Not really. As I stated earlier, the 6.5 is just the current sweetheart of target shooters, so it gets talked up a lot. There are 7mm bullets with higher coefficient that any 6.5mm bullet sold, just as there are 30-cal bullets with very high ballistic coefficients, and taken to an extreme, there are 50-cal bullets with BC of 1.0 (i.e.prefectly matches the standard projectile). But as the bullets get heavier and the BC gets higher, recoil starts to become a serious issue, and recoil is anathema to target shooters. If you like the 6.5mm bore size, good. If not, that's OK. In fact, if you like them all, good. If not, that's OK too. I like them all, except for the 7.35mm bore size. Can't stand that one.
whats all this about 6.5
- Thread starter seansean1444
- Start date
Shane Tuttle
Staff
I'll disclose I don't know nearly as much as the active proficient benchrest shooter (or half of the long term members here), but I've been intrigued by the 6.5mm bullet. It may or may not be the bees knees for hunting purposes. I firmly believe my statement regarding the 6.5x55Swede being able to take any North American game without stretching the limits of it. You place the shot, it will do the rest. Does this make it the best over .30cal or whatever? I don't necessarily think so...
So, let's delve into the realm of long range target shooting. IMO, it will come down largely to what the style and preferences of the shooter is than the cartridge. The .30-06 has rightly earned the reputation for winning matches for good reasons. In the past few years, I've been seeing another cartridge using the 6.5 bullet with eye opening results. And that's the 6.5x284. BC has to be a major factor to choose this size and pack so much punch with barrels being burned quite quickly. I don't know if it's necessarily the bullet selection or the cartridge as a whole, but both the Swede and the 284 are low recoiling cartridges. I do know this regarding the Swede, but only speculate based on research the 284 is as well. Seems to me it's been winning some matches lately and I don't believe it's coincidence....
My final thought on why "all of a sudden" the 6.5 is the latest rage is simply because it's a metric based bullet and .30cal ruled the roost (for the most part) in America. Not the sole reason, but a major one. Top that off with we've already had a good handful of quality American based cartridges, the mentality is such "why fix what isn't broken?".
So, let's delve into the realm of long range target shooting. IMO, it will come down largely to what the style and preferences of the shooter is than the cartridge. The .30-06 has rightly earned the reputation for winning matches for good reasons. In the past few years, I've been seeing another cartridge using the 6.5 bullet with eye opening results. And that's the 6.5x284. BC has to be a major factor to choose this size and pack so much punch with barrels being burned quite quickly. I don't know if it's necessarily the bullet selection or the cartridge as a whole, but both the Swede and the 284 are low recoiling cartridges. I do know this regarding the Swede, but only speculate based on research the 284 is as well. Seems to me it's been winning some matches lately and I don't believe it's coincidence....
My final thought on why "all of a sudden" the 6.5 is the latest rage is simply because it's a metric based bullet and .30cal ruled the roost (for the most part) in America. Not the sole reason, but a major one. Top that off with we've already had a good handful of quality American based cartridges, the mentality is such "why fix what isn't broken?".
JiminTexas
New member
People make mistakes.. yes even stupid ones. I wasn't thinking clearly when i posted i was in a hurry.
Regarding the 6.5-284 the barrel life just burns too quickly for me. And then the .284 winchester comes into play. If if was choosing between the two i would choose the .284 winchester every day of the week. I just couldn't see a reason not too. Considering the 168gr VLD and the 180gr VLD can be pushed to moderate speeds out of the .284. A short action cartridge on the other hand is a different proposition, i would take a 6.5Lr over any 7mm SA (non magnum) cartridge every day of the week.
When it comes to LR shooting a High BC helps you get there sure, but lets be honest it's the shooter of the bullet that is going to make the hit. Thats why .308s are still winning matches all over the nation.
Last edited:
FrankenMauser
New member
Do you not understand Ballistic Coefficients, Sectional Densities, or any of the other concepts involved here?
For a bullet to maintain the same BC seen for any given 140 grain bullet measuring .264" diameter, the new bullet MUST be scaled up or down. That means it will generally weigh less in smaller bores, and will generally weigh more in larger bores. It really is a simple concept: Big bullets weight more. Little bullets weigh less. BC is not weight, shape, or diameter dependent.
If you can't understand that concept, I'm done trying to provide examples. I've been hoping lighting would strike your brain, providing an epiphany about how these concepts inter-relate. It seems, that has not happened.
Haha jim, i haven't shot my .260 in a while. But my .308 honestly couldn't tell the difference. I've i shot it every weekend. I've run black hills 168grs, 155gr scenars with 46gr varget, and now Berger 175gr BT LR. And the recoil impulse feels about the same. IDK maybe i do have nerve problems, sometimes i wake up from a nights sleep and my entire right arm is numb...lol
I skipped over a bunch of posts.My 2 cents.There is nothing magic about a few thousandths of bore diameter.
What sets the Swede,and other 6.5's apart.is this.The designers had different priorities than the US mfgr's.
The marketing folks have been chasing fps at the expense of everything else.In my younger years,I believed in the 3000fps plus club.And,IMO,the mfgr's have made some poor decisions pursuing it.Two cartridges that come to mind are the .244 Rem(later renamed the 6mm)and the .250 Savage.Without a doubt,both of these are excellent bottles to put powder in.But both were introduced with slow twist barrels designed for light bullets at extreme velocity.
So,now,instead of shooting 40 gr bullets out of a .222 mag with a 1 in 12 0r 14 twist,we are using 1 in 7 twists,1 in 8,and shooting 77 or heavier bullets at modest velocities.
Part of why the .243 surpassed the .244,and why Rem reconfigured to the 6mm,is the factory twist rates were too slow for the heavier bullets.
The diameter of the bullet does not mean so much.The .270 would be an entirely different cartridge had it been introduced with a 1 in 8 twist,and the standard bullets were match grade 160 gr VLD's.
I think the Swedes were concerned with making an excellent tool for their riflemen,while Remchesterby was about dazzle and what they could sell to us.
Some of the shooting public is far more knowledgable now,and they know how to use a BC of .625 @ 2650 fps.
The thought behind the 6.5 was ahead of most shooters of the time,but we are learning.
What sets the Swede,and other 6.5's apart.is this.The designers had different priorities than the US mfgr's.
The marketing folks have been chasing fps at the expense of everything else.In my younger years,I believed in the 3000fps plus club.And,IMO,the mfgr's have made some poor decisions pursuing it.Two cartridges that come to mind are the .244 Rem(later renamed the 6mm)and the .250 Savage.Without a doubt,both of these are excellent bottles to put powder in.But both were introduced with slow twist barrels designed for light bullets at extreme velocity.
So,now,instead of shooting 40 gr bullets out of a .222 mag with a 1 in 12 0r 14 twist,we are using 1 in 7 twists,1 in 8,and shooting 77 or heavier bullets at modest velocities.
Part of why the .243 surpassed the .244,and why Rem reconfigured to the 6mm,is the factory twist rates were too slow for the heavier bullets.
The diameter of the bullet does not mean so much.The .270 would be an entirely different cartridge had it been introduced with a 1 in 8 twist,and the standard bullets were match grade 160 gr VLD's.
I think the Swedes were concerned with making an excellent tool for their riflemen,while Remchesterby was about dazzle and what they could sell to us.
Some of the shooting public is far more knowledgable now,and they know how to use a BC of .625 @ 2650 fps.
The thought behind the 6.5 was ahead of most shooters of the time,but we are learning.
Here is why .260 and similar 6.5's rock:
article | The Case for .260 Remington: A Better Cartridge For Practical Long-Range Shooting
and some of the comparable ones
article | 6.5mm Shootout: .260 Remington vs. 6.5x47 Lapua vs. 6.5 Creedmoor
The most common bullet weight for long-range 6.5mm's is the 139-142 grain class.
You can step up to 7mm (e.g. in 7WSM or 7WM) to get a little edge in BC and/or velocity, but you have to burn 65% more powder and 55% more recoil. I do have a 7RM and it's a laser, but there's a bunch more "costs" associated with it vs. the .260, which is very shootable.
Using the Steel Safari as an example, the 6.5mm dominates:
The 6.5mm is a sweet spot for long range because you can get a very good BC/velocity combination from the .308 case size.
article | The Case for .260 Remington: A Better Cartridge For Practical Long-Range Shooting
and some of the comparable ones
article | 6.5mm Shootout: .260 Remington vs. 6.5x47 Lapua vs. 6.5 Creedmoor
The most common bullet weight for long-range 6.5mm's is the 139-142 grain class.
You can step up to 7mm (e.g. in 7WSM or 7WM) to get a little edge in BC and/or velocity, but you have to burn 65% more powder and 55% more recoil. I do have a 7RM and it's a laser, but there's a bunch more "costs" associated with it vs. the .260, which is very shootable.
Using the Steel Safari as an example, the 6.5mm dominates:
http://demigodllc.com/articles/steel-safari-2010/?p=3
The 6.5mm is a sweet spot for long range because you can get a very good BC/velocity combination from the .308 case size.
Zak Smith said:
Thank you Zak
Now maybe someone will believe me (but I wouldn't count on it).
Like I said (about 4 different times) for the great B/C you get with the 6.5mm nothing will be as efficient (ie: smaller bullets/projectiles don't have as high B/C and if you go bigger to get the same B/C as the 6.5mm, you also have to go heavier. So you "WILL" have to burn more powder and that = more recoil, more money ect).
If anyone doesn't understand the concept of B/C it's you and you proved it by sayingFrankenMauser said:
The shape, weight and diameter have everything to do with it (as well as force, mass/density, velocity/speed, area ect). To have a high B/C the shape probably has the most to do with it although you can't tell exactly the B/C by looking at a bullet, you can usually tell if the bullet will be up there in B/C by the weight and shape of the bullet, that is why round nose bullets have a low B/C they don't cut the air like a streamlined shape of a high B/C bullet. Also where the bullet is weighted has alot to do with it (ie: bullets with more weight towards to rear (back) have better B/C then the same weight/shape bullet with it's weight towards the front. Here you better read up on it and maybe do a long range shooters course that have class room theory on bullet shape, weight ect (as well as practical).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very-low-drag_bullet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_coefficient
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sears-Haack_body
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nose_cone_design#Haack_series
Last edited:
handlerer2
New member
Wow! Lot has been said about this except that the 6.5, as developed by the Swedes, was never a cartridge for sporters of any kind. It was a weapon of war and an ingenius one. It was originally chambered for a 160gr RN@ 2300+. The designers didn't care about BC, they were concerned with SD, where the power is. The 160 FMJ is a fearsome weapon for Swedish riflery and machine gunnery. It was designed to penetrate barriers and still be lethal.