I like long and sleek, but the 129 does a lot in 6.5, and I would like to see tests of the new 130 accubond, with perhaps the Scirocco and Barnes in same wt. vs say 140-160's.

Penetration, wound channel might be very comparable. Heck a 129 under the 'magnum envelope of speed' does very well.

quote:

Originally posted by ireload2:
Bad????
How about a .264 Win Mag?

I guess that depends on what you want from the cartridge. I have owned both the .264 Winchester and a wildcat 6.5x61 S&H, and found nothing really wrong with either for killing game.

If I was going to get another 6.5 (I currently have a Carl Gustaff 6.5x55), I'd probably get a .260 Remington, throated and "twisted" for 156 gr. RN bullets. Can always seat lighter bullets out a bit farther, if need be.

It will do about everything the 6.5x55 will, and brass is much easier to come by in far places (because one can always neck down .308 brass...and yes, when I take only one rifle into the back country, I usually take some sort of device along for emergency reloading if necessary).

My other choice would be to retrofit my Newton to .256 Newton (brass is easily made from .30-'06).


But then, that turns MY crank. YMMV.


Edited to note that I still have the 6.5x61 S&H, and two 6.5x54R's. They all do their assigned jobs well.

Of the 28 firearms that I currently have chambered in .264" bore tubes, I like the 260 (18) and 6.5-284 (3) in short actions and the 6.5x55 (5) and 256 Newton (2) in long actions. The 6.5-06 is a good and easy wildcat, but I think that Newton got it right in terms of balancing case capacity and case design when he did the 256.

Jeff

wow, look how similar...

quote:

Originally posted by 6.5BR:
To my mind, it has alot to offer one needing a 6.5 that will deliver say 95% of ballistics that a 260 or 6.5x55 will if you are using a shorter 22-23" barrel or less, and with 130gr or under bullets.

In a say 28", I believe a 140gr runs 2900, 120's hit 3087 (3200 bad case life), and 107's up to 3250, but 3150 range would be better on brass, AGAIN in 28".

That ain't bad! Using 39 gr of a faster burn rate powder than a 260 or 6.5x55 does, it is VERY efficient, nice shoulder/low taper, etc. You would save a few pennies over time on powder, and you have a longer barrel life which lowers costs, perhaps enough for the difference in brass costs, 100 or 200 cases ought to wear a barrel out! I'd guess barrel life for top accuracy would be 3000-5000 rounds, perhaps 500-1500 over larger cases, and twice that or more of a -284 version.

I am SERIOUSLY considering building a x47 Lapua the more I think about it. I am willing to sacrice say, 100fps for supreme accuracy, quality brass, and hey, who do you know that has one? And it's not a wildcat, so brass is ready made.

All in all, I think this round has a lot of potential use, if it catches on. It was built to better the 6mmBR from 300-600 yds and that is saying a lot.

I thought the 6.5x47 was based on the 222 RM case. Now I see what the excitement is about! Hell yeah! That looks like a winner!!

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:

quote:

Originally posted by ireload2:
Bad????
How about a .264 Win Mag?

I guess that depends on what you want from the cartridge. I have owned both the .264 Winchester and a wildcat 6.5x61 S&H, and found nothing really wrong with either for killing game.

If I was going to get another 6.5 (I currently have a Carl Gustaff 6.5x55), I'd probably get a .260 Remington, throated and "twisted" for 156 gr. RN bullets. Can always seat lighter bullets out a bit farther, if need be.

It will do about everything the 6.5x55 will, and brass is much easier to come by in far places (because one can always neck down .308 brass...and yes, when I take only one rifle into the back country, I usually take some sort of device along for emergency reloading if necessary).

My other choice would be to retrofit my Newton to .256 Newton (brass is easily made from .30-'06).


But then, that turns MY crank. YMMV.


Edited to note that I still have the 6.5x61 S&H, and two 6.5x54R's. They all do their assigned jobs well.

I limit my shooting on medium and large game to 300 yards or less. Within that range trajectory requirements are not severe compared to the size of the animal.
Within that range there are many non-belted rounds that work well. If the critter is large enough for a belted round I prefer to use a .338. Hunting does not provide nearly enough shooting for me so the value of a 264 is moot.
I have a fair idea of the barrel life of a 264 Since I have a well toasted 25/06 that I do not use much any more.

quote:

Originally posted by ireload2:

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:

quote:

Originally posted by ireload2:
Bad????
How about a .264 Win Mag?

I guess that depends on what you want from the cartridge. I have owned both the .264 Winchester and a wildcat 6.5x61 S&H, and found nothing really wrong with either for killing game.

If I was going to get another 6.5 (I currently have a Carl Gustaff 6.5x55), I'd probably get a .260 Remington, throated and "twisted" for 156 gr. RN bullets. Can always seat lighter bullets out a bit farther, if need be.

It will do about everything the 6.5x55 will, and brass is much easier to come by in far places (because one can always neck down .308 brass...and yes, when I take only one rifle into the back country, I usually take some sort of device along for emergency reloading if necessary).

My other choice would be to retrofit my Newton to .256 Newton (brass is easily made from .30-'06).


But then, that turns MY crank. YMMV.


Edited to note that I still have the 6.5x61 S&H, and two 6.5x54R's. They all do their assigned jobs well.

I limit my shooting on medium and large game to 300 yards or less. Within that range trajectory requirements are not severe compared to the size of the animal.
Within that range there are many non-belted rounds that work well. If the critter is large enough for a belted round I prefer to use a .338. Hunting does not provide nearly enough shooting for me so the value of a 264 is moot.
I have a fair idea of the barrel life of a 264 Since I have a well toasted 25/06 that I do not use much any more.

I also limit my shooting to about 300 yards, usually substantially less, except when I am doing an elk "cull" or something of that sort where I sometimes HAVE to shoot at distances of more than double that...it's part of the work.

Anyway, I am not touting the .264 as superior. Just saying that for killing animals it really isn't bad, either. I don't know more than maybe one or two people who do enough hunting to actually wear out a .264 Win Mag bore in their lifetime by hunting game with it. I know I sure didn't wear mine out...I just sold it because I had the opportunity to get another, much more rare, chambering of Model 70 for the same money I sold the .264 for.....

I still don't think there are any bad 6.5 rifle cartridges sold in sporters or military rifles since about the turn of the 19th Century to the 20th Century.

Anybody here shoot a 6.5x68S? I got the jones for one...too much bling-bling not to want one.
Rich
DRSS
6.5 nutcase

I thought the 6.5x47 was based on the 222 RM case. Now I see what the excitement is about! Hell yeah! That looks like a winner!![/QUOTE]

SHHHHHHHH, I should not have let the cat out of the bag!

I can tell you, the folks from RUAG at the SHOT SHOW (they made the 6x47 Swiss Match-looks very similar but 6mm) were VERY upset about Lapua's entry. Many match shooters neck the 6.5 version down to 6mm. Either one is a very 'balanced cartridge' from my perspective. Since I would want to hunt deer and even would shoot larger game with a good shot opportunity, I think I want the 6.5 version. I already have a 6BR and it gives me all I need in 6mm. I don't shoot big game or paper at extreme ranges, though the 6BR has won many matches to 1000 yards.

Hey ireload2, I have to agree with you about those "Long Lance" torpedoes. My 6.5x54mm carbines love them (156 grain RWS), and I even had a 6.5-06 that had an affection for those 160 grain Hornadays

quote:

Originally posted by sierra2:
Hey ireload2, I have to agree with you about those "Long Lance" torpedoes. My 6.5x54mm carbines love them (156 grain RWS), and I even had a 6.5-06 that had an affection for those 160 grain Hornadays

The interesting 'quirk' with real 'heavies' is often they shoot as good or better further our when 'yaw' or whatever settles down. I shoot at 200 for all my rifle shooting now so I know what it is doing, POI and groups.

I have heard many 6.5's loving those 160's, also heard that some 270's love the 150's roundnose, mine shot the 150 ballistic tips better than 130s.

If you can get the usable trajectory you need with the load you are using with a given combo with a high SD/BC bullet, they often fly real well, before and after hitting game. If the spin is enough, they stabilize during flight, and avoid tumbling on impact. 6.5's are often twisted with very quick twist that are very adequate for all bullet weights. For a hunting rifle, I'd have a fast twist in most anything, over a slow. Interesting fact, Remington chambered some guns i.e. heavy barrel 308's I believe in 12 twist, yet in the same year production, a SS BDL 700 had a 10 twist, to use heavier hunting bullets.

I don't typically see varying twists in many rifle calibers, but the 6.5x55 you must watch, Howa I believe did, and may still chamber in 9 twist, as are Remington 260's. Ruger did 8", as well as most all euro, CZ may be 8.6", Sako/Tikka x55 are 8", but there 260 is a 9". Many older 6.5's even use a 7.5 which love the heavies.

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
Just for "hey's", let's reverse the question for a moment....can anyone think of a "bad" 6.5 rifle cartridge that was used in a sporter or military rifle since about 1910? I can't.

The two conical ones, 6,5x58R and 6,5x70R. Not really "bad" for their very specialized purpose (a 6x70R Krieghoff has recenty been re-invented), but not brilliant either.

Carcano

I am building a new 6.5X55 with a 25 inch 1:7.5 twisted barrel for the long sleek 155-160 grainers.



BUT, I also have a few older 6.5s like these:

Who has played with the 160 hornadays alot.

I just started trying them.

I like the lapua mega 156gr alot and the discontinued seirra 160 are very accurate

The 160 hornadays have less suface area touching the lands than 140 hornadays if anyone has took a caliber too them, the 160s ogive is way back just aheard of the canalure. I always thought the published powder charge was wrong being a heaveyer charge than the 140.

I just did a powder charge a pressure test with the hornaday 160s and 48 grs of H4831 is OK, while I settled on 47 with the 140. My 156 lapua mega and 160 sierra load is 45.5 gr of h4831 or R22

Everyone [except one] forgets the KING!! 264 Win Mag!! Still works for me. But! There is NO bad 6.5 cartridge----just some that may be a bit better to use in a different situation. 6.5X223 to the 264 Thor! They all are great.
Aloha, Mark

Okay, I would say that Bohica has a point. I would have a hard time to come up with a "bad" 6,5 mm. Even the nearly dead 6,5mm Remington Magnum has its goofy "French bulldog" charme of sorts, and can be quite useful once you manage to overlook the silly belt.

Although, as I have to admit, there a few little sensible ones (like the two old German-Austrian sporting cartridges that I mentioned), or useless ones, like the Winchester and Weatherby Magnums, or exaggerations like the 6,5x68(R).

Still my own favourite caliber compromise is the famous 6,8mm Chinese, the best military round that ever was, and its later foreign copy, the .270 Win.

Carcano

quote:

Bad????
How about a .264 Win Mag?

What is wrong with the .264 W M?

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Bad????
How about a .264 Win Mag?

What is wrong with the .264 W M?

It is like many other large case small bore rounds. You don't get a lot of performance increase for the powder burned. If you like that case why not use a .338?

Best?

The 6.5x55 and the 260 Rem are very good cartridges, I have rifles in both calibres. At the moment the Kimber Montana in 260 gets the nod, put simply it's a sweet little rifle that shoots very well.

We can not look at the round in isolation, the rifle make and model are just as important a consideration. I did once have a Ruger in 260 if I were comparing that rifle with my 6.5x55 then the 6.5x55 would be the first choice.
It's still a case of plumping for what takes your fancy.

The 264WM is a superb open country deer/antelope rifle. That is what it was designed for, and it still excels for that purpose. I don't really see what the point is, that if you like that case, to shoot a 338? These two cartridges may use the same case, but their respective uses vary widely. Possibly people with widely differing types of hunting, have widely differing views on what is the best bore size for any particular case.

Even I, as thick-skinned as I am, would never show up on an antelope hunt with a 338!!

The .264 Winchester Magnum can be loaded down to 6.5-284 levels or to the top end of the .26 cartridge range. I don't consider powder effeciency when making cartridge decisions. I like the velocity that the .264 Win Mag pushes a 160 grain pill.

The best 6.5 that never was is the 6.5-06.

quote:

Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:
Anybody here shoot a 6.5x68S? I got the jones for one...too much bling-bling not to want one.
Rich
DRSS
6.5 nutcase

I had a Mauser 66 in the calibre. With a second barrel in 8X68. The 6.5X68 is a great round, the 66 a bloody awful rifle

Oh and also had a 6.5X68 chambered in a Krico............tackholer!!

But then as Buliwyf, said just load the 264 back........all good.

I quite like the 6.5x57 and own two rifles in this caliber .

Idahosharpshooter I have a 6.5x68 but I really wouldn't rush out and recommend everyone get one . It may be too much of a good thing. Case capacity is several grs greater than the 264 win. You burn a lot of powder for those last few FPS. Only the slowest powders are suitable. One calibre that deserves to be more popular is the 6.5 Rem. If you have one in a std action and a 24 inch barrel it is surprising how close it comes to a 264 win with a lot less powder with good 120-130 bullets. the 264 win runs away with the 140 gr and up bullets. That short fat case seems to be inheritantly accurate.

quote:

Originally posted by snowman:
One calibre that deserves to be more popular is the 6.5 Rem. If you have one in a std action and a 24 inch barrel it is surprising how close it comes to a 264 win with a lot less powder with good 120-130 bullets. the 264 win runs away with the 140 gr and up bullets. That short fat case seems to be inheritantly accurate.

Hey snowman, got one coming. Like you said it is built on a long action (300 win mag action) and will have a Douglas XX 26" barrel with a 1 in 8 twist. The case should hold about 63 grains of RL22 to the base of the neck. I am going to try the 130 gr Accubonds first and am having it chambered so the base of the bullet is seated about 1/2 way down the shoulder



Should be able to hit 3100 fps with the 130 gr bullet but will let you know later.

When I started shooting the old 264 back in the late 60s or early 70s I found a load consisting of H-870 and the 140 Sierra Gameking that was incredibly accurate. Basically fill the case with the 870 and seat your bullet to be about.018 off the leade and your were right there.Amazingly I found this load worked in about ALL the 264s I ever played with. It is basically 73.5/H-870 and a 140 Sierra with a CCI-250 primer. I figure there might be other loads that produce higher velocity but really? Who needs it? 3100 fps from a 140 Sierra is plenty for about any game the 264 is designed to kill and that doesn`t leave out too much!
Remember! These loads are fine in MY rifle. Approach with care as they might be hot in yours! My rifles have the leade extended to accomodate the 140 Sierra seated out to the base of the neck. Your throat is shorter so pressures will be different.
Aloha, Mark

Interesting question, and it depends on what size action you're building on. For a mini action, a 6.5 ppc or 6.5 br would be great, for a short action it's a toss up between the .260 rem and 6.5-.284. For a long action, I'd go 6.5-06 or 6.5-06 ackley.

As much as I like the 6.5x55, I can't see chambering it in a modern action. It's too long for a short action, and if you're going with a long action, I'd use the -06 case.

My uncle's gardener's brother has a friend that pumps gas for a guy who works at Ruger. I have it on good authority that Ruger is going to chamber the Hawkeye in 6.5 Ruger. The 375 Ruger case necked down to 6.5 ........ .....................JJ

The 6.5x55 is the best 6.5 cartridge.

JJ,

STOP THAT!!!!!! You'll have rip posting his latest attempt at paying homage to somebody who THOUGHT about this ten years ago, but forgot to post it!

Rich
DRSS

Heck I like all the 6.5s,Ilike the 264 winchester magnum,thats one long range flat shootin rifle,my only draw back to this cartridge is that barrel life is a bit short,theyre a bit overbore,I shoot two 6.5x55 swedes that I wouldnt trade for love nor money,and I also shoot two 6.5-06s that I feel the same way about,I got an old 96 mauser from a friend of mine,an old viet nam vet built this rifle,the swedes say the twist rate is 7.87:1 ,this rifle will shoot the 156 to 160 grain RN bullets in little one hole clusters at 100 yrs,this rifle will drop deer so hard and fast that they blow up a cloud of dust when they hit the ground.I believe that the 6.5x55mm is one of the greatest cartridges on the plant.the swedes use this round with pride in thier moose hunting arsenal,I just dont think it gets any better,my 2 sense..........

I'm dying for a 6.5x63 Messner Mag. It's built on a slightly shorter 9.3x64 Brenneke and really moves. Somewhat similar to the 6.5x68.

The 6.5-284 is popular with the long target shooters. I live and hunt in wide open country so a 140 Gr hand load in my 26 inch barreled 264 Win Mag works for me.

We have had very good luck with 6.5 x55 and 140 gr bullets on blacktailed deer. A buddy also used that cartridge to take a terrific white tail in Eastern Washington. While he was in Alaska he used the .264 Win Mag for goats, sheep, black bear, and a truck load of caribou. For his brown bear he did use a .338 Win Mag.

My Swede shoots Sierra's 120gr. spitzer very well(cover a group with a dime) and although i've never killed anything with them, i'd have no reservations with anything up to elk or moose.

Stepchild

260 for a short action; 6.5x55 or 6.5-06 for a long action. Lou

I decided to add a 6.5 to my collection. I looked hard at all options. I'm kinda pressed for time with a child now and fireforming brass is getting old. After a year plus of researching and looking at 6br.com, I believe the 6.5X47 is a caliber worth looking at.

Lapua brass, no fire forming.
308BF short action
Feeds with no mod magazines
Double if not more barrel life than the 6.5X284

My next project. Tues will be my day to call Stiller and order a Predator action

Regards, Wade

quote:

Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:
Anybody here shoot a 6.5x68S? I got the jones for one...too much bling-bling not to want one.
Rich
DRSS
6.5 nutcase

That would be me. Only mine is an Ackley improved. Wouldn't trade it for the world. I leveled an Antelope with it at 285yds. One shot, DRT.

The stock casing is a good one also. With modern powders you can make the 264 Win Mag look bleak.

I hear tell the 375 Ruger case is very similar to the 30 Newton which was produced from the 8x68. I'm still waiting for a case so i can do some measurements.

Best wishes, Bill

Yep, this thing looks good---6.5X47 link

http://www.vihtavuori-lapua.com/pdfs/47-Lapua.pdf

But is it good enough to rebuild Pamela's 260 Model 7 with a 23" Lilja? Anyone actually have one of these yet?