Best short barreled 6.5 caliber??

[FEENIX]

I have reopened the idea about making it a 6.5creedmoor. I saw a video by the DMR guys and they are pushing the 18" 6.5 creedmoors pretty fast. I think the creedmoor may be the ticket. If, and that's a big if, i can hit 2700fps out of my desired 20" barrel then that will get me to where I want to be for ME and fps at distance. After reading several other forums and posts from others on here, I think it might be possible to achieve. I think I may try it.

I say go for it!

 

[Rflshootr]

260 Remington?

+1 on the 260 Rem

 

[Aoudad shooter1975]

1. The 6.5 Grendel was developed as a better alternative to the 5.56 NATO round, and it is. But what it is NOT is a big game cartridge.

2. "Short Barrels" on hunting rifles don't make much sense to me unless you absolutely must put a can on the barrel. Why lose muzzle velocity/energy for a tiny bit of ease in handling the rifle?
So go with at least a 22" barrel for most 6.5 cartridges and preferably a 24" barrel for optimum velocity and handling ease.

If 2" more barrel length makes the rifle "too heavy" then you better hit the gym 3 times a week Bucky.

Eric B.

I could not agree less...I did have a bullet failure with a 130 grain berger out of a Grendel but that was not the cartridge fault.i have killed maybe 8 whitetail deer, 40 hogs, 2 axis, one Aoudad ewe, 7 coyotes, and exactly 1 backbuck with a 6.5 Grendel--and if ranges are kept sane (under 300 yards)and bullets kept at 100-120 grains no problems with game 250lbs and under.

I love the way a rifle handles witha barrel 22 inches or less..both with a can--and on a pack.

Ed

 

[SealT5]

You don't need to hot rod the 6.5 bullets. I dropped the Gemsbok in my photo with a 123amax at 2750fps. Countless deer, hogs, varmints, and one free range chicken. Never had to track a single animal. Bang flop. Here are velocities I and my partner have gotten from short 6.5x47L Rifles.

Bartlein 1-9 16.5" suppressed
130 HVLD 2600fps varget
123 AMAX 2750 varget

Bartlein 1-8 16.5" suppressed
130 HVLD 2625fps varget
123 AMAX 2775fps varget

Brux 1-8 16.5" suppressed
Same as barrel 2

3 Diff Brux 1-8 22"
140 Hybrid 2750fps h4350
130 OTM 2825fps varget
130 OTM 2950fps RL16

 

[whitetail regulator]

12.5" 6.5 Grendel pistol...love it...my go to rig for 500 yrds and in...I get 2375 FPS with a factory Hornady 123sst suppressed. Faxon 5r barrel, single digit es and sd... faxon is awesome

 

[whitetail regulator]

Or buy a Kimber hunter in 6.5 creed cut and thread the barrel at 16-20"....I did this with a 308 cut at 16"...7 1/4 lbs scoped and suppressed....if I didn't shoot subsonics I would have tried the creed...I heard others have got good velocity from 16" creedmoor

 

[yorke-1]

Also, I never said anything about a fireball of unburnt powder at the muzzle...Or the amount of muzzle blast it would have due to the shorter barrel. I just said he would be blowing a bunch of unburnt powder out of the muzzle, which his a waste...Which is true. Depending on the burn rate of the powder he uses and bullet weights he shoots, determines how much, but then you compromise fill ratios and pressure spikes by using very fast powder and mid-to-heavy bullets. Light bullets you'll still be dealing with some waste.
.

How do you quantify "a bunch". I don't have the equipment to measure the exact amount so I have to rely on Quickload to give that information. It usually works out to be somewhere around a 1% reduction in powder burnt when dropping 8-10" of barrel. I don't typically consider 1% to be a statistically significant amount.

I have reopened the idea about making it a 6.5creedmoor. I saw a video by the DMR guys and they are pushing the 18" 6.5 creedmoors pretty fast. I think the creedmoor may be the ticket. If, and that's a big if, i can hit 2700fps out of my desired 20" barrel then that will get me to where I want to be for ME and fps at distance. After reading several other forums and posts from others on here, I think it might be possible to achieve. I think I may try it.

I don't think you'll have any problem hitting 2700 fps with a 22" Creedmoor. I think you could probably get pretty close to 2800 fps.

 

[MudRunner2005]

How do you quantify "a bunch". I don't have the equipment to measure the exact amount so I have to rely on Quickload to give that information. It usually works out to be somewhere around a 1% reduction in powder burnt when dropping 8-10" of barrel. I don't typically consider 1% to be a statistically significant amount.

QuickLoad software. That's how you get a rough estimate. There's no way it only drops 1% when losing 8"-10" of barrel. That's impossible. If that wasn't the case, then why do you drop significant velocity in a 16" barreled .300 WinMag versus a 26" barreled .300 WinMag? If it only mattered 1%, then everybody would be using 16" barreled rifles, even with magnum cartridges.

 

[yorke-1]

QuickLoad software. That's how you get a rough estimate. There's no way it only drops 1% when losing 8"-10" of barrel. That's impossible. If that wasn't the case, then why do you drop significant velocity in a 16" barreled .300 WinMag versus a 26" barreled .300 WinMag? If it only mattered 1%, then everybody would be using 16" barreled rifles, even with magnum cartridges.

What method did you use to calculate your "a bunch" value? I'm not certain that "a bunch" even qualifies for the term value though.

Velocity loss per inch of barrel is not directly connected to % of powder burned. Velocity loss per inch of barrel is a pretty linear value which is why labs who provide pressure tested load data can give an approximate value of velocity lost per inch of barrel for a give cartridge.

More importantly though, the majority of shooters are just concerned with real world results. Very few people really worry about if they're operating at 98% efficiency instead of 99.6%. They're more concerned with whether or not they can get a 140gr bullet to 2700 fps or higher in a 22" barrel because that's the performance they're looking for. Efficiency looks good on paper, performance looks good in the field.

 

[MudRunner2005]

What method did you use to calculate your "a bunch" value? I'm not certain that "a bunch" even qualifies for the term value though.

Velocity loss per inch of barrel is not directly connected to % of powder burned. Velocity loss per inch of barrel is a pretty linear value which is why labs who provide pressure tested load data can give an approximate value of velocity lost per inch of barrel for a give cartridge.

More importantly though, the majority of shooters are just concerned with real world results. Very few people really worry about if they're operating at 98% efficiency instead of 99.6%. They're more concerned with whether or not they can get a 140gr bullet to 2700 fps or higher in a 22" barrel because that's the performance they're looking for. Efficiency looks good on paper, performance looks good in the field.

QuickLoad. I used to have access to it, but I don't anymore. I guess I need to buy my own disk.

How is velocity per inch not directly connected to % of powder burned, when the gasses that burn are what propels the bullet down the bore...? If it's a linear value, then why does it differ so greatly amongst cartridges, bullet weights, primers, powder types, brass, etc...?

Efficiency also looks good in the field... The more efficient something operates, the better performance it will give you. If you're engine doesn't operate efficiently, it's performance is going to suck, and then it's going to fall apart.

I'm really not trying to argue with you about this, as it's obvious we will never agree on it. So, let's agree to disagree, and move along with the thread.

 

[yorke-1]

QuickLoad. I used to have access to it, but I don't anymore. I guess I need to buy my own disk.

How is velocity per inch not directly connected to % of powder burned, when the gasses that burn are what propels the bullet down the bore...? If it's a linear value, then why does it differ so greatly amongst cartridges, bullet weights, primers, powder types, brass, etc...?

Efficiency also looks good in the field... The more efficient something operates, the better performance it will give you. If you're engine doesn't operate efficiently, it's performance is going to suck, and then it's going to fall apart.

I'm really not trying to argue with you about this, as it's obvious we will never agree on it. So, let's agree to disagree, and move along with the thread.

If Quickload is an acceptable resource, then my numbers stand as accurate. Also, efficiency is not directly related to performance. I can get a 300gr OTM over 2900 fps from a 20" barrel, but it takes 140gr of powder to do it. I haven't found a more efficient way to do that and I don't believe anyone else has either. The most efficient system doesn't always result in the best performance out put. It just depends on how the performance is measured.

 

[Aoudad shooter1975]

You don't need to hot rod the 6.5 bullets.

Agree with Westex91...love my 6.5x47. I have been shooting a 130 grain game changer out of a 22 in barrel at a Lumbering 2750 ish...have not killed anything with it--but might try it on a big Axis buck this summer

 

[clownbuster]

My 24" Proof-barreled 6.5 GAP pushes the 140 Hybrid @ 3185fps with plenty in the tank. You'll easily sustain your desired 3000fps in 22" suppressed. Simple to load for with plenty of options. And if you need brass I can help out there too. Its such a great caliber to shoot.
S. Grasseth

 

[Alibiiv]

If Quickload is an acceptable resource, then my numbers stand as accurate. Also, efficiency is not directly related to performance. I can get a 300gr OTM over 2900 fps from a 20" barrel, but it takes 140gr of powder to do it. I haven't found a more efficient way to do that and I don't believe anyone else has either. The most efficient system doesn't always result in the best performance out put. It just depends on how the performance is measured.

I am reading your posts and trying to understand your logic or science? If I am understanding what you are proposing is that barrel length has nothing to do with velocity, is that what you are suggesting here? Currently I am building a .270 Ackley Improved with a 26 inch barrel. I went the extra length (2 INCHES) to get the maximum MV out of the .270 AI due to the smaller bore diameter. What I have found is that the smaller calibers .257, 6mm, 6.5, .270 like that longer barrel to burn the powder for maximum performance; especially the magnums in these calibers. From what I have read unless you are shooting these magnum cartridges out of a 24-26 inch barrel they are not worth chambering a rifle for them. If this is the case how does what you have written in your responses work here? Shouldn't more powder mean that you have to have more space/area for the powder to burn in before exiting the barrel, otherwise it leaves the barrel behind the bullet? Logically for me if more powder means more velocity, it ought to have a place to burn in, without that space the powder leaves the barrel unburned. Isn't this the juncture where more powder is no longer efficient in a particular caliber and overbore applies? Where do you reach the point of diminished return? If what you are suggesting to be true, what would prevent necking down a 50BMG to .270 caliber and get 5000fps?