I am trying to learn a bit about the 6.6x57s history, especially as pertaining to Africa.

Any information or places to look for it would be great.
Nothing real specific just interested in the 6.5x57 and its use in Africa.

Allen

/

/

Thanks ALF, I was hoping you might comment on this. I really appreciate all of your knowledge and willingness to share some of it.

Since the 6.5x57 doesn't really have much if any Africa heritage I will just go ahead and chamber my Model 1924 in 6.5x55 since loading data is so easy to get.

I would go with the 6.5 MS if the bolt head wasn't so small to complicate things. I believe Norma or RWS makes 6.5 MS brass. I will probably use RWS 6.5x55 brass.

Thanks again ALF.

Allen

ALF,
Excellent dialogue on the 6.5x57mm. It's a winner of a cartridge, but only in Europe.

Ammo for the 6.5x57mm is made by RWS, S&B, and Privi-Partizan. Probably also by Hirtenberger. Hard to find here in the USA. RWS is the only current manufacturer of 6.5x54mm, although Norma continues to make sporadic runs of both loaded ammo and brass.

A 6.5x55mm makes the most sense for a new rifle in the USA, and there is ample brass for the Swedish wonder. FYI, three 6.5x55s have made it on the last two safaris I've been on, and they performed very well as light rifles.

LLS

/

I can't give you a history of the 6.5 x 57 in Africa...

but I can give you a brief history of the 6.5 x 57 cartridge in a Model 70 rifle, and its history in Southern Oregon...

the 6.5 x 57 is my favorite cartridge! and the model 70 is my favorite rifle!

Now that we've opened the discussion to North American use, Yes! I do like the 6.5x57mm. I have a Steyr-Mannlicher Model M rifle in 6.5x57mm and it is a sweet one. Took the first deer with it last season, and it was a splat down 110 yard hit. Doesn't get much better than that. Of course, I've seen the 6.5x54mm and 6.5x55mm do the same thing which really backs up the use of those long heavy for caliber 6.5mm bullets.

Well since we're talking about them.

What the main differences between the 6.5x55 and the 6.5x57 other than 2mm and the larger rim diameter of the 6.5x55.

I have read about the 6.5x55 a little bit and have the One Book One Caliber load book on the 6.5x55.

But I really don't know much about the 6.5x57 Mauser. How do they compare in modern loadings?
I don't mean one is good but the other one sucks or anything.

It's just that after thinking about it, I really don't know much of anything about the 6.6x57 Mauser. As compared to the 7x57 or .375H&H or 338.mag ect.I know a bit of their history how they compare to other similar cartridges. I just have read a lot about various other cartridges. But for some reason I haven't the 6.5x57 Mauser.

Of course a 6.5x57 Mauser built on an Intermediate Mauser might be good "karma" as opposed to a 6.5x55 Swedish

Allen

Most of the 6.5 x 57 load data is the same pressure as 8 x 57 which, in turn, is higher than the 6.5 x 55. So there is a slight velocity advantage, but in the real world the 6.5 x 55 can be bumped to match the 6.5 x 57 in modern rifles.

We owning a couple or three of the 260, the 6.5 x 55.. and ONE 6.5 x 57... along with a couple of 7 x 57s, and a couple of 6mm Rems.. I have a pretty decent idea of their capabilities...

when it comes to 6.5 bore, the 260, 6.5 x 55 and the 6.5 x 57 cases.. all hold within one grain of each other when you fill them to the brim ( for measurement sake only here).. with H 380.. so case capacity gives little variation if at all...

one a long action in particular with bullets seated out there... the 260 would be on par with both of the other cartridges...it has a little hamperedness when dealing with a short action, unless a 6.5 x 55 is also having bullets seated like they are on a short action...

With all three you are really splitting hairs on performance in the field...

I use to love the 6.5 x 55 the most.. just because it was Scandanavian...

But as a handloader, the popularity shift to the 6.5 x 57... it is easy to load.. it is Americanized when it is called the 6.5 x 257... and brass is readily available.. and doesn't have those minor finicky variations like the Swedish Case can....

I am going to pose a question that has been interesting to me for a long time concerning the 6.5 caliber. We know that even in the small cases generaly used that It kills out of porportion to its bore size.

Now the question. In WWII Japan switched from the 6.5x50 to the 7.7x58 for increased killing power? Never quite understood their logic.
All that was needed was to increase the case to 55 or 57mm length & use the barrels that were already on hand. A simple rechamber job.

I had read somewhere that it had more to do with rivalry between the services than logic. To make matters worse, each round came rimless for rifles and rimmed for machine guns so a Japanese combined force needed four different small arms rounds. What a logistics nightmare.

tiggertate,
Thou has spoken a mouthful concerning the WWII Japanese military. Then add in their widespread use of 8mm Mausers and .303 British weapons. Ever seen the Japanese built .303 Lewis Guns? TRhey fought the entire of WWII with their 6.5mm and 7.7mm rifles too, what a nightmare. Sheesh!

There is nothing to really divide these 6.5mms in the modern world except final overall length, which hurts the .260 Remington.

LLS

Since there's not a lot of reloading data or at least I haven't it yet .
Can data for the 6.5x55 be used for the 6.5x57?

Allen

quote:

Originally posted by AllenBosely:
Since there's not a lot of reloading data or at least I haven't it yet .
Can data for the 6.5x55 be used for the 6.5x57?

Allen

either 6.5 x 55 data, or 6.5 x 54 data ( lower pressure, so you are real safe), or 260 Rem Data... the only point is don't start at the maz loads listed for the other cartridges.. especially the 260.... you will probably be fine.. but a good handloader knows to work up, EVERY TIME on a new load...

a key thing to remember also... most 6.5 bullets, that are not considered varmint bullets, were designed to work best with MVs between about 2200 to 2800 fps...so don't try to turn a 6.5 x 57 into a 264 Win Mag...

at the same time, It doesn't give up much to the Win Mag...to compensate for the lower velocity.. a couple of clicks up on your scopes elevation will compensate for the trajectory differences...

A 6.5 bullet has very high sectional density, especially the 140s and up... they don't need high velocity to do a lot of penetration...

Thanks seafire2, I'm not looking for a hot rod at all.

I guessing from looking at 6.5x55 loads data, I can get a 140gn bullet to between 2600 to 2700fps and that would be fine. Not looking to max it out.

Is 2600 to 2700 range a realistic comfortable range with a 140gn bullet in the 6.5x57 Mauser?

Allen

quote:

Originally posted by AllenBosely:

Is 2600 to 2700 range a realistic comfortable range with a 140gn bullet in the 6.5x57 Mauser?

Allen

Depending on barrel length, action strength, COL and powder choice it is acheivable.

With MRP or RL22 and a 24" barrel 2,800fps is possible with long seating and MRP/RL22. Mine own 26" K95 managed 2,850fps with RL22. No signs of pressure apparent. I know of one other who managed this (K95) with a 24" barrel.

I don't like high pressure loads or hot rodding but it does make the round very very impessive indeed. My 6.5x55 is about 100fps down but that is more likely due to a tight custom barrel.

The 6.5 and probably especially so with at bullet used in the 6.5X50 penetrate well . . . No make that VERY WELL.

Military bullets that penetrate very well may not be the best to take the fight out of opposing forces and since military ammo does not expand bullet diameter thus weight (to keep in the range of BC and SD) increases give greater effect on the "target".

/

ALF, that's a very nice little rifle.
Is it on an intermediate or standard length action? About what does it weigh?

That is very similar to the look I'm going for
except with a "short" forearm.

Do you have any more pictures of it you could post, I like that rifle a lot.

Allen

quote:

Originally posted by D Humbarger:
All that was needed was to increase the case to 55 or 57mm length & use the barrels that were already on hand. A simple rechamber job.

As American gunsmiths did in great numbers to create the 6.5 Roberts, which is so similar to the 6.5x57 as to be interchangeable in some rifles.

Speer #9 has loading data, but I don't know about the more recent editions. I find in my rifle that max load is a grain or two less than that for the 6.5x55. Starting data for the Swede is a good starting point for the 6.5 Roberts however and would do as well for the 6.5x57.

I started with a bubberized Arisaka that had been rechambered and came with a set of dies. When that barrel proved hopeless, and I needed a rifle for my wife, I stayed with the chambering when I had it rebarreled and restocked it. Considering that I already had the dies, it was the most sensible choice at the time since the .260 was still a wildcat, and 6.5x55 brass was very expensive and only sporadically available.

I haven't regretted that choice, but doubt I would make it again with the changed brass situation. To my mind, you could flip a coin to decide between the three cartridges, assuming you had a three sided coin to flip.

The 6.5x57 was designed in 1893 but never saw use as a military cartridge. Over here, it is still very popular in the rimmed version, it shoots flat and kills very well what the Scandinavians I guess can confirm who kill lots of moose with their own 6.5 mm.

I think a 6.5x57 R is the most classic and reasonable choice for a light single shit rifle for people who are not infected by the contagious magnumitis disease.

quote:

Originally posted by AllenBosely:
Thanks seafire2, I'm not looking for a hot rod at all.

I guessing from looking at 6.5x55 loads data, I can get a 140gn bullet to between 2600 to 2700fps and that would be fine. Not looking to max it out.

Is 2600 to 2700 range a realistic comfortable range with a 140gn bullet in the 6.5x57 Mauser?

Allen

40 grains of RL 15, Varget, IMR 4064, IMr 4895, W748 should get you at 2800 fps with a 140 grain bullet.. that is what each give in my 6.5x57.....

/

Alf,

Your reply was obviously here in response to military bullets and it makes sense. Military bullets here refer to FMJ lead-core bullets that does not open up on flesh shooting humans, and also for long monolithics where the twist is too slow.

However, in a hunting context shooting game, the longer bullet that expands, making it shorter again remains stable and hardly ever flips over. And it is more appropriate, since its diameter expands to make a bigger hole even that lessens the penetration. The magic lies in the combination or trade-off of depth of penetration and the size of the hole.

A good case in point here is the 7x57 mm shooting 160 grain to 175 grain bullets. I did a test with my 7 mm Mauser, and showed that a .284/175 gr Barnes bullet out penetrates a .366/286 gr Claw bullet and it all relates to Momentum density (Mo/Xsa.) The Barnes-X only expands to double its original diameter, whereas some other Soft bullets expand way more up to 2.6 times.

Lastly the construction of the bullet and its impact velocity becomes a critical factor when threshold strengths are approached and exceeded. The SA made Claw bullets (those with 1 mm thick walls as opposed to the the other version with 2 mm walls) are soft and thus over-expands on the high-velocity calibers.

Warrior

/

quote:

But now the caveat: what about that surface ratio of 3.8 ? this becomes the real killer ! Because this bullet presents the target with a way larger side on surface area than even some expanding bullets and in human targets they are not only man stoppers they are very very lethal. More so than the 30 cal US M80 or US 5.56 M193 fired from a M16.

Alf,

The Mark 7 174 grain Spitzer .303 BR bullet (.311 actually) with the aluminium tip is another case in point that tumbled in the target. This bullet was launched at 2,440 fps. The aluminium tip filled a large part of the ogived-tip and its specific gravity is much lower than lead. Thus its instability was caused by the fact that the COG point was located further to the rear, and as such, was prone to tumbling in flesh. This of course greatly increased its wounding potential in human beings where depth of penetration is not a prime consideration. This is essentially the point you are making and this is overlooked by many people. This very same bullet became notorious in the hunting fields for wounding game.

Warrior

/

Originally posted by ALF about the 6.5x57 (which I assume to have an actual bullet diameter of .264"):

quote:

... Assuming we are taking the original 6.5mm 156 gr

Weight: 156gr ( 10.1 gram)
Sectional Density: 0.3014 ...

... We know ... a 300 gr 375 (sd= 0.2856) or a 400 gr 404 Jeffery (sd= 30343)

Alf,
What convention are you using to compute sectional density?

Whatever your method, it is not the standard definition of SD, which is for a square bullet proportional directly to a round bullet:

.264"/156gr: SD = .3198 not .3014
.375"/300gr: SD = .3048 not .2856
.423"/400gr: SD = .3194 not .30343

Did I get the 6.5 bullet diameter correct?

T/

Ah, yes, simply a factor of (4/pi) except for the units.

And now, by your "reality convention," those units have a reality, not simply a unitless ratio as with the square bullets, common convention. Much more real.

However to get truly real, don't you have to admit that the "6.5mm" nominal bullet is actually a 6.7056mm bullet, as in .26400" diameter?

/

quote:

Mauser favoured the Short Mauser 6.5 X 54 K instead.

Strangely, although we acknowledge the 8X57mm cartridge as the "father" of all the other 57mm-long cartridges in various bullet diameters that followed it, few seem to realize that this round (7,8X57mmJ) was actually a design of the German Ordnance Department (or Rifle Commission), BASED ON THE WORK OF COL RUBIN in Switzerland, and NOT a MAUSER design at all.

Mauser himself favored shorter cases for military cartridges. For example, Mauser DID design the 7.65X53mm, which was originally intended for the Belgian Mauser, and was later used by Argentina, Turkey, and perhaps a couple of other South American armies as well as Belgium. This round was more along the lines oif what Mauser himself thought a military cartridge should be. Amazingly, it was damn close to the 7.62X51mm NATO which came on the scene nearly 70 years later!

quote:

What should be supplied:

1. Bullet length (L)
2. Mass
3. Transverse moment of inertia. (Jq)
4. Position of CG as percentage of total length
5. L:Jq ratio
6. Side on surface area in the case of non deforming bullets
7. Expected Exapanded surface area for the usual expected velocity range of the expanding projectile.
8. Energy density values

This will give a whole different point of departure when looking at how bullets really operate in practice.

Alf,

All very informative, especially for the non-deforming bullet, but the expanding bullet that shortens and lose some of its weight changes all of the other 7 statistics in the above list, and that brings with it more complications for manufacturers if they have to publish data for retrieved bullets as opposed to bullets still in pristine condition. Granted, we would have a better appreciation of stability in-target and penetration ability. The construction of expanding bullets and their reletaive strength vis-a-vis each other in this genre of bullet can play a major role in their behaviour, and that goes beyond simple measurements of length and ratios. (example ... conventional bullets that shatter)

Warrior

A .277/130 gr Sierra Gameking bullet out of a 270 Win at 3,100 fps goes no more than 3 to 4 inches into the shoulder of an Eland and just causes superficial damage. Into an Eland's head it explodes inside without an exit wound - the entrance wound was pencil thin and even though the bullet shattered, the eyes of the Eland did not even pop.

Warrior

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
RIP:

You are off (sic) course correct on the true caliber of the 6.5

Alf,
Then you of course should correct your numbers to the actual caliber of the "nominal 6.5mm" to get the "actual" sectional density correct, whichever formula for SD you choose.

Either formula for SD may be used, of(f) course, as long as the [4/(pi)] constant is thrown in to the calculations using the square bullet SD, and units of linear measure and mass are kept consistent within the comparison.