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
Thinking of going 6.5 PRC thoughts
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="Iclimb" data-source="post: 1461726" data-attributes="member: 70322"><p>"Remington screwed up"</p><p></p><p>Chalk that one up on the big board...about the umptenth time...screwed up again when they didn't standardize the 6.5 SAUM and offer a bit of a facelift to the company! How many years did it take them to jump on the creedmoor wagon?</p><p></p><p>You can lead a horse to water....</p><p></p><p>So that twist rate is what I expected and supports the point (that was recently revealed to me hence my harkening back to it) assuming the cartridge was accepted and supported for so many years and fast forward to today. There would be so many rifles out there in this slow twist, ammo would be built with lightweight offerings that worked with slow twists. rifles would be built unable to shoot the new heavy high bc bullets because of the ammo offerings and the ammo manufacturers would be pigeonholed. We'd never see heavy for caliber offerings because the fear of them being used in thes "old rifles" </p><p>So outcomes a "new caliber" and while it's much the same...it can be built with modern "ballistics advancements" in mind and standardized as such.</p><p></p><p>Hahaha if that makes sense...I can't really articulate it right now but this was something I never really thought about and while it's a bit off topic I think it's worthwhile to think about. </p><p></p><p>We are suffering this fate with the 22-250 and .223 & I think they prove the point. Heavy high bc bullets are starting to come out yet ammo manufacturers won't load them to take advantage more outrageous big name rifle manufacturers won't put the twist we need to even roll our own factory ammo. Actually (more on topic) the .264wm is a prime example. What a magnificent caliber! Yet f@ctory offerings are only seen with 1:9" barrels! Even makers like Montana, or the like, are only bridging the gap so to speak with calibers like the 22-250 only offering them in 1:10" twist instead of taking full advantage of the 75+ gr lineup.</p><p></p><p>Ok...I'll shut up now! Thanks guys & good luck in your decision!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Iclimb, post: 1461726, member: 70322"] “Remington screwed up” Chalk that one up on the big board...about the umptenth time...screwed up again when they didn’t standardize the 6.5 SAUM and offer a bit of a facelift to the company! How many years did it take them to jump on the creedmoor wagon? You can lead a horse to water.... So that twist rate is what I expected and supports the point (that was recently revealed to me hence my harkening back to it) assuming the cartridge was accepted and supported for so many years and fast forward to today. There would be so many rifles out there in this slow twist, ammo would be built with lightweight offerings that worked with slow twists. rifles would be built unable to shoot the new heavy high bc bullets because of the ammo offerings and the ammo manufacturers would be pigeonholed. We’d never see heavy for caliber offerings because the fear of them being used in thes “old rifles” So outcomes a “new caliber” and while it’s much the same...it can be built with modern “ballistics advancements” in mind and standardized as such. Hahaha if that makes sense...I can’t really articulate it right now but this was something I never really thought about and while it’s a bit off topic I think it’s worthwhile to think about. We are suffering this fate with the 22-250 and .223 & I think they prove the point. Heavy high bc bullets are starting to come out yet ammo manufacturers won’t load them to take advantage more outrageous big name rifle manufacturers won’t put the twist we need to even roll our own factory ammo. Actually (more on topic) the .264wm is a prime example. What a magnificent caliber! Yet f@ctory offerings are only seen with 1:9” barrels! Even makers like Montana, or the like, are only bridging the gap so to speak with calibers like the 22-250 only offering them in 1:10” twist instead of taking full advantage of the 75+ gr lineup. Ok...I’ll shut up now! Thanks guys & good luck in your decision! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Thinking of going 6.5 PRC thoughts
Top