In an article in the current issue of "American Rifleman," Craig Boddington states that, "In my opinion these three similar 6.5mms (6.5x55, .260 Remington, and 6.5 Creedmoor), despite the magical properties currently attributed to them, do not equal the 96-year-old .270 Winchester as a hunting cartridge."

He then goes on to describe why in four pages. It's a good read.

And will get him his nuts torn off by the true believers.

Wasn't Boddington the one who wrote for years that anything under .30 cal pretty much sucked?

If memory serves, Boddington became a believer after killing a large bull elk in New Mexico with the 270?

As a "Hunting" cartridge the 270 wins, by a narrow margin. The problem is that 40 years ago most rifle buyers were hunters. Today most rifle buyers either don't hunt, or hunting is secondary to punching paper or ringing steel at the range. The 6.5's, particularly the 6.5 CM is the better dual purpose cartridge. It is a lot better than 270 for target shooting, and close enough to 270 as a hunting cartridge.

The 270 is the king.

Any praise ascribed to the 270 shines more light on the more deserving 280.

I read it, good article!

in the end its not the round, pick what you want. use a suitable bullet and know how to properly place it or have the patience to pass the shot.

All the rest is simply in what we want to play with.

Much as I don't like 270 it works as well as anything, especially speaking deer as deer can be easily killed even with a rimfire..

Bigger game obviously should use bigger rounds by a bit IMHO, just to make sure of penetration.

To say any of the 4 mentioned is head and shoulders above the other is simply a way to pay bills

Where is Ingwe?

I remember reading the article, vaguely remember the rife used but could of been a Savage 16 stainless factory loaner rifle but his bullet choice was the Nosler Part.

And before that, it was only marginal for elk hunting, but one hell of a deer cartridge... His magnumitus has surely calmed down a bit with age...

I will look for it. Even before I read it I agree. I have used it for a long while on elk and moose and with modern propellants and amazing bullets it is much better.
I am sending a 150 grain Nosler Partition from a 22" tube at 3000 fps + That is elk medicine, imo.
Same goes for the .280 Rem

If you have magic Bullets like Barnes X or Nosler
Partitions then 25-06 is good enough for lower 48.
Maybe anything if you are a stuntshooter.

I've owned the 6.5 X 55 and the .260 Rem as well as a few .270 Winchesters.....This statement mirrors my sentiments exactly. as to the 6.5 Creed.....well lets just say even my .264 magnum isn't better than the old .270 Win.

And it does pay the bills, he's made a career of it. For whatever reason, hunters like to discuss, argue, and nitpick cartridge choice more than the dozens of other things that are more important for success.

This is from a similar piece Boddington did in 2016:

"Over the years I’ve used it on all the continents, taking a wide variety of sheep, goats, deer and antelope. There was a time when I questioned its adequacy for elk, leaning more toward the Elmer Keith school. I’ve gotten past that. Elk are tough, and you must be careful about bullet placement no matter what you use, but the .270 is enough gun, and even better today than in O’Connor’s time because we have better bullets. The .270 worked fine on the longest shot I’ve ever made on an elk, 405 yds., with a classic load consisting of a handloaded 150-gr. Nosler Partition. It worked equally well on a huge-bodied Anatolian stag in Turkey, at a similar distance, with a then-new Hornady GMX."


"The .270 remains almost entirely a hunter’s caliber, and the .270 Win. remains the most traditional choice. It doesn’t win long-range matches, not because it couldn’t, but because it’s never been asked to. And since it hasn’t been asked, the bullet choices to make it a contender don’t exist. Sierra has a 135-gr. .277 MatchKing, but it has never sold well. Berger, with perhaps the most extensive line of match-grade bullets, offers three VLD hunting bullets in .277, but no match bullets. In the field, however, the .270 will accomplish any reasonable task it is asked to perform at any reasonable range."

I’m a gun enthusiast 1st. A hunter 2nd. A shooter 3 rd.
I’ve been fascinated with rifles since I was a kid.
I began hunting at an early age, don’t remember xactly.
I began deer hunting before I had to have a license.

** I do a lot of shooting to be a successful hunter. **

IMO, the slower Creedmoor is fine IF you have time to:
Read LRF
Read Drop Chart
Twist turrets
Carefully aim
Squeeze trigger.

“Close enuff doesn’t impress me”. I have a perfectly good M 70 FTWT in the Swede.
If I didn’t love the Rifle, it would be gone.

On another level, I’ve said this before :

“If you have a 270, you have a 280;
If you have a 280, you have a 270 “

Jerry

I dont use it as much anymore mainly because I like to try different stuff... but the 270 performed wonderfully for everything I ever used it for. I foresee a lot more usage out of this fine old round in my future.

It's hard to believe people are still writing articles about the .270 as if no one knew it could kill deer or elk. Must have been a slow day at the Boddington household.

Oh I try not to listen to others, but make my own news....Haha

we should come up with a .290, just to fill the gap between .280 and .300.

I've killed more deer with the 270 than the other cartridges added together. Haven't used it in years, because I love to use different rifles, and different cartridges. But,I haven't found anything else to be as good as the 270 when it comes to killing a deer.......and my current "favorite" deer rifle is a 6.5 Creed. The good ole 270 is still just as good as it was 96 years ago. It says a lot about how good something is for it to stand the test of time.

I read the article and got this out of it "a longer cartridge is more powerful than a short cartridge even with inferior bullets at regular hunting distances".

Don't you think Craig's hunting experience qualifies him to have a "qualified opinion" ?

I agree BTW.


I'd think that C B has hunted more places for more game with more diff cartridges than many posters here -- myself included!


Jerry

kid0917,

Apparently you missed the introduction of the B-29 cartridge about 20 years ago, which proved to be the best general-purpose big game round ever.

I have loved, an used, the 270 for 50 years. Used it to introduce my kids, and grandkids to centerfires and deer hunting.
I also like 300 Savage and 35 Whelen. Add the 257, 308, 7x57 etc etc.
I like Boddington, but was underwhelmed by the article. Thanks Captain Obvious.
As noted earlier, it seemed to be more of an observation that magnums are not required, "lesser" cartridges can be relied on to get the job done.....meaning: deliver a decent bullet to the proper spot.
This has been true since Nosler rolled out the Partition.
How many decades ago? Longer than most of us have been hunting.

Works great for my wife.

-Jake

Yawn . 😴

I'm not a Craig Boddington fan. Most of his articles lack creativity and contain very elementary, often repeated material. For me, they are seldom worth reading. However, the recent American Rifleman article was not done in the usual Boddington manner. I found it interesting. He did one several years ago regarding ethical long-range hunting. I don't recall the article title or the publication. That was also a good one.

He is an old biased white guy

I have to load my 270 down to equal a 6.5 Creedmoor

What are "normal" hunting ranges? sub 300 yards? These days, maybe sub 500 yards? I see only one mention of distance in the article, that being 1000 yards, and even that mention was ambiguous.

Within those ranges the poor B/C of currently produced .277 bullets are pretty much meaningless. It's when the ranges get stretched out to 5, 6, 7, 800 plus yards that high B/C 6.5mm bullets start making a night and day difference. I'd have to agree with Boddington, assuming he's referring to shots in the sub 400-500ish yard range. I really like my pre-war .270 Win for timber hunts where I am 100% expecting a relatively close shot. It's been great on elk with the 150 speer hot cor. I've also killed antelope and mule deer with that combo, and with borrowed .270s have killed red stag, fallow, black buck, wild boar and axis deer with wally world special 130 grain bullets (power points, I believe). No issues whatsoever with the kill'n.

I used a "243 equivalent" 6x222 mag (6x47) and the older 85gr xbt on axis and a scimitar horned oryx one Spring after a neck surgery. I had it in a 27" Shilen going 2900fps, ha.

Also no issues with the killin' on the same sorts of animals with the 6.5 Creedmoor out to 300. In fact, a 143 ELD-X at 2700 fps from the Creedmoor retains just about the same velocity at 300 yards as the 150-grain .270 Hot-Cor started at 2900. So why wouldn't it kill just about as well? Or maybe there's some magic in another 7 grains of bullet weight.

And yes, I have some experience with the 143 ELD-X in the 6.5 Creedmoor. It kills just as well as the .270--which I've been using for 45 years now. Or at least that is my experience.

I do know that quite a few people who've tried the Creedmoor use lighter bullets, because they firmly believe you must have more muzzle velocity than 2700 tfps o kill anything at 300 yards--but the Creedmoor's strength is high-BC bullets at moderate muzzle velocities. They catch up quickly to lower-BC bullets started faster, and even at closer ranges kill well--just like the 6.5x55 has been doing for a long time with 140's handloaded to 2700 fps.

The difference is you can buy the 6.5 Creedmoor 143 ELD-X factory load at lots of stores, instead of having to handload--and is very accurate in the average factory rifle. In fact it shoots as well as the best handloads I've been able to come up with in my Lilja-barreled 6.5x55 custom.

I haven't read Craig's article yet, but plan to.

If he suggests a longer cartridge is preferable over a short one, I would agree. I like a cartridge that looks streamline and aerodynamic. I know, it doesn't need to be but a gentle shoulder and a long neck gives the round more suitable for me. I don't like to seat the bullet beyond the neck and no chambering slips into the chamber like a 30/06 based one. Perhaps a .375 or .300 H&H will, but not many short /fats are as good at it.
The .270 wcf is a classic, has improved with age and is my first choice for sheep hunting, the .280 will do the same thing. They hit harder than they should, you can put them in a 7 lb rifle with a 22" barrel and won't regret it. Cheers

Not sure how looks of a round make it better. LOL.

Or how a 270 has improved over the years.. Bullets and powder sure, the round? Or seeing that a 270/280/or 30-06 have any appreciable difference between em personally.

But again the joy is use what you want or like!

I'm thinking that your list of what you do to shoot, applies to any caliber at some point. And the fact that BC gets involved, well you can take LRF, drop chart and turrets on lots of rounds and just ignore those... I never had any of them for years and everything worked fine with 223/243/308/300. Out to certain distances obviously.

But I may have to think this over, if you don't do any of the above or even aim or squeeze I may have to drag out the only 270 I've had, one I won of all calibers, and start using it. Might even just let it do all the work on its own. LOL

Well, IF the bullets have improved and..

the powders have improved......

how could the performance of the cartridge NOT improve ?


Jerry

rost

You said,

"But I may have to think this over, if you don't do any of the above or even aim or squeeze I may have to drag out the only 270 I've had, one I won of all calibers, and start using it. Might even just let it do all the work on its own. LOL"


Show me where I said I don't AIM or SQUEEZE ! I did not specifically mention that but I did NOT say I don't!

I use the LRF on landmarks before seeing game. I DON'T use drop charts or turrets.

Nit Pick.


Jerry

I believe it has improved as a cartridge, due to improved powders and bullets....just not to the extent that other non .277" cartridges have.

I never thought about it before, but Boddington's statement: "It doesn’t win long-range matches, not because it couldn’t, but because it’s never been asked to. And since it hasn’t been asked, the bullet choices to make it a contender don’t exist", is pretty thought provoking. If bullet manufactures would produce high quality, high B/C .277" bullets, I'll bet the .270 Win would improve a LOT more, just like every other round has with better bullets. It is still a long action though, so the velocity to powder capacity ratio handicaps it compared to .308 and .223 based rounds, if efficiency is important to a person.

I never cared for the round, always was an 06' fan, but over the last few years, I've come to appreciate it's potential. and now own two. Incidentally, my uncle took his on two safaris to Africa and took all his plains game with it including a lion with old fashioned Silvertips.

this gave me a big chuckle and is kinda true too . >>>> but of all the post on this site its the winner !

There I fixt it for ya.


Jerry

Fun to see that " 270 vs the world" debate can still provoke pages of typing over nothing. A real hunter can kill anything in the lower 48 with a 30-30.

After all he is USMC so don't expect brilliance. Limited bullet choice puts the 270 as a disadvantage vs the 280AI but it is still works just fine.

I'm more worried about the coming bloodbath on our Southern border than beating a dead horse from 1920.

Yes , the .270 wcf has improved noticeably with the amazing propellants and bullets these day... so have most all other chamberings . This has stepped up all hunting rounds into a new category, lessening the need for a larger magnum very often. The .270/ .280 etc has alot of capability on elk that it didn't have before.
Even Big bore , Ross Seyfried recommends the .270 wcf these days....Eileen does too( right JB?)

The problem is one of physics and volume.

The .270 is an odd caliber, with odd bullets. It’s kinda the 120-140gr reputation that built the mystique, along with Jack O’connor in large dose.

The 6.5mm at .264” and the 7mm at .284” have produced remarkable cartridges over the years. The heavy for caliber, mild recoil best guns in 6.5x55 and 6.5x54 have stayed a lot of game, especially in the 160gr options. Same with the 7x57 with 175gr options. Thank the Europeans with their long throated barrels and ample action length with heavy for caliber bullets for all of this.

I would rather have a 7x57 or 7x64 than a 270. Same for 6.5x55 over the 270.

I’m a hunter first, a fine firearm collector second, and a “high tech latest thing” guy dead last. Beautiful guns tend to come in beautiful, proven, traditional European calibers so that’s where I land.

A 62,000 psi cartridge with a bore diameter of .256" will never be a 65,000 psi cartridge with a bore diameter of .270" and 30% greater case capacity. It can play catch-up and take over, but it's going to start with a handicap.

It's physics.

Obviously this comparison doesn't look so good:



This comparison looks a little better:



If it's still not good enough take that .270 and add .010 inches.

I read the article too.

Why look at energy? Knowing the bullet weight, I want to know what the velocity is down range/impact.

Man, I need to get out more!

AKA 7.5x55.
I remember it.

Yes, how could anyone forget?

And a damn good round it is.

Recoil.......?

400 gr at 1000 fps has a much different effect than 55 gr at 1000 fps. Might as well combine the weight and the velocity into one measurement.

What’s color got to do with it?

This is my reality with my rifles, there is no killing difference between the two.

.277/150 ABLR/546 bc/3000 mv ..... MOA 11.3 @ 600 yds 26.5 @ 1000 yds

6.5/147ELD/697 bc/2,800 mv ....... MOA 12.2 @ 600 yds 27.1 @ 1000 yds

The 6.5 using 14 grains less powder.

The .270 is a great hunting round. Almost as good as the .280.

Seriously, I love my .280 (which is essentially the same as a .270), but I think I will hunt mule deer this year with a 6.5 Creedmoor. It should work great.

Nothing to US old biased White guys !!

WHO plays the race card ???


Jerry

He needs to pen a song, ASAP.

Sir Elton needs another hit.....

Based on the theory that two meaningless numbers combined are twice as meaningless?

S M H


Jerry

I thought this thread was about Boddington's gig with the .270 Win. Not the 6.5 CM. When the 6.5 CM LASTS as long as the .270 Win, then someone will be impressed. Boddington wasn't.

I'm a believer in physics, myself.

Congratulations. You are going to be looking at bullet weight and the diameter anyways. That being said why not look at energy per grain or better yet... it’s impact velocity.

A specific Hornady SP of unknown diameter and weight has 423 ft lbs energy impacting a deer. Does it have enough energy per grain to expand? Would it help to know the velocity?

Not all 1200 ft/lbs projectiles reliably expand as soft points, it really depends on velocity. Many cup/core soft points expand reliably between 1800-2000 feet per sec at a low end, or if you wanted it converted in to ft/lbs per grain it would be 7.2 - 8.9 which is pretty silly when you can just use velocity as a guide. The total number of ft/lbs is pretty meaningless. The best is when people start talking about how many ft/lbs it takes to kill a deer or elk.

Comparing cartridges, not bullets, a chart with only velocity isn't helpful. And to the 500 yard distance, all compared have 1900+ fps. If you added the weight, I can see a 338 is "twice as powerful" since it pushes twice the weight to the same speed as a 243. But when the velocity is different suddenly it's a lot harder to visualize. There's no such thing as one "magic number" but kinetic energy is the best starting point. If people think it's supposed to be the "magic number", and complain when it turns out it isn't, that's on them, not physics.

You need 25 ft lbs to kill an elk.

I'll take the 6.5 creedmoor based on those numbers. I've tried to like the 270, but ended up selling the 3 I had. The creed just makes more sense..

I thought most everyone already knew that, and they don't even kick very much, most women or young teen can handle the recoil with a good pad. If there is a .270 available to a hunter they are free to worry about things other than rifles.

As much as I like the smaller-cased 6.5mm rifles, a well-loaded 270win is still a bit more horsepower at most hunting distances. I was kicking around the notion of acquiring a 270 just the other day, as I find myself without one at the moment, and Buds has 700 ADL SS combo rifles for pretty cheap. With today's bullets and powders, it's tough to argue with something like a 140gr Tipped Trophy Bonded at 3,100fps for an all-rounder in the hunting field.

Nice try but what you're actually a believer in is a formula that emphasizes velocity out of proportion with its contribution to what's really important, which is the size of the hole made by the bullet.

Boddington used to think the same way and said he personally wouldn't use the 270 on elk because it didn't meet the magical 2,000 ft-lb. threshold past 200 yards.

He doesn't think that way any more.

It's really fun being a rifle looney and playing the numbers game, however please hold your hand up if you can truthfully can deliver a KILLING shot on a game animal smaller than an Elephant at 900 yards on a breeze day across a canyon. If you raised your hand you are lucky and 1 in a 1000, IMHO. Inside 400 yards the 270 has the edge, if only slightly. I own a 6.5 Creedmoor and am not really in love with it. It worked fine on the one deer I killed with it, just not that impressed. Example of one, I know. True the 270 used 14 grains more powder, but if I can't afford that I can't afford the gas to get to the range. In a blind test I doubt I could tell the difference in recoil in the field, off the bench the 6.5 has a slight edge. As a young guy I gut shot a fine Mule Deer at about 400 Yards and lost him to die a miserable death. NEVER AGAIN. I'll take the .270 with a good bullet and get closer, thanks. I have fun shooting at far away rocks on the distant canyon, but not on game, it's not fair chase.

Just my two cents worth on this fine Sunday morning.

Not age...experience. It took me 20 years of being a 270 hater to come full circle. Now...I honestly wouldn’t consider any thing else. Shoots flat, kicks a little, and kills a lot

Ok, first let's get the disclaimers and claimers out of the way.....

I haven't read the article by Boddington; I don't own a 6.5 of any sort; I'm not an expert on anything, much less rifles and bullets, but I do own a 270.

Now I have read this post and one of the things that keeps being said, in this thread and other places, is that the 6.5 CM is better than a 270 at long distances. There are graphs that show velocity, drop, energy, etc. that prove this point.

But, in none of these comparisons are they comparing apples to apples. Why? Because they dont make the same bullet for each caliber, at least I dont think they do. What would the comparison look like if they did make the same bullet for each caliber, or almost the same bullet?

Well, we're in luck, because Sierra is now making the GameChanger bullet and it can be bought as loaded ammo or bullets for reloading. 6.5 comes in 130 gr at .510 bc and the 270 comes in a 140 gr with .508 bc. As far as I know, these 2 bullets are as close to being the same, as you can get. What would the charts look like when you compare apple to apples, or as close to that, as you can get.

As stated in this thread, the 270, for what ever reason, never caught on for shooting long range. I really dont know why, but I just chalk it up to another thing I dont know. I've shot steel at 1000 yds. with mine. Someone said it was because of the lack of good bullets. I agree that to shoot long distances, it takes good bullets, and the 6.5 has a better variety of good bullets for distant shooting.

Both rifles are good, no doubt about it. With proper shot placement, both rifles will kill things..... dead is dead, no matter how you look at it.

Ok, I've had my say, so flame away!

Have you stayed in a Holiday Inn Express in the past 30 days?

The 270 never caught on with long range because it burns a ton of slow fuel and is a barrel torch, at least in that line of work. Yes the 6 and 6.5-284 has its fans, but it has waned for the same reasons.
A hunter can dial in his 270 without too many rounds and use the same barrel forever. A target shooter can roast a barrel in a season or two; it's similar to the 243 in this regard.

LA actions are also less rigid, so target shooters as a group prefer them.

Winner! Winner! Chicken dinner!

Good morning, I am an old guy and agree with you.
In these steep timbered mountains , if you shoot you had better recover it or put 150% into it trying.
Often shooting across a draw is in the 200 yard range, it might be 200 hundred yards but could take an hour to get to it. Elk hunting is done just after daylight or at just before dusk.
I use a .270 WCF and have used or clients Experienced a whole range of chamberings and 400 yards approx the absolute limit. A 270/ 280 or 30/06 fills the Bill, imo
I hunted with a fella that used a .264 win and it performed well but no better than the aforementioned and the barrel was a little to long
A good good, tenacious bullet is the key not a sleek high B.C. bullet.

rifletom,



Did you read Boddington's article? Its partly about why he thinks the .270 is superior to the 6.5 Creedmoor and similar 6.5 cartridges, a judgement which is mostly based (as it is in many hunters) on muzzle velocity, not downrange velocity. And downrange velocity is why the "mild" 6.5's work so well--and not just at whatever's considered long range.

And not just with "sleek, high-BC" bullets, either. The same brand/type of bullet in a 6.5 and it will have a higher BC than a .270 bullet. At closer ranges a 140 Partition from the 6.5x55 works just as well as a 140 Partition from the .270, even if the .270 bullet is going faster. I know this from actually having used both.

Yep, it will get hot after just a few rounds.

Now here's someone that knows his stuff!!!!!

No wonder we are known as rifle loonies. Makes interesting campfire discussion and as usual amounts to picking fly schitt out of pepper. Any bullet of from 257 to 358 diameter driven at anywhere near 2750fps MV is going to kill stuff. Oh, pardon me, make that .17 to 600cal. Do 277 bullets suddenly stop and drop at over 450 yards? Do 264 bullets bounce off things unless driven to fantastic velocities?
Wonder if Taylor and Bell ever sat around a campfire and debated the virtues of the 6.5x55 vs the 303 for elephant?

vapodog,

What stuff does he know? He cites losing a deer as a young guy with an unspecified cartridge and bullet. If he lost the deer, how does he know what happened? Did he make a bad shot, or was it the fault of the cartridge and bullet? If it was the fault of the bullet, was it due to its caliber, weight or construction?

Similarly, how does he know any of a number of other cartridges won't work on deer won't work as well as the .270 at closer ranges?

I'm a big fan of the .270, in fact at one point about 20 years ago had used it on more big game animals than any other round--and had also watched my wife use it on plenty of big game from pronghorns to bull moose, at ranges from up close to 450 yards. In the 1990's, in fact, Eileen had string of 10 one-shot kills in a row with the .270 on not just antelope and moose but elk and big buck deer, both whitetails and muleys. It works great.

But I have since gotten plenty of experience with several 6.5's that won't match the .270's muzzle velocities. Yet they somehow work great as well--if the hunter puts the right bullet in the right place. Which in my experience is far more important than a few grains of bullet weight and minor differences in retained velocity, especially close up where the 6.5x55 has always worked very well.

I always love how these threads devolve into BOTH theoretical ballistic numbers AND field examples of one.

You weren't holding your tongue right.
.
Seriously, I don't care if you have 10 6.5 CMs, that's your call. I believe they will do the job well on Whitetail and pronghorn and even elk, although I think there are better cartridges for animals of that size, the .270 being one. However, what I think Bodington is getting at is that the diameter of 6.5-.264 is not magical. It just happened to be the European cartridge that was courted for long range target shooting in a military environment. If you feed a .270 bullets equal to those it will do as well if not better. And nowdays some cartridge makers beginning to cater to the long range game are beginning to make bullets for it. Give it time, you will see.

I like threads like this, they are fun.

How many have heard this statement or one very similar.... Sight it in 2" high at 100 yds, it'll be on at 200 yds, and 6" low at 300 yds. I've asked this question to lots of hunters and just about everyone has heard it. The .243 hunter might be 4"-5" low at 300 and the 30-06 might be 7"-8" low at the same 300, but they are all in the same ballpark.

The caliber of the rifle, in most cases, is not the weak link in the hunting chain. Its the person using that rifle. A well placed shot will kill. A poorly placed shot will only wound or cause a slow death. Knowing your limits and learning to be proficient with your rifle is more important that the caliber.

No, I'm not advocating hunting elephants with .22 shorts...... I'm speaking about the range of calibers listed above and the game usually hunted with them.

True dat

If this is in reference to me, I'll apologize for not being clearer. I wasn't trying to portray that the 6.5s mentioned in Craig's article don't kill just as well as the .270 Win. or that the difference in 7 grains in weight and .013" between the 143 ELDX and 150 hot-cor makes any realistic difference.

I've got a fair amount of experience with several 120-140 grain 6.5mm bullets, and with the exception of some bad berger experiences, have had zero issues killing antelope, mulie and white-tailed deer and elk with them, from 50-600 yards. I really liked the old 140 AMAX, RIP.

Agreed, but we all need to become familiar with the firearm or firearms we hunt with. We need to know our drops at all ranges and know how much to hold over. A good range finder is good to have. Also, if you hunt the same places you can mark different ranges from your blind. If you walk around and spot and stalk ect, you need the range finder. And you need to know your rifle and load and what its drops are at each range. Like yes, for my .270, 100=+1.5", 200=right on, 300=-6.7", 400=-15" Etc.

And that, sir, is very often the core issue. Someone has either a very good or a very bad experience, and praises or damns whatever the tool of the moment was. It's much easier than taking the time to understand the tool, and to use it in the space where it works well.

I hope that you are not suggesting people use the proper tool for the proper job.

I was using a 270 Winchester with the old Sierra Game King 130 grain bullet at about 3000 FPS. I've seen other deer gut shot and it is easy to tell by the way they hunch up and their irregular gait, again IMHO. I blame poor shooting at too long of range, as I was unable to make follow up shot count. We've killed a truck load of deer with this bullet and failure has never been a problem.

As stated my use of the 6.5 CM is an example of one, merely stating my opinion that the 6.5's are not magic. Any number of other cartridge would have and do work as well as the 270, If the hunter puts the bullet in the right place any cartridge works well, including the lowly 22 Long Rifle. I've killed more than an example of one mule deer with the 300 savage, mostly one shot kills, but you have to know your limitations. I bought one of the first Ruger 77's in 6.5 CM , due in part to Mule Deer's writing. Nice rifle, a little unwieldy with the 26" barrel, but it is a shooter. I still own it and while I haven't used it on deer but once. I shoot it regularly on paper and coyotes.

Hornady created a marketing craze with the 6.5 CM and now is considered by many to be the only and the greatest, enabling the average Joe to take game cleanly at extreme ranges. Probably was the same when Jack first stated writing about the 270. American hunters for years side stepped the 6.5 X 55, but somehow the 6.5 CM is the IT cartridge! I guess I've been over exposed. to the hype. I'm always amazed when discussing the Creed, conversation always tuns to retained energy and bullet drop at 1000 yards.

I'm not as good a shot as Mule Deer, but don't doubt he's good to 450 yards with a 270 Winchester, as he shoots a lot, but 400 yards is a long way down the road for most of us under field conditions. Shots are generally closer than they used to be when range finders are used! The 270 has worked so well for my family and I over the last 50 years, I seldom reach for any other chambering, It works so well I've decided not to move on, at least not often

Splitting hairs!

I agree 100% Oldman3. The trajectory arch is very similar for most hunting cartridges. Some are a little flatter, some more of a rainbow trajectory, but for most of us normal hunters that aren't into shooting into the next county, any of these cartridges will suffice. As you said, it's a lot more the shooter than the rifle.

This simply isn't the reason.

For decades, NRA high power competition, aggregates at 200, 300, and 600 yards, required the use of the 30-06 cartridge. None others were allowed. So good boat tailed .308 diameter bullets were invented for match shooting, first the military's 173 grain bullet (originally developed to mazimize range by wlevating a machine gun instead of using artillery) and later Sierra's 168, 180, and 190 grain Match Kings.

1000 yard matches, however, had no cartridge limitations. Since good long range .308 caliber bullets were available, the logical step was to use faster 30 caliber cartridges, first the .300 H&H and later the .300 Winchester magnum.

A similar process in Europe yielded good boat tailed 6.5mm bullets of around 140 grains. So available long range target bullets were either 6.5mm or .308 inch. There were none in .25 or .270 caliber until much later.

A 14 grain difference in powder weight means abaloutely nothing, just as when .30 calibers were required for 1000 yard matches, the difference in capacity between a 30-06 and a .300 Magnum meant nothing.

I agree with this for the most part. I as much said the same. The 6.5s and 30s were military based cartridges. 277s and .257s were always hunting cartridges. However, both are excellent for this. The .25-06 and the .257 Weatherby and the .270 Win. and the .270 WBY are all great long range performers. If you feed 'em the right bullets they can do anything the .264s and .30s can do.

On a slightly different note, there is nothing sweeter than a good accurate .25-06 or even .257 Roberts, or .270 Winchester for hunting deer. They're relatively flat shooting, they aren't generally known as shoulder stompers, and in a good rifle they're all known to be pretty accurate. I shoot a .257 AI and a .270 Win. and I feel totally confident with either. I even have a lowly .250 Savage that for White Tail I feel totally in control with. They all three are totally sweet.

And another point. There's a lot of talk about their not being enough different bullet choices for these two diameters. But for whitetail deer and similar size game the bullet choices offered are all that's needed for what they were designed to do. There's more than enough weights and shapes. And every major bullet maker makes excellent bullets for them.

Here's an experience of "many."

For many years I shot 600 yard matches with NRA rules. We got five sighter shots before firing 20 shots for record. We shot from the prone position, with tight slings, with very accurate heavy rifles. The target was a 36" black circle on a white background. After each shot, people in the pits pulled the target down, stuck a spotter in it, and ran it back up, so you could see exactly where you had shot. We wore specialized shooting coats to dampen recoil, make our bodies rigid, and minimize heartbeat vibrations. Calibers ranged from the .223 using 80 grain bullets through .243s using 105 to 117 grain bullets, the 6.5mms, and .30 calibers. All bullets were heavy for caliber hollow point boat tails. Usually there were two scope sight matches and one iron sight match. The range, of course, was known exactly. Each of us had an exact zero from the previous match. We had three minutes to prepare and get into position. Our gear included a powerful spotting scope next to the rifle, in order to detect wind speed by reading the mirage. Most of us were pretty good at doing that. There were also large range flags to indicate wind speed and direction.

I maintain that the conditions of such matches were better for accuracy than one would ever find when hunting at comparable ranges.

Now here's the point. Why did we get five sighter shots? Because at least 1/3 of the first sighting shots did not come close enough to the target center to kill a deer. Also, it was quite common, after getting in the X-ring, to see a slight change in conditions blow the bullet out. In fact, anyone shooting 20 shots within a 12" circle would score 200/200 and probably win the match. Most of us couldn't do that.

From this experience, I think that hitting a deer at 600 yards with the first shot is larely a matter of luck. I would not attempt it. If the 6.5 is marginally better than a .270 beyond 600 yards, after it has dropped more in the first 600 yards, so what? Neither is a competent 600-yard hunting round.

Switch,

Thanks very much for your response, and clarifications. A few comments:

I also killed a pile of deer (and some antelope) with the 130 Sierra GameKing in my first .270, handloaded to just about 3000 fps. (Didn't even know the real velocity until five years later, after buying my first chronograph in 1979.) The only "failure" I had was on a forkhorn mule deer buck, bouncing up a slope just about 100 yards away. My first shot missed--but the second dropped him dead right there.

When I skinned and butchered the buck, I found the empty jacket under the hide at the ENTRANCE hole at the left-rear side of the ribcage--but also found what was left of the core in the right shoulder. Just because a bullet separates core and jacket does NOT mean "penetration soon ceases," as Bob Hagel wrote. (Had basically the same thing happen at around 200 yards with a 105-grain Speer Hot-Cor on a whitetail buck. That time the deer was broadside, but the shot hit the spine, and despite the jacket stopping just under the hide, the core broke the spine.)

Have pointed out a number of times on the Campfire that Hornady did NOT "create a marketing craze" with the 6.5 Creedmoor. Instead ithey introduced it in 2007 as a target round with relatively little fanfare. But hunters who tried it over the next few years found it worked very well--which is how I "discovered" it in 2010--and said so in that first article. Only AFTER so many hunters started using it did so many magazines cover the round. (I hadn't even really grasp the virtues of the cartridge when writing that article, using a 120-grain bullet on my first big game animal, because it got over 3000 fps. Have learned a lot more since, partly through firing thousands of 6.5 Creedmoor rounds at targets out to 1000 yards, and seeing quite a few big animals slain.)

My point, however, is that Hornady didn't push the 6.5 Creedmoor as a hunting round for several years--until hunters started using and liking it. Even then the publicity push didn't always come from Hornady. I bought my rifle and several boxes of factory ammo at a local store (as stated in the article), because the store was selling so many. (I do admit phoning one editor before buying the rifle and ammo, to be sure he'd be interested in an article.)

If you ever decide to sell your rifle I'd be very interested.

I dismissed the 6.5 CM for a long time, relegating it to the target class of shooter. I read threads about it here and thought it was just another "loony invention". It wasn't until I read the Rifleman interview with the Hornady engineers, their rationale and the African cull hunt that sparked my interest. I grew up with JOC's cartridge and used it on numerous elk, whitetail, mule deer, 3 pronghorn and one Dalls Sheep. The 6.5 is easy to shoot, the wife likes it and I have a caribou and a cow elk in the freezer from last years hunts. So no need to twist your undies in a knot - shoot what you like or even shoot both!

Indy,

I agree with you on those points. In fact, one of the techniques used by some long-range hunters is to fire a "sighting shot" before the on-game shot., especially at ranges beyond where animals react to the sound of a shot.

I have not suggested the 6.5 Creedmoor is a an automatic 600+ yard big game cartridge, But that does NOT mean the 6.5 Creedmoor, whether factory or handloaded, doesn't work just as well on big game as .270 ammo at "normal" ranges. Which is not just my experience.

I can't be sure but I think the release of Ruger's RPR gave the 6.5 CM a kick in the pants. That's when I remember really starting to hear about it.

Goosey,

Very interesting chart! Thanks for posting it.


The first RPR I tested was chambered in .243 Winchester, which proved to be VERY accuratre, even with factory hunting ammo. But they don't even chamber the RPR in .243 anymore--because the 6mm Creedmoor has taken over that slot.

Indy, that what I'm talking about. An honest man!

Grandpa and Dad, myself and family members have had good results with the 270.

Thought the Boddington 270 article was a good one. I’ve seen a few similar statements by Boddington lately on the 6.5s in web articles and in Rifleshootet. I’m guessing he is reacting to the long range fad somewhat and hype that the 6.5 CM is an extreme range hunting round. The .270 may not kill better than 6.5 CM but if something is too far or big for the .270 it’s certainly too far or too big for the mild 6.5s. You probably can’t find a bigger 270 fan than me, but I have a 6.5 CM LAW and like it for the reasons Mule Deer mentions.

Lou

This thread is about the 270 and before you know it the 6.5 Creed becomes the topic of discussion. If you mention anything critical of the 6.5 Creedmoor in any 6.5 discussion, you are some sort of malcontent.

The 6.5 Creedmoor has its followers and I am happy for them, but I guarantee anyone hunting the rest of their life with the 6.5 won’t kill as much game with that cartridge as I have without it...

And if you mention anything critical of the 270 you are some sort of malcontent.

There is not a rat hairs difference between the two in the killing field.

Oh yeah, my dad can beat up your dad...

Yes sir, and that’s the very reason why I don’t intend to own either one of them. Happy Trails

It cracks me up to be at the range with someone shooting 5 inch groups at 100 yards with their CM telling me how deadly it is at 1000. Soon as I see more than 1 out of 100 that can hit consistently at 500 or more we will talk about long range magic. If that ever becomes a thing for me I'll just roll out a 7-08 and keep the CM in irrelevance... There aint no damned magic pill...nothing is gonna shoot half inch groups at a million yards just because it is hyped to the max. Proficient long range shooting comes from years and years of practice and perfect technique. Put a good boolit in the right spot and things are easy... but I guess if there's a need to have the latest and greatest and a shot to make up for underlying deficiencies.. than by all means... carry on...and enjoy what you use...

I think one reason for American hunters side stepping the 6.5x55 for years was due to the fact that no American firearms manufacturer chambered rifles for it until the 1980s and until then the only available commercial ammunition was Norma and occasionally CIL and/or RWS. Prior to the 1980s, the only rifles that I ever saw chambered in 6.5x55 were surplus Norwegian Krags and Swedish Mausers. The 6.5 Creedmoor is the first commercial 6.5mm bore cartridge to be embraced by American shooters. The 256 Newton, 264 WinMag, 6.5 RemMag, and 260 Rem never captured market share anything like the 6.5 Creedmoor has.

You sure do.

JB should have given the B-29 more media exposure; it's the ultimate big game round. My 1,200 + yard one-shot kill in a gusting 90 m.p.h crosswind on a 7X7 bull elk would never have happened with any other round, not even a 50cal.

Today I gave my close second to the B-29 to my stepson, a sweet 1980s Mdl 70 FW XTR 270. In all seriousness I loved the rifle, but I'll never hunt with it again, and he will join his son, Owen, in the 270 fraternity. Owen got my Husqvarna/FN 270 a few years ago and it's claimed three mulies and an antelope.

I can't think of a better round than the 270 for hunting our game under our conditions here in Nevada.

I whole heartily agree!

Around here Bull Elk hunting goes to about 300 yards,
It might take an hour to go that 300.
I take only broadside shots , and I find it is hard to beat my .270wcf with the 150 grain N.P. . I do try everything that is marketed and they are all compared to the Nosler Partition.
My question is- how does the 6.5 CM compare with a N.P?
Comparing this two rounds any other way just doesn't matter to me, no range finder , turrets, calculators required-point and shoot.
My little old point of view.

Interesting observation. Why is this true, in your own mind?

Is it because of the inferiority of the 6.5 Creedmoor, or your legendary status?

Interesting observation. Why do you get upset with someone else’s experience?

Where did I ever say the 6.5 was inferior? I never have. I will maintain that it isn’t necessary in a field already overloaded with more than adequate game killers.

I would also guess, as far as rifle loonies go, I have more than my share, but resist the surge in the shooting world to jump on the Creedmoor bandwagon.

To each his own, but you can’t prove me wrong and I guess it bothers you more than it bothers me...

Jeff,

Good observations about the 6.5x55.

One other factor is the throat length in 6.5x55 rifles has varied considerably, just as it has in some other older cartridges that were originally designed around long, round-nosed bullets. 6.5x55 throats were VERY long throughout much of the 20th century, mostly due to the influence of military Mausers and Krags. They started shortening up after World War Two, but weren't very consistent. Present SAAMI and CIP throat lengths are much shorter. This is another reason, aside from action strength, that 6.5x55 factory ammo and handloading data varies so much--and why the 6.5x55 has never become as popular among hunters as later 6.5's.

In fact, even in Norway (which co-developed the round with Sweden) the 6.5x55 is nearly as popular among hunters as most Americans believe. I hunted red deer in Norway in 1996, and the hunting mostly involved big drives in mountainous country with LOTS of participants. Since most Norwegians speak excellent English (its apparently a mandatory subject in their schools) I got to talk about hunting and guns quite a bit with probably two dozen hunters. The most popular chambering among their rifles was the .308 Winchester, and in fact one of the several sporting goods stores I visited had a barrel full of a less-expensive model of the Remington 700 apparently made specifically for selling in Europe--all .308's. In fact only one of my hunting companions carried a 6.5x55.

I could not agree more. Nuff said.

The OP was actually this........which if you take time to actualy read it, it's about 6.5's AND the .270. Proceed with the 6.5CMDS posts anyway.

In an article in the current issue of "American Rifleman," Craig Boddington states that, "In my opinion these three similar 6.5mms (6.5x55, .260 Remington, and 6.5 Creedmoor), despite the magical properties currently attributed to them, do not equal the 96-year-old .270 Winchester as a hunting cartridge."

I think that a factor that drives discussions about such whizbangs as the 6.5CM, .270, fast twist high velocity .22's, et al, is the gun press (wherein most of the prominent writers live out in wide open fly-over states) who enjoy long range shooting opportunities on a regular basis- and write about them. Add to that the gun readers who revel in those writings and fantasize about joining the ranks of the "long range heroes", and the shooting suppliers (advertisers) who see a way to make yet another buck feeding off of those fantasies.

In the real world of people like myself who live east of the Mississippi who have no access to über long range target shooting/hunting opportunities, the entire world of ELD/VLD bullets and the rifles that handle them wonderfully is superfluous. Yet the local shops are also selling an inordinate amount of that gear to guys who will never be presented with shots much beyond 100 yards and who rarely fire more than a box or two of ammo through their fusils on a yearly basis. Such is the power of fantasy.

I submit that if Creedmoor sales were relegated strictly to the guys who can actually make use of its wondrous charms, and have the opportunities to do so, it would be but an interesting footnote in the annals of shooting. But, the same can be said of many other chamberings down through the years, so our fantasies are nothing new.

I wonder what the next big thing will be? I hope it's equally astounding for that is what helps keep our sport alive.

Sorry for not letting this go, but this statement does make the biggest argument for or against a 6.5 Creedmoor...

Hell, I even have issues with dials on scopes! I've been hunting a while, taken a fair number of animals at ranges from 375 yards down to "at my shoelaces" and all i ever do is "hold on hair" be mindful of wind drift & cartridge limitations and pull the trigger. The 270 fits that bill rather nicely and for that matter so do a whole lot of other cartridges that have been around forever. Besides, "Creedmoor" sounds kindafaggoty...

In my view the 6.5 Creedmoor has many charms quite applicable to the occasional shooter who shoots his deer inside 200 yards.

That's because I'm not for or against the CM. Rather, I'm seeking to understand its popularity.

I second that emotion...

Like teenagers running out to buy condoms before the prom! LOL!

gnoahhh,

The "wondrous charms" of the 6.5 Creedmoor are not limited to long-range shooting. It's just as good for short-to-medium range hunting as any cartridge with similar ballistics, whether the other "mild" 6.5's like the 6.5x55 and .260, or the 7mm-08 and .270.

I killed a mule deer back last fall with the 6.5 Creedmoor and factory Hornady ammunition loaded with the 143-grain ELD-X bullet at the vast range of 101 yards (laser- ranged after the fact). The buck was standing broadside in Gambel oak brush which blocked most of his body except his shoulder, so that's where I put the bullet. The buck collapsed instantly, dead right there. The bullet broke both shoulders and was found under the skin of the far shoulder, retaining 60% of its weight. The buck yielded exactly 100 pounds of boned meat, and while I have killed bigger-bodied mule deer, he may have been in the top 10. Yet despite the shot placement, the moderate muzzle velocity of the load (advertised at 2700 fps, which it actually approaches in my rifle) resulted in little meat loss.

Yet the same load was also very effective on an even bigger-bodied buck my companion killed with a rib shot at 311 yards. That buck kicked up his hind hooves at impact, then staggered maybe 25-30 yards before collapsing.

The rifles we used, both factory models costing around $500, shot groups well under an inch at 100 yards with the factory ammo, and in fact mine shot a 4-shot group at 300 yards of 1-1/2 inches, strung out horizontally due to a perhaps 5 mph breeze. That ammo costs around $25 a box at most stores.

All of those factors--superbly accurate yet affordable factory rifles and ammo, and very effective "killing power," whether up close or further out, are among the reasons the 6.5 Creedmoor has become so popular. Another is moderate recoil, around 14 foot-pounds for the above load in an 8-pound rifle.

Part of its popularity here in Montana is indeed due to some hunters waiting to shoot "long range," but more of its popularity comes from the fact that it recoils more like a .243, yet works not only on big mule deer at normal ranges, but whitetails along the riverbottoms at close range, and elk as well. This is why quite a few guys buy one for their wife or kids--and then discover the rifle shoots so well, and is so effective despite kicking a LOT less than their .300 magnum that they buy a 6.5 Creedmoor for themselves.

I left it to the professional to elaborate on the charms.

One yugely major sea change that the 6.5 Creedmoor hath wrought is that finally, after some 93 years (give or take a couple), the Major Argument of All Hunting has changed from ".270 vs. .30-06" to ".270 vs. 6.5 CM".

This is big.

The 20 something year old counter Clerk at Sportsmans Warehouse told that everytime someone asks to see a 6.5 Creedmoor he tells them it is not a game cartridge just a target round.

I read it...nostalgia is strong within him...

Do remain fairly convinced that the 270 caliber is still flanked by two calibers with potentially higher BCs for bullets of a similar SD.

I think its not the 6.5 cm that drives people crazy...its the people

Well done MD. Even if a guy doesn't own, desire to own, or even hates the Creed for whatever reason......you'd think people would catch on to the FACT that the 6.5CM is for real.

My "most influential gun looney uncle", my Uncle Bud who died when I was 16, hated the .270 Winchester. He loved three cartridges; the .257 Roberts, the .219 Zipper ( in a Model 64 Win) and the 30-06. He said the .270 was "no da--ed good in the woods, its too fast!" ha. He "tolerated" the 30-30. He was very knowledgeable in many areas, and I thank the Lord for the time I had with him...but he also was "limited" in experience. ha It was not until I moved out West in 1990 that I had access to a lot of .270 users. From their accounts, the mule deer and elk I saw in their p/u beds, meat packing plants, in the field, it was just as deadly ( meaning no difference in results) as the 30-06 and 7mm Rem Mag, which are also very popular. I like what one fellow wrote..."if you have a .280, you have a .270; if you have a .270, you have a .280". ha I would throw in the 30-06/7mm Mags too. I mean for overall, deer with an occasional elk. Of course, times have changed, as they should after decades. I've read C.B. through the years ( he was a 2nd Louie then) and I never understood "why" he would always say then that the .270 was "marginal" and he would not use it on elk ( or even big Northern Whitetail) So, I'm glad to see that he finally gave it a chance. For myself, I found I preferred the 6.5s (mine was the 6.5/284)with 120-125gr going around 3200 to be "perfection on deer & exotics" , and have never used anything heavier in that caliber. That's .270 ballistics. While I have had many .270s through the years, I never really 'wrung it out" like I have others. I may never use it on elk myself, but I will take it as a spare to my .338WM. For me, I just like bigger rounds on big animals...its just a thing for me. I hunt with guys who use the .270, .338 Federal, 308 & 30-06, 7mm Mag and one 300 RUM. What a spread, ha.

It took a Craig quite a while to "discover" the .270 was actually quite capable of killing big game larger than deer. For elk he firmly drew the bottom line at the .30-06.

I kind of did too, which was pretty common among our generation (Craig and I were born about two weeks apart). However, I got over it due to growing up in Montana, where there's more opportunity for residents to hunt elk than for a non-resident gun writer. But the instance that really convinced me the .270 is a great hunting round took place 30 years ago this coming September, when my wife drew a Shiras moose tag on her very first application.

She'd heard stories about how moose don't react much even to good shots, so actually contemplated using my .30-06 with 200-grain Partitions, rather than her .270 with 150 Partitions--which she'd already used successfully on elk. But one shot with the .30-06 changed her mind back to the .270.

We found her medium-sized bull (the kind she wanted, for eating) on opening morning, just after dawn. It stood in a willow bottom at about 125 yards, quartering away. She aimed for the far shoulder and at the shot the moose took a slow step-and-a-half before folding up dead. Despite not being a really big Shiras, it was still bigger than any bull elk I've seen on the ground, and have seen a few here and there from New Mexico to British Columbia. The bullet was found in the meat of the far shoulder, so the bull died so quickly due to a lung shot.

The muzzle velocity of her 150-grain handload, by the way, was around 2850 fps. It's pretty easy to get 2800 with 140's in the 6.5 Creedmoor, and in fact the latest Speer manual lists 2855 from a 24" barrel, using Reloder 26. Maybe the extra 10 grains and .013 inch of bullet diameter in the .270 makes a real difference, but my experience makes me doubt it.

LOL, I'm not upset and I don't own a Creedmoor. I don't have a dog in that fight, I just wanted to slip in the comment about being a legend in your own mind.

As far as "proving you wrong," why on earth would I spend time and effort proving you wrong, and why would you make such a bold claim and then expect someone else to prove you wrong? Why don't you prove yourself right, you're the one making the claim.

I have never owned a Creedmoor but I have owned a 6.5x55. This in a nicely sporterized M38. It shot great and I ran a 140 grain Hornady Spire point or Nosler Partition at 2500 fps. The rifle was topped with an old 2.5 Weaver and I used it for some hog hunting and a bit of Mule deer hunting. Longest shot taken was on a 14 point Mule deer and the neck hit dropped him. The round seemed reliable, gave good penetration and the rifle's action was very smooth. I have owned several 270's and own two now. I usually loaded 150 gr. bullets to top velocities and I personally felt it was much more gun. That said the 6.5x55 loaded mildly as I loaded it would do the vast majority of deer hunting without issue. I feel the same way about the Creedmoor. I have of late started using my 270 rifles again and darned if I can find anything to complain about. Accurate, reasonable recoil and effective. I just don't see how a Creedmoor could improve on that. I don't see the Creedmoor as a replacement for the 270 but a far better choice than the 243 for just about anything.

Yeah, those young farts know everything there is to know about guns. If in doubt, just ask one.

To me the "charm" of the Creed: cheap rifles that shoot great, super factory ammo at reasonable prices in a round that's accurate and with the right ammo, a killer.

What's not to like.

And, I do have a .270, just don't talk that much about it...

Have a Swede, too. Great gun, more finicky than the Creed. Creed is one of the easiest rounds to load for, seems to shoot about everything from well to great.

DF

I very much agree, although you can take a good thing too far. I saw a line in a magazine just today, where the author was reviewing an AR in 6.5CM and an inset photo showed a Creedmoor round, a .308 round, and a .223 round with the caption "The 7.62 and 5.56 work "okay" on hogs but the 6.5 Creedmoor is deadly!" I found that kind of funny. The Creedmoor is very good for what it is, but to say that it is a decisively better swine killer than a .308 is reaching a little far, and I've shot a fair number of hogs with the 6.5 and 7.62. The whiz-bang, golly-gee enthusiasm can get a bit thick sometimes, even for us rifle loonies....

I need to make a copy of this thread and bring it to the nearest gun shop. "See look at this, the 270 is obsolete. So, how's about you let me have that Cooper in 270WCF for half price? No really, I'm doing you guys a favor, take it off your hands?!"

I avoid these fusses by not owning a 6.5, or a 270, or a 30-06. Instead i own a 6mm Remington and a 280 Remington and a 300 H&H and a 300 RSAUM.

but i love reading these 270 vs Creedmoor vs everything else threads...

I like that...

Take that junk off their hands, doing them a BIG favor...

DF

Exactly! I'm just trying to be helpful!

It's coming. 'The 6.5 Creedmoor, THE ideal plains game rifle", The 6.5 Creedmoor, THE Ideal dangerous game rifle; especially for buffalo at seven hundred yards" ....But I will need sedation when I see it in a double rifle!

Pour a Talisker, fire up a good cigar, and ignore the foolishness of others.

I try to keep my assessments of cartridges and applications within the (somewhat ) logical realm.

Excellent advice, but I'm just having fun...

Given the same media hype these days the .264 Winchester Magnum would be the darling of the day.
Recoil in equivalent rifles was fairly close to the .270 and would outperform the C.M. at all levels.
Maybe it is the short action thing we see these days, I really don't know.
Yeah, the .270 wcf speak does resonate with us old guys, especially those who discovered the N.P. earlier on for Elk and I remember carving into my school desk with a pocket knife - 130 gr 3140 . It was on every box of factory ammo, no matter the brand and a chronograph was a mystical, futuristic device- nobody had one

I made the "mistake" of buying an M700 CDL in 280 15 years or so ago. The 280 and 150 grain Nosler Partitions and there is very little i can't do with those choices within my skill set. Those two choices have kept me from buying a slew of other chamberings.

Yeah, that's stepping over the line.

To say the Creed will kill a hog deader, quicker than a .308, or a .223 is crazy...

But, that's how urban legends are perpetrated.

DF

Agreed. I does help to have some personal experience so you know when to raise the BS flag. You'd think folks around here would catch on to that theory, but in reading this thread, and practically any CM thread, that is not the case.

Some are claiming the 6.5 Creedmoor is or will be one of the most popular cartridges worldwide. If that is based only on new gun sales it might be close to the truth.

It also keeps the gun writers busy cranking out articles of why the 25-06 or 270 or what ever cartridge you choose is better. I haven't taken the plunge yet but may do a 22 Creedmoor as the next build once I finish all the other projects. Next we will probably see articles on how the 220 Swift beats the 22 Creedmoor. This is all pretty amusing for a cartridge whose parentage is over a hundred years old. I would not be surprised if Newton or others didn't already make a 256 short while developing the 256 Newton and 250 Savage cartridges.

It will take them off their feet, even if only a claw is hit.

Jorge,



You might want to sit down and pour yourself something, but one of my PH friends also owns a big sporting goods store in Kimberley, South Africa, and reported to me last year that 80% of the new rifles he sells are 6.5 Creedmoors. Essentially the same thing was told to another Campfire member, RinB, at another RSA store. Apparently South Africans really like the round for culling plains game, and of course they do a lot of that, for the same reasons as many American hunters--affordable, accurate rifles and ammunition, fine accuracy and light recoil, which can indeed be a factor when shooting dozens of animals a day.

I'm sure age has mellowed Craig, but from reading his recent articles, he would say that modern controlled expansion bullets has allowed cartridges to extend their utility beyond what was commonly accepted 30 years ago.

A man changing his opinion as new conditions occur reinforces his credibility.

1. I agree with y'all too. Now, What's the Title of This Thread ? " C B on the 270 Win "
I know that C B refers to the Creed but his focus was on the 270. What has taken over ?



2. Yes, the 6.5 CM is a fact.......so is the 30-30, et.al. > et.al. > et.al. J G, I'm REALLY not being smart with you. It just seems that now some just can't help but insist the Creed is the Be ALL, End ALL.

Jerry

I don't own a CM but I've said it before and ill say it again...I don't feel there is a real step up in killing power until you get to the .338WM. Would I hunt anything in NA with a properly loaded CM...you bet i would. Would i use one for an eland...same same.

Will I? No...thats what my 270 is for LOL

When I was 14 years old, and weighed maybe 120 pounds, I shot my daddy's deer rifle, a Remington 760 pump in 30-06, using 220 grain bullets. I still remember it too, as I couldn't hear anything for 3 days.....no ear protection, and my shoulder was bruised from that metal buttplate. Daddy had a recoil pad put on it, and I'm thinking that he bought some more shells, either 150 or 180 grains, but by then, the damage had been done. I have hated hard kicking rifles ever since.

For 25 years I used a 270 for deer hunting, and the recoil never bothered me, although I'd notice it from time to time at the shooting bench, but never in the field. As the years have gone by, and my shoulders started hurting, and arthritis kicked in, I have began to appreciate rifles and cartridges that don't kick much. I find I can shoot them better. I bought a 6.5 Creedmoor a couple of years ago, and have come to appreciate it. It's accurate, it doesn't have much recoil, and it will kill anything I have a chance to hunt here in Kentucky. The only exception would be if I draw an elk tag, and the 270 is reserved for that.

I will always hold the 270 in high esteem, and if I didn't like using different cartridges, I'd be perfectly happy to use it and nothing else as my deer rifle. But, the 6.5 CM will kill a deer just as dead, and I don't feel the recoil at all. To me, that's pretty much a no brainer.

Your 6.5 will work just as well as a 270 on that elk should you draw a tag. Use a good bullet...and shoot it in the lungs. nothing else matters much

In rural Alaska many residents have only a handful of weapons. Those with 270's are usually old and scarred as it's their primary rifle for wolves,caribou,moose, and brown bear. Probably the 150gr Core-Lok has killed as many brown bears in the hands of residents as the fabled 338 Win Mag, or at least in the Bristol Bay region.

So well said.....

Jerry,

I know one gun writer who wrote an article on the Creedmoor a year or two ago. He didn't say it was the Be All, End ALL, but the title of his essay essentially did--which makes me suspect the magazine's editor wrote the title, which happens pretty frequently, especially when trying to stir up stuff like this thread.

I happen to know the author very well, and he's a real rifle loony, who owns a bunch in a LOT of different chamberings. Which, of course, I do as well. In fact since 2010, when I purchased and hunted with my first 6.5 Creedmoor, I've hunted big game with my other rifles in .22-250, .257 Roberts, .25-06, .257 Weatherby Magnum, 6.5x54 Mannlicher-Schoenauer, .260 Remington, 6.5x55, 6.5x57R, 6.5 PRC, 26 Nosler, .270 Winchester, 7x57, 7mm Weatherby Magnum,.308 Winchester, .30-06, 338 Winchester Magnum, 9.3x62 Mauser, and .416 Rigby. I've only sold two of those rifles, a .25-06 Ruger No. 1 and a 7mm Weatherby Mark V Ultra Lightweight, mostly because I enjoyed hunting more with other rifles of the same bore-size.

I may or may not hunt with my present 6.5 Creedmoor this year, in fact probably won't, because there's always something new I want to try--or go back to. But unlike so many 6.5 Creedmoor critics, I've actually shot and hunted with one, so along with my continuing experience with other rounds have some basis for evaluating what the Creedmoor actually does.

Kentucky has goofy rules.

Yep, I've killed hogs with all three rounds, all just as dead...

Hogs couldn't tell the difference, no complaints from any of them...

DF

Thank you, Thank you very much !

That was on P 2 -->--> you actually did something many don't.... read all this thread.

I agree with your last pp as well. The 7 RM has become about my MOST fav round. Most rounds (cartridges) will kill the game we hunt WITH proper bullets & placements.

I like the Faster cartridges for Flatter Trajectory.......> not that they kill any better.

Jerry

I guess that the fact that they are old would indicate that the .270s have kept them from being killed, but the fact that they are scarred might indicate that the .270s haven't totally protected them.

Thanks to the miracles of twist rate and resulting bullet supply, 6.5CM stomps factory .270 for larger game and longer range despite a smaller case. There's simply no way to get as much sectional density in a factory .270 Win, and essentially no hunting bullets intended for fast twist .277s.

The .270 case is an impediment too - too much taper, too shallow a shoulder.

In a custom .270 WSM with a fast twist, the 180gr Weldcore is an excellent bullet but you're pretty much dependent on that one bullet for a high-SD premium spire point.

I have noticed that the 6.5x55 doesn't appear to have been as popular in Sweden as one might think. Most of the used Husqvarnas that Simpson, LTD. in Galesburg, IL, imports are chambered in 30-06, 8x57, and 9.3x57, only a very few in 6.5x55. You would think that if the 6.5x55 was popular, a larger portion of the Simpson imports would be chambered for it.

My first 6.5x55 was a Swedish 1894 carbine that Interarms imported as their Model G33/50. My Father bought 2 of them at the S.S. Kresge in Claremont, NH, in 1964. I remember this because we had gone to Claremont to see Mary Poppins and since my Father worked for the USAF and was gone more he was home, it was a special event to have the family together. He kept 1 original and had Creighton Audette change the bolt handle, safety, trigger, and d&t for a Redfield Junior base. It had a Lyman Alaskan mounted the last time that I saw it, sometime in the mid-1990's. It was a neat little gun that hung over the back door, next to an old Savage 24 22M/20. My Mother used it to shoot animals that got into her heritage apple orchard.

The 6.5x55 has declined in popularity in Europe, and never caught on here, but it has been used more than enough to understand its capabilities and it does well on large game with 150+gr bullets, which is perfectly consistent with the fact that sectional density drives penetration.

It's certainly over the million moose mark.

M D - Obviously I can't One Up You, being a G W and having hunts, rifles, ammo, etc. provided to you.>> JOKING.

I have killed WT with quite a few cartridges.
When I had a 223 - it WAS NOT legal for deer hunting.

I have killed WT with 243 W, - 6mm R,- 6.5X55 (? creed ? ),- 270,- 284 W. - 7mm RM,- 30-30,- 308,- 30-06,- 300 WM,- 8mm RM,- & 358 W.- & 44 RM SBHWK and - ? maybe another or 2 ?
I even dispatched a doe which was hit by a car but unable to move with a 22 R F M.

I DON'T mean to brag, I don't know ANYONE personally who has killed WT with AS many cartridges as I -- no brag, really.

Yes, I agree, >> ALL deer died.

I used WW factory 140 ammo in the 6.5X55 > SO that's close to Creed performance.

I've posted this before --- I have an irrational affection for the 300 WM. I've always liked the looks of the round PLUS its velocities.
IF I hunted more open territory than I do now, I'd hunt my 300 often, it's just not justified now.

The CLOSEST I've killed a WT was 12' (feet) with a 7 mm RM.
I've killed a few +/- 400 yds >> ALL with 7 RM or 300 WM.

MAYBE this is an irrational affection too --- I just like FAST, FLAT shooting cartridges.


As stated earlier, this thread WAS about C B and the 270 W..................... so where are we ? That's my biggest gripe.


Jerry

I've had a 700 ADL 270 Win for years and shot more than a few deer with it and owned a few other 270's too. Last fall I picked up a Mark X sporter that said PO Ackley on the barrel in 270 Win and zeroed it with $12/box Fed 130's with complete confidence that it would get the job done if I shot a deer with it. Those Feds were loaded with 130 gr Hi Shok flat based spitzers with about the same .34x BC that all the other brands feature too ,only been working for 90 years, they won't quit tomorrow either. Most of the factory 150g gr loads available from the majors aren't all that high a bc either yet the people who use them will swear by them, not at them. This winter I got a chance to pick up a new Savage 112FV 6.5 CM cabela's special fairly cheap and put a 4x16x first focal plane scope on it. I'll shoot it some and at LR. From what I can see there are a lot of high BC loads available for it in factory ammo ,more so than the 270 if that's what a guy needs to do(buy factory ammo). Couple weeks back at a gunshow I scored 400 150gr Nosler Solid Base 270 bullets for damn cheap price. Nosler's #2 has them listed with a .513 BC figure. Seems to me it won't be sucking air behind too many 6.5 bullets if my 270 barrels will keep them spinning fast enough. Hmmm guess I could really cheat and run them out of my 270 Weatherby Mag...… MB

I remember WHEN sectional density was important OR more important than today >>> because of newer Controlled Expansion bullets.
S D is a no. indicating the 'supposed' penetrating ability of bullets....

BUT with Controlled Expansion bullets, S D does NOT mean as much as it used to.

There are several examples of 'Light for Caliber' Controlled Expansion bullets pushed at HI velocities. They work too.


Jerry

No way I'll take it over a 308 which is the standard down there and if anyone says the 308 has recoil, well....

PS: you realize my posts were tongue in cheek

Pull up your zipper, nobody has a ruler out.

You can change the bullet technology all you want, but for the same bullet design at two different sectional densities, the higher SD bullet will penetrate better.

There's just no equivalent to say the .264 160gr Weldcore for .277 that will run in a standard twist rifle. Woodleigh makes a .277 180gr Weldcore, and it's a great bullet, but useless in a factory .270Win.

The 6.5CM is a legitimate round to be having a hunting craze. It does something that wasn't readily available until now. Yes, you could get it from custom .277 or .264s on any number of cases, but the key word there was custom.

As an owner of five 6.5x55’s, I ‘m not surprised that folks are finding the Creedmore to be both enjoyable and effective. But at age 77, I don’t expect to buy one.

SD was isn’t nearly as important as many think. I’ve seen 458 mag 400 grain flat point mono metal solids out penetrate 500 grain lead core solids. Construction and nose shape are more important for penetration.

Have owned a 6.5x55's and 260's since the late 1990's when I was in my 20's so know all about how well the small 6.5's work. Not planning on switching to the Creedmoor but if I was starting over I would probably get aboard the train since you can find left hand guns easily. Cheap factory ammo would be nice but I'm a handloader anyway so it doesn't matter personally. Oh and I also have a 270 Win that I really like too and have no plans of selling it, it just plain works well too. I have great loads featuring the 150 gr Ballistic Tip and 160 gr Partition that cover anything in this country but for fun I'm trying the new 140 gr Sierra TGK, pretty impressive at around 3000 fps or so. H 4831 sc is showing some real promise with them not surprisingly.

THIS. I can tell you a 180gr TTSX will out penetrate a 220gr cup and core (in a 30 cal) ALL DAY LONG. But wow, a thread about the 270 WCF and 90% devoted to the Creedmoor...

I have and use a good 270. It simply works. But Creedmoor talk doesn't bother me at all.

Thumbs UP !

BACK WHEN - Any 'longer' bullet in the same caliber had a higher SD, regardless of construction -- therefore SD was UNreliable per penetration.

In THIS discussion I didn't print it but was 'thinking' in practical terms, A Lighter bullet with Controlled Expansion yields 'more' than sufficient penetration. After certain distance..... you don't need any more penetration.

OTOH if you have 2 bullets of the same weight in the same caliber >> a controlled expansion bullet will OUT penetrate a standard C/C.

We, all of us, could lose ourselves in a discussion of 'semantics'.

Thnx jwp


Jerry

You GOT IT jorge !!


Jerry

6.5 CM in the Yukon.

An ADDENDUM to my response to M D on P 17.

I need to ADD..... 54 Cal Mzldrs, all my WT killed with Mzld have been with 54 Cal.--- & an F 150 4X4 ! grin

Also IIRC I've killed 6 WT with the Swede, not just one.


Jerry

Bullet?

Pretty country. Looks like a great place to hunt.

You're correct about that, but solids and softs are very different. Not many solids being shot in .264 or .277.

Jerry,

Glad to hear of your success on whitetails!

A specific whitetail addendum to my list: Have taken whitetails with all the cartridges on your list except the 8mm RM and .44 Magnum--though instead of those have used the .338 Winchester Magnum and .45 "Long" Colt. My few muzzleloader whitetails have all been taken with .50 caliber.

In addition have taken whitetails with the .257 Roberts, .257 Roberts Ackley Improved, 6.5x57R, 7mm-08, 7x57, 7mm SAUM, .300 Savage, .300 H&H, .35 Remington and 20- and 12-gauge slug guns.

Probably have taken more whitetails with the .270 than any other cartridge, somewhere in the dozens, but have taken almost as many with the .243. Have also taken the majority of my whitetails here in Montana, but have been lucky enough to get a few in several other states, a couple of Canadian provinces, and the state of Sonora in Old Mexico.

Also, before getting to excited about the expanding mono-metal bullets, they leave very narrow wound channels. So they penetrate OK, but have a nasty tendency to let your game run around for a while before it realizes its dead. That's not to say they're horrible or anything, but I'd rather get my penetration from a high-SD bullet like the Weldcore or Northfork bonded that will give you both deep penetration (so far 100% exits on elk with the .264 160gr Weldcore in a couple different 6.5s) and a wide wound.

Two 125 Partitions.

Thnx MD

I said I couldn’t one up you.

And my F M D dropped 12 ga slugs & ? ? ?
(Fading Memory Disorder)

Jerry

Yep !! 35 Whelen. Oh me.

Guys

I DO remember having a memory. L O L


Jerry

It's interesting in theory but I think very few people would actually ever use 160 gr Weldcores in the 6.5 Creedmoor, or the 180 gr Weldcores in a 270 of any flavour. You don't need that heavy a bullet to hunt anything you'd want to hunt with a 6.5 Creedmoor or a 270. And personally, I would want to see a test between the 180 gr .277" Weldcore and the 140 gr .277" TSX...

Jerry,

I suspected you might have forgotten slugs! (I am old enough to have a little of the memory problem, but started keeping detailed hunting records decades ago, which helps!)

Am not surprised by the .35 Whelen either. While I haven't taken any whitetails with the Whelen, have taken a number of other kinds of deer with the 9.3x62, the "metric Whelen." It works very well, both in dropping them and not shooting up much meat.

Oh, and by the way, the reason the 6.5 Creedmoor got dragged into this thread is right there in the original post. Did you read it, or join in later based on the header for the thread? Which is pretty common on the Campfire.

Thnx


EDIT - yes I read all the thread -- but C B was focusing on the 270. He opened the door for all the Creed XXXX. EDIT


Yes I have records of deer kills by year & gun or caliber. They start in 1972
and are too many pages to go thru quickly. I can determine where I hunted, in
what county or State.

What I didn’t do and wish I had was record,
WX conditions, wind direction & estimated speed, barometer etc.

Since we have such a long season & generous bag limit I don’t have to hunt
in heavy rain OR hi wind.

Thnx again

Jerry

SU35

Is the moose really truly totally dead?

Congratulations.

This thread, like so many others, proves how successful we have become as humans in that we have the time on our hands to expend 98% of our energy trying to solve 2% of a problem.

Right behind the 30.06

This thread has the potential to become epic! My compliments.

This.

There's no reason not to - it's no different than the 6.5x55 that bullet was designed for. It's far and away the best bullet for elk, moose, and big plains antelope in the 6.5mm offering consistent pass through and a wide wound channel combined with a BC sufficient for long range use. If people choose not to use it, that's their own mistake.

And there's no usable equivalent in the .277 and never will be because of twist rate. Which is the whole point of this - the reasons the .277 bore diameter has become so inferior as cartridge and bullet technology has improved.

Indy, my apologies, I was referring to Boddington's modern thoughts on LR competition, "it wasn't asked to". From a historical perspective, I agree with you

My point is, other than maybe a few 270 nuts, it will never be asked to, simply because most LR shooters today are gravitating towards shorter, more efficient cartridges, not longer ones, for the two reasons I posted. Sure, you can get seriously high BC numbers if the 270 got the attention of, say a 6 Dasher or 6.5 x47, but large numbers of shooters aren't going in that direction and are going away from 30 calibers for similar reasons.

I only have 3 things to say about that.

ha ha ha


Jerry

You're welcome to try to defend the indefensible, but facts are facts. The .270 will forever be crippled by the morons at Winchester failing to set the twist rate between the 6.5mm Mauser and 7mm Mauser. They though they were making a medium game/varmint crossover rifle and slow twisted it, and that's now what the .270 is stuck with. Meanwhile the 6.5mms carry on as the superior big game rifles.

I will say though, the .270 may in fact be the superior woodchuck gun

For sure, winner winner chicken.....

But also Jorge reporting his uncle took an African lion with it and silvertips is near up there.

It would be nice for him to start popping critters with it and report on his success with it compared to that which he had with the 06.,

Not a woodchuck but it'll do in this case.....

I like it because I point it at deer, pigs or whatever and they go down and stay down.

It may be gay or outdated, but it works!!

The vast majority of the time, listening to your advice is an even bigger mistake.

Just load your .270 with one of them 90gr Speer TNTs, and you'll have a sell-able rabbit fur

That's nice. You've been an ignorant joke in nearly every thread I've seen you in. Do you practice, or does knowing nothing come naturally to you?

Keep talking Llama, you're doing good.

We have a cousin that’s an out of the closet rump ranger, too. We don’t talk about him much either.... LOL!

Thanks, you finally convinced me that you ARE an arrogant A and don't know as much as you think. I've been around her quite a while and JG has proven his knowledge and success MANY times with pictures. Can't say the same for you.

I really have been giving you room to convince me... Congrats -- you have.





J, YEP, you are correct AGAIN. Congrats.

Jerry

Ahh yes, ignore the facts. The only thing that matters is that a cartridge was used by great gandpa to shoot possums. That makes it great. The fact that the .270 is objectively crap compared to every cartridge around it doesn't matter. Carry on

Congrats Llama. In only 385 attempts here on this forum you've managed to exceed a level of dumbassery that is seldom seen, nor topped.

He is no longer on my screen.

Jerry

Keep dodging and hiding from the facts you clown

Good choice. I would never want a coward like you to be agitated by facts

Don't know why the Creed is getting so much attention the 7-08 is by far the better cartridge.

The 7mm-08 didn't get the fast twist rate and 7mm bore is a little too big for most shooting sports on that size case - the 7mm short magnums saw (and still see) more play with the 6.5s and 6mms dominating on the smaller cases.

"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that even the wisest might err" Mahatma Gandhi

Well Mr. Gandhi or anyone else for that matter is welcome to offer a facts-based defense of the .270. They can try to explain how great low sectional density, excessive taper and steep shoulder cases are in a hunting round. But if what they're selling is nostalgia rather than physics, I'm not buying. And when it gets down to facts, the .270 pretty much sucks. About the only good thing you can say about it is that the SAAMI max pressure is high.

BS, just get an 06. The 280 filled a need that never existed. Thats just the way it is.

Well said.

I certainly would not sell my 270's to go buy a 6.5 'mooorrrreee.

You are largely correct about this, but there's two factors you're omitting:
1) Shooting off a bipod or ruck reduces group size by about a factor of two vs. prone+sling+coat
2) Wind is the primary enemy, and wind drift goes down as bore goes down and SD and BC goes up. Velocity matters too, but not as much. So there's a lot of loads in various .264 cartridges that can't be matched for wind drift by anything in a factory .277. A shooter with a 6.5-06 would have whipped all your .30-06 shooters quite handily. That's just the way the game works.

Nonetheless, between 500 and 550y is generally the practical limit to guarantee a first round hit in unknown wind in field conditions regardless of equipment. Sleek bullets and lots of powder only overcome the wind to a degree.

I have 4 270's at the moment and love them all. my 6.5 creed however, is the most comfortable and accurate rifle I have ever owned, right out of the box. and I am pretty sure with todays bullets will handle anything I am going to hunt in my advanced years, so enjoy them both, can't go wrong

Amen.

Amen.


Yeah, like a 243 varmint gun loaded with noslers in deer season, huh?

Ha. For sure.

Ha. For sure.

That makes 3.

It’s the people

I haven't seen a post here that would convince me to go to the Creedmoor. A fast twist .270 with a vld bullet would improve long range shooting' -I could care less.
I would rather practice positional shooting any day at 100 yards . This prepares me for hunting .
A far flung thunk at 800 yards on a metal plate seems so uninteresting but a least the plate won't run off a die in the valley bottem- unfound.

I'm a 30-06 slut, but also consider the 308 and 270 to be in the exact same ballpark.
Two of the finest (and most successful) hunters I've ever known used 270's - my uncle, and a neighbor, who was a retired "Government Trapper", in the olden days.
Vic used his old 270 up until just a year before his death on everything - coyotes, cougar, deer, antelope, bear, elk - whatever! He used it 'til it had NO bluing, and the stock resembled an OLD cedar fence post. But he brought home an elk damn near every year. Probably since the late '40's!

The Creedmoor's (LONG range only) ability to ALMOST do as much is pure and simple..................BULLET ballistic coefficient. Period

Compare apples to apples with bullets of similar/same BC and it will be slower, lighter and have less of literally everything than rounds of greater capacity and especially less than those also having a larger bore (no matter how small).
It's pure and simple physics. Numbers dont lie (but load data sure as hell does).

Everyone now thinks they are Andy Oakley and 5-6-7 hundred yards is "sensible" range..........*snort*.......and yes I can shoot that far.............on targets, and shoot well. At wild game...........NOT IN YOUR LIFETIME would I dream of it.

It's people falling for advertising hype from manufactures of literally everything.
They cannot sell you hunting ability..........but they can CONVINCE you that you can buy things so you don't have to learn what hunters have learned and used for eons.

Think they wont be coming up with HIGH BC bullets for them all in time? Sure they will.

It's all in what creates profit.

Under 350....maybe even 300 yards, the Creedmoor has ONLY the advantage over SOME of having less recoil........period. (It seems the hunter of today sure is tender.....??)

We already had several rounds that do that.........and have better NORMAL range ballistics.

But.........go for it. Fall for the hype. For normal and average hunting conditions it will always be "fast.flat and hard" that prevails.
The 6.5s are standing on the pretense of the high BC >>>bullets<<<< being superior.........not the cartridges.

What will happen when the high BC bullets come out in bigger bore rounds? Yep...........NEW HYPE.

More freezers are filled with game shot at MUCH shorter ranges than the CM has any bragging rights within. That won't change. Does the CM "work" at short range? Yep. Better than any others......NOPE.

The CM was designed for and excels at .........long range TARGET situations where lots of caps are busted. A superior hunting round does not automatically follow. To 300 yards with the same bullet, FEW could tell the difference out to 300 yards between the CM, 243 and 6mm Rem.

And none of the animals could.

2 cents (Hey......It's YOUR money. Blow it as you wish.)

and no......I'm not going to debate this. The laws of physics are carved in granite and not debatable.
God Bless
Steve

I have yet to see an advertisement telling me that if I get a 6.5 Creedmoor I’m a great long range Hunter. Where is this marketing hype I keep reading about?

The reason nobody compares inside 300yds, give or take, is that there are probably 50 cartridges that all work equally well. Dead is dead.

If Boddington and anyone else likes the .270, great, go forth and hunt. Ones particular vibe towards a cartridge is really what this is all about. Family history, what writers in the past have written about a cartridge, or whatever else gives you the feeling that a particular cartridge is just right is as good as any reason to choose any one cartridge from a long list of capable cartridges.

True. For every head of game that's taken at long range.....and for the sake of argument I'll use the 300 yard mark.....there are many, many more taken at ranges of less. I'd even go out on a limb and say that for every deer shot at 300 yards or more, there are a 100, and maybe more, shot at less than that.

((chortle))

This coming from a guy who says 100 % of 600 yard shots are "unethical," along with other nonsense. Quite the skill to be able to talk out of both sides of your mouth at once:



You're as FOS as a Christmas turkey.

Steve, I like ALL of this post ! I tried to emphasize the parts that really resonate with me.




hummm, Fast, Flat, & Hard >> where have I heard that ? >


I'd like to point this out ! I've read & HEARD what some of us 'older' guys have said, With age and or physical injuries SHOULDERS can't tolerate recoil as they did. I HEAR THAT !! It is understandable.

For others ? ? ? waa waa waa


Jerry

Due to a large bore diameter I have a very low ballistic coefficient but my wife thinks penetration is just fine.

A 243 loaded with 95 grain Ballistic Tips is a deer slayer, a fair bit more than a varmint gun.

Have you seen how a 260 Remington loaded with 129 grain Interlocks or 125 grain Partitions handles deer? If so I doubt you'd have much negative to say about the ballistic twin 6.5 Creedmoor.

R O F


Jerry

I have seen a couple of disappointed 6.5 Creedmoor shooters at the range, guys who thought that buying a rifle chambered for the 6.5 Creedmoor would automatically make them better, more accurate, shooters. It might have if they had any shooting skills to begin with.

The real truth in this debate is that the cartridges compared to the 6.5 Creedmoor were all developed as hunting cartridges. The Creedmoor was designed to accomplish a certain function of accuracy for long range shooting in a short action with low recoil. The 6.5 Creedmoor does this very well.

The comparison is always backwards due to ballistics of hunting cartridges against a target cartridge. I will agree to let the Creedmoor to perform well as it was designed, but I have grown tired of how the cartridge and it’s proponents have tried to eliminate the use of proven hunting cartridges due to the magical pixie dust from the Creedmoor...

Welcome to:

Who told you you shouldn't use a 257 Roberts any more?

That pixie dust doesn’t fill freezers. Accurate cartridges loaded with good bullets with adequate oompff do. Fugg the .270 and Creedmoor. I guess they’ll have to do for the frail and faint of heart. Never did one say when he bumped into old griz, “Gee, I wish I had brought along my Creedmoor”. Happy Trails

mathman,

I've asked the same basic question a number of times, and have yet to get an answer. But in the interests of objectivity, will ask a few more:

Do pro-Creedmoorites knock on your door and demand you turn over your .257 Roberts, .270 or even your 6.5x55? So far none have in my neighborhood, the reason I still have my .270, plus a pair of .257's and another pair of 6.5x55's.

Do pro-Creedmoorites gather in public places, demonstrating for the confiscation of rifles chambered for such "antique" cartridges? Do the more generous pro-Creedmoorites lobby for "buy-back" programs for those hunters unfortunate enough to be burdened with such old and inadequate rounds?

Do anti-Creedmoorites go to the local range and get mobbed by 6.5 Creedmoor shooters, who refuse to let them use the range until they at least pull the trigger on one Creedmoor round?

Perhaps my simple mind isn't up to imagining what that anti-Creedmoorites constantly encounter in our increasingly contentious society. But I am certainly open to hearing about any obvious cases of abuse from pro-Creedmoorites, and would gladly publish an article in RIFLE LOONY NEWS exposing such anti-American horrors.

There isn't any dangerous game in most of North America, so bumping into old griz isn't a consideration for most American and Canadian hunters.

Me too, I think a lot depends on where your hunting. If hunting deer in east Texas and for some odd reason could actually see a buck beyond that range, in the amount of time it would take to get to the kill, you may only find a gut pile, a couple of beer cans and drag marks where it used to be.

You ask, but don't really notice that the underlying push on the Creedmoor. Was I wrong in my assessment of the comparison of hunting cartridges to a target cartridge? Doesn't the trend for the 6.5 try to replace hunting cartridges with the 6.5? I have never said the 6.5 won't do what it was designed to do, I just don't have any use for it.

If you don't see that, you are not paying attention. The pro 6.5 people are continually comparing the superiority of the 6.5 to the rest of the hunting cartridges. It is all over the Campfire, I am not the only one tired of the raves of the cartridge. I haven't gone to anyone's door to take their 6.5 away from them and I am sure no one else has. This was still a thread about Craig Boddington and the 270, and as soon as the 6.5 was brought up, The whole issue is about the 6.5.

Do I have anough guns to be a rifle loony? Does not having a 6.5 prevent me from being a rifle loony?

I like to use older cartridges having some panache, the 250 and 300 Savages for example. Nevertheless I am capable of acknowledging the positive technical and logistical points of the newer cartridge. Where's the problem?

Kirk,

I already asked this of another guy who said this thread was supposedly about Craig Boddington and the .270: Did you actually read Indy's original post?

Here it is:

"In an article in the current issue of "American Rifleman," Craig Boddington states that, "In my opinion these three similar 6.5mms (6.5x55, .260 Remington, and 6.5 Creedmoor), despite the magical properties currently attributed to them, do not equal the 96-year-old .270 Winchester as a hunting cartridge.

"He then goes on to describe why in four pages. It's a good read."

There's the reason this thread got going on the 6.5 Creedmoor along with the .270, right in the first post. The 6.5 Creedmoor did not sneak in there 10 pages later.

Who has accused you of not being a rifle loony because you don't own a rifle chambered for a 6.5mm cartridge? Give me some names and I will personally hunt them down and stuff photos of your rifles up their, uh, noses.

OK that's it. Buttigieg shoots a Creedmoor....

I hope not, or I'm disqualified!

Oh, great! Now we can battle over Sharks versus Jets.

Yes it does, no self respecting Sako looney would ever be without an older 6.5x55. It along with a 9.3x62 are the ultimate Sako rifles

So since I have a Sako in 9.3X62 but no Creedmore I'm ok? Whewww, what a relief!

Getting close with the 9.3x62 but getting the classic 6.5x55 is a must

Hell. they all work! Just everyone has his favorite caliber for what ever the reason. I love the 270, if truth be known because Dad bought a 270, Model 721 in a Tonopah NV hardware store in 1948, and it became a legend in that small mining town. Dad mounted a 2.5 Weaver with a post and killed deer well past 200 yards. Soon the only ammo you could find in Wolfe's Hardware was 270 Winchester. 30 30's, 38 55's, 30 Remington's and 32 Special's went back in the closest. Still have that old rifle, along with my first 270, a Remington 700 BDL with the stamped checkering. In high school I wore the print off the Remington catalog pages longing for one. Probably a twin to the one JB writes about. Wonderfully smooth action and one of the most accurate rifles I own. Doesn't get used much any more, but have asked they throw it in with me before the first shovel of dirt. Since then three generations of my family have carried a 270 in the field. Hunting to us is tradition and history, and we all love the mighty .277. That's why I love it. It works. I've used a lot of others, but always come back to the one Jack O'Conner made famous. Not really any better or any worse than many others.

Same reason I hunt a Savage 99 300 Savage. It too works, but also makes me happy!

As my only 6.5X55 at the moment is a Howa 1500(not a bad rifle) I was hoping you wouldn't bring that up, Gerry!


I need to start frequenting gun shows more often and maybe I could pick up an older Sako in a Swede?

Thanks for watching my back...

Is this a bad time to mention my Sako is a 270 Win?

Nope. I'd be proud to own one myself.

Ive got 2 Tikkas...both 270 win. Never a bad time to mention a Sako

We have a Tikka 6.5x55 though so it's not quite a Sako but still acceptable. I must confess though no 9.3x62 here but I do have a 35 Whelen in a Rem 700 though

Sakos are great guns.

As a result of reading this thread, I think I'm gonna get a single shot 6.5 Grendel. It's the one in the middle. The cartridge, not the rifle!

Choosing between you and JG will be really easy..

DF

The 6.5 CM is a relatively new cartridge. The, dare I say, venerable?.270 Win. has been proven in the game fields worldwide for almost a century now. For decades, the which cartridge is better debates have raged on and on. Most recently the 6.5 CM vs. practically all cartridges and yet we still hear and read about .270 vs. .280, .270 vs. .30-06, .308 vs. .30-06, .300 WM vs. 7mm RM etc..... The 6.5 CM fanboy talk is heard on my club range, at work, at the LGS's and around the hunt camps in the area. The same 'drivel' (facts, yes facts stating the marginal superiority of the 6.5 CM, that in practical use mean virtually nothing) that Bob spouts is heard repeatedly. Many, around here, like him, have apparently imbibed copious quantities of the 'extra strength' CM Kool Aid. I'd wager that 99% of the CM fanboys have never shot there CM's past 200 yards (most not past 100) and don't have many opportunities to do so where they hunt, especially around here. Is the CM a good hunting round? Yes. Does it kick a lot of other hunting rounds to the curb? No. The ranges where the CM starts to excel past the others are so long that less than 2-3% of hunters should even attempt those shots. The main advantages I see for the CM are lots of different rifles are available, lots of really good factory ammo and recoil is very mild. One of my favorite hunting rifles is my Sako AV Classic Hunter in .270. I also own two 6.5x55's and a .260 Rem. so I see no need or want for a CM. That said, if I run across a rifle I really liked chambered for the CM there is a possibility I might buy it. I'm a rifle looney and I've done stranger things. If I could only have one rifle for deer sized animals it would probably be my .270 Win. or lately gasp! my .270 WSM. For larger game I'd opt for one of my more suitable rifles. UH OH! I just did it myself.

Well, I *guess* we can forgive you for that?

Exactly. It's about 600 miles from where I typically hunt to the nearest grizzly as the crow flies. If I was somewhere I needed a grizzly stopper and still wanted some long range big game performance from the same load I'd use the 8mm WSM with 220gr. Weldcores (it was born for that application). If I was just worried about stopping a grizzly and not hunting a deer species at the same time, I'd take the .50-110 or .416.

The 6.5mms and to a lesser extent the .270s are suitable for elk sized game. The 6.5s do it far better, but then we knew that.

What's ironic, in my case, is I was a huge devotee of the 6.5x55 and ballyhoo'ed it to anybody foolish enough to let me near them. After messing with Swedish Mausers for ten years I glommed onto one of the very first Winchester XTR M70 Featherweights that were chambered for the round, back in '85 or '86, I don't remember. That fueled my proselytizing of the 6.5x55 even more, often making my point by comparing it to the .270. Jeezuey, I think the longest kill I made with it was 150 yards, maybe. Nowadays I would rather hunt deer with a .30-30 bolt gun or Savage .303 and cast lead bullets, so there. I predict that trend to be the "Next Big Thing". Or not.

If I get another 6.5 it'll be a 6.5x55 (I have a line on a #1 single shot in that caliber), or a 6.5x54 Mannlicher-Schoenauer, or both. I'll probably shoot cast bullets out of them too if they come to pass. ELD/VLD means absolutely nothing to me, no matter the cartridge it's launched from. That's not to say I'm not enjoying this thread- I do like hearing what's on other folk's minds.

Thank you I appreciate it.

I do also have a Sako currently in 7 mm RM but that's off the topic here lol.

far better...your a trip

they don't do anything far better than anything except sell guns magazines to the millennials and tacti-[bleep].

Id like to hear any possible scenario where a 6.5 does anything far better in the hunting fields to say...500 yards.

again...its the people

Easy - the 6.5s have higher sectional density and thus better penetration on big game starting at the muzzle. You don't have to get to any distance to see the benefit of shooting a 6.5 over a .270. Load up the 160gr .264 Weldcore, and you've got one of the best big game bullets on the planet and there's no .277 equivalent usable in factory rifles.

Yeah, so what? The .270 will still kill anything the 6.5 will, as a practical matter, at the ranges most folks shoot (under 400 yards). That's what it's all about, anyway. Will it kill your critter at the distances most folks shoot? Yes it will, end of story. End of argument, period. A few BC points here or there, or SD points, don't matter a bit. Good bullet construction is what counts, and being smart enough to shoot within the distances you can make a good hit. Anything else is just bullcrap.

Show me an animal you would hunt with a 6.5 that a .270 won't shoot through with ease. Ive seen .270s blow out the far side of moose...id venture a guess that a 150g A Frame or any of the monos would too.

exit wounds are exit wounds

again...its the people

Yup, ignore those inconvenient facts Some of us prefer the superior performance of the higher-SD 6.5mm bullets. The 160gr Weldcore consistently gives an exit on elk even on shoulder shots, which can't be said for anything expanding in .277. It's simply superior.

here is a link to the article fwiw. I always enjoy CB https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2019/4/25/a-new-look-at-the-old-270-winchester/

First,that is a Weatherby Mark V .460 Wby and I used a 400 grain Speer at 2500 fps on that bunny,the range was about 45 yards.

Same rifle and same load,except the range was about 75 yards.


As far as SD and BC those are two numbers I ignore. I'm more interested in bullet construction and performance.

Im with you 100%

The 160gr. Weldcore penetrates FAR FAR better than the 150gr partition. Most shoulder shots, the 150gr partition doesn't exit on elk. it's really not even vaguely close.;

The .270 was relegated to a second rate cartridge by the twist rate mistake Winchester made. It's unfortunate, as they could simply have copped the 7mm Mauser twist rate of 1:220mm (8.6") and been fine, but those are the facts.

I question your experience

That's nice. Facts are still facts, and they're not on your side

I bet those 130 grain NBT's or SGK 's .277 bullets can't kill a small white tail doe.

I don't understand why anyone would care what firearms or cartridges another person uses, as long as it doesn't directly impact them in negative manner. Heck, I don't care if most other people take their next breath, much less what firearm or cartridge they favor, as they are inconsequential to me.

I've shot an elk or 2 with the 270 and they died promptly. I'm pretty sure that those elk would have died just as quickly if I'd shot them with a different cartridge, just as long as I was using a properly constructed bullet and made the same bullet placement.

I like to shoot and am curious about new cartridges, so despite having a couple dozen rifles chambered for other 6.5mm bore cartridges, I bought a Weatherby Vanguard2 in 6.5 Creedmoor in 02/14. After shooting the 6.5 Creedmoor for a bit, I decided that for my needs it didn't do anything that those other rifles chambered for 6.5mm bore cartridges didn't do equally well. Curiously, I find myself with 12 more rifle chambered in 6.5 Creedmoor. Lots of redundancy in my gun room.

This +10

Next the only really enlightening fact of this whole thread is that Kirk Stovall aka Shrapnel aka Chuck Norris of MT DOES not own a SAKO L61R Deluxe chambered for 264 Win Mag. Damned if I don't see and smell some profit taking opportunity here...… MB

AND the CHEW ! CHEW ! CHEW !


Jerry

H E A R ! >> HERE >> HEAR This !!

I could NOT have said it any better and maybe not as well.


Jerry

If you read the article, Craig Boddington was the one who brought up the 6.5 cartridges and compared them to the .270.

uhhh, something like mine ?




Does this count ?

I got it in Dec, 2011 and killed my first deer with it the FIRST day I took it hunting in 2012.

EDIT to ADD >>> This Guy:





Since then @ 5 others. It does NOT have an excessively long throat. It's easy to load ammo for it. This is my 2nd Win 70 FTWT and LOVE the rifle.

It has a Swift 3-9X40 scope and it took longer to get the velocity UP to my specs than ANY 270 W I've ever had.

If that 6.5X55 wasn't in THAT rifle...... it'd be gone. For now, it's not for sale.


Jerry

LMAO.......and oh so true.

Here is a public service announcement :. There's this new thing called Amazon Prime auto order in which you can set up monthly orders for your often used, favorite goods. For those of you who are perpetually butt hurt and incessantly whining about the 6.5 CM, may I suggest a monthly reorder of a butt hurt care package. this package includes the famous Butthurt cream for instant anal relief, a pocket pack of tissues for the tears, and some tampons.

I tried to read the article, twice. Fell asleep both times.....

You know, around 1964, remington made an announcement.of the 7mm rem mag. People squared off against between the new cartridge and rifle pitting guess what, the 270 in question. Before chronographs the 7mm was supposed to be a giant killer when compared to its opponents.
Time has a way of settling these problems. Just like then, the new model 700 was the talk of the town.
Far as i know the 270 will not go away. I think it will still be around. As time marches on the creedmoor will be eclipced by another new cartridge that everyone will just want. Are advancements in the future coming to us?
The 6.5 cm will not go away. But it may be relegated to the closet like a lot of other cartridges. Kinda reminds my own thoughts when i had to have an 06, and retired my 30/30. Then own to the 7 mag , then 270, the 6.5/284 etc
Rifle owners my self included want the latest and greatest. The way people love the 6.5 cm, i was just as struck whem remington came with the 260 about 22 years ago. Its literature in magazines was that it had more energy with the 140 at 200 yards than the 270 with the 130 grain bullet had. Seems like every cartridge that has come along in the last 60 years has had the 270 in their crosshairs..wonder why??

What is this low sectional density to which you keep referring?

The sectional density of a 6.5mm 140 grain bullet equals that of a 154 grain bullet (close enough to 150- grain not to matter) in a .270 or a 190 grain bullet in a .308 diameter.

As for "excessive" taper and "steep" shoulder angle, those make it more likely to feed properly, which is why the US military chose those angles for the 30-06 cartridge.

They may kill a small doe, but no way they'd work on a big buck. Not enough sectional density. Especially for the all-important "raking shot."

Rather than any of those scenarios, I would liken the actions of the pro-Creedmoorites (love that) more to those of the person who has recently stopped smoking and is on a crusade to approach everyone he meets and proclaim the gospel to them, as often as it takes for them to get it.

Yep, sort of. Mine was one of the early ones, an overrun leftover from a batch Winchester made for Scandinavian export, several long years before they intro'ed it as a regular offering on the domestic market. The main difference was the early ones had iron sights and a really long throat. I loaded 129 Interlocks out to max magazine length and still had a significant jump to get into the leade of the rifling. Surprisingly it shot them into an honest MOA or less nonetheless. I installed a Lyman 48 receiver sight (it was d/t'ed for it so why not), and mounted a Leupold 1.5-5 in a QD mount for backup. That gun is one of about five in my life I sold and would like back. It went to help finance the purchase of 36 acres of Pennsylvania forest complete with deer and trout stream.

This thread cracks me up and I hope it goes on and on and on. My favorite story CM boiled down is that a hunting buddy actually tried to convince me that his 6.5CM was superior to my .264WM because his bullet was 6.5mm. I told him that I had a hard time understanding that because my bullet was starting out at 3250 and his was starting at 2700. He said they told him at the gunshop that his would catch up to mine at longer ranges. I told him I didn't think it would.

I look at the 6.5 the same way I looked at the WSM's almost 20 years ago. The phenomenon causes people who own perfectly good rifles that I actually want, to go and trade their rifles in on rifles I have no use for, like WSM and CM's. I see it as a win for me. I just tune out their nonsense. I wish people were more knowledgeable about chamberings and ballistics but I guess I should just be happy that they shoot and hunt and don't play video games or wait in the mall for their wives.

BK - love your signature line. For my part, while I admire Atticus, I have always felt that Heck Tate was very admirable as well.

That's pretty accurate. They can be annoying, agitating, even GRATING !


Now, leave me ALONE, I ain't quittin and I ain't creedmoorin either !




Seriously, I haven't smoked in nearly 40 yrs. Second hand smoke still smells good but I don't want one.

Jerry

In my opinion, comparing the .270 with the 6.5 CM as hunting cartridges is like comparing Ford and Chevy.

Except in this case we're comparing a 1926 Ford with a Chevy ca. 2000 A.D. and the Chevy doesn't even go quite as fast.

Whatever improvement anyone thinks the 6.5 offers, it ain't much to brag about after 75 years. I'm not impressed.

As a former NRA High Power competitor, I understand why Dennis DeMille thought up the 6.5 CM for that sport and why it's better than a .260 Remington. A 0.5" difference in wind deflection can sometimes make the difference between a 10 and an X at 600 yards, and that difference can win a match. But for hunting at 500 yards or less, the 6.5 CM is just a big marketing promotion.

But what do I know? I've never killed big game with anything under .30 caliber. If it works, don't fix it.

Good post.

In my opinion the reason for all these "innovations" is simple. Hunting rifles last a loooong time, many decades. They don't wear out. The industry can't grow by selling replacements very well. They can't rely on new hunters either, because there are (unfortunately) fewer hunters every year. So they have to figure out some way to convince us to replace perfectly good rifles with ones that shoot cartridges that really are no better.

Their other big push seems to be to push guns which look "tacticool" on us.

5sdad,

My experience of anti- and pro-Creedmoorites is the opposite of yours: Anti-Creedmoorites are far more likely to break into spontaneous speeches about how the 6.5 Creedmoor is absolutely useless and unnecessary, especially in any gathering of rifle loonies--in particular those who have never fired one. But then I may not spend as much much time among many rifle loonies as some others on the Campfire. :-)

Bingo.

I'm disappointed HitnRun hasn't made an appearance. Usually mention of the 6.5 Creedmoor brings him running like Custer to a battlefield. Maybe someone killed him off too...

How about when the silhouette shooters sparked the 7mm08 craze! Layne Simpson was a big supporter and pushed it hard. Its a fine round...turned out it was just more "consistently chambered/throated than the 7x57 ( am I right or am I right? :)) It took root pretty good, but I don't hardly ever see any .260 Ammo in stores out here, much less rifles. I used a .260 on just wo animals, and for me, the 6.5/284 was far more interesting and I liked how flat it shot. But hey, what happened to the 7mm STW, and now...the 7mm RUM? And the 6.5 Remington Magnum...fuggitaboutit, ha. My Marine SIL works almost all the time. He loves to shoot out to 1K at rocks,etc. He hardly has time for anything, so he likes "easy", right now anyhow. He recently got one of those Ruger (I think) Precision Rifles in the 6.5 Creedmoor. He is tickled pink. However, he shot his last elk ( a big cow) at just over 440yds with the Mod 700 custom 300 RUM I had made up for him, and he used the loads I loaded for him, the 200 Accubond going really fast! ha. But its a lot more fun to for him, right now, to be able to buy fair priced factory ammo that he can shoot very tiny groups with. I imagine most guys who get the Creed are a lot like him. At least they are supporting the shooting industry, ha.

comerade,

The difference between the 6.5 Creedmoor and the WSM's 20 years ago is there was at first a MAJOR boom in WSM sales, especially the .300 WSM. In fact the first year the .300 WSM appeared I went on an industry hunt with the round (as did almost every gun writer in the business) and came home with a partial box of ammo. One of my local acquaintances heard I'd actually shot a .300 WSM, and not just at targets but GAME, so stopped by. He was so enthralled I volunteered to give him a round. He actually had to lean against a wall after I placed it in his hand.

But five years later the trend was on a downhill slide. While the .300 WSM is still a common factory chambering, the other SFBM (short-fat-beltless-magnum) rounds have diminished considerably in popularity.

In contrast, the 6.5 Creedmoor was introduced in 2007 without much publicity, because it was designed as a target round. Three years later enough hunters had tried it to discover it worked very well. So had similar 6.5 rounds for a long time, but the major difference was the 6.5 Creemdoor did it in affordable accurate rifles, with affordable accurate ammo.

Unlike the WSM's, sales of 6.5 Creedmoor ammo and rifles have continued to INCREASE over the dozen years since it was introduced. More and more rifle companies continue to chamber it, and more and more ammo companies continue to produce both target and hunting ammo. The only other cartridge that had such sustained staying power since I started hunting was the 7mm Remington Magnum.

If you think the 6.5 Creedmoor is a "fad" similar to the WSM/SAUM/RCM magnums, the sales trends do not support your guess.

You're high. I should just stop there, but before I do, I'll point out that a 8mm 220 Weldcore has a BC of .355. Now, that would be great for "long range big game performance" if that was a G7 BC, but it isn't; it is a G1 BC.

You're high.

Now, I read your ranting on this thread from the beginning, and you don't seem to know what "high BC" bullets are, because you keep naming Weldcores, and, basically, they are not. Not even close, actually. It was mentioned that you consider some version of "long range" unethical, so I suppose we'll call your "long range" 400 yards. Even at that range, your crappy Weldcores can easily get blown right out of the vitals of whatever you are shooting at 400 yds when getting caught in a stiff up-canyon wind that may not even be perceptible from where you are shooting.

And somehow the 6.5 160 gr Weldcore (.509 G1) will "do it far better" than say, a 150 gr Partition, or AB, or LRAB, or SST, or VLD, or whatever, out of a 270 Whatever when it comes to killing elk; and somehow, "we knew that"? Better at what? And WTF is "better", exactly?"

You're high. And you didn't have many brain cells to spare before you started getting high.

I think he retired...

The 6.5CM is the best round to have been legitimized in my lifetime. I anticipate the 22CM to be more goodness.

Well, Boddington aside, I think everything mentioned here was covered in Handloader 293, going on almost 5 years ago.

How often do you take advice from someone with exactly zero experience? Just curious.

Reminds me of when I walked into a gunshow a few years ago with a Smith 19-2 and a 53-1, both new in blue boxes...

I'd have rather heard name-calling insults rather than the junk I was offered.

BC?? I thought it was all about SD??

Depends on whose wife you ask.

True, very few wives could answer that question correctly. But I do know a few who could pick up a Creedmoor, a .270 WCF, a .243, or a .338 and just go kill big game with it.

They woudln't even know the correct SD of the bullet they were using, dumb broads.

Smokey. I don’t think H n S is talking ‘bullets’

Jerry

You have pretty hot takes.

1. "Low sectional density"

The 130 gr bullets the 270 was designed for have SD=0.242 (equivalent to 161 gr .308"). The 150 gr bullets that came out shortly after have SD=0.279 (equivalent to 185 gr .308").

That is appropriate for hunting almost anything, if not anything, in North America. And this was not designed for hunting everything in North America. This was designed as a lighter round than the .30-06, primarily for hunting deer.

2. "Excessive taper and steep shoulder"

The 270 is not a 21st-century cartridge design. This round came out in 1925. The shoulder angle and taper are in line with the cartridges of that time... and of much later, too. In fact, it has less case wall taper than the 6.5x55 SE or the 7mm or 8mm Mauser rounds.

3. "morons" at Winchester and their "slow" twist

The Winchester folks did not have a crystal ball to foresee the development of 21st century VLD hunting bullets. I don't know why they chose a 10" twist. I don't know why they chose the .270 bore, either—maybe they just wanted to sell more ammunition. What I do know is that the 10" twist and new bore diameter did not hamper the cartridge's success, as evidenced by sales of .270 rifles for the following 9 decades.

The 270 was designed to shoot lighter bullets faster than the .30-06. The 270 was designed to hunt deer. The slower twist did not hamper it in any way for this task. Yes, a faster twist would have resulted in a more versatile round. As you mentioned elsewhere, the 7x64mm Brenneke is a more versatile round. But people with the intention of hunting the largest game generally did not choose the new, lighter .270 over the .30-06.

The only big advantage of the Brenneke was the twist, and this was most likely due to two factors: that the 7mm Mauser had first used that same twist to spin its long 173-grain round nose military bullets, and that Europeans hunting did and do often hunt different game in a different manner (witness the countless iron sights and battue ribs manufacturers add to the same guns that they only offer to Americans with naked barrels). You would want a heavier bullet if you are taking a running shot on a wild boar. Even "Brenneke" is a clue. Look at Mr. Brenneke's "TIG" bullet. Not exactly a long range affair.

History, location and luck shapes these cartridges designs. Just like the 6.5 Creedmoor. The 6.5mm bore diameter would not be so popular for long range shooting if various 19th century militaries had not standardized fast twists to stabilize their heavy round nose bullets. The 6.5 got lucky.

Which reminds me...

4. Second-rate bullets too?

You say the .270 Winchester is "second-rate" or simply "crap". Because it's slow-twisted. But take the 6.5 Creedmoor and the 270, and pop into both of them Nosler Partitions, Accubonds, or Ballistic Tips, Swift A-Frames or Sciroccos, Barnes TSX, TTSX or LRXs, Hornady SSTs... basically any "regular" hunting bullet, premium or not... and the ballistic coefficients (and sectional densities) suddenly become quite similar. So what you're implying is that all of these bullets, some of which work very, very well... are complete crap!

So while you're right that it is old fashioned or simply inferior in many ways... you greatly exaggerate the importance of such. And despite being disadvantaged, it can still beat the 6.5 Creedmoor in other ways. You're altogether much too harsh on the old 270.

I think I heard somewhere the .270 is gay ? Anyway, it's about the only remotely popular centerfire cartridge between .22 and .30 that I've never owned and I haven't missed it a bit.

What else would he be talking about?

Isn't that ED or am I mistaken?

But some would know BC when they saw it. Others wouldn't.

Since I was replying to Lama Bob, dick size fit into the discussion well.

DUH !

What does his wife say?

Mule Deer:
Good evening to you sir, I hope that this finds you and Eileen well and keeping warm enough - if you've been getting the cool nights we've been getting as of late.

While I'm not able to read the article in question at present, I did break somewhat with 'Fire tradition and read the entire thread.

After reading it, I recalled a somewhat similar discussion we had here a few years back when I'd asked about tissue damage differences between the .270 and 6.5x55.

Here's a link to anyone interested in the exchanges back then, or just a walk down memory lane at the 'Fire with some members no longer with us involved.

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/9248055/1

Anyway after that thread I did unscrew the unusually slow twist .270 barrel and had a smith up the valley make up an adapter so a nearly new '96 barrel could be installed on the commercial between the wars Mauser 98 action. As I recall I was going to make it into a 6.5CM, but components were scarce on this side of the medicine line then, though that's absolutely changed now.

Since we've had a few really tough winters in a row up here, both the whitetail and mulie populations have plummeted, so we've been getting less bullet testing in than we'd like, but come this fall our eldest daughter and I will be up in the hills doing our best to rectify that.

Thanks once again for sharing your considerable and varied knowledge with us John, I very much appreciate and enjoy it.

All the best to you and Eileen as we head into summer.

Dwayne

Good morning, Dwayne! Yeah, we've been getting the same cool nights, and even days. Yesterday it even snowed again--but just a little, not enough to stick.

Its interesting to go back and read that thread from five years ago. The one thing that I still bring up when talking rifling twist and tissue damage was the way the same 55-grain Tipped Varmageddon bullet lifted and separated prairie dogs when fired at 3100 fps from a 1-8 twist .223, and definitely did NOT do the same sort of damage when started at 3800 fps from a 1-14 twist .220 Swift. Unlike most big game hunting, where tissue damage is often an "example of one," without much real analyzing of bullet placement, that PD "test" involved hundreds of examples within a couple of days.

The other thing I'll note is that Eileen and I have pretty much switched to monolithics for pronghorn hunting. The meat is so good, but the animals are relatively small, with 40 pounds of boned meat about average from mature bucks, that we want to lose as little as possible, especially when bullets infringe on the shoulder area--as they sometimes do because of a little wind-drift. And we also don't care if a pronghorn runs 50+ yards after a monolithic lung shot, since they live out on the wide-open prairie.

Interesting to hear the 6.5 Creedmoor has apparently invaded BC as well....

Myself, I am happy you review these things with objectivity, John.
I don't really believe the 6.5 C.M. is a fad. I do think we will see so many new developments , to keep the industry going forward.
I don't have a need for one of these, or any of the short / fats or long range shooting .
Bullet development is so interesting these days and appears to me that it is changing the rules , little guns do big things these days.
Cheers

I am only speculating, but I am guessiing she agrees that Bob is a Substantial Dick (SD).

You're telling me I'm "high" yet you're too stupid to read a bullet catalog? There are two 220gr 8mm Weldcores. The one for the 325WSM has a BC of .448 and is suitable out to about 500y which is a reasonable compromise for a bear stomper bullet.

Seriously, you're a blithering retard.

If I can't buy it, it doesn't exist, Bob. You can quote whatever catalogue you masturbate to if you want to. Since it is not for sale, nor on their website...well, enjoy stroking it. And when you're done, perhaps answer my questions. After washing your hands.

Are you really so [bleep] stupid you can't search for a bullet and figure out where to buy it? Seriously? God damn you are actually, no joke, for real retarded.

https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1...grain-weldcore-protected-point-box-of-50

I literally have never met anyone as stupid as you that used a computer.

It's not on their website? Try this link:

http://woodleighbullets.com.au/bullet-lists/traditional/264-333-list

Bullet catalog number 64G.

Catalog:
http://woodleighbullets.com.au/images/downloads/woodleigh_bullets_2019_catalogue.pdf

Still haven't answered my questions, Bob. But I appreciate you brushing up on your abusive behavior while your wife stays with her sister. Can't have you getting rusty. Your son finally come out of the closet? Just another question for you to answer. I can send you my address if you feel the need to beat on someone while the wife is away.

[quote]

I am curious, why are you so mad and impolite? You could give advice to your friends on a social forum without being nasty. Praying that you get relief from whatever is really bothering you.

ya know folks.....Boddington didn't actually say anything that warrants 34 pages of comments about the 270

I'm perfectly polite up until people start insulting me, and even then I'm only rude to those who do. But I have no interest in being nice to some mental deficient who's too stupid to read a bullet catalog, and to impolite to defer to those around him who are smart enough. Life is supposed to be tough for people like that.

True, as far as the .270 goes.

But then he had to go and bring up the dreaded Creedmoor.......

Reminds me of what I heard a good surgeon needs. Graying temples to give him that look of wisdom, hemorrhoids to give him that "concerned" look...

Don't know if LB has graying temples, sorta suspicious about the other matter.....

Agree, hope he finds relief...

DF

Like the guy who accused his pastor. "Pastor", he said, "You quit preaching and went to meddlin.."

Boddington was preaching good, then he went to meddlin...

DF

The .270 came along when there wasn't much choice in hunting cartridges. O'Connor championed it because he hunted extensively with it and got good results. It generated lots of excitement then and it still does. It's a great cartridge. It is also a long action cartridge that still suffers from bullet choice but that doesn't matter too much to the game it kills.

The 6.5 Creedmoor is a great short action cartridge that does everything it's designed for and then some. It has a lot of choices in bullets and is every bit as controversial as the .270 was in 1930 and still is to this day. You can get a lot of different rifles chambered in the 6.5 Creedmoor that are accurate from the factory and find ammo for it just about anywhere. It doesn't mean that it's the only hunting round that will kill game.

I read the article and it's pretty good actually. I don't envy the gun writers having to come up with a decent article that will please their readers on a regular basis. Any article is guaranteed to piss someone off. The big bore boys are still alive and well and the aficionados of each cartridge are going to fight to the death for their baby. I take it for what it is, a decent article on a fine hunting cartridge.

Rainshot, well said!

With a .270 and a .30/06 there's nothing you can't kill in NA. The .270 for game up to moose and the .30/06 for game up to and including the big bears.

You could just forget the .270 and do it all with the .30-06.

That hits the nail squarely.
Had this response been on page one, the thread wouldn't have multiple pages.

Nah, the thread would still have been just as long. Many if not most Campfire members just reader the header before responding, bypassing even the original post. They would never have read rainshot's post, even if it had been on the first page!

In fact, some posters still apparently haven't read the original post. If they had, they'd quit bitching about why a thread "about the .270" has so much stuff about the 6.5 Creedmoor.

In many ways, the Campfire is perfect example of a pure democracy, where everybody gets a vote, even those who have very little idea of what the election's about....

True.

Truth.

I was looking for a new "longer range rifle" about three months ago. Love the 6.5's, have had several. Looked at the 6.5 Creedmoor, PRC, and the 28 Nosler. Looked at ballistic charts, internet, till my mind melted. 6.5 Creed is a good one, but no better than several others. Unless one buys it all in a store. Found a Sako 85 in 270 for a very good price. Have everything to reload, brass, powders, and bullets. Son has one and I reload for him. Easy choice, not that much difference between any of them. New bullets and powder have helped the 270 as well. Perhaps an inch or two out to 300 yards difference. A Deer kill zone is about a dinner plate. If I can't hit that, it is my issue not the choice of round/caliber.

Furthermore, I wonder how many have actually read Boddington's article.

Democracy? More like anarchy at times.

Yes you are correct. I'd say Boddington's conclusion pretty much parallels what Spomer wrote a few months ago. Personally my .270's have resulted in more notched tags than other cartridge. But the 6.5 CM is a welcome diversion to something else - life is short - burn powder and dent primers.

[quote=bigwhoop life is short - burn powder and dent primers.
[/quote]


Best advice I've seen on the 'Fire today.

Funniest post of the entire thread had to be the one calling a the 243 a varmint rifle.

Why?

It was the context, as if the 243 was only good for things no larger than varmints.

For years I have a lot of respect for Craig Boddington. After meeting him years later, and listening to some of his comments on various subjects, I came to the opinion that he full of himself. His writings and musings today are for one purpose and one purpose only - MONEY.

I only go to work cause I need money too. He writes great articles. He isn’t going to please everyone. Most subjects have been beat to cshit, the 270 has been written about dozens and dozens of times. He did a great job writing that article in my opinion.

I think so too.

Dozens and dozens? More like thousands.

Why did/do you have an occupation ?

Writing, gunwriting is a profession, a business. The name of the game is production, selling copy and of course, making a living.

You think Craig Boddington was "full of himself", well, he's not the only one.

One of the top in that category, Charlie Askins, Jr.. Ole Charlie wrote provocative stuff, that was his MOS as an author. It sold copy and he did pretty well, living in San Antonio until his death.

His home is now HQ for the San Antonio Geneological and Historical Society www.txsaghs.org

Nice digs.

DF

Everyone I have ever talked to who has met Craig has told me he's a down to Earth kind of guy.

I happen to agree with Boddington on the 270.....so yes, he does know what he's talking about.

I tried to read the whole article, but couldn't do it. I didn't hold it against him.

My major point about the article was that Craig was anti-.270 for decades on game larger than deer. Then he tried it and found out he was wrong--thought he didn't really start admitting it until he saw how well similar rounds, such as the 7mm-08, also worked om game larger than deer.

Now he feels the same way about the 6.5 Creedmoor (and similar rounds) as he used to about the .270. From what I've read, he does have some experience with them, but very limited. I do have more than a little experience with such 6.5 rounds (and have PLENTY experience with the ..270.

Have yet to see any difference between them and the .270 in field performance, given similar bullets. But then, the longer I hunt, the less difference I see in "killing power" between most cartridges.

Maybe so, but knockdown power is really where it's at.

Do you know how many comedians are UNemployed ??

Jerry

The .270 has been written about a lot because it is a lot. Some things just can't be improved on. The .270 just keeps proving itself on everything from Jackrabbites to elk. It's flat shooting, accurate, and produces results.What's not to love?

Plus it's been around since 1925. Which means 94 years of gun writing.

Craig has been a real pleasure to speak with and I enjoyed meeting him on two occasions. Very nice guy.

I hope to see Craig in Rivers Inlet, B.C. In August. He sold a beautiful left handed .460 Weatherby to a mutual friend who killed a ginormous coastal griz with it 2 years ago. Happy Trails

https://www.americanhunter.org/articles/2018/2/18/big-bears-why-theyre-on-every-hunters-bucket-list/
Scroll down to the last photo/paragraph.

I really don't know. Boddington's writings hurt my neck. Shaking my head up and down, agreeing with him. Charl says that he has a very strong work ethic. Good guy to be around for "sundowners". Do any of you read Sports Afield? Lots of good stuff by great writers. How about some names from my past? Graham Burnside, Kingsley Karnop, and I knew an Eastern traveler named Elmer Keith. He spent time at Bob Ward's in Missoula where Ivar Henrickson worked. There were a couple others but this old brain can't stop the floppy in the right place. Ya know, bullets these days make a lot of difference as to what a cartridge will do. In the days of shedding cups and soft cores, bullets could make or break a cartridge. Just some thoughts.

Me? Exactly de same, Sir.

I used to think a hunter needed a 7 mag to kill deer, until I saw my granddaughter slay deer and pigs with a .243 Winchester. She was making the same shots, laying them out right where they stood. That opened my eyes to the smaller cartridges. I became interested in the 25-06’s, 270’s, etc. They kill as well as 7 mag with less recoil.

One good 270 and there’s not much more a fella needs to worry about.

Pass the Easy button.....

Kids seem to knock down WT's and pigs on a regular basis with the .223.

For some reason it's not an adequate "adult" round...

Strange...

DF

Boddington did a great job with rewriting about the old super cartridge 270 Winchester ,just look at the replies on this post plus reads just on this 24 hr campfire. Boddington sure got the campfire stirred up with negative and positive replies. i would say yes Boddington did do a great job !

The older I get, I have noticed two major truisms when it comes to hunting rifles:

1. Grown men need larger cartridges to kill game than women and children.

2. Grown men need lighter rifles to kill game than women and children.

That is a fact, granddaughter has a heavy Vanguard, she weighs a whole 110 lbs. She like the weight of it.

Why are "grown men" killing women and children?

kinda like "front shoulders"

Jerry

Y'all messin with ChetAF...

He's made a couple of good observations.

Are kids and ladies that much better marksmen than guys?

They kill critters grave yard dead with lighter ordinance, while some guys ruminate over KE, knock down power, penetration, group size, B.C., etc.

While the kids and ladies put more and more meat in the freezer...

DF

I need a custom rifle and handloads....my kid a $300 RAR.

Of Course we are !

WE, all of us, say what we 'intend' but at times how we say it implies something else ! eg. front shoulders.

Now to Chet's point, I know and agree that WT and deer in general & pigs etc. die readily with a well placed bullet from lesser
cartridges than some of us want/use.

For MYSELF, I prefer FAST FLAT & HARD bullet delivery >>> for flat trajectory which MAKES bullet placement easier at distance.

DF, this is NOT directed at you. It doesn't matter to me what ANYONE else shoots >> WHY does it bother some WHAT I shoot ?

I'm glad we have the freedom and liberty to own, hunt, shoot what we WANT to use !!

If I continue I'll be in a RANT, so I'll just stop there.


Jerry

Exactly. Everybody knows it's "grown-ass men."

This is one tough crowd!

In all seriousness though, I once had a Remington Custom Shop Alaska Wilderness Rifle. It was back when they had a custom shop barreled action with Teflon coating and a McMillan stock. I killed a sheep and a couple of grizzlies with it, then decided I needed something lighter, because it was too heavy for me at 6' 1" and 190 pounds. Posted it for sale in Alaska and a 5' 6" 130 pound woman bought it. She has used it to kill all manner of beasts ever since.

It's amazing what you can do it you don't know any better.

I think I’m going to get out my 270’s and fondle them!!!

And maybe that was his main goal all along.

From about 1973 into the late 80's. I used a stock Rem 700 BDL 270 topped with a 3x9 Redfield Widefield using mostly 130 gr Parttions pushed by a case full of WW785 ($24 for an 8# keg). I took that rifle on a wide variety of shoestring budget hunts around the country for a lot of big game. It never failed to get the job done.
I didn't know any better.

Chet,

Years ago Eileen had the opportunity to ask a fairly well-known gun writer a pointed question. He was of the generation of rifle loonies that tended to believe in the O'Connor or Keith school, and was definitely a Keithian. He lived in the metropolitan East but often hunted in Montana, usually with a friend of ours,where we'd often join them. He usually brought a .338 Winchester Magnum or .340 Weatherby Magnum.

One year he asked me, "John, will a .270 Winchester really kill an elk?"

Eileen snorted, possibly because a little of the glass of wine she was drinking got up her nose. She'd not only killed several elk with the .270, but a bull moose, so asked, "Why do men need larger cartridges than women do to kill the same animals?"

He also once asked me if a .243 will actually kill mule deer, despite the fact that the wife on an outfitter he sometimes hunted with had killed a bunch of deer (both mule and whitetails) with her .243.

Women and kid rifles are certainly effective.

Here too Fish.

THE BEST looking rifle I've ever owned was a S-W 1500 (aka Howa) in 270 W had a 'scrumptious' Walnut stock ---
our own 'WHITEBIRD" has a Custom 6.5-06 with a VERY similar stock --
The VERY FIRST time I laid eyes on this pic --- my mind went to my S W , 270 -- NOT identical but similar:!!

>> Here's whitebird's 6.5-06 >>>> on P 72 in Thread "Let's See Some Big Bucks -- BobinNH started !





I hunted it in N Ark., La., Miss, & Al.. I 'ruined' myself by getting a Ruger 77 UL, then a Win 70 XTR FTWT.

The S-W then BECAME so heavy that I moved it.


*!*! I just remembered who has that rifle -- I'll try to get it back *!*!

Jerry

Jerry,

My present .270 has pretty nice wood too--but nice wood does weigh more. This rifle went eight pounds with scope when I took its first big game animal, a "cull" mule deer with it in eastern Montana.

Yes, Indeed MD that's sweet.

My S-W had a gloss finish & Monte Carlo and don't remember if it had a cheek piece or not.
I've looked thru a bunch of OLD paper pix and can't find one of it.


JRS had an article entitled, "Little Misses I've Known" --> about rifles.
That is one of mine.


Jerry

Jerry,
If I saw a rifle like that for sale I probably wouldn't care what the chambering was. I have bought rifles before based on judging by "the cover only, without reading the content" and found it can be a sound practice as their isn't much else that cannot be fixed. My only criteria is no short actions. Never, ever.
John

A G W

YES and actually I can quote from that thread that I told 'Whitebird', it didn't matter the caliber/cartridge that I'd buy it. TOO.


We are a LOONY bunch!!

Jerry

Same here. When a hit from a little ol' 6mm Rem or 243 Win produces instant death on a chest-shot mule deer... It's hard to imagine improvement from some other cartridge. We all likely have our favorite cartridges. I've never had a 270 Win, but respect it tremendously as a general purpose hunting cartridge.

Regards, Guy

ADDENDUM - I just found 1 old pic from 1983 of myself with the S-W and a coyote I'd killed with it.
The pic itself is MORE of the yote than the rifle. Snow was on the ground, I had a mustache and long hair.
I don't know how well it might copy/paste to imgur---- might not be worth the effort.

The rifle DID have a M C and Cheek piece. I'm still looking for a better pic

Jerry

Looked in the "Image Gallery" and got my answer.

I've got absolutely nothing of value to add to this thread, so I guess I'll just throw a picture up of my Great Grandfather's Prewar Model 70 in .270 Win with a small Montana mule deer buck I took with it a few years ago, using the 150 hot-cor. Hit at about 60 or so yards angling hard away, it exited through the neck, and he didn't go anywhere but straight down.

What scope is mounted on it?

And that has a "cool" factor of 10!

I guess while I am at it: a free range Argentine stag killed with cheap 130 grain factory ammo and a borrowed .270 Win. Solid, tight behind the shoulder broadside hit at about the same distance as the deer above.
He stumbled about 20-30 yards before falling over, just like he would of if hit the same with any other chambering with a decent bullet.
No fuss.
No drama.

Solid performance.

T-man, That is way cool. All of my progenitors passed long before I was born. I would trade every rifle I own to have one from a grandparent or g. grandparent...

Lyman Permacenter 4X.

I took the Weaver K2.5 off that he originally used, as it just didn't give me the warm and fuzzy since the post had to be moved so far to the side to get the rifle sighted in....and those scopes don't keep the post and crosshair in the center of the view box.
I guess back in the day scope mount holes weren't as precisely aligned as they are now...

Inman, was that Argentine hunt a good one? I'm really wanting to kill a stag, but not travel all the way to NZ for the high fenced model.

Thanks...to be honest, I never met the man myself. Mom was knocked up with me when he died in 1979.

I've got a few of his rifles, but that .270 is a favorite.

[quote=T_Inman]I



Tin, can/would you take a new pic of that rifle? I'd like to see a better view of it.
THNX

Jerry

I had a good time there, but there were a few quirks about the place I wasn't big on. Honestly though, they were all small things in the long run.

The place I hunted had a high fence option, to which I did not partake as there were plenty of "wild" stags running around the area. Just like with most anything else, the free range stags are generally going to be smaller than some of their counterparts inside the fence. I hunted in the LaPampa, but if I were to do it again I'd look for a more mountainous area to hunt them in. Maybe Cordoba?

T,I have an old Weaver 4x that has the same thing,the post is not in the center of the view box. It seems to hit the target where it is aiming though.

I keep that rifle at my mom's house in the Bitterroot so I can't take anymore pictures of it right now. Sorry about that.

It looks just like any other pre-war Mod 70 though.

Understand, Thanks anyway.

Jerry