Ok I am not a big fan of the 6.5 Creedmore

Status
Not open for further replies.
BLK said:
I just cannot get excited as some people seem to be about the 6.5 creedmore. I have never been a real fan of the 243 either. I am speaking specifically about using these calibers at 4-500 plus yards. I think a heavier bullet and a bigger diameter is in order for long range shots on elk, moose, bear especially. Whitetail deer ok I guess but the wound channel may not be effective on marginal hit. Just my two cents. How do you other long range hunters feel about this?
Click to expand...
You won't find anyone hunting moose elk or bear with a 243 the 243 is a great caliber for what it is intended for and is good for game up to deer size animals and devastating on coyote and other smaller animals for which it is intended.
 
I don't like the 6.5 Creedmoore for a very different reason. My buddy told me I should look into one. So, I went to look at the one. I decided it wasn't for me. But while looking, I fell in love with the Kimber Mountain Ascent. So I spent 1500 bucks on another 300 WSM that I didn't need! Darn 6.5 Creedmoore!
 
Had I not built a .260 or 6.5-284 years before the Creedmoor arrived in the scene, I still would have picked the best cartridge for the job. I'm no competition shooter, only hunter. Long range hunting is attractive to me. There are a few better cartridges for that job than the 6.5 Creedmoor. It fits the bill of course but certainly not at the very top of the list. For a shooter wanting or needing loaded ammo, it's a great choice cartridge for the non reloader. Offers many more options than the .260. Mostly thru Hornady but still loaded and available in many bullet options. As a hunting cartridge and not necessarily a LR one, the 270 offers many more bullet, load options over the counter. Unfortunately not any match bullet options rather than possibly delving into what BC potential could be developed. Every year it seems the .224, .264, .284, .308 and 338 bullets best what is already on the shelf in coefficient numbers. The .277 just sits there with no push to better what's been in the market for decades. I'd list the .270 as my favorite short range ( 50-250 yards) woods gun. With 130s it never exits and I always recover the entire bullet just under the off side hide. Doesn't have a fancy name, just the .270 win. Sorry off topic from the OPs thread.
 
Lonnie Pendleton said:
You won't find anyone hunting moose elk or bear with a 243 the 243 is a great caliber for what it is intended for and is good for game up to deer size animals and devastating on coyote and other smaller animals for which it is intended.
Click to expand...

We have taken 2 nice black bears with a 243 - black bears aren't that tough. Both one shot done at around 300 yards. I would shoot an elk with a 243 within 300 yards without thinking twice. I don't have any experience with moose, I have heard that even though they are bigger than elk they aren't as hard to kill - I don't know tho...
 
BLK said:
I just cannot get excited as some people seem to be about the 6.5 creedmore. I have never been a real fan of the 243 either. I am speaking specifically about using these calibers at 4-500 plus yards. I think a heavier bullet and a bigger diameter is in order for long range shots on elk, moose, bear especially. Whitetail deer ok I guess but the wound channel may not be effective on marginal hit. Just my two cents. How do you other long range hunters feel about this?
Click to expand...
The 6.5 was designed to shoot paper at 1000 yds an improved 250 Savage 243 was designed for Coyotes and deer at 4 to 500 yds When the 243 came out the sniper hunting was not a trend I built my 300 win mag in 69 with the thought of what would have enough downrange energy to take down an elk at 400 yds with the bullets of that day We have made huge jumps bullet design but down range energy is what brings down game animals!
 
VLD Pilot said:
Had I not built a .260 or 6.5-284 years before the Creedmoor arrived in the scene, I still would have picked the best cartridge for the job. I'm no competition shooter, only hunter. Long range hunting is attractive to me. There are a few better cartridges for that job than the 6.5 Creedmoor. It fits the bill of course but certainly not at the very top of the list. For a shooter wanting or needing loaded ammo, it's a great choice cartridge for the non reloader. Offers many more options than the .260. Mostly thru Hornady but still loaded and available in many bullet options. As a hunting cartridge and not necessarily a LR one, the 270 offers many more bullet, load options over the counter. Unfortunately not any match bullet options rather than possibly delving into what BC potential could be developed. Every year it seems the .224, .264, .284, .308 and 338 bullets best what is already on the shelf in coefficient numbers. The .277 just sits there with no push to better what's been in the market for decades. I'd list the .270 as my favorite short range ( 50-250 yards) woods gun. With 130s it never exits and I always recover the entire bullet just under the off side hide. Doesn't have a fancy name, just the .270 win. Sorry off topic from the OPs thread.
Click to expand...
Its bigger brother the 270wsm is a pretty awesome long range round.
 
VLD Pilot said:
Had I not built a .260 or 6.5-284 years before the Creedmoor arrived in the scene, I still would have picked the best cartridge for the job. I'm no competition shooter, only hunter. Long range hunting is attractive to me. There are a few better cartridges for that job than the 6.5 Creedmoor. It fits the bill of course but certainly not at the very top of the list. For a shooter wanting or needing loaded ammo, it's a great choice cartridge for the non reloader. Offers many more options than the .260. Mostly thru Hornady but still loaded and available in many bullet options. As a hunting cartridge and not necessarily a LR one, the 270 offers many more bullet, load options over the counter. Unfortunately not any match bullet options rather than possibly delving into what BC potential could be developed. Every year it seems the .224, .264, .284, .308 and 338 bullets best what is already on the shelf in coefficient numbers. The .277 just sits there with no push to better what's been in the market for decades. I'd list the .270 as my favorite short range ( 50-250 yards) woods gun. With 130s it never exits and I always recover the entire bullet just under the off side hide. Doesn't have a fancy name, just the .270 win. Sorry off topic from the OPs thread.
Click to expand...
I couldn't agree with you more about them sitting on their thumbs when it comes to the.277 caliber. I love the 270 Win. 270 WSM. if they would do some redesigns of the bullets they would definitely stand out.
 
The 243 is primarily a varmint gun i think most will agree on that i have a Howa 1500 in 243 and really like it but i would leave it home on a elk moose or bear hunt and break out a 300 win mag or 7 mag instead.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
Part II of,,, Ok I am not a big fan of the 6.5 Creedmore
Replies
0
Views
580
Don A Parsons
D
Ross1147
ELD X shape, not a fan?
2
Replies
20
Views
6K
Ross1147
Ross1147
D
StaBall 6.5 and the Creedmore.
Replies
13
Views
3K
Grey Goast
G
bubbadad
I am officaly a doganator
Replies
7
Views
2K
bubbadad
bubbadad
E
scope not tracking? Am I going crazy?
Replies
7
Views
3K
EXPRESS
E

Recent Posts

Top