6.5 Rem. Mag

05 April 2005, 05:13

model7LSS

6.5 Rem. Mag

i was looking in the Remington Catalog and noticed that the 673 Guide Gun was chambered for it. What is it? 300 necked to 6.5? please give me some info on the round

05 April 2005, 05:25

N E 450 No2

It is the 350 Rem Mag necked to 6.5.
It is chambered in short action rifles.
Its performance is between the 25-06 and the 270 Win [not a bad place to be]. It never gained wide acceptance with the fickle American market. It is a good cartridge, compare it with the European use of 6.5x55. With the introduction of the short mags one might say it was ahead of its time.
I had a 350 Rem Mag for a while and really liked it.

05 April 2005, 23:02

Stonecreek

As NE 450 says, it's a .350 Remington Magnum necked to 6.5. The case is a belted magnum that is about 2.15" or so long (as compared to 2.5" for the 7mm Remington Magnum). Case capacity is about equal to a .30-06 case. It is very similar in size, shape, and case capacity to a 6.5-284 (with the 6.5 Remington having just marginally more capacity), and loading data should be virtually interchangeable between the two. In other words, if a belted 6.5-284 appeals to you, then the 6.5 Remington Magnum should be just your cup of tea.

06 April 2005, 20:21

model7LSS

what is the velocity and ballistics of this cartridge?

08 April 2005, 02:49

6.5remmag

First post here, my spelling sucks so bare with me.
Have been shooting a Rem model 700 6.5 Rem Mag.
for over 20 years (have five 6.5 or .264 rounds)
My favorite load for a long time has been 59 gr H4831sc for about 3200 fps (24bbl). Ammo and brass we hard to find (not cheap)up untill Rem. brougth it back. I have to date about 400 case and half of them I (thiers a trick to it though) made from 350 Rem. Mag brass .

Basicly it fits right between the 25/06 and a 270 Win. and just the same as my 6.5-06 (6.5/284 same)just in a short action with two less rounds in the mag .

I like it ,but most likly wouldn't buy an other one (Rem. 600 or 660 being being a diffrent story)and my 260 Kimber is my go to deer rifle most of the time now .

Chris (6.5Rem.Mag

08 April 2005, 03:03

mark65x55

I mean really, what will a 6.5rem mag do that a .270win want do?? Plus the dies and brass are a cheaper for the 270. Also you can find loaded ammo for the .270 at any back roads store. The 6.5 is a good round but why all the fuss when a .270 will do the same thing? Some times different is just...different.

08 April 2005, 04:29

Con

mark6.5x55,
The similiarity between 6.5Mag and 270Win, particularly in the early short barrelled carbines is one reason it probably failed to gain market attention. It was just a noisy .270. Short actions also had the projectiles like 140gr seated really deep, cutting powder space. In a long action it will perform better (but still hardly beyond a .270), in a short action its handicapped. In Australia Nick Harvey made some use of it by opening to 7mm and changing shoulder angle to make his 7mmHarveyMagnum.
Cheers...
Con

08 April 2005, 05:11

Canuck

quote:
short barrelled carbines is one reason it probably failed to gain market attention

I'd say thats the main reason alright. I think Remington would have had a lot more success with it in a beanfield style rifle.

Cheers,
Canuck

08 April 2005, 05:25

Con

Canuck,
True, Remington probably marketed it wrong, but then the "beanfield" rifle didn't exist back in 1966, did it? In my opinion, the very late 70's through the 80s and 90s saw the big bores come to the front, that interest is now declining. The early 90s and slowing now was the "sniper/beanfield/tactical era" and I feel we're moving back into a "Classic" era characterised by longer barrels/nicer wood and a "short magnum-velocity" era. Just my impressions from way DownUnder reading some gun rags and listening in to these forums. Niche markets/interests will always exist and I think Remington tries to take advantage of them, perhaps more so that other manufactures, hence why they're always turning over products and limiting cartridges to specific guns only?
Cheers...
Con

08 April 2005, 05:33

budiceale

i killed my first deer in 1973 with a model 700 rem in 6.5 mag. it was my only big game rifle until i got old enough and had enough money to start buying more rifles. i still have it but have quit using it because i have too many other toys to play with. needless to say, this cartridge has a massive amount of sentimental value to me but i would not buy another one. i've become one of those people who hate a belted case unless there is a real need for a belt(458 win mag for example) and the rem 700 short action is too short to allow bullet seating out there where it should be. in a short action i would build a 6.5x284 or in a 98 mauser i would (will!!

...someday) build a 6.5-06. this concludes my .02s worth

cheers...bud

06 June 2005, 01:27

Alaska Bush Man

I have a Rem 600 in 6.5 mag, this is the rifle that remington advertised 3000FPS with the 120 bullet. Too me my 6.5mm performs like a 270 win with 130 grain bullets.....but from a nice 18.5" carbine

06 June 2005, 16:50

Jagter

Never knew there is something like a 6.5 Rem Mag!

Can somebody perhaps tell what is the difference between the 6.5 Rem Mag and the .264 (6.5mm) Win Mag:
Cartridge wise as well as
performance wise with the same weight bullet?

07 June 2005, 03:28

seafire/B17G

It is pretty much interchangable with the 6.5/284 or the 6.5 Norma as some people like to call it, isn't it folks?

Remington had a good idea, just bad timing back in the 1960s, and wrong rifle to put it in....

If they would have brought it out now, it would have sold like hotcakes.... How much different is its configuration than the RSAUM cases?

Cheers
seafire

10 June 2005, 12:17

Jagter

For your information re the differences between a 6.5mm Rem Mag and a .264(6.5mm) Win Mag -

quote:
The 6.5 Rem Mag and 264 Win Mag are two different cats, entirely.

The 6.5 Rem has a case capacity of 68 grains of water, same as the 6.5x284 or 6.5x06. The 264 Win Mag has a case capacity of 82 grains.

The 6.5 Remington was designed for use in a short action, specifically the 600 Remington. However, Remington, God love them, can get things about as wrong, by accident, as anyone could, on purpose.

Due to the long 6.5 bullets and in order to feed in the magazine, the 600 action requires that all but the lightest bullets be seated deep into the case, well past the neck. Thus loaded the pressures are erratic and the accuracy drops off. What you end up with is something like a 260 with a belt that does not shoot .25 inch groups.

Were it not for the 264 Win Mag, the 6.5 Rem Magnum chambered in a long action would be a premier cartridge. As it is, it will probably become a footnote in history.

13 June 2005, 19:10

North61

Well this sweetie was killed by ignorance IMO. The great Bob Hagel who got so much right led the charge against the 6.5 Rem Mag. So many wrote that bullets needed to be seated so deep that valuable powder space was lost and so the whole concept of short action magnums was flawed. What a difference 37 years make! In actuality the thin little 264 bullets only eat up a few grains and loading them in a long action gains only 30ft/sec or so. I own two 6.5's a dog legged Ruger and a Rem 660. Fantastic caribou rifles and every bit as good as the great 270. I get good accuracy with the right load with bullets from 85-160 grains and downright scary accuracy with 120 grain Sierra's.