Winchester 243...the better 6.5 Creedmore?

[1stmarine]

Of course with careful reloading one can minimize the loss of 243 velocity in shorter barrels but it can be substantial with commercial ammo.
It seems someone scarified a barrel and took the time to record the findings...

http://rifleshooter.com/2016/04/243-winchester-effect-of-barrel-length-on-velocity/

 

[Llama Bob]

The numbers you provided for .243 represent either poor powder choices or substantially below SAAMI max pressure.

 

[1stmarine]

The numbers you provided for .243 represent either poor powder choices or substantially below SAAMI max pressure.

I provided what I have from some popular commercial loads and in the same range as the link with the tests above.
I know all those calibers can be pumped.

 

[Llama Bob]

I provided what I have from some popular commercial loads and in the same range as the link with the tests above.
I know all those calibers can be pumped.

I'm not talking about "pumping" them. I'm talking about perfectly normal within-SAAMI loads with common powders and bullets. You should have no problem getting a 100gr .243 over 3000 ft/s in a 22" barrel. Powders I know will do it:
H-100V
IMR 7828
IMR 4350
IMR 4895
N560
Ramshot Hunter

There are probably quite a few more. A few minutes on Load Data would undoubtedly find them.

Point being, for whatever reason you chose to understate the performance of the .243win by 200-300 ft/s. That simply confuses matters and invalidates any comparison.

 

[1stmarine]

I'm not talking about "pumping" them. I'm talking about perfectly normal within-SAAMI loads with common powders and bullets. You should have no problem getting a 100gr .243 over 3000 ft/s in a 22" barrel. Powders I know will do it:
H-100V
IMR 7828
IMR 4350
IMR 4895
N560
Ramshot Hunter

There are probably quite a few more. A few minutes on Load Data would undoubtedly find them.

Point being, for whatever reason you chose to understate the performance of the .243win by 200-300 ft/s. That simply confuses matters and invalidates any comparison.

llama,
I don't have any reason to understate the performance of anything but to show a few examples shooting commercial loads with light bullets.
Read my post. I have been very clear I was taking popular commercial loads from Winchester, Remington, Federal that is normally what we find on the shelf at the store.
On average they clock mid 2900's with a 24" barrel so with 22,21 and 20 barrels they loose the most on avg. of all those calibers that is what I said before that post.
If you have the spreads for a commercial load shot from a 22" that perform better then I would post it and let us know the rifle/barrel and what brand of ammo it is.
Feel free to put reload information if you want. Again, I don't have anything against any caliber. They all have a purpose for someone.

 

[Llama Bob]

1stmarine, I know you think you're doing something clever, but it's really not. What you've discovered is that some factory ammo is loaded hotter than and some less so. When you compare apples to apples, SAAMI max loads across the board, you will find that all the cases with the same capacity and max pressure will drive projectiles of similar weight to similar speeds out of the same barrel. There is nothing magic about any of the bore sizes.

The .243 will drive a 100 gr to about 3050 ft/s (IMR 7828 SSC)
The 6.5CM will drive a 120 gr to about 3000 ft/s (IMR 4895)
The 7mm-08 will drive a 120 gr to about 3090 ft/s (IMR 4895)
The .308 will drive a 125gr to about 3150 ft/s (H322)

That's all for a 22" barrel. In each case I just ran the load in quick load and took the top IMR/Hodgdon single base powder. With similar technology powders and similar pressure levels, there is no at-the-muzzle performance difference to speak of. The 6mm and 6.5mm will outperform down range due to higher BC depending on exact bullet choice.

Of course the ideal powder gets faster as the bore size increases.

 

[hdwhit]

the count wrote:
However, the sales guy told me that the 243 aka 6mm caliber is ballistically superior to a 6.5, plus brass etc. are plentiful and cheap.

What do you intend to do with this rifle?

The .243 has been a staple of the deer hunting community as long as I can remember, so in my opinion you certainly DIDN'T go wrong getting the rifle if that's what you are going after. It's the choice I would have made. Either factory ammunition or well-developed reloads should serve you well hunting deer out to about 300 yards with a decent scope. And the fact that .243 brass along with an assortment of bullets are available means that you have lots of choices for optimum load development and inexpensive reloading, not mention inexpensive shooting in the "off season".

On the other hand, if you were intending this to be a rifle to use in competition, then my advice would be "Don't listen to salesmen." The Creedmore, as a more modern cartridge, has the potential to be more accurate than the venerable .243, so you would need to pay more attention to how you load the .243.

 

[hdwhit]

the count wrote:
It's got a 1:10 so whats the ideal bullet weight ?

Don't be a slave to what others tell you about rifling twist rates. Of course, the longest bullets need the fastest twist rates to stabilize them, but in the middle, there is a lot of variability. Get some brass, get some bullets and experiment to determine what is optimal for your new rifle.

I have been told many times my 1:12 Mini-14 could not stabilize 60 grain Spitzer profile bullets but even being handicapped and visually impaired, I can still put 9 out of 10 rounds in the embossed circle on the side of a milk jug firing across the top of the dam at my family's catfish farm; a distance of 225 meters. I don't consider that good enough for competition, but it will defend my house if necessary and it will, in an emergency, put deer meat on the table.

 

[hdwhit]

1st marine wrote:
These are subjective numbers but not too far from the actual based on rebarreling regime.

What is your source for these numbers?

If they are based on your experience or someone else's protocol, please share the criteria used in their development.

 

[Dog Soldier]

The old 6.5X55 Mauser is not a bad choice even today. But of course we would have to give it a fancy name. Maybe the .264 Red Baron?

 

[horsey300]

The old 6.5X55 Mauser is not a bad choice even today. But of course we would have to give it a fancy name. Maybe the .264 Red Baron?

Love it! The 6.5 Swede COULD lead people to think it takes that many Swedes to control the recoil !

 

[coloradokevin]

I'm sure anything I'm going to cover has already been mentioned, but I'll throw in my $0.02 anyway:

Yes, the 6mm offerings are quite popular in the precision shooting world, and the .243 is a respectable cartridge.

Personally, I prefer the 6.5mm and .308 caliber offerings for my type of shooting.

 

[Dog Soldier]

Hey that is a thought horsey. Maybe we could give it a North Dakota name like ? The 6.5 Ollie.

 

[cdb1]

My favorite rifle is my CZ 550 American 6.5x55 with a Meopta MeoPro 3.5-10x44 German #4 mounted on it. I own nine rifles and if could only keep one, the Swede would be it.

 

[Bart B.]

Maybe the .264 Red Baron?

And the reason the 6.5 X 55 might be named after a highly skilled WWI German airplane pilot's nick name is. . . . .

 

[salt&battery]

For deer hunting your gun will be just fine, the .243 is a fine cartridge. I shoot a .243 for my long range target rifle, but it has an 8.5 twist 28" barrel on it. But yes, the salesman was lying to you (big shock huh), as good as the .243 is the big 6.5's are better for long range. If you want to shoot the 107 SMK's, heavy Bergers, 115 DTAC in the .243 then you need the 8-8.5 twist, and they still don't match the BC of the best 6.5 bullets.

david Tubbs says the main problem in 1000 yd shooting is vertical dispersion. He say the 6mm 115 DTAC has the least vertical dispersion

 

[Bart B.]

Any good bullet can be shot with the same vertical dispersion that DTAC has.

What's the DTAC's vertical dispersion at 3000 feet?

 

[Llama Bob]

david Tubbs says the main problem in 1000 yd shooting is vertical dispersion.

That's an interesting assertion which can only be true if you have some way of avoiding wind. Because even a modest error in wind call will produce a larger horizontal dispersion than any velocity-related vertical dispersion.

This article, and the sub-articles on particular factors, will help you understand what factors do and do not matter when shooting at range:
http://precisionrifleblog.com/2015/06/09/how-much-does-it-matter-overall-summary/

 

[salt&battery]

Any good bullet can be shot with the same vertical dispersion that DTAC has.

What's the DTAC's vertical dispersion at 3000 feet?

Bart you are the expert at long range shooting I was just repeating what Tubbs had said. he said he proved it with machine rests at 1000 yds against other calibers. I do not know how to make a link but I googled tubbs and 243 at 1000 yds and it came up 1000 yd dare at rifle shooter .com

 

[Bart B.]

That 20-shot group pictured in the link showing Tubb and his son is about 9 inches elevation spread and larger than current high power 1000 yard records for both prone and F class ones.

Here's a plot of a couple of 15-shot groups I shot testing 30-338 ammo from prone. One with Sierra 190's and the other 200's. Both shot alternately (first a 190 then a 200 then a 190.....) to see how each performed over 30 shots. The X ring is the same as in Tubbs link; 10 inches. 190's with new cases, the 200's with once fired then full length sized ones. Plot dots were within 1/4 inch of where they really were. Report from the pits said all 30 shots in 5-1/2 to 6 inches.



Benchrest records are smaller.

 

[LoonWulf]

http://www.rifleshootermag.com/ammo/ammunition_rs_1000yarddare_200808/

that the one you wanted?

It dosent say as to his method of testing, or analyzing data, or at least i didnt see it.
I THINK the point he was trying to make tho was about consistent bullet performance, and the effects of less propellant mass on said consistency....

Damn Bart, please tell me that was a good group or youll make me sad...forever....

 

[salt&battery]

http://www.rifleshootermag.com/ammo/ammunition_rs_1000yarddare_200808/

that the one you wanted?

It dosent say as to his method of testing, or analyzing data, or at least i didnt see it.
I THINK the point he was trying to make tho was about consistent bullet performance, and the effects of less propellant mass on said consistency....

Damn Bart, please tell me that was a good group or youll make me sad...forever....

around the middle of the article you linked (how is that done?) he says he machined rested the rifles when he did the testing. but the main thing is he is doing that without massive charges of powder in big magnums

 

[salt&battery]

That 20-shot group pictured in the link is about 9 inches elevation spread and larger than current high power 1000 yard records for both prone and F class ones.

Here's a plot of a couple of 15-shot groups I shot testing 30-338 ammo from prone. One with Sierra 190's and the other 200's. Both shot alternately (first a 190 then a 200 then a 190.....) to see how each performed1/4 over 30 shots. The X ring is the same as in Tubbs link; 10 inches. 190's with new cases, the 200's with once fired then full length sized ones. Plot dots were within 1/4 inch of where they really were. Report from the pits said all 30 shots in 5-1/2 inches.

View attachment 229142

no doubt you are phenomenal rifleman and have a great understanding of the tech side of shooting. any one argues with you is not right in the mind. did you ever shoot with Tubbs

 

[Bart B.]

Yes, Lone Wolf, that's the one. Compare that 20-shot group to my 30 shot one with two different bullets. Any sub MOA many-shot group at a thousand is wonderful. Machine rested M14NM rifles rebuilt shooting Sierra 180's tested 1 MOA at 1000. Rebuilt Garand's on 7.62 did as well with Sierra 190's.

I first shot with David Tubb back in the late 1960's. Also shot with his Dad, George several times. His Mom, Polly, was the Nat'l High Power Woman's Champ sometime in the early 1960s. Many matches with both over the years. David liked to champion his stuff but oft times admitted there's some who do as good with their stuff.

Thanks, salt and battery, for the accolade. Some people who've heatedly discussed stuff with me have proved me wrong. Most, if not all, the stuff for accuracy is not all that hard to figure out. You have to learn how each thing effect the sum of all things as a system. That's after your learn what all the things are.

 

[salt&battery]

around the middle of the article you linked (how is that done?) he says he machined rested the rifles when he did the testing

Yes, Lone Wolf, that's the one. Compare that 20-shot group to my 30 shot one with two different bullets. Any sub MOA many-shot group at a thousand is wonderful. Machine rested M14NM rifles rebuilt shooting Sierra 180's tested 1 MOA at 1000. Rebuilt Garand's on 7.62 did as well with Sierra 190's.

I first shot with David Tubb back in the late 1960's. Also shot with his Dad, George several times. His Mom, Polly, was the Nat'l High Power Woman's Champ sometime in the early 1960s. Many matches with both over the years. David liked to champion his stuff but oft times admitted there's some who do as good with their stuff.

Thanks, salt and battery, for the accolade. Some people who've heatedly discussed stuff with me have proved me wrong. Most, if not all, the stuff for accuracy is not all that hard to figure out. You have to learn how each thing effect the sum of all things as a system. That's after your learn what all the things are.

would have really liked to witness you and Tubbs shooting together. as long as you think you are not a know it all it is a lot easier to learn. that is how I approach something I want to learn