Why the 6.5 caliber?

[35 Whelen]

6.5 bullets vs 270,284,308. Why has the 6.5 taken off and if you believe the hype - taken over? I have been sucked into the hype with one 6.5 PRC with a second to follow. Is it just bullet type and availability? The 270 bullets just can't keep up because they don't exist yet? The 284 must be heavy for caliber like the 308 to compete with the 6.5? Why why why is the 6.5 the new "King"?
Just wondering....

I have not read all the post to this one as it is already 9 pages by the time I see it. I have not gotten in too the 6.5's as they just don't trip my trigger, nothing wrong with them just not me. I prefer "older" more traditional to very old American rifles and cartridges. With that being said if you look at the old 6.5's witch are European cartridges they used up to 160gr. round nose bullets, witch is a long heavy bullets for 6.5 caliber, there for they needed a faster twist to stabilize them. As long range shooting has gained in popularity and the more research been done we have fond long heavy bullets work better for long range, kind of like the old timers liked heavy bullets for the old big bore slow moving cartridges, they worked better in that application as well. So as they looked at long heavy for caliber bullets and fast twist to stabilize them the 6.5's were all ready made for them, they just wanted to use a "modern" case. Most 6.5's are all so in standard or short actions so with that and a small caliber they have light recoil, and most people today seam to be recoil shy. No offence meant here, I was just taught how to hold the rifle take a good stance and not even think about the recoil and I have come to enjoy it. Of coarse being a gun guy I enjoy shooting all my guns from the .22LR up weather the have recoil or not.
Back to the subject, the 6.5's just were easy and a natural to make long rang rifles out of before the others because so many of the old 6.5's all ready had a fast twist for long bullets, most of the others have to be made with a "new" faster twist. Just take a look at the .223, the older ones have a slow twist and now we can by .223's in three or four different twist. I hope my rambling makes sense to some one. May we all enjoy our guns for a long time!!

 

[skipglo]

6.5 bullets vs 270,284,308. Why has the 6.5 taken off and if you believe the hype - taken over? I have been sucked into the hype with one 6.5 PRC with a second to follow. Is it just bullet type and availability? The 270 bullets just can't keep up because they don't exist yet? The 284 must be heavy for caliber like the 308 to compete with the 6.5? Why why why is the 6.5 the new "King"?
Just wondering....

Absolute hype...I drank the Kool aid too...and bought 2....and then started refining all the rest of my guns ... aerodynamics sure...but really nothing the 30 Cal's don't offer....all sales pitch...buy the newest....or just buy.... cause advertising can't be wrong..... Right?

 

[BigBoreBruce]

Low recoil
Good BC

 

[Greyfox]

Interestingly, my first experience a very young age with a 6.5, and first high power rifle was back in the early 60's. A different time and era, sporting magazines typically had mail order companies selling surplus rifles....un-regulated. My buddy and I ordered the cheapest rifle for(I believe) $6.99, an Italian Carcano, 6.5x52, bolt action carbine. A box of ammo was less then $2.00. Well beyond our means, a 1903 Springfield in good condition could be had for about $80. The Carcano arrived, well worn, with a broken magazine spring, requiring single feed. We did shoot that rifle and we quite impressed with its "minute of coffee can" accuracy...when we managed to keep our eyes open at the blast. A couple of years later my buddy and I immediately recognized the rifle in infamous photo of Lee Harvey Oswald. The last time I saw my buddy, over 40 years ago at my wedding, he still had that Carcano.

 

[Pulpwood]

I already posted on this but here is a furthermore.... I bought a $340.00 Ruger predator in 6.5 Creedmoor because of all the hype on the internet and i didn't want to miss out. I am not a rich man but do have some rifle's 1,2,3, thousand range.it's the scope's that hurt my pocket. But that 300 hundred dollar rifle with changed stock, shoots just as good as the expensive ones. I am an old man I don't think my shooting has gotten better. That 6.5 bullet must have some magic in them and now I am kicking myself because I could have bought better scopes and crapper guns.

I feel that the quality of our rifles these days has improved a lot

 

[30calyooper]

BTW - if you're a 270 fan - A couple of friends have used Nosler's 150 Long Range Accubond on game with good results. Sounds like the range was nothing to get wildly excited about (under 400 on deer) so it's not getting into the true long-range game, but at least the guys loading worked out a recipe that is giving them accuracy with reasonable long range potential. From experience that can get to be a project with anything in the Accubond family...often seems to be the case with most bonded core bullets...and no assuming that a sweet load for one launcher is good in another.

 

[rbTanzan]

Everything is a package, whether 6.5, 6.8 (270), 7, 7.6 (.308), or 8.5 (.338), etc.

The larger the bore, the more powder capacity that is needed to maintain a certain velocity, and the more recoil that is generated. Bullets can be made and barrel twists can be made to accommodate anyone's wish.
For example, in 270/.277" we have Hammer Bullets with a 156grain Hammer Hunter and a .292 G7-BC. It needs an 8" twist to maintain higher than a 1.5 stability factor. A very nice combination. If someone wants heavier, then they offer a 168grain Hammer Hunter and .309 g7-BC. That bullet needs a 7"-twist for 1.5+ stability factor. For a lesser stability factor, something useful for the 500-1000yard range, an 8"-twist provides a 1.16 stability factor. This is useable for long range, allowing the bullet to tip with gravity, and the .313 sectional density means outstanding penetration on elk-sized game. Ditto for all the larger caliber.

A hunter must choose the bore that they want and then the amount of recoil that they find acceptable. I happen to like the 338WinMag, but my hunting is under 400 yards and the 338 is absolutely excellent. The 270Win? It packs more punch than the 6.5CR and would be my recommendation for those hunting 0-500 yards.

My wife needed to buy a new deer rifle this year. We looked at a Tikka LH in 6.5CR but ended up choosing a Tikka LH in 270Win. As mentioned the 270Win simply outshines the 6.5CR 0-500 yards with more punch and a better trajectory because of more powder capacity. We thought about possibly re-barreling to an 8"-twist for the newer bullets, but ... no. As a deer rifle the 110TTSX, 117gn Hammer Hunter and 129gn TTSX will do everything that needs doing for her.

A person must simply choose their package after looking at the aggregate of factors.

For lightest recoil, maybe a 243,
for a little more, then a 257 Roberts.
Still more, then a 6.5Cr or Swede.
For another step up, then the 270 Win.
Still wanting more? the 7mm mag awaits.
More versatile bullet weights at 270 power capacities, then a 308/30-06.
More energy for elk-size game? The 338WinMag gets it done.
Etc., etc.​

 

[ndking1126]

I can understand why 6.5 cals are so popular , but not the CM.
The 6.5 cals have been around for a long time in Europe for hunting and in 2 world wars.
But there are so many 6.5 cals that perform better than the CM, Like my Fav the .260rem also 6.5-284 Norma, 6.5-300 and 6.5x 47 too.
Here in Australia CM is so popular but with options like the .260 so much cheaper to reload I cant understand it , I resize .243w and 7 mm 08 brass for the 260 and the new brass for CM can cost you.
For hunting for years I used the .243w which unless you were going to the NT for Buffalo's or Victoria for Rusa deer it was all you needed for hogs and dogs.
But since 2010 the .260rem is my main go to hunting rifle and I cant see that ever changing.

Teekayo, I'm with you on this. I was some what of an early adapter and built my precision rifle with 260 because I was sure it would win out over 6.5C and 6.5x47. The only explanation is that Remington screwed up again. They insisted on marketing it as a hunting cartridge with 120 grain bullets (because, you know, the hunting market isn't already severely over-served) and refused to market towards the new, wide-open long-range/tactical market with 140, 142 grain bullets. Hornady was happy to take the business I'm sure. Now that the wheels of capitalism have turned, I am stuck with basically 2 options to buy off the shelf locally (and that's if they are in stock..) - Hornady Match 130 and Nosler SST Superformance 129 gr (if I remember correctly). Thankfully they both shoot well, but since they aren't 140+ grains, they aren't as good for long range as they could be. My max range is 600 yards, so they work.

 

[HEAL]

The 6.5 mm caliber has many attributes, Started collecting prime applications on the Swedish military more that 100 years ago, later on the big game hunting (elephant size), adopted as a military caliber for other countries as Japan an Italy, more recently, and as applied to more modern cartridges in competition circles, modern long range shooting, recent adoption by the US military as a replacement for the 308 and 5.6 NATO (223). Why?: significant less wind drift, higher BC, superb Form factor, unique high SD that promotes penetration depending on bullet construction-design, less recoil that translates to better bullet placement. All above at a moderate projectile and cartridge price. Then, why of this late caliber bullet acceptance?: One possible reason it could be our sole reluctance for being metric not English units. Just my thinking.

 

[HEAL]

….Forgot to mention that all those attributes are performed with a light to medium size and weight of bullet. More powder efficiency with the majority of cartridges where the bullet is applied.

 

[Stgraves260]

When I was looking to buy my first new rifle at the time in 1997 I was looking at a 243, and the 270. I wanted a rifle that could take deer, hog and maybe elk. So I talked to Parks and Wildlife and was told the most popular cal rifle to take elk was a 6.5 cal. Was told to make a good elk rifle it needed to have at least 800 lbs of energy. Well the 260 Rem has that past 1000 yards. So I just figured Why not. So according to Parks and Wild Life the 6.5 is not the latest and greatest. It's the tried and trued. It has taken more elk than any other caliber rifle. I do thank the 6.5s name is getting out cause of the marketing of Hornady's 6.5 Creedmoor though.

 

[Turnbolt53]

When I was looking to buy my first new rifle at the time in 1997 I was looking at a 243, and the 270. I wanted a rifle that could take deer, hog and maybe elk. So I talked to Parks and Wildlife and was told the most popular cal rifle to take elk was a 6.5 cal.

Not trying to be a wise guy, but I think someone was yanking your chain.

 

[rbTanzan]

Why?: significant less wind drift, higher BC, superb Form factor, unique high SD that promotes penetration depending on bullet construction-design, less recoil that translates to better bullet placement.

None of these characteristics are inherent or "unique" to a 6.5mm diameter. The same BCs, form factors, SDs, can be built into 6.8mm, 7mm, 7.6mm, 8.5mm, 9mm, 9.3mm, 9.5mm etc. However, with every upgrade in dimeter the recoil will go up because the form factor will increase weight (and higher BC because of increased SD!).

I've heard the same case made for 338 sniper-rifles, 308, 7mm, etc.
6.5mm has an advantage in recoil and in having current manufacturers who are promoting long-range factory rifling and longer bullets.

Here is a video of 6.5Cr vs 270 testing

 

[Peregrine82]

6.5 bullets vs 270,284,308. Why has the 6.5 taken off and if you believe the hype - taken over? I have been sucked into the hype with one 6.5 PRC with a second to follow. Is it just bullet type and availability? The 270 bullets just can't keep up because they don't exist yet? The 284 must be heavy for caliber like the 308 to compete with the 6.5? Why why why is the 6.5 the new "King"?
Just wondering....

I would say it offers a good middle ground for recoil vs energy.