• If you are being asked to change your password, and unsure how to do it, follow these instructions. Click here

Hornady 9th Edition

johnnyk

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2001
Messages
2,441
Location
Potters Hill, NC
I got this manual for Christmas and it has bugged me since then. I'm gonna climb up on my soapbox and I don't intend to offend anyone but Hornady, so try to let most of this roll off your back, so to speak.
First off is the cover, which their darling little 6.5 Creedmoor graces. I could have let this go until I dug deeper.
Being a 6.5-284 fan, that's the first place I went. Disappointment set in shortly after getting there. I feel like they did not give the round a fair enough shake and do it justice. The first paragraph seems intended to turn the average Joe shooter away from this cartridge toward another that's available in a factory rifle. (maybe another 6.5, like say their Creedmoor) Their "scapegoat" is that their test rifle had a very short throat and a short barrel. Everyone knows what a "very short throat" does to a cartridge. Especially one that uses long-for caliber bullets. Just look at the life of the parent .284 Winchester. If it initially had come out in a bolt gun, instead of a clip fed semi-auto and lever action, it would more than likely be more popular than it is now. Who knows. Bad marketing on Winchesters part.
Then the reloading data, that's a joke. 2700fps with a 140gn bullet! Flip back to the 6.5 CM and it's pushing that 140gn 2725fps. Not much of a difference to a seasoned shooter but to the newbies, IT'S FASTER! In the CM's write up (if you believe that) it's better than the .260 Rem and 6.5-284.
This my friends is bullship marketing at its best, BUT it's working 'cause there are a lot of them leaving the shelves.
I have a friend, right now, who has a Hornady 6.5 Creedmoor case stuck in his stock Savage chamber because he was trying to make his CM keep up with my 6.5-284. Head separated. That 's not Hornady's fault, or is it? Their manual says the CM is faster that the 6.5-284! So in real world it should be, right?
All this to say, the 6.5 Creedmoor is a nice little cartridge but in similar rifles it will not generate the velocity the 6.5-284 Norma does. If they had just given the 6.5-284 its due, I wouldn't be taking exception to their erroneous reloading manual. I understand though, bottom line, if they told the truth they wouldn't sell as many rifles. Rant over and I'm jumping down. :) JohnnyK.
 
I challenge you to find book data for the 6.5-284 in ANY manual that reflects anything close to real world numbers. Ditto the .264 WM. Same situation exists for 6.5x55 and 7x57 in modern rifles, but for different reasons.

The bottom line is, there are a number of cartridges out there that are a waste of time for anyone but an experienced handloader. Many such cartridges are poorly supported by reloading data. If a given shooter is not comfortable working up their own data, then they have no business mucking around with such cartridges.

Generating data for publication is an expensive undertaking. Hornady took the 6.5 Creedmoor from concept to SAAMI certification. Naturally, they will have better data for it than for a cartridge they did not develop. Expecting Hornady,or anyone else, to produce data for the 6.5-284 (which has been a niche cartridge for most of its life, with countless chamber variations among competition shooters) as comprehensive as data for more standardized commercial cartridges is nothing short of delusional.

To put it mildly, your friend is behaving foolishly and should consider himself fortunate that a stuck case was the only penalty for poor reasoning, poor research, and bad judgement. None of that is Hornady's fault. Such idiocy is the reason the industry has to cover its *** in the first place.
 
"I challenge you to find book data for the 6.5-284 in ANY manual that reflects anything close to real world numbers." Nosler #6 shows the 6.5-284 with 140gn at 2953. That's real world. I wasn't ranting about any and all cartridges, just the the 6.5-284. Looks like they've intentionally downloaded the round by 4-6 gns of powder.

"Naturally, they will have better data for it than for a cartridge they did not develop." Marketing Hype. Throw it out there on it's on merit's, if it makes it, it makes it but don't lie and build it up to be something it's not.

"Expecting Hornady,or anyone else, to produce data for the 6.5-284 (which has been a niche cartridge for most of its life, with countless chamber variations among competition shooters) as comprehensive as data for more standardized commercial cartridges is nothing short of delusional." Why shouldn't the public expect comprehensive data on any cartridge THEY list? Of the twelve (12) 6.5 calibers that Hornady has "undertaken" and listed, the little ole 6.5 Creedmoor ballistically beats all but three (03).

In 1999, Norma submitted it to CIP. It has since been standardized as the 6.5mm-284 Norma.

Marketing Hype. YOU812. JohnnyK :)
 
I am fully aware that Norma standardized the 6.5-284 data under CIP standards, which are accepted in EUROPE. The existence of the CIP standard does not erase decades worth of chambers cut before the CIP standard existed. A simple comparison of COAL between Norma specs and that listed in the Hornady manual should tell you something about which version the data applies to.

My challenge regarding the loading data still stands. You didn't produce loading data for the 6.5-284 from any American manufacturer that comes anywhere close to real world results because you can't.

Five minutes of research would have told both you and your friend that you are nuts to believe that a cartridge with a case capacity of around 52 grains should be faster than one, using the same bullet, with a capacity of 66 grains.

The problem is NOT with Hornady data. The problems are faulty reasoning and sloppy reloading practices on the part of the user. If either one of you had two synapses to rub together, you would be re-evaluating your thought processes and counting your blessings, rather than complaining about reloading data.

You are both shining examples of what NOT to do.
 
I checked this out today for myself at the LGS... as I have Hornadys 8th not 9th.
They used a VERY short throated Encore barrel... at 24 inches... at least, that's what is mentioned.... and they admitted it.

Why did they use a short throated break action barrel, and not a test action like they normally would? I can't see any real reason, short of making the 6.5CM shine, but the folks that reload for the 6.5-284 KNOW better than what they have listed.
 
Anytime a specific firearm is listed in a reloading manual a strain gauge is glued to the barrel. It states this in the front of the Hornady manual and this is just one of the reasons the data is conservative.

If you don't like the Hornady manual then buy a Sierra manual, they use a Savage 12VSS with a 26 inch barrel and get 200 more fps.

I myself prefer the caliber Jack O'Conner loved best, the .270 Winchester which is the worlds best non-belted magnum. :D
 
"A simple comparison of COAL between Norma specs and that listed in the Hornady manual should tell you something about which version the data applies to." I did compare them, it's clear to me Hornady didn't want to use the Norma version for some reason.

"My challenge regarding the loading data still stands. You didn't produce loading data for the 6.5-284 from any American manufacturer that comes anywhere close to real world results because you can't."
As far as I'm concerned your challenge was met. 2950fps from a 140gn bullet is realistic from a 6.5-284Norma and Nosler is very American.

"Five minutes of research would have told both you and your friend that you are nuts to believe that a cartridge with a case capacity of around 52 grains should be faster than one, using the same bullet, with a capacity of 66 grains." 6.5-284 Norma is 68.33 grains of water and I wasn't part of his load development/reloading. I know, as I stated, the CM will never keep up with the Norma. I never encouraged him in any way to push his equipment to the limits he did.

"The problem is NOT with Hornady data." Yes it is. It's what the original post was about! It's marketing hype.

"The problems are faulty reasoning and sloppy reloading practices on the part of the user. If either one of you had two synapses to rub together, you would be re-evaluating your thought processes and counting your blessings, rather than complaining about reloading data." My my, quite bloated, aren't we? I've been reloading for over 30 years, don't preach to me. I didn't ask for your opinion and I **** sure don't need your flatulence.

"You are both shining examples of what NOT to do."
........................./´¯/)
......................,/¯..//
...................../..../ /
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´(..´......,~/'...')
.........\.................\/..../
..........''...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(
..............\.............\
 
johnnyk

Remind me to not buy you a Christmas gift!

Your the type of guy who would bitch if they hung you with a new rope. :D

But you like it when your Dr. gives you a finger wave. :rolleyes:


........................./´¯/)
......................,/¯..//
...................../..../ /
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´(..´......,~/'...')
.........\.................\/..../
..........''...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(
..............\.............\
 
Warning! This thread is more than 9 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.
Top