, many of which went out of production for a time.

Belted cases also made it easy for pioneering wildcatters like Roy Weatherby to develop their creations without having to contract out for special brass, which would have been difficult and expensive, possibly prohibitively so. Later on, Winchester, Remington, and Norma continued to use the same basic case, even though they were perfectly able to start from scratch. Since they were in the business of selling ammuntion, not catering to reloaders, it was a sound decision for the time.

Correct and well said.

Why thank you Bob.

My short action rugers are about 2.9, anyone measure the COAL you can get away with in one of their scout rifles? I am just wondering if Ruger has the parts on the shelf to chamber for the new round.

The question is: will it ever make it out to the general firearms market?

If GAP paid for the development, it's unlikely they did so to allow Ruger to sell a bunch of $300 rifles. Only time will tell, but if I were itching all over for a 3000fps 6.5, I'd probably just latch onto a 6.5-.284, but then I'm not scared of standard-length actions.

Or buy a Creedmore and pretend a bit.....

Think I will stick with my 270 Win that pumps out 150 ABLR at 3,075FPS into inch or less.

I got a 1 in 9 twist 270 Win too that should duplicate the 6.5 prc with easy to get brass. The new round has a chance to be successful though if they do it right which more often than not Hornady does unlike Winchester and Remington.......

If I remember correctly George from Gap said that when they pickes the Saum case, the only one it was even more optimal was the RCM case.

One of these days they are going to IMPROVE the JOC

Add that to the new bullets and twists, and you might have more coming full circle.

Still no flies on the 6.5s - but I am drawn to smaller cases in the smallish bores like 6.5s and under. A 55mm is about as big as I want, personally, but understand everyone's wants and needs vary. I do like short actions, but when putting a fat case in a magazine, you tend to lose the capacity of 1. Not often would it be a game changer, but it does come to my mind.

Nice to see American's finally catching on to what Europeans have known for over 100 years.....

I do welcome Hornady leading innovation like the 6mm Creedmoor, something I said long ago would be prudent, as the 22, which perhaps will be next. Even Noz is doing a new 22 cal.

Will any American mfg ever do a simple 6.5-06? Seems no fuss, no COAL issues with heaviers, etc. I know case size/length appeals to some, which surely had folks choose the 280/AI over say a 7/08.

New offerings like the accurate sensible Creedmoor, that were backed by quality ammo without a premium price, and rifles to back it, are a good thing. Time will tell what products thrive and survive, and others that do not.

Gerry, I concur, don't count on Remchester to get things right....they find a way to muck things up.

Guess I'll have to go out and give my 260s another hug....

don't think this one either is going to upstage the 260 for we handloaders...

sure it might be a little faster.... but anyone who knows how to use their scope knobs, the little flatter shooting one of the new ones can offer, can be compensated by two clicks on your elevation adjustment...

some of us don't need a newer greater better d'jour...

heck my favorite round period is the old 6.5 x 57... on a long action...Model 70....

if limited to two larger game hunting rifles and cartridges...

they would be the 6.5 x 57 and the 6mm Rem with a one in 8 twist, on a Model 70 LA...

GAP developed the 6.5 4S (6.5 SAUM) and has now standardized on the .120 freebore reamer. They sell Hornady brass with the 6.5 Gap 4S headstamp.

6.5 PRC is a Hornady deal, not a GAP development. I see the PRC being popular with the PRS and other shooting sports. Especially in a RPR. Wonder how many rifles Ruger will have out a year from now?

It doesn't make the 2.8" cutoff for Rem700-based magazines. So it is slower than the 6.5 SAUM and yet needs a longer COAL to do so. A bit of an odd duck. Granted, most precision shooters are using detachable magazines, but they gained no market share by going long yet slower.

They could have simply standardized the GAP version, and been guaranteed to own the market for precision shooting.

Yeah, I was going to ask if he was Savage 99 ?

Jerry

The 6.5 WSM looks like the pick of the litter. :-)

Except that it is too long of a case overall to allow bullets to be seated out where they do best without having a long magazine.

The 6.5 SAUM is the best design yet at that capacity range.

They market it for "top-loading" rifle shooters, but have Precision Rifle in the name. Like sooo many PRS guys shoot BDL 700s!

LOL... Hornady is getting Cocky just like Nosler did.

They are trying to be the Winchester and Remington of the next 50 years.

Would it work in the short action Ruger 300 RCM or 338 RCM rebarreled? They are discounting them pretty cheap.

It will do pretty well.
Why? FACTORY AMMO, standard dimensions, brass everywhere.

They just confirmed that the new PRC will be based off the 300RCM case but shortened to 2.020 or something like that. SO it will be close to the 6.5SAUM about 2-3GR less capacity but should push a 140gr at 3000fps but only using faster powders than H1000 like what the SAUM uses.

Would be interesting in a Kimber Montana 8400 with a 3.030 magazine length?

thats what i was thinking maybe rebarrel a 325wsm?

I am fond of 6.5mm/.264 hunting rifles and have used a 6.5-'06 since 19 (mumble). I also acquired a .300 RCM Hawkeye to go along with my .375 Ruger when the RCMs were introduced. I swapped some emails with Ruger and Hornady in '09 to see if they might consider a 6.5 RCM. At that time Hornady considered a 6.5 on the RCM case to be overbore, but a shorter version with "precision" in the name must be mo' bettah for them. Since I have an RCM shell holder I am already primed to reload these cartridges.

Now I am waiting to see what rifle builders chamber the cartridge, or else I will just go buy another NULA.

jim

Anyone have info on which manufacturers might be offering this? Kimber MT would be sweet, as would a MRC X2...

Gunwerks will be chambering the 6.5PRC as well as seekin new Havok rifles.

I would be willing to bet that Kimber will jump in.

The 8400 WSM action seems perfect for it.

And they aren't as shy as most other manufacturers (consider how they jumped in with the 280AI).

260 AI...

I got a 300WSM montana that might be a good candidate for a donor. (shoots alright now, but I don't have much need for a a 30 caliber larger than a .308.

George Gardner came out and hunted mule deer with me and another pal in November. They both had 6.5 PRC rifles with 24" barrels. They were shooting the 147 ELD-M bullet loaded to 3080fps with RE26. George told me that his testing of that bullet revealed a .760 G1 BC. Both rifles shot really well. They were both suppressed, and DBM. I'll be testing a 6.5 PRC this winter.....looking forward to it.

That BC at that velocity at that barrel length at that relatively low level of recoil will make a serious hunting cartridge, even though it’s being marketed as a target round at launch.

Now I’m wanting one.

.760 seems a bit optimistic.....670 maybe?

Hornady BC's

My thoughts as well. Of course I just use the G7 anyways.

I find it hard to believe George Gardner was shooting the 6.5 ELD-M and guessing at the BC vs. having confirmed by shooting a few hundred rounds.

Oh joy, another 6.5, let the hype begin

Hornady lists manufacturers that are building 6.5 PRC's here:

https://www.hornady.com/ammunition/rifle/6.5-prc-143-gr-eld-x-precision-hunter#!/

Unfortunately no dimensions but states it fits "short or medium actions" 2960fps for the ELD-X

Copper Creek is now loading for the PRC...140 Hybrids at 2.860 & 143 ELD-X at 2.840. No 147 loads.

And they're showing Norma brass as a brass option also.

Interesting development in overall lengths too:

PSA on OAL

Hornady factory ammo is measuring 2.945 for both the 143ELDX and 147ELDM per link above.

Just measured my Ruger 338 RCM Mag box and its 2.91"

Was thinking of buying a Ruger LH 300 RCM and re barreling it but looks like its mag box OAL is short?

Measured my LH 300 WSM mag box and its over 3" .

So thoughts on above please?

By no means an expert or even that well-versed in this area, but I have been researching this cartridge quite a bit. One theme I keep running across on the various long-range shooting boards is that the WSMs are the best candidates for re-barreling to 6.5 PRC. Perhaps your findings are why they're saying this?

I'm circumventing any OAL issues by re-barreling a 700 long action.

I called the smith in the link and talked freebore with him before ordering a reamer. He said suggested the .188". My 6.5-284 happens to have a .188" freebore, so I seated dummys in that chamber, and extrapolated seating measurements to the PRC brass.

The 147's are a loooong bullet, and probably need .080-100" over a 140 VLD. I didn't want to be hamstrung throating strictly for that bullet, so settled on seating depth for the VLD's and I'll just seat the 147's deeper. Mine will be around 3.025" or so OAL with the VLD's, as I bumped the freebore to .200" even..

That's what I was thinking-- I have a 700 LA that would prolly work. Leaving room for bullets to be seated out.
Is there a cure for this rifle crazy sickness ?? I only need just one more.

Have a good day.

In a word....no.......embrace it.......

I like the way you think.

DF

Look at their twist recommendation. 7.5, IIRC.

DF

Several guys getting satisfactory results with 8 twist.

The Sierra bullet was the spark to do another 6.5 LR plinker for me, then I bought a bunch of 147 Hornadys.......

After days of research and wasted time, I finally also bought a pile of plain 'ol 140 Berger VLD's. I've never not got Bergers to shoot, and once pointed, they should be in the .625-.630 area, and at 3100, will stay super to a mile plus.

JLK has a 147 in the works as well.

A Kimber 8400 WSM looks like a great rebarrel candidate, maybe with a #2 contour Rock Creek 8 twist

It’s been an interesting transition for the 6.5 in America.

From a “red headed stepchild” to a place at the table.

Europe has been there for decades, we’re now starting to catch up.

Seems to me target shooters were setting the pace, hunters following in the wake of their progress and success.

DF

is any manufacturer going to chamber rifles this upcoming year, how about ruger american predator with a threaded barrel for a less expensive way to get into this hotter 6.5 craze,

Which I'll argue covers most facets of the custom rifle we enjoy today......actions, barrels, triggers, scopes, etc......

Perhaps a little slow here.... but how is this better than a 6.5-284 Shehane?

This makes a heap of sense to me.

I'd add, in addition to working in the fine Kimber 8400 action (among the best designed for the WSM case IME), any of the USRAC WSM actions, including the BACO "Extreme Weather" WSM, would be able to utilize the 6.5 PRC to its fullest OAL.

Well the Shehane is a wildcat, with the need for custom dies.

The regular version has less capacity than the PRC, with resulting velocity loss at equal pressures.

Be interesting to see if Tikka chambers the T3 in 6.5 PRC!

Just waiting for this to get a little more mainstream and I have a 300WSM montana that is primed for a new tube.... thinking of a Proof research carbon wrapped in light sendero, light, and thick/ stiff barrel.

Yep.

Back in the days of Roy Weatherby, seems he was building rifles mostly for hunters, although LR shooters were using them, actually developed the 6.5-300 long before Wby rolled it out as a factory round. The big 7 story was similar.

Today's hot rounds are mostly from the target side of the family, adopted by hunters. With tight shooting rounds, range finders, ballistic reticles and turrets, big blasters aren't as important. They're still nice in a cross wind....

You're right about actions, triggers, scopes, etc. I see NF and target type scopes being used by hunters, especially LR hunters.

It's all good.

DF

A 6.5 PRC in a Winchester Model 70 EW or FWT with 24” barrel is really in my sights. I doubt they’d offer it in factory guise so as to avoid competing with the many WSM offerings they already have, but I’d be on either (or both) as soon as they hit the street.

I think it is a mistake by Hornady to produce another 6.5 that is close to the 6.5CM. Fractionally faster and looks to be a barrel burner. Why introduce a cartridge to compete with your already successful CM? I say its more commercial hype than ballistic necessity. But hey, its all loonyism and the market will decide.

Does it fit in an AR-10 magazine?

220 fps same bullet, same pressures. And the Gap 4s claims tremendous barrel life.......

6.5 creedmoor: 52-53 gr case capacity
6.5 SLR: 55-56 gr
6.5 PRC: 66-67 gr
6.5 SAUM: 70-71 gr

The PRC has 25% more capacity than a creedmoor, and 5-6% less than a SAUM. In quickload, holding pressure constant at 57k psi in a 26" barrel with 140 hybrids, a 6.5 SAUM (H1000) is about 30-40 fps faster than a 6.5 PRC (H1000), and the PRC is 220 fps faster than a 6.5 creedmoor (H4350).



From GAPs FB page:

George Gardner
Admin · March 7
Been testing the new 6.5 Hornady PRC all morning, The brass is Excellent, Passed the test of 10 Loadings with a stiff charge on the 135 JLK and 147 ELD with ease. Pockets are still tight and the neck only stretched about .015". For the 135 a charge of 60.3 grains of RL26 yields 3200 fps. No pressure The 147 does 3000 with 58.2 grains H1000, light pressure . These are out of a 24" Bartlein 1-8 twist 5R. Loaded to 2.945

Good info.

I think 220 fps puts the PRC in another category from the CM.

The 6.5-284 with 140's, according to Nosler data, has 58.4 gr H2O case capacity.

So, the new PRC will be real close to the SAUM and in a SAAMI round with first class brass.

Hornady doesn't make many mistakes, they're not Remington...

DF

To put it in perspective, the 26 Nosler with 140's has 93 gr. H2O, the .264 WM with 140's has 79 gr.

DF

Has the 6.5 PRC been standardized by SAAMI? I thought it was like the 6mm Creedmoor and not yet made official...

So there are already two "official" reamers with enough different freebore to make a mess of factory ammo.

And the Hornady factory OAL is 2.945, longer than a Remington mag box, and also longer than can be loaded in a commonly-used AICS mag.

???

We need more 3" actions. The 6.5-284 needs one, mine in on a LA.

SA limits some fine rounds to 2.8" COAL. The CM's address this very well.

7x57, Swede, Roberts and others do well at 3". My 257R and Swede are LA's.

IMO.

DF

Sierra refers to the 6CM as the 6mm/6.5CM (a wildcat). Hornady refers to it as the 6CM, so I don't know.

Not sure about SAAMI for the PRC, would think it's in the works if they're gonna roll it out as a factory round. They'll have to put it in a SAUM or WSM action I would think.

DF

What I find odd is that the 2.945 OAL won't fit in a "bindered" AICS mag, let alone a Remington short action. That seems like an odd duck to me, all the way around.

I watched the Hornady propaganda video.

They said it was for short and med actions, but everything I saw them shooting was LA.

The 6.5-284 with long bullets has a 2.98" COAL, its .284 parent round has a 2.8" COAL.

The 6.5 PRC seems to be following that pattern.

So, who knows.

DF

Remington actions are barking up the wrong tree... all they have is cost/ contacts with wal-mart and acadeamy and other big box stores, real shooters look past their current prodution. They are no longer the standard, more innovative companies have surpassed them. And they are living on borrowed time. For the same price of buying one and getting it trued, you can get any number of semi custom actions that will shoot better and still take all the parts. But even those are tied to a dying standard of remington bolt spacing/ mag box. The world isn't spllit between .308 and 30-06 anymore. Theres alot in between there... just how the pre 64 winchester model 70 were all long action, short actions killed them. Now actions that can support a looooong heavy for caliber bullets while still maintianing case capacity will bury both long and short actions for those in the know who read forum like this and either handload or buy rifles/ factory ammo made to new specs.

The 870 detachable mag? Really? Thats innovative to what crowd? The only advancment remington made in the rifle world, is bolting together everyone elses parts for a 6K custom sheep rifle. I bet they even let someone else true their crappy action...

Creedmore and PRC are good examples of real advances in technology and design. I hope the PRC gets the same support as the Creed as it is something I could really get behind. Creed gives up alot to my 264 Win Mag, if I had known about it 7 years ago I might still have a Beanland custom that I sold as a .260, what I would give to get it back, and have it set back and rechambered to creed and not have bought my 264 win mag...

The PRC can get into the same ballpark as th .264 and let me rebarrel the 264 when it gets shot out to a .338 or something....

Looking at the numbers, the .264 WM at 79 gr. H2O and the 6.5 PRC at 67 gr. H2O, the PRC is around 15% less case capacity than the .264.

But, with these new powders, remarkable performance is possible.

As aalf quoted George Gardner, "For the 135 a charge of 60.3 grains of RL26 yields 3200 fps. No pressure The 147 does 3000 with 58.2 grains H1000, light pressure . These are out of a 24" Bartlein 1-8 twist 5R. Loaded to 2.945".

That's strong. Lots of performance with less powder.

DF

The 6.5 PRC (270, Creedmoor, et. al) rely on one powder to approximate larger cases... the problem comes if that powder will not deliver accuracy in the smaller case that one of many other powders might provide the larger case.

At the end of the day, the bigger engine wins.

My philosophy is to accept a smaller cartridge for what it is and not try to make it something it isn't. A 308 Win will never be a 300 WSM, wonderful (and in many ways better) cartridge the 308 Win may be.

I know you're right, but think it is pretty cool.

I wish Hornady the best.

DF

I wish that if the powers that be want to make something go forward it would be the 6.5 RSAUM. It is well thought out and delivers beyond what this cartridge does. If the whole 'wildcat' problem is it's only downfall than just standardize the one the everyone is gravitating to..the GAP 4S. How in the hell can that be any more an issue than coming out with another frigging cart that underperforms the best thing going?

Now I understand the eternal butthurt of the the .260/Swede guys vs. the Creedmoor crowd. What can this stupid PRC thing do that the GAP can't do better? Put the marketing there!

Any word on when rifles will be hitting the shelves? Who's gonna be chambering em?

Any word on when rifles will be hitting the shelves? Who's gonna be chambering em?

Same here!

Think a 143 grain will reach 3100 fps using reloader 17 in the PRC?

Just saw a Hornady ad for the 6.5 PRC in "Rifle" issue 296. Claiming 2960 out of the 143 ELD-X. Sounds interesting...

These fancy new ballistics are likely a reason the .30/06 or .270 still find favor with people who look at ballistics.
Nothing new, nothing to offer, while hunting the animals that such a caliber would be suited.

There are basically 3 levels of hunting cartridges, .270 ish, meaning everything from the 6mm's through until the .33's which are generally used on the under about 800 pounds meaning, expected to perform the same tasks, second level is the .375 ish, which covers the heavier loaded 33's and .366's up to the heavier 375's then there are the hammers, the rounds to slam tonnage and distemper.

Cartridges are more the same than different and no-one who ever pulled a trigger can name a single animal that cartridge "A" can kill where cartridge "B" cannot kill.

Still I have an active golf set of calibers in the safe just like everyone else so the circle and recycle continues...........

It sounds like a ripper in a light’ish sorta rifle DF.

I fully agree, however find myself cursed with rifle loonieism. I never bought into the 6.5 creedmoor, not because it's not a good cartridge, but I have a 6.5x55 swede. The 6.5 prc offers significant performance over both the creed and swede, particularly to handloaders. 3100 fps with a 143 puts it on the same ftlb level as a 300 w/ 180 grain- 3000fps, out to 600+ yards. Again, a # mind game....

Another point of view not considered by most......

My "hobby" is plinking and playing long range to a mile or more. I'm re-barreling a gun in this cartridge for that usage, however, not saying I won't use it for a LR deer hunt.

Initial research shows it'll stay supersonic to, or over, one mile, in a cartridge that doesn't pound you to a pulp, or need a brake in a lighter gun.

I gotta Swede, a Creed, a 6.5-284 and a 26 Nosler.

Ya need the whole family...

And a 6.5 PRC...

A new round is a great excuse to buy or build a new rifle...

This is the wrong place, the wrong format to be told otherwise...

DF

It will be a terrific cartridge, but I could never forsake the 7mm's or 30's for the 6.5 caliber. I loaded for several 6.5x55's and saw many dozens of animals taken on top of my own kills so I know tbey are all good, but......just more of what is already available. If anything, it probably reinforces tbe competency of the .270 Winchester.
John

I couldn’t agree more. Got a Swede, Creed, 264 and now I’m scheming for this PRC.

Spoken like a true Loony, my kinda man...

Go for it bro...

DF

You mean like Newton did in 1912? GD

There's no need to introduce facts into a thread...

Imperial Magnums were based on the 404 Jeffery case, as were the Ultra Mags.

aalf, did the Imperial Mags have a rebated .534" rim like the RUMs or full .543" .404 rim?

I remember reading about them, never handled one.

DF

The PRC is just a long necked, no belt, long leade version of the 6.5 Rem Mag. There is nothing new here.

Way back when, my smith had the IM reamers, as I was interested in doing one. After reviewing the brass situation at the time, I shelved the idea.


A little history.....

In the early 1980s Aubrey White and Noburo Uno of North American Shooting Systems (NASS) based in British Columbia Canada began experimenting with the full length .404 Jeffery by reducing the taper and necking it down to various calibers such as 7 mm, .308, 311, 338, 9.3 mm and .375. These cartridges were known variously as the Canadian Magnum or the Imperial Magnums. Rifles were built on Remington Model 700 Long Actions and used Macmillan stocks. Cartridges were fire formed from .404 Jeffery cases with the rim turned down, taper reduced and featured sharp shoulders.

Both Remington and Dakota Arms purchased the formed brass designed by Noburo Uno for use in their own experimentation and cartridge development. In 1999 Remington released the first of a series of cartridges virtually identical to the Canadian Magnum cartridges which featured a slightly wider body, increased taper, and shallower shoulders and named it the .300 Remington Ultra Magnum. Dakota too released their own version of the cartridge but chose not to turn down the rim and shortened the case to work in a standard length action. Remington would go on to design their own shortened versions of the Ultra Magnum cartridge which they were to call the Remington Short Action Ultra Magnum or RSAUM for short."

This is a fantastic thread. Thanks for the great info. I particularly appreciate your last post, aalf.
jason

The PRC should have more case capacity (velocity), and is actually factory supported (component availability). Not to mention ditching the useless belt...

Thanks for that history lesson.

I remember the name and that they were Canadian. That's about all.

Seems those guys were pioneers to a whole family of big rounds.

Interesting.

DF

The 6.5 Rem Mag was a good idea, ended up as a step child, largely due to Rem's decision to bring it out in a short barrel carbine, never giving it proper play, never developing it to what it should have been.

So, having a very similar round (PRC) in a better configuration, rolled out by a better company, developed into what it could be, will be way different than what went down with Remington and their 6.5 Mag. If there was a way to screw something up, Remington seemed to be there. They hit a few home runs, like the 7RM, seems to me they struck out more than they hit.

IMO.

DF

I know there was a 360 Imperial Magnum which was a 358 not a 9.3, I'm not sure there was ever a 9.3 mm version. For a time Speer made a 200 gr .311 Grand Slam designed for the 311 Imperial Magnum but obviously the round never went anywhere.

Seems innovators often end up on the back burner. As they say in business, the second rat eats the cheese.

Those guys were on the cutting edge, which can also become the "bleeding edge". Been there a few times, myself...

At least their ideas live on and we all benefit.

Leave it to aalf to come up with a good history lesson.

Thanks,

DF

Been reading this older thread because I find the PRC interesting. Any first hand experience yet with this round? Results?

Decided to include Benny's post only to add something that I don't recall reading in the thread regarding to comparison of PRC to SAUM/GAP 4S. The base of the PRC is the same diameter as the rim, so the rim is not rebated like that of the SAUM. Obviously this contributes to the slightly smaller capacity of the PRC. The slightly smaller diameter of the PRC is also carried out to the shoulder. I read where George Gardener said he preferred the non rebated rim. Maybe this helps with reliable feeding? Not sure, but he did note that. He also indicated that the PRC, based on the RCM, is the case he wanted to use BEFORE the GAP 4S, but when he approached Hornady then, they didn't have the capacity to produce the brass due to their demand during the panic buying era at the time. He was left to modifying available brass which was SAUM, thus the GAP 4S.

All that to say, maybe the PRC is simply standardizing what Gardener wanted in the first place, not necessarily to improve on the GAP 4S. Granted, seemingly all it does is reduce diameter by less than 0.020"......