7magcreedmoor
Well-Known Member
Okay, nevermind about Santa.
The 6.5 Creedmoor vs. 260 Rem debate seems to really light some of you up. I own one and am building the other, does that make me a paragon of tolerance or a traitor to the true faith? Was the 260 designed wrong? Not at the time. Long for caliber high BC bullets had not become the rage yet, and with the common bullet shapes of the day the 260, like the 308 from whence it derived fit in M14 sized magazine boxes. Rifle makers sold twist rates that worked with the popular bullets then in use and throated just long enough to keep handloaders who wanted to run repeaters from jamming into the lands and hurting themselves if they got carried away chasing velocity. Those who wanted close jump accuracy single-loaded or built on a long action (like my 260). Shooters of average stature often found that long action bolt travel led to smacking themselves in the snout when shooting fast strings, but short actions saved them from a busted nose. I bought my first 308 for just that reason. Gramp's 3006 forced me to move my head to the side when running the bolt, and the short action solved that problem for me. Now full grown, I am just tall and long enough to run long actions while keeping the sight picture, but I am not selling off any of my "little" rifles. For those who need shorter LOP stocks and a short action to shoot fast the shorter Creedmoor case does just what Emary made it to do: seat longer high BC bullets out to the lands but inside a standard SA magazine in a repeating rifle whether bolt or self-loader. I seem to recall Tubbs creating the 6XC to solve the same issues of the 243 win but don't recall a similar ****-storm following. I say to all of you: shoot whichever you like, be it century old classic, or flavor of the week. After all, they sell plenty of chevys, fords, dodges, and even some others now.
The 6.5 Creedmoor vs. 260 Rem debate seems to really light some of you up. I own one and am building the other, does that make me a paragon of tolerance or a traitor to the true faith? Was the 260 designed wrong? Not at the time. Long for caliber high BC bullets had not become the rage yet, and with the common bullet shapes of the day the 260, like the 308 from whence it derived fit in M14 sized magazine boxes. Rifle makers sold twist rates that worked with the popular bullets then in use and throated just long enough to keep handloaders who wanted to run repeaters from jamming into the lands and hurting themselves if they got carried away chasing velocity. Those who wanted close jump accuracy single-loaded or built on a long action (like my 260). Shooters of average stature often found that long action bolt travel led to smacking themselves in the snout when shooting fast strings, but short actions saved them from a busted nose. I bought my first 308 for just that reason. Gramp's 3006 forced me to move my head to the side when running the bolt, and the short action solved that problem for me. Now full grown, I am just tall and long enough to run long actions while keeping the sight picture, but I am not selling off any of my "little" rifles. For those who need shorter LOP stocks and a short action to shoot fast the shorter Creedmoor case does just what Emary made it to do: seat longer high BC bullets out to the lands but inside a standard SA magazine in a repeating rifle whether bolt or self-loader. I seem to recall Tubbs creating the 6XC to solve the same issues of the 243 win but don't recall a similar ****-storm following. I say to all of you: shoot whichever you like, be it century old classic, or flavor of the week. After all, they sell plenty of chevys, fords, dodges, and even some others now.
