6.5 Creedmore or .308 Win. ?

[WildRose]

I emailed alliant today about RL26 load data for the 6.5 creedmore and they responded they dont have any!

I don't see data specific to the CM but here's what Hornady shows for the 260/147gr ELD-M.

https://press.hornady.com/assets/site/hornady/files/load-data/260rem147greldmatch.pdf

Your case capacity is what, about 2-3gr less?

 

[Deleted member 46119]

Oh no not again.

How did this get to 6 pages of replies in 38 hours!

 

[Deleted member 46119]

Buy both! Problem solved

Truth

 

[Barrelnut]

Berger has load data for the CM with RL26 with their 135 hybrid. They speeds they state are impressive. You can download the PDF from their site as it is not incorporated into their manual yet. Use it as a "guide" for the Hornadys.

 

[Creedmoor shooter]

Here's the berger data with rl-26. If your desiring to get every drop of velocity out of this cartridge, this is the powder for you. I started at 46 grains and worked up in .5 grain increments to 49, then ended up backing off to 48 yeilding a velocity of 2945 with 140s.

 

[Bowfishn]

The Berger data can be used to confirm your QL data if you have QL.
QL info on RL26 in a 6.5 Creedmoor seems to run hand in hand to what Bergers data revealed.

 

[coop2564]

Here's the berger data with rl-26. If your desiring to get every drop of velocity out of this cartridge, this is the powder for you. I started at 46 grains and worked up in .5 grain increments to 49, then ended up backing off to 48 yeilding a velocity of 2945 with 140s.

Thanks i have the berger manual but its not in there. This will help.

 

[brentc]

There's enough info about RL26 in the CM available to get to a good load without published data.

 

[Wanfalt1]

I owned a Creedmoor and never shot it. I have a 6.5x47 and the wife shoots a .260. All three are the most accurate rifle's I have ever witnessed. I sold my Creedmoor, didn't need another 6.5. The Creedmoor is the most accurate rifle I have ever seen out of the box. I have shot a lot in the .308 prior to the super high ballistic coefficient bullets. Having said that they kick! The 6.5 kills what it hits. If you are double tough buy a .308 if not go with the 6.5 it takes so much math out!

 

[Greyfox]

I've been a big fan of the 308 for decades and have probabley put more rounds for hunting and competition down the tube of my 308's then all my other rifles combined(excepting my 22RF's). Having acquired a 6.5CM a couple of years ago, I would have to choose this round over the 308 for equivalent purposes. IMO, the 6.5CM delivers better ballistics, equal/better accuracy, and case life, with lower recoil. Within the 500-700 yard range limit that I would use these cartridges to hunt medium sized game, they give comparable terminal performance. The superior ballistics of the 6.5CM is noticeable in the PRS competition that I participate in.

 

[Rich Coyle]

I wonder if the anti Creedmoor guys also are anti .223. Years ago it received the same kind of hype.

 

[MudRunner2005]

I wonder if the anti Creedmoor guys also are anti .223. Years ago it received the same kind of hype.

I'm not adverse to it, I do own a a few AR platform rifles in 5.56, but it's not one of my favorite cartridges by any stretch.

 

[okie man]

I'd have too say the 223 is my favorite caliber of all. From teaching me the art of reloading, shooting and hunting predators,Varmint and targets.

 

[TackDriv3r]

This is just a guide, its not a reloading manual, just to show how much case fill, speeds, charge, etc. Speed is not actual without tweaking H20 case fill and burn rate to match velocity, but with your chrono / charge data, it can be done. By the looks of it, RL-26 would fill up that case fast

Geez, I don't know how to use the code for a better view. Hopefully someone does.


Cartridge : 6.5 Creedmoor Hornady
Bullet : .264, 142, Nosler AccuBond LR 58922 G7
Useable Case Capaci: 46.178 grain H2O = 2.998 cm³
Cartridge O.A.L. L6: 2.800 inch = 71.12 mm
Barrel Length : 24.0 inch = 609.6 mm
Powder : Alliant Reloder-26

Predicted data by increasing and decreasing the given charge,
incremented in steps of 2.0% of nominal charge.
CAUTION: Figures exceed maximum and minimum recommended loads !

Step Fill. Charge Vel. Energy Pmax Pmuz Prop.Burnt B_Time
% % Grains fps ft.lbs psi psi % ms

-20.0 80 36.80 2147 1454 24643 8451 89.7 1.765
-18.0 82 37.72 2207 1536 26340 8758 91.3 1.717
-16.0 84 38.64 2268 1622 28168 9052 92.8 1.670
-14.0 86 39.56 2329 1710 30137 9330 94.2 1.625
-12.0 88 40.48 2390 1802 32259 9591 95.5 1.580
-10.0 90 41.40 2452 1896 34551 9832 96.6 1.537
-08.0 92 42.32 2514 1992 37027 10052 97.5 1.494
-06.0 94 43.24 2575 2091 39706 10249 98.3 1.445
-04.0 97 44.16 2637 2192 42607 10422 99.0 1.398
-02.0 99 45.08 2698 2296 45755 10568 99.5 1.352
+00.0 101 46.00 2759 2401 49175 10686 99.8 1.308
+02.0 103 46.92 2820 2508 52895 10776 100.0 1.265
+04.0 105 47.84 2881 2616 56953 10837 100.0 1.224 ! Near Maximum !
+06.0 107 48.76 2941 2726 61384 10890 100.0 1.184 ! Near Maximum !
+08.0 109 49.68 3000 2838 66231 10938 100.0 1.145 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+10.0 111 50.60 3059 2951 71554 10981 100.0 1.108 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!

Results caused by ± 10% powder lot-to-lot burning rate variation using nominal charge
Data for burning rate increased by 10% relative to nominal value:
+Ba 101 46.00 2908 2666 62392 10149 100.0 1.191 !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
Data for burning rate decreased by 10% relative to nominal value:
-Ba 101 46.00 2539 2032 38643 10551 94.0 1.459