The great 6.5's

[brianjohnson]

so I am starting a build on my winchester model 70 SA. I am putting a medium palma bbl and either a mcswirly or manners stock on it. my only fall back is choosing between calibers. initially I wanted the 260 rem. then I started thinking about how my chamber would be too short to seat those bullts out. then I thought about the 6.5x47 lapua. I hear that its an amazing gun to reload for and shoots incredible. I know both guns are capable of doing this, but isnt the lapua inherently more accurate? and what is the recommended minimum ft/lbs of energy for both elk and mulies. just so I know how far I could take game with each one reliably. thanks for your replies

 

[fj40mojo]

I'd go with a .260 AI. Lapua just announced that they will be making .260 brass now, YAY! You'll be fine on deer and elk, I set my 6.5x55 Swede up knowing that I would be shooting the heavier bullets with long secant ogives, 1:8 twist. Dave Kiff at PT&G steered me to the correct reamer for my application as I had to feed from the magazine with my CRF action. If your M70 is a push feed variety you are only limited by whether or not you want to feed from the magazine or single feed in which case you can get some extra throat for seating those long bullets way out there.

 

[ICANHITHIMMAN]

Well I cant speek for the SA winchester but I had 2 rifles in 260 rem both with wayats extended box mags that feed long bullets just fine. They dont make the box mag for the SA win.

I do have one of the new FN actions in 300wsm and it seams to have generous amount of mag space. I think you would be well served with either round. I only mention the 300wsm and the FN action as it should be the same lenght as yours. I am able to seat 208g AMAX out pretty far and still use the mag.

 

[rscott5028]

[...]I know both guns are capable of doing this, but isnt the lapua inherently more accurate?[...]

As you yourself point out, these are all capable cartridges. I don't think "more accurate" is enough of a differentiator here from a hunting perspective. ...considering long range, shooting in the field, wind, etc...

So, you can probably focus on the other attributes for your application.

I beleive lots of folks shoot Elk with 6.5's, but it's certainly not over the top at longer ranges, and the short action may further limit you unless you go with a larger caliber and/or perhaps a WSM.

What I'm suggesting is that you might want to size the gun for your most demanding application. But, perhaps you have other rifles to fill in the gaps.

Good luck!
Richard

 

[elkaholic]

I think you have received some good info, but no one has addressed the foot lbs. issue as yet. I have heard 1500 for elk and I have heard 1000? I don't personally feel that ft. lbs. are the best measuring tool for killing power. I know that I have killed many elk with a 6.5-06 A.I. up to 600 yards and I have no doubt that it would be effective considerably further. A well designed 140 grain bullet in a 6.5 is a pretty darn good killer. A 6.5 140 grain has a slightly better sectional density than a 190 gr. .308 and an even greater edge over a 160 gr. .284 bullet. This means that at a given velocity and equally designed bullets, the 6.5 will penetrate at least as well as the other two. Does it hit with as much force? No! Used, within its limits, it will work just fine. What that range is depends on a lot of different factors. What you are proposing is probably 200 yards less gun than the 6.5 A.I. that I mentioned, but as I said, I had NO problem taking elk at 600 yards. Someone will no doubt tell you that there are better elk rifles than a 6.5x47 or a .260 Remington. Of course there is! But you are building a 6.5 Good luck/Rich

 

[Tbone]

There has been talk about the 6.5-STW lately. Very fast !!!!!!!!!!!, maybe a barrel-burner. Something else to read-up about. I've thought the .264 WM was about the best of the bunch, as far as 6.5 hunting calibers go.

 

[brianjohnson]

thanks guys for all your help. I know I am limiting myself with a 6.5 sa but I do have larger rifles to fill gaps. I know I am not looking at the perfect scenario here, but I figured that maybe I would build one of these calibers and take it to idaho this next year. it will be a elk/ mulie combo hunt and I was hoping not to limit myself too much. I am not too sure about the ballistics on the 260 (because everywhere you look gives different info) but I do know I can easily get 2835 out of a 130 vld on the 6.5x47. this is all so confusing. if anyone out there is a ballistics type, how far will those ballistics take me on elk

 

[eyeballjr]

300 yards you have 1500lbs 600 yards 1000lbs left

 

[rscott5028]

300 yards you have 1500lbs 600 yards 1000lbs left

That's a fairly broad statement considering people have mentioned everything from 260 Rem to 264WM. Perhaps you could be more specific about the cartridge and load.

Like elkaholic, I feel that velocity and energy are useful guidelines. But, killing power is all about the wound channel. ...still, the bullet has to arrive on target with sufficient energy to penetrate and expand.

Thanks!

 

[elkaholic]

That's a fairly broad statement considering people have mentioned everything from 260 Rem to 264WM. Perhaps you could be more specific about the cartridge and load.

Like elkaholic, I feel that velocity and energy are useful guidelines. But, killing power is all about the wound channel. ...still, the bullet has to arrive on target with sufficient energy to penetrate and expand.

Thanks!

Ok, I ran the ballistics for 2835' with a 130 Berger VLD. If you figure a minimum expansion of 1800', which Berger lists, and 1000 lbs. of energy, you are good to 750 yards. Hope this helps........Rich

 

[eyeballjr]

thanks guys for all your help. I know I am limiting myself with a 6.5 sa but I do have larger rifles to fill gaps. I know I am not looking at the perfect scenario here, but I figured that maybe I would build one of these calibers and take it to idaho this next year. it will be a elk/ mulie combo hunt and I was hoping not to limit myself too much. I am not too sure about the ballistics on the 260 (because everywhere you look gives different info) but I do know I can easily get 2835 out of a 130 vld on the 6.5x47. this is all so confusing. if anyone out there is a ballistics type, how far will those ballistics take me on elk

Sorry was using his info on this post. And just giving him the energy left in the bullet at those distances. Depending what you think will take an elk.

 

[elkaholic]

thanks guys for all your help. I know I am limiting myself with a 6.5 sa but I do have larger rifles to fill gaps. I know I am not looking at the perfect scenario here, but I figured that maybe I would build one of these calibers and take it to idaho this next year. it will be a elk/ mulie combo hunt and I was hoping not to limit myself too much. I am not too sure about the ballistics on the 260 (because everywhere you look gives different info) but I do know I can easily get 2835 out of a 130 vld on the 6.5x47. this is all so confusing. if anyone out there is a ballistics type, how far will those ballistics take me on elk

Brian.....I just ran the ballistics on the 140 Berger at 2750' (just guessing) and you are good to 820 yards given 1800 fps minimum expansion and 1000 lbs. of energy. This is the bullet that I use in my 6.5 Sherman and I would strongly suggest you give it a try (especially if you plan on hunting elk). Aim for the shoulder at the longer ranges so the bullet will expand properly.........Rich

 

[RockyMtnMT]

I have a 6.5 Dasher. Which is the improved version of the 6.5x47. Mind you that the improved is very little. It will run the 130g Scirrocco over 3000fps with out any trouble. At 3000 ft elevation you are able to hold 1800fps out to 900 yrds. I do not give any credence to the ft lbs of energy. Bullet construction and sectional density along with the weight retention are what matter. You can take this info and use it how you like. I am not saying that you should use it to shoot elk at 900 yards. (no ****ing matches needed)

I will give my .02. Run the 6.5x47 dasher or not, and don't look back. It will function well in the short action and not give up anything to the .260, while using less powder. If your rifle will shoot the Swift well, I think this bullet is unbeatable.

Have fun with it,

Steve

 

[elkaholic]

I have a 6.5 Dasher. Which is the improved version of the 6.5x47. Mind you that the improved is very little. It will run the 130g Scirrocco over 3000fps with out any trouble. At 3000 ft elevation you are able to hold 1800fps out to 900 yrds. I do not give any credence to the ft lbs of energy. Bullet construction and sectional density along with the weight retention are what matter. You can take this info and use it how you like. I am not saying that you should use it to shoot elk at 900 yards. (no ****ing matches needed)

I will give my .02. Run the 6.5x47 dasher or not, and don't look back. It will function well in the short action and not give up anything to the .260, while using less powder. If your rifle will shoot the Swift well, I think this bullet is unbeatable.

Have fun with it,

Steve

Rocky.....I agree 100% on the performance of the Swift. The problem I've had with them is accuracy in my rifles. In bullet tests I've performed, they are as good all around as anything out there....Rich