How the 6.5 Creedmoor Changed shooting forever!

Status
Not open for further replies.
You see! unfamiliar with, or wish to mislead readers about, the 6.5x55 and the rifles in which it is chambered.

The Swedish Mauser has a 1:7.55 twist. It was designed to stabilize 160 grs bullets. No "customization" is required in a commercial rifle chambered in 6 .5x55 to match 6.5CM performance of it chambered to CIP specs. The only "customization" to a Swedish Mauser required to meet or exceed 6 .5CM performance is to drill and tap for scope mounts, admittedly an undesirable approach.

The 6.5 CM was designed to allow a short action rifle to use VLD bullets. Bolt throw is immaterial. So perhaps for weight savings? Makes sense in a hunting rifle. None in a target rifle.
Let's be clear, unlike yourself, I don't enter this discussion with an agenda. So do not accuse me of being intentionally misleading. Mmmkay? The reason I may have a 'thing' for the 6.5CM is because I first had a 'thing' for the 6.5x55 hunting rifles, 30yrs ago and the .260 20yrs ago.

The 6.5x55 is a 46,000CUP cartridge and it requires a long action. One of the design parameters for the 6.5CM was that it work through an AR10 platform. Can't do that with the overly long and lean 6.5x55. You do not think it is a step forward to duplicate long action performance in a much shorter case? I do. I think we've learned a thing or two in the last +120yrs. :confused:
 
Last edited:
The 6.5 CM was designed to allow a short action rifle to use VLD bullets. Bolt throw is immaterial. So perhaps for weight savings? Makes sense in a hunting rifle. None in a target rifle.

The dominant target rifle in any rifle-limited discipline almost always ends up on a relatively short/fat/steep shoulder/high pressure cartridge simply because that's what's more accurate. Action flex is the enemy. Long powder columns and the associated less consistent burns are the enemy. Low pressures and the associated bad burns are the enemy. Brass stretch and sketchy headspacing are the enemy. If you were going to use a 6.5x55 in a target discipline, you'd be crazy not to ream it to AI for starters and of course likely run it way over spec (even SE) pressure.
 
So my question to y’all is how in your opinion has the 6.5 Creedmoor changed the shooting landscape forever?
It has not changed the shooting landscape forever. It is the result of evolution in cartridge design. Just another proof that nothing is perfect and improvement is ongoing. And that's good for the sport.
 
Let's be clear, unlike yourself, I don't enter this discussion with an agenda. So do not accuse me of being intentionally misleading. Mmmkay? The reason I may have a 'thing' for the 6.5CM is because I first had a 'thing' for the 6.5x55 hunting rifles, 30yrs ago and the .260 20yrs ago.

The 6.5x55 is a 46,000CUP cartridge and it requires a long action. One of the design parameters for the 6.5CM was that it work through an AR10 platform. Can't do that with the overly long and lean 6.5x55. You do not think it is a step forward to duplicate long action performance in a much shorter case? I do. I think we've learned a thing or two in the last +120yrs. :confused:

You were misleading about the performance of the 6.55x55. The 6.5CM offers no ballistic improvement. The 6.5x55 certainly isn't ideal for the AR10 platform. The question was whether the 6.5CM had "changed shooting forever". It has not. It repackaged a 100+ year old cartridge performance in a slightly shorter and perhaps more modern format. And made a lot of money for folks in the industry. I'm all for that. But let's not be silly about what the Creedmoor is, mmmmkay?
 
You were misleading about the performance of the 6.55x55. The 6.5CM offers no ballistic improvement. The 6.5x55 certainly isn't ideal for the AR10 platform. The question was whether the 6.5CM had "changed shooting forever". It has not. It repackaged a 100+ year old cartridge performance in a slightly shorter and perhaps more modern format. And made a lot of money for folks in the industry. I'm all for that. But let's not be silly about what the Creedmoor is, mmmmkay?
Not misleading at all. Have you read anything above? Did you read Llama Bob's post? You are obviously coming this from the hunter's perspective. For hunting purposes, none of this matters but as I've said, the 6.5CM was not designed as a deer cartridge.

No, the Swede wouldn't fit the AR10 platform at all. Period. For that reason alone, one would choose the .260 over the Swede. Except the .260 has the aforementioned shortcomings of its own.

Yeah, the 6.5CM is the same as the 6.5x55. Except it is not limited by +120yr old technology and ballistics knowledge. Except it's shorter. Except it's more efficient. Except it's more consistent. Except it operates at higher pressure. Except, it's more accurate at long range. The 6.5CM is the same as the 6.5x55, except better. How many Swedes are used on PRS competition? Zero. If you were going to take what we know today, all that we've learned over the last 120yrs and apply it to a brand new, clean slate .264 caliber cartridge, you'd come up with something that looks like the 6.5CM. Not the Swede. That's called progress. :confused:
 
I agree with you.... thats why I like the 6.5 CM !!!!

I can buy a accurate , affordable rifle chambered in 6.5 Creedmoor at every LGS in my small town (7) .. and a wide variety of 6.5 Creedmoor ...ammo

But ..... Im unable to accomplish that if I was looking for a 6.5x55 .... or a 260 ... all three of those cartridges are great ....

I normally buy rifles and ammo online for better prices but a LGS can order any rifle you want. Cabela's and Sportman's warehouse in my town both have a good number of 6.5x55 choices on the shelf.
 
Last edited:
I don't think you can completely discount the form factor aspect that 6.5 CM puts 6.5x55 performance into a 308 OAL cartridge. That opens up all the AR-10 based platforms and many short-action bolt guns to this cartridge/performance. And since they share case head diameter it means many 308 guns can be easily converted with only a barrel change. 6.5 Creedmoor really does balance a lot of good features with very few bad compromises in the process. It really has found a local maximum in performance, form-factor and platform size for a fairly broad range of application. It is a jack of all trades that actual manages to master a few of them. FYI I do not own a 6.5 CM. My bolt guns are 6 CM. 270 Win, 7.65x53, 7.62x54 and the later two are surplus military and not up to much.
 
Nope, unless they panicked and short stroked it.

Which is why I think stroke length is irrelevant in a hunting rifle, panicking can mess up any stroke length rifle. IMHO most animals are taken with a first shot anyway. The old saying goes "One shot meat, two shots no meat".

The OP might have been more accurate if it said has the CM changed long-range shooting forever, although forever is a ridiculous claim, no doubt some will be declaring the CM 'obsolete' at some point. I don't care if the CM can be used in an AR, I have a 5.56 for that, so for hunting I see no improvement as CraigC stated. My Sako Finnlight 6.5x55 has shot under an inch at 200 yards, heck if you can shoot a 2" group at 100 yards you probably aren't going to miss any animals. The ones I've shot have been DRT, two were disembowled, something one guide had never seen.
 
Last edited:
I’ve yet to see another cartridge take off as well as the Mighty 6.5 CREEDMOOR in my LIFETIME!
 
Here's my bottom line. If a new cartridge or firearm gets people excited, even to the point of thinking it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, who cares? Who loses? There's nothing to say that you have to get rid of your old tried and true in favor of the latest and greatest but why diminish someone else's enthusiasm? In the end, we all gain when more and more people are enthusiastic about firearms. I'm glad we're involved in a sport that is still developing, rather than being stale and stagnant.


Which is why I think stroke length is irrelevant in a hunting rifle, panicking can mess up any stroke length rifle. IMHO most animals are taken with a first shot anyway. The old saying goes "One shot meat, two shots no meat".
It results in a slightly shorter, slightly lighter rifle but in this context it's not so much stroke length as action rigidity. Shorter actions are more rigid and therefore, more accurate. Just as short, fat cartridges are more efficient, more consistent and more accurate than long and lean ones. They're also more efficient in shorter barrels. People have to keep in mind that none of these improvements result in anything earth shattering. They're small incremental increases in performance. These small increments matter a whole lot less in a deer rifle.
 
Probably the smartest marketing decision made by Hornady was to use decent quality brass and excellent bullets loaded with canister powders that were readily available to reloaders.

Hornady showed their real genius when they printed the exact load recipe for the ammo within right on the box, allowing even inexperienced handloaders the ability to duplicate the factory load easily.

AWESOME MARKETING COUP!
Ha Ha”
And groups are measured by best 3 outta 5 allows a novice to shoot amazing small groups at 1 mile.....:cool:
 
An added bonus to the creedmoor crowd is Sportsman Wharehouse carries everything you need to succeed in the PRS world.
RPR
Vortex scope
Hornday Ammunition
Gucci camouflage pants
TAC glasses
Yeti cooler
All in a one stop shopping trip.
J
 
So, no. It hasn't changed shooting much at all.

it reproduces the ballistics of a 120 year old military cartridge with the dubious benefit of a slightly shorter case and the somewhat less dubious benefit of a shorter, fatter powder column, neither of which concept it introduced to the shooting world. And in the world of competitive shooting, where our experts tell us these benefits truly matter, it isn't even particularly popular or competitive.

I think we're done.
 
So, no. It hasn't changed shooting much at all.

it reproduces the ballistics of a 120 year old military cartridge with the dubious benefit of a slightly shorter case and the somewhat less dubious benefit of a shorter, fatter powder column, neither of which concept it introduced to the shooting world. And in the world of competitive shooting, where our experts tell us these benefits truly matter, it isn't even particularly popular or competitive.

I think we're done.
So because those benefits do not apply to your deer hunting, they're "dubious"??? The world revolves around your individual needs??? Sorry but your rhetoric is just another example of how some people get in their head that they hate something and that's all there is to it. I guess evolution in the shooting world should've ended 100yrs ago.
 
Craig, you are so very prickly and defensive. It's odd behavior.

Shorter case length is dubious because your allegation of receiver flex in modern construction is dubious and can, in any event, be overcome at the expense of slightly more weight, a matter immaterial to a target rifle, which you insist is what matters. Therefore, the shorter case "benefit" is dubious,at best, in a target rifle.

You should get your blood pressure checked. Your reaction to people offering well founded views that differ to your own appears unhealthy. It's certainly unmerited. Relax. It's not that important.
 
I can think of no time where energy numbers were as useful as claimed but regardless, the data presented has been a bit cherry picked I think, when I get home from work today I can pull energy numbers too.

Cherry picked? Oh no, simply randomly chosen factory loads. Hornady 6.5 Creedmoor 147 gr ELD Match vs Remington 308 Winchester 180 gr Core-Lokt Soft Point. :thumbup:

db12c04e48e44931bf1858acff964f62.jpg
249807.jpg
 
Which is why I think stroke length is irrelevant in a hunting rifle, panicking can mess up any str I'moke length rifle. IMHO most animals are taken with a first shot anyway. The old saying goes "One shot meat, two shots no meat".
I think it MAY be an issue for some used to only short action rifles, tho honestly much like short stroking a pump gun, I dosent seem like something particularly likely for anyone who spends much time with you their guns.

I also agree that most folks usually only need that first shot. I'll also submit that it depends a lot on where and how you hunt.
 
Randomly selected the best possible BC factory round in 6.5cm and the worst possible BC factory round in 308? ;)
While the Core-Lokt is unusually bad, there is no commercial .308 equivalent to the 147gr ELD-M load for 6.5CM. The population of 1:12" .308 rifles along with the excessively large bore diameter (and associated cubed increase in required bullet weight) precludes it.
 
I think it MAY be an issue for some used to only short action rifles, tho honestly much like short stroking a pump gun, I dosent seem like something particularly likely for anyone who spends much time with you their guns.

I also agree that most folks usually only need that first shot. I'll also submit that it depends a lot on where and how you hunt.
Short actions are definitely nice and fast to operate compared to long or magnum actions. It's not a major issue, but it is a "look and feel" thing that people care about which I can understand.
 
Something we have a been kinda ignoring in the discussion, at least when comparing the 6.5 to any other 6.5, is the pure economy of the 6.5CM.

Sure you can get .260s, 6.5x55s, 6.5-284s etc, but you can't get a Ruger American, Savage Axis, Browning Ab3, Winchester XPR, T/C Compass or any other sub 600 dollar rifle that I'm aware of....now admittedly my knowledge isn't that great as to what's available in each Cal.
Honestly IF I'm doing a 6.5x55(or like I did with my 6.5-284) I want a nicer rifle with an action the correct size (in my mind) for the cartridge.

End of the day tho, popularity is based on use, and it's slot easier/cheaper to get into the 6.5cm than well.... nearly anything that gives similar performance.
 
Something we have a been kinda ignoring in the discussion, at least when comparing the 6.5 to any other 6.5, is the pure economy of the 6.5CM.

Sure you can get .260s, 6.5x55s, 6.5-284s etc, but you can't get a Ruger American, Savage Axis, Browning Ab3, Winchester XPR, T/C Compass or any other sub 600 dollar rifle that I'm aware of....now admittedly my knowledge isn't that great as to what's available in each Cal.
Honestly IF I'm doing a 6.5x55(or like I did with my 6.5-284) I want a nicer rifle with an action the correct size (in my mind) for the cartridge.

End of the day tho, popularity is based on use, and it's slot easier/cheaper to get into the 6.5cm than well.... nearly anything that gives similar performance.
Lol you can get em if you're patient enough for a retailer to give up on them and slash prices to cut losses and get into the 6.5 cm axis/American/compass, then walk out with a Savage 11 trophy for $400 pre-tax etc ;)
 
Craig, you are so very prickly and defensive. It's odd behavior.

Shorter case length is dubious because your allegation of receiver flex in modern construction is dubious and can, in any event, be overcome at the expense of slightly more weight, a matter immaterial to a target rifle, which you insist is what matters. Therefore, the shorter case "benefit" is dubious,at best, in a target rifle.

You should get your blood pressure checked. Your reaction to people offering well founded views that differ to your own appears unhealthy. It's certainly unmerited. Relax. It's not that important.
So when cornered you don't respond to counterpoints but choose to make it personal, that's new. :confused:

In fact I have no emotional investment here whatsoever. I sold my only 6.5CM rifle and while I'd like another, I'm far from a Kool Aid drinker and realize there's nothing I could do with it in the hunting fields that I can't do with the .270 I already own.

Why would it make more sense to design a whole new action than simply a new cartridge? It's comical that someone could know so little about a subject yet be so arrogant as to think they know better than the people that designed the cartridge for their own purpose in the first place.

That's kinda the problem here, you do not have "well founded views". You have deeply rooted opinions that seem to be "founded" more in imagination than reality and you seem to have difficulty seeing beyond your own nose.
 
Something we have a been kinda ignoring in the discussion, at least when comparing the 6.5 to any other 6.5, is the pure economy of the 6.5CM.
Very true. The .260 has scant few rifles these days while the 6.5x55 has ebbed and flowed with a handful of limited offerings through the years. The Swede is a great cartridge in its own right but as a commercial endeavor it's played out. The 6.5CM has a whole slew of options, even from the same manufacturer like Ruger, who offers it in everything from the American to the Hawkeye and Precision models.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top