one of us
| I think the biggest reason it never caught on was they were only availible in the butt ugly 600 & 660 carbines when Rem brought it out. Later Remington brought them out in the 700 but very few were interested by then. A handy little carbine with near 270 ballistics and an overall length about 4 inches shorter than most 270's should sell to people who hunt in thick bush. |
| Posts: 2443 | Location: manitoba canada | Registered: 01 March 2001 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| They are just a louder 270 without a 26" barrel. |
| Posts: 3174 | Location: Warren, PA | Registered: 08 August 2002 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| I have one of the early Rugers in 6.5 mag. it's a delightfull rifle, slim and easy to carry, 22" barrel/short action of course. With 120's you dont intrude to badly on powder space, but from there up you certainly do. It's no feat to get 3180 fps with the 120's, and that will handle anything I want to shoot with it. Nice caliber, but as stated, it doesnt do anything a 6.5/284 doesnt do. |
| |
one of us
| Oh, heck, just nect the 270 WSM down .013 to 6.5 and be done with it. This is the equivalent of the 264 Win Mag, but it works out of a 24 inch bbl. The shorter case is far better than the 264 for reduced loads and you can duplicate the 6.5X55 with only 36 grs of XMP5744. Sooner or later this one will take over from the 6.5-284 in the 1000 yard matches. |
| |
one of us
| |
| Posts: 655 | Location: South Texas | Registered: 11 January 2004 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| I have never shot one, but it looks like a nice cartridge. I made one of my all-time booboos by not buying a Browning 6.5mm Magnum bolt gun with a 24" barrel that I saw in a Connecticut rifle shop. The literature suggests that it was intended to be Winchester 270 performance in the short-barrelled Remington 600 rifle, for sheep hunters. |
| Posts: 14737 | Location: Moreno Valley CA USA | Registered: 20 November 2000 |
IP
|
|