6.5: Swede v. CM

J

johnwilliamson062

Moderator
6.5: Swede v. Creedmoor

The Creedmoor is a little more efficient and a little shorter, right?
Does it gain on the 6.5X 55 anywhere else?

As far as availability of ammo which do you think wins now? Over the next couple of decades? Even if you think one will dominate, will the other vanish?

I really like the 6.5 and several of the current commercial and historic military rifles that use it, but the 6.5 CM keeps popping up and I keep wondering if it is the future of "6.5" In my research it doesn't seem to really have much of an edge in any category.

If only someone could cram 6.5X55 performance into a 223 case based round... Oh the dreams.
 
Last edited:
The 6.5 Creedmoor (CM) has the edge in factory match grade ammo. The 6.5x55 swede has no such animal...The CM has many big name MFG producing rifles (both sporter weight and heavy contour) chambered for it, making it more available in a newly mfg factory rifle.

I would say over the next 10 years you will see the available mfg producing rifles and ammunition for the CM double or triple. That won't happen with the Swede...

Edited to add: There is also the 6.5x47 Lapua. It's more expensive for factory ammo and I don't know of many (maybe 2) mfg who produce rifles chambered for this round, but it's also a very good long range round with Lapua brass available...

Edit 2: To conform to 44AMP's request.
 
Last edited:
Few who are serious about precision rifle shooting will not reload their own ammo.

All rifles are different, but commercial ammo has to fit all rifles.

This leaves us no choice but to load our own ammo.

If that's the case (and I believe it is) the CM has no advantage over the Swede.

I sent my wife to a long range precision school. They had her shooting the CM and she really liked the round but not the rifle.

She does like my Swedish Carbine. I offered to buy her a CM of her choice but she instead wanted me to rebarrel (add a match barrel) to my Swede. The barrel is shot out anyway, but is 18 inches.

The surplus Swede is limited to about 49K psi. Adding a 24 inch barrel keeping within the 49K I wont get the velocity as the normal CM.

Whats the difference. Using the 140 A-max the CM is good for 1500 yards before it goes sub sonic.

The Swede on the surplus action, using the same bullet goes sub-sonic at 1450.

My wife's goal is a long range hunting rifle a bit heavier then her 243.

The Swede requires a long action. The CM doesn't. This means you can play would bullet seating.

I think the Swede will fit her goal.

Ideally I'd like to find a Model 70 action for a 6.5X55 build. Then it would hold a huge advantage over the CM.

Having said all this, I'm sure looking at the New Ruger Precision Rifle in 6.5 CM.
 
The big difference is that 6.5 Creedmoor does in a short action what 6.5 Swede does in a long action.

At this point, 6.5 Swede appears to have become a cartridge of mostly historical interest in the US. The Europeans still chamber rifles in it though.
 
No one has ever came up with a legit advantage of the short action over the long action.

Its just not there.

The prime example of the differnace would be in the Military's sniper rifles.

The Army uses a M24, a Remington 700 Long action.
The Marines use a M40, a Remington 700 Short action.

There is no accuracy advantage of the M40, over the M24, to the contrary, when both are fired side by side at the International Sniper competitions the Army always wins.
 
The difference is weight and handiness. No one ever claimed it had anything to do with accuracy. The 6.5 Swede gives you a bigger, heavier rifle with no compensating advantages. That's why it's dead in the US.
 
Last edited:
No one ever claimed it had anything to do with accuracy
Click to expand...

LOTS of people have claimed short actions and short cases are more accurate. I'm not going to get into that argument here, but it has been claimed for some time in general, if not specific to the 6.5CM.

And, speaking of the 6.5CM, a point of courtesy, if you would. The first time it is mentioned, the full name should be written out. (goes for any abbreviation).

Lots of people read these threads, and may not be as aware of terms as enthusiasts. I have a couple of rifles in 6.5x55mm Swede. I don't have any other 6.5s. Not much into the 6.5 bore, beyond the rifles I do have.

It wasn't until post#4 when 6.5 Creedmoor was written out that I was certain which 6.5mm you were talking about. Everybody doesn't know what "everybody knows" so a few seconds writing out the full name and using initials after that, is a courtesy to the underinformed among us.

My understanding is that the 6.5mm CM, .260 Rem, and probably some other rounds I am not familiar with, give 6.5mm Swede performance using shorter cases better suited to modern rifle designs, and in particular semi autos.

The Swede isn't going away anytime soon. I don't know about the others, it all depends on the whims of the buying public. Some round hang on commercially, essentially only because they fit in a popular rifle.
 
Long story short, the 6.5CM launches the same bullet about 200fps faster than the 6.5x55 (same bullet, same barrel lengthI). The 260 Rem will launch the same bullet about 100fps faster than the 6.5CM. That, and case length, are your biggest differences. Ammo availability is hard to predict, but ammo is available at this time.
 
in the hornady book it list with the same barrel length(24") the 6.5 cm and the 260rem travels with a 140gr bullet at 2700fps. the 6.5x57 with a 29" barrel and a 140gr bullet goes 2600fps. right now, the 6.5cm is king...in 20 or so years it could be the 260rem is king.
but the 6.5cm and the 260 have the factory advantage. where the 6.5x55 doesn't. i personally like the 6.5cm so much, i bought it from MGM barrels so i could hang in on my encore. it shoots a 120gr nosler ballistic tip at .3" at 100 yards. and yes, it kills deer. and so could the 260 or 6.5x55.
i bought the 6.5cm because it was different and nobody i knew had one. now people are starting to see the 6.5 cartridge as a long range shooter. the 6.5 cm is probably going to last a long time.

any of the 6.5 are good for what they do...either shoot targets or shoot deer. me, i shoot deer...:D
 
I have been puzzling over whether to build a target rifle in 6.5 Creedmoor or 6.5 X 55 Swede.

I have a wonderful M70 featherweight in 6.5 x 55, it shoots well, I am a fan of the M70 action, and I love the styling of the rifle. It turns out I have a lot of 6.5 X 55 brass.





However, I am not going to tear this rifle up to make a target rifle. Instead, I have a couple of M70 PBR actions, and they are short actions. I have played with the 6.5 X 55 round in the short action, and the round will fit in the receiver opening, but the OAL of a loaded round is too long to go in the magazine. I could feed the round in the chamber and I can extract the empty shell. Of course a 6.5 Creedmore will feed from the magazine.

I am currently doing nothing to make any of this a reality, so it is one of those wonderful imponderable things that will probably never get done in my lifetime. I have a number of fine 308 Win rifles to shoot at 600 yards, and I have shot some excellent scores with the things.

But, I have one bud who has a nice M700 in 6.5 X 55. He shoots it 600 yards and 1000 yards. It shoots well as a target rifle. My opinion is that there is no measurable difference in accuracy between the 6.5 Creedmoore and the 6.5 Swede. It is my recollection that USSR has a smoking hot 6.5 Swede built around a M70, and he claims outstanding accuracy from the thing.

As for concerns about the lower pressure limits of the 6.5 X 55 Swede, those limits are prudent when you consider the majority of the rifles that are chambered in this round are old Swedish military rifles. Rifles built around small ring Mausers were built of plain carbon steels. Today these same materials are so low grade and cheap that they are used for rebar and railroad ties. Applications where cost is more important than the material properties, and the material properties of plain carbon steels are not exactly overwhelming. Considering the poor quality of steel in the first quarter of the 20th century, whatever theoretical material properties those plain carbon steels might have had, the slag, impurities, inconsistent chemical compositions have further reduced the strength and limited the fatigue life. Then you have to consider that the factories that made these things, at least the pre 1910 factories, heat was judged by human eyeballs. So, it is altogether very prudent to download the 6.5 X 55 to the level of the technology of the era.

But, in a modern action, made of modern alloy steels, properly heat treated and machined, I don't see a reason why the 6.5 X 55 could not be bumped up to the same pressure levels as the 6.5 Creedmoore given similar actions. Given that the 6.5 X 55 has a greater case capacity you could get higher velocities, or, you could have the same velocities, but at lower pressure.

So to me, the real question is, how much does action length make to the user? If the user only wants short actioned rifles, the 6.5 Swede will disappear, but not due to any performance issues of the round.
 
For all practical purposes, I don't think it matters much which 6.5 you decide upon. I have the 260, but only because a buddy of mine sold me (practically gave me) a 260 10 years ago. So when I got a newer and more accurate rifle, I just stayed with the 260. The long range guys seem to lean toward the Creedmore due to reloading advantages, which I imagine would be even bigger advantages with the 6.5x55. But the truth is, in my view, that we fans of the 6.5 aren't in big numbers. You can say that the long range guys really like it, but that brings to mind something I read a while back. There are vastly more deer hunters in Pennsylvania than there are long range shooters in the US.

And regarding ballistics of the Creedmore versus the 260 or the 6.5x55, in an equally strong modern action you might get a bit more from the 6.5x55 than you can from the other two.

Anyway, they are all good. I haven't hunted with my Sako 270 in at least 3 years. I reach for the 260 and I have to reach early to beat my grandson to it.
 
One thing to keep in mind is the age of the design, and the tech of the era.

Swedish iron was considered some of the best ore, and Swedish guns were well respected. Sure, modern alloys and manufacturing methods are superior, but somehow, the current practice of referring to the old steel as "inferior", while technically correct, just irritates me.

If, 100, or even 50 years from now, someone creates an alloy that is twice as strong and half the weight of our current best, will they call ours "inferior"?

They probably will...

Considering the performance that the Swede turn in, and its working pressure limits of approx. 45k psi, it is quite impressive.

A fellow I know liked the Swede so much he bought a model 70 and had it rebarreled. The real shame is that he isn't a handloader.

In a rifle that will handle the pressure, the Swede can be loaded up essentially becoming a 6.5-06 without the need to form brass. (ok, not identical but close)

If you aren't wedded to a short action, or semi auto, or the historic arms, the Swede has a LOT of untapped potential.
 
CZ makes a nice rifle in 6.5X 55 with a full stock(and many other stock variants). I have an M96 barreled action I bought long ago with the intent to turn it into a sporter.
A short action is nice when in rapid fire. Not very important though.
 
I love the Swede, but my past experience has made me aware that there can be a problem with how the chamber leade is cut with some makes of rifles. If you've ever seen a round loaded with a 160 gr. roundnose , it doesn't take a lot of imagination to guess how long the leade must be to allow it to chamber. Sometimes it doesn't matter too much, but usually if you are pursuing very fine accuracy, you need to be able to nearly reach the leade with the ogive of your bullet. That rules out a lot of bullets, especially in the lighter range (say 123 gr. Match).

My assessment is the Swede is better as a hunting rifle that can sometimes do surprisingly well as a target shooter. If you don't care to shoot the long heavy bullets then the 6.5 Creedmoor has some advantages
 
Lets see if I got this right the CM pushes projectiles 200 fps faster than my Norma factory fodder. And the 260 will do 100fps better than my Norma. Interesting. Somebody explain how the 264 Winmag fits into the schemme of things?
 
Swedish iron was considered some of the best ore, and Swedish guns were well respected. Sure, modern alloys and manufacturing methods are superior, but somehow, the current practice of referring to the old steel as "inferior", while technically correct, just irritates me.

If, 100, or even 50 years from now, someone creates an alloy that is twice as strong and half the weight of our current best, will they call ours "inferior"?

They probably will...
Click to expand...

Does anyone remember the "Brick"? The original mobile phone, the Motorola DynaTAC 8000X made by Motorola in 1983, was called the "Brick". Picture of it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_DynaTAC

I saw Martin Cooper on CSPAN talking about the development, and I am sure he would call the Brick inferior to what is available to consumers today. And go further back, are there any RTO's old enough to remember the PRC-10 or the PRC-25 Radio? http://www.hardscrabblefarm.com/vn/rto-operator.html , http://www.tourofdutyinfo.com/ToDAdvisorwebpages/fieldradio2.html The PRC-25 was a 23 pound chunk of vacuum tube technology. I am not an expert on these old radios nor the SINCGARS, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SINCGARS, but I am certain there are those whose experience is such, they would consider the PRC-10 inferior to the eight pound RT-1702G .

A good part of the reason I slam old actions and the materials they are made from, is to dispel the foggy romantic views of these things, created by decades of advertizing by Gunwriters shilling for import companies. Who has not read Gunwriter claims of "Old World Craftsmanship", "German Technology", "legendary quality"? Gunsmiths also stoke the demand. These guys want us to use their services and accessories, and so, they also sell the legend to the hopeless romantics. The legend is sold but not the facts. There is no one pushing back against decades of this advertizing propaganda, none of which supportable from a technical viewpoint. Sure old actions are romantic, historic, interesting, but they were made under rudimentary process controls out of inferior materials. Therefore, they have their risks.

In so far as Swedish iron ore being good, it was. By 16th century standards Swedish iron ore was as good as it got. By a fortunate accident of geology, Swedish iron ores were low in phosphorus. Bessemer used Swedish iron ores in his 1850's steel process, and almost went broke when licensee's used iron ore high in phosphorus and their Bessemer steel came out brittle. Chemistry came to Bessemer's rescue in the form of Spiegeleisen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiegeleisen . Chemistry was not the friend of the Swedish iron industry, because as chemical, metallurgical, knowledge increased, anyone could start out with any iron ore and remove the phosphorus, sulphur, and pretty much, anything else in the ore, except iron.

The historical memory of Swedish iron ore still exists, but now, industry is making better iron from worse ore.

In my own lifetime I have seen the development of knife steels and steel process technology that as a class, make all the commercial knife steels of the 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's, inferior. I have older 440 C knives that have hard spots and soft sections, in the same blade. Despite the romantic views of the knife collectors I have met, modern knife steels take and hold an edge like nothing has done before.

So in 50 years will our steels be considered inferior? Probably, but I won't be here to grumble about the "good old days".
 
Good posting as per usual Slam. It's hard not to love the inferior Swede metal and as long as I remember that I don't really have a 264 mag pressure or speed wise in my old battle girls. I've worked up carefully since the sixties in a number of calibers without major problems, yet. I like your old ammo threads too.
Some old ammo, maybe a lot of old ammo should be pulled apart and checked before use.
BestAll
 
Examine the technology of the era by the artifacts that are still around. As an example, here is the 1903 Premier Special. This car is at the Indy 500 Museum, and this car is in its race configuration.

Notice the wooden spokes, chain drive, the “hey Ma!, no front brakes!”. For that matter, there is no brake pedal, the driver grabbed the brake lever on the right of the car. Take a look at the horse and buggy suspension, solid axle, huge leaf springs. No safety belts, there were no safety belts till the early 1950 Indy cars. Some other points, you had two people in the cockpit. The riding mechanic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riding_mechanic pumped the oil and fuel. These early engines did not have an engine driven oil pump. From what I understand, the riding mechanic pumped oil into the engine and it dripped out on the track, or went out the exhaust, but it was not recycled back into the oil tank! Spark advance was done manually, usually you see sticks or balls on the steering wheel by which the driver manually advanced or retarded the spark. Younger people probably don’t know what a distributor was so this probably won’t make an impression on them.









The technology of the day had its risks. This car could be pulled out and raced, but it was a death trap then, and it remains a death trap today. Back then, someone would inevitably be killed in each automobile race, sometimes spectators and drivers. So as long as shooters understand vintage technology, and that it has risks, go for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top