Why are there no heavy, ultra-high BC 6.5mm bullets?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Sep 27, 2011
Messages
921
Location
USA
Hey folks,

So I'm waiting for a new rifle in 6.5CM to arrive, and I am wondering why none of the major manufacturers (Hornady, Sierra, etc) make any 6.5mm projectiles in the 150gr+ range.

Sure mag-length could be an argument, but I enjoy shooting the 208gr AMAX in a 308win which is beyond mag-length when loaded close to the lands. I love the .648 BC of those rounds!

I just think that a ~160gr AMAX could have a G1 BC of .690 or more, and be driven to something like 2600 ft/sec in a creedmoor. Any ideas as to why this isn't being done?
 
The better 140 gr 6.5's from Scenar and Berger are almost exactly the same BC as most 200 gr 30 calibers, not that much different than 210's.

Noslers 142 gr LRAB 6.5 has a BC of .719
 
Possibly they have gotten as much as they can out of that diameter bullet for the majority of shooters. I'm pretty sure if there was a advantage of a longer/heavier bullet a custom maker would be producing it.
 
That's true, the published BC of those Noslers is pretty darn good. Unfortunately it seems that there is some debate as to whether or not those figures are accurate.l I have no personal experience with them so I can't say either way.

Hypothetically though, if Nosler were to have an even heavier 6.5/264 option the BC would be through the roof. It seems like that shooters used to think that the 168gr was the best there was for 30cal, then came the 175gr+ projectiles.

I dunno, I just think it would be awesome to see a "super" bullet like the 208gr Amax and similar come out for the 6.5/264.
 
I think the bullets available for the 6.5 are some of the best out there in the mid caliber range below 30 cal. I believe most of the better ones are similar trajectory to 300 mag to around 1000 yards when used in 6.5/284 and similar, even in 260 they do very well at distance, beating retained energy of many 308 loads at 1000 yds.

Zak Smith had a series of articles on long range shooting on his site. Some good info there. Google demigodllc
 
Even with the fast twists of the 6.5's, a 140gr BT Spitzer is on the high end of usable bullet weight.
I have a Rem. mod-7 in .260Rem. It has a 1/10 twist (by actual measurement). It shoots well with flat based bullets of 140 gr (Speer) and the only 160gr round nose flat base I've used (Sierra-discontinued), with various 129gr and 140gr BtSpt and "tipped" bullets, I've gotten poor to terrible accuracy.
A 150gr VLD type bullet would require a twist of 1/7" or faster to stabilize. Most 6.5's are 1/8 or 1/9" twist. Hence a 140-142gr bullet is about the upper limit. These are however excellent performers.
 
Years ago - late 80's, early 90's? - Sierra made some 155-grain Matchking HPBT's in 6.5mm. I called them and asked for BC data, and they sent me a few. Just enough to test for loading length, not enough for shooting. Talk about a knitting needle of a bullet! Somewhere, in my stacks of stuff, they wait ...
 
The twist rate required for a really heavy bullet is too fast to actually work and get any reasonable velocity or pressures. I've seen 160s before though. They are usually blunt little round nose.
 
Why is the twist rate required for a really heavy bullet too fast to actually work and get any reasonable velocity or pressures? I have no idea. Never heard of such an issue.

A 26 caliber (6.5mm) bore with a 1:8.5 twist has about the same angle of rifling to the bullet as a 30 caliber 1:10 twist barrel; about 5.4 degrees.
 
Last edited:
I run 140g bergers in a 7.6 twist. Actually a gain twist that starts at 8.5 and goes to 7.6
 
jmr40

The better 140 gr 6.5's from Scenar and Berger are almost exactly the same BC as most 200 gr 30 calibers, not that much different than 210's.

Noslers 142 gr LRAB 6.5 has a BC of .719
__________________
Most people don't really want the truth.

They just want constant reassurance that what they believe is the truth

In 2015 I believed that BC.
I bought many boxes of 142 gr LRAB.
I bought a 6.5-06 reamer and 6.5mm Shilen select match barrel with 8" twist and ratchet rifling. I designed a 9" long Aluminum recoil lug abutment / bedding. I was wide eye hopeful I could exceed my 7mmRemMag 75 kpsi 140 gr NBT exterior ballistics.

There are a lot of other gun forums and a lot of posts complaining about that bullet.
I had noticed that 142 gr BC was out of line with other Nosler bullets.
I did not put 2 and 2 together.

There is a guy out there, Brian Litz that has been measuring the actual BC of that bullet, and it varies with velocity. He can't seem to find the spot where it gets up to .719.

Other troubles..

When I leave to go long range target practicing and hunting, in a few days, I will take reloading gear.
Based on my 2.5" ave 5 shot groups with 142 gr at the local 100 yard range and my 0.9" ave with 120 gr Nos Bal Tips, I will most likely be filling my 3 tags this year with 120 gr bullets.
 
Hornady does make a 160. Just isn't an A-Max. BC is .283.
Ballistic Coefficient is the sectional density divided by the coefficient of form. And is a measure of "steamlinedness" that really doesn't mean much. You can't get as high a sectional density with a .264" bullet.
 
Ballistic Coefficient is the sectional density divided by the coefficient of form. And is a measure of "steamlinedness" that really doesn't mean much. You can't get as high a sectional density with a .264" bullet.
Never heard of such formula to calculate a bullet's BC nor a bullet's coefficient of form. Is there a link to some site that explains it? Where does one get any bullet's coefficient of form?

It's interesting that Hornady says their 140-gr. A-Max .264" bullet's BC is .585 for the G1 standard.

http://www.hornady.com/store/6.5mm-.264-140-gr-A-MAX/

Doesn't a higher BC for a given bullet diameter mean it slows down in flight less per hundred yards of range? That means quite a bit.
 
Bart B, your comment on twist rate vs. bullet weight is exactly what I had in mind regarding this topic. A 208gr bullet it a 7.62mm bore would be proportionally identical to a ~177gr bullet in a 6.5mm bore. The same goes for comparing bullet weight to twist rate. A ~177gr bullet in a 1:8.5 twist is proportionally identical to a 208gr bullet in a 1:10 twist.

Furthermore, a 24" barrel with a 7.62mm bore has 22.56in^2 of interior surface area (disregarding the unrifled length of the chamber - for this discussion lets assume the difference in chamber length of the 308win and 6.5cm is negligible). A 26" barrel running a 6.5mm bore has 20.8in^2. Comparing the ratio of caliber:area, the 7.62 has 8% more interior surface area relative to its bore size.

What this boils down to (in my 100% amateur, keyboard-warrior mind) is that the 6.5cm seems like it should be able to handle a ~150gr amax on paper. The point of such a projectile would be the same as the 208 amax in a 308win - to stretch the capabilities of the cartridge with no regard for mag-length limitations.

I suppose that because of the smaller bore size of the 6.5 relative to the 7.62, maybe there is an issue with projectile bearing surface. Perhaps the relationship between what is needed to stabilize a bullet of x weight and length in a bore of y diameter and twist, is not linear. I will measure the bearing surface on some 208gr amax's and compare them to 120gr and 140gr amax options when I get home.

What do you guys think? Maybe I'm giving my mind too much freedom.

And Bart, you've pretty much got it on what the "BC" of a projectile represents. Although it doesn't really matter what distance you are talking about - a higher BC means the bullet will loose less velocity over any distance than a bullet with a lower BC would. Could be 100 yards, could be 2,000.
 
If one wants to use bullets of different calibers (diameter) and compare proportionally identical ones in another caliber, I think their diameter to length ratio should be the same. Plus their shapes; same ogive radius in calibers as well as base shapes.

To do that, one might use the following:

http://www.shootforum.com/forum/bulletdb.html

to look up bullet lengths for different calibers.

As the .308 Win. can easily handle 240-gr. and 250-gr. match bullets, I think any 26 caliber cartridge of about the same case size could easily handle bullets up to 180 grains. Of course, the rifling twist and freebore would have to be correct for them
 
Last edited:
Here is another option that I think may be a partial reason for not doing it. In order to make a very long bullet you have to draw a very long jacket. The longer the jacket the more steps it takes to draw it without breaking it. Then you have to take into account how thin of a bullet it is making for a jacket that is that long. I can't imagine the draw punches would last very long being so thin and having to exert enough pressure to draw such a jacket. It may be that it would take two presses to make the jacket long enough for one bullet rather than just one press to draw the jacket, insert the core, and shape the base and tip. I've got a 13 stage press that is making 69 grain .223 bullets and it uses 12 stations to do it all. And we are only stretching the jacket to .90" How long do you think a 177 grain 6.5 bullet would be? Also, how much bearing surface will it have?
 
From what I understand the 6.5mm has been popular in Europe for some time but for some reason it's been slow to catch on in the US. This may be changing.
 
Longdayjake has the right perspective on long bullets for their caliber. Here's the best examples I know of.

The US Army International Teams switched from 6.5mm European rounds in their 300 meter free rifles in 1958 after getting Sierra Bullets to make a 30 caliber 168-gr. HP match bullet for the .308 Win. case. Until then, they were all FMJBT ones. It's superior accuracy over all the others was later used in their 200, 190 and 180 grain HPMK bullets that became the standard for 30 caliber winners and record setters to use. Hollow pointed bullet jackets had more uniform heel diameters and wall thickness and therefore enabled better balance of the bullets. That enabled Sierra to finally get 10-shot test groups in production runs down to well under 2/10ths MOA/inch at 100 yards; tiny ones around 1/10 were often shot.

In 1969, Sierra Bullets started making 26 caliber 140-gr. HPMK match bullets. As I was shooting a .264 Win Mag for my 1000-yard prone rifle then, Sierra gave me two boxes of their prototypes to test. I did so and shot most promising initial test loads into two 20-shot groups at 1000 yards were that many inches in size; two MOA. No good for competition at all. I was using Norma's 139-gr. FMJBT match bullets at the time getting sub MOA accuracy at 1K yards. Gave the remaining bullets back to Sierra saying they didn't shoot so well. Sierra replied with the same comment. Their 30 caliber 190- and 200-gr. bullets from good lots sold at matches in plain brown boxes of 1000 each tested into 5 or 6 inches all day long at 1000 yards.

A year later, Sierra made some 28 caliber 168-gr. HPMK's to see how they would do. Using a partial roll of jacket material that was left over from making a lot of 30 caliber 190's that shot about 1/10th MOA in their test range, they made several hundred bullets to test. Their ballistic tech's own 1000-yard match rifle was rebarreled with a Hart 7mm Rem Mag one, Initial tests showed it very promising with a charge of IMR4831. He loaned that rifle to a good USN friend of both of us to shoot in the 1000-yard scope match at the Nationals. He set a new record; 100-32V on the old C target in 1970. Those bullets shot under 1 MOA at 1000 as judged by my friend shooting them. V ring is 20 inches. Another USMC friend broke that record later in 1972 shooting a .30-.338 with 190's with a 100-42V.

Sierra's regular production lots of those 26 and 28 caliber long heavy bullets didn't have the quality of jacket material good enough for the coin, cup, draw, core and shape dies to make uniform jacket thickness for long bullets. They switched from Olin to some German company making jacket material to better specs. But it wasn't until the late 1980's before 28 caliber long jackets for heavy bullets could be mass produced to tight specs and the 7-08 was popular for XTC matches. Lots of folks flocked to the 7 Rem Mag for their long range match rifle but bullet lot consistency varied quite a bit; the 30 caliber mags ruled the roost.

26 caliber ones had to wait until the 1990's before 140-gr. ones could be made to equal what the 30 caliber 200 and 220 ones had for jacket thickness uniformity. That's when the 6.5x.308 (basis for the .260 Rem) 6.5x.284 began to take home all the marbles.

24 and 22 caliber match bullets had the same thing happen. David Tubb told me he could hardly wait until Sierra made really good, long heavy 6mm bullets so he could shoot the .243 Win as his XTC rifle. He then designed his own 6XC round based on a shortened .250 Savage case. The 6mm Dasher has proved very accurate at 1000 yards; it never would have done that back in the 80's with the best jacket material made then.

Making bullet jackets is akin to making cartridge cases. Longer ones for their diameter are hard to make with uniform wall thickness. Accurate cartridge cases are shorter for their diameter than the others.
 
Last edited:
Looks like longdayjake and Bart have solved the mystery!

Thanks for the input guys, this is why I love the internet. Its actually awesome that the reason we don't have these kind of super-6.5 projectiles is due to manufacturing limitations, not a lack of interest. I'm sure once we figure out how to manufacture them that they will find a niche - just as the 200+ weight 308 projectiles have.

threoh8, if you can find those 155gr bullets would you mind testing them? I'd be really curious to see how they do. If you need a volunteer I'd be happy to pay you for them and post the results!
 
Last edited:
Oohhhhh :eek:

Those look awesome! I might have to get a few to try out. +100 Google-FU points for you!

Do you have any experience with them? Any accuracy or velocity data you could share?

Thanks!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top