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
6.5-284 or 6.5 Creedmoor
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="johnnyk" data-source="post: 1405812" data-attributes="member: 307"><p>Perfect analogy. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> 6.5 Creedmoor is a good cartridge. Well thought out, and put out there when it seemed like a lot more folks were trying to get in to LR. Perfect example of marketing success at it's best.</p><p>It has a lot of "good" features but really when you scrutinize it, you are only splitting hairs.</p><p></p><p>Short action: I've heard/read that it "fits" a short action better than a .243 and .260, or that it handles the VLD bullets more efficiently by not taking up powder space. OK, so what. It's not like we're still in the Great Depression! Still marginal performance compared to 6.5-284.</p><p></p><p>The 6.5-284 does what it does best through a long action. Too long and heavy? GImme a break. You're not quail hunting with the thing and you should have enough testosterone to be able to handle a 10lb rifle.</p><p></p><p>6.5-284 uses more powder? Of course it does but a newbie would be fooled if they picked up Hornady's 9th Reloading addition (CM marketing) which was biased toward the 6.5 CM. With 140gn bullets the 6.5-284 only uses about 4-5gn more powder than the CM. Oh, I forgot their 6.5-284 Norma test rifle had a short chamber, or some bull-crap like that. Definitely not a apples to apples comparison and is in no way real world.</p><p></p><p>CM is cheaper? Same bullets. Really only approximately 10gn difference (7000gn = 1lb). Brass, scratch Hornady. Junk. Lapua makes brass for both. It and Norma are the only two, within reason, that can stand up to the performance levels when pushed. Maybe Winchester, but that's another problem in the making, with lots of culling involved. I've personally shot 6.5-284 Lapua brass 9 times and gave it to a buddy who is still cranking on it. My loads were never mild with them either, 3000-3200fps, depending whether I was spinning 147's or 120's. </p><p></p><p>Pick whichever one tickles your fancy and meets your requirements best. I like the performance of the 6.5-284 Norma, but I also shoot the .300WinMag (A LOT!) and a .270Allen Magnum (talk about performance!) Life is short! <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> JohnnyK.</p><p></p><p>P.S. Probably more hairs to split but I've got to go calibrate some scales.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="johnnyk, post: 1405812, member: 307"] Perfect analogy. :) 6.5 Creedmoor is a good cartridge. Well thought out, and put out there when it seemed like a lot more folks were trying to get in to LR. Perfect example of marketing success at it's best. It has a lot of "good" features but really when you scrutinize it, you are only splitting hairs. Short action: I've heard/read that it "fits" a short action better than a .243 and .260, or that it handles the VLD bullets more efficiently by not taking up powder space. OK, so what. It's not like we're still in the Great Depression! Still marginal performance compared to 6.5-284. The 6.5-284 does what it does best through a long action. Too long and heavy? GImme a break. You're not quail hunting with the thing and you should have enough testosterone to be able to handle a 10lb rifle. 6.5-284 uses more powder? Of course it does but a newbie would be fooled if they picked up Hornady's 9th Reloading addition (CM marketing) which was biased toward the 6.5 CM. With 140gn bullets the 6.5-284 only uses about 4-5gn more powder than the CM. Oh, I forgot their 6.5-284 Norma test rifle had a short chamber, or some bull-crap like that. Definitely not a apples to apples comparison and is in no way real world. CM is cheaper? Same bullets. Really only approximately 10gn difference (7000gn = 1lb). Brass, scratch Hornady. Junk. Lapua makes brass for both. It and Norma are the only two, within reason, that can stand up to the performance levels when pushed. Maybe Winchester, but that's another problem in the making, with lots of culling involved. I've personally shot 6.5-284 Lapua brass 9 times and gave it to a buddy who is still cranking on it. My loads were never mild with them either, 3000-3200fps, depending whether I was spinning 147's or 120's. Pick whichever one tickles your fancy and meets your requirements best. I like the performance of the 6.5-284 Norma, but I also shoot the .300WinMag (A LOT!) and a .270Allen Magnum (talk about performance!) Life is short! :) JohnnyK. P.S. Probably more hairs to split but I've got to go calibrate some scales. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
6.5-284 or 6.5 Creedmoor
Top