6.5 Creedmor- the Holy Grail?

[johnlittletree]

I know I am going to get a bunch of flack for posting this, but....

In a recent conversation with a friend of mine, who has a grand slam of sheep on his bedroom wall, and a super slam of the rest of the game animals in North America less a barren ground caribou, I was told during a conversation about accurate smaller caliber rounds that he has four friends, who this year each lost mature elk bulls each with a 140 grain bullet reasonable well placed from a 6.5 Creedmor.
This cartridge, to me, seems to have the ability in many of its proponents minds to be the holy grail of all cartridge designs. It is sad when common sense is put back in the gun locker when any of us take to the woods with a weapon that doesn't really fill the bill for the game we hunt, when we know we have the horsepower in the locker to do the job properly.
Elmer Keith who we all know loved the .270 Winchester. But his favorite for hunting and guiding for elk is reported to be the .375 H&H. He also loved the .338 Win Mag.
Dead is Dead, but wounded is usually also dead but with a heavy dose of suffering to go with it.
I own a .338 Win Mag and have made it a point to be able to shoot it comfortably. I also own 2 25-06's and 3 .243's. I use the latter to plink, for my grandchildren to shoot deer, and for just a fun day on the range. When the hunt is on for me and as a back up it is 7mm Rem Mag, 7mm Exact or .338 Win Mag. Common sense to see that Dead is Dead when I pull the trigger on something worth shooting.

I do not have anything against the Creedmore but it is anything but the Holy Grail! It is kind of like the 300AAC BlackOut in that it is a cartridge looking for a problem to solve. For some the 6.5 makes perfect sense as does the 6.5x47 but hunting is not it's strong suit. If you ignore the anemic loading of SAAMI standards on the 6.5x55 for example or ignore the terrible 260 brass that Remington makes the 6.5 Creedmore kind of starts to look irrelevant for hunting. I would not go out of my way to acquire or rebarrel to 6mm or 6.5 Creedmore. If you are buying new or you have a worn out barrel and need to rebarrel anyway the Creedmore's can make sense outside of just paper punching but not a Holy Grail at all! Lastly if you are talking about it on an old long action I would say it is waste of space and might present feeding issues compared to building on a short action.

This might come as a surprise to some on this forum but we have had a lot of fairly light recoiling non-magnums for the last 70 years for sure. In fact the further back you go generally the less recooil until you get into the Arms Race that was the introduction of the Spitzer bullet and smokeless powder. 30-06 SPR, 30-40 Krag, 7.62x51, .243 Win, 260 Remington, 280 Rem, 257 Roberts, 250/300 Savage, 300 Savage. 303 British, 7mm Mauser, 6.5x55 Swede all fairly light on recoil for a grown man or woman. If we are talking small stature women and youth the .243 Win, 260 Rem, 6.5x55 all pretty good the rifles weight and stock dimensions being bigger issues. On top of that they can be down loaded if you want as well.

The 6.5x47 makes the most sense in the above situation but you will likely never see it in the USA in any significant numbers or from a large OEM. Prob. 25 years ago or more I proposed a 6.5x39 as in built on the Russian Intermediate cartridge case for the SKS and it would still be a great idea. Sadly a lot of people on this sight would be disappointed and would have to do a 6.5x39AI. I also thought a 5.56 projectile based off of a 44 Rem Mag case in a revolver would have put a quick end to the Florida Bank Robbery of note due to full body armor being used. At close range a 5.56 NATO projectile fired from a revolver being pushed by a 44 Mag case would have given police rifle like velocities at close range and fit in the glove box of the police car or in a holster. I was thinking Ruger Super RedHawk with a 9.5 inch barrel etc. Likewise building it off a .30 Carbine case would also work. No one has offered an auto loader in .30 Carbine since AMT went out of business.

We all know that the Holy Grail is the 6.5 STW and 6.5x300 Weatherby! LOL Especially if you want to keep after market barrel makers in business.

 

[Tex_Hunter]

If you had a choice to use a small caliber 6.5 that you were proficient with or a magnum that you were less proficient with which would you choose? I'm somewhat recoil sensitive and find myself flinching when shooting the bigger caliber cartridges. On the other hand I feel super confident I can put it where I want it with the smaller calibers. I feel if I use the right bullet and keep my distance as short as possible I'll take my 6.5. In a perfect world I'd be less of a sissy and could shoot the big boys without flinching.

Right, I think this is the point most people are trying to make. Take the most gun that you are comfortable and confident you will be able to make a lethal shot with.

I think where most people get in trouble is that they consider any hunt a failure if they see something and don't pull the trigger. It could be as simple as making a hasty shot on an animal they ambushed at 50yds and didnt take the time to get a proper rest, or it could be sending one way the hell across a canyon in marginal conditions and stretching the limits of bullet expansion and energy rather than trying to stalk in closer.

In that same Chuck Hawks article someone quoted above he talks about how a gut shot with a 338WM might slow an elk down a little more than a gut shot with a 270 but that ignores the fact that you should never gut shoot an animal.

In all the nearly 200 replies to this thread not a single person claiming the 6.5 is undergunned for elk have provided an example (beyond anecdotal friend of a friend) of where an elk was mortally wounded by a smaller caliber and they lost the animal or had to track it way further than one that was similarly shot with a larger caliber.

For what its worth, that Chuck Hawks article is a great read.

 

[MudRunner2005]

Actually the .300 BLK solved the problem they had very well, it's obvious you've never shot a suppressed 5.56...It's still loud as holy hell. The .300 BLK was designed for suppressed subsonic use. It may not have a long effective range, but it's not supposed to. It's for very quiet close range hunting and clandestine CQB. It serves that purpose very well. With the right ammo and being integrally suppressed, it can be ****-near as quiet as a suppressed .22LR.

 

[FIGJAM]

If you had a choice to use a small caliber 6.5 that you were proficient with or a magnum that you were less proficient with which would you choose? I'm somewhat recoil sensitive and find myself flinching when shooting the bigger caliber cartridges. On the other hand I feel super confident I can put it where I want it with the smaller calibers. I feel if I use the right bullet and keep my distance as short as possible I'll take my 6.5. In a perfect world I'd be less of a sissy and could shoot the big boys without flinching.

According to some people on this site the right answer is to stick to target shooting. That would also eliminate a lot of kids from getting into elk hunting because nobody should ever hunt with anything less than a 300 magnum.

Some people say that because that is what dad or grandpa or uncle told them, or that's what they read on a website. I grew up in SE Idaho in elk country hunting since I was 12. So I guess I am one of the local guys laughing at people who roll into elk camp with a 300 win mag they can't shoot for crap. If you can shoot something bigger with accuracy and confidence great. A lot of people flinch while shooting those big calibers, most guys don't have the balls to admit it.

Reality is you shoot whatever you feel comfortable with, limit your range to those yardages that you feel comfortable shooting. I would 1000 times rather be hunting with people shooting smaller caliber guns accurately than magnums that make them flinch.

I have killed and seen a lot of elk killed with .257, 264, and .277 cal bullets.

To answer your question, you are way better off shooting that 6.5!

 

[Orange Dust]

If the Creed is the holy grail, why not the .260? Why not the 6.5-284? Certainly why not the .264 Win? One reason and one reason only, Marketing Genius. There is no other valid explanation. When messing around at home, and are willing to pass up an animal, and wait for a perfect shot, we tend to often shoot little guns for a variety of reasons. Youngest daughter shot a deer with my AR this year just because she wanted to go deer hunting and my coyote rifle was all that was at the duck club. Everything turned out fine. Is a .223 enough gun for deer? no, it is not. But it will work if the range is not too far and the shot is placed perfectly. If I lived in Colorado and could hunt elk all season I might carry a really light rifle if I had to climb a ways. If I have to pay $5-10k to shoot one you can bet all your tail feathers I will be carrying a rifle that will put him down from nearly any angle up close, and that will kill him a long ways off. It will also put a big enough hole in him that we can easily follow him if he runs off. Just my $.02, but it is worth at least what you guys paid for it.

 

[stx]

Taggin in

 

[fariswm]

So to clarify your slam friend has 4 different friends that each lost a Bull this year hit well with a 6.5CM?

Or your friend has personally lost 4 bulls with a creedmoor?

My friend has four friends who each independent of each other lost a bull this fall.

 

[Bullseye]

I get the appeal that Hornady is going for, and it's very smart. But coming from someone who thinks all factory ammo sucks, all factory bullet selections are terrible, all factory ammo is lacking in performance, and doesn't use any (other than rimfires) for any of his guns, I think there is better out there, and I see the reality of what Hornady is doing. They're trying to come up with something fancy and new that they can whore-out for hundreds of millions of dollars. The fact is, they're just reinventing the wheel. The 6.5CM was a reinvention of the .260 Remington. The 6.5 PRC was a reinvention of a wildcat, called the 6.5 SAUM. The .300 PRC was a reinvention of a wildcat called the .30-375 Ruger. They're just turning wildcats into SAAMI spec cartridges, but giving them fancy names so folks won't realize what they are doing. At least Nosler had the balls to call it what it was... The .280 Ackley Improved. Same thing it's always been called.

Creating a new product and wanting to sell it = whoring-out. Got it...

6.5 CM is reinvention of the 260 - not hardly. If the 260 didn't have a 1:9" twist, had better throat design and more room to set out long, heavy bullets the Creedmoor wouldn't have needed to be designed.

6.5 PRC is a reinvention of a wildcat called the 6.5 SAUM. Nope. Hornady already made the 6.5 SAUM cases for GA Precision. Could have simply done ammo and standardized with SAAMI but wanted the cartridge to be more commercially viable. The rebated rims are a pain to make and not as easy to get to feed in a wide variety of rifles. Absolutely common knowledge and not hidden at all.

300 PRC - yeah, Hornady first necked the 375 Ruger down right after creating the actual 375 Ruger. It lived as a wildcat for years but when the DoD was looking at something better than the 300 Norma Mag for +2k engagements, Hornady went further in to development on it. Then launched it commercially. Are you really mad they didn't call it the 30-375 Ruger? It's also been known as the 300 Boo boo and 300 HSM over the years. Had to settle on something.

You don't like factory ammo - no problem. I'm not going to change your mind. I don't care. I do care about posts that blatantly claim marketing hype and how factories "whore-out" by creating new products and wanting sales. Not enough to keep posting in this thread though.

 

[MudRunner2005]

Creating a new product and wanting to sell it = whoring-out. Got it...

6.5 CM is reinvention of the 260 - not hardly. If the 260 didn't have a 1:9" twist, had better throat design and more room to set out long, heavy bullets the Creedmoor wouldn't have needed to be designed.

6.5 PRC is a reinvention of a wildcat called the 6.5 SAUM. Nope. Hornady already made the 6.5 SAUM cases for GA Precision. Could have simply done ammo and standardized with SAAMI but wanted the cartridge to be more commercially viable. The rebated rims are a pain to make and not as easy to get to feed in a wide variety of rifles. Absolutely common knowledge and not hidden at all.

300 PRC - yeah, Hornady first necked the 375 Ruger down right after creating the actual 375 Ruger. It lived as a wildcat for years but when the DoD was looking at something better than the 300 Norma Mag for +2k engagements, Hornady went further in to development on it. Then launched it commercially. Are you really mad they didn't call it the 30-375 Ruger? It's also been known as the 300 Boo boo and 300 HSM over the years. Had to settle on something.

You don't like factory ammo - no problem. I'm not going to change your mind. I don't care. I do care about posts that blatantly claim marketing hype and how factories "whore-out" by creating new products and wanting sales. Not enough to keep posting in this thread though.

They didn't create anything new. That's my issue with it.

Yes, the 6.5CM is a reinvention of the .260 Remington. They shortened the case slightly and added a 30º shoulder. As for the heavy bullets and twist rate, it's taken companies nearly 15 years to start catching up with the times with factory offered twist rates, so that's an invalid argument. It wasn't until the last couple years did folks start offering bolt-actions in proper twists...And yet, still most companies don't. They're all playing catchup from the last 15-20 years.

Actually, I made a mistake, the 6.5 PRC is based off the RCM case, the 6.5 GAP 4S was based off the SAUM case. But the end result is ****-near identical. Either way, they are reinventing failed cartridges (the RCM and 6.5 GAP 4S). They should have just standardized the GAP, but it was already too known and had failed. They had to freshen it up a bit.

Sorry, but you'r full of crap on that one. The DOD would not be looking into a .30 caliber projectile for +2K engagements. They already have the .408 Cheytac, .416 Barrett, and the .50 BMG. They are not going to be looking into the viability of a .30 caliber projectile for anything more than 1,200-1,500 meter engagements.

 

[rustyshackleford]

and you're perpetuating what lowdowndirtybugger said about it - yet where are these Hornady advertisements? Again, please be specific. If we're lying, where is it?

It's like I said earlier all the gun rags would say the creed would duplicate the ballistics of 300 Win and cover drop and drift but conveniently leave out energy. Hornady may not have outwrite said it can duplicate the cartridge but they are making 800 yard hunting Ammo for it.

 

[Bullseye]

They didn't create anything new. That's my issue with it.

Yes, the 6.5CM is a reinvention of the .260 Remington. They shortened the case slightly and added a 30º shoulder. As for the heavy bullets and twist rate, it's taken companies nearly 15 years to start catching up with the times with factory offered twist rates, so that's an invalid argument. It wasn't until the last couple years did folks start offering bolt-actions in proper twists...And yet, still most companies don't. They're all playing catchup from the last 15-20 years.

Actually, I made a mistake, the 6.5 PRC is based off the RCM case, the 6.5 GAP 4S was based off the SAUM case. But the end result is ****-near identical. Either way, they are reinventing failed cartridges (the RCM and 6.5 GAP 4S). They should have just standardized the GAP, but it was already too known and had failed. They had to freshen it up a bit.

Sorry, but you'r full of crap on that one. The DOD would not be looking into a .30 caliber projectile for +2K engagements. They already have the .408 Cheytac, .416 Barrett, and the .50 BMG. They are not going to be looking into the viability of a .30 caliber projectile for anything more than 1,200-1,500 meter engagements.

Dude... old news. http://soldiersystems.net/2018/12/12/hornady-to-supply-300-prc-ammunition-to-us-dod/

RE 6.5 CM/260 - you've stumbled on part of the problem. The SAAMI spec has been 1:9" forever on the 260, 6.5 Rem Mag, 264 Win Mag. Tons of rifles have been chambered in that. For Hornady do start putting modern, high bc bullets in factory 260 ammo, for example, is just asking for trouble with people trying to run them in the old twists. Tech support nightmare. Let alone all there was to gain by improving the throat design and seating the bullets out. Imagine shoving a 147gr ELD M into 2.8" on a 260 to meet SAAMI spec? That's why they did the Creedmoor. It's always been spec'd at 1:8" twist. It's better for long, heavy-for-caliber projectiles and can be hand loaded or used with factory ammo. Apparently that is evil...

 

[rustyshackleford]

Creating a new product and wanting to sell it = whoring-out. Got it...

6.5 CM is reinvention of the 260 - not hardly. If the 260 didn't have a 1:9" twist, had better throat design and more room to set out long, heavy bullets the Creedmoor wouldn't have needed to be designed.

6.5 PRC is a reinvention of a wildcat called the 6.5 SAUM. Nope. Hornady already made the 6.5 SAUM cases for GA Precision. Could have simply done ammo and standardized with SAAMI but wanted the cartridge to be more commercially viable. The rebated rims are a pain to make and not as easy to get to feed in a wide variety of rifles. Absolutely common knowledge and not hidden at all.

300 PRC - yeah, Hornady first necked the 375 Ruger down right after creating the actual 375 Ruger. It lived as a wildcat for years but when the DoD was looking at something better than the 300 Norma Mag for +2k engagements, Hornady went further in to development on it. Then launched it commercially. Are you really mad they didn't call it the 30-375 Ruger? It's also been known as the 300 Boo boo and 300 HSM over the years. Had to settle on something.

You don't like factory ammo - no problem. I'm not going to change your mind. I don't care. I do care about posts that blatantly claim marketing hype and how factories "whore-out" by creating new products and wanting sales. Not enough to keep posting in this thread though.

300 Norma beats the brakes off 300 PRC and 300 Win.
Hornady has been peddling turnkey versions of old standbys to get lazy people into the sport.

 

[Bullseye]

It's like I said earlier all the gun rags would say the creed would duplicate the ballistics of 300 Win and cover drop and drift but conveniently leave out energy. Hornady may not have outwrite said it can duplicate the cartridge but they are making 800 yard hunting Ammo for it.

okay, and also developed the 6.5 PRC for those that like the benefits of the 6.5 Creedmoor but want more energy.

 

[MudRunner2005]

Dude... old news. http://soldiersystems.net/2018/12/12/hornady-to-supply-300-prc-ammunition-to-us-dod/

RE 6.5 CM/260 - you've stumbled on part of the problem. The SAAMI spec has been 1:9" forever on the 260, 6.5 Rem Mag, 264 Win Mag. Tons of rifles have been chambered in that. For Hornady do start putting modern, high bc bullets in factory 260 ammo, for example, is just asking for trouble with people trying to run them in the old twists. Tech support nightmare. Let alone all there was to gain by improving the throat design and seating the bullets out. Imagine shoving a 147gr ELD M into 2.8" on a 260 to meet SAAMI spec? That's why they did the Creedmoor. It's always been spec'd at 1:8" twist. It's better for long, heavy-for-caliber projectiles and can be hand loaded or used with factory ammo. Apparently that is evil...

Waste of taxpayer money... We already have those 3 I mentioned, so why the hell would we need a .300NM, or a .300 PRC for +2K engagements. That's just idiotic.

Yes, I've been around a long time, and am quite aware of how twist rates, bullet weights, and seating depths work... I'm also quite aware of cartridge dynamics, as I design lots of wildcats.

Twist rates only VERY slightly affect pressures...Sometimes not at all. So, how would modern twist rates affect reloading manuals for 1:9 twist barrels, other than not having load data for 1:7 or 1:8 twist barrels? The only trouble they would have, is getting it to stabilize or group with the heavy bullets.

Now, if you're talking about seating depth causing pressures issues, yes, that does. But twist rates won't affect anything enough to even quantify.