Why no 6.5-'06?

I was tired of the pounding that reloading and playing with WBY magnums was issuing, so I convinced my wife that I needed a more moderate, sensible rifle in a gentle, yet ballistically familiar chambering.

So we found a Cooper MDL 22 VLM, 6.5-284, 26". 1/8. A varmint rifle that could easily kill a moose.

If your familiar with the Win 284, it was a rebated rim cartridge, with the same case capacity of a 30-06 in a 54mm case.

Point is Norma marketed a wildcat that was by many criterion superior to 06 based equivalent in efficiency, and accuracy.

Mine is a single shot so COAl isn't a real factor, just find the lands and like the guys in Stevens said shoot out this barrel we'll make another, and send it back for shipping.

I like this rifle shooting is fun again, in my retirement. It's very accurate and recoil is less than most 308's.
 

Attachments

  • DSCN0646 (640x480) (2).jpg
    DSCN0646 (640x480) (2).jpg
    111 KB · Views: 40
1. "Good" 6.5mm bullets require a cartridge overall length (COAL) that will cause problems in standard '06-length magazines and actions.
Click to expand...
um...what? I need a little context here. 30-06 can feed reliably, COALs ranging from 3.000 to 3.330 depending on bullet selection. 6.5-06 COALs can range from 3.150 to 3.300. please enlighten me as to why 30-06 has no reliability issues with COALs that are both shorter and longer than posted 6.5-06 COALS?

2. No manufacturer is going to chamber their rifles for it, as long as there's the tiniest chance that some nimrod will force a .270 Win cartridge into the chamber (with sloppy tolerances, it might not even require a lot of effort). As such, the shoulder has to be bumped forward on the 6.5mm version, to prevent that chance. And that forces an even longer COAL.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry but that is the most assanine thing I have read in a long time. if that was the case, no ammo manufacturer around would chamber rifles in 30-06 because you can chamber and fire 308, 7.7x58mm, 7-08, 260rem, and 25-06mm in it. no manufacturer would make 308 because it can chamber and fire 7-08, 260, and 243. people would stop manufacturing 7.62x39 because you can chamber 220 russian and 6.5 gendel in them. just because you can ram a shell into a gun does not mean that the manufacturer is liable if it goes bang. they put enough lawyer talk in the owner's manuals to free themselves of the responsibility of stupid people.
 
If this was true, nobody would make more than one chambering from a .308 parent case. Nobody would make a 7mm-08 because some numbnut could try to force a .308 into it. Can't make .308 either, because someone might try to chamber a .338 Federal.
Click to expand...
Chamber dimensions and loaded cartridge neck diameter matters more than bullet diameter.
Even so... Just looking at bullet diameter differences shows why that isn't much of an issue:

.277-.264 = 0.013" (with under-SAAMI-spec ammunition and a sloppy 6.5mm chamber, that could be done ...and most Remington and Winchester ammunition is under SAAMI spec, out of the box - it's not some obscure, mythical scenario)

.308-.284 = 0.024" ...not gonna happen without major force, and possible breakage

.338-.308 = 0.030" ...not gonna happen without even more force and breakage than .308-in-a-7mm-08.


If you think the "theory" is something I pulled directly out of my backside, just take a look at .280 Remington, versus .270 Winchester. The reason the shoulder is bumped forward on .280 Remington is so that you can't force an under-spec .280 cartridge into a sloppy .270 chamber. ;)



I'm sorry but that is the most assanine thing I have read in a long time. if that was the case, no ammo manufacturer around would chamber rifles in 30-06 because you can chamber and fire 308, 7.7x58mm, 7-08, 260rem, and 25-06mm in it. no manufacturer would make 308 because it can chamber and fire 7-08, 260, and 243. people would stop manufacturing 7.62x39 because you can chamber 220 russian and 6.5 gendel in them. just because you can ram a shell into a gun does not mean that the manufacturer is liable if it goes bang. they put enough lawyer talk in the owner's manuals to free themselves of the responsibility of stupid people.
Click to expand...
Firing smaller caliber projectiles out of a .30-06, or any other chamber, poses less (if any) danger than firing a larger caliber projectile which can increase chamber pressure - which is the example I gave.

Think before you type, please.
 
Another Alternative

No one like the 6.5x47 here? Great accuracy with much less barrel wear than the 6.5-284 and commercial ammo is available.

Bob
 
I built my 6.5-06 just to have something that everyone else doesn't. This rifle was built as a hunting rifle first,a target rifle second. I shoot long range with my 6.5 Creedmoor,and hog hunt with a DPMS LR-260H.
I shoot many different calibers,and they all have their own little niche,but none do it like the 6.5mm calibers.

Here's my little 6.5-06 -

 
tahunua001 said:
um...what? I need a little context here. 30-06 can feed reliably, COALs ranging from 3.000 to 3.330 depending on bullet selection. 6.5-06 COALs can range from 3.150 to 3.300. please enlighten me as to why 30-06 has no reliability issues with COALs that are both shorter and longer than posted 6.5-06 COALS?
Click to expand...

As I already mentioned not all bullets are created equal. It isn't about COAL it's about eating powder room. A 140 grain bullet is usually as long if not longer than a 180 grain .30-06 bullet.

Code: 
Sierra 

Caliber  Weight  Description  Length  BC

0.264 142.0 HPBT MatchKing™ 1.375 .595

0.277 135.0 HPBT MatchKing™ 1.260 .488

0.308 220.0 MatchKing™ (Litz) 1.489 .629

So if you use the highest BC bullets for comparison and a case length of 2.494" for the .30-06 and 6.5-06 and a case length of 2.540" for the .270. The neck length on a .30-06 is .385", 6.5-06 is .318", and .270 is .339. So if you seat the bullets to the base of the neck you have a COAL of 3.598" for .30-06, 3.551" for the 6.5-06, and 3.415" for the .270 win. So do the math to get to a COAL of 3.30 you have to seat the 6.5 bullet almost as deep as a 200 grain .308 bullet. There aren't too many people out there running the heavy .308 bullets in a .30-06 from a magazine as the long bullets eat up powder room.

Now if you start getting into longer VLD, custom, and all copper bullets you have to seat them even deeper to make a 3.30" COAL. This is where magazine length issues can come into play. If you want to run a 6.5 with a COAL of 3.30" your better off with a 6.5-284. It's especially better to run the 6.5-284 in old military Mauser rifles that had a magazine length more suited for the X55 and X57 length cartridges.

So it's kind of a trade off, as on average the same weight .277 caliber bullets will be faster due to less bearing surface and a larger base to push against. So either you can pick a cartridge with lesser BC bullets but overall higher velocities because it maximizes powder capacity. Or take a slower bullet with better BC's because the bullet is eating up powder room. For hunting I'd choose the .270 over the 6.5-06 because most of the time you never really take advantage of the higher BC.
 
Taylorce1,I fully understand what you are saying but just because the bullet seating depth has to be deeper with the longer match grade 6.5mm bullets in a 6.5-06 to remain at magazine length doesn't mean the end of the world.
My COAL for rounds to fit into the magazine is 3.385". Shooting a Berger 140gr Hunting VLD at that length is .115" off the lands. I still have very acceptable results shooting them.
Even with 1 bad shot by me,this group was right at 1",without it was a little over 1/2".


Different powder,same results.


Shooting the Hornady 140gr BTHP Match bullet,the jump to the lands is smaller than the Berger,but it is still large by most standards,and this rifle shoots them really well.


Since I built this rifle mainly for hunting,I haven't played with loads out near the lands yet. I'm sure it will tighten up the groups really nice,but I have zero complaints about the way it's shooting with the bullets taking a big jump into the lands.
I also have to seat the bullets deeper than I like in my 260 Remington AR10 platform to stay magazine length,but it shoots really good too.
 
And again I don't care if you seat bullets deep or jamb them in the lands. However, manufactures do because if they can't market it as the better mouse trap it isn't going to sell. SAAMI lists the max COAL of the 6.5-06 as 3.44" so your cartridges aren't all that long.

I was just using 3.30" because it was used as a reference to the 06 in the part I quoted from tahunua001. Magazine lengths vary between rifles and not all rifles can feed a 3.44" cartridge. That was the point I was trying to make and what FrankenMauser was hinting towards.

I'm not saying the 6.5-06 isn't a good cartridge just not ballistically better than anything already produced. Sure it's lineage may predate the .270 by a decade, but I imagine there were many reasons why the Newton cartridge failed to be a commercial success. Hell even though the .270 came out in the 20's it wasn't a successful cartridge until after 1945. I guess the world just wasn't ready for the 6.5-06 and now it has passed it by.

I purchased a 6.5-06 and shot it for awhile, I still have the dies and I might try one again one day. It wasn't a bad shooting rifle, but the 19.75" barrel was a little obnoxious. I tore apart the rifle and sold off the parts, I still have the action and may build another 6.5mm on it but I'm leaning more towards the .257 Roberts.
 
IMO there will never be another -06 wildcat going commercial. You have every significant caliber already in use in factory configuration. There are many wildcats based on the -06, and very few or none of them are important. Townshend whelen even had .400 bore -06 rifles developed as the ,400 whelen.

As was said, long actions are being phased out for intermediate rifles. The .308 is replacing the 30-06. in 20 years, they will still be around, but it is probable that the long action -06 rounds and rifles will be nearly obsololete/out of production, at least as far as new guns.

None of them will ever absolutely disappear, except for the .35 whelen, and maybe the .280. Even those may still be available once in a while as special editions, and ammo for these will probably become special order only.

I look forward to seeing belts gone.
 
keep in mind that the 6.5 is a .264 caliber, the .270 is a .277 calibeer. That is only a difference of .013". Insignificant. The largest difference will be the availability of twist rates and fine tunability, IMO. I personally wouldn't waste my time buying a factory 6.5-06, choosing a .270, or having another rifle purpose made if the .270 isn't right. I'd choose another base cartridge in a short action.
 
None of them will ever absolutely disappear, except for the .35 whelen
Click to expand...

.35 Whelen is extremely popular here in Mississippi. As long as MS retains its rather odd hunting rules, it is likely to stay popular. That is because MS considers any single-shot, exposed hammer rifle of .35 and larger to be a "primitive weapon". They did relax the primitive weapon season rules even further here this year, but only for the 2nd season of the year and even then only on private land.

Before the change that allowed .35 Whelen Encores, CVAs and Handi-rifles, the rule was .40 and larger. At that time everybody wanted 45-70s. As soon as the .35 rule was adoped, there were tons of 45-70 barrels for sale. About the only people that still use muzzleloaders here are the diehards and those that hunt federal lands that don't follow state rules (which is why I'm hanging on to my 209x50 barrel).
 
in 20 or 30 years, the 35 whelen will have approximately the same status as .358 winchester has now. Lots of collectibles, but nothing new being made, out of favor with even custom smiths, and factory ammo gone. A lot will happen in the next 30 years. It will be replaced by new merchandise with newer, better designs that the public want now, and with every passing year more and more will be retired.

Don't get me wrong. It is a fantastic cartridge, and a semiauto on that caliber is IMO nearly the ultimate black bear gun. Accurate enough for bear, high energy and penetration, and rapid follow up. Being the best commonly available .35 caliber cartridge is a plus.

It's just like carburetors, shock absorbers, and manual transmissions. On the verge of obsolescence.
 
Over the years I have watched calibers come and go, and sometimes come back. Pretty much if someone writes enough articles about a cartridge, it will eventually take off, but it usually dies off just as fast.
 
Why hasn't some major ammunition/rifle manufacturer commercialized and mainstreamed the 6.5-'06? Is it because the target crowd wants short action cartridges and the hunting crowd is already adequately served by the .25-06 rem and the .270 win?
Click to expand...

Yep.

Too big for targets, too similar to the well established 270 and 25-06. It would also have to compete with the popular 6.5x55. Just not enough room to establish a market in that tiny niche.

It's not enough to be a good cartridge, there has to be something different about it to distinguish it from similar established cartridges. The 280 Remington is a good example. A superb all around hunting cartridge, but it's not different enough from the 270 and 30-06 to get any sales traction.
 
Too bad Nosler didn't hype (and thus further "legitimize") the 6.5-'06 A-Square with their new rifle, instead of the unneeded .26 Nosler. The 6.5-'06 can do 99.6% of what the .26 Nosler can do, with less cost, rifle weight/length, and recoil.
 
That 26 holds almost 94 grains of water, while the 6.5-06 case holds
holds 65. ,,,thats lots more powder....Id say your a little confused dremel..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top