Based on a thread here that ended up comparing the 6.5/06 to the 6.5 x 55... I decided to look around in some of my reload manuals and see what I could come up with and then go out and test the 6.5 x 55...

Well in the around 1966 Vintage, Speer Manual Number 7, pages 170 to 172, I took some of the reload data listed and played with it...they are higher volumes than today's manuals and also list the test firearm as having a barrel of only 18 inches in length... and the rifle being a factory Swedish Mauser...

So I took the data for Mauser from this manual.. and loaded up some rounds with Remington 6.5 x 55 brass.. CCI/LR primers... and put them to work in my 1920 Swedish Sniper rifle, with a 29 inch factory barrel....

I also seated the bullet out to meet the long throat on the Mauser...

Powder is only listed as 4350, 4895, etc.. so at that time, I assumed that meant IMR so I used IMR powder.....

For the 120 grain Load, I used Sierra 120 grain Match HP bullets, seated to a COAL of 79.5 mms..

Book load: 43 grains of IMR 4064, 120 grainer, MV of 2788....

29 inch Mauser: I used the same load, but the 29 inch barrel gave me two readings: 3150 fps, and 3115 fps...


The next book load was the same bullet, but with a load of 50 grains of IMR 4350 powder..

The Manual results were 2782 fps....

My 29 inch Mauser results: 3218 fps and 3222 fps....


A load for a 129 grain Hornady SP was not listed of course in a Speer Manual.... however splitting the difference in a 120 grain load and the 140 grain load.... I came up with a load of 48.5 grains of IMR 4350 fps for the 129 grain SP Hornady... cartridge was seated to an OAL of 80mms...

with a 29 inch barreled Mauser:
1. 3090 fps 2. 3092 fps

Finally there was the 140 grain load in the Speer Manual from that period...47 grains with an MV of 2580 fps, out of an 18 inch barrel..

Using 47.5 grains of IMR 4350 out of a 29 inch Mauser barrel the velocities read exactly the same for both shots...2938 fps...

OAL for the 140 grain Load was 80 mms also and the bullet used was the Remington Corelokt, with the bullet seated on the first cannelure...

The "BOOM" out of the 6.5 x 55, was noticably louder than what I usually hear using faster powders at less velocity....

However out of a Military stock, the recoil was not anything more pronounced than lower velocity loads...

For velocity the 29 inch barrel does show a marked increase over the 18 inch loads...

the 1966 load data, also is more aggressive than more modern, 'Lawyer approved' load data...

But the brass resized just fine and easily... and the primer pockets were just as tight as new....

this was the 4th loading on these cases...


But 3200 fps with a 120 grain bullet,
3100 fps with a 129 grain bullet.. and
2940 fps with a 140 grain bullet are pretty respectable with the 6.5 x 55 case....

I don't know how much a 6.5/06 or 6.5/06 AI would improve on these numbers...but these look pretty comparable to the 270's published velocities...

thought a few of you would find this interesting .....I sure did...
but one of my still most favorite loads in my Military Mauser in 6.5 x 55 is the old 30 grains of RL 7 behind a 160 grain Sierra RN at an MV of 2250 fps in the 29 inch barrel....recoils like a 223....

cheers
seafire

Great read/info!

I have I believe somewhere an old Gun digest or similar book that dates back quite a ways and has an excellent article about the 6.5x55 and some bullet test between a mil. swede and a husqvarna and thoughts on twist rates and the terminal effects/differences. The author IIRC did penetration/expansion tests, etc.

I will try to find the article/book to review it again and will try to follow up with the edition if anyone is interested.

Seafire and I have always had a (civil) disagreement about his treatment of load data and pressures.

1966 data would have been tested by copper crusher, modern data by piezo. Piezo is much the more accurate method. Some might call it lawyer approved others might call it sensible...

How many people would buy that 96 mauser from Seafire?

1894mk2---I would buy that 96 Mauser from Seafire. This would be based on his description of the brass---no indications of over pressure.

quote:

Seafire and I have always had a (civil) disagreement about his treatment of load data and pressures

" civil disagreement' is because you are English... I lived in England for 3 yrs in my youth.. and know many a respectable Englishmen have the concept of manners....and disagree without the name calling...


1894, the rifle is just fine... and the data compared to later manuals for the lower density loads...

That 1920 built Mauser is just fine... and being a sniper rifle from the factory, it won't be for sale anyway..

But when I carry it out in the field, as I pointed out, my favorite load is pretty docile.. the 160 grain SMP Sierra...

But I also own a Ruger 77 Mk 2 and have a Winchester Model 70 with a 27 inch barrel on it, in 6.5 x 55...I wouldn't hesitate to shoot any of these loads in those rifles...

Actually the MV I got with the 120 grain Sierra Match bullets, I can see some long range potential here... because for nostalgia reasons, I would target shoot with a 6.5 x 55 over the more trendy 6.5 x 284....

I used the Military Mauser for these tests to compare the data to the 1966 data using a military Mauser also, with a shortened barrel...

I am aware that seating the bullet deeper, instead of taking advantage of the long throat would have resulted in higher pressures and lower velocity... so I tried to keep it all on the same specs....I am sure you can appreciate the need for that in a side by side comparison...

the results found were for academic purposes anyway....myself, I will use the 120 grain Sierra loads.. the 140 grain load, well maybe...

but the 140 load gave reference for me to test it out in my 6.5 x 57 target rifle with a 142 grain Matchking...

cheers
seafire

I am on my third 6.5x55 and I have a 6.5x06. Your not gonna get that much more out of the 6.5x06 than the 6.5x55 in a modern action. Damn that cronograph!!!!!!!

Seafire,

Found it, Gun Digest 1968, Robert Sherwood on the 6.5 Rem Mag, less performance than his 6.5x55, course short barrel, but still, in my mind the 260/6.5x55 capacity is about ideal all things considered.

My 3rd, and never sporterized as the other 2, model '96 had pristine bore, all matching numbers, and like a fool sold it for $70 at a gun show years ago, recouped my ffl priced gun, that now goes much higher.

Thinking REAL hard-about T3 hunter at the shop, retail for 635+tax, wish it were much lower as synthetic 510-570 depending caliber/blue/SS.

The diameter of the barrel is larger than many sporters-which I like, action smooth, stock fits good, barrel nice, don't like drop mag, but can live with it I guess, and I don't like 3 round capacity, but you only should need 1 right! Sacrifice magazine/plastic/2 rounds and pay half of Sako...likely be just as accurate.

IF my former employer comes through with my money since layoff-may have to try to negotiate a little! Missing a Swede.