6.5 Dilemma

[IdahoSharpshooter]

the creedmore was initially designed for women and children; and those who are recoil sensitive...

Step up to the plate and get a 260 Remington.

 

[pirate ammo]

the creedmore was initially designed for women and children; and those who are recoil sensitive...

Step up to the plate and get a 260 Remington.

the creedmoor was designed so I could come up with the magically empowered Talisman,,

 

[fyrewall]

hunting + casual long range target + long action = 6.5-06. The 6.5-.284 uses a funny rebated case. The 6.5X55 is sort of an odd-ball foreign round (fat diameter rim that might have problems with 721 extractor and presents a supply problem but Lapua brass may be had for about $1.00 each. I shoot varmints with my 6.5-06 using 120-123 plastic tip bullets & Re23. H1000 works well with 140's. A 1-8 twist will work with both. I am now using PPU .270 brass necked down to 6.5, trimmed & turned. The long tapered body and slopey shoulders of the 6.5-06 are of no consequence for my casual needs.

The 6.5-06 was designed for frugal shooters who expect magic.

 

[Mmwat]

hunting + casual long range target + long action = 6.5-06. The 6.5-.284 uses a funny rebated case. The 6.5X55 is sort of an odd-ball foreign round (fat diameter rim that might have problems with 721 extractor and presents a supply problem but Lapua brass may be had for about $1.00 each. I shoot varmints with my 6.5-06 using 120-123 plastic tip bullets & Re23. H1000 works well with 140's. A 1-8 twist will work with both. I am now using PPU .270 brass necked down to 6.5, trimmed & turned. The long tapered body and slopey shoulders of the 6.5-06 are of no consequence for my casual needs.

The 6.5-06 was designed for frugal shooters who expect magic.

Thanks, for the recommendations I’m strongly leaning toward the 6.5-284 right now but I’ll take a look at the 6.5-06.

I don’t think the 6.5x55 should cause me many issues because the PTG standard bolt face is .484, and I have a mini M16 extractor.

 

[fyrewall]

Just thinking... The standard brass rim diameter for the .308 size is .473; for 6.5X55 brass it is .480. The PTG bolt face is .484; this allows .0055 radii clearance using .473 brass. Using 6.5X55 brass the radii clearance would be .002 using .480 rim diameter 6.5X55 brass. Sounds sort of tight and that push feed, snap over, PTG extractor might have problems. All of this is completely speculation on my part as I am completely unfamiliar with PTG's workings. I have a real olde 6.5X55 M96 and my 6.5X55 brass fits well in my not so olde sloppy bolt face control feed FN Mauser but has problems with my standard M700 finger nail extractor Remington.

 

[sbhooper]

You get really no ballistic advantage with the 6.5x55, over a Creed, or .260. With the long action, my choice would be the -06. It delivers speed and accuracy and tons of brass is readily available in .270, 30-06, and 25-06. I have a 30-06 that would be converted, except that it shoots so well I hate to do it.

A long action with the Creed, or .260, allows a lot of leeway for seating etc.

 

[Mmwat]

You get really no ballistic advantage with the 6.5x55, over a Creed, or .260. With the long action, my choice would be the -06. It delivers speed and accuracy and tons of brass is readily available in .270, 30-06, and 25-06. I have a 30-06 that would be converted, except that it shoots so well I hate to do it.

A long action with the Creed, or .260, allows a lot of leeway for seating etc.

What would be the adantages of the -06 be the 6.5x284. Seems like from what I’ve read they have pretty similar ballistics. Cheaper components?

 

[Shrek]

The 6.5-284 is based on the first modern shorter fatter case design so is a little more efficient and allows for plenty of room for long bullets seated way out in a long action. The 6.5-06 is thinner and longer and potentially force the longest of bullets down into the case. An extended magazine will cure that but it’s still a less efficient design with equal powder capacity. The 6.5-06 might be easier to feed but not really an issue if your smith is even remotely qualified. I would even consider a short action round like the Creedmore for a long action long range hunting rifle. Speed kills ! The energy really gets down into the lower margins of killing power at long range with the Creedmore and 260 rem. The 6.5-284 is huffing and puffing out of gas past 1000 yards itself imo. You need enough velocity/energy to open the bullet and kill quickly. You can lob bullets in with the short action rounds on targets but as the time of flight extends the wind calls get harder and scopes run out of elevation. There is no reasonable argument for the two short action rounds in a long action for long range work.

 

[fyrewall]

My copy of Bolt Action Rifles by Frank de Haas has the R721 magazine length of 3.350. I have had no problems with my Ruger MKII LA magazine that measures 3.425 in using long 140 plus bullets. Issues like expansion need to be addressed. Should the smell of burnt cream of wheat (COW) and the one time hassle of making up fire-formed loads with cheap brass not be a problem the 6.5-06 AI might be considered. I once had a 6.5-06 AI and almost immediately regretted parting with it. I like to think of what it could do with a real long pointy 140 plus grain hunting bullet and Re26. The 6.5-06 AI would not have the antiquated long body taper and slopey 17 degree shoulders of the parent cartridge designed over 115 years ago. Yes, speed kills - bang, zip, splat!

 

[acloco]

Price your components.

GOOD or GREAT brass:

x284, IF you can find, is expensive. ($1.24 per piece, Winchester - I just used some googlefoo!)

6.5x55 is usually tied with 223 Lapua brass for their least expensive options. (82 cents per)

Bullets - same price
Primers - same price

Load books do NOT list 6.5x55 loads built on MODERN actions. Loads listed are designed for the Swedish action or other European.

 

[Mmwat]

Price your components.

GOOD or GREAT brass:

x284, IF you can find, is expensive. ($1.24 per piece, Winchester - I just used some googlefoo!)

6.5x55 is usually tied with 223 Lapua brass for their least expensive options. (82 cents per)

Bullets - same price
Primers - same price

Load books do NOT list 6.5x55 loads built on MODERN actions. Loads listed are designed for the Swedish action or other European.

6.5x55 loading is definitely an issue.

6.5x284 brass seems expensive but plentiful. Norma, Nosler, Hornady, and Lapua all make 6.5x284 headstamped brass. The Lapua is on sale at Grafs right now for $1.21 per piece.

 

[DocDoc]

Look to European load data for modern 6.5x55 load data.

 

[sbhooper]

What would be the adantages of the -06 be the 6.5x284. Seems like from what I’ve read they have pretty similar ballistics. Cheaper components?

That would probably be the only advantage. You can get once-fired brass (30-06, 270, 25-06) for a song. $1.24 for a piece of brass is totally ridiculous to me.

 

[fyrewall]

I have had one or more 6.5-06's for decades. I normally buy once fired brass, neck it down with a .270 die with no expander, then neck down with 6.5-06 F/L die with expander, turn to .288, trim & chamfer, then load accordingly. I recently bought a big bunch of .270 PPU brass. I realize the 6.5-.284 has some accuracy attributes such as cartridge shape over the 6.5-06, a round derived from a cartridge designed over 115 years ago, but that does not mean the 6.5-06 is inaccurate or markedly inferior to the 6.5-.284. Think about packing up some 200 - 300 rounds of ammo for a week of rodent shooting and steel - that would mean (200*$1.24=$248) spent on brass! $372 of brass for 300 rounds of 6.5-.284! I usually keep about 300 pieces of 6.5-06 brass on hand and at $0.20 - $0.25 that equates to $60 to $75. I have a 6.5-.308, acquired prior to the introduction of the .260 Rem - a nice round, cheap brass, exacting accuracy, but lacking the sizzle of the 6.5-06.

The OP did mention "casual target shooting"

Upon thinking of "sizzle" and cartridge shape, I am considering re-barreling one of my 1,750 round (7 rodent/steel trips @ 250 rounds) 6.5-06 to 6.5-06 AI. I don't want to spend $300 for some custom die set so I am looking into a .25-06 AI F/L bushing die used with a .288 bushing after expansion to 6.5. I do sort of the same procedure in making .20 Practical's - .223 F/L bushing die with .226 bushing, turn & trim/chamfer.

 

[fyrewall]

Here is a pic of a 200 yard target using reformed once fired (used & cheap) Winchester .30-06 brass, neck turned down to .288, loaded with 53 grains H1000, CCI 200 primer, & 140 Barnes match burner. For more velocity & expansion I load 120 Amax (now more pricy 120 ELD's) with 54.5 Re23 - this is my standard varmint load and is real effective up to 1/2 section - 880 yards.

 

[okie]

6.5-06 will hold 4 in a standard rem mag.--the 6.5x 284 will only hold 3. Either would be my choice, leaning toward the latter and the lapua brass.

 

[fyrewall]

My experiences in modifying rifle magazines to work with something that they are not designed to work with has been less than satisfactory - like feeding problems. For example, much thought has been given to the design of the famous M98 magazine intended to store 5 rounds of 7.92X57, loaded via stripper clips, in a staggered fashion in coordination with the conformation of the bottom of left & right rails on each side of the receiver. To some extent, push feed rifles like the Rem 721 adhere to the same constraints - like presenting each round so the nose of the advancing bolt will shove the round forward and then up into the chamber without having the round pop up out of the magazine and sit sort of sideways on top of other rounds in the magazine.

The body diameter of the .284 measures .5 and the body diameter of the 6.5-06 measures .470 in front of the extractor groove. To get everything to feed good involves some caution with attendant risks - there is some probability that your rifle won't feed so good and rounds stripped up from the magazine will sit sort of crosswise on top of the follower or rounds in the magazine.

Being naturally prudent, frugal, and cautious if the magazine is intended to work with .473 rim and .470 body diameter I will use ammo that conforms with that. Don't want some single shot rifle that uses brass costing more than $1 per issue.

 

[Mmwat]

My experiences in modifying rifle magazines to work with something that they are not designed to work with has been less than satisfactory - like feeding problems. For example, much thought has been given to the design of the famous M98 magazine intended to store 5 rounds of 7.92X57, loaded via stripper clips, in a staggered fashion in coordination with the conformation of the bottom of left & right rails on each side of the receiver. To some extent, push feed rifles like the Rem 721 adhere to the same constraints - like presenting each round so the nose of the advancing bolt will shove the round forward and then up into the chamber without having the round pop up out of the magazine and sit sort of sideways on top of other rounds in the magazine.

The body diameter of the .284 measures .5 and the body diameter of the 6.5-06 measures .470 in front of the extractor groove. To get everything to feed good involves some caution with attendant risks - there is some probability that your rifle won't feed so good and rounds stripped up from the magazine will sit sort of crosswise on top of the follower or rounds in the magazine.

Being naturally prudent, frugal, and cautious if the magazine is intended to work with .473 rim and .470 body diameter I will use ammo that conforms with that. Don't want some single shot rifle that uses brass costing more than $1 per issue.

I’m just using the action, it’s going to bedded in a new chassis with new bottom metal with AICS mags.

 

[Mmwat]

Look to European load data for modern 6.5x55 load data.

Thanks DocDoc, do have any recommendations on where to start? Do you think a manual like Norma’s would have some of those loads? After this thread I’m pretty much between the 6.5x284 and the 6.5x55. The 6.5-06 clearly has its merits, just had to eliminate one.

 

[fyrewall]

Three more items before commitment (submission of credit card info) - for the 6.5X55 or 6.5-.284.

Look into why PTG selected a .484 bolt face for a .473 rimmed round - this allows some .011 inch or .0055 inch radii clearance; by selecting the peculiar 6.5X55 round with its .480 diameter rim a clearance of (.484 - .480) / 2 or .002 radii clearance would be realized. Would that .002 clearance block normal operation of the snap over extractor taking into account the rifle was designed for a .0055 inch clearance between rim and end of bolt face? The 6.5X55 rim is also thicker. What does PTG say?

I have to admit that I am sort of ignorant in regards to Euro load data. Never used it, probably because Vihavuori powders are too pricy & I cannot find other powders listed for Euro data - not saying they don't exist. Taking a look at the Lapua data (Euro) for the 6.5X55 SE (loads for modern rifles like Sako's not to be confused with the M96 sitting in my gun safe), loaded to max pressures of 380 Mega Pascals (about 55,114 psi) I find max velocities in the mid 2800 fps range for 139's loaded with 50.9 (compressed) grains of N560 powder @ 380 MP; this appears to be about 125 Ft/sec faster than the 6.5 Creedmore loaded to almost 60K. I just cannot see much advantage in using Euro data for the 6.5X55 SE. I have seen 6.5X55's loaded at 60K psi but am unsure of any data for that. RamShot has 6.5X55 data with max loads of about 55 K PSI but velocities are considerably less than those for Vihavuori powder.

On the AICS mag - does this magazine, if used for a cartridge it is not intended for require machining of the M721 receiver thus enlarging the bottom opening of the receiver or modifications of the magazine? Does the AICS magazine hold loaded rounds in place vs the bottom of each M721 side rail? All I see for AICS magazines are for .308, .300 WM, & .338 Lapua. The .308 magazine is too short and the .338 L way out but are there any for .30-06 type rounds? Could the magazine or receiver be modified to make the .300 WM work for either a 6.5X55 or 6.5-.284?

I would be careful about which one I eliminated.