Yo ! I was in the gunshop this afternoon and the owner showed me a box of RWS 5.6x50 Mag rifle shells. They were 50 grain soft point ... In one corner they had T Mantel .. Does anyone know anything about this kind of round ?? Thanks !

the 5.6x50rmag is a rimmed case with quite a taper to it. i had one once in a win hiwall that was quite fun. in ballistics it was identical to the 224 weatherby. excellent singleshot round

Thank you .. that is very interesting. I bet that the gunshop has a tough time selling that box ..

Just to clarify: the round is available in standard and rimmed configuration. The rimmed version is the basis of a series of wilcats for the Contender developed by Mike Bellm (www.bellmtcs.com). With the taper blown out and the shoulder moved forward, the Bellm wilcats better the JDJ as the rounds can be run full throttle in the Contender without worrying about backthrust (small case head size advantage). Given a 14" barrel, the 6.5x50R Bellm will run a 120 grain bullet to 2500 fps and a bit beyond while the 6.5 JDJ pretty much tops out at 2400 fps.

The downfall is brass quality and price. The good brass (RWS) is steeply priced; S&B is hard to find and far from optimum; and the Hirtenberger is a hit and miss proposition thanks to what appears to be serious quality control issues.

i guess i've told the story awhile ago, but here it is again. Years ago clarence purdie had founded bonnanza sports (origin of the co-ax press etc.) and was making dies for the european market. One of these was for the 56.x50Rmag. clarence likes old single shots and thought this would be an ideal round for the ruger #1, which had just come out a couple of years previously. Anyway he made up a nice looking win hiwall in the caliber (he had the reamers etc. for it from making dies) bought some RWS ammo and invited tom ruger over to try it out. They went out to the range and did a bit of shooting. Clarence looks over at tom and asks " well what do you think" Well clarence tom replied, its a beautiful rifle and the round fits well, but who the hell am I going to sell it to, you can't buy ammo in the country for it. Clarence had this blank look on his face, then pops up "damn I never thought of that" after his death that rifle ended up in my rack for a few years, and then I foolishly sold it to buy another doublegun.

quote:

Originally posted by El Deguello:
The reason for this design is that the standard .222 Remington, .223, and .222 Remington Magnum cases are too short to be legal for shooting Roe Deer, and do not meet the 200-meter remaining energy level requirements of German game laws either.

Not so, pure and simple. The .222 Rem is legal for roe hunting in Germany, although only a few (one?) factory loads meet the minimum energy requirement. In the Germanic part of Europe, only Austria has a minimum cartridge length requirement, a somewhat surprising regulation... But even in Austria, the .223 (although not the .222) is legal for roe and larger animals.

Apart from legality, the .222 Rem is considered somewhat marginal for roe by many, and I suspect this had something to do with the development of the 5.5x50(R). But there was no LEGAL reason for the development of this cartridge.

The 5.6x50(R) was traditionally issued with slow twist barrels, which prohibited the use of heavier bullets. With comparatively high velocity and often frangible bullets, the caliber got somewhat of a bad rap for destroying meat. This more so, in an environment obsessed with destructiveness of cartridges due to the commercial value of venison. Of late, manufactureres such as Blaser have started making 5.6x50(R) barrels with a faster twist (Blaser 1:12), allowing for the use of heavier bullets. This will go some way towards the cartridge getting rid of its poor reputation. In reality, the ballistics out of a 5.6x50(R) are very close to those of a .223 Rem.

- mike

quote:

Originally posted by mho:
In reality, the ballistics out of a 5.6x50(R) are very close to those of a .223 Rem.

Whilst I cannot fault Mike on his history I should point out that the 5.6x50R is a way past the 223 in velocity which is probably why it gets the reputation for meat damage. The reason for this is that it has the same case capacity as the 22PPC

Both mine own and Monteros manager 3,400fps with 55gr and 3,300fps with 60gr. Factory ballisitics for the 50gr Tmantel (read standard soft point) are 3,500fps. I have used the same bullet in RWS 222rem loads where it was excellent but at 3,500fps I think it really would be too explosive.

The cartridge is IMHO an excellent one - it is easy to keep it to 222rem velocities if one wishes but full loads are excellent on roe with 55gr sierra gameking BTSP or the Hornady 60gr SP. I find damage on our Scottish roe to be less than with a 243.... I would dearly love a barrel in the 6x50R Scheiring which is even CIP approved.

Ah 1894, a good discussion, who can resist...

I should perhaps have been a bit more precise in my statement. When I claim the .223 and the 5.6x50(R) have practically the same ballistics, I base this on published factory velocities. Typically, the 5.6x50R (which by the way was the predecessor for its rimless sister, and is still the most common of the two) is maybe 20 m/s faster than the .223 - with the same bullet weights, if that. Admittedly, this is a blistering 66 fps, but in reality probably not worth squabbling about.

Reloads now, the RWS manual actually shows the .223 Rem loaded to HIGHER velocities than the 5.6x50R.

Now, there might be a good explanation for this apparent discrepancy in our data. The 5.6x50(R) is officially only loaded to a max pressure of 3300 bar, whereas the .223 is loaded to something like 3700 bar. The limited pressure of the 5.6x50R must be seen in the context of the "conventional" break-top guns, which it was originally developed for.

If a cautious and experienced reloader like yourself loaded the 5.6x50R for a strong platform like the K95, I'm positive you could load the 5.6x50R up to more "normal" pressures, and thus approach the figures you cite. Certainly, RWS brass would be strong enough to hold up to the pressure, and the K95 is routinely chambered for magnum cartridges, so no problems there either.

I can well imagine the 5.6x50R would be a formidable little cartridge for roe and other smaller deer species at the velocities you load it to.

- mike

A question for the European hunters here, what is the drive to use these very small cartridges for deer in the first place? I would have thought the 5.6x57mm would be the smallest deer cartridge, and would prefer the 6.5x57mm myself. I'm a North American 6.5mm freak, so, I am mainly curious.

LLS
Mannlicher Collector

A lot of people simply consider the .224 cal rifles - in particular 5.6x50 and up - just about ideal for our small roe deer. The .222 Rem, although loved by many, is considered marginal by some. The larger .224s (.22-250. Swift, 5.6x57 etc) are considered a tad fast. So the 5.6x50 often comes up as the "middle of the road choice".
- mike

quote:

Originally posted by 1894mk2:
Both mine own and Monteros manager 3,400fps with 55gr and 3,300fps with 60gr.

I'm planning to buy a 5.6x50r barrel for my K95.
Bullet I have just available are two box of Nosler partition 60gr and could easily obtain without problem Vihtavuori and Norma powders.


Could you please give me some tested loads?


Thank you

g.j.

I have never loaded the 60gr nosler but here are the loads I have tested and used. These loads are for strong tilting block actions only and are considerably over book loads being in essence 5.6x50mag loads (ie not rimmed)

5.6x50Rmag
RWS brass
CCI small BR primers

55gr sierra BTSP gameking
28.2gr VVN135
3,400fps 0.3" 3shot group

60gr hornady sp
27.8gr VVN135
3,300fps

50gr hornady Vmax
26gr H322
Not chrono'd but 0.191" 3 shot group!

Lovely, lovely little round. Works well on roe but requires a little more care than a 243. Shots such as frontal chest should be avoided.

quote:

Originally posted by 1894mk2:
These loads are for strong tilting block actions only and are considerably over book loads being in essence 5.6x50mag loads (ie not rimmed)

1894,
many thanks for the fast reply.

Is your k95 barrel 60cm long?

Regards

G.j.

Yes it is.

One smith stated that this pratice of loading was dangerous even though the K95 is strong. His theory was that the cut in the chamber for the extractor was deeper than the case head and so high pressure loads would blast out via that route.

From my investigation this wasn't the case. Nor has it been for a number of others who post on this forum. Never the less take care!

quote:

Originally posted by 1894mk2:
From my investigation this wasn't the case. Nor has it been for a number of others who post on this forum. Never the less take care!

OK!

As usual I'll start lower. I guess 25gr of VVN135 under a 60gr partition will be a safe overture.

quote:

Originally posted by 1894mk2:
Yes it is.

One smith stated that this pratice of loading was dangerous even though the K95 is strong. His theory was that the cut in the chamber for the extractor was deeper than the case head and so high pressure loads would blast out via that route.

From my investigation this wasn't the case. Nor has it been for a number of others who post on this forum. Never the less take care!

Look at the other calibers available for the K95 which is manufactured with the very same lock for all of them. They go up to the .300 Win Mag, .300 Weatherby and the 8x68 mm S with much higher pressures, thus I guess that "pimping" the 5.6x50 R a little would do no harm.

The same is possible with the 6.5x57 mm R which is due to many old guns being still in circulation limited to 3000 bar pressure. To raise it a little to the regular 6.5x57 mm's pressure which is, if I remember well, 3400 bar, should do no harm. The .300 Magnums develop 4000 bar and are still safe for that rifle.

No question the action can take it.

The potential issue raised by the smith which I have recounted is one of brass and extractor. The extractor is different in the rimmed K95s to K95s chambered for Weatherby's.

One could have the strongest action known to man - if the case fails and blows out the extractor it becomes more a matter of gas handling than strength. I have no clue how a K95 handles gas escape.

All highly unlikely but when giving well over CIP load data for a specific request it's best to ensure that the recipients understand what the potential risks are!

One reason is that Muntjac, roe deer and other deer are much smaller than the US standard.

One does not need all that gun/caliber to shoot them, I on the other hand have preference for larger cals, but I am in a minority on that matter.

Best regards Chris

quote:

Originally posted by sierra2:
A question for the European hunters here, what is the drive to use these very small cartridges for deer in the first place? I would have thought the 5.6x57mm would be the smallest deer cartridge, and would prefer the 6.5x57mm myself. I'm a North American 6.5mm freak, so, I am mainly curious.

LLS
Mannlicher Collector

quote:

A question for the European hunters here, what is the drive to use these very small cartridges for deer in the first place? I would have thought the 5.6x57mm would be the smallest deer cartridge, and would prefer the 6.5x57mm myself. I'm a North American 6.5mm freak, so, I am mainly curious.

Sierra,

Obviously there are differences in other European Country's minimums for Hunting and I'm not saavy to all of them. In Germany the mimimum legal requirement is (non-caliber specific) 1000 Joules at 100 meters for Roe Deer. Not all .222 Remington loads deliver this value but this cartridge is generally considered the legal minimum for Roe Deer. Roe Deer are Cloven-Hoofed Game but fall under the Neiderwild (Small Game Statues). Yes, in the meanwhile there are countless other newer cartridges that would meet this required minimum; .22 PPC, 22 BR, and a host of wildcats, etc.

All other Cloven-Hoofed Game, Wild Boar, Sika, Red & Fallow Deer fall under the Hoch Wild (Large Game statues) and the legal minimum is (caliber specific) 6.5mm and delivering 2000 Joules at 100 meters. The commonly accepted smallest commerically available cartridge for Hoch Wild is normally considered (your favorite) the 6.5x57. Though spliiting the hair VERY fine the .257 Roberts although appearing to be a very similar cartridge to the 6.5x57 is actually a coupla thousands too small.

The oddball 74 grain Cone Point developed by RWS for the 5.6x57 actually delivers the 2000 Joules at 100 meters requirment but is due to it's caliber not legal for shooting Hoch Wild in the The Fatherland but would be in other countries where there is no caliber restriction but an energy requirment.

quote:

Originally posted by Gerry:
Though splitting the hair VERY fine the .257 Roberts although appearing to be a very similar cartridge to the 6.5x57 is actually a coupla thousands too small.

I allow to disagree: 25.4 mm times 0,257 inch equals 6,5278 mm and is thus, legal for "Hochwild", presuming that the Roberts provides 2000 Joule/100 meters.

.25 6.5 mm .257, 6.527 mm .257 Roberts, not normally called 6.5

.26 6.5 mm .264, 6.7 mm 6.5 x 55 mm cartridges commonly known as 6.5

Dirk,

I agree that we disagree, 'cept if the legal definition is 6.5 cartridges - they shoot .264" bullets then .257" or 6.527mm are undersized. If it's 6.5mm then you are correct.

We are really splitting already thin hair here but in the Federal hunting law (Bundesjagdgesetz) a minimum caliber of 6.5 mm is required. It does not specify if it refers to bullet or barrel diameter, most likely the authors who were either lawyers, politicians or both would not have known the difference...

quote:

Originally posted by DUK:

quote:

Originally posted by Gerry:
Though splitting the hair VERY fine the .257 Roberts although appearing to be a very similar cartridge to the 6.5x57 is actually a coupla thousands too small.

I allow to disagree: 25.4 mm times 0,257 inch equals 6,5278 mm and is thus, legal for "Hochwild", presuming that the Roberts provides 2000 Joule/100 meters.

We have the same issue here in Switzerland. In the Canton of Glarus (and, I'm sure, elsewhere), there is a minimum caliber specified of "7mm". Nobody quite knows how to interpret what on the surface appears to be a straightforward rule... Does "7mm" designate bullet diameter (the most common and natural definition), or does it indidicate "nominal" caliber (German: "Nenkaliber") or what?? If one uses the most natural definition (i.e. bullet diameter), then even a .270 Win is allowed (.277" ~ 7.04mm, .284" ~ 7.21 mm).

It is the same deal with "6.5mm" vs. .257 cal. If the minimal "6.5mm" caliber indicates bullet diameter, the .257 cal bullets are also legal, as DUK pointed out.

In fact, it has been traditional in Europe to have no leess than two (sic!) "6.5mm" calibers - one .257 and one .264. Why this was determined to be a good idea is beyond me... But hey, the Germans also invented 8mm and 8mmS calibers, and those caliber designations are enough to confuse anybody...

- mike