Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
6.5 creedmore vrs 260 rem
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Mike 338" data-source="post: 1282003" data-attributes="member: 41338"><p>Naw, I'm sure somebody has though. I just started seriously messing around with it. Soon to start messing around with seating depth and then I'll start legging it out provided I can get through the snow. Might need showshoes. </p><p></p><p>At 1200ish with any of those calibers, your gett'in around the transconic effect. Now folks shoot well beyond that with fairly reliable results but at those ranges, there's so much about a shot that is not related to whether or not you can push the bullet 65 fps faster, that again, if 1200 is your primary focus, you'd be better focused on burning a bunch more powder to get the speeds well up there. Me... I mostly drive my vehicle between 0 and 75 and that's where the work gets done. Not say'in the '47's are better. Just say'in it's pretty good and a bunch of those PRS guys seem to think so as well. Of course firstly, those guys are a lot better than me. Then there's the fact that they tend to have very good equipment and the time and resources to practice the way that improves their performance so comparing them to me is really not getting us anywhere but I guess my point is that they wouldn't even go near the 6.5x47 if it was a goofy choice or didn't at least give them a good shot to compete. Me... I just kinda like it. The biggest problem with the '47 is the name. If they called it Fuzzy Bunny Killer, then it would be all the rage. Instead it's this this weird metric thing that we avoid like a durse of the clap. We should probably not let that cloud our judgement though. There's something to be said for reliable, repeatable results that don't break down the shooter through recoil or confidence. Truly, the only way to know anything is to try it. I tend to avoid AI's just cause of the additional work. You can actually add so many steps to your reloading that it's no longer fun.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mike 338, post: 1282003, member: 41338"] Naw, I'm sure somebody has though. I just started seriously messing around with it. Soon to start messing around with seating depth and then I'll start legging it out provided I can get through the snow. Might need showshoes. At 1200ish with any of those calibers, your gett'in around the transconic effect. Now folks shoot well beyond that with fairly reliable results but at those ranges, there's so much about a shot that is not related to whether or not you can push the bullet 65 fps faster, that again, if 1200 is your primary focus, you'd be better focused on burning a bunch more powder to get the speeds well up there. Me... I mostly drive my vehicle between 0 and 75 and that's where the work gets done. Not say'in the '47's are better. Just say'in it's pretty good and a bunch of those PRS guys seem to think so as well. Of course firstly, those guys are a lot better than me. Then there's the fact that they tend to have very good equipment and the time and resources to practice the way that improves their performance so comparing them to me is really not getting us anywhere but I guess my point is that they wouldn't even go near the 6.5x47 if it was a goofy choice or didn't at least give them a good shot to compete. Me... I just kinda like it. The biggest problem with the '47 is the name. If they called it Fuzzy Bunny Killer, then it would be all the rage. Instead it's this this weird metric thing that we avoid like a durse of the clap. We should probably not let that cloud our judgement though. There's something to be said for reliable, repeatable results that don't break down the shooter through recoil or confidence. Truly, the only way to know anything is to try it. I tend to avoid AI's just cause of the additional work. You can actually add so many steps to your reloading that it's no longer fun. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
6.5 creedmore vrs 260 rem
Top