What do you think of the 6.5 WBY RPM ?

Capt RB said:
In both cases your looking at about 300fps advantage to the 27's which makes them superior. In the case iof the winny it's a 100yd+ advantage with that bullet at what they can be driven at in both cases. Change to the 147 and the creed has a 20yd advantage. However change to the 150lrab with the .591bc and your ahead of the creed and same with the wsm/prc.
Click to expand...
Superior at what exactly? Poking holes in critters with a couple fewer clicks and a slightly shorter wind hold?
Obviously theres better bullets for both caliber
I chose 2 nearly identical bullets and coincidentally since theres so many options that overlap in 264/277 you can choose some more if you like
140 accubonds
142\150 ablr
Berger 140s
127/129 lrx
Neither "wins" if loaded in an accurate rifle with a capable shooter BOTH will kill the daylights out of anything pointed at below the great bears. This gets really over thought
 
And yes a 270 with heavy high bc bullets will be the same as the creed. But not fast 130 trainers as stated. Looking forward to see the numbers on the rpm.
Shep
 
25WSM said:
Dear John. Your 270 with a 130 berger vld at 3180fps has 1200 ft pounds at 570 yards. My low performance 6.5 creed with a 147eldm at 2850 has 1200 ft pounds at 780 yards. Just a measly 220 yards further than your 270. So no you do not know your ballistics. But your 270 gets out run by my little creed from 175 yards and out. Your statements are just plain wrong. Nothing wrong with a 270 except your quotes on performance. Get a ballistic calculator and check it out.
Shep
Click to expand...
Sorry Shep, I don't know what numbers you are feeding into your calculator, but they certainly do not match mine. I am up in the mountains of northern New Mexico at the moment or I would attach them, but that can be done later.
First, bullets derive their energy from the amount of powder in the case behind them which, when ignited, expels the bullets at high speed. The .270 Winchester case holds between 62 and 64 grains of water whereas the 264 Creedmoor case holds between 46 and 49 grains of water. To say that the smaller cartridge outperforms the larger one defies chemistry. The .270 Winchester has several bullet weights for specific performance purposes. I choose 130-grain bullet, which is analogous to the 120 grain .264 bullet, because I want to have it arrive as quickly as possible on the game I am hunting out to 500 - 600 yards. I'd love to see a chronograph print-out of a .264 Creedmoor chambered rifle launching a 147gr. bullet at 2850 fps at comparable pressures to my launching a 130 bullet from my rifle at 3180 -3200 fps. If I were to do a pure long-range comparison of the .270 Win. to the 6.5 Creedmoor I would use the 140 and 150 Nosler Accubonds with their much higher ballistic coefficients. This might be solved if there is a disparity between barrel lengths - mine are 22' and 24 ".
Most bullet manufacturers say 1800 fps is the minimum speed for reliable mushrooming of modern bullets so let's agree on that as the bottom line of our discussion. I attach a table of the deceleration of a 130 gr. .270Win. bullet over 1000 yards and you show me where your calculator says your .264 bullet catches up with my .270 bullet and how long it takes to equalize the time differential between the two bullets..
5300ft Elevation
Distance, Bullet speed, f/s Energy, ft-lb.
yards
0.0 3152.9 2869.4
100.0 2961.9 2532.4
200.0 2780.8 2232.2
300.0 2607.0 1961.7
400.0 2440.3 1718.9
500.0 2280.2 1500.8
800.0 1840.6 977.8
900.0 1706.7 840.8
1000.0 1579.4 720.0
 
First off I'm not trying to argue a case. But energy of a bullet is comprised of 2 things. Weight and speed. Nothing to do with how much powder is in a case. Sure how much powder can make speeds higher with more volume. But that is not in the equation for energy.
Energy = Bullet Weight x Velocity^2 / 450,437
My 24 inch creed will shoot 2950 with rl26 and 147s.
Furthermore reliable mushroom velocity is a reference to how slow a bullet can be and still be reliable.
The vast majority of people use ft pounds to decide if your bullet will kill well. 1200 ft pounds is the general recommendation for clean kills.
So according to your chart my creed has more energy than your 270 from 300 yds and further.
I'm doing my calculation from 1200 ft which is a disadvantage to me.
Even when you shoot the 150 accubonds at 2950 with a 591 bc the little creed passes it up on energy at 450 yards. If you built an 8 twist 270 and shot the 170 bergers at 2900 it would beat the creed. High bc bullets are hard to beat at long range. They are usually heavy for caliber and retain speed for longer. Now remember the energy formula. Weight and speed.
I'm not bashing the 270 here it is a very capable round. But the 6.5 and 7mm have the bc numbers. The 270 does not. The 6.5 rpm will easily out pace the 270. You should download the program Shooter. It cost like 10 bucks and is a very nice and complete ballistic program.
I shoot comp 1000 yard benchrest so I run every new bullet with several case sizes to see if it will be an advantage. I still use my 6.5 creed and a 300wsm with 210vlds. My creed has less wind drift and only 300 ft pounds less energy which is meaningless poking a hole in paper.
Shep
 
25WSM said:
Dear John. Your 270 with a 130 berger vld at 3180fps has 1200 ft pounds at 570 yards. My low performance 6.5 creed with a 147eldm at 2850 has 1200 ft pounds at 780 yards. Just a measly 220 yards further than your 270. So no you do not know your ballistics. But your 270 gets out run by my little creed from 175 yards and out. Your statements are just plain wrong. Nothing wrong with a 270 except your quotes on performance. Get a ballistic calculator and check it out.

Shep
Click to expand...

Hmmmm…

My daughter's .270 Win pushes a 150g ABLR (BC .591) to 2912fps with a 22" barrel and a less-than-max powder charge. (No pressure signs and good case life.)

Using 7000ft altitude because that's where we hunt, a 6.5CM with a 147ELD-X (BC .697) @ 2800fps (which will probably require a 24" barrel) still falls short of Daughter's .270 at 1000 yards if retained energy is the measure. The difference isn't great (1127fpe for the .270 vs 1116fpe for the 6.5CM).

At the muzzle, the .270 wins handily with 2825 fpe vs 2560 fpe. In other words, the .280 has as much energy at 115 yards as the 6.5CM has at the muzzle. My daughter practices out to 600 yards but her comfort range for game is 400 yards. At that range the .270 wins by about 187fpe. More importantly to us, it does it with a bonded hunting bullet rather than a thin-skinned target bullet.

Now, is the high BC bullet selection better for the 6.5CM? Yes. Is the difference in retained velocity and energy and drop and drift terribly important to us? No, but for her purposes (elk) the .270 Win and a hunting bullet is the better choice. Frankly, I'd rather see her shoot an elk at 600 with a .270/129gLRX than a 6.5CM/147ELD-M, even though the LRX will be about 90fpe short of the 6.5CM/147ELD-M.

A better comparison for our purposes would be apples-to-apples in both bullet construction and barrel length. Reducing the 6.5CM book velocities by 50fps for a 22" vs 24" barrel, the .270/150ABLR @ 2912fps beats a 6.5/140ABLR by 253fpe @ 600 yards (1665fpe vs 1430fpe.

We also use a lot of Barnes TTSX and LRX for hunting. Assuming and adjusting for 22" barrels again (-50fps from 24" data), a .270/129LRX @ 3150fps has 2261fps/1464fpe at 600 yards compared to 1941fps/1063fpe for a 6.5cm/127g LRX @ 2750fps. The .270/129g LRX also has 20" less drop (46.0" vs 66.6") and 3.7" less drift (18.2" vs 21.9")at 600.

High BC values don't mean a lot to us. My longest shot on game was about 500 yards (antelope) using a 110g AB with a BC of .418. Second longest was 487 yards (elk) using a 225g AB with a BC of .550. I've taken more elk, at ranges out to 411 yards, with a Speer 160g Grand Slam, BC .389, than with any other bullet.

It took me 20+ years and a bunch of elk before I recovered one of the Grand Slams, as they kept exiting. I've been using tipped X bullets (MRX, TTSX and LRX) since 2006 and have yet to recover one even though I've put two lengthwise through mule deer.

Feel free to choose your hunting bullets based on BC values. I made that mistake when I first started big game hunting in 1982. My first elk showed me the folly of doing that, which is why I switched to the Grand Slams. Now we use higher BC bullets but construction is still the first consideration.
 
I worry......having a standard non Magnum case head, along with Magnum powder capacity, and known to be soft norma brass, that cases will not be robust enough to hold up to high pressure reloads. Some of the hot wby factory ammo loosens primers on one loading. It's a noble idea, and lapua 6.5x284 brass does well with this setup, however we know there's a big difference between lapua/norma in case head strength.
 
John Polk said:
Sorry Shep, I don't know what numbers you are feeding into your calculator, but they certainly do not match mine. I am up in the mountains of northern New Mexico at the moment or I would attach them, but that can be done later.
First, bullets derive their energy from the amount of powder in the case behind them which, when ignited, expels the bullets at high speed. The .270 Winchester case holds between 62 and 64 grains of water whereas the 264 Creedmoor case holds between 46 and 49 grains of water. To say that the smaller cartridge outperforms the larger one defies chemistry. The .270 Winchester has several bullet weights for specific performance purposes. I choose 130-grain bullet, which is analogous to the 120 grain .264 bullet, because I want to have it arrive as quickly as possible on the game I am hunting out to 500 - 600 yards. I'd love to see a chronograph print-out of a .264 Creedmoor chambered rifle launching a 147gr. bullet at 2850 fps at comparable pressures to my launching a 130 bullet from my rifle at 3180 -3200 fps. If I were to do a pure long-range comparison of the .270 Win. to the 6.5 Creedmoor I would use the 140 and 150 Nosler Accubonds with their much higher ballistic coefficients. This might be solved if there is a disparity between barrel lengths - mine are 22' and 24 ".
Most bullet manufacturers say 1800 fps is the minimum speed for reliable mushrooming of modern bullets so let's agree on that as the bottom line of our discussion. I attach a table of the deceleration of a 130 gr. .270Win. bullet over 1000 yards and you show me where your calculator says your .264 bullet catches up with my .270 bullet and how long it takes to equalize the time differential between the two bullets..
5300ft Elevation
Distance, Bullet speed, f/s Energy, ft-lb.
yards
0.0 3152.9 2869.4
100.0 2961.9 2532.4
200.0 2780.8 2232.2
300.0 2607.0 1961.7
400.0 2440.3 1718.9
500.0 2280.2 1500.8
800.0 1840.6 977.8
900.0 1706.7 840.8
1000.0 1579.4 720.0
Click to expand...

Here is my last Creedmoor, which I think is you trying to pick on the little kid at school. The funny thing is at your 5300 foot the Creedmoor still outruns your 270 load. LOL! I think you should concede at let this get back on topic. I really think you arguing this proves you don't understand how important BC is at distance.

147 ELD at 2820 fps.


Range Elevation Elevation Elevation Windage Windage Windage Time Energy Vel[x+y]
(yd) (in) (MOA) (MIL) (in) (MOA) (MIL) (s) (ft.lbf) (ft/s)
0 -1.80 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 2596 2820
25 -0.55 2.10 0.61 0.05 0.21 0.06 0.03 2546 2793
50 0.41 -0.77 -0.23 0.12 0.24 0.07 0.05 2497 2766
75 1.08 -1.37 -0.40 0.24 0.30 0.09 0.08 2449 2739
100 1.47 -1.40 -0.41 0.40 0.38 0.11 0.11 2401 2712
125 1.56 -1.19 -0.35 0.61 0.47 0.14 0.14 2354 2685
150 1.35 -0.86 -0.25 0.87 0.55 0.16 0.16 2308 2659
175 0.83 -0.45 -0.13 1.18 0.64 0.19 0.19 2263 2633
200 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.54 0.73 0.21 0.22 2218 2607
225 -1.16 0.49 0.14 1.95 0.83 0.24 0.25 2174 2581
250 -2.63 1.01 0.29 2.41 0.92 0.27 0.28 2131 2555
275 -4.45 1.54 0.45 2.92 1.01 0.29 0.31 2088 2529
300 -6.60 2.10 0.61 3.49 1.11 0.32 0.34 2047 2504
325 -9.09 2.67 0.78 4.10 1.21 0.35 0.37 2005 2478
350 -11.95 3.26 0.95 4.78 1.30 0.38 0.40 1965 2453
375 -15.16 3.86 1.12 5.50 1.40 0.41 0.43 1925 2428
400 -18.74 4.47 1.30 6.29 1.50 0.44 0.46 1885 2403
425 -22.70 5.10 1.48 7.13 1.60 0.47 0.49 1847 2378
450 -27.04 5.74 1.67 8.03 1.70 0.50 0.52 1809 2354
475 -31.77 6.39 1.86 8.98 1.81 0.53 0.56 1771 2329
500 -36.90 7.05 2.05 10.00 1.91 0.56 0.59 1734 2305
525 -42.45 7.72 2.25 11.08 2.01 0.59 0.62 1698 2281
550 -48.41 8.40 2.44 12.22 2.12 0.62 0.65 1662 2257
575 -54.80 9.10 2.65 13.42 2.23 0.65 0.69 1627 2233
600 -61.62 9.80 2.85 14.68 2.34 0.68 0.72 1593 2209
625 -68.89 10.52 3.06 16.01 2.45 0.71 0.76 1559 2185
650 -76.61 11.25 3.27 17.40 2.56 0.74 0.79 1525 2162
675 -84.80 11.99 3.49 18.86 2.67 0.78 0.83 1493 2138
700 -93.47 12.75 3.71 20.39 2.78 0.81 0.86 1460 2115
725 -102.61 13.51 3.93 21.98 2.89 0.84 0.90 1429 2092
750 -112.26 14.29 4.16 23.65 3.01 0.88 0.93 1398 2069
775 -122.42 15.08 4.39 25.38 3.13 0.91 0.97 1367 2046
800 -133.09 15.88 4.62 27.19 3.24 0.94 1.01 1337 2024
825 -144.29 16.70 4.86 29.07 3.36 0.98 1.04 1307 2001
850 -156.04 17.53 5.10 31.02 3.48 1.01 1.08 1278 1979
875 -168.34 18.37 5.34 33.05 3.61 1.05 1.12 1250 1957
900 -181.21 19.22 5.59 35.16 3.73 1.08 1.16 1222 1935
925 -194.66 20.09 5.84 37.34 3.85 1.12 1.20 1194 1913
950 -208.70 20.98 6.10 39.60 3.98 1.16 1.24 1167 1891
975 -223.35 21.87 6.36 41.94 4.11 1.19 1.28 1141 1869
1000 -238.62 22.78 6.63 44.36 4.24 1.23 1.32 1115 1848
 
John Polk said:
Sorry Shep, I don't know what numbers you are feeding into your calculator, but they certainly do not match mine. I am up in the mountains of northern New Mexico at the moment or I would attach them, but that can be done later.
First, bullets derive their energy from the amount of powder in the case behind them which, when ignited, expels the bullets at high speed. The .270 Winchester case holds between 62 and 64 grains of water whereas the 264 Creedmoor case holds between 46 and 49 grains of water. To say that the smaller cartridge outperforms the larger one defies chemistry. The .270 Winchester has several bullet weights for specific performance purposes. I choose 130-grain bullet, which is analogous to the 120 grain .264 bullet, because I want to have it arrive as quickly as possible on the game I am hunting out to 500 - 600 yards. I'd love to see a chronograph print-out of a .264 Creedmoor chambered rifle launching a 147gr. bullet at 2850 fps at comparable pressures to my launching a 130 bullet from my rifle at 3180 -3200 fps. If I were to do a pure long-range comparison of the .270 Win. to the 6.5 Creedmoor I would use the 140 and 150 Nosler Accubonds with their much higher ballistic coefficients. This might be solved if there is a disparity between barrel lengths - mine are 22' and 24 ".
Most bullet manufacturers say 1800 fps is the minimum speed for reliable mushrooming of modern bullets so let's agree on that as the bottom line of our discussion. I attach a table of the deceleration of a 130 gr. .270Win. bullet over 1000 yards and you show me where your calculator says your .264 bullet catches up with my .270 bullet and how long it takes to equalize the time differential between the two bullets..
5300ft Elevation
Distance, Bullet speed, f/s Energy, ft-lb.
yards
0.0 3152.9 2869.4
100.0 2961.9 2532.4
200.0 2780.8 2232.2
300.0 2607.0 1961.7
400.0 2440.3 1718.9
500.0 2280.2 1500.8
800.0 1840.6 977.8
900.0 1706.7 840.8
1000.0 1579.4 720.0
Click to expand...


This is a more apples to apples comparison as far as cartridge goes.

6.5 PRC 156 Berger at 3040.



Range Elevation Elevation Elevation Windage Windage Windage Time Energy Vel[x+y]
(yd) (in) (MOA) (MIL) (in) (MOA) (MIL) (s) (ft.lbf) (ft/s)
0 -1.80 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 3202 3040
25 -0.69 2.63 0.76 0.05 0.20 0.06 0.03 3138 3009
50 0.17 -0.32 -0.09 0.12 0.22 0.07 0.05 3075 2979
75 0.78 -0.99 -0.29 0.23 0.29 0.08 0.08 3013 2949
100 1.15 -1.09 -0.32 0.39 0.37 0.11 0.10 2953 2919
125 1.26 -0.96 -0.28 0.59 0.45 0.13 0.13 2893 2890
150 1.11 -0.70 -0.20 0.84 0.53 0.16 0.15 2835 2860
175 0.69 -0.38 -0.11 1.13 0.62 0.18 0.18 2777 2831
200 0.01 0.00 0.00 1.48 0.71 0.21 0.21 2721 2802
225 -0.96 0.41 0.12 1.87 0.79 0.23 0.23 2665 2774
250 -2.20 0.84 0.24 2.31 0.88 0.26 0.26 2610 2745
275 -3.74 1.30 0.38 2.81 0.97 0.28 0.29 2557 2717
300 -5.57 1.77 0.52 3.35 1.07 0.31 0.32 2504 2688
325 -7.70 2.26 0.66 3.94 1.16 0.34 0.34 2452 2660
350 -10.13 2.76 0.80 4.59 1.25 0.36 0.37 2401 2632
375 -12.88 3.28 0.95 5.29 1.35 0.39 0.40 2350 2605
400 -15.95 3.81 1.11 6.04 1.44 0.42 0.43 2301 2577
425 -19.35 4.35 1.26 6.85 1.54 0.45 0.46 2252 2550
450 -23.08 4.90 1.42 7.71 1.64 0.48 0.49 2205 2523
475 -27.16 5.46 1.59 8.63 1.73 0.50 0.52 2158 2496
500 -31.58 6.03 1.75 9.61 1.83 0.53 0.55 2111 2469
525 -36.36 6.61 1.92 10.64 1.94 0.56 0.58 2066 2442
550 -41.50 7.20 2.10 11.74 2.04 0.59 0.61 2021 2415
575 -47.02 7.81 2.27 12.89 2.14 0.62 0.64 1977 2389
600 -52.91 8.42 2.45 14.10 2.24 0.65 0.67 1934 2363
625 -59.20 9.04 2.63 15.38 2.35 0.68 0.70 1892 2337
650 -65.88 9.68 2.81 16.72 2.46 0.71 0.74 1850 2311
675 -72.98 10.32 3.00 18.12 2.56 0.75 0.77 1809 2285
700 -80.48 10.98 3.19 19.59 2.67 0.78 0.80 1769 2259
725 -88.41 11.64 3.39 21.12 2.78 0.81 0.84 1729 2234
750 -96.78 12.32 3.58 22.73 2.89 0.84 0.87 1690 2209
775 -105.60 13.01 3.78 24.40 3.01 0.87 0.90 1652 2184
800 -114.87 13.71 3.99 26.13 3.12 0.91 0.94 1614 2159
825 -124.60 14.42 4.19 27.94 3.23 0.94 0.97 1577 2134
850 -134.81 15.14 4.41 29.82 3.35 0.97 1.01 1541 2109
875 -145.52 15.88 4.62 31.78 3.47 1.01 1.04 1506 2085
900 -156.72 16.63 4.84 33.81 3.59 1.04 1.08 1471 2060
925 -168.43 17.39 5.06 35.91 3.71 1.08 1.12 1436 2036
950 -180.67 18.16 5.28 38.09 3.83 1.11 1.15 1403 2012
975 -193.44 18.94 5.51 40.35 3.95 1.15 1.19 1370 1988
1000 -206.77 19.74 5.74 42.68 4.08 1.19 1.23 1337 1965
 
just country said:
morning, What about the 6.5 STW?? I like wbee's.
but there r viables. justme gbot tum
Click to expand...
Magnum bolt head and veery long cartridge. I think half of you are missing the entire point of the cartridge in the first place it's not to compete with the heavy hitters like the 26 Nosler the STW the 6.5 x 300 Weatherby. It's intended to maximize performance in the six lug Weatherby action so that it can be lighter
 

Similar threads

G
What do you think of this???
2 3
Replies
35
Views
6K
RockyMtnMT
RockyMtnMT
B
What do you guys think of this???????
7 8 9
Replies
112
Views
12K
59FLH
5
soundwaves
What do you think of this rifle?
Replies
5
Views
2K
wiiicgun
wiiicgun
B
What do you think of this gun
Replies
10
Views
2K
Fiftydriver
Fiftydriver
C
What do you guys think?
Replies
12
Views
3K
Cruizin
C

Recent Posts

Top