6mm rem

I envy you with the 6mm. I have found the sight has lots of help. (accurate shooter.com) They might have a article for you. good luck.
 
If you shoot Nosler bullets, buy the Nosler reloading book. Their suggested powders and loads are, in many cases, exactly what I've found to work in my rifles. Otherwise, refer to the Lyman 49th or 50th.
 
4350 in a 100 grain in my 243 is my favored round.

A 6 mm remington cartridge is practically identical to the .243, and powder and bullet load suggestions for the .243 can be tried in a 6mm by finding the equivalent load data for the 6mm.

I believe that this load that you have exceeds the load I use. That's the way it will be. 6mm data will not be the same as .243
 
that's practically identical, isn't it? It's not like he's trying to decide on data by comparing it to a .240 weatherby?

Now the .308 to 30-06 is practically identical in loading terms only in the minds of the permanently deranged.
 
Most accurate medium game loads I ever assembled for a 6mm Rem were Hornady 87 grain SP using AA3100. Didn't feel the need to look further.
 
I have had good sucess just under max listed load per hodgdon
With imr 4064 and 87 v max.
Es was 7, velocity was 3425 from the 28" barrel.
Group size of 5 shots at 100 yds was 1/2"

That's what it likes, so that's what I feed it.
 
I've never loaded for the 6mm, but I have loaded extensively for .30-06, .300 Savage, .243 Win., and 6.5 Arisaka...

And IMR 4064 has always been my go to.
 
Buckets of 100 grain 6mm data on Hodgdon's site.
"...the .308 to 30-06 is practically identical..." Ballistic twins with like bullet weights. Difference is about 100 fps.
 
T O heir, give me a break.

Similar bullets and calibers and velocity ballistics doesn't make them even close to identical. The .308 isn't even recommended for a lot of powders used in the 06. Using 4064 the 308 max is about 46 and the 06 max is 52, and they don't even recommend some of my favorite slow powders in the .308 case capacity is much larger, they don't even share the same action length, much less use similar load data.

They qualify as similar at best and the only similarity is that they shoot the same bullet at the same velocity.

The 6 mm is so similar that the same powder, 4064 has only a difference of 1.5 grans at maximum, and it's so similar in size and shape that apparently people can even fire the .243 in a 6mm chamber without catastrophic consequences.
 
I sold mine a while back, but it was originally a .244 barrel. If that is what you have (You want 100 grain bullets), go with Hornady 100 grain RN. It is about the only heavy bullet that works OK (Not great) in a .244 barrel. If it is a true 6MM, you can drop below 100 Grain bullets and it will be fine.
 
"it's so similar in size and shape that apparently people can even fire the .243 in a 6mm chamber without catastrophic consequences."

You mean like you can fire .308 in a .30-06 chamber without catastrophic consequences?


"The .308 isn't even recommended for a lot of powders used in the 06."

Beg your pardon?

A lot?

The Hodgdon reloading site lists 21 powder choices for a 165-gr. Hornady Gmax bullet (arbitrary choice)

Using the same bullet, the .308 data lists 15 powders, leaving 6 that aren't common between the two.

The big question is, though, are those powders not recommended, or were they just not tested/included in the loading data, but are still suitable choices for the .308...

That's a question that only the Hodgdon can answer, but don't.

Accurate Arm's loading manual shows a slightly different scenario... They show 13 powders as recommended for .308, but only 8 for .30-06.

Personally, I'm thinking it's less a case of a powder being unsuitable for either cartridge, and more that it's a case of "not the best possible choice, so we didn't include it."

TJ is more right than wrong about the .30-06 and .308.
 
i have a friend who has a rem 40x in 30-06 with a 26" barrel and he kicks my ass shooting against my rem 700 SA 308 with 26" barrel, with heavy bullets-190 gr at close to 2900 fps in the 3006. when people compare the 308 to the 3006, they show top loads in the 308(max cup) and only mundane loads in the 3006(mid cup). the only thing the 308 and 3006 have in common are .308 dia bullets IMHO.eastbank.
 
Mike, we just had a long discussion here about .243 and 69mm, and it seemed to me that the eventual agreement was that a person can fit a .243 into a 6mm and fire it. I thought that you were maybe in on it.

Yes, a lot of powders are not recommended for the .308. Hodgdon provides 16 recommended powders for .308 in their load data for 180. The 30-06 has 23.

Is there a difference between suitable and recommended? I don't understand.

Regarding accurate, it's pretty easy to see that their powders are skewed towards faster burn rates
 
Last edited:
I'd also like to point out that regardless of what the highest possible velocities are, and yes, there is only 100+- fps difference between what the two are capable of, consider how suitable to real world results those loads are? Extreme high velocity spreads is probably the least important criteria, imo. With the versatility in load development, the 06 actually has a strong edge in that aspect.

Putting a bullet on the board downgrade, there's no significant difference, but what goes into the chamber are two different things.
 
"Yes, a lot of powders are not recommended for the .308."

Once again, does Hodgdon overtly say "THIS POWER IS NOT RECOMMENDED FOR X CARTRDIGE! DO NOT USE!!!"

Or do they simply omit it for one of what could be myriad reasons?

There's a huge gulf between the two points...

Not every loading manual developer can, or will, test every conceivable combination and provide loading information for all of the ones that are successful.

It's not at all uncommon to find an entirely different slate of powders represented in a powder manufacturer's data vs a bullet manufacturer's data.

IOW, powder X123 with bullet BC might be a recommended load in the bullet manufacturer's manual, but that combination might be completely absent from the powder manufacturer's data.

So, who's right?

Did the combo cause a mini nuke and massive casualties at the powder lab, but shoot subMOA for the bullet manufacturer?


The point is, you cannot look at the absence of data in one source and positively say "THEY DON'T RECOMMEND IT!"

That might not be the case at all.

They simply may never have tested it.
 
"i have a friend who has a rem 40x in 30-06 with a 26" barrel and he kicks my ass shooting against my rem 700 SA 308 with 26" barrel, with heavy bullets-190 gr at close to 2900 fps in the 3006. when people compare the 308 to the 3006, they show top loads in the 308(max cup) and only mundane loads in the 3006(mid cup). the only thing the 308 and 3006 have in common are .308 dia bullets IMHO.eastbank."

Actually, I'm comparing original military developed loads.

The entire purpose of the .308 Winchester was to create a cartridge that developed .30-06 ballistics in a shorter cartridge that didn't use as much brass (a HUGE consideration during World War II, when there were severe brass shortages) and which had higher loading density.


You also never really define exactly how your friend "kicks your ass." Accuracy wise? Velocity wise? Style wise? Literally, with his engineer boots?

The 40X is a target rifle. I suspect that, given the same two guns but with cartridge selection reversed, he'd still kick your ass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top