6.5 Creedmoor and others...

Discussion in 'Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics' started by Guy M, Nov 16, 2008.

  1. Guy M

    Guy M Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    574
    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2007
    What's the consensus of opinion on the various short-action 6.5's (6.5 Creedmoor, .260 Rem etc) for medium - longish range deer hunting? Say to 600 yards or so? Maybe a little farther?

    Preferred bullets?

    What if we throw black bear into the mix?

    Asking, 'cause I've got this great Rem 700 chambered for .308 Win, and the barrel is eventually going to wear out... Keep it a .308 or make the next Krieger a 6.5 or something???

    Thanks, Guy
     
  2. hypersonic

    hypersonic Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    155
    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005

    The Creed does nothing that the 260 Rem won't do. The only numbers I have seen are those published by Hornady in gun Mags that arrive in my mailbox once a month. They are showing figures from 28" tubes, which is well and fine. I have had no problems getting very close to those numbers with a 22" pipe. My current 260 is a carry rifle for high ground hunting so weight was a factor. My next 260 will be different and will have a 26" tube and I am thinking on bulding it on a M98 style action. I do not have a donor action right now but finding one should be no problem.

    If you are shooting Deer only you can look at the 140 a max very accurate for me though I have not taken any game with one. You can also give some serious thought to the 140 Berger it has a BC of like .640 IIRC. I have shot both Deer and Black Bear with mine with no problems. I have not pushed past 400 yards well 406 to be exact. All deer shot have been bang flops and the Bear took two partitions at 190 yards and only made 10 feet before the lights went out. I like more rifle for BB's but they are not too hard to put down with proper placement. Do not overlook IMR -7828 or H-1000 in the .260 with 140 grain bullets. H-4350 and H-4831 get a lot of praise in the the 260 and have both worked quite well for me. I am still working with 7828 and 1000 both show great promise and will offer a speed increase in a 26" barrel.

    Yes I do like the 260 quite a bit very accurate easy to load light recoil and a good killer on medium game.
     

  3. Guy M

    Guy M Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    574
    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2007
    Cool. Good info. Thanks.

    What brass are you using for the .260 Rem?
     
  4. hypersonic

    hypersonic Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    155
    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    260 Rem 7-08 Win necked down I like the Win better as it is a bit harder than the Rem and gives about 1/2 more grain capacity on average. Rumor has it Laupa might be offering 260 rem brass and that would be a slam dunk for a brass choice. I think nosler offers it and I have talked to a couple of guys who have used their brass in 300 mag and they were really happy with it. I am going out to get some brass tommrow and have my fingers crossed that I can find some of the Nosler in 260.

    I almost forgot if you do build a 260 go with an 8" twist then you won't be borderline on stabilzing the long 140-142 grain match bullets and you will not have to worry about pushing velocity right to the edge to get them to shoot for you. With that statement you should not have to ask me how I know that 8" twist is a better choice.
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2008
  5. jeffersonv

    jeffersonv Active Member

    Messages:
    40
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2005
    I don't have either a 6.5 Creedmoor or a .260.

    It amazes me how some seem bent on trying to kill it before it can be given a chance to prove itself. I can see one advantage to the Creedmoor without even having the 2 to compare, that is more room to seat longer bullets without cramming them down so far into the case and still fit in the mag well. Hello!

    I just don't understand the hostility.

    I found an article that compares the two at the demigod llc site with the following quote.

    "There will always be those who bash new cartridges, claiming that they don't do anything better than their favorite cartridge. By this logic, we'd all be shooting .30-06. Put simply, the 6.5 Creedmoor is what the .260 Remington should have been."

    I hope Hypersonic does not take this personally because this is not directed at him, but more the negative response I see a nice looking cartridge is getting.

    BTW, I would be thrilled to own either a .260 or a 6.5 Creedmoor.
     
  6. hypersonic

    hypersonic Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    155
    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005


    Absosmurfly no hostility on my end. And like I stated in my first post the only numbers I have seen are what has been published by Hornady in advertisements in shooting mags. The fine print with a * denotes figures taken from a 28" barrel. Now being an owner of a .260 and also being an owner of a cronograph and shooting both 120 and 140 grain bullets from a 22" barrel and having velocity numbers very close to published numbers for the Creedmore I would have to say I might just have a slight idea of what I am talking about whit real world data with the .260 Rem.

    I can't for the life of me see where I was negative in posting my real world experence with the 260 Rem versus what I have seen so far for the Creedmore with published numbers. Put a 28" tube on a 260 rem and stoke it with a slower burning powder like IMR-7828 or H-1000 ( which by the way work very well in a 22" barrel) and you have a whole different animal. What you have to understand is that the Creedmore is purpose built for the target shooting crowd for out to about 600 yards or so. The 260 rem was brought around from the 6.5-308 for the hunting crowd the 6.5-308 was a wildcat for long range stuff and does hold it's own out to 1000 yards with the likes of the 300 win mag.


    Nice looking has pretty much nothing to to do with real world performance and in a comparison with case volumes and the same barrel length ( random thought off the top of my head) the Creedmore is behind the 260 when the optimum powder burn rates are chosen for both. If both use the same burn rate powder say H-4350 for example the difference will be less but will still advantage the 260 Rem due to more case capacity.

    And not to be short, abrupt or rude on my end but you should avail yourself to getting one of said cartridges in a rifle and shoot it and decide for yourself if it has merit. Reminds me of the 270/280 debate that has been going on for about 50 years or so. Both are similar both have a following. I have had both and I chose the 280 over the 270. Well it was not to be different I will tell you that. 7MM offered more choice in high BC bullets and provided better ballistics with slow powders over the 270 ( though things are changing for high BC .277 bullets) I won't offer my personal opinion on the 280 but needless to say it has performed better for me than a .270 hence no 270's round here.


    I have no desire to see the Creed killed that would be a back step at a time when we as hunters and shooters are on soft ground as it is. The more choices we have the better but in the same token we also must have all the information we can get either good or bad to make a decision on what cartridge will fill our requirements best.
     
  7. jeffersonv

    jeffersonv Active Member

    Messages:
    40
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2005
    I'm with you there Hyper, the more choices the better.

    Though I don't technically own a .260 or a Creedmore, I am building one as we speak. (or write) I haven't decided which one yet but my barrel purchase is coming up!
    I have spent some time with my neighbors .260 and love it.

    Is it your understanding that one of these cartridges outperforms the other?

    I based all of my comments on the premise that they were neck and neck performance wise. I believe the powder capacity and pressure is very similar for both.
    Correct me if I'm wrong?
    If this is the case, barrel lengths on ballistic charts should not mean much.

    I think the soft shoulder on the .260 would give it an advantage in feeding.

    I like the less tapered, sharper shouldered case design (I concede I might be a little funny that way) of the Creedmoor and as I said in my last post, since it is a little shorter it can more easily seat a longer bullet and still fit in the mag well.

    If there is something I am missing about the .260 having a performance advantage over the Creedmoor, please clue me in!!!
     
  8. hypersonic

    hypersonic Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    155
    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Well basing what I had posted on the 260 from a 22" barrel and having acheived numbers very close to what Hornady is advertising with a 28" barrel. I would have to say that I am loosing potential velocity with a barrel 6" shorter. I of course am not going to go to a 28" barrel to prove anything one way or the other. Now I would go 26" and probably will do so in the near future to take advantage of slower powders like H-1000 and IMR-7828 and the sustained pressure curves they provide versus H-4350 or similar burn rate powders. I can't quite remember what the psi spec on the Creed was but I think it was under 60,000 psi from an article I had read. I have no idea what the 260 is at but the 7-08 is sammi at 61,000 and the 308 is 62,000 so I would guess that it would be at least 60,000 or a bit more.

    My understanding of performance advantage or disadvantage is measuring velocity from two platforms the same with the same barrel length one chambered in 260 and one in creedmore with different powders bullets and so on.

    I feel the advantage the 260 should have over the Creedmore is the ability to use powders slower than H-4350 and even H-4831 The Creedmore perhaps might work ok with H-4831 or a powder of similar burn rate but one of the slow boys like posted above I think is a no go. Plus if you have a 260 and run out of brass and can't find 260 brass you can reform 243 or 7-08 or even 308 yes you will have to do some neck turning if you have tight tolerances but that is part and parcel for any rifle built tight to get every bit of accuracy that can be had.

    I am more than pleased with the 260 and can't fathom bulding something that is so similar that migh be problematic to get brass for in a pinch. Factory ammo for the 260 sucks no arguement with me on that one, so the Creedmore is one up in that department.

    When it is all said and done you are going to build what you like and what suits you best perhaps the Creedmore will surpass the 260 which wont be much of a feat with solid support from Hornady unlike Remmy who have let the 260 wither on the vine as they have done with other good cartridges. Time will tell.
     
  9. jeffersonv

    jeffersonv Active Member

    Messages:
    40
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2005
    Except for the fact that factory loaded ammo from Hornady is charged with H-4350? C'mon, give it a chance! I think it has a lot to offer, as does the .260.
     
  10. hypersonic

    hypersonic Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    155
    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    I am not condeming the cartrige in the least, you asked questions about potetintal advantage the 260 would have over the Creedmore.


    "If there is something I am missing about the .260 having a performance advantage over the Creedmoor, please clue me in!!!"

    Exactly your words from a previous post. I replied that the .260 has the ability to use slower powders that can take advantage of a longer barrel. Well now the factory ammo from Hornady is loaded with H-4350!!!!! and I and many others have been able to match or come very close to the Creedmore numbers with shorter barrels that advertised by Hornady in their ad's with H-4350 also with H-4831. I did not praise or condem the Creedmore! I only gave my experience with the 260 cartridge and I have shot it a lot and have taken a lot of game with it. I am not going to go on about what I think anymore about comparing the two cartridges as from reading your last post it is a waste of my time. I provided information from experience with one cartridge to the orignal poster of this tread, and as of right now any thing else is mute null and void. I have Deer to skin and If I could figure out how to post a picture I would.

    Guy M if you decide to go with the 260 Rem and would like any load info please drop me a pm and I will be more than happy to send you all the data I have from 100 grain bullets up to 140 grain bullets.
     
  11. SPR1

    SPR1 Active Member

    Messages:
    28
    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2007
    Ruger is going to make their target model in 6.5 Creedmor.
    Also, all of these 6.5's might take another step up with Reloader 17......
     
  12. CapDog

    CapDog Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    207
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Can't speak the the Creedmor, but I did have a Rem LTR rebarrelled with a Rock barrel and chambered in .260AI. With a 24" 1-8" twist I can drive 130gr VLD's to 3000fps without any issues using H4350. I ran out of case capacity with H4831 before pressure signs and speeds were down around 2800fps.

    It is a fantastic rifle that shoots a few rounds very well. Used it on a 4x4 mulie two days ago. Distance was only 350 yards, but the 130gr Berger hit the last rib on the way in, liquified the lungs and some other undentifieable parts inside and lodged up under the hide by the far side shoulder. The deer didn't move or twitch, dropped right there.

    The only thing I don't like is the Beger has to be seated out so far it is a single feed deal. The 142gr MK's look promising though and they are mag feedable.
     
  13. hypersonic

    hypersonic Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    155
    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Interesting Hopefully we will be able to see some data soon with RL-17 and some of the 6.5's it is supposed to be similar in burn rate to IMR 4350 from what I have read and was introduced with the short mags in mind. Not saying it will not work but it might not provide a lot more over the other 4350's if it does excellent if it does not well that's something different.
     
  14. SPR1

    SPR1 Active Member

    Messages:
    28
    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2007